New Debate: How would a dog wear pants? (1 Viewer)

[Mr Tree]

Incorrect, those front two are legs not arms

I have to agree with Jack's logic.

1 exposed asshole trumps two exposed front legs

 

[JoseRijo]

Dogs are 4 legged animals, thus pants are intended to cover legs, whether or not they look ridiculous should not be apart of the equation

I'm not shocked MAK is the troll here (but kudos to admitting it). Pants aren't intended to cover legs - the legs-covering is just a bonus.

Dog-shorts would only have two lower openings, not four. Therefore, dog-pants look like the right option.

Q.E.D.

 

[BGinGA]

Gotta admit, this looks like the correct answer. Covers legs, covers butt, doesn't cover nipples, even has suspenders, nothing left to debate....

How about option 3?

 

[jbutler]

 

[manamongkids]

 

[BiGGyT]

Lacking opposable thumbs would make all irrelevant. But 2 legs with butt flap

 

[bivey]

Didn't read all responses, so sorry if this is repeated. Option A is not pants. It is overalls. Option B is correct if you are looking for pants. But what about option C, why the F#$^ is a dog in either?

 

[guinness]

 

[bivey]

View attachment 27498

This reminds me of pledging in college. Not my house mind you, just sayin'