(UPDATE on 7 November 2019): Edited this post with some additional details here and there, and mainly elaborated more on Part 2: Point 1 regarding euthanasia of dogs, coz' this 'rabid Rottweiler' loves tearing down bad logic.)
PART 1: THE BACKGROUND (for all you curious Malaysian dog lovers)
Hello Malaysian dog
lovers. Gather round while I tell you a long story. This is a story of a boy
who grew up disabled and sadly has to live his life in a wheelchair.
Fortunately that has not limited him from living his life, with now he is a
grown man with the aid of his lovely dog, Zharro, handsome Belgium shepherd.
Zharro is a loving and helpful therapy dog to his owner, and his owner loves
him to bits. He used to have some other really good service dogs too, i.e. Biman, Vai and Soolam, who have all unfortunately passed and gone to doggy heaven
 |
| Doesn't he look like a cool guy? Yeah, looks can be deceiving |
Well, it’s not
enough that he does not like strays and would be happy see them all killed
(well, he thinks they should all be euthanized in a painless manner, but still
killing of strays nonetheless, regardless if they are injured, disabled or
healthy strays). This person also regularly criticizes a particular NGO, named
MDDB, which actively helps strays, injured and disabled dogs. MDDB holds
regular charity events and brings their treated disabled dogs along sometimes
for such event. Said person claims that this is unscrupulous and they are
taking advantage of the dogs, who should be either be kept privately or be put
down because they are disabled. He is also very much against MDDB’s
Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) program, because he claims it to be very
cruel to release strays back to the street. To support his case, every time
there is a case of cruelty against stray dogs like shooting or poisoning, he
will triumphantly use it as an example of why TNRM will never work in Malaysia,
and say every stray dog should either be rehomed or be euthanized. Yes, you
read that right. He thinks TNRM leads to cruelty against strays. That is his
logic.
This man
himself runs an FB page called Petpositive Empowerment, which claims to cover
animal welfare issues among other things. The name of page, is however, very
misleading, as there is nothing positive or empowering about it. On this page,
there is no evidence of him contributing to animal welfare, trying to improve
animal welfare, or trying to actively help animals in any way, other than
demanding for strays, particularly dogs, to be euthanized, which in his mind,
is somehow very helpful to animals. This page is mainly full of his random
rants about anything and everything, including frequent screenshots of every
supporter of MDDB who lambasts him because of his criticism. He will take
screenshots, not only of their comments against him, but of their main profile
page, with their photos and share it on both is personal page and the Petpositive
page (which usually receive next to zero comments or likes, because obviously,
not one of his followers care when he bitches about other people who are
bitching about him). He regularly refers to MDDB followers as MDDB rabid
Rottweiler followers (the fact that he would use a dog breed as an insult again
shows how much he ‘loves’ dogs).
The best part
about this though, is he will quietly report such comments to Facebook to have
them removed on the grounds that they are attacking him for being disabled and
wheelchair bound. Not because we think his opinions about strays are
unacceptable and illogical, but because he thinks people are bullying him for
his disability. Essentially, he is using his disability to get support from Facebook
to remove our comments. Good game! *hand clap*
On a more
personal note, one of his recent targets in October (which I only just found
out since I have better things to do than stalk a creep), is my mother. My mother has very actively rescuing and rehoming dogs for years. She and
MDDB has done more good for dogs than this miserable man has ever done by
ranting on his FB pages. So since she and I was also personally one of the
recent targets of his screenshot snapping, snapping, FB–reporting, ranting
spree, and I so happen to be on leave today, I shall happily take on the role
of a rabid Rottweiler as he claims I am, and tear his horrible logic to shreds.
If you don’t
know by now, the man in question is Anthony Siva Balan Thanasayan. I will address each of his points one by one and explain why they are
illogical. I do it here and not on his page because like a little coward, he
has blocked me and all his opponents from his personal page and Petpositive
page, so we are unable to defend ourselves from his bitching. And since he has
not given me the avenue to debate within him privately, I will do my bit to
create awareness to as many Malaysian dog lovers as possible about Anthony’s BS so you
educated dog lovers can avoid both of his rant filled hate pages and
organizations as much as possible.
So Anthony, when
you do read this eventually and if you have the balls, come to my own FB page here to debate with me (and please don’t be a coward and use an obviously fake profile to go just to hurl insults because you can’t come up with a good argument).
I challenge you to debate me on every single one of my response to your
arguments, instead of acting like a king on your page and circle jerking among
your groupies. I am also posting this to the Malaysian Dog Lovers, so if you are as right as
you say you are, then you have nothing to be afraid of by debating me. RIGHT?
PART 2: THE DEBATE (to Mr. Anthony himself)
Dear Anthony
Thanasayan, below I will proceed like the rabid Rottweiler you think I
am and tear apart your ‘arguments’. Taking a leaf of your grubby little book, I
have posted screenshots of your beautiful face, your handsome dog, and of
multiple postings from both your pages as numbered exhibits, as evidence of
what you have said. Because now you will know how uncomfortable it is to have
people stalking your page and posting your own photos and personal info without
permission (thankfully I keep my public profile void of personal info to avoid
creeps like you doing exactly that).
POINT 1: Strays (that can't be rehomed), severely injured or disabled dogs must be put down
Anthony is a big advocate of putting down strays that can't rehomed, as well as severely injured or disabled dogs. He is quoted in this article here by the Borneo post as saying:
"Acknowledging that the problem of stray dogs must be dealt with, Thanasayan said: “As much for wishful thinking, we have to respect the rights of those who don’t respect animals. Despite being an animal lover, he said stray dogs should be put to sleep if a decent home was not found for them.”
In his mind, this is the noblest thing to do, since he believes stray dogs are destined for a miserable life of disease, suffering and misery on the streets, regardless of their actual situation, while severely injured and disabled dogs will never be able to live full happy life due to their injury or disability. He also claims strays create a nuisance by chasing and attacking people.
Dear Anthony, when it comes to the lives of strays, their lives and demeanor vary as much as the lives of people. You can't apply a one-size-fits-all lazy solution to kill all strays just because some strays are diseased or starving or overly aggressive. There are also many strays that are quite healthy, well fed by feeders or surrounding communities, and shy away from people. A lot of strays are also very friendly and perfectly adoptable. Killing them means taking away the chance for friendly, healthy adoptable strays of finding a loving home. I personally have 5 dogs, all of which were strays at some point, and all of which are now well loved and cared for. If you had your way, Anthony, my 5 loving, intelligent and wonderful dogs would have been dead and buried long before I had the chance to give them a loving home.
I have also dealt many times with so called 'aggressive strays', usually when walking my own dogs (yes, all FIVE of them), and walk away unscathed. I had once even walked unprotected among a pack of male dogs chasing down a female dog in heat and fighting with each other, because I was trying to catch and remove the female. Also came out unscathed. It's not because I'm a magician, it's because aggressive dogs are actually not difficult to deal with once you know how. Dogs become aggressive and excited when they sense fear and will chase anything that runs. So in all such situations, I simply walked away calmly (EVEN when holding on the leashes of my own excited pack of 5) and would just look back to make sure the aggressive strays were a distance away, and yell at them or pretend to throw a rock at them to scare them off. In all situations, no aggressive stray dog has ever attacked me. So if people were educated to stay calm and not run away screaming in the face of a pack of 'aggressive' dogs, they would very rarely be attacked unless if was a trained guard dog. This article here has some similar advice online on how to deal with aggressive strays.
Since you have a somewhat strong social media presence, Anthony, why can't you put it to good use and educate people on the proper manner of how to avoid being attacked by aggressive strays, instead of saying they should just be killed? It just goes to show that you don't really have much understanding of basic dog behavior, which is really embarrassing for a supposed 'animal activist' and dog lover.
In this article responding to MDDB, Anthony wrote about the wonders of euthanasia for animals. While I would agree that euthanasia is acceptable where a dog in great chronic pain and is untreatable, he specifically says that ‘We do not support the practice of keeping disabled dogs alive unless a veterinarian approves it”, and “Disabled dogs need extra care as their condition will only deteriorate over time”. So essentially in this article and many other posts where he also says strays and injured dogs should be put down, Anthony assumes that disabled dogs are unable to be treated properly in this country and live a full life, even there have been plenty of disabled and injured strays successfully nursed back to health and some even re-homed. Again, I can personally tell you what a load of crap this idea is. One of my five dogs was initially found a paralyzed and injured from a bad dog fight. I took him in and took months to nurse him back to health. Initially he could barely move, not even wag his tail, would pee and poop himself, couldn't even lift his head to eat and was whining a lot in pain. Day by day of assisting him to eat (and boy, did he eat a LOT!), making him stand, then putting him in a makeshift wheelchair so he could walk, plus some visits to a dog physiotherapist, made him better. His name is Romeo and he is now able to run as fast as my other dogs (though can't jump well) and is one of the happiest and most loving dogs I’ve had in my life. So to suggest that all disabled dogs, regardless, should be immediately put to sleep, makes me quite livid. You are telling my loving dog Romeo shouldn’t be alive just because at one point he was paralyzed?? When an animal has given up on life, they will refuse to eat and pass on naturally, but if they have the will to live even with an injury or disability, animals will eat and can thrive. Anthony, who has probably never done a day of animal rescue in his life, or maybe never even tried to nurse a badly injured or disabled dog back to health, obviously does not understand this, but many animal rescuers do.
There are so many videos of previously injured and disabled dogs enjoying their lives happily. Here's one of many, which I guess Anthony has never seen coz he's been too busy being miserable and can't imagine that a disabled dog can be so much happier than him:
Here's a story of a cute pup named Piglet, who was born deaf AND blind, and enjoying a good life. And here is one of many stories of how disabled dogs inspire hospital patients.
So who are you, Anthony, to think that disabled dogs can't be happy? Some disabled dogs are out there making the world the better place by encouraging people, which is more useful than you advocating to have them all killed. It is especially astounding that such an opinion comes from a DISABLED person. I would never encourage anyone to commit suicide (and I will also say as much as I find Anthony's opinions annoying, I do NOT agree with anyone issuing death threats to Anthony!), but considering your own opinion is that disabled creatures don’t deserve to live, why are you so surprised when so many people wonder why you haven’t offed yourself? Those nasty comments to euthanize yourself are not because anyone hates your disability, but because you are being hypocritical by calling for other disabled creatures to be put down when you choose to stay alive despite being disabled. You have actively demanded politicians for more welfare allocations for disabled and homeless people (see EXHIBIT A) and yet you think that disabled and homeless dogs don’t even deserve to live? What makes you think you can enjoy your life while disabled dogs can’t, especially when so many disabled dogs like my Romeo can be successfully treated and live a full life?
You bring all those comments upon yourself by being a blatant hypocrite, so stop whining about it.
"Acknowledging that the problem of stray dogs must be dealt with, Thanasayan said: “As much for wishful thinking, we have to respect the rights of those who don’t respect animals. Despite being an animal lover, he said stray dogs should be put to sleep if a decent home was not found for them.”
In his mind, this is the noblest thing to do, since he believes stray dogs are destined for a miserable life of disease, suffering and misery on the streets, regardless of their actual situation, while severely injured and disabled dogs will never be able to live full happy life due to their injury or disability. He also claims strays create a nuisance by chasing and attacking people.
Dear Anthony, when it comes to the lives of strays, their lives and demeanor vary as much as the lives of people. You can't apply a one-size-fits-all lazy solution to kill all strays just because some strays are diseased or starving or overly aggressive. There are also many strays that are quite healthy, well fed by feeders or surrounding communities, and shy away from people. A lot of strays are also very friendly and perfectly adoptable. Killing them means taking away the chance for friendly, healthy adoptable strays of finding a loving home. I personally have 5 dogs, all of which were strays at some point, and all of which are now well loved and cared for. If you had your way, Anthony, my 5 loving, intelligent and wonderful dogs would have been dead and buried long before I had the chance to give them a loving home.
I have also dealt many times with so called 'aggressive strays', usually when walking my own dogs (yes, all FIVE of them), and walk away unscathed. I had once even walked unprotected among a pack of male dogs chasing down a female dog in heat and fighting with each other, because I was trying to catch and remove the female. Also came out unscathed. It's not because I'm a magician, it's because aggressive dogs are actually not difficult to deal with once you know how. Dogs become aggressive and excited when they sense fear and will chase anything that runs. So in all such situations, I simply walked away calmly (EVEN when holding on the leashes of my own excited pack of 5) and would just look back to make sure the aggressive strays were a distance away, and yell at them or pretend to throw a rock at them to scare them off. In all situations, no aggressive stray dog has ever attacked me. So if people were educated to stay calm and not run away screaming in the face of a pack of 'aggressive' dogs, they would very rarely be attacked unless if was a trained guard dog. This article here has some similar advice online on how to deal with aggressive strays.
Since you have a somewhat strong social media presence, Anthony, why can't you put it to good use and educate people on the proper manner of how to avoid being attacked by aggressive strays, instead of saying they should just be killed? It just goes to show that you don't really have much understanding of basic dog behavior, which is really embarrassing for a supposed 'animal activist' and dog lover.
In this article responding to MDDB, Anthony wrote about the wonders of euthanasia for animals. While I would agree that euthanasia is acceptable where a dog in great chronic pain and is untreatable, he specifically says that ‘We do not support the practice of keeping disabled dogs alive unless a veterinarian approves it”, and “Disabled dogs need extra care as their condition will only deteriorate over time”. So essentially in this article and many other posts where he also says strays and injured dogs should be put down, Anthony assumes that disabled dogs are unable to be treated properly in this country and live a full life, even there have been plenty of disabled and injured strays successfully nursed back to health and some even re-homed. Again, I can personally tell you what a load of crap this idea is. One of my five dogs was initially found a paralyzed and injured from a bad dog fight. I took him in and took months to nurse him back to health. Initially he could barely move, not even wag his tail, would pee and poop himself, couldn't even lift his head to eat and was whining a lot in pain. Day by day of assisting him to eat (and boy, did he eat a LOT!), making him stand, then putting him in a makeshift wheelchair so he could walk, plus some visits to a dog physiotherapist, made him better. His name is Romeo and he is now able to run as fast as my other dogs (though can't jump well) and is one of the happiest and most loving dogs I’ve had in my life. So to suggest that all disabled dogs, regardless, should be immediately put to sleep, makes me quite livid. You are telling my loving dog Romeo shouldn’t be alive just because at one point he was paralyzed?? When an animal has given up on life, they will refuse to eat and pass on naturally, but if they have the will to live even with an injury or disability, animals will eat and can thrive. Anthony, who has probably never done a day of animal rescue in his life, or maybe never even tried to nurse a badly injured or disabled dog back to health, obviously does not understand this, but many animal rescuers do.
There are so many videos of previously injured and disabled dogs enjoying their lives happily. Here's one of many, which I guess Anthony has never seen coz he's been too busy being miserable and can't imagine that a disabled dog can be so much happier than him:
Here's a story of a cute pup named Piglet, who was born deaf AND blind, and enjoying a good life. And here is one of many stories of how disabled dogs inspire hospital patients.
So who are you, Anthony, to think that disabled dogs can't be happy? Some disabled dogs are out there making the world the better place by encouraging people, which is more useful than you advocating to have them all killed. It is especially astounding that such an opinion comes from a DISABLED person. I would never encourage anyone to commit suicide (and I will also say as much as I find Anthony's opinions annoying, I do NOT agree with anyone issuing death threats to Anthony!), but considering your own opinion is that disabled creatures don’t deserve to live, why are you so surprised when so many people wonder why you haven’t offed yourself? Those nasty comments to euthanize yourself are not because anyone hates your disability, but because you are being hypocritical by calling for other disabled creatures to be put down when you choose to stay alive despite being disabled. You have actively demanded politicians for more welfare allocations for disabled and homeless people (see EXHIBIT A) and yet you think that disabled and homeless dogs don’t even deserve to live? What makes you think you can enjoy your life while disabled dogs can’t, especially when so many disabled dogs like my Romeo can be successfully treated and live a full life?
You bring all those comments upon yourself by being a blatant hypocrite, so stop whining about it.
 |
| EXHIBIT A: Apparently more welfare for homeless and disabled human is necessary but homeless and disabled dogs can just go die |
It seems that Anthony's advocacy of euthanasia apparently also applied for his own dogs, which I heard from a little birdie, that after they had gotten old and ill, he decided to put to sleep. Now in the same article I quoted earlier, he once said this:
"We do not support the practice of keeping disabled dogs alive unless a veterinarian approves it"
I honestly don't know head or tail of how truly ill and miserable your dogs were, Anthony, that you decided they had to be put down, and I'm not making any accusations here on what you did or didn't do. BUT in my opinion, IF an old dog is sick but not suffering from extensive untreatable pain and only requires long term care, that is NOT a justifiable reason to put down your dog. A real animal lover would take care of their dog until it is truly in chronic, untreatable pain and suffering, not because it is an inconvenience to take care of them long term. So if your words have worth, I hope you had the foresight to get a written statement from your vet that they 100% agreed that your dogs were suffering so much, that they just had to be put down. I'm guessing you didn't have such foresight, but DON'T WORRY, Anthony, and PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE COZ I'M HOLDING YOU OUT TO THIS:
When the time comes that your decide your loyal dog Zharro or any other service dogs you have in future are put down like the rest of them, I will be there bugging you to prove that your salt and show us a SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT from your vet that your dog just HAD to be put to sleep. Hey, if you expect others to have vet approval to keep sick or disabled dogs alive, you BETTER DARN WELL have the same vet approval to put your own loyal dogs to sleep!
Don't be more of a hypocrite now! :)
The one and maybe only opinion of Anthony's which I actually could agree with is his hope that all strays find a loving home (Of course all real dog lovers want that too, except that we don't support killing strays that are too difficult to rehome, unlike him!) Funny thing is Anthony talks as though every dog rescuer or feeder should just adopt all the strays they feed, or find them homes, as if it's that easy (again, goes to show that he probably has never done a day of actual stray dog rescue and rehoming in his life).
Dear dear dear Anthony, I sure every Malaysia dog lover would loooove to meet your demands to adopt every single strays in Malaysia. But if you are aware of how things work in this country, you will know that the multiple challenges of doing that. Do I really need to explain this too? I guess I do.
Problem no. 1: The management of most high rise condos and apartments does not allow residents to own pets, even though it's legal to do so, as explained in this SAYS article.
Problem no. 2: Local councils usually only allow residents of landed properties to have maximum of 2 dogs. And some implement dumb rules like requiring the permission of neighbors before a person can get a dog license. Quite a challenge to get that permission when quite a few people in this country hate dogs, and unfortunately a lot of times it's due to religion
Problem no. 3: A lot of people who want a dog, don't actually know how to take care of dog. There are idiots that keep dogs in small cages 24/7. There are idiots that only want dogs as guard dogs and give them no affection. There are idiots that can't afford basic healthcare for their dogs like vaccinations. There are idiots that just want a cute puppy which they abandon once the dog gets too old and not longer cute. So NGOs, dog pounds and rescuers also have a very, very tough time ensuring dogs get into good homes.
So, Anthony, again I ask, why can't you make use of you social media presence and government relationships to do something useful about these very prevalent problems?
How about instead of advocating for murder of unlucky homeless strays, instead for allocation of pet friendly housing? Or more flexible rules on ownership of pets in high rise buildings? Or advocate for permission for landed house owners to keep more than 2 dog as long as they are not a nuisance? Pet owners could be given resources on how to train their dog not to bark, or as a last option, debark their dogs. Now I'm probably gonna get flack for suggesting debarking since many people think it's cruel, but really debarking in a painless procedure and dogs can communicate in many other ways to each other. My own mother who is a rescuer living in a condo had two very easily excitable dogs debarked, and they were up and running happily right after the surgery will no ill effects whatsoever. I would much rather that pet owners debark their dogs and keep them for life rather than get rid a dog simply because it is too noisy. We need more adopters and homes for strays, so debarking is a viable option if all other methods to try to keep a dog quiet does not work. It is certainly better than abandoning them or putting them to sleep, while giving them away just means fewer homes for dogs to be rehomed to.
Why not also instead of ranting every other day about your opponents on your page, spend more time giving out DAILY practical advice on good pet ownership and what owners must commit to before adopting a dog? The name of the page is PETPOSITIVE, so do something more to make it live up to it's name!
POINT 2: MDDB bringing their treated dogs to charity events (see EXHIBIT B).
"We do not support the practice of keeping disabled dogs alive unless a veterinarian approves it"
I honestly don't know head or tail of how truly ill and miserable your dogs were, Anthony, that you decided they had to be put down, and I'm not making any accusations here on what you did or didn't do. BUT in my opinion, IF an old dog is sick but not suffering from extensive untreatable pain and only requires long term care, that is NOT a justifiable reason to put down your dog. A real animal lover would take care of their dog until it is truly in chronic, untreatable pain and suffering, not because it is an inconvenience to take care of them long term. So if your words have worth, I hope you had the foresight to get a written statement from your vet that they 100% agreed that your dogs were suffering so much, that they just had to be put down. I'm guessing you didn't have such foresight, but DON'T WORRY, Anthony, and PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE COZ I'M HOLDING YOU OUT TO THIS:
When the time comes that your decide your loyal dog Zharro or any other service dogs you have in future are put down like the rest of them, I will be there bugging you to prove that your salt and show us a SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT from your vet that your dog just HAD to be put to sleep. Hey, if you expect others to have vet approval to keep sick or disabled dogs alive, you BETTER DARN WELL have the same vet approval to put your own loyal dogs to sleep!
Don't be more of a hypocrite now! :)
The one and maybe only opinion of Anthony's which I actually could agree with is his hope that all strays find a loving home (Of course all real dog lovers want that too, except that we don't support killing strays that are too difficult to rehome, unlike him!) Funny thing is Anthony talks as though every dog rescuer or feeder should just adopt all the strays they feed, or find them homes, as if it's that easy (again, goes to show that he probably has never done a day of actual stray dog rescue and rehoming in his life).
Dear dear dear Anthony, I sure every Malaysia dog lover would loooove to meet your demands to adopt every single strays in Malaysia. But if you are aware of how things work in this country, you will know that the multiple challenges of doing that. Do I really need to explain this too? I guess I do.
Problem no. 1: The management of most high rise condos and apartments does not allow residents to own pets, even though it's legal to do so, as explained in this SAYS article.
Problem no. 2: Local councils usually only allow residents of landed properties to have maximum of 2 dogs. And some implement dumb rules like requiring the permission of neighbors before a person can get a dog license. Quite a challenge to get that permission when quite a few people in this country hate dogs, and unfortunately a lot of times it's due to religion
Problem no. 3: A lot of people who want a dog, don't actually know how to take care of dog. There are idiots that keep dogs in small cages 24/7. There are idiots that only want dogs as guard dogs and give them no affection. There are idiots that can't afford basic healthcare for their dogs like vaccinations. There are idiots that just want a cute puppy which they abandon once the dog gets too old and not longer cute. So NGOs, dog pounds and rescuers also have a very, very tough time ensuring dogs get into good homes.
So, Anthony, again I ask, why can't you make use of you social media presence and government relationships to do something useful about these very prevalent problems?
How about instead of advocating for murder of unlucky homeless strays, instead for allocation of pet friendly housing? Or more flexible rules on ownership of pets in high rise buildings? Or advocate for permission for landed house owners to keep more than 2 dog as long as they are not a nuisance? Pet owners could be given resources on how to train their dog not to bark, or as a last option, debark their dogs. Now I'm probably gonna get flack for suggesting debarking since many people think it's cruel, but really debarking in a painless procedure and dogs can communicate in many other ways to each other. My own mother who is a rescuer living in a condo had two very easily excitable dogs debarked, and they were up and running happily right after the surgery will no ill effects whatsoever. I would much rather that pet owners debark their dogs and keep them for life rather than get rid a dog simply because it is too noisy. We need more adopters and homes for strays, so debarking is a viable option if all other methods to try to keep a dog quiet does not work. It is certainly better than abandoning them or putting them to sleep, while giving them away just means fewer homes for dogs to be rehomed to.
Why not also instead of ranting every other day about your opponents on your page, spend more time giving out DAILY practical advice on good pet ownership and what owners must commit to before adopting a dog? The name of the page is PETPOSITIVE, so do something more to make it live up to it's name!
POINT 2: MDDB bringing their treated dogs to charity events (see EXHIBIT B).
 |
| EXHIBIT B: Anthony's comment on MDDB's photo of Patch during a recent charity event. Patch had his paws taken off in a bad accident when he was a puppy. MDDB nursed him back to health and is now pretty much their mascot. Anthony has always had a problem with that for God knows what reason |
As a person who
occasionally donates to MDDB and other charities, I would like to see evidence
of my money being put to their proper use. So if MDDB or any other NGO posts
about injured or disabled dogs that they are trying to treat, then people
donating would of course be happy to see that these dogs have gotten better and
are happy and healthy. If they were kept hidden, how could we confirm that our
donations were put to good use? Can you give us psychic powers, Anthony? Dogs
also love being around people and being taken out is always fun to them, so why
should disabled dogs be kept hidden when they also enjoy love and attention and
seeing new things? How would you like to be stuck in a box every day because of
your disability, Anthony?
For goodness
sake, just leave MDDB alone. You can’t even show any evidence of good works
you’ve done to help animals and you are just an empty can clanging and making
useless noise everyday about people trying to actually help animals.
POINT 3: TNRM
is not effective and is actually CRUEL (see EXHIBIT C1 and C2)
Yes, Anthony,
for some reason doesn’t just think TNRM is ineffective in reducing strays, but
is CRUEL. He also calls anyone implementing TNRM, ‘canine nutjobs’. Yes, you
kind souls who spent your own money to neuter, release and feed your friendly
neighbourhood strays are NUTJOBS according to Anthony.
 |
| EXHIBIT C1 |
 |
| EXHIBIT C2 |
I will break my response down into 2 parts of Anthony’s ludicrous claims:
i) TNRM
is not effective anywhere, even in Turkey
TNRM stands for
Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage. As name suggests, strays are trapped (humanely),
neutered, released back to where they were picked up or another safer location,
and managed. The intention of this is to reduce the stray population since
neutered strays can’t breed. There are numerous sources and NGOs that promote
TNRM as a more effective and even cheaper way of controlling stray populations compared
to Catching and Killing strays, for example:
-
SPCA
promotes TNRM as per this article here: https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/join-hands-create-strays-free-nation
-
SOSD
in Singapore: https://mothership.sg/2017/02/spore-stray-dog-welfare-groups-show-it-is-possible-to-manage-animal-populations-without-culling/
Now of course
there are also sources that claim TNRM is not effective. Of course, TNRM would
not always be successful because for it to be successful, it requires education
of pet owners to be more responsible. TNRM would not be effective when you have
people who refuse to spay or neuter their own pets and then abandon them,
resulting in more strays that can breed. The success of such a program
therefore also requires education of pet owners, better still legal action
against people who abandon their pets and registration of pets.
Mr. Anthony
thinks that TNRM has never been successful ANYWHERE in the world, including
Turkey where he says the dog population continues to grow, according to an AFP
report (see EXHIBIT C3).
 |
| EXHIBIT C3 |
AFP stands for Animal Foundation Platform. It’s
incredibly hilarious that Anthony used this organization to support his
argument, because If you took one minute to visit their website’s About page,
you would know that this organization supports a program similar to TNRM. Their
website states the following:
“The Focus of
AFP is on CNVR and education. Scientific studies show that CNVR is
feasible at all times and helps reduce stray populations. CNVR is short for Collect Neuter Vaccinate
and Return which means free roaming dogs and dogs who do have
owners are collected, sterilised, vaccinated labelled and taken back to where
they had come from. Studies show that, when sterile populations are created,
the number of dogs will diminish. But this only works in combination with
educations and registration”
With regards to
the success of TNRM in Turkey, I don’t really know if Anthony has ever been to
Turkey (the whole limited mobility thing might be a hindrance) or even reads
the news about it, but I have personally been to Istanbul and seen for myself,
stray dogs that were ear tagged and allowed to roam even near mosques and
inside tourist sites without bothering anyone, which is wonderful. This fantastic
article here explains the success of the TNRM program in Turkey, which is
largely due to the fact that Turkish people LOVE THEIR STRAYS, which again comes down to good EDUCATION. Quoted from the article:
“Dr. Cirak and
his colleagues in Kadikoy neuter or treat about 50 dogs every day. Between 2004
and 2018, about 1.2 million street animals were neutered and 1.5 million
vaccinated across the country. “The extermination teams are now the welfare
teams that look after the dogs,” Dr. Cirak said. “This alone tells how much the
mentality shifted.”
This local World of Buzz article also talks about Malaysian netizens who were impressed by the good
stray dog management in Turkey
So Anthony, if
you want to spout nonsense about TNRM not being successful anywhere, at least
have something to back it up. But since you clearly don’t, so why not just don’t say
anything and not look silly?
Anthony’s
SECOND point here about TNRM is even more hilarious!
ii) TNRM
is CRUELLLL
So you’re
probably wondering, why would Anthony think TNRM is cruel?
Well, he says
it’s because strays sometimes get into accidents or are killed painfully by
cruel people.
So by
extension, TNRM is cruel.
 |
| EXHIBIT C4: All I can say is *facepalm* |
 |
| EXHIBIT C5: Those strays are neutered, so that means less unwanted puppies being born, yet feeding the ones that already exist is *somehow* still cruel |
Yes, that that
is his logic. Yes, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of
this logic. I can’t even believe I have to explain it, but here goes.
Dear Anthony,
according to your logic, the only way to prevent strays getting into accidents
or being cruelly killed by crazy people is either putting them down or having
them all re-homed.
Well, people
get into car accidents all the time, how come you aren’t telling people to stop
using cars? Or tell homeless, injured or disabled people to kill themselves too
so they don’t risk dying out in the elements or being run over? Or why you tell
everyone to kill themselves so they don’t risk getting into accidents? I mean,
same logic, right?
What about
smart animals who have learned to keep away from traffic? Should they die too
just because you say so? Well of course you’ll say yes coz’ dead strays make
you happy.
Crazy people
who hate dogs also don’t just attack strays. They can attack pets. Plenty of
dog owners in this country have had their beloved dogs poisoned by crazy
people. So how come this is an issue of strays being homeless rather than crazy
people being cruel? Cruel people can also end up murdering other people, not
just animals. In fact, most killers start off by killing animals then move on
to people. So why not we implement Anthony’s great logic and have everyone kill
themselves to avoid being murdered by a crazy. I dunno, it just makes sense!
Again, I don’t
even know why I have to explain such simple things, so I will move on!
POINT 4:
Everyone disagreeing with Anthony is attacking his DISABILITY (see EXHIBIT D1, D2 and D3)
Hahaha, ok this
isn’t so much one of his arguments, but one of his very lame (excuse the pun) defenses.
Anthony’s favourite past time other than demanding for innocent strays, injured
and disabled animals to be killed, is ranting on and on about people insulting
him and making personal attacks against him. He seems to forget that most of
the people insulting him are dog lovers who clearly do not like the idea of
innocent animals being killed just because they are homeless, injured or
disabled. So to these dog lovers, Anthony is cruel, and people who are cruel
will of course be subjected to insults and ridicule. But good ol’ Anthony will
conveniently forget the actual reason why people are insulting him and whine to
Facebook admins that people are instead bullying him because of his
disability. Anthony clearly is unable to
recognize the difference between criticizing or insulting his opinions and
criticizing or insulting his disability.
 |
| EXHIBIT D1: He points out victoriously about FB removing hate speech against the disabled when the angry comment was against him wanting to kill off an abused stray dog. What a way to claim disability benefits. Lol |
 |
| EXHIBIT D2: Was the comment rude? Yeah sure. But it mentions nothing about his disability and only about what he said. But again, Anthony claims his disability benefits from FB like a coward P.S.: RIP Vidhya, I'm sure you don't mind me showing your name to put a turd in his place |
 |
| EXHIBIT D3: Anthony's comment on his page on a screenshot addressed to him (because he's too scared to respond directly under said comment like a man). No Anthony, she's not putting you down coz' you're in a wheelchair. She's putting you down coz' you're an idiot who wants dogs killed and you are using your wheelchair as an excuse to pretend you don't know what she's angry about. Dumbass |
It is true, a
lot of people, including myself, have called him mentally unstable, referred to
his wheelchair–bound state in a somewhat mocking way and told him to put himself
down. It’s true some of these comments are pretty mean. But my dear Anthony, let me make it clear to
you. Even if you were able to walk and run perfectly, we would still be
insulting you until the cows come home because we think your opinions about strays
are stupid. So stop running and crying to FB admin claiming that people are
bullying you because of your disability. It’s a false and cowardly claim,
because you know FB will not have time to check the history of all our comments
and why we are making them about you, and making it sound like we are mocking
you for your disability is the easiest and lamest (again, excuse the pun) way
of getting back at us. Please go and check through the profiles of every single
person you’ve accused of bullying OKU’s and see if you can find any shred of
evidence of anyone mocking another disabled person. You won’t find any. Because
the only disabled person we mock is you. So clearly, it’s not because of your
disability. OK?
So you actually
have a good argument, again come on my FB page using your real profile like half the man
you are and debate me point on point, instead of running and crying to your FB
mommy. You’ll have to deal with all the other dog lovers here, but since you
are such an animal activist and you think you’re so right, it shouldn’t be a
problem, RIGHT?
And as I’ve
already explained, in case you didn’t understand the first time because of your
obvious mental instability, the reason why people mock the fact that you in a
wheelchair is because you as a disabled person should be even MORE empathetic
to disabled or injured animals, and yet hypocritically you demand for them to
be put down regardless of their condition. I might expect that a fully able
person would have less empathy for disabled creatures, so I have no idea what
is your excuse is, except probably you have no soul.
POINT 5: His opponents' FB profile pics, personal info and CHILDREN’s photos are fair game for Anthony’s
follower’s to ridicule
Also not so
much a point of his, but another LAME, and maybe even illegal under the PDPA
act, ‘defense’ of Anthony. As I said before he looooves taking screenshots of
everyone who he deems as insulting to him and sharing them on his pages. What’s
even worse, is that he conveniently ignores their argument or why they are
angry at him (like a coward), and instead uses whatever information he can get
from their profiles against them. Such as one lady who has a 3 legged dog,
obviously not happy at the idea that her ‘disabled dog’ should be put down just
coz Anthony said so. How does Anthony address it? He proceeds to mock her top
position in a well known company and also her level of education from Australia
(see EXHIBIT E1 and E2).
 |
EXHIBIT E1: She's mad at you for implying her 3 legged dog should be dead but somehow her job position and education becomes the target... |
 |
| EXHIBIT E2: Here he goes again whining about how poor old disabled him is being bullied while he happily degrades another person's job position and education for disagreeing with his idea that all disabled dogs need to be put down |
EVEN WORSE, he took a rather benign comment from a person who even said we shouldn’t criticize Anthony, took a screenshot of the man’s profile with photos of his FAMILY including YOUNG CHILDREN and posted them on his page for his followers to ridicule (see EXHIBIT E3).
 |
| EXHIBIT E3: Not even a very mean comment, but the turd named Anthony decided posting photos of OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN on his page to ridicule was TOTALLY FINE |
THIS is
DEFINITELY a violation of privacy, especially for those children!
Thankfully,
such posts of his get little attention from his followers (probably because his
groupies don’t really gives a crap about his rants and probably think he’s
crazy), but for him to think it is acceptable to attack people’s jobs,
education and post pictures of their children to be ridiculed, THAT is way too
far.
This man,
unable to defend himself from criticism with sound logic, unable to leave NGOs
and rescuers alone to do their good work, resorts to these kind of ad hominem
attacks and violations of privacy, and then constantly pretends to be a victim
himself to his FB mommy, crying disability every God damn day. His misleadingly
named page supposedly about activism has done nothing to promote or help in
animal welfare and instead is just used as an extension of his rants on his
personal page.
You obviously don’t
like being personally attacked, Anthony, since you love blocking us. So instead
of further embarrassing yourself, why not do us and the animals a big favour, and
leave the NGOs, rescuers, and their supporters the hell alone.
Posts
0 red comments:
Post a Comment