I havent called anybody specific a hatemonger, I have equated tendencies towards certain types of blanket practices in one incorrect line of thinking to those found in many of the closed threads here on chaz.
And my spelling is what it is... unfortunately... one can ignore me, or dicipher me, but asking me to spell properly is an excercise in futility.
I'm not sure I'm terribly far off the mark here, though. When someone approaches a situation with all of their judgements preconceived, and no allowance for the situation, people (or animals involved)... thats close enough for me. And hanging people out to dry, verbally, the way I've seen plenty of times here... well we sure didnt actually physically hurt anybody... that cant possibly be equatable... can it?! Well the blanket term abuse carries with it emotional, verbal, and physical connotations. Do all 3 have to be in play to call someone on it?
In my way of thinking, dashing into a situation. Throwing your preconceived ideas around as gospel, and abusing those who you percieve as less than yourself... oh so its mentally less than yourself here - does that matter? That isnt bigotry?
Running puppy mills is an entirely different matter. when you consider living animals as "inventory" we're on a whole different page. It's not possible to apply this concept of "responsibility" in that context. You couldnt apply it to the ringleaders in the slave trade iether, could you?
And as for the proverbial pat on the back for doing something bad, I think you've missed something. Since when does positive reinforcement mean rewarding something bad? I think you've come out of context, and are simply angry with me here (which is fine. being angry at me is perfectly within your rights.) However how many people who preach positive reinforcement, that you've met, also preach beating for a wrong deed? I'm willing to bet that the number of people who hold both of those opposed views is a fairly small slice of the population. You're a lover, or you're a hater. Take it or leave it
I can understand peoples feathers getting ruffled by the things I've said. We're ok with being jerks... but to think that in this day and age we're capable of something as terrible as predjudice?! thats just not politically correct now is it?
I'd be interested to know how many people can, after thinking on it for a good long while in an objective manner, can honestly say that they dont have any preedjudices? An honest person would probably admit to some... And I bet (us all being dog people) a good number of our predjudices revolve around dogs. Call me out of line for stating things as I see them, but saying that a number of the drive by lynchings that happen around here is NOT sparked by predjudice is far more of a stretch than you choose to believe.