Yet is so obviously untrue. What use are dogs? Can they make pasta, roll a joint or do other useful things around the house? No they can't. So why have them? They're completely stupid high maintenance beasts who bark and whine, fart, piss and shit all over the place. And please don't try and tell me that their existence is justified because "they make their owners happy" as if their owners deserve to be happy or something. Clearly they don't
Understand I'm making a generalisation here. Being blind, for example, scrapes by as a passable reason for owning a dog - but otherwise there's really is very little excuse for this kind of behaviour. And there's absolutely none at all for letting them shit all over the pavement like someone around my way has been doing. Or perhaps it's more than one (a 'conspiracy' of dog-owners is the collective noun here, I believe) who thinks there's a sign at the top of my street that says "Dog Toilet Facility Ahead: Please Allow Your Stupid Mutt to Shit Anywhere." There isn't one - I would have noticed! One of the dog-owning cretins even allowed his or her creature to hoist its leg and use my front tyre as a fucking lamppost. Bastards! Though it may take night-vision goggles and a crossbow, I'm going to catch one of these fuckers at it someday.
Dog and dog-owning apologists make the lamest "a few bad apples" sort of excuses for this kind of thing - a shallow attempt to evade the issue here, which is that dogs and the overwhelming majority of their owners are either completely stupid, completely mental, or both.
Certain kinds of dog and dog-owners stand out. They say dogs and their owners end up looking like each other. Probably a dog-owner that came up with this drivel. Obviously people buy dogs that look like them in the first place. There's a mental thing to do in itself. So, for example, you get these Glasgow neds with dogs that are all muscle, teeth, and anger with very short hair and call them 'Sabre' or something similar that sounds suitably well-hard and pure mental. The sort of dog that if it mounted your leg, the safest option is always to fake an orgasm.
Then there's the people you see who carry these small hairy rodent type dogs around (because this particular breed can't walk or something?) put wee jackets on them, talk to them and other weird shit like that. Mentalists, clearly. Frequenting the alcohol section of my local supermarket, as is my want, I once came dangerously close to one of the dog-carrying community who was consulting the mutt lodged in her armpit about her wine choice:
"So what shall we get then Fifi (or something)?" - in very scary 'as talking to a small child' kind of voice.
"I was thinking maybe something Australian - Shiraz Cabernet perhaps?" said the dog.
No it didn't. This being on account of the brute and inescapable fact that it's a fucking dog and therefore can't talk! It certainly can't contribute to the whole debate surrounding the relative merits of New World wines - so stop trying to involve it in conversation, crazy person!
Not that I'm a cat person, you understand. I've noticed there's a lot of cat-people in the blogosphere for some reason. I'm not one of those. Cats are preferable to dogs only due to the obvious and enormous shortcomings of the latter. Cats may be less stupid but they sleep most of the day, stay out all night, only come to see you when they want food and warmth, wreck your furniture, and generally have a bad attitude. I mean you might as well have a teenager living with you. I would agree that one thing you could say in their favour is that at least cats clean themselves. True - but then again you don't hope your cat will grow out of this phase, go earn some money and perhaps contribute to their up-keep, do you? Exactly - so why have them? Houses for humans is my motto. I may start a pressure group. Please give generously.
Your result for The How much do you like dogs? Test...