Please Sign The Sun Newspaper's "Safer Dogs Campaign"

spike7451

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

Years go we used to have dog licences.

We still had issues.

We have dog licensing & compulsory microchipping over here in NI & yet the are areas of the populace where dogs are not licensed or chipped & never will be & the owners will not be touched because the dog wardens will never go into those estates for fear of safety,the streets are over run with dogs running free.

Fire_Fox

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

Fire Fox, the first line of the campaign is the Sun's editors own words that staffies are 'fearsome'. What the hospital carer says is irrelevant tbh as people are more inclined to listen to the mini headline.

I don't think my emboldening could make it any more clear! If people can't be bothered to read past the headline, they shouldn't be commenting on the article.
"You have misread the article: it doesn't state or even intimate all staffies are fearsome. It actually claims the vast majority of abandoned dogs in that hospital are fearsome staffie crosses. You have also misunderstood the word fearsome and are erroneously equating it with the word dangerous. Fear is an emotion and not always a rational one. If the RSPCA thought these dogs were dangerous they would be PTS not up for rehoming."

Arg

IHateDida wrote: »

I think its the owners that need microchipping! I agree with SPP below - its a worrying campaign if The Sun are going along the lines of the majority of dogs being staffies.

Theres no such thing as a dangerous dog - its the owners who are the dangerous ones.

Using that logic we could walk around with any dangerous animals as pets and claim it's only the owner that matters.


The Sun's a scummy newspaper as are their campaigns.

Fire_Fox

IHateDida wrote: »

They did and they are!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4403977/Family-of-Keiron-Guess-back-The-Suns-Safer-Dogs-Campaign.html

To quote The Sun : "Fierce breed ... Staffordshire bull terrier"

Different article sweetpea, your original post clearly referred to THIS article on THIS campaign. Hence you were advised to re-read the article because it does not say what you inferred.
"its a worrying campaign if The Sun are going along the lines of the majority of dogs being staffies .... I am disgusted that The Sun is condeming a particular breed so unless they stop this, I won't be signing it."

SmartPricePoster

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I don't think my emboldening could make it any more clear! If people can't be bothered to read past the headline, they shouldn't be commenting on the article.
"You have misread the article: it doesn't state or even intimate all staffies are fearsome. It actually claims the vast majority of abandoned dogs in that hospital are fearsome staffie crosses. You have also misunderstood the word fearsome and are erroneously equating it with the word dangerous. Fear is an emotion and not always a rational one. If the RSPCA thought these dogs were dangerous they would be PTS not up for rehoming."

I have not misread the article. The average intelligence of a Sun newspaper reader is very low. The bolded sub headline was a mistake.

Fire_Fox

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

I have not misread the article. The average intelligence of a Sun newspaper reader is very low. The bolded sub headline was a mistake.

I can see that, people don't seem to be able to distinguish between a staffie and a staffie cross, nor understand the function of quotation marks combined with italics. :rotfl:

SmartPricePoster

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I can see that, people don't seem to be able to distinguish between a staffie and a staffie cross, nor understand the function of quotation marks combined with italics. :rotfl:

A large proportion of staffie crosses look like pure staffies.

Fire_Fox

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

A large proportion of staffie crosses look like pure staffies.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

SmartPricePoster

You find that funny, why? I've come across many staffie x's in my time and a lot look purely staffie. Didn't know the truth was so funny. I also find it disturbing you think I read the sun.

Oliver14

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I don't think my emboldening could make it any more clear! If people can't be bothered to read past the headline, they shouldn't be commenting on the article.
"You have misread the article: it doesn't state or even intimate all staffies are fearsome. It actually claims the vast majority of abandoned dogs in that hospital are fearsome staffie crosses. You have also misunderstood the word fearsome and are erroneously equating it with the word dangerous. Fear is an emotion and not always a rational one. If the RSPCA thought these dogs were dangerous they would be PTS not up for rehoming."

You're being silly using the word fearsome implies the dogs are well fearsome which to most implies that they should be feared. The word fearsome actually means to cause fear so that is what is being implied. If an animal is causing fear to people it implies they are dangerous

As SPP poster said a lot of crosses look like Purebred staffies to the majority of the general public. Yes it doesn't state these dogs are dangerous but the opening of the article implies that Staffie like dogs should be feared. So as the campagn they are trying to do is about Dangerous dogs they are implieing that dogs that look like Staffies are dangerous.