Pregnant woman mauled to death by family pit bull

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

Personally, I don't find statistics like these helpful in understanding the problem...and this is why. It states that 84% were maintained by reckless owners...and I think we could agree that reckless owners don't neuter/spay their dogs...so is it really a result of the dog not being neutered or is it just a correlation that exists that stems from the owner being reckless?

I don't think you can automatically say just because someone doesn't neuter they are a wreckless owner. How about all the breeders? Their definition is much clearer, "—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised." That to me is wreckless.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I don't think you can automatically say just because someone doesn't neuter they are a wreckless owner. How about all the breeders? Their definition is much clearer, "—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised." That to me is wreckless.

I don't think it's set in stone. I just think it's a trend. Of course, people that show dogs don't neuter their dogs, and of course they are not wreckless. I need to be more specific in my writing when typing here because I'm not writing properly. Yes, I think that is the definition of being reckless, but I also think that on average, people that don't neuter their dogs are not as careful with their dogs than people who do (this is of course excluding people who show, are responsible breeders, etc) Sorry, I'm not being very clear.

[MaddiesMommie]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

Personally, I don't find statistics like these helpful in understanding the problem...and this is why. It states that 84% were maintained by reckless owners...and I think we could agree that reckless owners don't neuter/spay their dogs...so is it really a result of the dog not being neutered or is it just a correlation that exists that stems from the owner being reckless?

I just put it out there, not meant to solve the problem. I like to look at information from all sides
I thought I read earlier in this thread where someon mentioned they had "heard" this but was not sure if it was true. That was what made me think to post it, guess I should have quoted that post.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

I just put it out there, not meant to solve the problem. I like to look at information from all sides
I thought I read earlier in this thread where someon mentioned they had "heard" this but was not sure if it was true. That was what made me think to post it, guess I should have quoted that post.

I know, I'm exactly the same way. I know that you are posting the statistics for the purposes of adding information to the thread...I was really speaking to just statistics about this issue in general...I'm sorry that I quoted you...I wasn't trying to say anything about your post specifically. I posted the dogbites.org thing earlier and I don't agree with their stats either...just did it to add some info to talk about

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I don't think you can automatically say just because someone doesn't neuter they are a wreckless owner. How about all the breeders? Their definition is much clearer, "—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised." That to me is wreckless.

When i write, I think in terms of probabilities as in more likely, less likely etc. I think the world is probabilistic (not deterministic) and so with the statements that I make my intention is to say them in the sense of "more likely than not" and not "this or that". However, of course there's no way for you to know that unless I say so...sometimes I assume everyone can read my thoughts.

[MaddiesMommie]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

You are an individual, and possibly an outlier. I'm not saying that everyone who owns these dogs is that type of person...just that on average there might be some correlation. For example, if you are wealthy, you are more likely to be a Republican. Does that mean that only the wealthy are Republicans, or that no Democrats are wealthy? Not really, just that on average wealthy tend to be Republican. It's just like a trend...I'm not trying to make mean comments about you or your family so please don't take it that way!

We will have to just agree to disagree on the Republican comment

I did not think you were making mean comments to me or family at all.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

We will have to just agree to disagree on the Republican comment

Off to read those "sticky" rules.....

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

We will have to just agree to disagree on the Republican comment

I did not think you were making mean comments to me or family at all.

LOL really? I just do a lot of work with demographics, and that is just a fact that I've come across...I could be wrong of course! Okay, I'm glad I still wanted to make sure I didn't say something that came off the wrong way...I'd rather be safe than sorry

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Off to read those "sticky" rules.....

I'm sorry! All the statistical work I do is with demographics and so this is just the first example I came across...I meant it from an academic standpoint I don't really follow politics!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

When i write, I think in terms of probabilities as in more likely, less likely etc. I think the world is probabilistic (not deterministic) and so with the statements that I make my intention is to say them in the sense of "more likely than not" and not "this or that". However, of course there's no way for you to know that unless I say so...sometimes I assume everyone can read my thoughts.

I know, and because so many people think in black and white I was afraid we'd get side tracked with all the people who have chosen not to neuter their dogs and yet are still responsible pet owners.


Percentages just give us a little view of what could be happening, you can "show" lot of different things by using percentages, and if someone has an agenda, they can skewed to support things that aren’t necessarily true. However, if you can find out the details on how they gathered their data, you get a much better indication if the information is valid. I do think we can look at percentages and see if more information is needed and a subject should be studied.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

I'm sorry! All the statistical work I do is with demographics and so this is just the first example I came across...I meant it from an academic standpoint I don't really follow politics!

That's okay. Check out the lists of the wealthiest people in the US and their political affiliations as a starting point. Rural vs metro suburban areas, county average incomes and how they voted in elections. I could go on, but I we should leave the politics to other places on the internet.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I know, and because so many people think in black and white I was afraid we'd get side tracked with all the people who have chosen not to neuter their dogs and yet are still responsible pet owners.


Percentages just give us a little view of what could be happening, you can "show" lot of different things by using percentages, and if someone has an agenda, they can skewed to support things that aren’t necessarily true. However, if you can find out the details on how they gathered their data, you get a much better indication if the information is valid. I do think we can look at percentages and see if more information is needed and a subject should be studied.

When we study a problem, we start off with tabulated frequencies. I think percentages are misleading because they don't answer a question, it's only a raw number. A simple regression analysis can actually show if any of these variables are statistically significant when holding others constant. I promise, when I graduate, I'm going to look into this. I actually find this very interesting...I don't think there's anything wrong with the data it's just that the proper models haven't been used to evaluate the information

[MaddiesMommie]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

LOL really? I just do a lot of work with demographics, and that is just a fact that I've come across...I could be wrong of course! Okay, I'm glad I still wanted to make sure I didn't say something that came off the wrong way...I'd rather be safe than sorry

I have no idea, statistically, but my experience with my local community, yes. My grandpa sure would love have this conversation though. FOX news is the only chanel he thinks exists that reports the truth.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

I have no idea, statistically, but my experience with my local community, yes. My grandpa sure would love have this conversation though. FOX news is the only chanel he thinks exists that reports the truth.

That's cute. I think old men still love to sit around and discuss politics. I know my grandfather and all his friends do (they discuss Cuban politics though...can't say I listen to what he says )

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

That's cute. I think old men still love to sit around and discuss politics. I know my grandfather and all his friends do (they discuss Cuban politics though...can't say I listen to what he says )

That I would find really interesting. I enjoy hearing the perspective of older generations.