Profile
Search
Register
Log in
A message to "dog people": FU STFU
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11289
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Sarcastro wrote:

and the kid/dog argument is ridiculous, that shouldn't even be a serious consideration by anyone.


No, it's not serious. It relies on sociopathic arguments like "what do I care if humanity doesn't survive?" (or even, "what do I care if humanity survives another thirty years?"). It's unserious and unsophisticated. And unoriginal; Lee Edelman put it much better. I won't address it anymore in my dog thread.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:27 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
Re: A message to "dog people": FU STFU  Reply with quote  

for such an educated person as yourself icarus i find it kind of surprising you'd start a thread like this

kinda stupid no?
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Bandini
WIZARD APPRENTICE


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 4669
Location: jerk city
 Reply with quote  

we invented dogs to help us. yes, they are special. yes, they serve the greater good.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Sarcastro wrote:
I'd argue pigs are more important than dogs in this day and age. Pigs provide food, at a relatively low price, to millions of people. The majority of dogs in western society serve no other purpose than companionship. We're past the days of dogs as protectors or workers, 90% of dogs I see in the city are the size of a soccer ball and wear people clothes.



Pigs are important AS food. Dogs are important AS pets. I don't really get what you're getting at with that. We're hardly past the days of dogs as workers and protectors. Dogs are routinely employed in search and rescue missions. They help blind people get about with their day. They function as security guards in many places. They still are used for herding. It's ignorant to say just because you're a dogless city boy, that dogs aren't still being employed at a much greater level than any other animal.

And I definitely don't dismiss the companionship they bring. Dogs are very intuitive about moods, because they usually see their family as their pack, and so when you're feeling down, your dog will often come by to cheer you up, much quicker than any person will. It's hard to cry, with a dog licking your face :)


Quote:


and the kid/dog argument is ridiculous, that shouldn't even be a serious consideration by anyone.


Not really. Kids and our rules to proctect them jack up society way more than dog fighting laws do. The amount of censorship and child proofing of things that we as adults have to endure just for someone else's kids, is fairly ridiculous. Much more so than dogs.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Sarcastro



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3281
 Reply with quote  

Bandini wrote:
we invented dogs to help us. yes, they are special. yes, they serve the greater good.


they were special, they were special when we needed to herd sheep, or to keep wild animals off our land, but unless you have a fox that keeps breaking into your apartment they don't serve much of a purpose other than to have a loyal, non-speaking friend whose shit you have to pick up.

edit: ok futurist, I'll let the 5% of dogs working as rescue/police/seeing eye dogs out of this, that still leaves the rest of these city dogs that serve no real purpose.


Last edited by Sarcastro on Fri May 22, 2009 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Give an age where it's socially acceptable, to you futuristxen, to go out in public. The fun part will be that it won't change anything. If you keep kids bottled up until they're 15, 18, 21 or whatever random number you pick then you'll end up with an entire generation of people who don't know what to do in public. They'd be every bit as annoying as younger kids are in public. Only they would be fully grown. Beyond that, they would possibly be dangerous at that point being so socially inept.

When you pose this argument against children you often fall back on the same arguments made for polluting, smoking, consumption, and greed. Who cares about others, it's all about me. It's a selfish, stupid argument. Worst of all it ignores that you took advantage of the very situation that you are arguing against and there is almost no way that you would have turned out the same as you are without that. That makes it a hypocritical argument as well. Unless you were raised in your basement and never let out. In that case, I think we can all see where you're coming from and we'll know to simply ignore it.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Sarcastro wrote:
Bandini wrote:
we invented dogs to help us. yes, they are special. yes, they serve the greater good.


they were special, they were special when we needed to herd sheep, or to keep wild animals off our land, but unless you have a fox that keeps breaking into your apartment they don't serve much of a purpose other than to have a loyal, non-speaking friend whose shit you have to pick up.


Um...we still herd animals. And when you're a girl walking around by yourself at night in the city, a pit bull is a nice companion to have. I gave a much more full list of jobs dogs still serve. But in case you didn't read it, they also do search and rescue. They help blind people. They can help disabled people, and elderly people. And like I said before, the companionship they provide on top of their job functions is invaluable. Some days your dog is your only friend.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
note1



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  

Looks like Goodell is going to make Vick grovel before he comes back to the league. The NFL is sooo lame sometimes. They're so worried about image but who really cares? They have a ton of players on steroids or getting DUI's....but Michael Vick must be made to what exactly...cry in public?


Quote:

The problem is undeniable: Tracking arrests involving NFL players since 2000, a study by the San Diego Union-Tribune published last month found that 28 percent of the incidents by far the highest percentage were related to drunken driving. At least 73 players on NFL rosters during the 2008 season have been arrested on charges of driving under the influence, according to a search of published reports by Yahoo! Sports.




And just to stay on topic...dogs are great, but they have a time and place. Some people just don't know where and when to drag Fido out. Also anyone who keeps a dog in their house...has a much dirtier house than they would like to admit.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Best to keep the Vick conversation in the NFL thread, this one will go weird places.

Also, I don't think Icarus's complaint is against dog owners. It's against "dog people" which I would probably define as people who are obsessed with their dogs to the point of treating them at or above the level of children, or at least well above the level that most people treat pets.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jascha



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 3936
Location: Seoul, SK
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
it's not a bad thing.


Why is it not a bad thing?
Because eating dogs is inherantly bad, or 'revering them' is inherantly good?


And Dog is a pretty good eat actually.
Also, supposedly it's good for libido (if we're going to allow silly arguments like 'we revere dogs', we might as well throw in alternative medicin ey?).

They serve a better purpose as food than as shit-all-over-the-sdewalk-machines, bite-jascha-when-he-passes-on-his-bike-machines or as objects of domination for insecure people.


Now cats, cats are where it's at.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
Give an age where it's socially acceptable, to you futuristxen, to go out in public. The fun part will be that it won't change anything. If you keep kids bottled up until they're 15, 18, 21 or whatever random number you pick then you'll end up with an entire generation of people who don't know what to do in public. They'd be every bit as annoying as younger kids are in public. Only they would be fully grown. Beyond that, they would possibly be dangerous at that point being so socially inept.

When you pose this argument against children you often fall back on the same arguments made for polluting, smoking, consumption, and greed. Who cares about others, it's all about me. It's a selfish, stupid argument. Worst of all it ignores that you took advantage of the very situation that you are arguing against and there is almost no way that you would have turned out the same as you are without that. That makes it a hypocritical argument as well. Unless you were raised in your basement and never let out. In that case, I think we can all see where you're coming from and we'll know to simply ignore it.


22. They can come out at 22. But we have to ease them into it, like you say. Maybe a lot certain hours and certain places where they can run around free for a bit, just to get a feel for it. And then we can have some sort of judge/social worker, who discerns when they are ready to join everyone else in the grownup world.. and then presto. No more worrying about kids for the rest of us. No more curse words bleeped out on TV. No more movie ratings boards. No more childproof bottles or lighters. The libraries become quiet again. You can go to the zoo and just zen out, because there's no screaming kids running around. It'd be nice.

And parents would get to spend so much more time with their kids. Which presumably they'd like, because they just loooovvvvveeee kids.
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Cats are fucking useless as shit. They don't even serve ANY good place in society other than to destroy shit, consume, and puke it back up.

futuristxen wrote:
And parents would get to spend so much more time with their kids. Which presumably they'd like, because they just loooovvvvveeee kids.


I love my kids, I don't love anyone else's kids. I actually think that kids are annoying as fuck, and my kids annoy me too sometimes. But I can discipline and teach them. I just have to give other parents kids awful glares.

I can't think of anything more obnoxious than someone with a loud, stupid, kid ruining a social event or meal. If my kids are misbehaving in public, we go home.


Last edited by jakethesnake on Fri May 22, 2009 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
Cats are fucking useless as shit. They don't even serve ANY good place in society other than to destroy shit, consume, and puke it back up.


yes! reclusive hairballs they aree!
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Jascha wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
it's not a bad thing.


Why is it not a bad thing?
Because eating dogs is inherantly bad, or 'revering them' is inherantly good?




No, because it's fine if in one culture it's acceptable to eat dogs. I'm not trying to push my culture into theirs. But our culture, it's not acceptable. In the culture in which I preside in, dogs have a special non-food related place. And fighting them violates that place.

I'm not trying to push my culture on anyone. But if you live in this culture, it's unacceptable to fight dogs, and there are clear rules about it that you have to abide by. It's like we have speed limits which are enforced--that's just how we do. You can't come into this country and live here, and drive 100 mph and use the excuse that in your culture within the United States, it's okay to drive 100mph. Within the United States, Dog Fighting is a crime. Deal with it, and fuck off.


Last edited by futuristxen on Fri May 22, 2009 7:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

and lazy useless owners that dont maintain there cats litter boxes are fat disgusting pigs!
your house smells like shit! atleast my dog shits in the backyard!
Post Fri May 22, 2009 7:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:38 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon