Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
As always, you let your assumptions get the better of you.
I do find it absolutely hilarious that you (for seemingly no actual reason) suddenly feel the need to deny any monocausality in your argument, having levvied the very same accusations against me for so long...
I may pick flawed premises in your argument and target them individually, but that is not, and does not even imply, monocausality!!
And yet, for all this talk about risk and probability - Has anyone actually quantified this risk, yet?
A fag-packet Google has 10 out of 18 dog-caused fatalities in 2023 attributed to XLBs.
Leaving aside the 8 'other breed' dogs, how many XLBs (even roughly) exist in the UK and what percentage of those have either A) attacked or B) killed a human?
If there are only a hundred, that's a vastly different percentage to tens or hundreds of thousands.
Given how many XLBs people assert are for sale on Farcebook/Gumtree/Craigslist/etc, I would be genuinely interested in how many result in incidents, even estimated numbers.
"Behavioral factors show high variability within breeds"
"Studies, however, found that within-breed behavioral variation approaches levels similar to the variation between breeds"
One narrow-focus study of only the stereotypical segment of a breed says one thing, while several studies examining the populations as a whole say otherwise... The latter even point out the limitations of a narrow-focussed study (such as the one you posted), because within-breed samples of purebreeds and purebred candidates are so much more inbred that genetic variations will obviously be smaller.
So only a big difference if you gear your study to show exactly that...
And yet plenty of other things that have previously been regarded as dangerous have been made acceptably safe through the application and enforcement of proper controls... That's something else risk is supposed to address.
It's reasonable, but ineffective without the neccesary enforcement.
As for the insurance - There was a time when no-one would insure drones because the risks were considered too great. I'm now about to start flying them with commercial insurance.
Hell, I was told I couldn't get private car insurance because I was a first-time driver, even though my history with that very broker showed decades of large-engined motorcycles and a good ten years of corporate driving insurance.
It's usually just algorithms and statistical guesses, rather than actual understanding of real world circumstances... and in some cases actually deliberate manipulation to try and drive a higher price.
In as much as a Shire horse is a giant Welsh pony, I suppose....!!!
How do you define 'vicious attack' and how is it different from any other kind of attack, and from actual kills? There are plenty of dogs that attack more than most, but don't kill, while others rarely attack but almost always kill.
The stats do show Labradors as having the highest number of bites, but then they're also one of the highest dog populations in the UK, so yeah the statistical chances are obviously higher. Such correlation is to be expected, and this was pointed out earlier in the thread.
If you have the funds, I've already got the plans laid out... I have several others on the list, too - Katie Hopkins, Andrew Tate, Abu Hamza, and that woman who chucked a cat in a wheelie bin.
Labs still have kill stats, and there are plenty of stats on how often, and how serious, Lab bites can be.
Interestingly, it seems Labs in America are far more dangerous...
