Reply #66: The other big assumption

[FatDave]

Others have pointed out that conservative parents do not necessarily end up with conservative children, and I think we all have seen examples of parents and children with differing political ideologies.

But what is the deal with the use of dogs as an indicator of childlessness? As far as I can see, there is little to no relationship. In fact, having a dog is a very "family" thing to do. My family had a child before we had a dog. Then we added two more kids and three cats.

Is it possible that some other factor contributes to the dog populations? Is there a chance that those bleeding-hearts up in Seattle run more no-kill shelters and the heartless SLCers round up every stray and kill it? Do breeders possibly prefer Seattle? Does the mormon church discourage pet ownership? (I don't think so, I'm just pointing out that there could very well be other contributing factors).

And I haven't checked census records or anything, but I get the impression that Seattle simply has a higher population of young people than Salt Lake City. People in the 20 to 30 range who may well be single and/or not yet ready to have children. If this is the case, just wait a few years.

I call bullshit on this article. They're basing their entire argument on two illogical assumptions. You want to make the argument, base it on median age of adults, their stated political ideology and birth-rates among each group. Not on whether or not they have a fucking dog.

(Besides everybody knows it's easy to have more kids when you've got three wives.)