Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By
It wasn't a fail at all. You were pointing to such benefits as part of your cost/benefit analysis:
I get that you're a ****ing idiot, just by reading your posts on this subject, but are you really too stupid to figure out what you personally wrote?
|
You clearly still suffer from reading comprehension FAIL. I hoped you'd figure that out when I simply said "That's not what I said", but I can see I'm going to have to spell it out.
I said it would be easy to eliminate pit bulls because they provide no benefit to society. You jumped in and said that giving a benefit to society is not a requirement of existence or acceptance for any creature.
I agree, it's NOT a requirement for existence or acceptance. Do you get that part? I agree with that statement.
However, (and this is where you need to pay attention), a reasonable requirement for existence or acceptance is to NOT kill children and adults who live in the same house or in the same neighborhood. Not all pit bulls kill children and adults.
In fact, I'm well aware that the vast majority don't. But enough of them do that society would be better off if we banned the breed.
Is this unfair discrimination against pit bulls? It would be if pit bulls were human beings and they had civil rights. But guess what? Pit bulls are not human beings. They're dogs. They have no civil rights. Dogs don't have civil rights. Neither do cats, birds, trees, and rocks. Only people have civil rights.
The fact that pit bulls provide no benefit makes it EASY to eliminate them. It's not a REASON to eliminate them. There are lots of things that provide no benefit to society. Nobody is talking about eliminating them.