There is a Swedish film on this subject. As described on imdb:

A German business man, Volkswagner, comes to Österlen in the south of Sweden to build Deutschneyland, a gigantic amusement park for German tourists. The local councilors and the member of parliament are all in favor of the idea, although it will turn vast areas into parking lots for cars. The Lindberg family does not like the idea and with the help of a little magic, they start scheming against it.

There are scenes where they are walking around in the middle of nature going

Can you imagine a better place for a popcorn stand?

And stuff like that. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068025/

My speech on me not being a sex trafficker has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my speech on how I’m not a sex trafficker

– Melania, probably

Such presidential language. *chefs kiss*

Oh yeah? Does she understand this: “Good girl!”?

(Of couse she does, look at her)

Damn, I’m looking for the other direction, chicken soup to hdmi. Can’t find that anywhere.

JBPs guide to mental health

To an enormous extent are todays data centers, cloud providers, and all the techology the whole world use today based on open source. Without linux, curl, ffmpeg, and so on nothing in todays high tech society would work. Google, as it is today, would not exist if it was for all the open source they leech of.

You say “alright”, like you are responding to what I’m saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying

As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs

As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:

In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).

and that is their emphasis.

You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.

Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I’m not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.

And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.

Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.

Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.

Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.

None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.

Can you then elaborate on the little reference tag – I assume it is a reference – to “Dog Bite org”?

This “data” may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady…

DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being “co-opted by the ‘pit bull lobby’, a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters.”

“The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.”

In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org’s claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading.

When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.