Current Events > Why are people so obsessed with sources?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The sky is blue

"Uh excuse me do you have a scientific peer reviewed SOURCE to backup that claim? CITATION NEEEDED!"

The aesthetics of rationality
---

This is a dumb topic

---

nobody except losers ask for sources for well known facts

but when you state some controversial shit you better back it up

unnamedsoldier posted...

The sky is blue

"Uh excuse me do you have a scientific peer reviewed SOURCE to backup that claim? CITATION NEEEDED!"

Well do you? Stop spreading lies.

---

Irony posted...

This is a dumb topic

How do you figure?

unnamedsoldier posted...

How do you figure?

Source

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/79558940#7

---

Sources are pointless once it became obvious that there's an article to support any ideals you have. There's too many motives to create false narrative articles.

---

Sources are important, even if they are fluff.


---

because they front like they read academic journals but really they only read headlines on breitbart.

---

Because sometimes people say outrageous shit without anything to back it up. For example my Pit Bull topic where I provided statistics on how they commit less attacks than the average dog, this one guy spent nearly 500 posts saying that Pit Bulls are overly aggressive......yet somehow never provided any sources beyond his own singular anecdote despite multiple people asking him repeatedly.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Because sometimes people say outrageous shit without anything to back it up. For example my Pit Bull topic where I provided statistics on how they commit less attacks than the average dog, this one guy spent nearly 500 posts saying that Pit Bulls are overly aggressive......yet somehow never provided any sources beyond his own singular anecdote despite multiple people asking him repeatedly.

Source? I keep hearing pitbulls commit more attacks, maybe they mean more life threatening attacks

---

Because people care about data and reality.

---

David1988 posted...

Source?

Lol. Perfect example.

---

David1988 posted...

Source? I keep hearing pitbulls commit more attacks, maybe they mean more life threatening attacks

Many people think they are dangerous, and if you ask them for proof, they send you lists of bite statistics and news reports of Pit Bull attacks.

But that doesn't prove anything.

Rarely do the writers perform actual research. One obvious question they could investigate: Was the dog actually a Pit Bull? It's impossible to determine breed by appearance alone. And given that the CDC non-fatal bite statistics come from counting newspaper reports of attacks claiming it was a "pit-bull type" dog, there are bound to be gross inaccuracies.

No DNA tests were ever done, which are required to determine breed.

This is highly related to the reason why breed specific legislation doesn't work. And it never will. Even the CDC agrees:

Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 839-840).

For these reasons, and many others, both the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association do not recommend discriminating based on breed.

The frenzy against Pit Bulls is nothing but blind fear fueled by the human need to find a scapegoat. There is not a single shred of proof that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a vicious, dangerous breed.

What are the facts?

The American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org) performs their temperament tests regularly on popular breeds. You can visit their website to view upcoming testing dates and locations and actually get your own dog tested. The most recent aggregation of all test results was in 2008.

Description of the test:

The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog's ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions.

The dog fails the test if it shows:

• Unprovoked aggression
• Panic without recovery
• Strong avoidance

American Pit Bull Terriers passed the test at a rate of 85.3%.

This is higher than Collies, Golden Retrievers, and other dogs generally considered "family friendly". The average dog population is around 77%.

As most dog behaviorists and trainers will tell you, a dog is almost 100% a product of its owner and the training it recieves.

And if the APBT is so inherently dangerous, how come they are so successful as therapy dogs? As search and rescue animals?

---

They're too lazy to actually google the claim. When you tell them to google it they get defensive and ask for peer reviewed academic sources from reputable scholarly search engines knowing full well you can find scientific data supporting just about any claim because there is nothing inherently more valid than scholarly articles which almost always do not take into account how their intent influences the results. Scholarly articles are all bullshit, and universities are full of crap too, universities get accreditted by governing bodies of other students which have graduated from university and want a fancy administrative role to give the universities some kind of credibility behind them because at the end of the day they make everything up. Academics is regulated/mainstream witchcraft.

Shablagoo posted...

The American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org) performs their temperament tests regularly on popular breeds. You can visit their website to view upcoming testing dates and locations and actually get your own dog tested. The most recent aggregation of all test results was in 2008.

Description of the test:

The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog's ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions.

The dog fails the test if it shows:

Unprovoked aggression
Panic without recovery
Strong avoidance

American Pit Bull Terriers passed the test at a rate of 85.3%.

Thats pretty damning evidence against antipitters. My only concern is while it might be true pitbulls arent more aggressive than other breeds(even less aggressive as per the test), they are still more dangerous than the average dog insofar pitbulls are one of the strongest breeds so on the off chance they do attack, it generally tends to be more vicious than that of other dogs. Its not the fault of pitbulls they're so strong though, but it seems saying theyre more aggressive than the average dog breed is contrary to the evidence

---