OK, seriously now.
I am somewhat insulted that hazel-rah thought I chose black people in a dog analogy because I somehow associate blacks with dogs. I chose blacks because in the country I live in, some statistics show that blacks are more likely to commit murders. The interpretation given to these statistics IS often biased, misleading, or flat-out wrong. We’re all the same species, the only difference between ‘races’ is appearance. If one arbitrarily decided class of people is killing more people, it’s not because people of a certain color are born more aggressive and prone to violence, it’s because our society makes it more difficult to avoid violence for some of it’s members. Going by statistics alone, you could also say blacks are more likely to have children outside of wedlock, but that was not always the case.
When people are talking about dangerous breeds, there are too many analogies to racism to ignore. Some people have developed prejudices based solely on their personal experiences, what the media shows them, and what others tell them. If they can find statistics that help them, they will use them, if they see something that goes against what they have already decided, they ignore it. Do you think if someone produced a study showing that pit bulls were no more likely than the average dog to harm someone that it would change Cartooniverse’s opinion of pit bulls? That grienspace would back down from his assertion that they are a genetically defective breed of monster-dogs?
You can point out to racists that in societies where racism against blacks is far less prevalent, they are statistically less likely to commit crimes, which seems fairly logical to me, but it won’t matter to them because logic has nothing to do with their feelings. The argument that when pit bulls were not considered a dangerous breed they were considered one of the safest animals to keep as a pet has been used in the ‘Should aggressive dog breeds be banned?’ thread and it was likewise ignored. Racists ignore scientific proof against the idea of races as a biological classification, that if you are going to define someone as a black it’s going to be strictly as a cultural group, and as defined by the person doing the classification. Those prejudiced against pit-bulls ignore the fact that many, if not most of those dogs considered pit-bulls are not purebred dogs, but a mix of many different breeds, people call them pit-bulls because they look like what they consider a pit-bull, and often dogs that show little-to-no resemblance to a true APBT (BTW, if it’s bigger than 55 lbs. it’s probably not a true pit-bull). Hell, for a long time my mental image of a pit-bull was nothing like reality - I imagined them to be giant bulldog-like dogs. I’m betting not many people knew the dog from ‘The Little Rascals’ was a pit-bull until it was pointed out in the thread.
The idea of banning races because of misconceptions and faulty conclusions drawn from flawed statistics is several degrees more offensive than the idea of banning pit-bulls to me, because I happen to place a higher value on human life than animal life - but the fact that it’s a different species we are talking about is the ONLY difference. My arguments for it were all stolen directly from those wanting to exterminate pit-bulls. I DO put some value on animal life, which is why the thread that inspired this disgusted me - in fact, it would disgust me more than if my orignal post in this thread was serious, because I know nobody in their right mind is so misinformed as to support such a disturbing proposal, while a lot (though not most) people who responded in the original thread thought it was at least partially a good idea.