LogFAQs > #980676518

bfslick50 posted...

Your post seemed shocked that an individual dog didn't behave the same as the aggregated average of all dogs in that breed and stereotype is a good descriptor for that.

Not really. Definition of stereotype: "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." Right, but what I said about dogs based on statistics isn't "oversimplified", and it's "fixed" because the statistics are fixed, and always will be fixed. So the definition of "stereotype" is nonsense, as is your usage of the word. And I wasn't "shocked" by a Husky attacking a baby, I was simply making the factual statement that it is unlikely that a Husky would attack a baby, although it is possible.

bfslick50 posted...

You say German Shepards are the 3rd most dangerous breed but you also said German Shepards are highly unlikely to cause serious harm if punched in the face by a child. Those statements don't agree.

The statement makes sense. German Shepherds are dangerous, but they are also smart. Yes, it is not recommended for a child to punch a German Shepherd, but if one did, it is unlikely the dog would maul the kid. The dog would likely be shocked, upset, confused, etc, and maybe growl, but it would probably not attack the child. Now, if a child REPEATEDLY punched a German Shepherd, well then, all bets are off. But think of it this way: What kind of kid would punch a German Shepherd? Let alone MULTIPLE times. In the event of some disturbed child behaving that way, any repercussions to that kind of goofy behavior should surprise exactly no one. For the record, German Shepherds, while potentially dangerous dogs, and very good pets. They are not statistically known to attack kids almost ever, and they are not known for random attacks on adults either. It's possible, but highly unlikely. That's pitbull territory.

bfslick50 posted...

I've never seen one let 2 breeds have a statistical tie.

You don't really understand statistics, do you?