DogMagazine.net handbags at dawn

[nekokate]

I'm having a bit of a ding-dong with the editor of "K9 Magazine", check it out!

It's an onging exchange of views, and so far he's managed to compare the muzzling of dogs with injustice towards Muslims, and then deny he did so, even with the article in black and white above the comments section.

My latest reply is still "awaiting moderation", but this is the story so far...

[faceless]

I spoke to him last week as I emailed to give him a download link to the part of the show that's in contention. In the emails he mentioned the dogs/Moslems 'connection' and while I suggested it didn't make a good argument, he's stuck with it.

[nekokate]

Apparently he's online right now as he's just replied again to me, even as I posted this. His latest reply (beginning "So we're clear..." for those who are reading this days or weeks later) is an absolute intellectual shambles. I shall now rebutt it.

[luke]

go neko go neko

[nekokate]

OK, I've pretty much said everything to him that needs to be said. He strikes me as the sort of person who craves the "last word" however, so I imagine he will come back with some arbitrary rubbish.

[mickyv]

Thanks Kate, interesting little exchange you are having there. Having read through. I’m struck by the following;

He has stated that muzzling dogs in Public “will cause an increase of dog attacks because it will create a generation of supressed dogs who are MORE likely to attack people when their muzzle is off”. Since by definition this will not be able to happen be in a Public place, but rather in the private home/area of the dog owners, the safety of the Public is therefore of secondary importance to that of the minority who want to run of the risk of owning potentially dangerous dogs !

He has also stated the mantra of “Dog attacks is a people problem” & the related false straw argument of “Guns are designed to kill and wound, dogs are not”. This is ignoring the fact that in so many of the reported tragic cases, the dog owners do indeed appear to be responsible dog owners, and they are left shocked & bewildered, expressing their disbelieve by statements along the lines of; “This dog has always been so docile & good with kids”, “It was a kind loving dog, that never ever shown any past aggression”, etc. In other words dogs are unpredictable by Nature, anything from the sound of a baby in a pram to the colour of a T-Shirt to the odour of a perfume/aftershave, etc can make these potential time-bombs explode. All dogs are unstable whetever dog lovers believe it or not, and if they want to gamble with their well-being, and that of their family’s, that is their choice, but they should not share the risk with the Public.

He has of course also clearly contradicted himself;

“I value the life of MY dog’s higher than any person who would seek to hurt or kill MY dogs “

with

“point out anywhere where I have suggested human welfare is not more important than animal welfare”


and showed that far from tackling this issue from a rational point of view, he’s thinking is deeply clouded & bias because of the love of his pets. He should be reminded that the Law values & knows the difference between a human and an animal, and if he killed anybody who killed any pet, he would be the person inside serving a long prison sentence.

Finally he made a cheap smear against Galloway, by framing an insinuation as to GG motivation, by means of an open question;

“in the hope of courting popularity amongst people who are, frankly, anti-dog?”

He has no basis for thinking that GG is not sincere in his concern, and this nasty slur should be highlighted.


If you decide to further the debate with him, you are obviously free to consider or not, if any of the points I made above are worth picking up on

[mickyv]

Sorry Kate, but I’m getting carried away now (I do like a good debate !);


If you do go back to him, and mention about dogs being triggered by colourful T-Shirts, then hopefully he will retort with a sneering comeback along the lines of; “That just proves you know nothing, as dogs are colour-blind”. This is good, because your response can then be along the lines of;

Yes people who know very little about dogs, don’t know dogs have a problem with seeing colours; People who do know a little about dogs, do know dogs have a problem seeing colours; People (like Editors of Dog Mags) who should know a lot about dogs, will know that dogs can in fact distinguish between colours. They have a condition similar to limited colour-blindness in humans; eg they can tell yellow from blue, but not red from green. So maybe you don’t know as much about dogs as you think you do, and as you really ought to.

[faceless]

[nekokate]

I'm going to leave it at that, hehe. We've agreed to disagree, although I'm a bit pissed off that he went back and corrected all but one of the spelling mistakes in his penultimate post so that my "spelling and grammar" jibe now appears to be unfounded. Grrr. Oh well, it's his website.

[mickyv]

Yes this thing about muzzling will lead to more aggressive dogs is a bit suspect. All the police dogs & security guard dogs that are often seen patrolling in Public, DO actually look “happy, content and comfortable”. If this muzzling makes dogs more aggressive, does it mean that all guard dogs/police dog are being muzzled all the time to make them do their jobs ? If it is bad, cruel & leads to more attacks on humans, why isn’t the RSPCA checking out how guard & police dogs are being trained ?

Your story reminds me of a friend who once got bitten by a Doberman puppy, so he bit it back on the ear. Years later, he come across this now fully grown & mean looking Doberman, but it took one look at him, and must have remembered, as it did the apologetic mode thing you just described. Dogs may not be human, but they do have almost human feelings & memories, but not tell the Editor bloke that !

[mickyv]

That's ok Kate, but I'm sure this issue will keep coming up. There's even another case being reported today;

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1281012,00.html