Advertisement
by Wisconsin9 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 am
by Nazi Flower Power » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Sulania wrote:I don't post in NSG usually anymore, but this was so out there, I had to.
I don't agree with any of your points. Yeah, they're dangerous. So are stairs, and people are dangerous. So, your going to outlaw people next. People are more dangerous than dogs, they can use their minds and opposable thumbs to do things dogs can't. And dog droppings, really? That's a reason? I can't even tell if you're serious now.
yes many things are dangerous to society, but many things are necessary for society to function.
For example, you mention stairs. Yes stairs can be dangerous but they are a necessary aspect of many buildings.
Dogs are not NECESSARY for a society to function. We can easily envision a society without them that is safer and still livable.
by Viritica » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 am
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I was worried that if I did so one of three things might happen.
1) I miss and then the dog bites the hell out of me, doing me serious damage (and perhaps even killing me if it manages to get my neck)
2) I hit the dog, the dog quickly recovers, and then ''1)'' happens
3) I hit the dog and damage it, nullifying it as a threat. The owner is outraged and then takes ME to court over the property damage done to his/her dog. Its a very litigatious society this is not unheard of. I don't want to waste my time in court.
It is a dog. A full grown male pit bull weighs as much as a 5th grader. Just turn around and punt its head. If his owner sues you sue them for being a terrible owner who put the public and you in danger.
by Norstal » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:The Eastern Antarctic State wrote:Dog bites someone- worst thing in the world, the dog must be put down
Cat scratches someone- lol just being a cat
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.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Americanada » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:14 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Sulania wrote:I don't post in NSG usually anymore, but this was so out there, I had to.
I don't agree with any of your points. Yeah, they're dangerous. So are stairs, and people are dangerous. So, your going to outlaw people next. People are more dangerous than dogs, they can use their minds and opposable thumbs to do things dogs can't. And dog droppings, really? That's a reason? I can't even tell if you're serious now.
yes many things are dangerous to society, but many things are necessary for society to function.
For example, you mention stairs. Yes stairs can be dangerous but they are a necessary aspect of many buildings.
Dogs are not NECESSARY for a society to function. We can easily envision a society without them that is safer and still livable.
by Viritica » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Can some dogs be dangerous? Yes. Are all dogs dangerous? No. Besides, the training is dependent on the owner.
The droppings? Ever heard of doggy potty bags? If you haven't, here. Inform yourself.
Planes are dangerous too. Should we ban them?
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
Viritica wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Can some dogs be dangerous? Yes. Are all dogs dangerous? No. Besides, the training is dependent on the owner.
The droppings? Ever heard of doggy potty bags? If you haven't, here. Inform yourself.
Planes are dangerous too. Should we ban them?
People are dangerous.
Ban people.
by Reploid Productions » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Zataristan » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
Reploid Productions wrote:There's no bad dogs, only bad owners. Clearly, if we want to reach the TRUE source of the problem, bad owners should be banned.
by Conglomerate of Iron » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
by Sun Wukong » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:Just so we're all 100% clear, this is poorly-constructed satire of gun control advocates, right?
by Viritica » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
yes many things are dangerous to society, but many things are necessary for society to function.
For example, you mention stairs. Yes stairs can be dangerous but they are a necessary aspect of many buildings.
Dogs are not NECESSARY for a society to function. We can easily envision a society without them that is safer and still livable.
Police dogs are useful, though. And seeing eye dogs...
by Magna Libero » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:15 am
by Viritica » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:16 am
by Nazi Flower Power » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:16 am
by Norstal » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:16 am
Reploid Productions wrote:
You, my good friend, are rapidly careening toward account deletion. These are the rules. You should read them. You should follow them.
In the meantime, *** Conglomerate of Iron, 3-day ban for yet more flaming. ***
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:16 am
Viritica wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Can some dogs be dangerous? Yes. Are all dogs dangerous? No. Besides, the training is dependent on the owner.
The droppings? Ever heard of doggy potty bags? If you haven't, here. Inform yourself.
Planes are dangerous too. Should we ban them?
People are dangerous.
Ban people.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:17 am
Fascist Russian Empire wrote:And do what with them? Kill them all? Send dogs into slaughterhouses and use them to make meat? Last time I checked, animal cruelty is a bad thing.
Yes, dogs can be dangerous; so can humans, and humans cause a lot more deaths to other humans than animals. Just because a very minuscule portion of the deaths and other accidents in the world are because of something doesn't mean that something should be banned; cars, electricity, planes, and all kinds of other things that do good things of all sorts also cause the occasional death or two, but they obviously shouldn't the banned.
The fact of the matter is that oddities and isolated incidents don't justify radical, far-fetched pieces of legislation. The vast majority of dogs aren't going to seriously hurt a human in their lifetime, and getting rid of all dogs just because of a minority is almost as ridiculous as calling all Muslims terrorists because of the Jidadist minority.
Stupid idea, shouldn't be done.
by The Floating Island of the Sleeping God » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:17 am
Viritica wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Can some dogs be dangerous? Yes. Are all dogs dangerous? No. Besides, the training is dependent on the owner.
The droppings? Ever heard of doggy potty bags? If you haven't, here. Inform yourself.
Planes are dangerous too. Should we ban them?
People are dangerous.
Ban people.
The Blaatschapen wrote:Just to note, liberals are not sheep. Sheep are liberals ;)
by Olthar » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:17 am
by Bulgar Rouge » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:17 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:18 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Fascist Russian Empire wrote:And do what with them? Kill them all? Send dogs into slaughterhouses and use them to make meat? Last time I checked, animal cruelty is a bad thing.
Yes, dogs can be dangerous; so can humans, and humans cause a lot more deaths to other humans than animals. Just because a very minuscule portion of the deaths and other accidents in the world are because of something doesn't mean that something should be banned; cars, electricity, planes, and all kinds of other things that do good things of all sorts also cause the occasional death or two, but they obviously shouldn't the banned.
The fact of the matter is that oddities and isolated incidents don't justify radical, far-fetched pieces of legislation. The vast majority of dogs aren't going to seriously hurt a human in their lifetime, and getting rid of all dogs just because of a minority is almost as ridiculous as calling all Muslims terrorists because of the Jidadist minority.
Stupid idea, shouldn't be done.
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.
by Norstal » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:18 am
Olthar wrote:Now I may be a cat person, but this is jus shear insanity.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Viritica » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:18 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Fascist Russian Empire wrote:And do what with them? Kill them all? Send dogs into slaughterhouses and use them to make meat? Last time I checked, animal cruelty is a bad thing.
Yes, dogs can be dangerous; so can humans, and humans cause a lot more deaths to other humans than animals. Just because a very minuscule portion of the deaths and other accidents in the world are because of something doesn't mean that something should be banned; cars, electricity, planes, and all kinds of other things that do good things of all sorts also cause the occasional death or two, but they obviously shouldn't the banned.
The fact of the matter is that oddities and isolated incidents don't justify radical, far-fetched pieces of legislation. The vast majority of dogs aren't going to seriously hurt a human in their lifetime, and getting rid of all dogs just because of a minority is almost as ridiculous as calling all Muslims terrorists because of the Jidadist minority.
Stupid idea, shouldn't be done.
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.
by Norstal » Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:19 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Fascist Russian Empire wrote:And do what with them? Kill them all? Send dogs into slaughterhouses and use them to make meat? Last time I checked, animal cruelty is a bad thing.
Yes, dogs can be dangerous; so can humans, and humans cause a lot more deaths to other humans than animals. Just because a very minuscule portion of the deaths and other accidents in the world are because of something doesn't mean that something should be banned; cars, electricity, planes, and all kinds of other things that do good things of all sorts also cause the occasional death or two, but they obviously shouldn't the banned.
The fact of the matter is that oddities and isolated incidents don't justify radical, far-fetched pieces of legislation. The vast majority of dogs aren't going to seriously hurt a human in their lifetime, and getting rid of all dogs just because of a minority is almost as ridiculous as calling all Muslims terrorists because of the Jidadist minority.
Stupid idea, shouldn't be done.
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.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dumb Ideologies, Eahland, Elwher, Kaumudeen, Shrillland, Southland, Tarsonis, The Two Jerseys, Valrifall, Yasuragi
Advertisement