That would be a silver lining for DOGS, not YOU... Peons! What the hell were you thinking??
As per my last post, Mickey's original owner has been revealed! The individual that abused and neglected St. Mick SOOOOO terribly that the Mick had no choice but to chow down on a four year old (who supposedly deserved to be eaten regardless, but who can keep track of those goalposts anyway?). In any case, according to the foamers, we are talking about abuse so horrible, so unspeakable, it would make a Spanish Inquisitor immediately turn green and die from the sheer horror of it all! O The Dogmanity!
Consider this pic from WMBC:
This is where Mickey use to live.
No green grass, not trees, no shade. Basically a sweat lodge, were he suffered, and was abused.
Mickey has come a long way since then.
Predictably, the WMBC commenters did not disappoint:
And, so forth. Its tough to keep track of all the conflicting narratives. Among them:
- Mick is completely innocent, yet being incarcerated was good for him. So, shouldn't they be THANKING Kevin, the family, and the babysitter? Hell, all this goodness could not have happened without them, right?? If it weren't for criminal mastermind Kevin "bone-jacker" Vicente, Mick would still be living in those HORRID conditions!
- Their "proof" that Mick was so horribly abused was... he lived outside in a doghouse. Wouldn't that apply to ANY outdoor dog? Where is the crusade to end outdoor tethering? Again, shouldn't they be glad that Mick was IN the jail? At least he wasn't outside where there are evil human children constantly trying to steal his food and toys.
- No green grass, not trees, no shade. I have been to the Phoenix area several times. This description fits the entire area. IT IS A DESERT, FOOLS! They are implying that the owner tore up all the grass and cut down all the trees for the primary purpose of making Dear Mick suffer. Perhaps they should just BAN dog ownership in the entire US Southwest?
Reading the comments, there is a narrative that is conspicuously absent. With the exception of a one-time comment by Schill, you NEVER hear the Mick horde apply any blame to the owner. They make it sound like Mick's living conditions were something that just happened, that Mick just wound up in the doghouse by magic and was abused by.... whom?? Where is the vitriol aimed at THAT person? Now, I don't read ALL of the comments, but enough to get the gist of the narrative.
The unspoken part of their narrative is that dog owners are ALL as pure as the driven snow, just like the animals they keep! More bait and switch. In the abstract, the foamers blame it on abuse/neglect/training, BUT when something actually happens, and / or if you actually must apply blame - put ALL of the blame on the victim, or at least someone else besides the dog and the owner.
You'd think, given that they are infatuated with this dog, they would harbor at least some vitriol for the person that set Mick up to fail. Hey geniuses - WHO put Mick in that doghouse with no trees, no green grass, no iPads and no cable TV? Who was it who abused him? WHERE is the resentment aimed in THAT direction? Nope, they gotta hate on the victim, his family, and all us critics.... it was all OUR fault!
And, there is the reason these problems roll on. 60 years of the dogocracy have seen to it that no dog or owner is held accountable for anything, ever. Obviously, because its ALWAYS someone else who made a mistake, deliberately did the wrong thing, or needs to change. And, it doesn't matter what the complaint is. Dog owners NEVER do wrong, never need to modify their behavior, or do so much as lift a finger. They are the epitome of absolute perfection! Its the REST of us that need to change!