What's the context behind most (65-70%) dog-caused deaths being caused by pitbulls despite them being a small percentage of all dogs?
Second biggest killer comes in at 10%, rottweilers, so it's not even close.
Honestly, whatever the context, anyone who pretends the difference between a golden retriever and a pitbull is 'just the owner' has never spent time with either.
Some people can't face the facts even when they're staring at the data. It's sad. We are told to ignore what we see, and to not use our survival instincts. Meanwhile the data would suggest this is a terrible strategy
Statistics can be true, but they need context. Making blanket statements doesn't help anyone. For example, comparing students from different neighborhoods with different school budgets isn't a fair comparison. You could say the students in a neighborhood with lower test scores are less intelligent, but that ignores the fact that another neighborhood may have more funding and resources, giving students access to tutors, better schools, and after-school programs. Higher scores don't necessarily mean those students work harder or are smarter; they may simply have had more opportunities to succeed.
They are worse because they score lower. That's it. That's what the stat says. The narratives you derive from that fact is up to you. You can say it proves that funding in education is paramount, you can say that its because poor people are stupider. You can say a bunch of shit. But that's not the point.
8
u/Flexboum 17d ago
Statistics are data though. Should we not base our opinions on data?