Replies

As Plato said: "never argue with a fool".

Or someone who substitutes ad hominem attack for legitimate debate.

When you have been a teacher for many years you cannot help but recignise the slow learners!

I don't think your IQ would come remotely close to any of the vets opposed to your dog genocide. And for your information they do have a code of ethics and they are honourable people.

If you or your buddy were truly interested in "legitimate debate" as you've claimed, you'd explain/justify:

1. Why recognized authorities - e.g. virtually every legitimate animal welfare organization in North America other than PETA - rejects 'breed ban legislation?
(Wristspin's ridiculous & totally unfounded claim all are in the pay of some imagined 'pit bull' cartel not withstanding)

2. The negative impact of your position on responsible, law-abiding dog-owners based upon the real world example cited in my post # 332 ?

3. Specifically what definition you're using as to what, in your mind, constitutes a 'pit bull' in light of Wristspin's seeming confusion as to same noted/raised - but, of course as is both of your 'debating' styles, still unanswered - in my post # 338.

4. How you can blithely ignore even the possibility of agenda-driven bias in the msm 'news' stories you've repeatedly cited (e.g. no other 'breed' is seldom or ever mentioned by the msm, plus the term 'pit bull' is never defined) while dismissing out-of-hand all other sources of information as somehow biased?

I'd also note, both of you seem to merely want to lash out at dogs which you see as a menace but consistently refuse to address the inherent negative social implications of a 'solution' based solely upon arbitrary & subjective perceptions as to a certain vague 'type' of dogs' general physical appearance.

Failure to answer each & every one of the questions raised above will amply demonstrate to all beyond any doubt precisely who is engaged in "legitimate debate".