Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Mike and David,
Of course I am also a vegetarian, and I'm rather surprised to hear
that people in the local vegetarian community favor breed-specific
legislation regulating pit bulls. Do they believe that individual
rights exist only for humans, and that when it comes to animals, it's
OK to brand entire groups as dangerous?
I do agree that sentient beings have the right not to be intentionally
brought into the world with genetic defects, and I would consider a
predisposition toward violence to be such a defect. Once such an animal
is in the world, however, do we assume that he or she cannot exist
without engaging in inappropriate violence? For all the pit bull
incidents that there are, I assume they still represent a small
percentage of the pit bulls that are out there. So most pit bulls are
behaving responsibly -- whether you want to give the credit to them or
simply to their human companions.
Put the average human male in a certain situation, and there is a fair
chance that *he* will react in a violent and irresponsible manner. For
example, arrange for him to walk into to his bedroom and find his life
partner in bed with another man. Does this mean that men are dangerous
animals who need to be controlled just by virtue of being who they are?
Many statists think so.
Dogs may not be able to think rationally as humans can, but they are
capable of restraint, and of learning to control their violent
tendencies. As with humans, some individuals do not have strong violent
tendencies to begin with. And some humans have been known to make
statements like, "A man who is friendly and docile when he finds his
wife with another man is not a real man." And the capacity to think
rationally obviously does not stop many humans from committing violent,
irrational acts, while many dogs do succeed in avoiding such acts
despite lacking the capacity for rational thought. So it makes little
sense to me to use that capacity as the standard by which a human or
non-human animal is judged to be worthy of having individual rights and
not prima facie declared unacceptably dangerous to polite society.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
P.S. - See also the response below from a libertarian on another list:
-I know most of this list knows that I serve two incredibly wonderful
retired racing injury adoptee Greyhounds. What this list may not know
is that a dear friend of mine owns AKC Triquetra Whippets, my mom's
kennel was AKC Never Complain Dalmatians, and I have had several other
friends who are or were breeders. So I've had some pretty wide
exposure to the canine world.
There is no such thing as a dangerous breed.
When I first adopted Blue (D.J.'s BlueBird)-- I was astonished to find
out that I had supposedly adopted a "vicious" dog. Apparently because
racing dogs wear a muzzle when racing (which is not because they are
prone to fighting, it is mostly to help the camera during photo
finishes) people think Greyhounds are vicious. Al contraire. John has
done some pretty outrageous things to Blue without harm. They are
definitely pretty sensitive and intelligent sweethearts.
I have also met a Doberman named Cara who was the biggest marshmallow
you can think of (oh, yeah, soooo dangerous. Would walk up to you and
put her head up so her jaw was resting on top of your leg and beg for
attention) perfectly normal pit bull terriers, etc.
I've also seen psychotic Italian Greyhounds, brainless Doxies, and
badly treated Greyhounds (sadly enough). The difference always comes
back to two things. First, good, responsible breeding always produces a
better dog. Second, good responsible training by the owner makes a
There are no dangerous breeds. There are only badly bred dogs and badly
trained dogs. (and of course, those that are abused or trained to fight)