I don't know why I'm still surprised at how illogical
and contradictory professional pit bull haters can be.
-- Mike Bailey, comment on The Conversation
* * * * *
Thank you for your work on behalf of our animal companions with Goodfordogs.org.
I agree that the comment to which you refer was not our finest moment. It left us longing for a retroactive delete function. We could plead too much coffee but excuses are cowardly.
While acknowledging this, we at the same time take exception to your use of the phrase "professional pit bull haters." SRUV is assuredly not professional, as anyone can see from a cursory glance. SRUV could benefit from your skills not only as a web administrator, but also as an animal welfare professional.
My larger concern is your use of the ad hominem fallacy: pit bull hater. You may be aware that SRUV has considered at length the rhetoric of the pit bull advocacy movement, where hater is a common epithet. To dehumanize individuals in this manner is, as we know from our long histories, a device used . . . . . well, do I need to go on? In the pit bull wars the term haters is used to disparage those who advocate for our more vulnerable animal companions while also advocating for public safety.
You also claim that SRUV, as presumed pit bull haters, are illogical. In reply I could argue that it is not illogical to argue for the public safety, in view of the fact that pit bulls have killed at least twelve people already (by September 1) in the US this year, and have also attacked hundreds of companion animals and humans. I invite you to read a few SRUV posts to see if we are indeed illogical, or if we can be accused of using inflammatory rhetoric.
Thanks again for your good work. Regards,
* * * * *
Related post: RSPCA Act
See also: Good for Dogs, Mike Bailey