Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[Propagandhim]

People are happy to call certain dogs "wild animals" or akin to having something like a big cat, which just scientifically isn't true (and I thought leftists were supposed to be all about science?) and is only there to inflame tensions and add negative stigma to owners.

Which breeds are actually responsible for the most maulings and fatalities?

If you go by self reports, it's pit bulls, just like if you go by self reports Black people are abjectly just more violent than other races. You should immediately see the problem then, yeah. Self reporting alone isn't scientifically reliable in dog attack statistics, specifically because A) People don't actually know what breed(s) these dogs truly are (see even the confusion in this thread about what constitutes a "pit bull"), B) Police have been known to make up records about breeds involved dog attacks, as they will about a lot of shit, and C) No one does due diligence to examine other factors of these cases, and indeed will also randomly make shit up like "lock jaw syndrome" (fake) or "this usually good dog snapped for no reason." (There is always a reason, and most people aren't good trainers).

The science that different breeds of animal have undergone genetically selected pressure that create different average behaviour is simply not scientific.  Why?  Because self-reporting is wrong!  All living things have DNA which is inherited and expressed through variations of characteristics...until self-reporting.  Then all that shit stops existing aka non-scientific!