Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
buoy

Things you hate but everyone else seems to like?

Recommended Posts

Staffies (the dogs, get ready for the countless number of cnts about to defend them because their precious staffy/staffy cross has never hurt a fly) and Muse (the band, just because).

 

I'm with you on Muse (impartial on Satffys :P). They have two songs that I like, the rest is just sort of average to me :S Yet all my mates love them like they're the second coming of Christ :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staffies (the dogs, get ready for the countless number of cnts about to defend them because their precious staffy/staffy cross has never hurt a fly) and Muse (the band, just because).

 

Agreed on both counts. Muse have some good riffs, but it gets really self-indulgent as soon as the singing starts. Map of the Problematique is an awesome song... and then the lead opens his mouth. It's also annoying how the fans wank on and on and on about how high the lead singers voice goes. Big. F**king. Deal. Ever heard Barry from the Bee Gees? More badass than Muse, even with all the 70s crap.

 

As for dogs, I couldn't agree more that there's no need for regular civilians to have fighting/attack/guard dogs. Police, army or industry? Fine. If security bearing firearms are permitted, then it's not unreasonable for there to be attack dogs too, and the organisation's use of either is controlled, albeit loosely in the case of Police.

 

In contrast, Joe average doesn't usually give a shit and just lets their pets run rampant. I remember talking to one guy bragging that his pitbull used to kill other dogs (we're not talking one here), dig a small trench and drag them under their fence. F**k that guy. If that happened to my old dog...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and then the lead opens his mouth. It's also annoying how the fans wank on and on and on about how high the lead singers voice goes. Big. F**king. Deal. Ever heard Mercyful Fate? More badass than everyone, even with all the 70s crap.

 

Der we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staffies (the dogs, get ready for the countless number of cnts about to defend them because their precious staffy/staffy cross has never hurt a fly) and Muse (the band, just because).

 

Agreed on both counts. Muse have some good riffs, but it gets really self-indulgent as soon as the singing starts. Map of the Problematique is an awesome song... and then the lead opens his mouth. It's also annoying how the fans wank on and on and on about how high the lead singers voice goes. Big. F**king. Deal. Ever heard Barry from the Bee Gees? More badass than Muse, even with all the 70s crap.

 

As for dogs, I couldn't agree more that there's no need for regular civilians to have fighting/attack/guard dogs. Police, army or industry? Fine. If security bearing firearms are permitted, then it's not unreasonable for there to be attack dogs too, and the organisation's use of either is controlled, albeit loosely in the case of Police.

 

In contrast, Joe average doesn't usually give a shit and just lets their pets run rampant. I remember talking to one guy bragging that his pitbull used to kill other dogs (we're not talking one here), dig a small trench and drag them under their fence. F**k that guy. If that happened to my old dog...

He hasn't got anything on Vitas :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygJYxMP_ICY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea that's frustrating! Lucky he moved!

 

Oh another thing is one of the neighbors cats likes to scratch at my place and when I had my soarer I parked it out on the street and there would always be paw prints on it, the 14 gets garaged everynight, whenever I look at this cat it just has this expression on its face like it wants to piss me off.

 

Spray the f**ker with the hose.

 

It's only a cat. It'll get sick of being wet and stop coming back.

 

 

Haha I considered that but there's always neighbors outside doing stuff, and don't want to get busted blasting someones cat hahah

 

I'd f**king applaud if I saw someone spray a cat! I don't give a shit who's cat it is!

 

As long as your not physically hurting it, ie picking it up by the tail I don't care... You have a right to your property not getting f**ked up by other peoples animals. If the owner has a problem with it, f**king spray them with the hose too!

 

 

Haha, well I don't want to hurt it at all, I just don't want it trolling me!

 

There is a video on Youtube of a guy who rigged his hose up to a motion sensor that blasted cats as they walked past to get to his car laugh.png

 

Haha omg I searched for it just then and watched it, awesome :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staffies (the dogs, get ready for the countless number of cnts about to defend them because their precious staffy/staffy cross has never hurt a fly) and Muse (the band, just because).

 

Not sure what the fuss is on both counts. Over rated.

 

My sister had this staffy/boxer thing for a while. Ugliest dog I've ever seen. Just as dumb, too. Thank Christ they got rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate people who take selflies, my fb is flooded with them.

Also Instagram shots of food, I don't care what u r eating.

And low ballers , it seems alot if people love to low ball that much that I should just give te item to them for free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hasn't got anything on Vitas laugh.png

 

Haha, I remember seeing vids of that guy before. Really impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Que stereotypical staffys owner response.

 

I chose the breed because they are fun, have energy and are super loyal. Also not hard to train at all.

 

I could understand the whole anti pitbull argument too a lot of people get them as status symbols.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Que stereotypical staffys owner response.

 

I chose the breed because they are fun, have energy and are super loyal. Also not hard to train at all.

 

I could understand the whole anti pitbull argument too a lot of people get them as status symbols.

 

Funny how the majority of those sorts of dogs look like their owners :lol:

 

"Yes, I can see why you bought a bulldog..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F*&king cyclists. You pay no Rego. You dont stop for stop signs, or indicate. You do 30% of the speed limit, while taking up the whole lane. F&*k you.

 

There are plenty of roads I drive on that are sweeping bends, usually 60-80 km/h, if I come around a bend, and have a cyclist doing 30km/h and have oncoming traffic, shit will get f**ked up.

 

Only put this in this thread, cause almost everyone in the office I work in rides to work, wearing their padded bike pants, and shaved legs. F&*k me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ When I first got my licence, I was cruising down a main road, through a green light, to t-bone a cyclist running the red on his side. I was charged with neg driving resulting in GBH. The first magistrate said "Regardless of him running a red light, it is your fault. As the driver of a car, it's your responsibility to know where all pedestrians are."

 

On appeal the judge said he was appalled at the decision to drop me, said it wasn't my fault and that the cyclist has to obey proper road rules, overturned the other guys decision and let me go home. I still lost my licence for the 4 months I had to wait between being found guilty and the appeal.

 

I still see them running red lights all the time, f**king pisses me off knowing that there's a good chance they'll turn someone's life upside down via their arrogance and impatience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ When I first got my licence, I was cruising down a main road, through a green light, to t-bone a cyclist running the red on his side. I was charged with neg driving resulting in GBH. The first magistrate said "Regardless of him running a red light, it is your fault. As the driver of a car, it's your responsibility to know where all pedestrians are."

 

On appeal the judge said he was appalled at the decision to drop me, said it wasn't my fault and that the cyclist has to obey proper road rules, overturned the other guys decision and let me go home. I still lost my licence for the 4 months I had to wait between being found guilty and the appeal.

 

I still see them running red lights all the time, f**king pisses me off knowing that there's a good chance they'll turn someone's life upside down via their arrogance and impatience.

 

And the lesson learnt here is....... Dont stop after hitting one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ When I first got my licence, I was cruising down a main road, through a green light, to t-bone a cyclist running the red on his side. I was charged with neg driving resulting in GBH. The first magistrate said "Regardless of him running a red light, it is your fault. As the driver of a car, it's your responsibility to know where all pedestrians are."

 

On appeal the judge said he was appalled at the decision to drop me, said it wasn't my fault and that the cyclist has to obey proper road rules, overturned the other guys decision and let me go home. I still lost my licence for the 4 months I had to wait between being found guilty and the appeal.

 

I still see them running red lights all the time, f**king pisses me off knowing that there's a good chance they'll turn someone's life upside down via their arrogance and impatience.

 

And the lesson learnt here is....... Dont stop after hitting one

 

slice_zombieland_jesse_eisenberg_double-tap_t_shirt_01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO (I'm not a cyclist), it's the stupid government's fault for thinking that high speed and low speed will EVER combine on the same road. Cyclists should have their own paths, far away from cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who ride those petrol powered bikes around - the chariot of bogans

 

VN-VS commo given up its throne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for dogs, I couldn't agree more that there's no need for regular civilians to have fighting/attack/guard dogs. Police, army or industry? Fine. If security bearing firearms are permitted, then it's not unreasonable for there to be attack dogs too, and the organisation's use of either is controlled, albeit loosely in the case of Police.

 

In contrast, Joe average doesn't usually give a shit and just lets their pets run rampant. I remember talking to one guy bragging that his pitbull used to kill other dogs (we're not talking one here), dig a small trench and drag them under their fence. F**k that guy. If that happened to my old dog...

 

Why have a Japanese car? Because you can right?

 

Why is the same logic regarding cars not applied to breeds of dog? People don't need to own a Japanese car or a staffy, they do so because they can. Personal choice and all that.

 

Staffies, like Jap cars, get a bad rap due to certain owners. We all know that not all Jap car drivers are killing each other in illegal races, out street drifting and racing but the media would have us think that way. Similar for staffies; *richard cranium* owners giving the media ammunition for you to soak up and form a baseless opinion.

I've been around dogs all my life, the most aggressive dogs I've met, been bitten by and had issues with have all been small dogs bar one (a ridgeback). This has been due to the owner not training and not socialising their dog properly so the dog has developed territorial issues, possessiveness, etc. Small dogs generally aren't trained at all due to the ease of dealing with a situation they may cause.

 

the exa, what's your issue with staffies? The dog itself, the ignorant misinformed opinion that they're aggressive fighting dogs or the stereotypical owners that are deadshits trying to portray a tough image and don't train their dog?

 

Yeah I've got 2 of them, damn right i'll defend them and any other dog breed and the right to own them but I won't defend idiot owners that don't train or socialise their dogs as this is what causes negative media, nor ignorant people that are too lazy to inform and educate themselves about dogs they want to bag as they contribute to the negative stereotype.

 

To relate it to cars again, we ban certain types of cars from people rather than provide adequate education and training to allow people to have a vehicle of their choice. If those cars are so deadly why aren’t they banned altogether? It's the same with dog breeds, we ban certain breeds due to negative, misinformed and ignorant public perception rather than ensure the education of the owner and training of the dog is adequate to own one of those dogs.... All cars are capable of killing people, all dogs are capable of attacking. The difference is the idiot behind the wheel or on the end of the leash. A bigger, faster car is more likely to cause serious injury when it goes wrong, but that's reflective of driver actions, attitude and capability, same scenario with larger, more powerful dog breeds.

 

I've not gone into stats with this because they're frankly full of shit. I can find stats for both sides of the argument about staffies and other powerful dog breeds but as there's no legal requirement to report all dog incidents in Australia, only those requiring medical/veterinary treatment, so stats are not a true reflection of incidents.

 

At least Pmod touched on the real issue with his example of the utter f**kwit bragging about his dog killing others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have a Japanese car? Because you can right?

Why is the same logic regarding cars not applied to breeds of dog? People don't need to own a Japanese car or a staffy, they do so because they can. Personal choice and all that.

Staffies, like Jap cars, get a bad rap due to certain owners. ...

 

I know you're not having a shot at me and I know the positive history Pitbulls originally had as THE American companion, but you're kinda kidding yourself. No dog is 100% safe to start with, and Pitbulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Akitas, Huskys, Mastiffs, Boxers, Alsatians, etc have both the aggression potential and power to be extremely dangerous, when compared to the stom-in-a-teacup that are tiny dogs and hounds.

 

http://www.ukandspai...dangerous-dogs/

It's worth noting, that the RSPCA have often stated that the two biggest offenders for attacks on children are Cocker Spaniels and Labradors, but, because they lack the aggressiveness and/or strength that other breeds of dogs have, they very rarely cause any serious harm.

 

http://kb.rspca.org....ous-dog_71.html

As dogs of any breed or size have the potential to be dangerous, the RSPCA believes that dogs should not be declared dangerous on the basis of breed, but on the basis of their behaviour. The RSPCA does not support breed specific legislation, also known as BSL. However, it is recognised that there is a strong genetic component in a dog’s behaviour and propensity for aggression, their trigger point for aggression and their capacity to inflict injury. These characteristics need to be taken into account when selecting a suitable dog and in their subsequent socialisation and training, to reduce the likelihood of aggressive behaviour occurring.

 

Translation: The RSPCA recognises some breeds are dangerous, but they don't want to be seen calling them dangerous.

 

Check out the articles/pics here and let me know what you think. I realise the website's agenda is clearly biased against certain breeds, but the reason is that they tend to be the only breeds that really kill and maime.

 

http://www.ukandspai...dangerous-dogs/

 

So to clarify my stace, I feel that Pitbulls and similar dogs are like inert ordnance. Treat it right and you most likely won't have an issue, but if it explodes you and anyone nearby are f*cked. Keeping it at home shows a lack of concern for your own family's safety, but there's no real justification for carrying it around town and potentially endangering others should it go haywire for no reason.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To relate it to cars again, we ban certain types of cars from people rather than provide adequate education and training to allow people to have a vehicle of their choice. If those cars are so deadly why aren’t they banned altogether? It's the same with dog breeds, we ban certain breeds due to negative, misinformed and ignorant public perception rather than ensure the education of the owner and training of the dog is adequate to own one of those dogs.... All cars are capable of killing people, all dogs are capable of attacking. The difference is the idiot behind the wheel or on the end of the leash. A bigger, faster car is more likely to cause serious injury when it goes wrong, but that's reflective of driver actions, attitude and capability, same scenario with larger, more powerful dog breeds.

 

Your example of using the P plate system is incorrect, as that's a restriction on a specific demographic. Fast and powerful cars are allowed.

A better example would be road-worthiness. Any car can fail in some way, even a brand new slow one, but we ban cars that are prone to unexpected performance failure, be it brakes that could fail, rusted chassis that could collapse, or airbags that might not deploy. Reckless drivers amplify this risk.

 

Likewise, all dogs are capable of attacking, even a tiny puppy, but groups seek to ban the ones capable of rapidly inflicting massive trauma or death. Irresponsible owners amplify this risk.

 

Unfortunately cars can be fixed to undo any points of failure, but there's no undoing the potential risk some dog breeds pose. For that reason, comparing tools and objects to biological lifeforms doesn't work.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the danger from powerful cars comes from the active disregard for ones safety. You have to be actively deciding to drive wrecklessly in order to do it, and not many people do that.

In addition, if you reach a point where you have decided that the car is too dangerous for you and you need to get rid of it, just find a buyer and bam, problem solved.

 

Dogs on the other hand are usually made bad by laziness and neglect, it is not by doing something wrong that most people get vicious dogs, but by not doing enough or doing nothing at all.

Then when the dog becomes vicious there is no switching it off or selling it, you are stuck with it till it dies or is put down.

The dog remains a risk 24/7, every waking moment has the potential for somebody to get maimed. All it would take is for somebody to enter your yard or for the dog to escape and you have a potential death on your hands.

 

You talk about responsible owners like they are common, which is rubbish.

Go to any block of houses and i assure you that you will find more neglected poorly kept dogs than you will find happy ones. This is because your average joe is too lazy/stupid/arrogant to look after a dog properly.

Somewhere along the way it got into the Australian psyche that owning a dog is some kind of personal right. It seems to sit up there right next to the right to have a beer and the right to copulate.

If we were to dispel the myth that Aussies have a right to a big 'manly' (read: vicious) dog then we might start to see a drop in the number of attacks.

The best way i can see to do this is to restrict ownership of these dogs to people who have passed a competency test and have agreed to regular inspections.

The problem with this is it opens the flood gates up to a million and one ACA and TT articles titled "da gubbiments is gunna take mah daaawg!".

Enforcing the rule would be a financial, legal and political nightmare, all to satisfy some peoples perceived 'right' to own a 'manly' dog.

 

Meanwhile these poorly kept dogs routinely violate peoples right to life.

 

If you oppose the ban, what would you propose as an alternative?

You cannot disregard the idiot factor, that is the world we live in, so what would you do to make these dogs safe?

Edited by Chappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pay what you've said Pmod but call you on the comparison against inert ordnance, mainly for the fact that you didn't follow your own advice of comparing objects to lifeforms :)

 

It's genuinely a shame that maladjusted bogans are attracted to these dogs and don't look after them, have no idea/don't care about responsible pet ownership, how to train them etc as they are great dogs.

 

I completely agree with the RSPCA's point (not your translation) about dog behaviour, not breed, determining the threat posed by the individual dog. Combine negative behavioural traits with a powerful build and of course the dog can be more dangerous. It's the same with people, you only have to go to any any nightclub to see what threat large individuals with negative behaviorual traits can pose.

 

To compare lifeform and lifeform; all men have a dick and are capable of rape, does this mean we are all rapists and should be banned from society?

What happens to mentally unstable people in Aus? They are treated, medicated, etc. Sociopaths aren't just banned because of the potential threat they pose to people in schools and cinemas.

We don't just ban bogans because of a stereotype that they have a propensity towards violence. All people are capable of violence, it's their 'training' from parents and communinity in their formative years that determines their propensity towards it.

 

I'd rate most little dogs I've met as having a higher propensity to attack another dog or person than all bar a few large dog I've met simply because they haven't been trained to learn what is acceptable.

 

An interesting point I read a while ago was that the % of reported dog attacks from pure breeds was lower than the % of cross breeds owing to the fact that more purebreeds come from breeders and are properly socialised from a young age. Back yard breeders often do not adhere to such standers, nor do they care, as they are (sometimes) about the cash, so the dog's early development suffers as a result.

 

Pmod many of those cases in the UK have prime examples of poor dog training/ownership/parenting. Comments like 'I'd left the kids with the dog dozens of times' smacks of poor parenting and poor dog ownership. Have a look at the comments by the parents afterwards, they're all emotional responses after an attack on their child, not one of them is a comment examining fault in any sort of logical manner. Whilst the cases are unfortunate and all too common as a result of irresponsible dog ownership, the way they are written is nothing short of emotive tripe playing on fears. Every single picture of the dogs is intentionally menacing and debasing, the pictures of the kids are matter of fact but combined with emotive text really play on the heart strings. As you said, agenda driven.

 

Chappy I'd be happy with BSL's that required proof of training, adequate housing and fencing and to prove a commitment to responsible ownership of a dog, all subject to inspection and approval. I'd also like to see the introduction of legislation that requires all puppies to be registered and microchipped BEFORE being sold. This will, theoretically at least, remove the appeal of back yard breeders churning out litters that are not even close to breed standards which should result in a more socialied and well adjusted dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you're right about my comparison to an inert explosive. I thought it was interesting and seemed to fit though, so I ran with it.

 

Again, I agree that quality ownership is key to good dog behaviour, but it's still just mitigating risk. You never truly own a dog's mind, and it will do what it does. The only guarantee you have is the capacity the dog has for violence, which in the case of many small and medium breeds, is not a whole lot. For 'dangerous' dogs it's huge.

 

The comparisons with humans are getting a bit off-track. Too generic, and ignoring the fact that humans are not regarded the same as animals in terms of rights, be it right or wrong. We're made in God's image mmkay...

 

The rapist one doesn't mean anything as a plain statement. In the context of say teaching at an all-girls school, then totally accurate. Many do/did have female-only teachers to mitigate obvious potential risks of rape. The sociopath one is more a reflection of our retarded medical and judicial system than anything else, so it doesn't really have a place here, despite it's similarity to crazy aggressive dogs. However in the context of pedos being banned from jobs involving kids, then yes, very accurate.

 

We obviously agree on the bias of that link I posted, but it shows good examples of damage smaller dogs simply can't deliver. Get attacked by a Maltese Terrier? Just kick it over the goal posts. Job's done.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The terrier comment is part of my issue with small dogs and the way they are (mis)handled. Its an all too familiar mindset people have that small dogs don't require the same level of care and training because of their size and because they lack the capacity to inflict the same damage as a larger dog breed. This is fundamentally flawed as it's based on a prejudice that size is the issue alone, not size and behaviour. Kicking it over the goal posts is reactionary, not preventative. Train the dog better and the chance of the attack is significantly reduced, this applies to all breeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree they need training like all the others. My point was more that you have a reactionary option with them. Not goning to be so easy with a German Shepard or something.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting off topic, but when we got our German shepherd, we basically had to do a suitability test, prove we had suitable property, fencing etc, also had to prove we had the income capacity to look after her. The breeder we used usually doesn't sell to the public though, only police and armed services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to clarify my stace, I feel that Pitbulls and similar dogs are like inert ordnance. Treat it right and you most likely won't have an issue, but if it explodes you and anyone nearby are f*cked. Keeping it at home shows a lack of concern for your own family's safety, but there's no real justification for carrying it around town and potentially endangering others should it go haywire for no reason.

 

I own a Doberman and had a Staffy when I lived at home (which lives with my parents still)

 

I will and always will, walk my dogs in public, around kids, to the parks or beach. Any dog can attack and its up to the owner to help prevent that by having the dog around people and other dogs at a young age. I know my dog will not attack anyone and specially for no reason. A few members off here who bring their infant childern to mine and play with the dog can vouche for that too.

 

Not always the dog is the one who needs the training but the owners (as I know you are aware).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting lol after every sentence. Are you really laughing out loud while you are holding your phone on fb or ns, or in you room on you computer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat in the ocean.

 

(Not involving fishing and diving)

 

Ferk, hate it. I'd prefer a lake over a sea any day!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting lol after every sentence. Are you really laughing out loud while you are holding your phone on fb or ns, or in you room on you computer!

 

lol is the new fullstop, comma, question mark, and exclamation mark all in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×