I have this theory and I would like to run by the board first to see if it is true. Please respond only if you have both kids and pets. I have the assumption that people are more sensitive about their pets than about their kids. So if somebody criticizes their kids they take less offense and they are hurt less than when the criticism is aimed at their pets, usually dogs. (but could be cats or whatever) I might be wrong on this, so I am curious about your experience and input. I actually can see certain logic in it, in case my assumption is correct. a criticism toward a child is usually more measurable than the same against a pet. Let's say someoe say: your kid is an idiot. Well, he gets Ds and Fs, so the criticism was probably valid. Now let's say they say: your dog is ugly. I think you are way more hurt, and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. The dog might not be a beauty but his cuteness migth makes up for it. So what say you?
But, you're comparing apples and oranges here. "Your kid is stupid" vs. "Your dog is ugly". You have to compare "Your kid is ugly" with "Your dog is ugly", or "Your kid is stupid" with "your dog is stupid". I think just the opposite, that most people would take greater offense at "Your kid is ugly" than they would at "Your dog is ugly". Same for "Your kid is stupid" vs. "Your dog is stupid". And there's a very logical reason why "your kid is stupid/ugly" constitutes more powerful fightin' words than "your dog is stupid/ugly" does--because your kid carries your genes, he takes after you (assuming he's not adopted), and "Your kid is stupid/ugly" strongly implies that YOU are stupid/ugly. Whereas you don't share any genes with your dog, and any criticism leveled at him doesn't reflect on your own personal appearance or intelligence.
