Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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:
DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 13:41

Maybe not, but condoning her choice would also be wrong. She was not spoken to in an abusive way on the first thread. She was offered excellent advise by all posters concerned and sympathy from quite a few. A select few chose to withhold sympathy as they struggled to understand why she had taken on such a huge responsibilty at such a turbulent time in her life, but she was not abused or bullied or attacked.

Imo she wasn't abused as such on the second thread. She wasn't supported, by any means, but no personal attacks were made against her character. Why should she have been supported in endangering her dog for the sake of cash when she was offered such good advise in the first thread?

MonsterBookOfTysons · 31/08/2011 13:41

Take that back, I am not wrong, just checked.
The thread about having to sell puppies had the op link to another thread. Where an argument was continued, that is what I am trying to say the OP was out of order for.
Bloody illness.

Lougle · 31/08/2011 13:52

It's a red herring to talk about whether advice is 'honest'. You can be honestly mean and nasty, and honestly nice and helpful.

IME, 'honest' is code for 'downright nasty and I should be ashamed of myself, but I let my emotions get the better of me and can't admit it.'

honest isn't an excuse for 'mean'
passionate isn't an excuse for 'aggressive'

That is what this thread is about. An aggressive tone, directed at posters who ask advice about a less than ideal circumstance.

Who would dream about being so aggressive to a woman who was considering placing their child for adoption because they didn't feel they could cope with their pregnancy/baby?

Who would dream of be so aggressive to a woman who was considering abortion in the same circumstances?

I am fairly passionate about that subject, but you will never find me telling a woman that I feel that abortion is murder, or that she shouldn't be considering it, etc. Why? Because that woman has enough on her plate without some faceless stranger shovelling guilt on her shoulders.

I came across this article yesterday.

THAT is abuse. THAT is neglect. Not rehoming a dog who you realise will not get the best life living with you.

DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 14:04

I've just found the thread about the two puppies, again I didn't the advise the abusive, honest and straightforward yes but no personal attacks were made against the op and the advise was sound advise.

The op is the one who started the name calling. Perhaps the advise could have been worded more softly, but last time I checked this was an adult forum and not a creche. What the op was proposing to do was unsafe for the pups in question, particularly in Ireland where puppy farming is rife and downright nasty to the poor bitch who is to be locked in a garden all alone, day in day out, at risk of theft (by dog fighters or puppy farmers), bored and lonely and possibly exposed to the elements.

I read about Floyd earlier and have donated to his cause and will most likely donate again in the near future, however, other than the extremeness of Floyd's case I see little difference between his plight and that of the poor bitch locked in a garden all alone day in day out, both are neglectfull and cruel.

That is not a personal attack on the op of the other thread by the way, but it is my opinion and I don't see why I should condone her behaviour to make her feel better about her choices, when ultimately it is the dog and the pups who will end up suffering.

Threads like those are an extreme example. People asking for advise on regular, everyday problems with their dogs are given good, supportive advise.

If someone was to propose to neglect or endanger their child on a different board of MN I expect the responses would be much less tame than they are on the doghouse section, this does not mean that normal, responsible parents are not supported accross MN. I fail to see the difference?

MonsterBookOfTysons · 31/08/2011 14:09

DooIn I am with you all the way btw. I agree completely with your post and you have said what I am thinking in a much better way than I did :)

HallnotOates · 31/08/2011 14:09

Woof

DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 14:13

I really need to be off now. I have spent far too long on this thread and I am at risk of neglecting my own dogs and my sister's.

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 31/08/2011 19:43

Lougle: "Who would dream about being so aggressive to a woman who was considering placing their child for adoption because they didn't feel they could cope with their pregnancy/baby?"

Not me, but I would if she were to place an ad on Gumtree to exchange her kids for cash. Do you see the difference?

bruxeur · 31/08/2011 20:40

Loopy, do you see the difference between human children and animals?

Honest question, I reckon I could get a paper out of this.

RumourOfAHurricane · 31/08/2011 20:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 21:22

Yes there is a difference between children and animals, but we don't have to choose which to care for responsibly do we?

We can ensure to the best of our ability that both children and dogs are cared for properly and humanly and adopted safely if needs be. It's not an either or choice.

Cheria · 31/08/2011 21:26

Grin at how this thread is turning out.

bruxeur · 31/08/2011 21:26

Rank them. Order of importance to you. Order of priority in the situation you imply. Do it now, don't think about it.

*emails editor of JAPA

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 31/08/2011 21:32

Of course I see the difference. I'm simply trying to point out that adoption of a child through appropriate agencies is akin to dog rescue, whereas selling puppies, if we're using the child comparison, can only be compared to selling kids. It's not about thinking animals are equal to humans, it's about seeing that all sentient beings, especially those we have chosen to care for, should be treated with respect and care. That means going through the proper channels when we can no longer care for them.
I'm frankly bemused that some posters, who I thought were intelligent, can't grasp that.

DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 21:33

I would rehome both my children and my dogs over my dead body.

Why does it matter which is more important? Surely as intelligent capable human beings we are able to ensure that both get proper care without endangering the other?

bruxeur · 31/08/2011 21:36

Heh. This is technically known as "evasion", and is very interesting.

*strokes tiny beard

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 31/08/2011 21:39

My last sentence wasn't aimed at you by the way, Bruxeur. No such delusions. Wink

Lougle · 31/08/2011 21:41

"I would rehome both my children and my dogs over my dead body.

Why does it matter which is more important? Surely as intelligent capable human beings we are able to ensure that both get proper care without endangering the other?"

Alright, putting it another way:

People who have come to the attention of Social Services, and refuse to remove their children from a source of danger (ie. child abuse, domestic violence, known paedophiles, etc.) have their children removed from them.

Would you stand by your conviction, if Social Services said to you: Get rid of the dog, or we will take your children?

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 31/08/2011 21:46

Well, isn't this an interesting hypothetical philosophical debate? Hmm

Lougle- one for you: What would you do if the police told you they would lock you up for life if you didn't eat your mum's liver? What? Never going to happen? Irrelevant to the discussion you say?

tabulahrasa · 31/08/2011 21:47

I'd rank people above animals in importance - I still wouldn't sell one of my pets on gumtree or the like if my circumstances changed...what have the two got to do with each other?

I lurk and occasionally post in the doghouse, Id go there for advice.

DooinMeCleanin · 31/08/2011 21:48

Why would social services need to do that? If my dog was an immediate danger to my child in a way that could not be resolved suitably and safely for both child and dog then I would rehome the dog of my own free will, but I would take the time and care to do it responsibly and the dogs well being would be of utmost importance.

As I said it does not have to be an either or choice, both dogs and children can be

LindsayWagner · 31/08/2011 21:49

Oh god, I've eaten too much mental, sorry.

bruxeur · 31/08/2011 21:51

Weapons-grade evasion. Matricide. Paranoid persecutory fantasies. Straw man arguments. This is super awesome. It could totally rewrite Chapter V of the ICD-10.

LoopyLoopsPussInBoots · 31/08/2011 21:54

Are you desperately trying for a "you're a cunt" type outburst from an animal lover? You won't get it from me, but I will let you know that your language is that of a teenage German exchange student. Who says 'super awesome'?

bruxeur · 31/08/2011 21:54

Me, naturlich!