Read our cookies policy.
PhiltheBear wrote: »
??? The 'definition' of dilemma is "is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable." You offered two solutions only - this wasn't a discussion of other solutions, it was a stark choice between two alternatives.
Actually, I can see all the points of view. My argument is that this was a sloppily researched question which didn't allow for any 3rd alternatives. If it had been posed as a question - e.g. "What should Anne do in this situation?" that would have been completely different. But it wasn't. It was simply a question which was always going to provoke an intense argument.
Your reputation as an investigative journalist is now tarnished. If you couldn't be bothered to show that the question posed isn't restricted to one answer then that's just laziness. To cop out by saying 'it allows people to express their point of view' is just a weak excuse for that laziness.
The result - there are a number of people who've posted real, viable alternatives (although they don't answer the yes or no question posed) and there are a number of people who have posted 'troll' type messages simply for the sake of being annoying.
Judging from some of the responses this thread has upset a fair number of people - and it brings this whole forum into disrepute. That's sad.
Clive_Woody wrote: »
If people get upset discussing issues such as this then perhaps they should turn off the internet and go and look at pretty flowers in the garden instead. If grown ups cannot manage to discuss difficult issues without becoming overly emotional then we really are in a sad state.
Pippitypip wrote: »
Clive, whilst I totally agree with you on this point, :eek: the fact remains that threads on this forum do get deleted all the time for exactly those reasons - offence taken, abuse, overly emotive reactions and troll comments.
I think this was always going to be an emotional topic but wording the OP slightly differently and more open ended, would have been a bit more responsible coming from the MSE team, that's all.
Clive_Woody wrote: »
I agree and know how keen our mods are to hit the delete button, but the number of people who immediately posted on here demanding the thread be closed/deleted really was disappointing.
I personally have no issue with how the question was phrased and feel that some people have tried to play the 'outraged' card to try and avoid allowing the discussion to go ahead.
aliasojo wrote: »
As you know (or at least would have if you'd been paying attention ) I was one of the ones who thought this thread shouldn't have been here in it's original guise.
I just wanted to clarify that my reason for this was because the topic (imo) was a magnet for troll comments and argument. It's incredibly boring these days as things do tend to follow the same route usually. I know a number of people feel the same way about MSE 'discussions', they've lost their appeal since they're now usually just a playground for bored people. In the case of train seat discussions, it's no big deal...who can get emotional over a train seat? But in the case of much loved animals, it's a different story and could invite more emotional responses rather than reasoned discussion, hence the disapproval.
I felt MSE were being hypocritical, given their stance on certain topics that are discouraged from being discussed simply because the nature of them invites 'heated' discussion, yet this could easily fall into the same category and it was initiated by MSE themselves. How many times has it been mentioned that the Arms might simply shut due to arguments? It kinda seemed like the MSE team handed over the loaded gun and sat back. (Yeah ok, I'm indulging in a little dramatising here but it illustrates my point. :rotfl:)
I wasn't outraged at you put it, I just thought it was something that may have had merit as a worthy discussion but was initially poorly thought through and could have been posted in a better way. A point that's been made by several people.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope I've posted my thoughts fairly and not in an 'outraged' manner.
Anyway, as it happens, I'm happy to accept I was being too cynical. Apart from a couple of near knuckle comments, by and large the thread has been less antagonistic than I had expected.
Clive_Woody wrote: »
I didn't include you in the outraged gang.
Hokie97 wrote: »
....*Anyone who puts their pet to sleep because they don't want it anymore is heartless. That's all there is to it. **There are options out there, even if it is rehoming or a sanctuary.
katehesk wrote: »
If you are unemployed and on some form of benefits try the PDSA.*To even pose this question I actually think is disgusting.
An animal is not a disposable burden. It is a living creature. Would you dispose of your baby if you were struggling to manage?! (I know many people will feel that isn't a fair comparison, but to me it is - I tend not to differentiate between the value of a life, regardless of species).
People need to realise when they take animals on that they have to be responsible for them, in any eventuality.
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support