Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

429 replies

wannaBe · 29/08/2011 13:40

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?

OP posts:
intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:16

"You can't get through to them"

Precisely.

TheRealMBJ · 30/08/2011 18:17
Shock
WorzselMummage · 30/08/2011 18:18

Faverolles, my friends have an ADHD cat. The thing is vicious and completely psychotic, it is seriously miserable. They are the kind if people that will keep it whatever. I wouldn't give it house space.

OverthehillsandfarawayNL · 30/08/2011 18:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 30/08/2011 18:19
Pagwatch · 30/08/2011 18:20

Intelligenceitself -I don't understand what you are doing?

Are you trying to prove the ops point for her?
I assumed this was a something and nothing op and I don't really have a view on the Doghouse but your comments are sounding increasing rude and unnecessarily so.
If you are seeking to represent them you are coming across as very unpleasant.
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. I am sure most of the posters on The Doghouse are not quite so crass

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 30/08/2011 18:21

Well, my twopenn'orth...

The "who would you save in a fire" thing is completely misleading. In fact, there are a lot of ridiculous analogies being bandied around on this thread. The Tiktok not telling FFers that they are murderers comparison is ludicrous because giving a baby formula is unlikely to result in its death. It is a sad fact that the future of a sold puppy is much less certain.

The dogshouse topic has a lot of passionate people who have direct experience of the reality of irresponsible pet owners. Is it a surprise that they get angry when they frequently see death and pain as a result of poor decisions? A better comparison (although imperfect as we all disagree on the importance of an animal's life compared to a human's) would be this:

Imagine there were a group of people on MN who thought it was OK to treat children badly. Can't cope with your kids? Instead of seeking professional help, sell them, they can make you a decent profit! Such empassioned views against this would be acceptable, because the reality of doing such a thing is so abhorrent to the values of the average MNer. To the empassioned of the dogshouse (and indeed many others, who don't have the skills, experience and time that some devote to their advice on the topic), it is fundamentally important to reduce the risk of harm coming to animals, therefore when people ignore your (usually considered and lengthy) advice, it is terribly frustrating.

Instead of criticizing the posters who devote so much time to stopping the suffering of other beings, perhaps people should be informing themselves of the dark facts of animal rescue.

The original thread in question was a bit Hmm from the start. You care about your dogs yet won't consider rehoming them properly? Exactly what kind of advice do you want?

Personally, I rarely visit the dogshouse because a) I don't have, nor do I want a dog, and b) I get so upset, frustrated and angry about the amount of thoughtless idiots who think it is OK to risk the welfare of an animal purely because it isn't a human. Just because you would save your children first does not mean that animals deserve no care.

On a final note, you may not have intended this to be about one particular poster, but I bet she feels differently. If we agree with the "words on a screen" bullshit, this thread is void, as the poster of the selling-the-puppies thread could have just grinned and bore it.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 30/08/2011 18:21

I think that when the person who isn't coping has had a bereavment or PND or a particularly bad problem with the animal eg chronic diarreah, then people should be sympathetic. Often the OP will get suggestions on how to keep the dog because that's what they want to do - they want to find a way to keep it.

When the person got an animal because they wanted one, didn't do any research and then don't want it anymore because it's behaving like an animal then it takes someone with the patience of a saint not to be a bit fucked off with them. Particularly when they can't be bothered to put in the training work. When it's an animal that they got from a rescue that's already been through abondonment and kennels before it's hard for an animal lover to not be angry. I know that what is needed is someone to stay calm and reasoned but it's easier said than done.

Lougle · 30/08/2011 18:21

"ok so pet owners, what are animals (as a class, not your own personal pet) getting out of pet ownership

or alternatively

if thousands of years of domestication had not brought us to the point of having tame pet animals, would you advocate that we create them by deliberately breeding out of those animals the very characteristics which would allow them to lead independent lives sans owner?"

chibi your question is a philosophical one, not one that can be answered in practical terms.

a) If animals who we keep as pets were not tame, they would, by definition, not be pets but wild.

b) If the ancestry of pets is as we are told, and we did not breed out of them the very characteristics which would allow them to lead independent lives sans owners, then dogs would be wolves, cats would be wild cats, and, frankly, we humans would shoot them.

Human beings in our modern culture can not live alongside wild animals who would view us as a food source.

Dogs are happy when kept by responsible owners, because they get food, shelter, warmth, attention, affection and physical care.

This stuff is really all covered by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Humans are humans because they need so much more to make life worthwhile than pets.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 30/08/2011 18:22

Abandonment Confused

YaMaYaMa · 30/08/2011 18:22

Intelligence or Empusa, or anyone really from the doghouse, would you care to address the posts about that disgusting attack on the widow who wanted to rehome a puppy? Because, for all the side arguements and baby v dog rescuing, that thread is the sort of thing that people are actually talking about here. A few people have specifically mentioned it and I wonder if you think that was a justifed and measured response to a grieving woman who made the mistake of buying a puppy? Because it was truly awful and it's a bit weird that someone would treat another (vulnerable) person that way.

Pinot · 30/08/2011 18:23

IntelligenceItself - read what Pag wrote ^^ I can't say it any better. Really, I agree word for word and it makes me very sad as I thought this thread had turned itself around from the abusive side.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:24

Shit stirring? Oh so you thinks it's nice to discuss people on the DogHouse without them knowing? How lovely Hmm

Pag, I'm becoming irritated because animal lovers are maligned on here all the time due to their views, not their attitudes. And TBH this is nothing compared to how other animal threads have gone

MrsPlesWearsAFez · 30/08/2011 18:25

This thread proves the need for a emoticon

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:25

I didn't see the thread. Link if you want

OverthehillsandfarawayNL · 30/08/2011 18:26

Oh is 'Site Stuff' invisible? There was me thinking it was a PUBLIC part of a PUBLIC website that is FREE to access and therefore anybody could see anything that was said at any time.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:27

And also Pag the Doghouse thread is a source of reliable information that many have found helpful. I don't agree it's a witches brew, most flamings are deserved IMO

WorzselMummage · 30/08/2011 18:29

"I'm becoming irritated because animal lovers are maligned on here all the time due to their views, not their attitudes"

No, it's cause they can be rude, patronising, aggressive twats.

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:29

If they didn't SEE it they need to be informed of it due to it being about THEM, especially the bitchier type comments

Pagwatch · 30/08/2011 18:29

Maybe other threads have gone badly. Maybe you have taken a lot of shit. I haven't read it but I can understand feeling defensive.

But this is not doing anything to make pet lovers/animal lovers seem sensible, rational or approachable.
You are not engaging with anyone and your attacks are not banter nor are they humorous or anything else.

I maintain. You are making yourself look awful, which is fine if that is what you wanted. But I am not sure it is.

Fwiw I thought your post to Fab was particularly low. Perhaps reconsider what you want to achieve.

None of my business of course. Just saying.

Empusa · 30/08/2011 18:29

LoopyLoops said it well.

I have to agree intelligence you aren't helping too much. While some of your points I've agreed with, I know that a few years back, if I'd had a dog when my back gave up I'd have had to rehome it. Because I couldn't give it the care it needed. Obviously in that case it would probably have been better not to have the dog in the first place, when something unexpected happens, by it's very nature you cannot plan for it.

Bit of background, our dog was PTS a week before we discovered I was pregnant. If he was still with us I'd be facing a nightmare situation, as being pregnant has meant stopping taking painkillers for my back pain. I couldn't physically walk him now, and as my back is so bad, I need DH as my full time carer. So we'd struggle to give the dog the walks he needed. We'd have had to give him up for his own sake.

Much as I miss him, I'm glad it never came to that.

Maryz · 30/08/2011 18:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OverthehillsandfarawayNL · 30/08/2011 18:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 30/08/2011 18:31

Who is the 'widow' who was flamed? Not Trinity?

intelligenceitself · 30/08/2011 18:32

OK will leave the thread if I'm not helping. FAB asked how old I was so responded to that. I maintain that the personal comments about a certain poster were very unfair