andikay Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Should "pet" ownership be phased out. ? No :huh::huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's amazing the way that everyone's heaped abuse on the OP for suggesting this. How many of you doing that were all in favour of banning animals from circuses, for example? Is that not a fairer comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It's amazing the way that everyone's heaped abuse on the OP for suggesting this. How many of you doing that were all in favour of banning animals from circuses, for example? Is that not a fairer comparison? performing lions and elephants kept in small cages can hardly be compared with a cat that is free to roam about:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If there are no pets there can be no pet abuse. if there are no humans there can be no human abuse ... lets blow up the planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Good look on your "forward thinking" Not even Hitler came up with an idea like that. Fortunately you are only one of a kind I call Godwins Law and claim my free inflatable swastika. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 No we should phase out people havin kids they can't support or bring up in a decent manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I don't know how it would work to be honest, but i'm sick of seeing dumped pets, it's time for a change. You want to see the end of "dumped pets" by stopping people having any pets? If so, you are punishing the very people who don't create the problem in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 performing lions and elephants kept in small cages can hardly be compared with a cat that is free to roam about:loopy: And caged birds? Rodents in cages? Lizards in a vivarium? What about people who teach their dog tricks? Have one of these back yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 In my opinion, yes. We don't "need" pets, they are there for our pleasure, and pet ownership is open to abuse as we well know. i think it's time to phase this out myself, whilst they provide companionship for a lot of people the negatives outweigh the positives for me, you only have to look at the rescue situation highlighted on here. Ok, i accept, there are responsible owners who would suffer but ultimately if you care about animal welfare first it makes sense, no pets, no pet cruelty. Opinions. It seems like you're pandering to the lowest common denominator. You could change pets to cars, and then we'd have no traffic accidents, though I doubt you'd get many takers. I don't see why anyone should be prevented from having a pet that they love and care for properly because someone else doesn't and can't. The real solution here is to have severe penalties for animal abuse and cruelty, something which is sorely missing at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 If there are no pets there can be no pet abuse. By that same logic if there are no humans there can be no abuse of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.