aww

25495 readers

489 users here now

A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.

AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.

While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about

No racism or bigotry.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
No SPAM posting.
No trolling of others.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Xylinna@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Decoy321@lemmy.world

peachfaced@lemmy.world

890

We all need that (reddthat.com)

submitted 1 month ago by LadyButterfly@reddthat.com to c/aww@lemmy.world

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is not much better. Note that one of the sources of the one commenting explicitly states

In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).

Which is the commenters purpose in referencing that study. The study explicitly says it does not support their opinion.

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I do explain the same further down, didn't see the need to specifically highlight that. Much better doesn't mean good, just a lot better than the first attempt that had almost nothing of substance and was actively off-putting.

Using a paper to make a point it doesn't support is better than not using papers and citing sketchy factoids.