Topic: | Re:Dan Murphy - like a dog with a bone! | |
Posted by: | Dan Murphy | |
Date/Time: | 22/05/15 17:52:00 |
Felicity, thanks for your post. However: "I'm not optimistic that Mr Murphy is a person who would let facts change their opinion". I'm not sure where on earth how you arrive at this conclusion. We never get facts here relating to this argument, all we ever get is abuse and insults from the "doggie fraternity". We never get any facts or sensible arguments because they refuse to offer any. So thank you for your post. At least now we have something to work on. So you had a dog who was "made unhappy" by wearing a muzzle. Well, there are also a lot of people who say they are "made unhappy" by wearing a seatbelt, but that's just tough luck, It's in the best interests of the greater number, so we all have to wear them. I really don't see how your dog being "unhappy" about wearing a muzzle is a good argument against a mandatory muzzling of all dogs. You say that muzzling made her "more of a danger" to other people, but how can this be? Maybe she was able to bump into them, but she was not able to bite or attack them. This is my whole point. If all dogs were muzzled, they would not be able to bite anyone. So OK, some dogs might be "unhappy" if forced to wear a muzzle, but so what? Why would we measure the happiness or otherwise of any dog when compared to the safety of the thousands of young children (and adults) who get bitten or attacked every year in the UK? To me, it's a no brainer. I am not in the slightest bit interested in whether a specific dog is "happy" or not, if it would prevent them biting children. And of course, it would prevent them biting children. I'm sure a lot of people say their dogs are "unhappy" if they have to wear a lead. And a lot of children are "unhappy" if they have to wear smart clothes. And a lot of adults say they are "unhappy" if they have to pay road tax, or car insurance. Well, Tough luck is all I can say. It's not really a strong argument, is it?. So I am sure your story is true, but I don't see the relevance of it. You say that muzzling of all dogs would be a "daft counterproductive idea". But what does that actually mean? Why is it daft? Why is it counterproductive? If it helps to reduce the number of attacks and bites to virtually zero, how on earth is this counter productive? OK, it might make a few dogs (or more likely their owners) "unhappy", but really, why should we care about that? |