mn hq, is it really wise to have topics that are deamed so agressive/scary that most members don't want to post there?

[wannaBe]

have just read a thread in the doghouse topic, and posts from a few posters saying that they never post there due to the agressive responses there.

Now, I know that hiding a topic could always be an option, but is it really in the spirit of mn to have separate topics that are deamed so unwelcoming/agressive that few posters actually want to post there?

I can of course see the need for certain sections, conception/sn/relationships, but it just seems against everything that mn stands for to let a topic exist that is frequented only by a few individuals while the majority feel that the responses there are agressive enough to warrant not feeling comfortable there.

Why can't we just go back to having a pets topic?

Empusa. Have you actually got children? I cannot honestly believe anyone would consciously say a pet, any pet, is equal to a child when we are talking life or death.

Yes Empusa - your opinion is wrong.

I think it's natural to save your own family over others, personally.

Yes, animals are completely reliant on humans for their survival.

They do not however, have the same emotional attachment to their human as a child has to its parents.

A child would grieve FOREVER at the loss of a parent, it would have the most phenomenal impact on their entire life.

To compare a parent/child relationship with a dog/owner relationship is downright stupid.

I can;t say I want to look after your child Maryz so I'm sure that's not a problem.

But you are confusing valuing a pet's life highly with not valuing a child's life. I'd do everything in my own power to save both.

The burning building scenario is ridiculous, because the likelihood of it ever happening and any of us actually having to choose is thankfully very remote. People may well think they'd respond this way or that, but hopefully none of us would ever have to put our money where our mouth is. And I speak as someone who was so concerned during the snow last winter I seriously considered letting the hens roost on the side of the bath. I played the conversation through in my head before I actually articulated it to DH, though, so saved myself some embarassment.

Gosh-I don't have a dog so have never looked, but I fail to see how dogs could be a difficult topic. I thought dog people were friendly.
I know to keep of the topic of extensive breast feeding, keep well away from from feminism and watch what I say on HE.

Intelligence/Ephemia
You know what. I am not going to berate you for that. It is your opinion, your philosophy. I cannot understand it, and will never be able to.

It would be good if you could do the same for those of us who see things differently to you.

Sorry keep off

MmeL I repeat, and I think I am right, that no-one has said that dog owners should put their dog before their children in the case of a fire.

I'm not blaming OP or you but I think this thread has got a little personal.

Or it certainly did part way through. It's gone off on a whole other tangent now.

Woof

"It would be good if you could do the same for those of us who see things differently to you."

Where have I told you that you were wrong? I just explained why some of us felt the way we did, and why we personally would act certain ways. I haven't called you a bad pet owner for not valuing animals and children the same, but I've been accused of being a bad parent.

Empusa you do realise that in the event of a house fire your dog would stand on your burning body to get out of the house (if he could) and not give a crap about you, don't you?

Or, this dog that you would risk orphaning your children for doesn't love you back, doesn't miss you and would attach to anyone who fed him after 5 minutes of your painful death?

Surely surely you wouldn't put your children through a lifetime of not having a mother to save an animal who doesn't give a shit about you?

(I say that as a dog owner who loves my dog)

When Empusa does have a child, I highly doubt that if she had to choose to save either her dog or her baby from burning to death that she would choose her dog.

,

Cheria
At least two posters have said that they value their children and pets equally, and that asking them to decide between them would be a "Sophie's Choice"

Actually my old dog was a herding dog, he'd probably have tried to herd me out

Either way, he was my responsibility.

Well woof at you MmeL I obviously haven't read the thread closely enough

Alright, you have 2 arms, imagine you have 3 kids, now imagine someone telling you that you could only save 2? Would you accept that?

"Cheria, some people are saying they would put their dogs before other people's children"

Where on earth have you read that?

We have said that we have equal responsibilty for both, having chosen to have both. Pets are not furniture, but feeling, living creatures who are dependant on their owners.

Sorry to intrude at this late date, but do people seriously consider the life of an animal to equal in value that of human beings?

I speak as the adoring pet of a London's best-loved cat (rehomed, spayed, chipped, exercised, groomed, vetted 6 monthly and kept sleek and fit, before anyone pounces), who I like more than most of my friends, but until an animal can compose a symphony, campaign for injustice, devise new methods of healing, or do any number of the things that raise our species above the depths it seems to sink to on a regular basis, I will always think its value being less than that of a human.

Apart from Richard Littlejohn and others of his ilk, clearly.

"Take the example of a car in a river. There is a child in the back seat, a dog in the boot. Which do you open first? Does it really depend on whether it is your dog and someone else's child, or the other way around."

Whichever I could reach first, because going further and then doubling back would take longer. I'd always be trying to do both.