Robert Schmid wrote:
> 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." Chris repsonds: And what would you call the current campaign to eradicate the northern snakehead fish, voracious predatory fish from China that threaten native fish, from North American waters? Would you classify that as eugenics as well? Gimmie a break. The only tragedy here is the profound intellectual fraud of making an analogy between racial eugenics and the banning of a dangerous dog breed. On that score, I've seen the various comparative claims about breed banning run up the flag pole: that it's discrimination(!), racism(!), that it can be compared to nazii juden laws(!!!). About the only thing that amazes me is the crass lengths people will go to distort and smear for the relatively selfish end of being able to keep a particular dog breed, one that more and more communities recognize as posing a genuine hazard to their citizens. Keep in mind, last year, Germany, joining a number of EU members, banned pits. Even opponents to the ban had the good sense not to try to float that kind of garbage because they knew it would insult people's intelligence. _______________________________________ 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
