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?

I agree that some people are caught in the middle. They are generally the ones who won't post there as a result of witnessing a flaming. Some of those flamings are seriously deserved though.

One of the things practically guaranteed to cause bloodshed is any discussion about a dog snapping or 'biting' (I mean teeth leaving a mark but no blood, stitches etc.) Regardless of what the OP feels these tend to descend into shouting matches because people flood onto the thread to say that the dog must be put down as it is a danger to children etc etc. Even when it is being suggested that the dog is removed from the home to somewhere more suitable. It reminds me of the whole 'once a lion has attacked a human they must be killed as they have developed a taste for human flesh' thing. It is really odd.

i just find it creepy]

to me i want a pet =i want to keep another living thing, who can exercise no choice in the matter, fully dependent on my whims for its survival, until it dies

admittedly it isn't how we normally think about pets, but worth a ponder

Again, what kind of lily livered person can't cope with a cat? Animals end up being put down due to the bad luck of ending up with such people

fine, chibi, then don't get a pet. Its not The Law.

you're really not furthering the discussion here, intelligence

Silverfrog I don't think you would have been viewed like that at all. You might have been given the number of somewhere that has experience helping treat children with dog phobias. You wouldn't have been flamed.

Intelligence I think you're basically providing a neat conclusion to this discussion, ie, there are whack-jobs in every area of life, and one must not tar everyone else with the same whack-job brush.

I think it was Confucious who first said that.

Whilst we're equating pets and kids - what about all those feckless women who have babies and then develop crippling PND and fail to cope? Shall we burn them too or can we concede that life doesn't turn out the way you think and shit happens and may, just maybe a helping hand is useful rather than a clobbering fist?

I think anyone who feels they can't cope should rehome the pet, not be made to feel bad for it.

People who get the pet knowing it isn't possible for them to look after it should be flamed to within an inch of their lives though. For example anyone who gets a pet but isn't willing to get insurance or pay for the vets (like my dogs previous owner). Or someone who gets a dog knowing they cannot walk it, and chooses a dog that needs lots of walks, like my neighbours.

Anyone who has had a change of circumstance, should be able to rehome. As long as they do try to do their best to make sure the pet is going to be ok. (eg. selling it is a bit iffy)

We couldn't cope with a cat. Brought it home from the rescue center and 24 hours later DH was fighting for every breath. This may seem odd to some, but I actually love DH more than a cat, so as upset as I was the cat was returned to the rescue centre.

Seriously, have you met a cat? My friend has three. If she failed to feed them and they ran out of wildlife they would eat her.

Considering the discussion had turned to snidey picking on a valued poster I think I have furthered it somewhat. Thanks for your appraisal anyway

Agreed Empusa. Absolutely.

Chickens this person was not allergic, just useless

OverTheHill: People have been flamed for posting about their PND or depression which led them to needing to rehome or ask for help.

They are generally told to man up and a couple of posters will jump in and say "The day after my head fell off I was taking my dog on a thirty mile hike" .

My neighbours have had cats all their lives. Their latest bunch includes one (rescued as a tiny kitten and hand reared) that they cannot cope with.
They are experienced cat owners, have rehabilitated feral cats, hand reared dozens of helpless kittens, yet here they have a cat whose sole aim in life is to destroy them and their home.
The vet reckons it has a cat equivalent of ADHD, and says that occasionally comes across it.
The cat is on happy tablets for its own sake, as if these people struggle, a normal cat owner without their experience would stand no chance with the bloody thing!
They are not twats.

I went on the Doghouse when my dog snapped and tried to bite my face, and I'm damn glad I did, because the suggestions there meant we found out why he did it and how to deal with him. And it never happened again. That;s where the Doghouse is a lifeline. Without that advice, maybe we'd have had him put down unnecessarily, which would have been wrong.

When it came to time to put him down I didn't feel judged, all I got was sympathy and advice.

In his case I could have had people telling me I was giving up too soon, as part of my reasoning was I couldn't afford any more treatment. In the version of the Doghouse described on this thread, surely I'd have been flamed for it? But I wasn't.

I'm just pointing out that shit happens, I guess. DH had never shown signs of allergy to cats before, and had in fact grown up with one. When I called the rescue to say we would have to return the kitten (complete with sobbing children sound effects in the background) and the reasons why, I was told to 'keep it for a bit to see if the allergy passes'. DH was a fetching shade of grey at the time and mainlining ventolin. When I insisted on returning Sassy (she was adorable) I was met with a lousy attitude. I was certainly made to feel like a feckless arsehole that had simply changed my mind.

Hmmm, this might not have anything to do with anything. I'm just bitter.

This post has taken a very twist.

Ayone who puts a dogs life equal to the lives of their own children didn't ougt to have children IMO. Stick to the dogs.

Intelligence
Don't you see that this is exactly what Wannabe is meaning?

"She was not allergic, just useless".

FFS. This attitude is why people are frightened of posting on the Doghouse topic.

You might be able to cope with a whole ark full of animals, but not everyone is suitable to be a pet owner.

And if she admits that she cannot cope and asks for help to rehome the cat, where is the harm?

You would think she had posted that she had tied the cat in a sack and thrown it in the Thames.

Don't forget some people posted on here a while ago to say they felt more sorry for the polar bear then the boy it killed.

They agreed with Morrisey's comments about the Norway Massacre being on a par with what Mcdonalds does everyday.

You can't get through to them.