0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
motorollin wrote:And by the way, what do you think they council are going to do with the animals once they are handed in?--moto
motorollin wrote:A blanket ban on all pets in council properties would be different. But they are singling out specific breeds which they deem to be dangerous, with the only justification being that some people were attacked by members of that breed. They don't seem to have considered the upbringing of the animals in question.
motorollin wrote:It is easier to ensure the safety of others on these estates by banning the people who steal from or attack others than it it is to guarantee that council estate chav scum parents will train their children correctly.See? Why do we allow humans to behave like animals but destroy animals when they do not behave like humans?
motorollin wrote:By the way, my feelings about this are absolutely, definitely, 100% not affected by the birth of my Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppy yesterday.Oh ok, maybe a little bit :-)
Yeah, the way humans destroy each other needlessly and barbarically barely compares to the abhorrent acts which dogs carry out.
Besides, if an animal fowls the pavement, whose fault is it? The dog or the owner?
That argument makes no sense at all.
motorollin wrote:QuoteCannonFodder wrote:Animals are only useful for eating or torturing.I am very surprised that somebody who seems so intelligent in other threads would post such a thing.--moto
CannonFodder wrote:Animals are only useful for eating or torturing.
uncharted wrote:Hmmn. CannonFodder's recent posts smack of Nicholas/MDMA's attention whoring.