 |
 |
Editor:
Since my letter on banning assault dogs ("Assault dogs are 'vicious' and should be banned," Aug. 21), I have been labeled a "dog hater," by people who I suppose are "dog lovers." While etymology might be beyond Sam Marion's ("'Dog hater's' misguided gener alizations stem from bad experience," Aug. 22) specialty, surely he must know that "ban" means "to prohibit," and presently refers to the ownership of assault dogs. I have never harmed any dog, whereas many "dog lovers" habitually execute dogs, even if th ey don't do the dirty work of execution.
Every semester, feeling lonely in this new place, many incoming "dog lover" students would get dogs for, as Marion, put it, "companionship." And they do what Marion considered "responsible" by having their dogs "spayed" or "neutered." How nice are these t erms for "cut with a sword" and "castrated!" Would Sam Marion like to trade sex lives with an "altered" dog? When they have more human friends on campus, they don't need dog companions anymore and won't care if dogs have feelings.
Dogs have been diagnosed with clinical depression. So is it an equal relationship as "companionship" is implied? When they move to some place where keeping dogs may cause inconvenience, they just dump their dogs on the streets. No wonder assault dogs are roaming around! So most dogs end up in the pound and finally are put to sleep. "Put to sleep." What a euphemism for execution!
Since banning saves dogs rather than harms them, it is just hypocrisy to oppose banning and claim dog-loving. Obviously, those dog owners perceive that they have an inalienable right to own assault dogs. For them, it must be there somewhere in the Constit ution, or if not, there should be an amendment for it. The government will have to pry their assault dogs from their cold, dead fingers. They love their dogs, just like slave owners loved their slaves: they would go to war for the right to own them. Accor ding to them, slaves were treated well and could not live without them. To them, banning slave-owning is inhumane to the slaves. Some logic!
And it is now used for assault dogs. To suppress heresy that threatens their "right," it is customary to put labels on the other side, calling them crazy, living in a dream and needing counseling. I am harmless to assault dogs, but dangerous to their "lov ers."
In response to Tim Duvall's question ("Assault humans, not dogs, need muzzles," Aug. 23), let me say that I can understand that a human who has materially assaulted another humans should be subjected to punishment. However, I guess very few people will ag ree to Tim Duvall's position that humans insulting other's intelligence should be muzzled and leashed.
By making use of such an arbitrary and vague label as "assault human," subscribers to Duvall's view can easily persecute any human who happens to not agree with them. Of course, history is filled with such people, who after attaining some sort of politica l power, would put labels on people and start their persecution. Does Tim Duvall recognize the word "holocaust?" If he does, then he should know it is often claimed that this country went to war to rescue people under such persecution.
I don't know how that can possibly have happened, but if I did insult Tim Duvall's intelligence, regardless of the number of legs he has, I do apologize.
Sek Ong Man
research associate
aerospace and mechanical engineering
|
|
|