• rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”