Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Dan Murphy - like a dog with a bone! | |
Posted by: | Dan Murphy | |
Date/Time: | 23/05/15 13:30:00 |
Paul, surely the benefit of muzzling dogs would be the vast reduction of dog bites and attacks. That's enough for me. Yes, dogs might bound up at people and bump into them or even knock them over, but surely that's better than being bitten? I don't get this argument about dogs becoming so frustrated at wearing a muzzle that they are continually bumping into people to try and dislodge it. Where is the evidence for this? Most of the "dog" websites say that wearing a muzzle is something that most dogs are happy to get used to. Same as leads. I don't believe that it would cause unnecessary suffering. I don't agree that my proposal (and by the way, it's not just me) is "ill considered". I have thought about it long and hard and read much of what has been written on the subject. I simply don't see any evidence to show that it wouldn't work. Despite asking so many times here for sensible reasons why it would not work, nobody seems to have any good reason to offer. Why do you say it is "ill considered"? I don't agree that the benefits would be "negligible". If it prevents the (3,000?) bites and attacks that take place every year outside the home, how is that "negligible"? What is the "appreciable harm" that you refer to? I can't see what you mean, you don't state it. As for "multiple objections", I have listed the main ones that people have proffered. Are there others that we have missed? Can you explain what they are? I have answered all the objections offered in this thread, as far as I can see. And why is the suggestion "self evident idiocy"? All I am doing is asking for someone to explain to me why it wouldn't work. All people on here have done is to tell me that it would make their dog "unhappy" (who cares?); it would encourage some dogs to bump into people because they don't like a muzzle (better than biting them, and they would get used to it), and it prevents drinking (false). So I still don't get why it is "self evident idiocy". Can you please explain why? Your post is just another one telling me I am wrong, but failing to explain why. I am totally open to sensible arguments against the suggestion, but I haven't seen any. Really, I haven't. Can you please explain why it is ill considered and self evident idiocy? |