My mouth literally fell open when I read this thread, in which **Papsett ** kills her dog because it growled at another one of her dogs. While the permanence and severity of the punishment is mindblowing enough, she justifies the entire event with the idea that she’s not killing her dog, she’s “returning my pet to the rainbow bridge.”
Flabbergasted, I looked up this term and found that this seems to be a whole philosophy built around the glurgiest piece of garbage I’ve ever read, in which “Author Unknown” posits that there is a “Magical Rainbow Bridge” in which all deceased pets “frolic and play” and “wait for their masters to join them in the afterlife.”
Look, I think it’s a sweet (if trite, saccharine as hell, and overwrought) metaphor to help people overcome the passing of a pet. My cat and dog are so ridiculously important to me that I can’t even fathom how I’ll handle their eventual passings without resorting to this sort of emotional pornography, much less the bottle and antidepressants. But I don’t think for a minute that I would allow this glurgely, spoogey poem to become a working philosophy that would dictate the fate of my animals.
That’s just what PapSett does with her dog - she uses the “Rainbow Bridge” to justify killing the animal, because “hey, I’m not killing him, I’m just returning him to the Rainbow Bridge for now!”
I’m sorry, but that’s just insane. Crazy. Irrational. Absurd.
It is dangerous.
Look, I’m not debating whether or not the dog should be put down; he was a rescue animal, and we know that some remain dangerous and simply cannot be rehabilitated (nevermind the fact that growling at another dog is, well, just slightly less completely normal and expected dog behavior than sniffing butts and humping legs). What I’m positing is that it seems that the OP allowed the idea of magical fairytale land of the “Rainbow Bridge” - a concept that’s based on a piece of glurge - to justify killing her own dog, and as a sane and loving pet owner, I find that completely and utterly appalling and unacceptable.
She was upset, and it was a euphemism, a metaphor - like “passed away”. You may disagree with her decision to have the dog killed - although you’re misrepresenting the case that she had the dog put down merely because it growled at another - but it’s human to take comfort in metaphors in times of sadness and suffering. Scolding her now for a natural human attempt to try and lessen the blow of what must have been a very hard decision is thoughtless and unfeeling.
I’m thinking the OP needs to turn down the setting on his literal-o-meter - and switch to decaf at Starbucks, assuming he can still bear to go there and read their cups.
Hey, since you’re disallowing the use of the Rainbow Bridge, is the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus allowed, or not? :rolleyes: Can I speak of the rainbow bridge if I’m discussing Norse Mythology? Why do you get to determine how another person expresses their sentiment? What gives you that right? Sentiment isn’t logical, it’s an emotional thing. The term Papsett used is no different than saying a person “passed away” or “sings with the angels” or “God called them home” or any of the other euphemisms people use. I think it’s pretty crappy of you to judge someone else for how they refer to a pet’s death. This quote from you frightens me, to be frank.
Sentiment, and the use of euphemisms isn’t dangerous. Just because you wouldn’t do it, and can’t grasp why another would doesn’t make it a threat, and doesn’t make it invalid.
Besides your utter inability to understand euphemism, you’re also mischaracterizing Papsett’s actions.
The animal was dangerous. It attacked another dog and behaved aggressively towards its owner. It is not unreasonable to believe that it would attack a human at some point.
The responsible thing to do when faced with a dangerous and unpredictable animal is to put it down (oops! That’s a euphemism too, that means “kill it”). Papsett acted correctly. And any glurge she wants to refer to after the fact to make herself feel better is fine by me.
I think you’re way off base attacking PapSett regarding the decision to put the dog down. She posted a few days before getting Jake asking about bloodhounds and seemed very excited to get the dog and hopeful that it would work out, being clear that she would not endanger her current pets for this new one.
I don’t believe for an instant that she was hasty or allowed this philosophy to make the decision for her. Even in your linked thread, PapSett mentioned that the rescue coordinator told her to put Jake down, not the other way around.
VC03 on dogs: “My mouth literally fell open when I read this thread, in which Papsettkills her dog because it growled at another one of her dogs. While the permanence and severity of the punishment is mindblowing enough” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6818681&postcount=1
Euthanizing a beloved but antisocial dog is “mindblowing,” but the best thing for health care is to “imprison” all the doctors. Colour me impressed. :rolleyes:
As well you should. If she did that. She didn’t. Her justification was he was a danger to her other animals (and maybe herself).
She made a difficult, rational decision, based not on “normal dog behavior” but unusual, dangerous dog behavior, a conclusion she came to after talking to a professional.
Having made a rational decision, she looked to the silly glurge to give her some comfort.
I have three dogs of my own. Any responsible pet owner can tell the difference between play-growls and a true threat-growl. The sound alone is enough to tell you, but you can also tell from body-language when a dog is really being threatening. I think Papsett is probably smart enough to tell the difference.
A dangerous dog is like a loaded gun. It’s the most agonizing thing any owner has to go through, but sometimes, you have to put the dog down, or if you prefer kill him, before he hurts someone.
Nor do I think she was trying to “excuse” her actions by using the euphamism. She sounds quite torn by what she had to do.
This isn’t to comment on PapSett’s decision, but in checking the linked thread, there was no reference to opening this one in the Pit. I thought that I read that it is customary to inform the OP that this is taking place? It would be common courtesy, at least.
Holy fucking crap, you’re yelling at poor **PapSett ** for using a euphemism for where her dog is going? When it’s obvious how much it hurt her (him?) to have the dog put down?
You are a fucking piece of shit. I can’t express how much you’ve just disguted me. I’ve half a mind to go Pit you, except you kind of already self-Pitted. I can’t really say how much you’re pissing me off without using words I don’t customarily resort to, so I’ll just sign off and say - drop it, and move on.
All right, the Rainbow Bridge is so sweet and syrupy it makes me gag, but this is one of the stupidest pit threads I’ve ever seen. If you just reword “return him to the Rainbow Bridge” as “have him put down” in PapSett’s post, the entire OP is basically nullified. Not that it had much point to it anyway.
VC03, I’m beginning to think you have some sort of personal problem.