... but the discussion cannot be broadened to lightning strikes or for that matter husbands that kill wives and families.
Why? If we consider lightning to be a freak occurrence then showing that pit bulls are several times less dangerous than lightning is relevant. It shows that the fear that surrounds the pit bull is not entirely objective in nature.
A "pit bull or rottie dog who statistically is shown to be dangerous and might be considered as a loaded weapon.
The important part is how
dangerous and what redeeming value it has. Everything
is dangerous Ragman!
Disproportionately skewed statistics show these dogs are proven (to some of us in society) is a potentially dangerous combination to the elderly and children when combined with a careless or untrained owner.
Statistics make a much better case for banning black people than pit bulls. Black people are disproportionately represented in crime just like certain breeds are disproportionately represented in dog attacks. Black people are also statistically much more dangerous than pit bulls.
Now the redeeming value of humans and the obvious racism make this something a sane person will likely reject out of hand but the statistical argument for pit bulls is much
RG: out of curiosity, why is that you aren't taking RM to task about his many side-steps in logic and poor rebuttal?
1) I haven't been reading Bills posts.
2) It doesn't matter.
I get so tired of the "why don't you criticize those guys too" arguments on a2k. There is a name for this kind of argument (tu quoque, or "you too") and it's a weak ad hominem that ignores whether the argument has validity while preferring to try to establish inconsistency in its application on the part of the person who said it.
I'm not being snarky here. i jsut dont' understand. He doesn't seem to read any statistics posted and continues to argue without listening to some vaild points made.
Whether or not his arguments are valid have no bearing on whether mine are, and whether or not I choose to respond to them have even less.
Do you get why tu quoque
is a pointless red herring? It happens every day here in politics discussions. If someone criticizes Obama someone points out that they didn't criticize Bush for something similar. Sometimes they even generalize that across whole political camps and if a liberal accuses Bush of something years ago they will demand that all liberals criticize Obama for something similar.
It's frustrating because it's a pointless red herring. If the criticism is valid it is valid and it doesn't matter if the person is biased or not or has a personal agenda. Questioning the person's bias instead of addressing the argument happens all the time here, and might well be the most common logical fallacy committed on a2k.