General: White House abuzz as first dog finally arrives

[sophistacavy]

Also, I wish that people would stop comparing human children to animals!!!! That is absurd, and almost disturbing to think that some people actually do that.

Next y'all are going to get into a debate about the ethics of human sterilization programs. Now that sounds like the best idea to me. If they can't make babies, than they would be forced to adopt if they truly wanted children in the first place.

[blackarrow]

I have to disagree with this. Most of the dogs being euthanized where I live are staffordshires. People breed them like crazy over here. It is because that in this culture, they are glorfied in hip-hop and rap videos, they make you look "cool" when you walk them, they make you look tough, etc, etc.

I don't suppose you are really thinking that such people should go down to the shelter and adopt the fluffy poodle mix?

You can still see it as a "work" reason. Staffies are known for being loyal to their owners, and intimidating to others. The dogs are undoubtedly doing that work, as unappetizing as you're finding it.

[lmarieaa]

I do not assume all purebred dogs are from breeders. My family has an Irish wolfhound and a great Pyrenees whom are both from rescues.
I have had many, many casual conversations with people at the dog parks, and a lot of them come from breeders. I even heard someone complain about how her "mini" dachshund she bought was not actually a "mini", so she was going to get rid of it and get another one.
I guess I have just grown a bit bitter because of some of the people here, haha, I am sorry.

[blackarrow]

Also, I wish that people would stop comparing human children to animals!!!! That is absurd, and almost disturbing to think that some people actually do that.

If you'd give a relevant reason for a distinction, I sure would. Right now, most of the logic you're using applies as well or better to humans than dogs, and the reasons you're giving for the results being different appear to be that you don't like the results.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by lmarieaa

I do not assume all purebred dogs are from breeders. My family has an Irish wolfhound and a great Pyrenees whom are both from rescues.

Any particular reason the rescues they got are purebreds?

[lmarieaa]

You can still see it as a "work" reason. Staffies are known for being loyal to their owners, and intimidating to others. The dogs are undoubtedly doing that work, as unappetizing as you're finding it.

I completely agree that protection/intimidation is "work". And a lot of the staffies do come from shelters but, they are still being bred like wildfire. ACS has more staffies than mutts or any other kind of dog, its rather a shame. I have known a few, and they were so sweet and loving. It breaks my heart that so many have to be put to sleep every day. I just wish people would stop buying so people will stop breeding. There are so many in the shelter, you basically have your pick right there.

[sophistacavy]

If you'd give a relevant reason for a distinction, I sure would. Right now, most of the logic you're using applies as well or better to humans than dogs, and the reasons you're giving for the results being different appear to be that you don't like the results.

Any particular reason the rescues they got are purebreds?

What in the world are you talking about? Your replies don't make sense.

[lmarieaa]

Any particular reason the rescues they got are purebreds?

They were actually a part of a cruelty case involving a large puppy mill seizure. It really was not a breed specific desicion. We just wanted some large dogs that would be well suited for ranch life. Although, they are inside the house alot of the time haha. That is how I got the dog I have now as well, he a a golden retriever. He suffers from the typical careless breeding genetic issues like arthritis and allergies. He has had 2 surgeries to correct his hip problems.

[lmarieaa]

Also, a big factor in making the desicion in adopting our dogs was the fact that they were apart of the group that needed the most medical care and were most likely to be euthanized because the humane society could not afford to treat the most severely neglected puppies.

[PiggieMamaKelly]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

What in the world are you talking about? Your replies don't make sense.

They make plenty of sense. I think he/she is making some pretty valid points.

[Paula]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

How is that obnoxious? I was simply furthering Imarriea's point, because I am on her side, and see zero sense in what anyone else has said on here besides her.

If you can’t find a mature way to say it, it’s probably best left unsaid – calling condoms, “condos” because you’re afraid or unwilling to say condoms is silly. More to the point, it’s not even really relevant, and is absolutely unnecessary. If what you wanted to say was, “Animals don’t have the choice of using birth control,” then say THAT.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

Before I start acting like a mod again, can I please ask a mod, any mod, to give me some tips on how to get this thread back on track? I know that I may have baited people into arguing by posting my personal viewpoint in the OP, but I put this thread in the news section for a reason. I truly feel that I did not start this shindig. Shindigs go in the kitchen

Do you find it odd that this kind of thing seems to happen to you quite frequently? Maybe you should actually consider what you’re posting and how people might take it before you just start a thread on whatever happens to be on your mind at the moment.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

Also, I wish that people would stop comparing human children to animals!!!! That is absurd, and almost disturbing to think that some people actually do that.

I don’t see how it’s “absurd.” Life is life, and you can’t assign value to one but not to another. You either respect it, or you don't.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

What in the world are you talking about? Your replies don't make sense.

It makes absolute sense. It might not be your viewpoint, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Attempting to diminish it by saying it doesn't make "sense" is childish.

I, personally, will never acquire a dog (or any animal) from a breeder. But as far as dogs go, I can appreciate that there is some need for specific breeds of dogs for certain people and places.

[sophistacavy]

Originally Posted by paula.m.moore

Do you find it odd that this kind of thing seems to happen to you quite frequently? Maybe you should actually consider what you’re posting and how people might take it before you just start a thread on whatever happens to be on your mind at the moment.

I did not start a thread on whatever "happens to be on my mind at the moment".

I started this thread about the Obama's new dog finally happening, because I logged on to the internet, came to my homepage (www.msn.com), and it was a headline. Many many people have been waiting and waiting on the edge of their seats for the day when the new first dog finally arrived. That is what I started my thread about. I was not the one who started the argumentative portion. I am so sorry this turned out the way it was, but it is so awfully off-topic now. That individual could've easily chosen to either not post any reply at all and just go read the article about Bo, or they could've tried to harness themselves and posted something that was just a comment, like "Oh, he is cute!" or something like that.

No one, absolutely not a single person has posted anything on this thread that is on-topic. Don't blame me for that, and don't blame the first person who replied entirely either. Another person in particular could've easily chosen not to take their bait, and at least made a partial effort to keep this thread on-topic. If all people want to do is debate debate debate, than so be it! But maybe they should consider finding a thread in the kitchen instead, or starting their own thread in there.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone by anything I said.

[Paula]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

I started this thread about the Obama's new dog finally happening, because I logged on to the internet, came to my homepage (www.msn.com), and it was a headline.

So it's what was on your mind, would you say? I will say that this thread differs from your typical posts, because it does involve current events.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

That individual could've easily chosen to either not post any reply at all and just go read the article about Bo, or they could've tried to harness themselves and posted something that was just a comment, like "Oh, he is cute!" or something like that.

This is why you need to give some consideration to the things you post instead of just posting them and hoping to control the replies if they don't go the way you want them to. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

No one, absolutely not a single person has posted anything on this thread that is on-topic. Don't blame me for that, and don't blame the first person who replied entirely either.

The fact that you can't understand how what blackarrow has said relates to your original post, doesn't mean it's not on topic.

[katiewilson]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

But, that brings up the debate over whether responsible breeders really do exist or not. And once again, I have to say that no, they do not. A responsible breeder cannot exist, because the simple, single act of breeding while dogs die in shelters is irresponsible in itself. It doesn't matter if it's the Kennedy's, or someone else. All breeders of whatever quality are doing something truly abhorrent and irresponsible.

It's not fair for you to blame this thread going down this path on "another person in particular." The thread went down the path it did directly because of this specific paragraph in your original post. To suggest that you merely brought up Obama's new dog and then fell victim to thread-hijackers isn't accurate.

[Paula]

Originally Posted by katiewilson

To suggest that you merely brought up Obama's new dog and then fell victim to thread-hijackers isn't accurate.

It's obnoxious, actually.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

What in the world are you talking about? Your replies don't make sense.

The second reply wasn't to you.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by lmarieaa

ACS has more staffies than mutts or any other kind of dog, its rather a shame. I have known a few, and they were so sweet and loving. It breaks my heart that so many have to be put to sleep every day. I just wish people would stop buying so people will stop breeding. There are so many in the shelter, you basically have your pick right there.

I agree, it's a terrible shame. I have to go through pages of the pits and the AmStaffs in the NYC shelters every day, and there are so many with "no concern" temperaments being PTS. I can't really blame breeders of, say, Portuguese Water Dogs for the troubles of the pits and AmStaffs, though, because people who want a PWD are simply not going to see a pit or a staffie as the same thing just because they are also dogs.

I love the efforts of groups which are doing things with pits and staffies (and their owners) to make responsible ownership of them "cool." Things like weight pull contests, for cash prizes - the conditions for participation being things like the dog cannot have battle scars, and they must be fixed.

[blackarrow]

Many many people have been waiting and waiting on the edge of their seats for the day when the new first dog finally arrived. That is what I started my thread about. I was not the one who started the argumentative portion. I am so sorry this turned out the way it was, but it is so awfully off-topic now.

I don't know about that. Sure, you pointed out they had gotten their dog, and followed it up with this:

But, that brings up the debate over whether responsible breeders really do exist or not. And once again, I have to say that no, they do not. A responsible breeder cannot exist, because the simple, single act of breeding while dogs die in shelters is irresponsible in itself. It doesn't matter if it's the Kennedy's, or someone else. All breeders of whatever quality are doing something truly abhorrent and irresponsible.

You mentioned that it "brings up the debate" yet you now act surprised that you've gotten - a debate. That should not be 1) a surprise, or 2) considered off topic.

If all people want to do is debate debate debate, than so be it! But maybe they should consider finding a thread in the kitchen instead, or starting their own thread in there.

Maybe if what you want to do is not have a debate, you might try not starting one?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone by anything I said.

Not speaking for anyone else but I'm not offended at all.

[sophistacavy]

I didn't start a reply on purpose.

[Res Judicata]

But, that brings up the debate over whether responsible breeders really do exist or not. And once again, I have to say that no, they do not. A responsible breeder cannot exist, because the simple, single act of breeding while dogs die in shelters is irresponsible in itself. It doesn't matter if it's the Kennedy's, or someone else. All breeders of whatever quality are doing something truly abhorrent and irresponsible.

The phrase "brings up the debate ... " followed by your reasoning as to why breeding is no responsible is going to start a debate. And anyone who has been on here long enough would be aware of that. If you did not want a debate, you would have just posted the link and been done with it.