It's quite tragic that there is a real debate about banning certain breeds of dog. Arguing that a certain breed is "bad" is an argument for eugenics - the same pseudo-science that white-supremacist zealots embrace to claim that african-americans are genetically "bad."
The "practical reality" of this issue is biology. The dog, the owner, the child, and the child's parents are all animals. None of them is born vicious; but abuse, neglect, or intentional training/indoctrination will teach them to be vicious. Humans, with their bigger brains, are the ones in control to mold their behavior, the dog's behavior, and their children's behavior. The same malicious or thoughtless owner who teaches a dog to attack or neglects and abuses it until it strikes out is a parent who teaches his children to hate, neglect, and abuse. The thoughtless parent who does not teach his child to act properly toward animals creates a thoughtless child with no concept of how to approach or live with its fellow creatures. We compound that damage when we start telling tall tales that there is something wrong with a breed, or when we call an individual dog "bad" and decide that we humans didn't put that "bad" into the dog. The fact is that many of the people who buy and raise pit bulls and other powerful dogs do so because they want to create a dangerous animal as an accessory to their manhood. Any resulting misbehavior is 100% the fault of the idiot who owns and molds that dog. The "practical reality" of the issue is that we have a social problem. We accept mistreatment of an animal that makes it half-psychotic, then blame it on the animal. We accept that species must die to make way for "progress," even though the actions that kill the species also will kill us - it'll just take longer. We accept the idea that we have to make our children "safe" by banning dog breeds or by making window screens unbreakable so that a child taking a running slide at a window will be saved by the screen rather than having it give way (I'm not making this up - it's a real lawsuit). Yet we don't insist that adults take responsibility for themselves & their children by teaching them responsibility & giving them the knowledge to back it up. What else shall we do? How far shall we go? Shall we ban cars because there are bad drivers who strike & kill children? Shall we ban factories that spew stinking fumes into the air, making HUNDREDS of children sick with asthma attacks or other respiratory complaints every year? Those who want to ban dogs argue for that solution because it's convenient to them. They don't want to live without their cars or the manufactured items which resulted in the release of hundreds of tons of deadly pollutants in their creation, but they PERSONALLY are not inconvenienced if nobody else can own a certain breed of dog, so that's OK. That's a cheap feel-good action that solves nothing. Folks, we have to think a bit more deeply than that. A handful of children are injured or killed by dogs every year. More are hurt or killed by intoxicated or inattentive drivers. Far more are hurt or killed by the toxic effects of industry. What does common sense tell you is the greatest concern? I can't accept the idea that keeping the children safe must be our first priority, and it must be done at all cost - especially at the cost of ignoring biology & giving up on the absolutely essential concept that we must all learn to take responsibility for ourselves, each other, and our fellow creatures if any of us are to survive in the long-term. The day we give up working toward that "perfect world" is the day we might as well all slit our wrists, because we'll be doomed as a species. Stupidity, individual or societal, is the only offense that nature treats as a capital crime. It's time we all wise up & start targeting the big problems & stop chasing red-herring panaceas like banning breeds. Roxana Orrell Central Begin forwarded message: > From: "Chris L Beckwith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 06:31:23 AM US/Central > To: "Mpls - Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] Re: Pit Bulls: Ban Them ! > > Chris responds: > > Having read the replies to my original post on > banning pit bulls, I'd like to respond by saying > though it is clear there are a number of strong > animal sympathizers here, I believe their > sympathies concerning pit bulls are utterly > misplaced and, frankly, as the above indicates, > somewhat out of touch with the practical realities > of the issue. > > First, let's blow a fallacy out of the water: > There seems to be an unspoken, rather naive faith > in the syllogism that because dogs make good pets > and pit bulls are dogs, pit bulls therefore make > good pets. Nonsense. I have no idea why defenders > continue to believe they can peddle the twaddle > that pit bulls are merely the victims of bad P.R, > bad owners and bad treatment. In short, that these > are good pets whom we have obviously failed when > they turn vicious. Whether the failure is natureor > nurture, I'll leave that indecisive, indulgent > debate to the dog pound Hamlets; it's a moot > concern compared with the issue of a badly mauled > child. So, to the defenders: spare us the violins > for these "misunderstood" dogs because you're > playing for the wrong victim. Ultimately, I don't > give a damn why a particular pit bull attacks a > kid; I care about the kid. And there is no > satisfactory post facto explanation that > rationalizes why any kid (or anyone) should get > ripped apart by a dog on a city street. None. > Nada. Get it? The story about the dog doesn't > matter. > > Until we live in the perfect world where animals > (and people) are treated humanely, we will > continue to see pit bull attacks. That's a fact. > Just hope it isn't your kid confronting an enraged > pit while on their way to school some morning. The > people of this city shouldn't have to worry just > because some idiot forgot to latch the dog gate or > briefly left their back door open. And local > politicians better be willing to do alot more than > than merely pronounce the result "tragic" and > "unfortunate," which does nothing and assures no > one of anything except to expect another "tragic" > and "unfortunate" incident. Regarding pit bull > attacks, it's no longer an "if" question, but a > "who," "when" and "where" question. I think a > strong case can be made that the "where" should > not be here. > > Chris Beckwith > Ward 6 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
