Can anyone logically rebut my argument in this incident?

This is the incident.

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/City-Officials-Say-No-To-Letting-Autistic-Boy-Keep-Pet-Pig-180257001.html

The officials claim that they can not keep the pig as a pet because of an ordinance against keeping livestock. I argue that the definition of livestock is animals that are raised for products like cows for their milk, chickens for their eggs etc.
If a person keeps a pig for a pet that pig is not livestock therefore it does not violate the ordinance against livestock. Now if someone keeps cats or dogs to breed to sell the offspring those animals are livestock.

I promise to give $10,000 to the first person who can logically rebut anything in my argument.

If a state, county, or city has laws on the books that have animals categorized into groups that classify them to be of a "type" that is considered livestock, then yes, by law, the animal would then still be considered livestock. I don't know if that particular town has anything like that on the books, but that is your logical rebuttal.

Where's my $10,000?

so did you get your hard earned 10,000....:big laugh: