NationStates

Norstal wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
You can do the same thing you do with assault rifles when you outlaw them. You would allow some kind of grandfather clause.

So the law would say that existing dogs won't be allowed to reproduce but that the existing dogs will be allowed to stay with their current owners. However, to disincentivize dog ownership there would be a tax against dog owners. All imports of dogs would be banned immediately, exporting dogs to other countries would be encouraged with tax deductions.

Then you would take the lifespan of the longest dog (I don't know, I'm not an expert, let's say it was 30 years) and then in the law you would say:

''in 30 years since under this law no dog is allowed to reproduce all dogs should have died in this country, therefore in 30 years from the date of this bill all dogs found in the nation will put to rest by the relevant authorities.''

Logistically this would be how I would do it if I were in charge. This way, all dogs can be eliminated from society in 30 years (either they die naturally, are exported, or get hunted down when the time is up). The neat thing about this law is that we know for a fact that after those years are up (maybe its not 30), all existing dogs are illegal.

What about wolves?

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Yes, actually, I have been bitten by a dog.

The Opinion Guy wrote:In that case, just ban all pets. Because birds have bird flu, cats bite and scratch, and basically every pet can bite, scratch or something. Then the only viable pet is a pet fish

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

The Eastern Antarctic State wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Cat scratches do a lot less damage. I knew someone in high school who had a big chunk of her lower jaw bitten off by a dog, ended up in the ER, and will probably have big scars on her face for the rest of her life. Cats don't do that.

I'm talking about little dog bites, seriously, in my town a dog only bit someone a little bit and the dog had to be put down.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
What in the actual fuck? Because you're scared of dogs you want to kill and or wait for every dog in the nation to die off?

This is the most sensible way to do it.

I think having the police just go and grab every single dog in the country and executing all of them immediately would create too much chaos. Also, its a tad too extreme on the authoritarian scale.

But if you phase it out over a few decades, and give the chance as well as many many incentives for people to get rid of their dogs however they choose (ex, some people might send their dogs to relatives in other countries where its allowed etc) the result would be better.

I really don't want to have a law that immediately sentences all existing dogs to immediate deaths. Its not their fault. We're just trying to create a better society but I want to avoid having to hurt them if possible. Just let them die out.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

I was bitten by a dog when I was a little girl. I still don't see a necessity to ban them. I've been scratched by cats before, I don't see why they should be banned. I've been bitten by pet hamsters, and rabbits. Pecked by a parakeet too. I see no reason to ban any of these pets.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Opinion Guy wrote:In that case, just ban all pets. Because birds have bird flu, cats bite and scratch, and basically every pet can bite, scratch or something. Then the only viable pet is a pet fish

dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Sulania wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
This is the most sensible way to do it.

I think having the police just go and grab every single dog in the country and executing all of them immediately would create too much chaos. Also, its a tad too extreme on the authoritarian scale.

But if you phase it out over a few decades, and give the chance as well as many many incentives for people to get rid of their dogs however they choose (ex, some people might send their dogs to relatives in other countries where its allowed etc) the result would be better.

I really don't want to have a law that immediately sentences all existing dogs to immediate deaths. Its not their fault. We're just trying to create a better society but I want to avoid having to hurt them if possible. Just let them die out.

You can span it out all you want and sugar-coat it, you're still calling for the genocide, extermination, however you want to put it, of an entire species. Just because they have the potential to be dangerous.

Kumuri wrote:

Atlanticatia wrote:Whilst cats are most obviously superior, I wouldn't support banning dogs.

(Image)

Corgi <3

Sun Wukong wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

You know... next time you suppose something... just let it go.

Infected Mushroom wrote:by the way...

I suppose most of the people who oppose this have never been bitten by a dog? It might affect your opinion on this issue I suppose.

Sulania wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
This is the most sensible way to do it.

I think having the police just go and grab every single dog in the country and executing all of them immediately would create too much chaos. Also, its a tad too extreme on the authoritarian scale.

But if you phase it out over a few decades, and give the chance as well as many many incentives for people to get rid of their dogs however they choose (ex, some people might send their dogs to relatives in other countries where its allowed etc) the result would be better.

I really don't want to have a law that immediately sentences all existing dogs to immediate deaths. Its not their fault. We're just trying to create a better society but I want to avoid having to hurt them if possible. Just let them die out.

You can span it out all you want and sugar-coat it, you're still calling for the genocide, extermination, however you want to put it, of an entire species. Just because they have the potential to be dangerous.

United States of Natan wrote:I hope this is satire... but in case its not:

Seriously? dogs? they are pets, and mans best friend. they have been tamed for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years. Nobody was complaining then. besides, only wild dogs or dogs trained to be vicious are vicious. and owners are legally supposed to pick up the droppings, at least here in America. seriously, your argument is insane.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Sulania wrote:You can span it out all you want and sugar-coat it, you're still calling for the genocide, extermination, however you want to put it, of an entire species. Just because they have the potential to be dangerous.

they are still allowed to survive in the wild...

also, we could carve out some exceptions for specialized purposes (ex for military applications) but they will just no longer populate the domestic front (to minimize the public hazard issues).

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
dogs are categorically different and distinct from other pets because

1) they can actually cause severe physical damage to human beings (their teeth are really really sharp and strong)... for example, a cat can scratch you but it can't take off your fingers or really penetrate your neck. If you have played Call of Duty, you know that there are some very very powerful attack dogs that can even kill people.

2) Dog owners won't keep dogs inside. Dog owners will always take their dogs out for walks. Hence, this exposes the public to its dangers. Whereas cats and birds are often kept indoors for their entire existence.

When you're using a video game as evidence you're doing something very wrong. And most of us use leashes. And my cat goes outside almost every day, sometimes two or three times.