Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Dis86]

The benefits of dog ownership are not just emotional, not sure why you keep saying that. Let's face it a blanket ban of dogs is never going to happen so you'll just have to lump it.

Because all of the benefits stem from emotions. Feel free to review your scientific facts. What you're neglecting is other things have the same positive emotional and physiological effects.

Hence me mentioning knocking one off! Same positive endorphin rush and the happy joy joy outcomes that brings.

 

[potatolord]

You all for a total ban on all things that present a risk to human life or well being?

Loads of people drown each year...

 

[200sols]

That doesn't make it a unreasonable solution as you stated above earlier. It absolutely is a solution to the problem I'm afraid

It's a solution yes, in the same way banning cars would stop all car deaths, so yes its a solution but it isn't reasonable which you can't seem to grasp.

 

[Wizzkidy]

It's a solution yes, in the same way banning cars would stop all car deaths, so yes its a solution but it isn't reasonable which you can't seem to grasp.

Of course it's reasonable, there is nothing stopping this country banning pet dogs, the country will continue to run fine. Banning cars....err would kill the country, it's pretty easy to understand.

Do you own a dog and a car? Maybe you do use your dog to get to work?

 

[200sols]

Of course it's reasonable, there is nothing stopping this country banning pet dogs, the country will continue to run fine. Banning cars....err would kill the country, it's pretty easy to understand.

Do you own a dog and a car? Maybe you do use your dog to get to work?

It's not reasonable no matter how much you say it.

 

[Dis86]

It's not reasonable no matter how much you say it.

Nor is it unreasonable when your only argument for keeping them is also the same argument you're saying isn't valid against them.

 

[200sols]

Nor is it unreasonable when your only argument for keeping them is also the same argument you're saying isn't valid against them.

You are the one who claims the only benefits are emotional, not me. Dont conflate your position with mine.

 

[Dis86]

You are the one who claims the only benefits are emotional, not me. Dont conflate your position with mine.

So list the other benefits of dogs as pets.

 

[200sols]

So list the other benefits of dogs as pets.

Perhaps you should buy the harvard guide.

 

[Dis86]

Perhaps you should buy the harvard guide.

Perhaps you should read your own link...

 

[200sols]

Perhaps you should read your own link...

Health benefits are emotional now?

Big emotion

Dog owners have lower blood pressure and healthier cholesterol levels, and a lower risk of heart disease, than non-owners.

 

[Dis86]

Health benefits are emotional now?

When they stem from emotions, yes! Jesus Christ you're smarter than that, come on!

 

[sidimmu]

So list the other benefits of dogs as pets.

- chase off burglars, bite the burglars and hopefully arrange some life changing injuries....
- someone to pick up my post
- general companionship and routine
- to scare away the JW teams
- bring joy and happiness to an otherwise dull environment.... we clearly need a forum dog...

 

[200sols]

When they stem from emotions, yes! Jesus Christ you're smarter than that, come on!

That is a very poor take on the science, I'd expect that from wizzykid not you.

 

[Dis86]

- chase off burglars, bite the burglars and hopefully arrange some life changing injuries....
- someone to pick up my post
- general companionship and routine
- to scare away the JW teams
- bring joy and happiness to an otherwise dull environment.... we clearly need a forum dog...

Fair
negative, makes you less active
emotional
emotional but also highly positive
emotional

 

[Thekwango]

You argument for allowing people to keep dogs is that they provide joy for millions of people.

Knocking one off brings joy to pretty much every bloke. Yet we can't just walk around in public doing it, can we?

Ah ok. Gotcha, though not sure I’d compare having a shuffle in private to dog ownership but each to their own. I was really only trying to point out the silliness of even debating a total ban on dog ownership. Much as I’m heavily in the camp of banning these horrid monstrosities like the BXL, I think it’s utter madness to even talk about banning all dogs. Much like it would be madness to even have a debate on banning having a shuffle in private but it certainly makes sense to have a ban on folk just wandering round knocking one out in public, to paraphrase your analogy.

 

[sidimmu]

Fair
negative, makes you less active
emotional
emotional but also highly positive
emotional

Didn't disagree about a forum dog though... you're a softie really, well until you attack someone then I'll have you killed

 

[200sols]

Fair
negative, makes you less active
emotional
emotional but also highly positive
emotional

I have him on ignore, but also I trust peer reviewed science about the health benefits rather than some dude on OCUK.

 

[Doobedoo]

This is one of the pointless circular argument threads that dominate gd.

 

[Dis86]

Ah ok. Gotcha, though not sure I’d compare having a shuffle in private to dog ownership but each to their own. I was really only trying to point out the silliness of even debating a total ban on dog ownership. Much as I’m heavily in the camp of banning these horrid monstrosities like the BXL, I think it’s utter madness to even talk about banning all dogs. Much like it would be madness to even have a debate on banning having a shuffle in private but it certainly makes sense to have a ban on folk just wandering round knocking one out in public, to paraphrase your analogy.

No but this isn't about in private, this is in public. These dogs that are attacking people are often out in public so why is that OK to continue but a five knuckle shuffle in the middle of a park isn't? One is most decidedly more risky than the other!