»

[CannonFodder]

That argument makes no sense at all.

Animals can't herd us into abbatoirs then slit our throats, then turn us into chops and mince.

Nor can they cook us and eat us.

We are superior to them for this very reason.

We are top dog.

[motorollin]

Animals also cannot launch missiles at each other, sexually assault each other or spread hateful lies about each other.

None of this is really relevant though to the fact that certain breeds are being unfairly judged.

--
moto

[uncharted]

I know that, but as I said above a blanket ban on pets would be different. The fact is they have, quite unfairly in my opinion, selected breeds which they believe are innately violent, seemingly with no thought to the way in which the animal is brought up.

But the issue is that a number of those selected breeds are more likely to be violent. It varies between individual dogs of course, but you can't forget that dogs are bred by people for certain traits, and that they can be genetically pre-disposed those traits and behaviours. Aggressiveness is a trait like any other.

Sadly people want dogs that are aggressive, large and powerful. It's often the usual big car/penis length compensation thing. I hate to break it to you, but the reason that Staffies are so popular with chavs is not because of their playful nature.

I agree with you that this isn't the dog's fault, but that isn't the issue.

[uncharted]

motorollin wrote:
Animals also cannot...sexually assault each other...

I don't know about that, unwelcome and violent sexual advances seem to be pretty common in the animal world.

[motorollin]

uncharted wrote:
But the issue is that a number of those selected breeds are more likely to be violent. It varies between individual dogs of course, but you can't forget that dogs are bred by people for certain traits, and that they can be genetically pre-disposed those traits and behaviours. Aggressiveness is a trait like any other.

Reputable breeders breed for good temperament, not aggression.

--
moto

[cecilia]

uncharted wrote:

I don't know about that, unwelcome and violent sexual advances seem to be pretty common in the animal world.

the females know how to kick arse!

[Fade]

Motorollin there is a simple answer to your dilemma.

Ban the Councils!

They all sound like the Soup Nazi anyway

[Karlos]

CannonFodder wrote:

Animals can't herd us into abbatoirs then slit our throats, then turn us into chops and mince.

Nor can they cook us and eat us.

We are superior to them for this very reason.

We are top dog.

Any suggestion that the "top of the food chain" is occupied by any member of the animal kingdom is total and utter bollocks.

Bacteria are so far on top of the food chain that no multicellular organism gets a look in. Show me an example of just one "higher" organism that isn't eventually eaten by them. Furthermore, they break you down much further than any mincing machine ever could ;-)

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:

Any suggestion that the "top of the food chain" is occupied by any member of the animal kingdom is total and utter bollocks.

Bacteria are so far on top of the food chain that no multicellular organism gets a look in.

So by CF's logic, since bacteria are the top of the food chain, they should have rights which are equal to (or greater than) the rights of humans.

New petition: ban Domestos!!!

--
moto

[Karlos]

New petition: ban Domestos!!!

[CannonFodder]

Animals are only useful for eating or torturing.

[Karlos]

CannonFodder wrote:
Animals are only useful for eating or torturing.

I guess disability assistance, search and rescue, substances detection etc. don't count?

[uncharted]

Hmmn. CannonFodder's recent posts smack of Nicholas/MDMA's attention whoring.

[Karlos]

uncharted wrote:
Hmmn. CannonFodder's recent posts smack of Nicholas/MDMA's attention whoring.

I dunno, he was more fun.

[Karlos]

Man, I have so worn out that image.