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?

If there is a fire then only the most reckless, foolhardy idiot would prioritise their pets over their own life, or those of their children.

I have 3 children and a DH. My priority would be to save them.

If I got them all out safely and it was safe to get the dogs then I would.

If there was even the smallest chance I would put my own life in danger then I would leave them. I am NOT leaving my children without a mother for the sake of a dog.

Nobody is saying not to save children. The point is that people make a choice to include pets as part of the family, and with that comes responsibility. Other examples include people who let their toddlers hurt their dogs, then when the dog snaps, they kill the dog. Where is the common sense, the compassion? The poster that some people are criticising has lots of both. Yet dog lovers are "loons" and "fanatical"

No-one has ever advised on these boards though that in the case of a fire a dog should be put before children.

This thread is getting out of hand.

southmum no actually. Because the poster in question wasn't actually named until someone mentiond the name of the poster she'd namechanged from, without realising it was the same person.

And as has been said countless times on this thread, it wasn't about one poster - the initial responses on the thread that sparked this were from others, and the posts that sparked this weren't from the posters responding, but from those saying that they now remembered why it was they wouldn't post in the dh topic in the first place.

But you carry on if you want to make this about one poster.

Do you remember last winter or the winter before, a tiny baby (under a year anyway) was orphaned because her dad jumped in to a flooded river to save the family dog. He got into difficulties so his wife jumped in to save him and they both drowned.

That poor child has to grow up never knowing her parents, with no memories of them, and all for the sake of a dog who wouldn't have survived beyond her 10th birthday or so.

I don't care if it makes me a bad owner that my children come before my dog.

I am a parent first and foremost and my priority will always, always be for them.

I've seen posters say they would jump in a frozen lake after their dog and risk their life...

inteligence I agree with you re people who let their kids hurt the dog then blame the dog when the toddler gets bitten.. drives me mad.

As dog threads always do. IMO animal lovers are the most intelligent, compassionate people, and just that little bit higher up the evolutionary chain. The "it's only a dog" mentality belongs to slack jawed mouth breathers IMO.
And "yes" is the answer to the standard MN question on any animal thread.

I am not going to read 5 pages as I need to go to Tesco.
I reckon I can guess who was named as she is always under fire.
I completely disagree with all the negative comments aimed at her.
She is a lovely person who feels strongly about what she does/knows best.
She has helped me and my mum with regards to some issues with dogs.
Sometimes I havent been able to take her advice but have tried when I can as I believe she knows what she is talking about.
I agree as a topic though that the doghouse is off putting as it can be aggressive.
A thread I saw the other day, having to sell puppies, which had the OP upset about the prospect, saw the OP get flamed which was disgusting imo.

I disagree MaryZ. If you would put your cats down because your children are allergic you shouldn't own an animal. Refer to my above post also

Thanks for all the supportive PM's by the way.

Some of us take on animals knowing that they will be entirely dependant on us for protection and care, and accept that as the human adults if we can keep them safe we should do all we can.

And yes, sometimes that means putting ourselves at risk.

I don't understand anyone who could take on a pet not understanding that the pet is reliant on them, in the same way a child is.

I'd never have hesitated to step in if my old dog was in trouble, even if it would have meant me being hurt. It was utterly my responsibility, from the moment I brought him home, to do so.

In case of a fire, if I had children to look after as well as pets, then I'd do all I could to save them all. Expecting me to chose which one to save would be as nonsensical as expecting someone with multiple children to chose just one to save, or expecting them to say, "well I'll try and save DC1, but they probably have less years left than DC3 so I'll leave them last." Makes no sense.

Good post Empusa.

Oh FFS.

Yes I would, as they are both as vulnerable as each other. And I'd have made a commitment to the health of both.

But a dog is NOT a child.

You do not have the same relationship with a dog as you do a child.

If you would put yourself in the mortal danger for the sake of an animal, knowing that would leave your children without a mother for the rest of their lives then you need to seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

All this talk of who you'd save in a fire is nonsense and representative of the twisted attitude some 'animal lovers' have. Animal life and human life do not have the same value. I have a cat and we adore her. It is not the same however as our feelings and reponsibilities towards our children and to each other.

The humanising of animals - dogs in particular - that goes on is truly shocking and contributes, I think, to much of the vitriol on the Doghouse threads.

It's a living breathing creature, with exactly the same "worth" as any other living breathing creature.

Mmelindor - I posted a thread on The Doghouse not that long ago but I made sure I name changed first.

Absolutely agree. People complain that animal lovers on here compare animals to children, but the point is both are completely reliant on human (or in some cases subhuman) adults

Empusa. You're wrong about that. I support animal testing for medical purposes btw.

I'm wrong about my own opinions and feelings?

And there we have the "only an animal" mentality that leads to the frustration on the Doghouse threads