Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Exploring the diminished mind of "Tom McCartney": ACKNOWLEDGING NEGATIVE TRAITS IN A BREED IS “RACISM”


In recent years the term breed “racism” had emerged when addressing breed related issues and regulations. 
The concept is if you support dog breed regulations or acknowledge negative breed specific traits it is equivalent to the human form of racism. The error in the concept is that humans and dogs are very different creatures. 
Dog breeds exist because they are specifically designed for a purpose. Dogs are selectively bred for physical and breed trait aspects. Humans do not reproduce in that manner. Humans are not selectively bred and have a choice in their mate. To make this concept equivalent, humans would have to be purposely bred for certain physical or personality traits over the course of hundreds of years. 
It has not been determined that selectively breeding humans would actually work since there has not been any official scientific studies conducted. The closest humanity came to selective breeding was the concept of Eugenics, which was trying to breed out negative physical traits, such as mental illness, and breed in positive traits, such as a high I.Q. The concept has been abandoned by most cultures due to the difficulty of selective breeding due to the high incidence of unplanned pregnancies. 

Dogs have been selectively bred for many generations with great success. Since racism in the human culture is based solely on the color of one’s skin, hence the “race” in racism, and not personality traits, it does not accurately compare to dog breeding. To accurately compare, one would have to judge a dog based solely on fur color. 

Most breeds are judged on physical and personality related breed traits, so the term breed “racism” is equivalent to human forms of racism. It is surprising that more people are not offended by this comparison. 

Comparing breed struggles to the Civil Rights movement seems a little extreme and minimalizes the struggles of certain races in history. The comparison of dog breeds and racism has no basis.

******


What “Tom McCartney” fails to grasp, here, is not that dog breeds and races are being compared, but the thought processes between the two subjects are being compared.

Too many people believe that ALL people of color are the same because of the small percentage that are publicized for being involved in illegal and/or violent activities. The truth is that the majority of people of color are normal, everyday, law-abiding citizens.

In comparison, too many people believe that ALL pit bulls are the same because of the small percentage that are publicized for being involved in illegal and/or violent activities. The truth is that the majority of pit bulls are normal, everyday, companion animals.

It can be safely assumed that many people who fall into the former category fall into the latter, as well. It can NOT, however, be safely assumed that ALL racists believe that ALL pit bulls are dangerous, nor can it be safely assumed that ALL people who believe that ALL pit bulls are dangerous are racist as well.

We see this thought process on display daily in our lives with many current issues, such as those who believe that ALL white law enforcement officers are racist, or those, on opposite “sides,” who believe that ALL Republicans or ALL Democrats are the same.

The thought processes are the same. While there are more than enough people who think this way that it can be considered “human nature,” it is not, of itself, inherent in ALL people.

As for “breed traits,” not ALL dogs of a breed are identical in looks, characteristics, behavior or even training ability. There is a reason that not ALL Labrador puppies birthed in litters from two Champion show dog parents are show dogs.

There is a reason that not ALL puppies birthed in a litter from two well-trained, very smart Seeing Eye dogs go on to become service dogs themselves.

On a darker note, there is a reason that not ALL pit bull puppies birthed in a litter from two “champion” fighting parents go on to become fighters.

That reason is because each individual puppy is born with its own individual characteristics, both physical and mental.

The same is true in regards to humans. Two white police officers mating may guarantee a white child, but it does not guarantee a white police officer. Two people of color mating may guarantee a child of color, but it does not guarantee the child will become involved in illegal activities or violence.

For children, the parents and the child’s environment play a major role in its behavior. In the case of the puppy, or dog, it is the owner and environment that pave the way to its ultimate disposition. And even here there is no guarantee.

A child or dog raised in a stable environment by stable people has a higher likelihood of becoming a stable person or dog. A child or dog raised by unstable people in an unstable environment has a higher likelihood of becoming unstable. Yet neither of these circumstances have a guaranteed outcome for the child or the dog.

Therefore, the comparison of the thought process between racism and “breedism” is valid.

One thing for sure is that ALL people who believe that ALL people of color are the same, or ALL people who believe that ALL pit bulls are the same, are ALL ignorant of facts and reality.



*Note: To those on the front lines of the war against BSL, "Tom McCartney" is a familiar "foe." McCartney's copy-and-paste "comments" and "statistics" can be found on nearly any pit bull-related article on the internet.

It is my belief that "Tom McCartney" is not just one person, but a number of people who use this name, or account, in their fight for breed-specific laws and attacks against pit bull owners and their anti-BSL opponents.

I come to this belief because in the past, McCartney's rare, self-written, rambling rants were riddled with child-like spelling and grammar. I have accused "him" of using the copy-and-paste method because he could not form a coherent thought of "his" own.

Lately, however, McCartney's self-written comments, while still rare, are quite better in the spelling and grammar department. The syntax of "his" comments are different and greatly improved which, to me, suggests either "he" is not the same person or "his" Hooked On Phonics lessons are beneficial to "him." After some thought, I came to the conclusion that it's more probable that "he" is more than one person.