Joined
·
6,415 Posts
1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas
were disproportionately involved in more accidents than any other make,
would you:
(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one,
(b) cite the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would
(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people,
(b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and
(c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the
sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of
confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving,
say, Hondas, would you
then ban Hondas? If not, why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit,
something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car
models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning
that all these brands are pretty much designed for the same purpose? If
not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the
SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand
(a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT
registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way;
(b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers,
Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as
personal tools of terrorism;
(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of
time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to
their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing
jaywalking laws;
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is,
those inconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the
99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and
(e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address
the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no", I'm afraid you
have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The
answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got
away on a bicycle?" is not: "ban bicycles"...
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you - not the dog - should be
held responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog fighting laws already
exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up
the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties
against lawbreakers.
******************
Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
were disproportionately involved in more accidents than any other make,
would you:
(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one,
(b) cite the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would
(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people,
(b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and
(c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the
sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of
confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving,
say, Hondas, would you
then ban Hondas? If not, why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit,
something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car
models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning
that all these brands are pretty much designed for the same purpose? If
not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the
SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand
(a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT
registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way;
(b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers,
Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as
personal tools of terrorism;
(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of
time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to
their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing
jaywalking laws;
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is,
those inconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the
99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and
(e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address
the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no", I'm afraid you
have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The
answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got
away on a bicycle?" is not: "ban bicycles"...
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you - not the dog - should be
held responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog fighting laws already
exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up
the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties
against lawbreakers.
******************
Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
