Criminalizing Pet Ownership
Pet ownership is a threat to the planet and our officers should organize a crack down on this disturbing trend. Thankfully, many of them already are, by shooting any animals that they see on sight.
Objectives of the criminalization of pet ownership:
1.) The environment. Pet ownership presents a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply. These animals ****, and that **** is carried via drainage in to our creeks and our rivers. This harms fish, it harms wild non-amphibious animals, it harms humans and it even harms the land.
Pet ownership requires the production of food, vaccines, medicines, toys, etc. This is a senseless waste of precious natural resources.
2.) Safety. An untold number of people are the victims of attacks by pet (or former pet) animals. These attacks are totally unnecessary, and they are often fatal when provoked against the elderly or small children.
3.) Health. This ties in with the safety issue. Animals are not as sanitary as human beings, even when properly groomed. They are predisposed, by nature, to harbor more bacteria and more viruses than we. Just recently an Oregonian pet owner contracted the Black Death from one of his cats. The Black Death, like rabies, staph infections and all of the other ailments associated with animals could be more effectively thwarted if we orchestrated a nation wide holocaust for pet (or former pet) animals.
4.) Public sanity. Many pet owners are childless and, for them, these animals provide for them a sense of parenthood (something that all people crave). Still, for those who aren't childless, the pets are often considered as members of the family, as if they were human beings. This emotional attachment to these worthless ****ing animals is a societal absurdity.
5.) Restoring order. Animals, particularly dogs, are disorderly and loud. This noise pollution is a source of great anger for many citizens. Killing dogs would eliminate a significant source of anger for the country.
Objectives of the criminalization of pet ownership:
1.) The environment. Pet ownership presents a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply. These animals ****, and that **** is carried via drainage in to our creeks and our rivers. This harms fish, it harms wild non-amphibious animals, it harms humans and it even harms the land.
Pet ownership requires the production of food, vaccines, medicines, toys, etc. This is a senseless waste of precious natural resources.
2.) Safety. An untold number of people are the victims of attacks by pet (or former pet) animals. These attacks are totally unnecessary, and they are often fatal when provoked against the elderly or small children.
3.) Health. This ties in with the safety issue. Animals are not as sanitary as human beings, even when properly groomed. They are predisposed, by nature, to harbor more bacteria and more viruses than we. Just recently an Oregonian pet owner contracted the Black Death from one of his cats. The Black Death, like rabies, staph infections and all of the other ailments associated with animals could be more effectively thwarted if we orchestrated a nation wide holocaust for pet (or former pet) animals.
4.) Public sanity. Many pet owners are childless and, for them, these animals provide for them a sense of parenthood (something that all people crave). Still, for those who aren't childless, the pets are often considered as members of the family, as if they were human beings. This emotional attachment to these worthless ****ing animals is a societal absurdity.
5.) Restoring order. Animals, particularly dogs, are disorderly and loud. This noise pollution is a source of great anger for many citizens. Killing dogs would eliminate a significant source of anger for the country.
(edited 10 years ago)
This is not a complex social problem that needs to be solved by PMSing and protesting in the streets. It is as simple as killing the animals.
Isn't it more fun when you make up your own controversial posts? Copying them from other forums and pasting them here can't possibly be entertaining, can it?
As for the topic, I do actually think most pets are pointless, annoying or both. But I don't like golf either. And I don't want to ban golf.
As for the topic, I do actually think most pets are pointless, annoying or both. But I don't like golf either. And I don't want to ban golf.
kill all animals i say
You're on a (t)roll with these threads.
Original post by abusername
Pet ownership is a threat to the planet and our officers should organize a crack down on this disturbing trend. Thankfully, many of them already are, by shooting any animals that they see on sight.
Objectives of the criminalization of pet ownership:
1.) The environment. Pet ownership presents a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply. These animals ****, and that **** is carried via drainage in to our creeks and our rivers. This harms fish, it harms wild non-amphibious animals, it harms humans and it even harms the land.
Pet ownership requires the production of food, vaccines, medicines, toys, etc. This is a senseless waste of precious natural resources.
2.) Safety. An untold number of people are the victims of attacks by pet (or former pet) animals. These attacks are totally unnecessary, and they are often fatal when provoked against the elderly or small children.
3.) Health. This ties in with the safety issue. Animals are not as sanitary as human beings, even when properly groomed. They are predisposed, by nature, to harbor more bacteria and more viruses than we. Just recently an Oregonian pet owner contracted the Black Death from one of his cats. The Black Death, like rabies, staph infections and all of the other ailments associated with animals could be more effectively thwarted if we orchestrated a nation wide holocaust for pet (or former pet) animals.
4.) Public sanity. Many pet owners are childless and, for them, these animals provide for them a sense of parenthood (something that all people crave). Still, for those who aren't childless, the pets are often considered as members of the family, as if they were human beings. This emotional attachment to these worthless ****ing animals is a societal absurdity.
5.) Restoring order. Animals, particularly dogs, are disorderly and loud. This noise pollution is a source of great anger for many citizens. Killing dogs would eliminate a significant source of anger for the country.
Objectives of the criminalization of pet ownership:
1.) The environment. Pet ownership presents a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply. These animals ****, and that **** is carried via drainage in to our creeks and our rivers. This harms fish, it harms wild non-amphibious animals, it harms humans and it even harms the land.
Pet ownership requires the production of food, vaccines, medicines, toys, etc. This is a senseless waste of precious natural resources.
2.) Safety. An untold number of people are the victims of attacks by pet (or former pet) animals. These attacks are totally unnecessary, and they are often fatal when provoked against the elderly or small children.
3.) Health. This ties in with the safety issue. Animals are not as sanitary as human beings, even when properly groomed. They are predisposed, by nature, to harbor more bacteria and more viruses than we. Just recently an Oregonian pet owner contracted the Black Death from one of his cats. The Black Death, like rabies, staph infections and all of the other ailments associated with animals could be more effectively thwarted if we orchestrated a nation wide holocaust for pet (or former pet) animals.
4.) Public sanity. Many pet owners are childless and, for them, these animals provide for them a sense of parenthood (something that all people crave). Still, for those who aren't childless, the pets are often considered as members of the family, as if they were human beings. This emotional attachment to these worthless ****ing animals is a societal absurdity.
5.) Restoring order. Animals, particularly dogs, are disorderly and loud. This noise pollution is a source of great anger for many citizens. Killing dogs would eliminate a significant source of anger for the country.
I would like this guy to explain why he is not a worthless ****ing animal?
Filthy American pig.
Although that is harsh on pigs.
Worthy effort, 7/10.
You could have scored higher but it was just too absurd and ultimately missed the mark.
But you did make your points concisely.
You could have scored higher but it was just too absurd and ultimately missed the mark.
But you did make your points concisely.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
