Last I checked, dogs were not on the verge of extinction. Quite the opposite, in fact. If dogs were dying out, I’d be fine with a prohibition of eating them, and I would reject all cultural arguments about ‘old-timers’, ‘tradition’ and people being ‘set in their ways’. In my book, culture is not holy. The thing is, though, that in plenty of areas, dogs are a pest rather than an endangered species.
A good enough reply, but using that argument, you could make a far better case for eating humans. After all, we are omnivores, so it probably wouldn’t affect our diet too much.
Yes, you can make that case, as long as you are a sub moronic troll.
Evidence? Cites? Let’s see what you’ve got.
I guess he qualifies.
To paraphrase-Your posts are our cite.
- see post #184 *
Your posts are my cite.
(Dammit! I didn’t look up past ivan’s last post and I copied Czarcasm’s post almost verbatim.)
So, am I trolling in ALL of my 700+ posts? What percentage exactly of my posts on here, display evidence of “trolling” or “sub-moronic” behaviour? You and anyone else making accusations are going to have to be precise here, or otherwise I’m just going to discount it as subjective opinion.
37.78% of your posts are obvious trolling attempts.
23.34% of your posts are less obvious trolling attempts.
38.88% of your posts are just batshit insane.
Good enough for you?
No. You’ve just pulled them figures out of your arse.
p.s. Now shove them back in. Your brain’s leaking out.
eta - Amendment before grammar police arrested me.
Cite? 
Now Dude, that isn’t very nice. Prove to me that I didn’t read every one of your posts and arrive at my numbers legitimately.
The only accuracy was that they added up to 100. If you want to convince me you’ve read ALL my posts - so you can make at least a half-assed attempt at ‘truthfulness’ - you are going to have to bring ‘evidence’ to the table. You can add your own subjective analysis of said ‘evidence’ as well, if it helps your cause. 
Excuse my rudeness, I mistook your post for one of Ale’s, who suggested I was ‘sub-moronic’, and was replying in kind. Sorry, dude.
*Hang on! I take that back. You fucking agreed with him! *
Look, the problem here is that you demand evidence, but do not provide any of your own. You try to rile people up to get a reaction. Trolls, by definition, try to rile people up to get a reaction. I don’t believe for a second that your OP was meant sarcastically, I believe you claimed that to get out from under the shitstorm you started.
Your opinions are not evidence.
And I still do.
What evidence do I need to provide? I’m not the one accusing anyone of ‘trolling’!
You know this because you know me so well, eh? Come on, where are the abundant examples?
I agree, there was nothing sarcastic about my OP. It was a sincere attempt to find out more about the subject, albeit not in an emotionally detached manner.
And nor are yours, or anyone else’s, but that is all I’m getting.
I tried to eat dog once. I like to think I’ll try anything, but I just wasn’t even able to put the dog in my mouth. I did eat horse in Japan. Oddly enough, served raw and sliced thinly, it was more like tuna sashimi than Mr. Ed carpaccio. In other words, not too bad, but still I won’t eat it again. The taste isn’t enough to overcome (1) the cost and (2) the fact that I’m eating a companion animal, even though it’s kind of a cow-sized and cow-shaped companion animal.
Let me help you out. The figures given by Who Me? indicate there are 276 blatant trolling attempts within my post count. Go and get the 10 best examples, and we’ll go on from there, shall we?