Does something need to be done about dogs?

gingergundog said:
Not sure why its so contentious tbh.Dogs can be more beneficial than humans.
Click to expand...
You’ve went from ‘will be’ to ‘can be’ - there’s a big difference in the two.

A dog can be more beneficial when changing a car tyre is very different to a dog will be more beneficial when changing a car tyre.

Edit: I know that’s a silly example but best I could come up with at short notice :)
 
Last edited:
gingergundog said:
Id like to hear how my views are bizarre?
Click to expand...
to condense;
you believe people only have children because they think the world needs their offspring - i've never met anyone who has had kids for that reason, no doubt there is but i've never met anyone like that and it's seems just a completely weird reason to have kids to me. love for ones partner, wanting to create life and give that life a chance to flourish, wanting to do what comes naturally to most living creatures - those are just some of the reasons i can think for people having kids. cause the world needs their offspring?? maybe some deluded megalomanic or the like but not most normal parents

i think you believe parents are narcissists who only have children for their own selfish reasons (i'm not sure on this, i may have picked you up wrong) - again i just find that weird for the same reasons above but also and possibly more importantly, narcissism is probably the last thing that drives someone to have children. the huge amount of sacrifices that have to be made when bringing a child into the world are going to be contrary to what drives narcissism, in my opinion of course.

you believe a person with a dog will be less detrimental to society than someone with a kid - the 'will be' is a big claim that's just nonsense. why nonsense, well for one you're completely ignoring the potential for the child in this instance. a dog and it's owners potential benefit to society is quite limited (by the dog). a human's much less so.
 
Last edited:
Thekwango said:
You’ve went from ‘will be’ to ‘can be’ - there’s a big difference in the two.

A dog can be more beneficial when changing a car tyre is very different to a dog will be more beneficial when changing a car tyre.

Edit: I know that’s a silly example but best I could come up with at short notice :)
Click to expand...
Show me where I have done this
 
Ok, I said "someone owning a dog will be less detrimental to society than someone who has a kid" and then posted "not sure why its so contentious tbh. Dogs can be more beneficial than humans". it's a completely different conversation.
 
gingergundog said:
I will say someone owning a dog will be less detrimental to society than someone who has a kid.
Click to expand...
here - you claim the owning the dog will be less detrimental to society than a kid, so dogs will be more beneficial to society than humans - yes?
gingergundog said:
Dogs can be more beneficial than humans.
Click to expand...
but now it's just a 'can be'

they are, in this case, mutually exclusive - you can't hold both beliefs to be true.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
You haven't posted anything though and you acknowledge that there are plenty of bull terrier-type dogs in shelters ergo what is the issue? I could understand an objection if they're super rare but clearly, that isn't the case and previous headlines have cited them as the most common etc. so what does it matter if taking a snapshot at some shelter now has more labradors?
Click to expand...
The issue is that you're citing nothing more substantial than headlines. The same headlines that claim Staffies jaws lock shut, and other such bullcrappery.

This age-old assertion people make about rescue centres being full of nothing but pitbulls and other dangerous status dogs is one of several popular inaccuracies. I had to prove it to my wife before she'd even consider a rescue dog, and every time it's cropped up on the forum threads it's not held up to examination.
Yes, bull-type dogs are common in rescue centres, but they've never topped the list whenever I've checked such places and no-one has ever shown the actual studies or surveys that supposedly substantiate the claim.
 
Scougar said:
Owner was fined 700 pounds. Things are so much different in the UK. You'd be sued to hell here in the US.
Click to expand...
The £700 is a criminal fine, nothing is stopping victims from pursuing private legal action against dog owners and getting further compensation. It's only worth it if you think there's a good chance the owner has the financial means to pay otherwise you could be waiting forever to get your compensation and also is cost/benefit worth it. In the UK compensation for these types of attack is anecdotally more modest (compared to the US) and courts don't always award legal costs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom