Partially because people are selfish narcissistic cunts, and partially because being a selfish narcissistic cunt has become normalised.
dan
joined 1 year ago
Isn’t the “take it or leave it” approach to consent considered consent bundling? Didn’t google get fined for doing a similar thing?
Yet more evidence that aggressive adblocking is cyber security.
Surely those broadcasters will pull their streams (it's not like they're not already hurting), FireTV will get a reputation of having restricted access to broadcast TV, some people will live with it and some will buy a smart TV and not worry about Amazon any more..
I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.
I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.
I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).
So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.
The issue with pugs is not that they're evil or bad creatures, it's that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that's lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That's unfair on the animal.
It's like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down's syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody's saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it's that we don't think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.
Now for dogs it's a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn't very fair on those animals, but if we can't find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.
Well the black market doesn't exist because it's not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can't take outside?
My point is if you ban breeding but you don't ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.
Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.
I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.
The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.
Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.
One gold upvote costs $2, the recipient might get either $0.90 or perhaps $1. But most likely they’ll get nothing.