> So, I give you real, studied data, and you give me an anecdotal comment on a blog post? lol sorry but you haven’t shown any “real, studied data”. > context on a quote to try and support your argument? What context? > Seriously, you haven't made a solid argument yet as to why you are right about this. I’ve literally quoted the ATTS website on how it doesn’t work like how you think it works. > The test is, definitively, going to have some flaws. That makes it no different than any other psyche test. The test is straight up unreliable, yes. Psyche tests don’t let you “retake” them. > But, while that is true, it is also designed, like any good test, with that in mind and has mitigating stopgaps to attempt to prevent it. Do you even have source for that? > only "source" you have given is linked from an anti-pit bull website. It’s the words of Diane Jessup, one of the most famous pit bull owners there is. There’s a lot of unseen topics being talked about in pit bull forums. The ATTS is not unbiased. They are fighting against BSL and that’s the ATTS’s purpose.

The ATTS is not a reliable test, it measures other things, dogs are made to walk through a plastic carpet and listen to gunshots. Most dogs get scared. A pug, for example, would be startled and fail. A pit is more fearless than that and would pass. The test also can be retaken and practised at home before you take it. Pit bull fans also encourage each other to test sound dogs to make the breed score higher for their “cause” http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PNESGwoU4lk/TRft57-Im2I/AAAAAAAAFZY/7Dh8PHA7Nbw/s1600/diane%2Bjessup%2Batts.jpg

Ooh the ATTS. Sorry to break these news to you but, it doesn’t measure aggression. Carl Herkstroeter (president of the ATTS) said so himself: *”Just because a certain percentage of dogs in a certain breed fail, this does not necessarily indicate aggression. Dogs fail for other reasons, such as strong avoidance. If you look at our statistics just from a perspective of aggression or non-aggression, they can be very misleading."* And I wouldn’t call the ATTS a very objective test, since they have an agenda behind it. From the website: *"Because of breed-specific dog legislation and negative publicity associated with many breeds of dogs, temperament testing has assumed an important role for today's dog fancier. The ATTS Temperament Test provides breeders a means for evaluating temperament and gives pet owners insight into their dog's behavior. It can have an impact on breeding programs and in educating owners about their dog's behavioral strengths and weaknesses as well as providing a positive influence on dog legislation"* Also, you shouldn’t compare different breeds’ scores and pretend pits are better, because the ATTS website says: *”Comparing scores with other dogs is not a good idea. The test takes into consideration each breed's inherent tendencies."*

Searched in arab news and no report so far mentioned an afghan hound attack. I did find one of a man who abused one, and one about a dog show, but that’s it. That argument is very weak against the fact that pit bulls are inherently dangerous...

> look it up Shouldn’t you cite such a thing? I’ve literally found 0 cases of afghan hounds killing people, 0 cases of them attacking people, and 0 cases of them just biting people. Do you want me to tell ya how many pit bulls kill/attack and bite?

I’ve studied all dog breeds since I was 11. I don’t know man. Maybe you don’t understand.

Just no. And aggression doesn’t mean dangerousness. Chihuahuas are aggressive but they aren’t dangerous. Pit bulls are dangerous no matter they are aggressive or not

Yet you just said your pibble would eat OP’s face

Temperament? Measured by whom?

That doesn’t make any sense at all.