manifold
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #241
Because the age of the young child substantially increases the risk of a dog bite because they don't have a modicum of a clue how to treat a dog. I don't even think a dog has to be vicious in order to defend itself from what it perceives to be an attack.
Driving with a kid in the car doesn't impair my driving. She's strapped in and noise doesn't effect me. I've been driving to loud music all of my life.
Why distinguish between various levels of risk? Really?
You chances of getting hit by a car while playing on your lawn versus playing on a busy street don't warrant a distinction? Really?
Of course distinctions are warranted, the question was facetious. That's the whole point.
Arguing that because driving poses inherent risks somehow supports ANY position one wants to take on the subject of pit bulls, is no argument at all. It's a red herring fallacy.
Except it's not. It's comparing risk of death vs. risk of death. It's completely analogous. Both activities are non essential risk. The comparison is valid.
I'm just glad you understand intuitively what you refuse to acknowledge intellectually, and you know better than to own a pit bull yourself.