Jump to content

Unpopular opinions.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, milton75 said:

I have no idea if this is a popular or unpopular opinion, but it seems like the right time for it.

Owning a pedigree dog is a venal and often cruel practice. It enables weirdos on puppy farms, and most of the time it's merely to satisfy the trite and vain proclivities of the owner.
If the dog is there to fulfill a specific function that its breed is best designed for then it at least serves a purpose; sheepdog, police sniffer dog, etc. If, on the other hand, it's just that a "dog lover" wanted a pure-breed Alsatian or English Bulldog, in the full knowledge that they would be very likely to have significant (and often ultimately fatal, courtesy of a vet's needle) health issues, then it's gross and really speaks ill of us as a species. 

I'm pretty sure that purebred English bulldogs can't be born naturally, they are all delivered via c-section.

I mean most dogs are bred now for characteristics, it's just the extent that it's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

I'm pretty sure that purebred English bulldogs can't be born naturally, they are all delivered via c-section.

I mean most dogs are bred now for characteristics, it's just the extent that it's done.

Lots of those characteristics are nice, e.g. I love the way Alsatians look. I wouldn't get one though; I don't want a dog that in all likelihood I'll have to put down aged 10 because it's back hips are fucked due to warped genetic meddling. And it's not just the bit where it dies - the months/years before where arthritis kicks in is just unnecessarily cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stormzy said:

The whole crowd joined in. Every man there, everyone patted me on the back afterwards too and the whole class was laughing. 

A few years ago did you throw your phone in disgust and was shocked when a Celtic fan in the other stand caught it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

This might be a dumb question. Why clip their ears? 

So the other dog has nothing to grab onto when they're fighting. And it makes them look scary, which appeals to a certain type of inadequate men.

 

Edited by Shotgun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shotgun said:

So the other dog has nothing to grab onto when their fighting. And it makes them look scary, which appeals to a certain type of inadequate men.

 

Dog fighting. And vanity. What an absolutely despicable horrible c**t. 

Tavernier that is, not you Shotgun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article talking about the recent rise in ear cropping (which is illegal, btw) believed to be, in part at least, driven by dickheads like Tavernier and other celebrities posting pictures of their mutilated dogs on social media. 

Barbaric mutilation - the rise in ear cropped dogs

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

What an absolutely despicable horrible c**t. 

Tavernier that is, not you Shotgun. 

Appreciate the clarification. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Not sure me posting a picture of a dog abuser warrants a red dot but there we go.

The way some of you long term posters feels so assaulted when you get a red dot is quite sad tbh, you don't need to publically announce it as if you're a victim. I disliked the post because it's emotive nonsense aimed at someone I like. @TAFKAM posted a sneaky white lie and you've doubled down on it in a performative manner imo. In future I can perhaps submit full break downs of my future likes and dislikes via DM? 

12 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Dog fighting. And vanity. What an absolutely despicable horrible c**t. 

Tavernier that is, not you Shotgun. 

Tavernier sells them on, there's certainly an argument to be made about the ethics of being involved in the trade and I'm sure you could make a compelling argument that selling on dogs that have already had their ears clipped supports this market and therefore is cunty behaviour but it's still a couple of large steps away from actually clipping the dogs ears and "dog fighting" which you'd have to be pretty naive to think Tavernier actually partakes in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

The way some of you long term posters feels so assaulted when you get a red dot is quite sad tbh, you don't need to publically announce it as if you're a victim. I disliked the post because it's emotive nonsense aimed at someone I like. @TAFKAM posted a sneaky white lie and you've doubled down on it in a performative manner imo. In future I can perhaps submit full break downs of my future likes and dislikes via DM? 

Tavernier sells them on, there's certainly an argument to be made about the ethics of being involved in the trade and I'm sure you could make a compelling argument that selling on dogs that have already had their ears clipped supports this market and therefore is cunty behaviour but it's still a couple of large steps away from actually clipping the dogs ears and "dog fighting" which you'd have to be pretty naive to think Tavernier actually partakes in. 

Of course he doesn't partake. It's dog v dog, numbnuts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Of course he doesn't partake. It's dog v dog, numbnuts. 

 

I'll take this one to the forum courts of pedantry. "Partake" was perfectly acceptable unless you were making a funny in which case I apologise for killing that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New low for Stormzy here, would've thought falling head over heel to defend a guy battering his girlfriend the limit but we can now extend that to disfiguring dogs is sound if you're a Rangers player.
Not sure its lower than his recent belittling of someones mental health problems because they play for Celtic but it must be close.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Well, he's allegedly selling dogs with mutilated ears as a business. So even if he isn't personally taking the loppers to them; he's still promoting the barbarity. Ergo, he's a c**t.

 

There you go. Well articulated. 

3 minutes ago, Empty It said:

New low for Stormzy here, would've thought falling head over heel to defend a guy battering his girlfriend the limit but we can now extend that to disfiguring dogs is sound if you're a Rangers player.

Oooft. That's an impressively snakey post. 

For clarity, not that I should need to say this but I've never defended anyone battering their girlfriend. Nor have I defended disfiguring dogs.. it seems purposeful poor comprehension has struck again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:
6 minutes ago, Empty It said:
New low for Stormzy here, would've thought falling head over heel to defend a guy battering his girlfriend the limit but we can now extend that to disfiguring dogs is sound if you're a Rangers player.

Not sure its lower than his recent belittling of someones mental health problems because they play for Celtic but it must be close.

Ahahah disbelieving Leigh Griffiths stories about mental health isn't exactly "belittling someone's mental health problems because they play for Celtc". 

I'd do the same no matter who he played for because that's not the point, again you probably know this isn't the point but due to your neeky playground level of banter think that false accusations over such issues is good patter. You're a top top man so you are. 

"Enjoy your night m9"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...