Mr. Schmid wrote, in part: > What we call "breed" in other animals is called "race" in human beings. > Thus, your arguments about one subspecies of dog are exactly like > arguments made by eugenisists about subspecies of humans. > > If a scientific theory has been discredited for one species it can not > be made to apply a different species for the sake of convenience. Bad > science is bad science.
Chris responds: Robert- Nice try at spin. A bit heavy on gobbledygook. Unfortunately, no sale. After sorting through the verbiage, I think it's clear you're merely perpetuating the same silliness as your wife did earlier today. Only this time, you claim, in a rather roundabout manner, that specific breed bans are an attempt to ascribe "inferiority" to a particular breed, hence the implication of a eugenics-like sensibility. This is patently false. At no time have I suggested or implied that a pit bull is an inferior dog breed - it would indeed be a meaningless argument. My interest, as I stated early on, was to contest the notion that pit bulls make good pets. Given their aggressive behavior and the toll in human morbidity and injury, I claim they don't. This is hardly eugenics. Moreover, we make such distinctions when it comes to dog breeds all the time. Returning to the fish analogy, would you have us think making a distinction between the behavior of a gold fish and a piranha is bad science? If so, perhaps you need the lesson in biology and taxonomy. 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
