It's time we ban pitbulls

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

gtfo.

lol, come on. your point is that they were bred for fighting in a pit?

[Exoter175]

Originally Posted by nstygma

lol, come on. your point is that they were bred for fighting in a pit?

The name "pit" was later affixed to the name later, due to their prevalence for being found in the "pits" for "ratting".


That being said, they weren't BRED to be fought in pits, actually, they were BRED to combine the various traits of another breed, hoping to get the "best" of both worlds.

In the case of the APBT, they wanted to combine strength with agility.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Giving a benefit to society is not a requirement of existence or acceptance for any creature.

I never said it was. Reading comprehension fail.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I never said it was. Reading comprehension fail.

It wasn't a fail at all. You were pointing to such benefits as part of your cost/benefit analysis:

I guess the difference in my mind is that pit bulls probably don't provide quite as much benefit to society as electricity, motor vehicles, and water. Therefore it would pretty easy to eliminate virtually all of these deaths with no real cost to society. Perhaps Bob Dole sees that differently.

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?

[Lex Luthor]

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.

[Abba-Dabba]

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by RubberSponge

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.

Your position is reasonable. I could get on board with that.

Thanks for posting an intelligent rebuttal. Some of the rebuttals here are anything but that. Are you listening, Just Passing By?