Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Every study states it itself. There’s always a category for “unknown,” and if for some reason there isn’t such a category, you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push pseudo genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

    Your narrative from Wikipedia is some hysterical author focusing on one group of dogs. It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics, so let’s assume they were bred for fighting other dogs at a dog fight, so what? What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

    • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

      Evidence that this Wikipedia article is any of the things you are rambling about here? Or do you just dismiss all Wikipedia articles.

      It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics.

      More unfounded statements, again I ask you for evidence. Show me something that indicates that an animal’s nature can be completely overriden by training; then tell that to Siegfried and Roy.

      What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

      You don’t even have an argument, evidence and dare I say it a brain.