03/07/2025
Just putting this out there in regards to a recent comment by #%*! This post is full of misrepresentations and logical fallacies, so let’s break it down.
1 False Narratives & Strawman Arguments
He claims that I frame humane, evidence-based training as a “radical threat.” That’s not true. What I push back against is the demonization of balanced training methods, the misrepresentation of proper tool use, and the aggressive smear campaigns against trainers who don’t subscribe to your ideology.
2 “Real Trainers” vs. “Radicals”
He accuses me of creating a false divide, but his entire post is designed to frame anyone who disagrees with him as pro-cruelty. That’s dishonest. The real distinction is between those who prioritize practical, effective training and those who cling to ideology over results.
3 Science & Cherry-Picking
I’m accused of rejecting science. I don’t. I reject cherry-picked studies with weak methodology used to push an agenda while ignoring the broader body of research—including studies that demonstrate the efficacy and humane use of balanced methods. Science isn’t about blind allegiance; it’s about questioning, testing, and adjusting based on real-world results. Furthermore, I strive for proof of training… Show the results and stop using the science argument.
4 Fearmongering?
He dismissed concerns over restrictive regulations as “fearmongering,” but history shows otherwise. Once bans start, they tend to expand—often without understanding the consequences. These restrictions don’t just affect protection sports; they have ripple effects across all canine disciplines. Pretending otherwise is either naive or disingenuous.
5 The “German Commands” Reach
This one is just embarrassing and Xenophobic. He implies that using German commands in training is somehow linked to supremacist ideology. First, German is my first language. Second, it’s a common training language in working dogs, protection sports, and even police and military K9 units worldwide—because it provides clarity and consistency. This attempt at a political smear is absurd. I’ve trained all of my dogs in German and the commands aren’t “barked” they are spoken.
6 Gender Manipulation
He tries to frame this as a gender issue, claiming I’m dismissing a “community overwhelmingly made up of women.” That’s laughable. The majority of the women my wife (who is a woman) trained with in the field use e-collars and balanced methods because they see firsthand how effective and humane they are. This isn’t about gender; it’s about results. If anything, he’s the one reducing skilled female trainers to mere ideological props. Here we see a perfect example of “mansplaining” and assuming women can’t speak for themselves, perhaps he should note many of the female comments here agreeing with me!
7 False Moral Superiority
He sets up a false equivalency, suggesting that those who use balanced training methods support corporal punishment for children. That’s not just a bad-faith argument; it’s completely ridiculous. Dogs aren’t children. Training dogs with clear communication, structure, and appropriate tools is not the same as parenting human beings. Resorting to this kind of comparison only proves how weak his argument is.
The Bottom Line
He doesn’t want a discussion. He wants to shame, intimidate, and silence anyone who doesn’t conform to his views. He’s built a following based on emotional rhetoric, not real-world experience with working and performance dogs.
Here’s the truth: real trainers—many of them women—use a variety of tools and methods to help dogs succeed. Dismissing those methods as “cruelty” doesn’t make him progressive; it makes him ignorant.
Volume doesn’t equal truth. And repeating the same tired attacks doesn’t make them any less false.
Largely generated by AI, which proves AI has common sense... and tends to agree with me 🙂