Pit bull versus boy: Common sense goes to the dogs

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2014-03-17 16:37

Story here. Excerpt:

'Mickey the pit bull stares at me from behind the bars of his cage at Maricopa County's Animal Care and Control quarantine unit on south 27th Avenue.

Death row for dogs.
...
He glances at me and turns away, unable to stop quivering, not unusual for a dog unfamiliar with people. He spent much of his time chained in a yard. He is not trained or neutered. He was underfed.
...
You'd feel sorry for Mickey if you didn't know he had attacked and disfigured a 4-year-old boy.

You'd feel sorry for him until you found out that people from Arizona and all over the world seem to be more concerned for Mickey than for little Kevin Vicente, who required 5 ½ hours of surgery to stitch the gashes in his face and to mend his broken eye socket, detached tear ducts and a fractured jaw.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Reading this through, I think it's not really about whether people in general favor the welfare of dogs over little boys who get mauled by the same. It'd be ludicrous to suggest that unless I'm narrowing the scope of conversation to only the most depraved feminists (by "depraved" I mean the kind *other* feminists say are whack-o). I see this kind of thing being more about the concern around how the dog had been so badly abused that he was ready to maul a kid. Granted, I don't know the details, but starved and neglected dogs have been known to be in seriously bad moods around humans until we behave in a way that restores (or instills in them for the first time) a sense of trust and affection toward humans.

But I do speculate that there'd be a lot more sympathy for the child and less for the dog if he had been a she. I also think "euthanizing" an abused and neglected dog for attacking a human is simple expedience with some vengeance sprinkled in. The practical matter of rehabilitating such a dog and the expense associated with it makes killing the dog a more financially attractive alternative for municipalities. From the standpoint of humane animal treatment, however, it's an example of not just blaming-the-victim (as when talking about dogs, they can't put their abuse experience in perspective and be held to the same moral standards as we hold people), but killing him since it's just too much trouble or expense to teach him that humans aren't all bad. Well, given what we actually do to them under these conditions, perhaps trying to show them this is rather futile.

No one in this comes out ahead. Abused dog gets the final act of abuse: death for showing the effects of previous abuse and neglect, child is a victim of the dog's expression of hostility toward humans due to the first thing, and the on-lookers argue over who ought to get the most (or any) sympathy. And humans in general look *bad*.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2014-03-19 03:27

I think this comparison was apt and illuminating. Our culture has all sorts of charities for animals, but very few for males. Even a very young male who was grossly disfigured gets little support, sympathy, or attention. Face it guys, you are simply a utility, a slave, working for the overlords and the women. You don't count. If a small boy gets so little support, sympathy, or attention, you can bet that returning veterans will get less. Time for men to go their own way, and refuse to sign up for oppressive institutions that simply use men - such as the army, college, and marriage.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Wed, 2014-03-19 05:49