PDA

View Full Version : Homeless people should not be able to have dogs.



Smith
05-12-2005, 07:59 PM
Now i dont care what you guys think, or how mean this sounds but homeless people shouldnt be able to own dogs.

I was in toronto for a school trip today, and our teachers tell us to go wonder for a few hours. So im walking down queen street (by the much music building) and i see this homeless guy. So i just walk past him and i only have 5$ and thats for lunch. So we walk past him and my friends all go "awwwwww" turns out he has this poor little bull mastif pup. The things no bigger than a foot tall. At that age puppies need the propper nutrition and care, and a homeless guy cant give that. Its cold outside.

Now i know these people need a friend, but its just not fair for the puppy. But this dog should be with a family that can buy him food, clean water, toys and shelter.

Seing all thse homeless people really got to me, i tried to give everyone of them money but i ran out. I ended up giving out cupons for subway. I friggin hate toronto now. :cry:

99%
05-12-2005, 08:18 PM
That beggar probably takes better care than alot of "normal" people.
Some humans should be shot for what they do to dogs.
I will not elaborate on things ive seen.

NikkiD
05-12-2005, 08:26 PM
Now i dont care what you guys think, or how mean this sounds but homeless people shouldnt be able to own dogs.

I was in toronto for a school trip today, and our teachers tell us to go wonder for a few hours. So im walking down queen street (by the much music building) and i see this homeless guy. So i just walk past him and i only have 5$ and thats for lunch. So we walk past him and my friends all go "awwwwww" turns out he has this poor little bull mastif pup. The things no bigger than a foot tall. At that age puppies need the propper nutrition and care, and a homeless guy cant give that. Its cold outside.

Now i know these people need a friend, but its just not fair for the puppy. But this dog should be with a family that can buy him food, clean water, toys and shelter.

Seing all thse homeless people really got to me, i tried to give everyone of them money but i ran out. I ended up giving out cupons for subway. I friggin hate toronto now. :cry:

I don't know, animals need love, and I'm sure they do get it. I wouldn't be surprised if they get treated better than the average household pet.

As far as it getting to you, this might sound a bit harsh, but when you live there, and see it every day, you become almost oblivious to it. Thick skin and all that.

Smith
05-12-2005, 08:30 PM
Im sure they do love them, but they are not getting the physical care they need.

manker
05-12-2005, 08:49 PM
You gotta ask yourself what the dog would get if he wasn't with the homeless person. They normally pick up with stray dogs who don't have a home anyway, it's not like the dog's got anywhere else to go.

Here the dog would normally get picked up by the authorities and given a certain amount of time for a new owner to come get him. If this doesn't happen then the dog is normally humanely killed. There are organisations which don't do this but in the main the dog's going to be put down.

I don't reckon it would bother a dog that much being outside, a human is much less prepared for cold weather. Plus the homeless guy is with the dog 24 hours a day, presumably giving him love and attention - if not much food. Maybe it's better than the alternative.

JPaul
05-12-2005, 08:55 PM
FFS is this a wind up.

You see a homeless person and you're biggest concern is whether the dog is properly looked after.

Stop feckin' anthropomorphizing, it's a dog. It needs food, water and exercise. If it doesn't get the proper food, tough. It's unlikely that the homeless person gets a proper diet either. Loads of animals don't get a proper diet. Loads of humans die every day from starvation, or disease.

In fact, here's an idea, let him eat the dog. Good meal for him and the dog out of it's misery.

Pish like this really gets my goat.

Person > Dog.

JPaul
05-12-2005, 08:57 PM
Manchild,

I think we were replying at roughly the same time.

I may have been a tad more harsh than thou.

manker
05-12-2005, 09:05 PM
Manchild,

I think we were replying at roughly the same time.

I may have been a tad more harsh than thou.:lol: :D

Damn, my benevolence for the day - squished.

bigboab
05-12-2005, 09:17 PM
The reason the dog is there is so that you will say 'Awe the shame' and donate money. It is just a prop. If it does not earn enough it will go the same way as a lot of greyhounds and pigeons that dont earn enough. It will be replaced with another 'cuddly' wee thing.

GepperRankins
05-12-2005, 09:21 PM
FFS is this a wind up.

You see a homeless person and you're biggest concern is whether the dog is properly looked after.

Stop feckin' anthropomorphizing, it's a dog. It needs food, water and exercise. If it doesn't get the proper food, tough. It's unlikely that the homeless person gets a proper diet either. Loads of animals don't get a proper diet. Loads of humans die every day from starvation, or disease.

In fact, here's an idea, let him eat the dog. Good meal for him and the dog out of it's misery.

Pish like this really gets my goat.

Person > Dog.
they could share your goat :ermm:


anyway, i reckon a dog has no qualms about eating food off the pavement. they probably have the same or better diet eating scraps all day than the balls and bones you get in a tin of dog food

manker
05-12-2005, 09:24 PM
Also, t'beggars get an extra allowance of something like £8 per week if they are responsible for a pet. I really don't understand how this allowance works, or even if it still exists, but I rather suspect it gets spent on Tennants Super instead of Winalot Beef 'n' Tripe.

If people weren't such gits, the Welfare State would be more easily defensible.

bigboab
05-12-2005, 09:44 PM
If people weren't such gits, the Welfare State would be more easily defensible.

We cant all be super intelligent. Stealing from the poor. Hold on a minute till I get my other foot back in the double sock. I was kicking the 'puter when I read your thread. :angry:

manker
05-12-2005, 09:59 PM
Eh what :huh:

So have you got a Big Slipper™ - I thought Billy Connelly was kidding about that :lol:

bigboab
05-12-2005, 10:04 PM
Eh what :huh:

So have you got a Big Slipper™ - I thought Billy Connelly was kidding about that :lol:

When you reach a certain age(soon for you :rolleyes: ) all these weird catalogues start coming through the letter box. The big slipper, the wrap around glasses, etc. Some of them are hilarious. My father-in-law(89), sends away for all this stuff. He tries it out, then hands it out to somebody for their Xmas present. :lol: :lol:

Biggles
05-12-2005, 10:08 PM
I don't know why but when I saw the thread I thought it was going to say Homless people shouldn't able to decorate. :blink:

I recall an old busker who had a rather beautiful white alastian. However, they clearly adored each other and the dog was almost certainly his best friend. I know some people gave him cans of dog food so I guess his dog ate ok. I think it would be a hard hearted person (or JP :whistling ) that would have taken his dog from him.

However, I have seen the drug addict attached to a dog by a piece of string syndrome and I believe Manker is right in that there used to be some kind of additional benefit attached to owning a dog. Somehow after a couple of years of Blunkett as Home Secretary I doubt if this is still the case (unless the benefit is five minutes on the wrong end of a stun gun).

GepperRankins
05-12-2005, 10:11 PM
free dog food. why wouldn't david blunkett go for that?

manker
05-12-2005, 10:13 PM
free dog food. why wouldn't david blunkett go for that?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Biggles
05-12-2005, 10:15 PM
free dog food. why wouldn't david blunkett go for that?

:ph34r: :lol:

bigboab
05-12-2005, 10:17 PM
I think I am going to end up begging.:( I am definately going senile. I was in a shop today(XS Irvine). There was an assistant was stacking books on a table. I turned to the wife and said what is dnos? 'She said it is soup you silly bugger. You are reading the book upside down'.:lol:

GepperRankins
05-12-2005, 10:24 PM
I think I am going to end up begging.:( I am definately going senile. I was in a shop today(XS Irvine). There was an assistant was stacking books on a table. I turned to the wife and said what is dnos? 'She said it is soup you silly bugger. You are reading the book upside down'.:lol:
http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/glag.gif

IronRanger
05-15-2005, 03:30 AM
They normally pick up with stray dogs who don't have a home anyway

That about sums it up. I doubt a homeless man will go to an animal shelter and pick out a pooch (or other animal), nor do I believe most people would allow him to adopt a pet from their homes.

Strays for strays.

Yoga
05-15-2005, 05:24 AM
The easy way to do it is to euthanize both of them. Carbon Monoxide seems to work will.

Yoga
05-15-2005, 05:27 AM
I remember reading a report on why the local humane society was selling euthanized dogs to be rendered and processed to make animal feed. They said it was cleaner than cremating them.

Busyman
05-15-2005, 06:18 AM
FFS is this a wind up.

You see a homeless person and you're biggest concern is whether the dog is properly looked after.

Stop feckin' anthropomorphizing, it's a dog. It needs food, water and exercise. If it doesn't get the proper food, tough. It's unlikely that the homeless person gets a proper diet either. Loads of animals don't get a proper diet. Loads of humans die every day from starvation, or disease.

In fact, here's an idea, let him eat the dog. Good meal for him and the dog out of it's misery.

Pish like this really gets my goat.

Person > Dog.
;)
I started reading this thread and got to JP's post and basically it could just stop right there.

Many folks on here got their priorities mixed up.


If you think animals are the same as humans

:angry: :01: STFU!!! and GTFO!!! :01: :angry:


...and fight for something worthwile. We eat them. They provide clothing. They are used in medical research.....to help YOU. They have no rights. If someone is beating the shit out of a dog, they need to be delt with surely but otherwise go get a life. Your children's medication was probably developed through animal research first so don't get all PETA or ALF on folks.

(sorry guys I just saw the beginning of 28 Days Later again) :D

vidcc
05-15-2005, 03:36 PM
I don't think that because there are worse things in the world that we should ignore lesser things. If the Canuk is bothered by animal welfare that is his prerogative. it doesn't mean he is untouched by the plight of the homeless person.

Most intelligent people can multitask when it comes to opinions.

bigboab
05-15-2005, 04:17 PM
Most intelligent people can multitask when it comes to opinions.
My thoughts exactly.:)

JPaul
05-15-2005, 07:16 PM
Most intelligent people can multitask when it comes to opinions.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

hobbes
05-15-2005, 08:06 PM
The reason the dog is there is so that you will say 'Awe the shame' and donate money. It is just a prop. If it does not earn enough it will go the same way as a lot of greyhounds and pigeons that dont earn enough. It will be replaced with another 'cuddly' wee thing.

That is the point, and that is why the Canuk was instinctively upset, and I agree with him.

I'm a bit unclear why this got peoples goat. It could be that this man, who cares not to provide for himself, will care to provide for his new friend because he loves dogs, but that's a little bit unrealistic.

Unrealistic given the fact that he has a fighting dog. One that probably came from a mother bred for fighters and one that will probably return to ring when it's cuteness is gone and it's presence starts to scare people. Or maybe he'll just be let "free" to fend for himself in the greater Toronto area.

One thing is for sure, a new pup will be aquired for the next begging season.

Acquiring a pet is a responsibility to provide for the life of the animal. In the US many ducks are bred to produce Easter ducklings which people buy in droves because they are cute. Average ownership time< 6 months.

The whole thing is a vicious cycle. It creates excess animals which go on to die from disease, sarvation, neglect, or euthanasia (if they are lucky). I say kick that guy in the balls.

BTW, don't give them a cent, ever. Being homeless is a lifestyle choice and you keep it a viable option by donating your money. No money? You will be amazed at their resourcefulness when push comes to shove.

hobbes
05-15-2005, 08:18 PM
I don't know why but when I saw the thread I thought it was going to say Homless people shouldn't able to decorate. :blink:

I recall an old busker who had a rather beautiful white alastian. However, they clearly adored each other and the dog was almost certainly his best friend. I know some people gave him cans of dog food so I guess his dog ate ok. I think it would be a hard hearted person (or JP :whistling ) that would have taken his dog from him.


I don't think the Canuk really wants laws to prevent homeless people from having pets. I think he was emotionally responding to the likely exploitation of the puppy and it's eventual harsh demise.

The animal protection enforcers look at each case and judge removal of the animal from it's owner on the merits of that case.

There was a guy who had 6 dogs and who lived in a van. The van was for shit but the dogs were in perfect health. He had mutts, not a breeds. He also did not beg.

Other cases show that people in nice houses were neglecting their pets. One poor dog was immobilized because if extensive knotting of the hair, which they couldn't be bothered to get cut away. That dog was removed from the home.

Busyman
05-15-2005, 09:21 PM
I don't think that because there are worse things in the world that we should ignore lesser things. If the Canuk is bothered by animal welfare that is his prerogative. it doesn't mean he is untouched by the plight of the homeless person.

Most intelligent people can multitask when it comes to opinions.
Most people don't though.

No one said ignore lesser issues but when someone brings up something that I more or less consider bullshit in the scheme of things then I am going to let loose my opinion. Whether or not a homeless person has a pet isn't even a blip on the radar to me.

Most people fighting for animal rights are fighting for the one's that are "cute" and they are full of shit.

People from PETA concentrate so much effort into animal rights that they loose sight of what is important in the scheme of things.

I have no wish for animals to be mistreated. However, many animals that don't get adopted get put to sleep.

A homeless person with a furry friend isn't that much of issue. Most of the homeless that I see on the street don't want to work, are on drugs, and/or are mentally unstable.

A bigger issue for me is unemployment of those that want to work and/or are struggling to feed their kids. I say leave the homeless fella be with his pet and if it's an issue for a passerby, STFU. take the pet from him/her and adopt it themselves. :dry:

bigboab
05-15-2005, 09:34 PM
I think we are only a couple of posts away from putting the homeless to sleep.:(

Busyman
05-15-2005, 10:22 PM
I think we are only a couple of posts away from putting the homeless to sleep.:(
Apparently for some, as long as the dog is safe, all's well. :dry:

bigboab
05-15-2005, 10:53 PM
Apparently for some, as long as the dog is safe, all's well. :dry:

They should just give it some dog biscuits.:)

hobbes
05-15-2005, 11:49 PM
Apparently for some, as long as the dog is safe, all's well. :dry:

Obviously the post is not about putting the welfare of the dog above a human.

The point, if anyone can comprehend it, is about humans, who will ultimately betray the trust and well being of the dog, as it no longer brings in the cash, doing so with no regard for the dog and perpetuating a vicious cycle of over population.

The cute puppy can either be tossed in the trash or used to earn money in the illegal world of dog fights.

The initial poster is just a kid, his post was a classic way to draw the opposite opinion, but his instinctive response that this situation is not a healthy one is correct.

People who chose to be homeless, do just that.

People who electively adopt an animal should be required to take care of for it's life and not exploit it for it's money grabbing capability because of youthful cuteness.

This is not about man>animal, this is about elective animal abuse.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:08 AM
Obviously the post is not about putting the welfare of the dog above a human.

The point, if anyone can comprehend it, is about humans, who will ultimately betray the trust and well being of the dog, as it no longer brings in the cash, doing so with no regard for the dog and perpetuating a vicious cycle of over population.

The cute puppy can either be tossed in the trash or used to earn money in the illegal world of dog fights.

The initial poster is just a kid, his post was a classic way to draw the opposite opinion, but his instinctive response that this situation is not a healthy one is correct.

People who chose to be homeless, do just that.

People who electively adopt an animal should be required to take care of for it's life and not exploit it for it's money grabbing capability because of youthful cuteness.

This is not about man>animal, this is about elective animal abuse.
The initial post was about homeless people owning animals and not possibly taking care of them, nothing more.

You brought up exploitation. Dogs need attention and food. I've seen homeless give them food out of the trash.

I will not say a homeless person can't have a dog. Leave them be and don't give them money if you so chose not to.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:12 AM
The initial post was about homeless people owning animals and not possibly taking care of them, nothing more.

You brought up exploitation. Dogs need attention and food. I've seen homeless give them food out of the trash.

I will not say a homeless person can't have a dog. Leave them be and don't give them money if you so chose not to.

So you haven't read a word I've said.

Fantastic!

Read all the posts, read between the words to the meaning.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:35 AM
So you haven't read a word I've said.

Fantastic!

Read all the posts, read between the words to the meaning.
Of course I read.

The poster's main focus was the welfare of the dog.

I read your stuff about dog fights and exploitation which was not what Canuk was talking about.

All homeless people that have pet are not necessarily exploiting them so I disagree with Canuk's thread title.

Pretty simple.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:40 AM
Of course I read.

The poster's main focus was the welfare of the dog.

I read your stuff about dog fights and exploitation which was not what Canuk was talking about.

All homeless people that have are not necessarily exploiting them so I disagree with Canuk's thread title.

Pretty simple.


No, most homeless people do exactly that.

It is completely logical.

Phase 1: cuteness
Phase 2: money from fights (you did note that is was a fighting dog, right)



How is this not so completely obvious,

it is not like we are talking about a mutt.

You think that this man will have this dog 5 years from now, are you that clueless?

You are a victim of missing the meaning of his words, as I clearly pointed out.

Rick Phlegm
05-16-2005, 12:47 AM
You'd be surprised at how well some of them are looked after. Saw a documentary on TV a while ago where one homeless guy would buy his dog food before making sure he could feed himself.

And Manker's got a point as well. Most of them were strays beforehand so they're getting cared for to a fashion as well as dog and man providing companionship for each other.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:49 AM
You'd be surprised at how well some of them are looked after. Saw a documentary on TV a while ago where one homeless guy would buy his dog food before making sure he could feed himself.

And Manker's got a point as well. Most of them were strays beforehand so they're getting cared for to a fashion as well as dog and man providing companionship for each other.

Also known as: letting the exception represent the norm. I mean, I completely explained this, Do you peole actually read anything other than what you post. fuck

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:49 AM
No, most homeless people do exactly that.

It is completely logical.

Phase 1: cuteness
Phase 2: money from fights (you did note that is was a fighting dog, right)



How is this not so completely obvious,

it is not like we are talking about a mutt.

You think that this man will have thios dog 5 years from now, are you that clueless?

You are a victim of missing the meaning to his words, as I clearly pointed out.
You read again.

Canuk even mentioned that he knows homeless folk need a friend but they will not be able to properly care the dog.

You mentioning the possiblity of exploitation is another matter. That blanket statement does not apply to all homeless people. I've seen the few homeless folk with pets end up selling it after a while.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:50 AM
Also known as: letting the exception represent the norm.
Also known as: Your blanket statement is not correct. :dry:

Rick Phlegm
05-16-2005, 12:50 AM
Also known as: letting the exception represent the norm.
Good point, it was just one guy right enough. But like I say, I'm sure they value the companionship more than any other way they could exploit the dog.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:53 AM
Good point, it was just one guy right enough. But like I say, I'm sure they value the companionship more than any other way they could exploit the dog.


So you haven't read a word I've said.

Just another poorly informed. piece of shit post.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:54 AM
So you haven't read a word I've said.

Just another poorly informed. piece of shit post.
You're right. He disagrees so he's wrong.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:55 AM
Also known as: Your blanket statement is not correct. :dry:


if you read my posts, you can easily understand how I translate his crude emotion into a logical opinion.

Why do you need it to be so concrete.

You cannot understand what he is saying?

hobbes
05-16-2005, 12:58 AM
You're right. He disagrees so he's wrong.

He is wrong because he has not read what I am saying.

That is not so hard.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:59 AM
if you read my posts, you can easily understand how I translate his crude emotion into a logical opinoion.

Why do you need it to be so concrete.

You cannot understand what he is saying?
Oh no I get why you say what you say.

It had $5 in the post and the dog was a mastif.

As I say, read Canuk's post again. I doubt all the homeless folks had pets yet he gave money.

The exploitation was mentioned by you.

Rick Phlegm
05-16-2005, 01:00 AM
if you read my posts, you can easily understand how I translate his crude emotion into a logical opinion.

Why do you need it to be so concrete.

You cannot understand what he is saying?
This is a discussion thread, not a private post directed at you. If you don't like what I say then stfu and keep it to yourself because I will not be flamed just because I dared to speak in between some private argument you're having with the rest of the world. :dry:

It's my opinion. Nothing more.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 01:03 AM
He is wrong because he has not read what I am saying.

That is not so hard.
Good lord man, everyone got what you said.

They are exploiting the cuteness factor and using the dog for fights to gain money.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT ASCERTION AS A BLANKET STATEMENT. DUH!!! :1eye:

hobbes
05-16-2005, 01:05 AM
This is a discussion thread, not a private post directed at you. If you don't like what I say then stfu and keep it to yourself because I will not be flamed just because I dared to speak in between some private argument you're having with the rest of the world. :dry:

It's my opinion. Nothing more.

I don't give a fuck about your stupid opinion.

I just want you people to understand that literal words can have a different abstract meaning.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 01:06 AM
Good lord man, everyone got what you said.

They are exploiting the cuteness factor and using the dog for fights to gain money.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT ASCERTION AS A BLANKET STATEMENT. DUH!!! :1eye:

And, I CLEARLY stated that already. Read all the FUCKING posts before you babble like you have. SHIT.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 01:16 AM
And, I CLEARLY stated that already. Read all the FUCKING posts before you babble like you have. SHIT.
I have. :wacko:

You gleaned something from Canuk's post that I did not.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 01:18 AM
I have. :wacko:

Then you need to work on "understanding"

Sometimes the literal meaning does not convey the concept

Exactly, I gleaned why he was upset, being that he is 16. This was COMPLETELY explained before.

lynx
05-16-2005, 01:25 AM
Seems you've all missed the real point.

The dog is homeless.

Should a homeless dog be allowed to have humans?

Busyman
05-16-2005, 01:46 AM
Then you need to work on "understanding"

Sometimes the literal meaning does not convey the concept

Exactly, I gleaned why he was upset, being that he is 16.

.......but homeless people shouldnt be able to own dogs.

.....At that age puppies need the propper nutrition and care, and a homeless guy cant give that. Its cold outside.

Now i know these people need a friend, but its just not fair for the puppy. But this dog should be with a family that can buy him food, clean water, toys and shelter.

Oh yeah....I got it.

You need to understand that your understanding ain't everyone else's and understand that what was being conveyed juuuuust might not be what you think.

It's very simple. He thinks that the dog is not being taken care of properly and should be with someone that can do it. I agree with him to an extent. However, it's more a non-issue to me especially since it's rare that I see such a thing and the one's that I have seen were being taken care of and seemed to provide companionship to the homeless fella.

The conveyed concept is what you got from it or very simply something you made up to fit a chance happening that you probably have never seen. :dry:

JPaul
05-16-2005, 08:55 AM
I don't give a fuck about your stupid opinion.

I just want you people to understand that literal words can have a different abstract meaning.
It is fortunate that you, as universal arbiter came along to explain what was actually meant. Some of us just read the words and take them to mean what they say. I was not previously aware that The Canuk worked thro' subtle allusion. I will watch for that forthwith.

Oh and "being homeless is a lifestyle choice" is not only a sweeping generalization, it is also offensive to the many people who are homeless thro' circumstances outwith their control and to the people who try to look after them. The fact that you (plural) only see the aggresive "homeless" does not mean that they are the only ones. Feck I wouldn't be surprised if most of your "homeless" had a home.

Please let me know if there is anything between the lines there. I have tried to convey no more than what the words actually say.

sArA
05-16-2005, 09:33 AM
Hobbes...please clear out your pm box......

and kindly refrain from flaming people just because they don't happen to have the same 'take' on things as you. An opinion is fine and a forceful rebuttal is also fine, but name calling is a sign of bad temper and lack of ability to articulate without recourse to insult....tsk tsk hobbes....I would have hoped for better from you....

Busyman
05-16-2005, 12:19 PM
Hobbes...please clear out your pm box......

and kindly refrain from flaming people just because they don't happen to have the same 'take' on things as you. An opinion is fine and a forceful rebuttal is also fine, but name calling is a sign of bad temper and lack of ability to articulate without recourse to insult....tsk tsk hobbes....I would have hoped for better from you....
In a slight defense, I don't think he called names but the flaming was there.

Notice I didn't call him a dipshit. There was a reason for that....you know...my not calling him a dipshit.

hobbes pm box is alot lot like mine it seems.
It needs a cleanin'.

Tikibonbon
05-16-2005, 12:54 PM
I like puppies.....

JPaul
05-16-2005, 12:55 PM
I like puppies.....
Fried or boiled.

Tikibonbon
05-16-2005, 01:00 PM
Fried or boiled.

Grilled of course, with some potatoes, squash, carrots and whatnot surrounding it.

manker
05-16-2005, 01:04 PM
squashOrange or Blackcurrant.

Don't tell me you're a Lemon Barley aficionado :pinch:

Tikibonbon
05-16-2005, 01:13 PM
Cucumber squash of course.

hobbes
05-16-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm all better now, I took me medication. :P

Seriously, I apologise for the way I put my points across, though I still stand by them. :blushing:

Hobbes doesn't flame, that is not his style. :angry:

Oh damn, I have just made a sweeping statement that does not reflect each and every post that I have made. Certainly though, finding the exception does not change a rather accurate statement. :schnauz:

Busyman
05-16-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm all better now, I took me medication. :P

Seriously, I apologise for the way I put my points across, though I still stand by them. :blushing:

Hobbes doesn't flame, that is not his style. :angry:

Oh damn, I have just made a sweeping statement that does not reflect each and every post that I have made. Certainly though, finding the exception does not change a rather accurate statement. :schnauz:
No prob hobbes. I never expected you to change your view about Canuk's post...you know...that he meant that he hated that dogs were being exploited for their cuteness factor and dog fights by bums on the street.

Oh nooooooo. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Busyman does flame....though the reasons are more calculated and the responses aren't.

GepperRankins
05-16-2005, 03:01 PM
Cucumber squash of course.
wtf? :sick:

sArA
05-16-2005, 05:13 PM
I'm all better now, I took me medication. :P

Seriously, I apologise for the way I put my points across, though I still stand by them. :blushing:

Hobbes doesn't flame, that is not his style. :angry:

Oh damn, I have just made a sweeping statement that does not reflect each and every post that I have made. Certainly though, finding the exception does not change a rather accurate statement. :schnauz:




pats Hobbes on the head and makes him a nice cuppa :happy:

Snee
05-16-2005, 06:04 PM
Hobbes sure feels strongly about fuzzy things :ermm:

Which is nice.



Me, I don't know what to think about this issue, on one hand I haven't got a clue one way or another about what canadian beggars do with their dogs. And nor do I know anything about canadian homeless people in general (or the canadian dog-fighting scene, for that matter). If they do make their pets suffer then they should certainly not be allowed to keep them.

But on the other hand, if the dogs are treated reasonably well, then this might be a good thing, as I suppose it's preferable to the dogs just wandering around (possibly being a nuisance) until they get caught, and then, when they are caught, put to sleep because a home can't be found for them, and because the pound is getting crowded.

Busyman
05-16-2005, 07:20 PM
Hobbes sure feels strongly about fuzzy things :ermm:

Which is nice.



Me, I don't know what to think about this issue, on one hand I haven't got a clue one way or another about what canadian beggars do with their dogs. And nor do I know anything about canadian homeless people in general (or the canadian dog-fighting scene, for that matter). If they do make their pets suffer then they should certainly not be allowed to keep them.

But on the other hand, if the dogs are treated reasonably well, then this might be a good thing, as I suppose it's preferable to the dogs dogs just wandering around (possibly being a nuisance) until they get caught, and then, when they are caught, put to sleep because a home can't be found for them, and because the pound is getting crowded. ;)

Snee
05-16-2005, 08:14 PM
Oh noez, it's the stroke-smilie :ohmy:

S!X
05-17-2005, 01:50 AM
What I dont get is why would they have dogs if they can barely take care/feed themselves?

peat moss
05-17-2005, 02:09 AM
What I dont get is why would they have dogs if they can barely take care/feed themselves?




And why is it we kick people when their down ? The dog probably eats better that the human. I was down on my luck many years ago after a failed marrage. Lived in my truck for a spell , would of gave anything for a warm pooch beside me keeping me warm at nite. Don't think after seeing his kind loving eyes I could eat the poor soul. Next wife who kicks me out I'm getting a dog. Love unconditional ? One can only wish. :01:


I went back and reread this thread ,I though this was the Drawing room . Could of swore it was the lounge. But when people have nothing ,some will exploit the fact they have another mouth to feed. Then put their hand out for support. I think the oringinal poster was quite taking back about the sadness
of one living on their own ,with a pet . And was worryed about the welare of it. I still stand by my post or the thought behind it. The dog eating comments made me sick. Show a little compassion ........... :)

Tikibonbon
05-17-2005, 03:39 AM
The dog eating comments made me sick. Show a little compassion ........... :)

I wonder if the French would consider sharing their secrets of 'foie gras' with the Koreans and Chinese (what, with their current edible doggy fetish). Could be interesting.

JPaul
05-17-2005, 09:05 AM
The dog eating comments made me sick.
If you are a vegan I will accept your right to say this.

If you are not I will trust that you see it is hypocritical.

ahctlucabbuS
05-17-2005, 11:05 AM
BTW, don't give them a cent, ever. Being homeless is a lifestyle choice and you keep it a viable option by donating your money. No money? You will be amazed at their resourcefulness when push comes to shove.

"Lifestyle choice"? :pinch:

At best your opinion is ignorant. It's a fact that many homeless people deals with schizophrenia, or some other mental illness.

Your view reflects how you think about life.
It's nice to know that we ourselves are solely responsible for our situation and that we are in total control of our lives. We can control our lives to a large degree, yes. There are however forces operating outside our control. And mental illness is one that is not so easily contained (especially schizophrenia). Blaming the homeless for his situation might give you peace at night, but it doesn't make it a fact.

It's as futile as blaming your upstanding neighbour for his cancer.

A persons situation isn't completely one sided, and beeing homeless certainly isn't a "lifestyle choice".

In fact, society is the one to blame for not dealing adequately with the problem... but I digress (again).

hobbes
05-17-2005, 03:17 PM
"Lifestyle choice"? :pinch:

At best your opinion is ignorant. It's a fact that many homeless people deals with schizophrenia, or some other mental illness.

Your view reflects how you think about life.
It's nice to know that we ourselves are solely responsible for our situation and that we are in total control of our lives. We can control our lives to a large degree, yes. There are however forces operating outside our control. And mental illness is one that is not so easily contained (especially schizophrenia). Blaming the homeless for his situation might give you peace at night, but it doesn't make it a fact.

It's as futile as blaming your upstanding neighbour for his cancer.

A persons situation isn't completely one sided, and beeing homeless certainly isn't a "lifestyle choice".

In fact, society is the one to blame for not dealing adequately with the problem... but I digress (again).


It is actually the loss of my youthful ignornace that made me realize that being homeless IS a lifestyle choice.

For everyone, no.

The reason for the post was to highlight the fact that a substantial percentage of people who are homeless are fully able bodied people who choose not to work.

In my "ignorant" days, I thought they were all victims of circumstance, that was until I met them. These people are not all war vets in wheel chairs who cannot find employment in a callous world. Most have 4 functioning limbs and there ARE jobs out there for those who can be arsed to look for one.

Sure we have mentally ill people out there. They choose to live on the streets rather than remain in an instituition. They can also live in half-way houses (or other forms of assisted living) and subsist on their social security and disability checks. That is what disability is for, people who really need some help. Our society does not cast the insane into the streets with no options, that is simply not the case.

When I see that 55 year old man working the cash register at McDonalds and that other 55 year old man begging on the corner, I understand that they have made a lifestyle choice.

I give the homeless what they deserve, nothing. I give the truly disabled what they deserve through my taxes and their disability check.

ruthie
05-17-2005, 03:29 PM
Sure we have mentally ill people out there. They choose to live on the streets rather than remain in an instituition. They can also live in half-way houses and subsist on their social security and disability checks. That is what disability is for, people who really need some help. Our society does not cast the insane into the streets with no options, that is simply not the case.

When I see that 55 year old man working the cash register at McDonalds and that other 55 year old man begging on the corner, I understand that they have made a lifestyle choice.

I give the homeless what they deserve, nothing. I give the truly disabled what they deserve through my taxes and their disability check.
Wow, Hobbes.
thats a pretty big generalization about the mentally ill. People also decompensate when they go off meds..is that part of mental illness? It is not uncommon for the mentally ill to stop their meds..it's part of the whole thing. Do you really believe that the mentally ill are appropriately cared for in this country? Do you think they all recieve the help they should be ENTITLED to?
As far as institutions and halfway houses...do you think those are all safe environments? In some of these settings, they are abused and victimized. Are you aware that some patients are released from institutions with just bus money?
Our society could do much to improve the treatment of the mentally ill. Mental illness is not a choice, Hobbes, nor do all the homeless mentally ill choose to be homeless.
There is a lack of compassion and empathy in this contry, which is one of the great shames of our nation. We have enough to help the homeless, the destitute, etc.

hobbes
05-17-2005, 03:55 PM
Wow, Hobbes.
thats a pretty big generalization about the mentally ill. People also decompensate when they go off meds..is that part of mental illness? It is not uncommon for the mentally ill to stop their meds..it's part of the whole thing. Do you really believe that the mentally ill are appropriately cared for in this country? Do you think they all recieve the help they should be ENTITLED to?
As far as institutions and halfway houses...do you think those are all safe environments? In some of these settings, they are abused and victimized. Are you aware that some patients are released from institutions with just bus money?
Our society could do much to improve the treatment of the mentally ill. Mental illness is not a choice, Hobbes, nor do all the homeless mentally ill choose to be homeless.
There is a lack of compassion and empathy in this contry, which is one of the great shames of our nation. We have enough to help the homeless, the destitute, etc.

Where am I stating, insinuating or other that mental illness is a choice?

I am essentially acknowledging that they exist out there, but are not obligately cast out there. The whole problem with the insane is that we cannot play God for them and hold them down and make them take their meds. We can explain to them that remaining in some form of assisted living is their best option, but we cannot make them.

They are free people with an uncurable condition. It is the disease which leads them to poor judgement and their freedom which generally results in them ending up on the streets.

But really, this has nothing to do with the insane or how they are provided for.

This has to do with able bodied people, with a sound mind, who chose to be homeless. The insane are a subset of the homeless, but are not the group I am targeting. The insane are also not made to live in the streets, but because we allow them to be free, they tend to end up there.

I'm not sure how I got shackled with the responsibility of reforming the care and treatment of the mentally ill, I was just making a comment that a big chunk of people who are homeless out there ARE making a lifestyle choice and should not be pandered to.

vidcc
05-17-2005, 05:12 PM
I agree with hobbes..... there are some people that choose to be homeless, in fact some "beggars" make more money in one day than most working people. There have been undercover reporters highlighting the situation.
There are however many that didn't make the choice, be it through mental illness causing bad choices or by the lack of aid. Help is there but it isn't always easy to get and sometimes it is possible that they don't know how or where to go for help. A confused unstable mind is not the best thing to have if one has to look after oneself.

Halfway houses and shelters do in theory seem to be a step in the right direction but they have to be policed properly and that doesn't always happen. They also have rules for entry and if a mentally ill person is unstable enough to be a risk to other occupants chances are they will be denied entry.

There is a problem that is genuine and it is not made easier by those that hobbes is talking about..... Even in the most social countries in the world there are some that find themselves alone with no place to go.

I don't give money to individuals, I feel that it will be used to buy drink or drugs in many cases and this will just send them spiralling lower into an unclimbable hole. I will often give them sandwiches and a cup of hot soup.

I do believe to a degree that we are responsible for our own lives but I do also believe that some people need help on that journey

Busyman
05-17-2005, 05:48 PM
I agree with hobbes..... there are some people that choose to be homeless
I'm sure we all knew that. hobbes initial remark was a blanket statement though.

hobbes
05-17-2005, 06:16 PM
I'm sure we all knew that. hobbes initial remark was a blanket statement though.

It's like stating that cats have 4 legs, hair and a tail. That blanket statement is actually incorrect.

A cat can have anywhere between 0 and four legs, it may or may not have hair, or it may or may not have a tail.

The blanket statement is a useful way to describe a "general" cat for the convenience of discussion. Exceptions don't diminish the value of a blanket, but serve to illustrate that the world is shades of gray and not black and white.

The more accurate statement is functionally bereft.

Like the guy who wants to tell you about his buddy whose life was saved because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Sure, but I still think I'll stick with the percentages and buckle up. Is the rule that buckling up saves lives any less valid or useful? Absolutely not.

That is why we make blanket statements, it saves time and avoids the endless tedium of explaining every permutation.

Back when I was in college, my rent lease was:

I will pay the rent and I won't break your stuff

Now that I rent from a corporation it is 9 pages of pica print with a signature on each page. Who reads any of that crap?

I'm a concepts man, I make blanket statements when I feel that a significant point can be made. Then I get attacked by the Anecdotal Evidence Brigade who want to hoist there 2 legged cat as evidence that my decsrciption of a cat is wrong.

In this particular thread, the mentally ill have come to the fore as exceptions to a blanket statement. I have said, "fair enough", but the truth is that I figured people would "get" that the insane would fall outside this statement.


All posts contain more meaning behind the words. We make certain assumptions that people will "get it". When I refer to baseball, I assume you know what that is, I don't bother to give a detailed description of the game each and everytime.

Blanket statements are effective timesavers and if people wish to mention significant exceptions, more power to them.

Busyman
05-17-2005, 10:02 PM
It's like stating that cats have 4 legs, hair and a tail. That blanket statement is actually incorrect.

A cat can have anywhere between 0 and four legs, it may or may not have hair, or it may or may not have a tail.

The blanket statement is a useful way to describe a "general" cat for the convenience of discussion. Exceptions don't diminish the value of a blanket, but serve to illustrate that the world is shades of gray and not black and white.

The more accurate statement is functionally bereft.

Like the guy who wants to tell you about his buddy whose life was saved because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Sure, but I still think I'll stick with the percentages and buckle up. Is the rule that buckling up saves lives any less valid or useful? Absolutely not.

That is why we make blanket statements, it saves time and avoids the endless tedium of explaining every permutation.

Back when I was in college, my rent lease was:

I will pay the rent and I won't break your stuff

Now that I rent from a corporation it is 9 pages of pica print with a signature on each page. Who reads any of that crap?

I'm a concepts man, I make blanket statements when I feel that a significant point can be made. Then I get attacked by the Anecdotal Evidence Brigade who want to hoist there 2 legged cat as evidence that my decsrciption of a cat is wrong.

In this particular thread, the mentally ill have come to the fore as exceptions to a blanket statement. I have said, "fair enough", but the truth is that I figured people would "get" that the insane would fall outside this statement.


All posts contain more meaning behind the words. We make certain assumptions that people will "get it". When I refer to baseball, I assume you know what that is, I don't bother to give a detailed description of the game each and everytime.

Blanket statements are effective timesavers and if people which to mention significant exceptions, more power to them.
The thing is your blanket statement was wrong on TOO many fronts.

Your blanket statements are a smack to the homeless that don't choose it as a lifestyle and it's ignorant. No different than a shit stereotype. You have no idea how shit spirals out of control and you don't have an answer for every fucking thing.

Your rationale for many things are ill-conceived...even missing the focus of compassion for a dog and the homeless :dry: to dog exploitation and dog fights ffs.

You've already shown yourself to be arrogant. Think outside your little box for a moment.

JPaul
05-17-2005, 10:26 PM
Being homeless is a lifestyle choice
NB your bold, not mine.

What you made was a statement, which you saw fit to highlight.

That statement was not qualified in any way, either in or of itself, or by the context in which it was made.

How the feck were people supposed to read between that particular line.

For many people, for many reasons, homelessness is not a lifestyle choice. It is a result of circumstances outwith their control. Whether it be mental illness, being thrown out of their home by parents, bankruptcy, depression due to things which happen to them, whatever.

The sweeping generalization, coz that's what it was, is and remains offensive to the innocent victims and to those who try to help them.

To argue that you were right, or misunderstood based on semantics is poor form, poor form indeed. It does you no credit.

Your only possible redemption is a sentence which begins "Sorry, my bad, what I actually meant to say was ...."

hobbes
05-17-2005, 11:08 PM
The thing is your blanket statement was wrong on TOO many fronts.

Your blanket statements are a smack to the homeless that don't choose it as a lifestyle and it's ignorant. No different than a shit stereotype. You have no idea how shit spirals out of control and you don't have an answer for every fucking thing.

Your rationale for many things are ill-conceived...even missing the focus of compassion for a dog and the homeless :dry: to dog exploitation and dog fights ffs.

You've already shown yourself to be arrogant. Think outside your little box for a moment.

I do have an answer for every fucking thing, but it is not always right. That is why I come to discussion forums to get different perspectives.

Sometimes you say, "Hey, I never looked at it that way".

My points are as follows:

1. I can appreciate the instincts which motivated Canuk to post such an emotional thread.

2. I felt he may have been hitting on a deeper point than he was aware of. You simply can't outlaw animal ownership based on owning property, that is not a well thought out point.

We don't let homeless people adopt babies because they haven't proven they can even take care of themselves. Even in typical adoptions there is extensive research and follow up. It would be nice to get some assurance for a puppy as well, but the puppy has no choice in the matter and the chance that some external 3rd party will be watching out for his welfare is just about nil.

The important discrimators of this case were the fact that it was a cute puppy which was successfully drawing attention, it was a purebreed and it was a fighting dog.

Had he talked about the guy with the old flop earred mutt, I would have known for sure it was simply a matter of companionship and if the dog was healthy then so be it.

So, in this case, A few alarms sort of triggered for me. I could be wrong, but statistically I will be right.




2. It was a salient point for me to comment that some people are not like the rest of us. They have no incentive or desire to leave their homeless existence. This, to most, strikes us as odd.

I grew up thinking that being homeless would be the worse thing possible. I assumed that they would want to leave that world ASAP.

As I grew up and left my little box of assumptions, I acquired the first hand knowledge that many of these people are choosing to live this life. That was quite an eye-opener.


There is a common slogan:

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/6/5319576_F_tn.jpg


This "it's a lifestyle" slogan is turned many different ways and I was mimicking it in my post. I thought people would "get it".

And to me it is meant to imply those who beg and make no effort to find employment.

This is far different than those who are temporarily out of house and home but are making every effort possible to correct this situation.

For them being homeless isn't a lifestyle, it's a tragedy.

JPaul
05-17-2005, 11:12 PM
Have you read "Down and out in Paris and London".

If not you may wish to.

hobbes
05-17-2005, 11:21 PM
NB your bold, not mine.

What you made was a statement, which you saw fit to highlight.

That statement was not qualified in any way, either in or of itself, or by the context in which it was made.

How the feck were people supposed to read between that particular line.

For many people, for many reasons, homelessness is not a lifestyle choice. It is a result of circumstances outwith their control. Whether it be mental illness, being thrown out of their home by parents, bankruptcy, depression due to things which happen to them, whatever.

The sweeping generalization, coz that's what it was, is and remains offensive to the innocent victims and to those who try to help them.

To argue that you were right, or misunderstood based on semantics is poor form, poor form indeed. It does you no credit.

Your only possible redemption is a sentence which begins "Sorry, my bad, what I actually meant to say was ...."


Sure, I have no problem with that.

For those who have been derailed in life and who have fallen into hard times, they may not take that expression in the context that it was intended.

For this thread, I had emblazened in my mind those hardened NYC bums who get belligerent if you don't toss them some change. In my mind, I picture those who HAVE exploited animals for their pathetic lifestyle.

In my mind, homeless is not simply about not having a home, it is a mindset, a lifestyle.

I view those who loss their homes through a turn of bad luck but are doing what they can to return to a stable situation as displaced.

One is a lifestyle,
the other a bad memory.

JPaul
05-17-2005, 11:57 PM
So you assume that your own prejudices so pervade your posts that they will be self evident to the rest of us. Sorry, that didn't work for me.

What you had emblazened in your mind says more about you than it does about those of whom you speak.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 12:00 AM
So you assume that your own prejudices so pervade your posts that they will be self evident to the rest of us. Sorry, that didn't work for me.

What you had emblazened in your mind says more about you than it does about those of whom you speak.

What do you want, I said I was sorry for those who were offended.

What does that second comment even mean?

JPaul
05-18-2005, 12:07 AM
What do you want, I said I was sorry for those who were offended.
Where.

Or do we have to read between the lines again.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 12:08 AM
Where.

Or do we have to read between the lines again.

What do you think,

"Sure I have no problem with that" was referring too? The last line of your quoted post. This ain't that hard. Geez.

peat moss
05-18-2005, 12:21 AM
Were having trouble with some of the homeless here. It's because of the provincial governments choice to shut down many of the group homes and mental health beds . Some are very aggressive and are hurting people . We have new laws for bin divers now too.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 12:22 AM
What do you think,

"Sure I have no problem with that" was referring too? The last line of your quoted post. This ain't that hard. Geez.
I must use that one.

Person 1. "Fuck you you homeless bastard"

Person 2. "Hey why are you talking to me like that"

Person 1. "Sure, I have no problem with that"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

JPaul
05-18-2005, 12:27 AM
Sure I have no problem with that = I said I was sorry.

Not where I come from, old bean.

Do you really have a problem with saying "sorry about that, my mistake".

Why don't you give it a try.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 01:00 AM
Sure I have no problem with that = I said I was sorry.

Not where I come from, old bean.

Do you really have a problem with saying "sorry about that, my mistake".

Why don't you give it a try.
Read between the lines ffs.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 01:02 AM
Sure I have no problem with that = I said I was sorry.

Not where I come from, old bean.

Do you really have a problem with saying "sorry about that, my mistake".

Why don't you give it a try.

Yeah, why don't you try, "oh, that was obvious, my bad."

Do you have a problem admitting you missed a very obvious comment?

Looks like it is time for you to "man up" old bean.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 01:13 AM
Yeah, why don't you try, "oh, that was obvious, my bad."

Do you have a problem admitting you missed a very obvious comment?

Looks like it is time for you to "man up" old bean.
I don't know what JP's problem is.
He is a victim of missing the meaning of your words. He hasn't read a word you've said.
If he read your posts, he could easily understand how you translate crude emotion into a logical opinion.
Why does he need it to be so concrete.
He cannot understand what you are saying?
He is wrong because he has not read what you are saying.
It is not so hard.
You just want people to understand that literal words can have a different abstract meaning. He needs to work on "understanding".
Sometimes the literal meaning does not convey the concept.


Seriously, I apologise for the way I put my points across, though I still stand by them.
Translation...

"I don't really think they are all homeless bastards. I'm sincerely sorry for saying that and please forgive me but..the main point I was trying to make, and I do stand by this, is that they are still bastards." :lol: :lol:

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:19 AM
Yeah, why don't you try, "oh, that was obvious, my bad."

Do you have a problem admitting you missed a very obvious comment?

Looks like it is time for you to "man up" old bean.
Fair point, I may have missed the part where you apologised.

Tho' I have to say it may have been more obvious had you used any words which expressed such emotion.

My bad, your disingenuous.

lynx
05-18-2005, 01:21 AM
Seems you've all missed the real point.

The dog is homeless.

Should a homeless dog be allowed to have humans?To all of you who thought this was a joke.

It wasn't! I was trying to show that you were all missing the point!!!

The whole point of the thread was surely about the treatment of animals, but it has been turned into something about whether people should be allowed to be homeless, and what we should do/not do about that.

Please go back to the original question. I'm quite sure Canuk isn't interested (at this time) about your own personal hangups about the situation of the homeless. Try to stay on topic.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 01:21 AM
Fair point, I may have missed the part where you apologised.

Tho' I have to say it may have been more obvious had you used any words which expressed such emotion.

My bad, your disingenuous.

Not disingenuous, why would you say something so absurd.

You simply can't say you messed up without the barb. Much to your discredit.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 01:22 AM
To all of you who thought this was a joke.

It wasn't! I was trying to show that you were all missing the point!!!

The whole point of the thread was surely about the treatment of animals, but it has been turned into something about whether people should be allowed to be homeless, and what we should do/not do about that.

Please go back to the original question. I'm quite sure Canuk isn't interested (at this time) about your own personal hangups about the situation of the homeless. Try to stay on topic.

What do you think my initial posts were about? Exactly that point.

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:31 AM
Not disingenuous, why would you say something so absurd.

You simply can't say you messed up without the barb. Much to your discredit.
I would love to reply to that.

However I have just read lynx's last post and lost the will to live. Please let me copy it here for posterity.

"To all of you who thought this was a joke.

It wasn't! I was trying to show that you were all missing the point!!!

The whole point of the thread was surely about the treatment of animals, but it has been turned into something about whether people should be allowed to be homeless, and what we should do/not do about that.

Please go back to the original question. I'm quite sure Canuk isn't interested (at this time) about your own personal hangups about the situation of the homeless. Try to stay on topic."

Is this the sort of shitehawk bunkum we are to aspire to. I think not baby puppy.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 01:32 AM
What do you think my initial posts were about? Exactly that point.
We should have closed it after JP's initial post.

It had as much merit as any of the "AwwwIthinkthedogwillbeokay" posts. :dry:

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:32 AM
What do you think my initial posts were about? Exactly that point.
Feck, you actually agree.

I thought you were joking.

My bad.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 01:34 AM
Feck, you actually agree.

I thought you were joking.

My bad.

So, you're sorry?

lynx
05-18-2005, 01:35 AM
Closing time then?

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:36 AM
So, you're sorry?
Absolutely.

It was never my intention to mock the afflicted.

I had assumed that we were just playing.

MCHeshPants420
05-18-2005, 01:36 AM
Personally I don't think gypsies, single-mothers or the working class should be allowed to keep dogs. Or any pets for that matter.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 01:37 AM
Closing time then?
Ffs let the thread go mang.

It was much worse earlier.

Now this is hilarious!!! :lol: :lol:

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:38 AM
Personally I don't think gypsies, single-mothers or the working class should be allowed to keep dogs. Or any pets for that matter.
Or vice versa.

Busyman
05-18-2005, 01:39 AM
Or vice versa.
Thanks for adressing lynx's question.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled program. :)

lynx
05-18-2005, 01:40 AM
Ffs let the thread go mang.

It was much worse earlier.

Now this is hilarious!!! :lol: :lol:
Then you know where it's going.

JPaul
05-18-2005, 01:41 AM
Then you know where it's going.
Probably up your arse, in the same direction as your head.

hobbes
05-18-2005, 01:44 AM
Perhaps the puppy was just using the bum so that he could get petted. When he grows up he will probably be big enough to force the bum to earn some cash by engaging in "bum fights".

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/LAW/03/19/offbeat.bum.fights.ap/story.bumfights.jpg


We should not allow puppies to exploit bums, I think.

Puppies exploiting bums is a not a joke, it is a lifestyle.

lynx
05-18-2005, 01:44 AM
Probably up your arse, in the same direction as your head.Still, it's better to have one than to be one. :P

Cheese
05-18-2005, 01:46 AM
Personally I don't think gypsies, single-mothers or the working class should be allowed to keep dogs. Or any pets for that matter.

Or people with blue-green stars underneath their usernames.

lynx
05-18-2005, 01:48 AM
blue-green starsghey grey.

Busyman
05-19-2005, 12:14 AM
Speaking of the homeless..I encountered this fella when I left the last Wizards game...
http://images.snapfish.com/3439689523232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E2348%3D88%3C%3D%3B44%3DXROQDF%3E2323867623586ot1lsi

I just haaaad to give this guy a dollar for making me lmao!!1!11! :lol: :lol:

Get this....I only had a 20 and pulls out this big bankroll and counts off $19 like a cashier!!!!

He went on and on about the ninjas and teh killin' of his family. It was hilarious!!!

manker
05-19-2005, 12:20 AM
:lol: :D

You shoulda posted that in the gun thread. Seems apt :D

Busyman
05-19-2005, 12:28 AM
:lol: :D

You shoulda posted that in the gun thread. Seems apt :D

Kung-fu, man...not guns.. :blink:

manker
05-19-2005, 12:33 AM
Kung-fu, man...not guns.. :blink:We did digress into your shuriken arsenal and martial art fetish at one point, did we not.

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 12:38 AM
Or people with blue-green stars underneath their usernames.

Or ninjas. Or pirates.

Smith
05-19-2005, 12:42 AM
Hmm, what happened to my post? What r u guys talkin about now?

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 12:44 AM
Hmm, what happened to my post? What r u guys talkin about now?

I'm listing groups of people who I believe shouldn't be allowed to own pets. Like old people, they should not be allowed pets.

manker and Busyman are cybering in public.

manker
05-19-2005, 12:45 AM
Wanna join in :unsure:

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 12:50 AM
Wanna join in :unsure:

I'll pass. :shifty:



Slightly off-topic: Dogs in pubs annoy me. :dry:

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 12:51 AM
Slightly off-topic: Dogs in pubs annoy me. :dry:

Edit: Apart from those poker playing dogs you see in those fancy northern paintings.

Busyman
05-19-2005, 12:59 AM
We did digress into your shuriken arsenal and martial art fetish at one point, did we not.
Oh...uh...ok. :crazy:

manker
05-19-2005, 12:59 AM
Do you get the silly pics that show pool playing dogs. They seem to be everywhere.


Edit: The pictures, not pool playing dogs.

manker
05-19-2005, 01:01 AM
Slightly off-topic: Dogs in pubs annoy me. :dry:Especially the fat ones who don't even bother with make-up anymore 'cos they know they're minging and will only pull if a bloke is particularly mankered with the Babycham.

Busyman
05-19-2005, 01:12 AM
Do you get the silly pics that show pool playing dogs. They seem to be everywhere.


Edit: The pictures, not pool playing dogs.
I don't get pics at all. :(

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 01:15 AM
Especially the fat ones who don't even bother with make-up anymore 'cos they know they're minging and will only pull if a bloke is particularly mankered with the Babycham.

My local has a sign up that says "No dogs after 6pm" which has pissed off the regular goths and lesbians for sure.

99%
05-19-2005, 01:16 AM
Edit: Apart from those poker playing dogs you see in those fancy northern paintings.


Bar down the street - Alcoholic with dog is there every day
the dog just sits outside there everyday and waits
Malaka

MCHeshPants420
05-19-2005, 01:19 AM
Bar down the street - Alcoholic with dog is there every day
the dog just sits outside there everyday and waits
Malaka

Probably can't play poker or pool. :(

hobbes
05-19-2005, 02:02 AM
Homeless people should not be allowed to decorate, I agree with Boab.

Busyman
05-20-2005, 01:29 AM
Homeless people should not be allowed to decorate, I agree with Boab.
I disagree. This fella did a great job in front of the McDonald's on New York Av.
http://images.snapfish.com/3439782%3B23232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D3257%3E79%3B%3E%3A53%3EWSNRCG%3D323295%3C7%3A575%3Anu0mrj

..and this right next to it.
http://images.snapfish.com/3439782%3B23232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E2348%3D88%3C%3D%3B44%3DXROQDF%3E232386%3B89764%3Bot1lsi

Is he/she a woman or man?

http://images.snapfish.com/3439782%3B23232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E2348%3D88%3C%3D%3B44%3DXROQDF%3E232386%3B897354ot1lsi

Either way he/she is always trying to buy drugs using the money they get from in front of the McDonald's.

I've bought the he/she a sandwich but won't give money.

<HELLS^ANGEL>
05-30-2005, 02:59 PM
Panhandlers, Inc.
Inside Portland's million-dollar begging business.

http://www.wweek.com/photos/3115/coverstory.jpg



The intersection at Northeast 12th Avenue and Sandy Boulevard is prime turf for flaggers—who jealously guard their territory. Above, Brian May, 19, works the corner, where he sometimes trades signs with his friend Jason Gibson. “I make 10 to 15 dollars, get cigarettes and food,” May says.

The full story is worth reading:
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6021

enoughfakefiles
05-30-2005, 03:16 PM
Is that a leeds united hat.

http://images.snapfish.com/3439782%3B23232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E2348%3D88%3C%3D%3B44%3DXROQDF%3E232386%3B897354ot1lsi

Snee
05-30-2005, 10:25 PM
Or people with blue-green stars underneath their usernames.

Or ninjas. Or pirates.
Homeless people shouldn't be allowed to have ninjas or pirates either :snooty:

MCHeshPants420
05-30-2005, 10:47 PM
Or ninjas. Or pirates.
Homeless people shouldn't be allowed to have ninjas or pirates either :snooty:

But maybe Samurais and Buccaneers. Because no-one likes them.

Snee
05-31-2005, 05:06 AM
Only ghey buccaners. The plain ones are still fairly mainstream.

No argument on the samurais though.