Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8admto wrote

Reply to comment by Yourbubblestink in Dogs in grocery stores. by Norgyort

Well, that's a problem exclusive to you. I don't think your opinion is the majority.

4

Yourbubblestink t1_j8ap457 wrote

It’s the law

0

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8atb7r wrote

But the majority doesn't give a shit.

4

Yourbubblestink t1_j8bt24o wrote

Nobody likes your dog but you.

−3

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8bxz4u wrote

You keep telling yourself that and living in a bubble of delusion. Maybe someday it'll come true. In the meantime, though, I'll be outside touching the grass and snow and getting some nice fresh air.

5

2SticksPureRage t1_j8ddr4x wrote

I probably love his dog.

4

Yourbubblestink t1_j8dg9ym wrote

Well, that’s cool because I most certainly don’t. I have my own.

1

2SticksPureRage t1_j8dkl58 wrote

Lol I feel sorry for your dogs. I definitely question if someone should be owning dogs when they just randomly hate some strangers dog that they’ve never met/don’t know.

2

Yourbubblestink t1_j8dt59a wrote

I don’t want a snout in my crotch in the cereal aisle and I don’t find it cute that your dog is in the store.

If shopping is that hard, make a human friend and bring them along.

1

[deleted] t1_j8bhrlc wrote

[deleted]

0

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8bkg1u wrote

Again, if you hate "filthy dogs" then that's a you problem, and only a you problem. A majority of people, myself included, actually do love dogs, as they can be sweet and loving animals and many of them are not 100% vicious.

Those are only a small handful of cases. That doesn't mean every dog in existence is a murder machine.

4

[deleted] t1_j8brg0l wrote

[deleted]

−2

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8c1cib wrote

> What do you mean by "again" and "you problem"?

You must not have read my response to YBS after he said he didn't want to be around "filthy dogs", so let me reiterate:

> Well, that's a problem exclusive to you. I don't think your opinion is the majority.

As for the "that's a you problem" bit: I'm of the firm belief that the majority of people enjoy the presence of dogs. There's a reason why they've been one of America's most popular pets over the years, if not the most popular pet in America. 2017 and 2018 alone had 38.4% of homes owning one, which amounts to over 48 million. I don't think that's changed all too much in 5 years, and I don't think it'll be going anywhere for many more, either.

> You're wrong. Only those in what is commonly known as "the Western World" are dog crazy. In many countries, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc., people eat dogs, and in most of Africa and the Middle East and much of Central/South America, they are considered vermin. In the US and Canada, the current dog obsession is totally dependent upon the rabies vaccine. If the vaccine suddenly became unavailable and dogs began developing rabies like they did up until around the 1960s/70s, it wouldn't take but a few cases of human rabies for the love affair with the dog to come to a shuddering halt.

...You're aware dogs descended from wolves, which have been around for millennia? I don't think the love for dogs would stop just because a couple dogs got rabies. Emphasis on "a couple" because other canine animals, like coyotes and foxes, get rabies very often (more often than dogs, I'd argue), and in Maine specifically, they are considered vermin by many. Hell, I'd extend that to the rest of the country too, why not? Haven't lived in every state but foxes and coyotes and other such animals killing people and animals isn't Maine-exclusive.

Hell, things got really close a good 15 years ago with human rabies vaccine supplies being limited, and that didn't change much in the long run.

6

[deleted] t1_j8cdzq6 wrote

[deleted]

2

Norgyort OP t1_j8e53e2 wrote

I don't think the person you're responding to is very reasonable. They say the majority of people like dogs, then two sentences later cite a source showing only 38% of households like dogs enough to own them.

2

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8cfsmq wrote

> You said, "Again, if you hate "filthy dogs" then that's a you problem. You did not say if "YBS hates filthy dogs ...."

If you have to resort to being hyper-specific and using semantics, then I'm sad to report that you have lost the argument before it even started getting off of the ground.

> If the rabies vaccine became unavailable, it would be more than "a couple of dogs" with rabies, it would be thousands.

I focused more on the "it wouldn't take but a few cases of human rabies for people to stop loving dogs" bit for that comment. "A few" cases wouldn't really cause mass panic. A whole mass of cases would definitely be cause for panic. But you underestimate homo sapiens, especially in these times...some of which would say fuck-all to rabies and keep their dogs even if they had it, as insane as it sounds.

> Those limited supplies continue in many locations, and while you might not consider close to 60,000 deaths from rabies -- one of the most horrible deaths known to man -- worldwide of any consequence, the people in those locations where the disease is rampant avoid dogs and treat them like the diseased vermin they are. If dogs in the US began developing rabies, people here would avoid them, too, and if you think otherwise, you're freaking delusional.

If they developed rabies. And they are, but it's not enough to cause crazy amounts of panic in the US specifically, let alone Maine specifically.

I can understand people avoiding rabies carriers (including dogs) in countries where the disease is rampant. But dog and dog owner culture differs in those countries vs. the US. If the CDC put out some kind of a warning that said "stay away from your pets" or "please put them in a designated location for the time being until scientists develop a rabies vaccine and it becomes available to the general public", do you really think people are going to listen? Do you really believe people would give up their dogs or, at worst, kill them so that dogs as a species would go extinct like what all the haters of dogs want? Do you really believe people have that kind of common sense to deviate from the norm and do what they're told, even if it's morally and sensibly correct to do so?

Because in my honest opinion...after the pandemic, the answer to all of those are three hard "no's" across the board. Some people need dogs as (legitimate, licensed, well-trained) ESAs because of disorders or diseases they have. Others view their dogs as their children in everything but blood relation.

Perhaps the point I'm trying to make is: if thousands of dogs got rabies and the rabies vaccine was in short supply or unavailable entirely, I don't think it would go the way you think it would go.

1

[deleted] t1_j8ch1ey wrote

[deleted]

0

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8cp2si wrote

> You confused me with YSB, but refuse to admit it.

And how am I supposed to admit to something I don't know about? I'm not arguing with myself on two accounts. Was I just supposed to correctly predict that I'm confusing you? Your train of thought makes no sense.

> You do not decide who loses the argument, and if you don't even know whom you're addressing, no one can trust anything you say.

Oh wow, my deepest apologies...I didn't know you were a celebrity/government official/other being in high authority. Jeez, talk about uneducated, huh? If you had hit me with the "don't you know who I am" business sooner, it would have saved me the embarrassment of making a fool out of myself!

> A rabid dog was brought into the US and adopted by a family in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago, and although the powerful dog lobby attempted to suppress the incident, there was widespread panic in the area and a multi-million dollar investigation ensued. It was discovered the paperwork on strays coming into the US is sometimes fraudulent and the CDC suspended the importation of dogs from in excess of 100 countries for a 12-month period.

Do you have a link to back that up, by chance? If so then I'd love to see it. Regardless of whether you have legitimate (and yes, I do mean legitimate...give me a .gov or a .org link!) proof or not, though, you lost me at "powerful dog lobby". Like that even exists. That just sounds like silly paranoid conspiracy theorist talk. Are you okay? Do we need to get you therapy? A nice long hug, maybe?

> A single dog with rabies resulted in the foregoing and you don't think thousands of dogs with rabies would generate panic? Dream on.

If -- and that's a big if -- that story is true...maybe it would cause mass panic. Maybe it wouldn't. Who's to say...especially since it won't ever happen. If you want to try and convince me otherwise, that's fine, but rabies vaccines aren't in short supply right now. We're fine. The dogs are fine. Chillax.

2

[deleted] t1_j8dado1 wrote

[deleted]

1

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8de44c wrote

> It was Yourbubblestink who sad, "I don’t want to be around some filthy dog," but you accused me of saying it. You didn't have to "predict" anything, just check your freaking comments. Are you suffering from some sort of cognitive deficit disorder?

You should be asking yourself that question, my friend. In no way did I accuse you of saying that. I was reiterating my point that I said to someone else entirely to a different person...a person who then proceeded to use cherry-picking and hyper-specificity.

If you're trying to gaslight me, it's not working, lmao.

> All it takes is a simple Google search to ascertain the "story," which you doubt, is 100 percent true. After finding an original article, a normal person would then check the CDC site. Obviously, your research kills are sadly lacking, an indication you are incapable of discussing this or any other topic.

Resorting to ad hominem now, I see. Another indicator you have lost the argument before it even started, and, as you said, "are incapable of discussing this or any other topic". After all...I'm the one who's just arguing for kicks and toying with you at this point.

But I digress. Sure, it made the news. No one panicked. Not a one. And you know why? Because we were all focused on COVID--which I'd right up there with rabies as having a high death rate. It could be argued that it's more dangerous because it can infect anyone and everyone (airborne), far moreso than rabies (only infected saliva), but mileage varies.

Priorities are straight.

> Not only this, you seem to doubt there is a "dog lobby." In the US, dogs are a multi-billion-dollar business and in addition to those who profit significantly from breeding, treating, training dogs, manufacturing food/toys/medications for dogs, etc., etc., there are numerous organizations, such as the Animal Farm Foundation and the so-called National Canine Research Council that lobby state legislatures to repeal breed-specific laws, promote no-kill shelters, etc.

And yet...and yet...you frame it like it's more dangerous than a political lobby. Sure, it has its bad aspects and dark sides (puppy mills, etc.), but from your explanation, it seems pretty tame.

1

[deleted] t1_j8dg4e7 wrote

[deleted]

1

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8dj3ss wrote

> Conceited much? Do you really think anyone reads and remembers the crap you say to other people? I don't read half what you say to me!

Says the one who pulled a "don't you know who I am" on me just a couple comments ago? Like I'm expected to know who you are? Like it's law?

If you don't read half of what you say to me, then that confirms all my suspicions about you and tells me all I need to know about my question of "why is this person drawing out this argument they'll probably laugh about in a decade or so from now?"

Really, what is your endgame here? Are you trying to spoonfeed me r/dogfree philosophy in the hopes I'll become anti-dog or something? I'm genuinely curious.

> Are you for real? A lot of people panicked, including those employed by the CDC. And not only did the family who adopted the fleabag panic, they had to take the rabies shots and said they would never, ever adopt another dog. Everyone who cane into contact with the diseased mutt had to take the shots and when it happened, some rescue workers refused to interact with animals from other countries.

Where does it say they wouldn't adopt another dog in the Forbes article? Or in the two articles within that article? That sounds more like "If I were in this person's shoes..." to me.

In addition, where does it say rescue workers refused to interact with animals that came from other countries in any of those three articles?

> What's with the repetition and italics? Repealing breed-specific laws allows pit bulls and other dangerous dogs in communities where most people do not want them, and no-kill shelters is flooding the country with dangerous dogs. Numerous people have been attacked by newly-adopted fleabags, and some have been killed.

Well now I have confirmation that you're of the "every dog is disgusting and I wish them all a very get fucked and die" variety. So thank you. I wasn't quite sure. I had just a tiny sliver of hope that was mercilessly shot and left to die.

The use of "fleabag" says a lot on its own, as well--it's like "crotch goblin" but for dogs--but still.

Not every dog in a no-kill shelter is dangerous, and I can attest to that with personal experience. Similarly, the only "breed-specific" law that has ever been passed in the United States is for pitbulls. No other dog that, say, is ranked on a list of most aggressive breeds--just. Pitbulls. That's why people involved in dog owner culture give said laws such grief when they are enacted: because they view it as discriminatory. Ban one (supposedly) aggressive breed, you have to ban the rest of 'em, or ban any dog that bites a person even if it's just a nip of the finger, etcetera.

1

[deleted] t1_j8dm0v1 wrote

[deleted]

1

DidDunMegasploded t1_j8dpqva wrote

> You're a bold-faced liar! I said, "... if you don't even know whom you're addressing, no one can trust anything you say." If you weren't a total dunce, you would know I was referring to your confusing Yourbubblestink and me.

And again, I will ask: how was I supposed to know that? You act like we share a brain when we most certainly do not. Likewise, you also act like YBS and you both share a brain when I'm 95% sure you two are completely different people--he hasn't said a thing about being confused as to whom I'm addressing. You have. He has not. Why are you speaking on his behalf?

I know whom I'm addressing. I spent all of one millisecond looking at your username. And I know the usernames of a lot of regulars of this subreddit. YBS is one of them.

> It says I despise dogs. With the exception of working animals, dogs today are superfluous. In addition to being of no use whatsoever, they are the serial killers and mass murderers of the animal kingdom because they chase down and kill livestock and wildlife animals purely for sport. But their destructiveness doesn't stop there: dog waste destroys grass and everything else it touches, then washes into bodies of water and destroys marine life.

The serial killers and the mass murderers of the entire animal kingdom? Oh God...I feel ashamed to say this got me because I'm a big sucker for stupidity as a form of comedy, but that's just absurd. Nearly busted a lung with that one!

There are many animals that are far higher up in the food chain than dogs. Many who would kill and eat dogs if given the chance. Sure, the problems you mentioned are an issue, but there are animals in the world that are far more of a threat that people are more concerned about than an animal that is generally friendly and is often kept as a pet because that's how history and evolution works. You're making Mount Everest out of a molehill.

1

leseulloupgris88 t1_j8fyrgr wrote

Pit bulls actually pass the temperament test with a score much higher than most dogs. But of course if you weren't so happy in your ignorance you'd know this fact. It's not a dogs fault if its owner is a piece of shit.

2

SarahDrish t1_j8g3pp0 wrote

>Pit bulls actually pass the temperament test with a score much higher than most dogs. But of course if you weren't so happy in your ignorance you'd know this fact. It's not a dogs fault if its owner is a piece of shit.

The test you're talking about, the ATTS, was created in 1977 by Alfons Ertel, a printer, not an animal behaviorist. He was into schutzhund and created the test to evaluate German shepherds for their suitability as guard dogs. The test favors bold, assertive dogs that aren’t easily intimidated: timid dogs, such as Collies, do not do well on the test, while aggressive dogs, such as pit bulls, do exceptionally well.

Most pit bulls that attack and kill family members -- usually children or the elderly -- were raised from puppies and treated well all their lives. A good example is the two pit bulls that killed the children of pit nutters Colby and Kirstie Bennard in Tennessee last October. The Bennards referred to the monsters as their "house lions" and in one of his Facebook comments, Colby Bennard wrote, “I can assure you, nobody will take Cheech and Mia from myself and Kirstie Jane Satterfield. Ignorance is no excuse to take so many 'best friends' out of this world.” (Bennard apparently had a change of heart because the day after his beloved “pitties” literally ripped his two children to shreds, both dogs were euthanized.)

1

leseulloupgris88 t1_j8g554e wrote

I doubt you've known many pit bulls if you classify them as aggressive. Every pit bull I've had or known has been super gentle.

0

SarahDrish t1_j8h86b0 wrote

>I doubt you've known many pit bulls if you classify them as aggressive. Every pit bull I've had or known has been super gentle.

I grew up in a rural area where people had watchdogs, and some of our watchdogs were pit bulls, so I've probably "known" more pit bulls than you have. Just because a dog is "super gentle" most of the time doesn't mean it isn't aggressive in a confrontational situation or when its instinctual prey drive kicks in. Most pit bulls used for fighting are gentle outside the fighting pit. The two pit bulls that killed the Bennard children were super gentle until the day they decided to kill the kids.

2