>From: Edward Lipinski <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Ugh! White Hunter Hanna Speak with Forked Tongue?
>
>Face the fact folks: Ferrets have, do and will continue to bite and maul
>human infants. You got a problem with that Pilgrim?
>
>So what if the incidence of dog bites proportionately exceeds ferret bites.
>This is a defense for the ferret? How absurd.
Edward,
I think that you are off base here, but let's assume that you are tight and
that some ferrets are a real threat to infants. So what? There are MANY
threats to infants. Would you let your baby play on the stove, or how
about the roof? Would you leave your baby unattended with your 12' python,
or your pit bull? Come on, it's not about whether they are dangerous to
infants or not. It's about being a responsible parent. If you want to ban
things that are dangerous to infants, and kill and injure them, then there
is a long list like pesticide, cleaning chemicals, electrical wires, guns,
boiling water, dogs, cats, snakes, gasoline, bicycles, swimming pools, etc.
of things that are far more dangerous than ferrets. All these things are
found in people's homes. So let's say that some ferrets are dangerous to
babies, so what?
And, the fact that dog's hurt many more infants per year than ferrets is no
excuse to allow ferrets to be legal is correct. But, this analogy is used
not because ferret owners want to see dogs banned, but because it is a good
demonstration of re-applying the logic of banning ferrets to dogs. It kind
of puts it in perspective.
What Mr. Hanna did was mislead the uneducated public about ferrets. This
is the same as saying all Mexicans are dangerous robbers, just because you
got robbed one time by a hispanic person. It would be misleading to say
that. It's the same as what Mr. Hanna did. As a public "celebrity" and an
"expert" his opinions are weighed heavily by a lot of people. Therefore,
he has a duty and obligation not to say things that are misleading.
Jerry King
PS I liked your Hitler analogy!
[Posted in FML issue 2540]
|
