Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac
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.
|
Banning a breed isn't going to help. Another "macho breed" will just jump up and take their place. The only way you can curtail the bad with these animals is to alter human behavior through heavy handed legislation. When you have people on the take willing to take every $500-1000 from any tom, dick and harry who comes through the door wanting a status symbol to show the chicks when he walks around the block. Expect bad shit to come from it.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand that many breeds in the wrong hands, that the future path for the owner and dog isn't going to be all peaches and cream. Regulate sales of dangerous breeds, make dog liability insurance madatory for all dangerous breeds, have a set of standards that each home must meet. Heavily fine those who refuse to comply. The owner must pay all costs associated with gaining and keeping ownership. This isn't a hard thing to fix. But the problem lies with both sides. On one side you have people wanting to ban a breed of dog. Completely unrealistic TBH. And you have the other wacky side that makes brilliant comments like "let's just ban people." Neither work and are completely counterproductive to finding a proper resolution. Put in place a system to weed in the potential good owners and weed out the bad and the problems begin to resolve.