I guess this debate could go on forever. We don't know what was going through the author's head, we can only go by what he wrote, period.
I didn't read anything in that article that did pitbulls any favours. Some people may have thought the
tone of the article was humorous, but that is an assumption on their part, no facts to contrary. I didn't read where the author thought that Rocky was a gentle, loving dog
. He talked about barring teeth, and pitbulls = trouble, and that he was happy the owner had a substantial leash
.
As mx3 stated, John Q Public is reading this article, not necessarily those who are doggy smart and realize that Rocky is a sweet and lovable dog.
Even if we assume the author meant for it to be humorous, is it really funny? I don't think so. Had the author been writing about African Americans and comparing them to muggers, or Muslims as terrorists, or Catholic Priests as pedophiles, then it wouldn't be so funny and we would be calling the author a racist and demanding the newspaper retract the column.
Pit bulls here in Ontario are being unfairly judged, they are assumed guilty by their looks, not on their actions. Many families have had to experience unnecessary grief due to our discriminatory laws. Military families (and others) who are posted into Ontario are having to say goodbye to beloved family pets, not because they had done anything wrong but because they are a pitbull. Pitbulls are being put to death, not for what they have done but by who their parents are.
If the author wanted to portray his biased thoughts on pitbulls being trouble, then he should have made it clear in the article and given Rocky the fair description of being a sweet and lovable dog.
I just fail to see any humor in this at all.