It’s not whataboutism, it’s “there are other factors in play besides the breed of dog” which you completely fail to understand. Yes the breed of dog is naturally aggressive, but other factors also allow the data you present to be skewed.
That absolutely is not what defines a whataboutism. A whataboutism is intended to distract and dodge from the point being made. I addressed your point, which was “This dog breed is incredibly violent, here are stats” and provided logic to state that these stats don’t paint the whole picture, which you’re dodging and are instead throwing around a buzzword that you obviously don’t know the meaning of in an attempt to distract from the argument.
If violent people buy a scary looking, aggressive dog for the purpose of scaring others and doing harm, stats around those dogs doing harm are going to go up. Other dog breeds can be just as violent, but don’t have the same stats to paint that picture simply because they’re not put into the same scenarios. If you’re not understanding this and/or continue to fail to address it, just don’t respond.
[“Many dog advocates argue that there is no such thing as a bad breed, only a bad owner.”
“Pit bulls may present a greater danger than other breeds for many reasons, such as because they have been bred to be more aggressive, are less likely to back down during fights and are less likely to give a warning before a bite.”](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/)
Whataboutism doesn’t help anyone.
It’s not whataboutism, it’s “there are other factors in play besides the breed of dog” which you completely fail to understand. Yes the breed of dog is naturally aggressive, but other factors also allow the data you present to be skewed.
Yes other factors behind the main point are in fact whataboutism. Thanks for confirming the inadequateness of your “point”.
That absolutely is not what defines a whataboutism. A whataboutism is intended to distract and dodge from the point being made. I addressed your point, which was “This dog breed is incredibly violent, here are stats” and provided logic to state that these stats don’t paint the whole picture, which you’re dodging and are instead throwing around a buzzword that you obviously don’t know the meaning of in an attempt to distract from the argument.
If violent people buy a scary looking, aggressive dog for the purpose of scaring others and doing harm, stats around those dogs doing harm are going to go up. Other dog breeds can be just as violent, but don’t have the same stats to paint that picture simply because they’re not put into the same scenarios. If you’re not understanding this and/or continue to fail to address it, just don’t respond.
[“Many dog advocates argue that there is no such thing as a bad breed, only a bad owner.”
“Pit bulls may present a greater danger than other breeds for many reasons, such as because they have been bred to be more aggressive, are less likely to back down during fights and are less likely to give a warning before a bite.”](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/)
You’re talking about Dalmatians, I’m talking about Pits, that’s whataboutism.
You may not like it. I may not care what you think.