I was on the forums on Craigslist–the pets section–and some penis hat was talking about pit bulls:
“It just seems that pit bulls are more prone to
go bad. I think they are bad period and fully support any legislature that bans them as a breed.” She then posted this link:
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=12939845 and added, “Another child in critical care after a pit bull attack.
When will you people stop advocating for this dangerous breed?” Now, even if pit bulls were not my absolute favorite breed of dog, I still would have defended the dog over this loon. Here’s what I wrote to her:
“Why do you think it seems that pit bulls are more prone to bite? Because it’s what you hear about the most, right? And why do you hear about it the most? Because it’s what the news reports. The news does not ever report when a chihuahua bites someone, now does it? The news does not ever report when a beagle or a tiny little Maltese bites someone, does it? Big dogs biting people is a much more significant story, considering that no real damage is done when a small rat of a dog bites someone. But if there are two stories out there of two different packs of dogs running rampant through the streets and biting people–one pack consisting purely of dobermans and the other pack purely of pits–and the news station only has time to report one of those stories, which one do you think they will report? The story of the pack of pit bulls. Why? Because there’s a mystery about pit bulls, there’s this lore about pit bulls, there’s a fear of pit bulls, and the news thrives on all of that. So they will most definitely report the stories involving pit bulls, which makes many people come to the misguided conclusion that bit bulls are more prone to ‘go bad.’ All that said, let’s look at humans. If you look at the people who commit violent crimes against fellow humans, you’ll find the majority of those criminals are black, right? Right. So I guess that means blacks are more prone to ‘go bad,’ right? I mean, in your opinion, more pit bulls attack people than any other dog, therefore pit bulls tend to ‘go bad.’ So if you want to remain consistent in your logic, you must also be of the opinion that because more black people attack fellow humans than any other race, black people tend to ‘go bad.’ It has nothing to do with their surroundings or their parents or their friends, right? ‘Course not. People (and animals) are born evil, right? Yeah. Good logic.”
She wrote back, “I stopped reading when you dared to compare people to dogs in your analogy.”
I wrote, “Stopped reading? I think they call that close-minded. I didn’t compare human life to dog life. I’d destroy a million animals to save one baby. But I like how you just dodged my point and went into attack mode. Change the subject and attack: the art of the Liberal. So if you think pits tend to go bad just because you hear more about pit bull attacks, you must also think black people tend to go bad because more black people commit violent crimes than other races. That analogy is dead-on accurate. I didn’t say dogs are better than humans. Come on, don’t be a hypocrite. Be consistent with your beliefs. My analogy is correct, and you see this. But you don’t want to see this, because then that means your pit bull argument is bogus. So instead of admitting you were wrong (and hey, it happens to all of us), you changed the subject and attacked by saying I compared dogs to humans, when in fact I compared your argument to another argument.”
Instead of addressing these issues I brought up, she referred me some psychological study that “proved” that our environment has very little impact on who we are, and that much of how we and animals behave is genetics. In other words, both pit bulls and black people are born evil.
Right.
Recent Comments