One word likely made difference on backlash
People don’t like to think of ‘pets’ and ‘parasites’ together
The San Diego Union-Tribune stirred up a hornet’s nest this week with one simple headline: “Let’s be honest, America: Dogs are parasites, not man’s best friend.”
The columnist, Chris Reed, laid out some evidence to support the claim, noting that dogs have evolved to exploit humans, basically using humans to get what they want.
He cites a variety of research to support the claim, including a book by Stephen Budiansky called “The Truth About Dogs.”
Reed writes, “Instead of the notion that over the past 40,000 years, mankind domesticated wolves into present-day dogs, Budiansky says evidence strongly suggests that ‘protodogs’ cultivated mankind, intuitively grasping that ‘mooching off people’ beat ‘fighting it out in the wild.’”
The backlash from readers was swift, and much of it was unforgiving. The Union-Tribune reports that while some people were funny (“Was this written by a cat?”), others took it much more personally. Said the newspaper, “Many of the replies are brutal.”
In a follow-up podcast, Reed notes, “Our dogs love us not because we’re super nice people because we open doors to people or we’re kind to old women and we clean up after ourselves, our dogs primarily love us because we provide food and shelter. I know that’s controversial, but that’s what science says.”
One has to wonder whether the backlash is to the concept, or if it is driven more by the word “parasite.” Wolves could have been domesticated into dogs, or early wolves may have seen the easier life provided by man and followed it — and there isn’t much to be offended about in that notion. One would probably read that sentence and think “smart dog.”
But the word parasite? That is going to draw a stronger reaction, because nobody wants to think of their sweet little pup in the same category as, say, ringworm or lice.
And unlike a true parasite, dogs do give a little something back to their owners, in the form of dedication and love. (Although the Union-Tribune notes that dogs might just be playing their owners.)
One also has to wonder what the reaction would have been had the article been written about cats. After all, cats tend to “mooch” off their humans, and they can be hit or miss on the whole “returning affection” concept.
What do you think, readers? Share your thoughts online at www.YumaSun.com , or send us a Letter to the Editor at letters@YumaSun.com.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT?
I recently submitted a suggestion to make our schools safer from (in) school shootings. I suggested placing metal detector(s) at entrances to the schools and limiting entrances to one (if possible) and man the entrance(s) with guards. A reader recently indicated three possible problems with my suggestion which I need to address.
1. It would take 2,600 students an hour to enter the school. Well duh, if you have that many people entering, use more than one metal detector. Four lines passing through four detectors could handle that class in 15 minutes, or we might need two detectors at two entrances if necessary.
2. It would not stop outside shootings. My suggestion was intended only for stopping in-school shootings. From my Wikipedia list, it looks like about 90 percent of the school shootings are inside the schools.
3. About shooters’ accomplices, they too, if any, would have to pass through detectors or other means of inspection. The only case I recall with two people involved was Columbine and they both had to get into the building to do their nasty.
I still contend that my suggestion might be a cure, but I never suggested or meant it would be a cure-all.
One last fact to consider: school shootings are not just recent events as some may imply. According to Wikipedia, they have been recorded as far back as 1800. In the last 50 years, there have been over 250 recorded school shootings, and 130 since the one at Columbine in 1999. It’s time something should be done, and I firmly believe my suggestion could SIMPLY be at least a good start.
In my speaking with truckers who make their living Driving cross country each day They tell me we’re facing a real serious crisis A sign of the times, I’d say They’re finding young people have little interest In this type of work for a living Something which tells me our country’s in trouble
And don’t think for a moment I’m kidding. For these are the men and women Who keep our country on the move
In seeing that our goods are delivered each day
As they’re being trucked to me and to you. This will affect costs seriously Where they’ll go through the roof, I say.
For groceries and clothing and all we depend on
Where we’ll all be hurt in some way. Not only this we are losing police Being bogged down in so much red tape
Plus the violence which they are being subject to Time alone will not erase. Know these are just two problems were facing In a world which is out of control What next? Martial law and a loaf of bread Costing nearly Ten Dollars or so? There are few whom I know of who think of these things
Being with most it’s they’re being entertained
The fancy new cars they have financed
This way they’ll have no one to blame.
All I can say is that WE ARE IN TROUBLE
And that people had better wake up
Because of the fact that when crap hits the fan
As a nation we’ll be out of luck.
It has always amazed me why we spend so much time attacking each other for things that seem so trivial.
For the folks that get up in the morning with the goal of making said day a better experience for your kids, I commend you.
“Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.” – Marianne Williamson