SailorAlea said:
No. You shouldn't have to take care of every aspect of a pet's life--which is why cats are better pets. You don't have to DO everything for them. They can take care of themselves, while still depending on you for love and affection. You can still fully raise the pet without having to clean up it's feces that it leaves all over the floor.
You don't HAVE to take care of every aspect, the onyl thing you need to do for a dog is to feed it. The rest is pretty much optional. However, when people go out to buy a dog, they usually intend on doing things like that, becuase they're responsible. Most people enjoy spending time with their dog, and taking care of it, while you make it sound like a negative. I think it just shows that you're not responsible, or you just don't want to be responsible.
"Also, the only reason cats aren't banned is becuase they really can't do much harm if they wanted to."
No, I'm afraid that that's not the "only reason" cats aren't 'banned.' Cats are not statistically likely, especially if not mis-treated, to attack people. Look at the number of reported cat attacks nation-wide, as compared to the number of dog attacks.
Like i said before, cat's really aren't capable of harming you anyway, so there aren't going to be many statistics on cat's attacking people when the most they can do is give you a scratch. Now if you had a tiger on the other hand, which is a cat that is capable of sawing your balls off with it's claws, I'm sure there'd be a few more statistics.
You can list all the 'stupid laws,' you want, like 'You can't tickle a woman with a feather' in Connecticut--but this is a real law. As in, enforced. Not a "blue law" that's left over from Puritan 1850.
Only in Virginia... If Pitbulls were such a menace as you make them out to be, then they'd be banned everywhere, but they aren't. Seriosuly, you make them sound like godzilla. Half the time people get attacked it's becuase they're stupid, and try to mess with the dog. You can mess wit ha cat all you want, and if it tried to attack you, you could easily stop it.
You don't have to bring up any stories, because they simply don't "counter mine." Our opinions are formed with personal experiences and from the information we get from various sources. So what, if there are nice humans, and homicidal humans? There are cases of Humans murdering each other for little more than instinct--people raised in good homes, not abused, by a seemingly happy and healthy home.
I know very well I don't have to, as I said in my last post, bringing up personal experiences is useless.
The same is true for dogs. Raised in a healthy, happy home and weren't abused--were well fed, and then the dog goes crazy, attacks a person. Just like is possible in Humans. But, as you pointed out, if that happened to a cat, "It's just a small animal."
Welp... you're right, lets ban dogs then, and while we're at it, we'll ban ourselves as well. I'm sure that you cleverly left out that something like this is rare in 95% of all breeds of dogs. I also doubt that the information given to you is 100% accurate, along with most of the other propaganda around the world. People can't watch every single moment of an animals life, so how can you be sure that the pets tested didn't have any bad experiences?
And stereotypes come from entire communities slated towards one end of a controversial topic, usually from a single or several scapegoat incidents which cause people to irrationally dislike or disapprove one side of a conflict or situation.
Are you trying to disprove what I said a stereotype is? You have a nice little explanation here, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think you can say I'm wrong either. It looks like this says what I said, in a more complicated fashion.
Dogs attack people more than cats do.
http://saysuncle.com/archives/002396.html
28 fatal dog attacks in two years. How many from cats? I don't believe Any.
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/sharks1.html
"In 1987, New York City reported the following number of people bitten by dogs: 8,064; other people, 1,587; cats, 802; rats, 291; squirrels, 95, raccoons, 11; ferrets, 7; skunk, 3."
I seriously doubt the nature of dogs has changed since 1987, but I'm sure if you wanted, you could find more updated statistics.
I've already told you my reasons on why I don't take into consideration most of these statistics. I also think if most people weren't dumbasses we wouldn't need to worry nearly as much about this sort of thing.
"Statistics show every two minutes another statistic is created."
#EDIT#
Sorry Majin, I didn't see yourt post until after I posted it -_-.
.
