Countering pro-barking propaganda Part V

I started this “series” upon realizing that, not only is speaking out against malicious dog owners politically incorrect, few talking points on “our” side existed.  I found that most people, when challenging the behavior of inept or corrupt pet owners, were often left stumped and speechless when confronted with the talking points of those same people.

When confronted by malicious dog owners, authorities and apologistas DON’T let them take control of the conversation.  What’s really important is that you assert YOUR rights and the facts of the matter.  Before I continue with how to counter-act the mindless drivel spewed by owners of yard barkers, here are a few things to assert when discussing the issue with anyone:

-          The noise level on your property is for YOU to control, not them.

-          They are required by law (usually) to confine their pets and their pet noises to their space.

-          What they are doing is a code violation AND a tort.

-          The noises in question serve no useful purpose.

-          The noises in question are not a natural sound.

-          The noises in question are highly toxic.

-          Pet ownership is a heavy responsibility and if they don’t meet that obligation there will be trouble for them, eventually.

They may hold the upper hand legally FOR NOW but their ultimate failure is very probable.  The special protections and empowerments they enjoy are not completely air-tight.  In my “laws of nature” essay I pointed out that legal empowerments do not protect one from the laws of nature or physics.  What goes around comes around and their bad behavior WILL have negative consequences for THEM at some point.

In any case, the series continues picking up where part IV left off:

21)  Stay out of my business.  Their point being, you are invading their privacy by taking issue with the loud pet noises they are projecting into YOUR home. 

Counterpoints:   This is another insipid comment that could be used to defend anything.  Hey, don’t like me dumping trash in your yard?  STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!  Listen, anything that affects me IS my business and when you wake my butt up at 3am you can bet you are going to hear about it.   By swamping the community in noxious, useless, and unnatural noise YOU are getting into everyone else’s business.   Keep YOUR dog out of MY business.  FAIL.

22)  This is the country.   They are trying to assert their sense of provincial entitlement.  “’Dis is haw we do thangs awt heah!”.    Their point being, since the properties in the vicinity exceed some arbitrary size, they are fully entitled to project useless noise into the homes of others.  They are likewise free to harass you in the road, attack you (via their dog) in your own yard, etc…   Therefore, if you want peace you should move back to the city.

Counterpoints:    Owning more than 2 acres does not excuse them from offending against others.  If I buy a large property can I now do anything to THEM that I want?   Moreover, most rural dwellers in fact DO respect the rights of others in the community.  My right to use my property in peace exists REGARDLESS of where that property is located.  This is similar to the “why don’t you just move” excuse.  Who benefits from driving innocent people out of their homes?  All they are doing is further degrading the neighborhood.  FAIL.

23)  You want the government to take over everything.   This is a cheap rhetorical trick that malicious dog owners use to deflect responsibility.  It is aimed at anyone who wants to curb the barking, biting, and pooping epidemic that has totally overrun the so-called “civilized” world.   They’ll accuse you of being a Nazi, a communist, etc… and wanting to shred the constitution as they feel that any restriction on their behavior is equivalent to being thrown into the gulag or some such.  They firmly believe that their entitlement status sets them “free” to steal the rights of others. 

Counterpoints:  Imposing equal protection rules on the dog owning population is totally constitutional.  Placing some limits on the behavior of that population would in fact ENHANCE the liberty of ALL of us.  The current system is oppressive and restricts the liberties of everyone as we are no longer FREE to enjoy our own PRIVATE PROPERTIES and public spaces in peace and safety.  The current system is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL as it deprives us of our right to property AND equal protection.   Arbitrarily promoting and protecting the interests of dog owners way above all else is NOT freedom.   As I noted in my “Hoist” essay, the current arrangement benefits no one, including dogs and dog owners.  It is ironic that they would use an anti-government argument when it is in fact THEY who currently enjoy the backing of the government.

Moreover, I submit that THEY are the Nazis, as a Nazi is someone who feels its legitimate to impose their way of life on someone else using the power of the State.  This is in fact EXACTY what malicious dog owners do to others!  They are pint-sized Hitler wanna-be's bullying others with the backing of the government!

Therefore, it is THE MALICIOUS DOG OWNERS that are STRIPPING EVERYONE ELSE OF THEIR FREEDOM.

The bottom line is, a well crafted set of rules protects EVERYBODY.  Freedom OF something also translates into freedom FROM that thing.  If you have the freedom to listen to rap music, the rest of us are free not to listen.  And, NO, we should not have to wear earplugs in our own home to escape that.  You need to confine your noises, and that includes PET noises, to your own space!  Malicious and inept dog owners utlimately have two choices:  1)  Self-govern and restrict their behavior on their own OR 2)  Good behavior will be forcibly imposed UPON THEM.  

MEGA FAIL!

24)  You are too sensitive .  Their point being, there is something wrong with you if you take issue with loud pet noises projected into the living spaces of another.  You need to suck it up.   This is another cheap rhetorical gimmick used by malicious dog owners to deflect blame upon the victim.

Counterpoints:  Sensitive or not, the noise level in MY space is for ME to control NOT THEM.  This is yet another insipid argument that could be used to defend anything.  Don’t like me shooting at your dogs?  Ha, I guess you must be TOO SENSITIVE.  Toughen up, sport!  FAIL

25)  They/I are/am well meaning.  This is an excuse deployed by inept dog owners and apologistas, the point being that the intent is superior to the outcome.  In other words, they really don’t MEAN to wake you up every morning at 3am, deposit dog crap all over your yard, knock over your trash cans and bite you when you are fetching the mail.  They truly mean well, and would control their dogs if they COULD but are unable to do so. 

Counterpoints:  Ineptitude and incompetence among the “well meaning” does not excuse them from failing at their obligations.  If you routinely screw up on the job, you are fired.  If you are inept at handling a motor vehicle, you will lose your license to do so.   Politicians get voted out of office.   Bad parents lose their children to foster care.  Therefore, those that completely fail at their pet owning obligations should likewise be relieved of that privilege.  While it is unfortunate that you are unable to care for your pets in a responsible manner, the idea that you might “mean well” does not empower you to destroy the peace and create problems for others including the animal in question.  Furthermore, who really knows the intent of another?  All that is apparent is that they are creating problems for the pet and for fellow residents.  FAIL.