Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
But banning peanuts from all foods would save people. So why not do it?
Because peanuts serve a very good purpose. They're one of the best forms of nutrition around and you can pretty much survive off them alone.
A peanut will not chase someone down and attack them. Peanuts can generally be avoided by those with sensitivities and if not a simple medical device can generally negate the harm.
Additionally it's worth noting that legislation is already in place that requires foods containing any trace of peanuts to be labelled.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,830
Also, peanuts are a leguminous plant which can be a key part of a crop rotation cycle.
Respect the peanut, folks.
Respect the peanut, folks.
You can fondle mine any time you want.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
You should consider getting a plum job at the BBC perhaps?
Just went for a nice walk with the boys in the pram and have spent the last 20 minutes cleaning dog **** off the pram because ***** dog owners can't take the 30s to pick up their dogs crap.
Sometimes I just despair of the number of scumbags in society. I reckon I walked about a mile and:
Dog **** everywhere
Litter everywhere
Cars completely blocking cycle lines ie. the are entirely parked across the bike lane
Our lovely new scummy neighbours at the end who leave all their overflowing bins on the side of the path that everyone walks along periodically dropping rubbish on the groud. Recycling? Nah, just chuck everything in the same bin.
The thing that gets me is that this is just sheer ******* laziness. It takes less than 30s to not do all of the above.
Sometimes I just despair of the number of scumbags in society. I reckon I walked about a mile and:
Dog **** everywhere
Litter everywhere
Cars completely blocking cycle lines ie. the are entirely parked across the bike lane
Our lovely new scummy neighbours at the end who leave all their overflowing bins on the side of the path that everyone walks along periodically dropping rubbish on the groud. Recycling? Nah, just chuck everything in the same bin.
The thing that gets me is that this is just sheer ******* laziness. It takes less than 30s to not do all of the above.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 761
My dog and my Grandson:
I sympathise with not only dog owners but also people that don’t own them.
Myself and my partner adopted a dog earlier this year, a 2 year old Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossed with a Bullmastiff. A large dog, understandably quite intimidating.
Since we got him, around 4 months ago, he has been socialised with other dogs of various breeds, various people from children to elderly, attended obedience/rescue training. Until last week, he was a lovable dog, never in doubt his actions and wouldn’t worry about his temperament etc.
Then, for no reason we can fathom he has attacked us, on 3 occasions within the last 10 days. One resulting in hospitalisation. I suppose, certain breeds are always a threat, danger or unpredictable especially when rehomed.
Sad really.
Myself and my partner adopted a dog earlier this year, a 2 year old Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossed with a Bullmastiff. A large dog, understandably quite intimidating.
Since we got him, around 4 months ago, he has been socialised with other dogs of various breeds, various people from children to elderly, attended obedience/rescue training. Until last week, he was a lovable dog, never in doubt his actions and wouldn’t worry about his temperament etc.
Then, for no reason we can fathom he has attacked us, on 3 occasions within the last 10 days. One resulting in hospitalisation. I suppose, certain breeds are always a threat, danger or unpredictable especially when rehomed.
Sad really.
Last edited:
Wait...you mean a dog completely against its previous behaviour and traits, that seemed to be a good, well trained dog suddenly attacked you? Nope. Not possible. That just never happens ever.
dlockers
D
dlockers
Yeah, but members market.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
If you're willing to talk about it, can I ask exactly what was happening on each of the three occasions?
You say ice cream - let's take fishing. Fishing is known to be a very dangerous profession, and people can and do die at sea.
From a brief Google, there are some fatalities most years. 10 in 2021. 6 a couple years before that.
And many hundreds of injuries.
Would people stop eating fish to stop the deaths? Clearly, no.
People don't want to die, but accidents happen. Sheet happens. We accept it. We keep eating fish.
That said, we do take steps to try to minimise risk, whenever possible. Particular breeds of dog do represent an elevated risk, as they were bred to fight. I'm not sure I see the need for chavs to own said dogs, and would be perfectly fine with a total ban on some breeds.
But any dog can be dangerous. And it's a risk that, collectively, we seem happy to accept. The reason is pretty obvious. Dogs that don't kill you only make you stronger. Or something.
e: also, how has this thread reached 100+ pages? (Or 3.14159 pages for the weirdos with page size fetish). No, I'm not going to go back and read it all. Aint nobody got time for that. But an abridged version would be nice, if someone could volunteer?
Last edited:
When dave goes fishing and his boat sinks, does little timmy playing in the park get ripped to pieces?
What makes little Timmy more important than Big Dave?
He's trying to get at "in fishing you only put yourself at risk"
I still think peanut allergy is a good equivalent.
risk to innocent people, and we could easily ban it from the UK. We'd save a few people and make life safer for a lot more. But we don't.
There are Many other examples. But thankfully we don't ban everything.
Risk of dog attacks is very low. The overall reward people who like/need dogs is much higher.
I still think peanut allergy is a good equivalent.
risk to innocent people, and we could easily ban it from the UK. We'd save a few people and make life safer for a lot more. But we don't.
There are Many other examples. But thankfully we don't ban everything.
Risk of dog attacks is very low. The overall reward people who like/need dogs is much higher.
Personally I'd never have one of these bully type dogs. The risk is much much higher for an attack. And the potential in that attack for serious injury is high.
There are plenty of other dogs available if these breeds were banned. I don't see much argument for phasing out these high risk. + high damage types.
There are plenty of other dogs available if these breeds were banned. I don't see much argument for phasing out these high risk. + high damage types.
And from what I can see, that's what's happening, isn't it? The more aggressive breeds that originating as pit/fighting dogs are likely to get banned, sooner or later.
Whereas the cockapoos just cause severe mental trauma.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,659
Unfortunately i think all that would lead too (no pun intended
) is a lot of people not bothering to take on/housing dogs because lets be honest as a society were pretty lazy, Nobody wants to go through "Training" and have all licences etc just to own a dog.