ADEP test

Some folks are a bit confused about exactly who is an ADEP.  I put together this handy self test to determine if you are in fact an ADEP (all dogs except pits).

If you support restricting pit bulls via BSL or other means, continue.  Otherwise, you automatically get a score of zero (not an ADEP), therefore exit.

Question 1:  Are dogs sacred animals that must be endlessly glorified, idolized and worshiped by all?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 2:  Are dogs the equivalent of, or superior to, human children?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 3:  Hypothetical - if you had to choose between rescuing a human child or a (non-pit) dog, would you rescue the dog?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 4:  The entire purpose of human civilization is to promote dogs and dog owners?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 5:  Are dogs vastly superior to all other living things, including humans?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 6:  If your parent's own dogs, are those dogs your "siblings"?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 7:  Is anyone critical of dog barking, dog maulings (by non-pit dogs), dog waste everywhere and service dog fraud indeed The Spawn of Hitler and Satan™?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 8:   Are a dozen Rottweilers housed in a 400 square foot apartment a great idea?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 9:  Is dog shit magic fertilizer?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Question 10:   Are dog owners indeed a super-elite group of people that deserve to be above any and all rules?

A:  Yes

B:  No

Scoring.   Tally 1 point for any question answered "Yes".   So, 3 yes' = 3 points.

0 Points:  Not an ADEP.  You have a sane view of dogs in society, and realize that some breeds are more problematic than others.

1-3 Points:  You are an "ADEP lite".   Delusional, but probably worth saving.

4-6 Points:  Full blown ADEP.   You are a hypocritical dog nutter.

7-10 Points:   Prison is the best place for you.  Like, for life.

Updated rants for next VC: EEEERRRESPONSUBLE OWNERRRZZZZZ

 Today's topic:  EEEEERRRESPONSIBLE  OWNERRZZZ!

"Irresponsible dog owner" is a redundancy.  Its like saying "wet water".  Dog ownership is essentially an irresponsible activity.   While there is some nuance and leeway here, for the most part, responsible people do not own dogs.  Pursuant to that, anyone who advocates for dog ownership, makes excuses for bad dog behavior, agitates for "dogs first" public policies is likewise irresponsible regardless of whether they own a dog or not.

Anyone familiar in the space knows, or should know, that 99+% of "pet" and/or "animal" problems in society involve a dog.  This is due to the public policy double standard that restricts anything else that is even remotely like them.   If anything else caused more than 1% the problems of dogs, that would be restricted.  Yet, there are dogs everywhere.  That said, the fact that this "excess" is technically legal does not make it ethical or responsible.  Owning the absolute worst pet, by a huge margin, on the planet is by definition irresponsible.

Actual offences aside, what defines an irresponsible dog person?  Owners and dog apologists.

• Anyone who owns a pit bull.  There is no such thing as responsible pit bull [or similar] ownership, and bringing any pit bull into any human occupied space (and, by that I mean anywhere on Earth) is by definition irresponsible. 
• Anyone who brings a large dog (25+ lbs, say) into any crowded community.  Shepherds, retrievers, herding dogs, protection dogs, etc... are essentially farm animals and do not belong in cities and crowded subdivisions.  For example, keeping a border collie in an apartment is irresponsible:  Doing so would be as bad or worse as keeping a large pig in an apartment.  In fact, the pig might be less bad than the border collie.   Goats, sheep, pigs, etc.... are zoned out farm animals and any dog breed other than a toy dog [perhaps mini breeds] should be, also.  
• Anyone unable to meet the basic needs of the animal, or keeps it in a way that is by definition neglectful   For example, anyone who owns a Husky [or similar] south of, say, 45 degrees north latitude.  Everyone who owns a Husky in Florida (or any warm climate), or in anyway advocates for them, is by definition irresponsible.  Huskies in Florida are a per-se animal welfare fail and a public nuisance.  
• Anyone in any way related to the "servus dawg" dumpster fire.  The most "legit" service dog handler on earth is by definition irresponsible.  This is true for at least 2 reasons:  1)  Anyone with a disability or health problem has a duty to themselves to mitigate the problem in the most effective way possible.  Service dogs fail at an epic rate and in fact may be worse than doing nothing.  Service dogs are snake oil, and the "servus dawg" people need to realize that most people won't take your health problem seriously when its obvious that you do not.  They may as well take a stone age medicine man with them everywhere.  2)  Pursuant to the prior point, being disabled or sick does not empower anyone to break all the rules, trash the rights of others, and cause all sorts of other problems.  Its incumbent on that person to mitigate their problem in a way that is not harmful to others.  Consider a diesel powered wheelchair:  That would be a good analogue for a servus mutt.   Moving along, any medical professional that prescribes or in any way recommends a service dog to patients/clients is likewise irresponsible:  Professional people have an obligation to promote efficient, effective solutions to patients, not push animal worship on gullible people.  Anyone else promoting service dogs is, again, likewise irresponsible:  You are either lying or incompetent.  Any due diligence on the issue will reveal the fact that service dogs are a huge scam, perhaps one of the largest medical scandals of the last 100 years.
• Anyone in any way involved with the police K9 disaster.  Similar to service dogs, EVERYONE involved in the K9 supply chain, use thereof, or anyone who promotes them in any way is by definition irresponsible.  And, I mean ALL of them are by definition irresponsible.  Look up Florida v Harris, pursue some due diligence on police dogs violating the 4th and 8th amendment rights of suspects, attacking random people for no reason (including 2 legged "police officers") anyone who has done any research would know that police dogs are a civil rights and public policy disaster and that ANYONE claiming that a dumb animal [dog] is a police officer is irresponsible.  
• And, of course, anyone who breaks dog laws, allows their dog to become a burden on others without consent, and anyone who excuses said lawbreaking and burdening.

While dog ownership is spread across all the usual demographics, its apparent that Dog ownership appeals to low-iq, immature, low-class, mindlessly selfish, marginal people.  Consider my prior and current across the street neighbors.  Dog ownership appeals to those unable to consider any consequences, and generally cannot think more than 30 seconds into the future.

So, what defines RESPONSIBLE dog ownership?  I presume those are inclusive of dog owners that do NOT meet any of the points made above.  So, we are at, what.... 5%?  10% tops?