License people to have pets like dogs.

  • gr8hands4you

    Posts: 117

    Aug 12, 2009 2:35 PM GMT
    I believe they should license the owners of pets like dogs. License them for owing and training the dog. If there is a issue remove the pet and the license,. Many people that have pets shouldn't. This was prompted by a previous forum.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 12, 2009 4:16 PM GMT
    with that reasoning, parents' should have a license for having children
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 5:02 PM GMT
    I have to say, I agree with both of the above posts. And, it is yet another way to raise tax revenue icon_wink.gif
  • dmt5276

    Posts: 16

    Aug 12, 2009 5:07 PM GMT
    calibro saidwith that reasoning, parents' should have a license for having children


    I completely agree... so whats next, we license people to buy a gold fish?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:01 PM GMT
    I have frequently said the very same thing!
    I have two full size Greyhounds that I have spent years socializing and training. Why? Because that is what you're supposed to do, dogs are not accessories, they aren't toys, they aren't hobbies, they are social living creatures that have needs.

    It drives me up the fucking wall when I have to deal with someone else's ambivalence and inability to socialize their "pet" and somehow thinks it's *my* responsibility to put up with bad behavior... theirs and their dogs.

    My dogs are the sweetest, kindest most docile creatures ever. I have literally thrown and kicked dogs that were uncontrollable and antagonizing my dogs. Ignore the dog, "Beware of owner" cause after I school your dog, you're next.

    Applying that same logic to children, my rage turns to disgust... because the realization that children are 'social living creatures with needs' should go without saying, yet any fool can bring a child into the world and get away with atrocious child rearing.. or lack thereof...

    I have nothing but contempt and disdain for negligence on either level.
    I'll stop now before my rant becomes a mile long...

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 12, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
    People should have a license for sexual activity.
    Also, for the use and consumption of alcohol.

    Wouldn't the world be a better place if people were licensed by the government in everything they did that involved interaction and possible risk to other people or society as a whole?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:12 PM GMT
    Ridiculous idea.

    Let's license people for having kids, while we're at it.

    That way, the "state" gets to decide who is a fit parent, who can breed, etc. It's just like eugenics, and isn't that ideal?

    FYI: look at the history of the US, in the early 20th century, 22 different states had sterilization laws where the "unfit" would be sterilized. "unfit" was to be determined by the state, for example, if you had several relatives that were criminals, that would be reason enough. or say... were a person of colour. there were actually "Eugenics fairs" where towns would show off the "best bred" families.

    oh, and what about people who have children that are mentally handicapped. do they become unfit after that?

    sorry, but, people are messed up, to think that people, or for that matter, dogs, will and should be raised in the "right" environment always is a utopian ideal which can and NEVER will be realized. and the proposal to license it would just be giving the state the decision making power, which is giving the authority of such a thing to people who are EVEN more irresponsible and self-interested.

    sorry, awful idea. i hope it never comes to pass. although, it wouldnt surprise me.

    but yeah, terrible idea.

    we don't live in the "perfect" world, and we never will. some people will just do a bad job of raising kids or dogs or whatever. it's called being human.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Aug 12, 2009 6:19 PM GMT
    Agree with MeOhMy. This isn't a perfect world. I wish we could require dog owners -- and parents, for that matter -- to get licensed, but this is a pipe dream. Besides, given cut backs across the country right now, do you think this is a wise use of taxpayer money? In Los Angeles, the Department of Animal Care and Control is years behind in renewing animal licenses because of lack of staffing. There just isn't enough money to add yet another layer.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:21 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidwe don't live in the "perfect" world, and we never will. some people will just do a bad job of raising kids or dogs or whatever. it's called being human.


    Perfection is never reached unless it's reached for.
    Evolution of standards is inherent in "being human" if it weren't we would be living in the dark ages.

    Raising our social consciousness to see the greater capacity we are capable of exercising is part of the human condition... flaws and all. Be it with children, dogs or any social reform it's called revolution, the basis of all progress.

    People should socialize their fucking dogs and parent responsibly. Because some don't doesn't mean the message should be lost in the ambivalence of a few.

    We should expect at least an honest attempt at responsible behavior from ourselves and others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:30 PM GMT
    yes i agree about perfection. kind of.

    first off, it is NEVER reached. there is no such thing as perfection, especially when its aims and goals are attempted under the heavy hand of government. in any capacity.

    we have to go for the best thing possible, and that is in the individual, not the state, not the "market", the individual, free thinking person. the "state" and the "free" market (as in, oligopoly-monopoly regulated capitalism), are damaging to the individual.

    all hope for human progress is never achieved by "state control" or "corporate engineering." it's in individual achievements. not perfection, but progress.

    my problem with utopian ideals is that they are just that... utopian...and ideal. they can and never will happen. nor should they. take any person who is close to you, they are NOT perfect and never will be. yet, isnt it so often the case that their "flaws" are often the most amazing things about them, and when you miss someone, isnt it amazing how their little "flaws" are often what is missed most?

    i think society should be viewed as a person. we can never achieve perfection, but we CAN achieve betterment. attempting to achieve PERFECTION will only result in disaster.

    the whole history of any organized attempt at creating a "utopia" has always, and will always, turn into a DYStopia.

    anyway, a far cry from the original post. but, its just... licensing dog owners gets into this idea that "the state knows best" when it doesnt. people ahve this mentality that everyone should be perfect, and that the state IS perfect, so give it the power over people. it's absurd, and leads no where but bad places.

    *my two cents*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:31 PM GMT
    In the other thread, a poster mentioned that he and his dog were mauled by two dogs. Dogs maim and kill people. The vast majority don't, but then, the vast majority of guns or cars don't either and require safety precautions and education for those. So yes, a mandated class and license sounds reasonable to me.
  • gr8hands4you

    Posts: 117

    Aug 12, 2009 6:44 PM GMT
    Im glad I brought it up ! ! !
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 12, 2009 6:57 PM GMT
    Why don't we require that people have a license to consume alcohol? It's far more dangerous than the errant dog attack.

    The same should be done for sexual activity. People obviously can't control themselves when it comes to the spread of disease which is a huge burden on society in terms of medical costs and even lives lost - so shouldn't people be required to have a license for sexual activity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 6:59 PM GMT
    This is competently irrelevant some fuckwad kid spray painted my black lab white todayicon_confused.gif

    I think we should license people to reproduce and sterilize the ones that fail
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 7:02 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidIn the other thread, a poster mentioned that he and his dog were mauled by two dogs. Dogs maim and kill people. The vast majority don't, but then, the vast majority of guns or cars don't either and require safety precautions and education for those. So yes, a mandated class and license sounds reasonable to me.


    Good point.
    It made me realize that the large part of my animosity is because one of my Greyhounds was mauled by a Great Dane. 6 hours of surgery, 100 internal stitches, 80 external, six drainage tubes that I had to cleaned and cleared twice a day for a month and I had to carry her up and down two flights of stairs for that month so she could go to the bathroom. Collectively she had a year of recovery till she was 100% and another year to resocialize her so she wasn't afraid of other large dogs.
    My bad, bad experience is no small factor in my contempt.

    I rather it had been me so the dog would have been put down and I could sue the fuck out of the stupid bitch who was so negligent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
    MsclDrew saidThis is competently irrelevant some fuckwad kid spray painted my black lab white todayicon_confused.gif

    I think we should license people to reproduce and sterilize the ones that fail

    Sterilization: AMEN!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    agreed that way you don't have entire breeds of dogs getting banned because shitty people own them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 5:03 AM GMT
    . . . study W. C. Fields . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 5:35 AM GMT
    calibro saidwith that reasoning, parents' should have a license for having children


    *sigh* I'm glad someone up the top of the thread wrote this so I didn't have to expend energy writing it....but then I just used more energy to write what I just wrote. Hmm. Time for a nap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2009 5:57 AM GMT
    calibro saidwith that reasoning, parents' should have a license for having children


    Absolutely!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
    I'm gonna be the one to say why not? Why shouldn't parents have licenses?
  • somedaytoo

    Posts: 704

    Aug 20, 2009 11:36 PM GMT
    Would help me out. I have called the police soooo many times because my neighbor allows their 2 yippy little dogs to sit outside and bark. The barking goes completely unchecked even while the stupid lady is standing right there. I complained to here once and she slammed the door in my face. Wish I had it in me to "take care" of the problem myself, but of course that's not an option. She'd definitely loose her pet's license!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2009 11:44 PM GMT

    and children.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
    I had a thought the other week, about procreation: licensing children would be discriminatory, unless you dealt with it from a quota standpoint. Any family unit (define that) can have two kids, free, no questions. After two they have to prove financial ability (and maybe some other qualities, like psychological fitness).

    Something similar could apply to pets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2009 12:18 AM GMT
    A license to have children goes hand in hand with the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Anyone giving birth to a lethal weapon should be licensed to do so. icon_biggrin.gif