Parents for Dog Bite Awareness

🔎 Dissection of Jeff’s Comment

1. “you act like you know what you are talking about from a computer but you don’t know nothing about this breed except what you read!”

• Fallacy: Ad hominem + Anti intellectualism.

• Attacking the person instead of addressing evidence. Dismissing books, studies, and official data is a rejection of expertise.

2. “You judge me for trying to make situations better for these dogs and call me out my name!”

• Fallacy: Victimhood appeal.

• Shifts focus from dangerous breed traits to the commenter’s feelings. It reframes accountability as “judgment” to avoid addressing the issue. It also conveniently ignores that Jeffrey is a breeding who intentionally creates these dogs. Notice his language. 

3. “You have no education nor business speaking about anything you know nothing about!”

• Fallacy: Gatekeeping / appeal to authority.

• Claiming only “insiders” have a right to speak. Public safety and public health are everyone’s business.

4. “Move along before you get your feelings hurt!”

• Fallacy: Threat / intimidation tactic.

• This is not debate, it’s an attempt to silence dissent through aggression.

5. “Bad owners make bad dogs, that simple!”

• Fallacy: Oversimplification / false cause.

• Proven wrong by decades of fatal attacks involving “good owners” and well raised pit bulls. It ignores heritability and selective breeding for aggression.

6. “You are one of those people who reads an article in the newspaper and thinks it makes you a specialist on what you read, you are just a know it all who knows nothing!”

• Fallacy: Strawman + ad hominem.

• Misrepresents evidence based advocates as “newspaper readers.” The real data comes from CDC reports, medical journals, actuarial risk analyses, and breed history.

7. “My proof that these babies are not made for fighting is way more valuable than what you think you know!”

• Fallacy: Anecdotal evidence + subjective validation.

• Personal feelings or a couple of pet experiences are not “proof.” Centuries of dogfighting history show the opposite.

8. “Weak minded people never get anywhere and that’s why this breed still exists…”

• Fallacy: Projection + non sequitur.

• Blames opponents for the breed’s existence, which makes no logical sense. Pit bulls exist because they were deliberately bred for bloodsport and continue to be mass bred today, including by Jeff himself. 

9. “…because you people can’t prove anything about these dogs being any more aggressive than any other but our research proves all of you wrong.”

• Fallacy: False equivalence + vague appeal to research.

• Numerous peer reviewed studies confirm that pit bulls cause the majority of severe maulings and fatalities. No credible “research” supports his claim and he provides no sources.

10. “You all say if pit bulls and bullies are put together they will kill each other, you know nothing about them!”

• Fallacy: Strawman argument.

• Nobody on here was claiming they “always” kill each other. The documented fact is that pit bulls have a unique history of dog on dog combat breeding, which produces higher risk of sudden, sustained attacks compared to other breeds.

11. “Go read another article!!!!”

• Fallacy: Dismissal without rebuttal.

• Tells others to “read more” while offering no sources himself. It’s a coping mechanism to avoid evidence.

🧠 Psychological Takeaway

This comment is a mix of insults, projection, and emotional appeals. Notice the themes:

• Anti intellectualism: Rejecting science, research, and history.

• Victimhood: Positioning himself as “attacked” rather than addressing facts.

• Defensiveness: Protecting personal identity tied to the breed.

• Deflection: Focusing on tone, motives, or personalities instead of public safety outcomes.