Would angry dogs be angry if they were not dogs?

[MattusMaximus]

Just wondering...

[Ron_Tomkins]

They would probably be angry, but they sure as hell wouldn't be dogs anymore.

[Dunstan]

If they had rabies, they'd still be mad even if they weren't angry.

[MattusMaximus]

If I could like my balls at will, I don't think I'd ever be angry. But that's just me.

[Ron_Tomkins]

You mean "lick"

Unless you actually meant... that you loathe your balls :D

[bruto]

I think If I were an angry dog and found out in addition that I was not a dog at all I'd be pretty angry to find out that for all those years I could have eaten at the table instead of under it. Not to mention the leg humping. I could have done what? Man, I'd feel like biting someone.

[Foster Zygote]

This sounds like a question for Ali.

[quarky]

I'm writing my term paper on this very subject.
I sure hope someone knows the answer.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm writing my term paper on this very subject.
I sure hope someone knows the answer.
Answer: Moose balls

[I Ratant]

The dogs I've known that are "angry" are made that way by their keepers.
Pets raised in a loving environment are even better than people for returning affection.

[Fordama]

Happy dogs would be like Tillman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtRaz1cO-Ls

[quarky]

Moose balls sounds correct.

[Harpyja]

Perhaps there is something about being a dog that makes it inherently angry.

[Silentknight]

Would angry dogs be angry if they were not dogs?

Only if we keep misspelling their names to refer to an imaginary object of reverence.

[Dunstan]

If I could [lick] my balls at will, I don't think I'd ever be angry. But that's just me.

Guiltless ball-licking is the only reason dogs choose to be dogs in the first place.

[Foster Zygote]

Guiltless ball-licking is the only reason dogs choose to be dogs in the first place.

+10 points for cross-referencing the original thread to (one of) its parody threads.