Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

  • bobman@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull.

    Seems like an issue specific to wherever you went to school.

    Most rational people would immediately draw clear separations between mutts and pitbulls or pitbull mixes.

    I don’t think this comment is indicative of the problem at all.

    Curious where you went to school though, lol. Might want to get a refund for that degree.

    • big_onion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most rational people would, but it was an indicator that people who report dog bites did not know the difference.

      And I’m not sure what my school had to do with it. At that time I was sourcing data from external sources, using data reported on police reports or by other organizations. Someone else commenting referenced the breed specific legislation advocacy group that was a source for some of that data.

      My comment might not have been clear, I was criticising the data I was finding.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The studies I’ve seen that people cite to say “you can’t identify a breed by looking at it” usually are playing a semantic game - and what often is not emphasized is that the same research shows that when people identify a dog as a “pit bull,” that those people are quite accurate in identifying–by morphology alone–the presence of genetics from one of the several aggressive breeds people call “pit bulls.” And that the morphology is positively correlated with higher aggression.