I've heard some people say that herbivores are weaker than carnivores because they're gentler. In my opinion, that's a stupid statement. Because in truth, they're actually far more dangerous than what hunts them.

Triceratops is a juvenile Torosaurus.

Probably the whole "pterodactyl" thing. Or calling pterosaurs/marine reptiles "flying/swimming dinosaurs". Really I can't think of anything stupid I've heard people say, but things like those definitely annoy me. Also calling crocodiles "living dinosaurs". In all seriousness, they're not wrong, but crocs aren't as related as birds.

^^How do we know that? I'm not arguing against it, just want to know where that comes from based on fossils.

^Sizes, behaviors inferred from modern herbivores, big giant freaking horns, big giant freaking clubs, big giant freaking spikes, big giant freaking bodies, cuteness, etc

^^ first of all, modern day herbivores are not exactly harmless so why should prehistoric animals be any different? And second, the whole Pterodactyl name probably came from Pterodactylus but that looks nothing like what most people think it does.

They never said anything about being harmless, they said how do we have proof they are stronger than the things that hunt them

Horns that can pierce through flesh. Clubs that can make a skull cave in. Sauropods that can kill without even noticing. Need I say more?

That's not every prey source though. Most formations didn't even have ankylosaurs, ceratopsians with horns, or even large sauropods.

The large majority of the time it was smaller prey that even were prey sources.

Edit: most the examples you made to add are only in a small portion of formations, and sauropods were rarely even prey sources

Edit edit: Most ankylosaurs weren't capable of 'crushing a skull in'

Actually hell, most formations didn't have any of the three.