Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Just saying you’ve got “facts and science” on your side doesn’t mean much while you single-handedly take the cake for the most ridiculous, nonsensical, and flat out wrong posts in the entire thread (including possibly one the dumbest comparisons to racism I’ve read on this board). I’m not worked up about it, I was honestly shocked I read something so ridiculous that wasn’t meant as a bad joke.
Like yes, the difference between a chihuahua and a German shepherd still matters a whole bunch to an infant. Have you ever seen either of those two dogs? Have you ever seen an infant? I’m just trying to gauge what level of reality we’re playing with here.
If breeds don’t have any distinct behaviourism traits, why are some breeds harder to train than others? Why are some really high energy and requiring a ####load of exercise to maintain composure while other breeds of similar sizes are considerably less? Why are some used for herding and others aren’t? Aren’t all dogs just interchangeable then?
And that’s not to mention their physical traits, which you’ve already brushed off as well. It’s not some red herring, it’s common sense, the minimum level of sense we like to see from the human breed.
If breeds are all the same behaviourally, then you win. We can just destroy all dogs over a certain size. No worries.
|
Again, I never said no behaviour trait, but aggression was less indentifiable between breeds. Perhaps it is better to expand the quote:
Quote:
|
But, on average, breed explained only around 9% of the variation in how a dog behaved, a number “much smaller than most people, including me, would have expected,” says Karlsson. Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds .
|
I was clearly focusing my point on aggression in dog breeds though; that was my sole point.