No Need to be Insulted!

Years ago I had a very close friend who was a vegetarian.  She chose to be a vegetarian because she believed that it was wrong to kill and eat animals.  That was her reason, and she stated it freely.  There was never a need for her to sugar coat it, or try to express it in a way that would not be offensive to meat eaters.

I am a meat eater.  I believe it is perfectly fine to kill and eat animals.  I enjoy eating meat and do so with a clear conscience.  I was able to state that to my vegetarian friend honestly, and there was never a need to try to make it sound like the difference between us did not exist.

I never had a problem with the fact that she believed that it was wrong to kill and eat animals.  I knew that she disagreed with my position as a meat eater, and that she considered my eating choices to be wrong.  And it was perfectly fine with me.

I never presumed that she was accusing me of being an "animal murder" because she did not believe in eating the meat of killed animals.  I never took her choice as some kind of expression of moral superiority.  And I was certainly never insulted when she talked about her own beliefs on the matter.

Why are dog trainers continually insulted these days?  Why do so many presume that any statement of difference in training approach is a personal attack on themselves?  Why the cry of "moral superiority" in the face of different beliefs and choices?

• If one says that he or she chooses not to use training tools that operate through application of an aversive stimulus (some measure of pain or discomfort) to the dog, those who believe that those tools are acceptable get insulted.

• If one says that one trains using the tools and techniques that he or she considers most effective and humane, those who do not use those tools and techniques get insulted.

• If one says that he or she does not incorporate correction into training, those who choose to use correction get insulted.

• If one says that one solves behavior problems through positive reinforcement based training techniques, those who use other means to approach behavior problems get insulted.

• If one points out that he or she does not agree with the techniques and approaches used by a particular well known trainer, those who agree with that trainer get insulted.

I could go on . . .

When did straightforward expression of a different point of view become so offensive?  Why take everything so personally?

I would like to challenge all dog trainers out there to stop taking offense when differences are expressed! 

Certainly, there is a time and place to take offense when one truly is the victim of a personal attack.  By way of example:  "Sally Jo teaches her clients to abuse their dogs" is a personal attack.  "I don't consider the use of shock collars to be humane" is NOT a personal attack!

I would love to see more objective discussion of training philosophies, techniques, approaches, and results.  "I disagree" could so easily replace "that's insulting" or "that's offensive", and I believe that our debates and discussions would start to bring about greater understanding among trainers who hold different points of view.