It sure seems like that's what he's saying.

He is SO going to destroy you, oh boy.

5ive, no ego here. If youve got something thats going to completely upend what i thought i knew abiut genetics lay it on me.

Not in the breed-hyperspecific way it's described here and not to the degree it's described here. Obviously I was playing fast and loose but this is common knowledge. People here are describing a micro-evolutionary shift, and that's being generous. Some of it probably is the "angry blood" example.

Come on now, be modest and don't assume it's a good chance that I could even be bothered

Why would I know a single **** about you, be modest and don't assume anyone gives a **** about what you think.

Yes, the same. I really don't see how pit bull ownership is conceptually different.

That post obviously wasn't referencing you.

As far as upending goes, what's my frame of reference? I can't actually tell who's being fully serious when they say "ticking time bomb" and the like. People have used an analogy comparing pitbulls to tigers, but they don't actually think pitbulls are a separate species or even subspecies, right?

See, I did it already. Also I win bonus points because you can't follow along. You think it's about what I think.

Okay, tough guy.

5ive,

Do you think aggressiveness takes a long time to breed into or out of a population? Because it doesn't. See the Russian fox breeding experiment.

reading a bunch of 5ive posts will ruin anyone's day.

Who cares? IDGAF if it's a subspecies or a genus or whatever. I'm not gonna run a cladistic analysis on those things. Like, if wild boars were routinely mauling people in strip malls, we'd have a nationwide campaign to eradicate them. They'd be shot on sight; we wouldn't be debating whether they were a subspecies or a species or what have you. But somehow when lunatics want to let savage animals run buckwild in a shopping center, we treat this like it's somehow normal behavior.

Howard, if you get into an accident without wearing a seatbelt or helmet, worst case scenario is you die because of your own stupidity. If you have a pitbull, worst case scenario is that someone else dies because of your own stupidity.

That seems like a pretty big distinction, and something worthwhile for the state to take preemptive measures to prevent rather than just allowing people to sue/prosecute after the fact, once someone has been killed.

What are your thoughts on drunk driving? Is it none of the state's business if I choose to drive drunk as long as long as I bear the consequences of my actions.*

You don't think "this dangerous activity (no seatbelt) can only harm me" is conceptually different than "this dangerous activity (own a pitbull) has the potential to harm other people?"

Even wearing a seatbelt or helmet have an effect on others since in most decent society we still take care of morons who injure themself beeing careless to the point they become a charge to others.

You're fighting bad logic with bad logic.

But that is not the focus of what seatbelt/helmet laws are designed to mitigate.

I do. You're only putting yourself at risk.

And as i said years ago, the data is the data and it's easily accessible. You can look up every single fatal dog attack on that site and pull up pictures of the dogs. Are there any attributed to pit bulls that you disagree with? Either show the data is wrong or stfu with the conspiratarding.

This.

If pitbulls only ever bit their adult owners, then it'd be the same.

Worst case scenario is you wind up in a vegetative state and are a burden on the state for the rest of your life. Also you traumatize first responders who have to scrape your brains off the pavement.

This isn't the wild west anymore where you can go off an die in a field and your body is eaten by coyotes. We basically live in a giant anthill where just about everything we do affects multiple other people.

I can see that argument and respect it to some degree. But, weighing it against the freedom of adults to choose what they want to do, I prefer freedom. Same with drug use.

Owning something dangerous to other people and not necessarily in your control is different.

Suzzer, so you're taking Howard's position that seatbelt/helmet laws are not conceptually different than anti-pitt laws?

Re your other point, I wouldn't be surprised if smokers and hemletless bikers save the state money overall by dying younger (and bikers much more quickly) than the average person, thereby requiring fewer medical resources and social security payments. I have no idea if data support this or not, though.

And what about all those first responders and their families whose jobs they're saving.

Eddy's response is the one I've heard on this point for many years: that when some numbnuts hurts himself for lack of a seatbelt or a helmet, we as a society will take care of them -- and that cost justifies the seatbelt and helmet rules.

You're quite right that pit bulls are rather more likely to hurt other people than the owners, and thus the costs are more likely to be external than the seatbelt or helmet situations. The difference is one of degree, however, not of kind. At some level of degree, of course, my position gives way. Where that is, exactly, is an open question. I do think pit bull ownership isn't near that limiting case.

I'm solidly in favor of laws where we have common pool or prisoners' dilemma problems. But harm from pit bulls is allocable to owners, and in those circumstances, I've long thought that a remedy after the fact is the right way to go.

I think anti-drug laws are horrific: those laws have destabilized much of Central and South America and have cost many, many lives -- both as a result of forcing drug distributors to be armed, but also by encouraging corruption.

My view tends to be that there shouldn't be a law prohibiting something unless it's absolutely necessary.

This is a bit of a derail, so I'll stop unless others are actually interested in the discussion.

Should the government be in the business of regulating professions? For example, should there be laws prohibiting practicing law without having a law degree and passing the bar? I assume some/most Libertarians are against the government getting involved and hiring a lawyer should be the same as hiring a handyman: caveat emptor and sue them if they **** up.

Howard,

I don't see how pit bull legislation aimed at preventing harm to others isn't different in kind than helmet laws aimed at preventing harm to oneself.

That said, I don't think I'd legislate a ban on pit bulls. I'm not super firm on this, but I think social pressure and holding people really accountable (if your dog kills someone it's generally going to be some kind of homicide charge for you - your dog mauls another dog and you're going to jail too) is probably the right way to go.