4 ms·

Most people would agree with this idea. In fact it's used to justify most of the stupid laws reasonable people hate! In the case of the pet thing, making owners

Most people would agree with this idea. In fact it's used to justify most of the stupid laws reasonable people hate! In the case of the pet thing, making owners get a license and pass a test and pay for insurance, etc. is all there to protect others from your potentially dangerous pet. The same is true of all the TSA rules - they are justified under the guise of keeping people safe from each other. You can't use such a simple-sounding argument to counter anything because it can be used just as well to justify the stupid stuff in the first place. What's needed is good old fashioned human judgement - but that's no longer allowed. We're slowly making it illegal to exercise your own discretion out of fear that someone else's discretion might be dangerous.

ars 17y ago
Add "frequency of occurrence" to the argument and it works. Smoking is disgusting every time it's done near you. But someone with a dangerous pet is not very common.
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  Logically, adding in the frequency works - I totally agree. In reality, though, people don't understand frequency and how it applies to them which is why we get into these security theater situations in the first place.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    >people don't understand frequency and how it applies to them Or perhaps they do. Frequency works when assessing statistical risk for a population. Statistics work for populations not for individual instances. The fact that my chances of being attacked by a dog are statistically low are little solace when faced with a frothing mad pitbull. Ultimately individuals want to preserve themselves (and family/friends) not simply preserve a high proportion of the population.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
A pet may be "potentially dangerous", but cigarette smoke is "actually dangerous". That's the difference.
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  That wasn't always "true," though. It can take a long time to convince the majority of the truth of something if it's inconvenient to them personally. What do you do about determining the danger of things in the meantime?
- derefr 17y ago
  Another difference is in the fact that all the regulation does nothing to stop people from abusing their previously-safe pets until they become dangerous. Before any consideration of whether a law is just, we should really stop and notice whether a law would even be effective.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    IMO if the law states the desire of the people, for example the law makes it clear that irresponsible dog ownership is not acceptable to the degree that a law has been passed, then it is effective. Will passing the law alone make everyone obedient to it? No, of course not.
- mbubb 17y ago
  Yes but there is more nuance here. Only a few dog breeds are potentially dangerous. Look at the CDC stats (link below) over 20 years for fatal dog attacks and there are a relatively few breeds. In fact, looking at the data, if you lump 'pitbulls and related breeds', rottweilers and german shepherds together you have 75% of the fatalities. A dog advocate would point out irregularities of lumping 'pitbulls and related...' but even allowing for that you have a pretty tiny slice of the overall dog breeds that can be called dangerous. As some breeds become more popular you might see them on the updated list - like rodesian ridgebacks which are sweet but massive enough to cause real damage. I have an Irish terrier. He has some of the same temperament as a pit bull. That curious, relentless, stubbornness. But if he is about 17 kilos and if he ever lost it - he would not do much more than draw blood and give a nasty cut or two. The biggest problem with pits/ rottweilers, etc. is that people often dont know what they are getting into. These dogs are generally smart, strong and dominant. It is an open question as to who is in charge. The best pit owners that I have seen know this and are firm, gentle and consistent. Then there are recently graduated fratboys who get a pitbull, call it Mojo or Samson and teach it how to do death locks on car tires... Over the past 9 years in the 3 local dogruns, my dog and I have come into contact with numerous other dogs and have seen less than ten fights in that time frame (none that he was a participant in). The only human bites were from breaking up fights improperly (always grab the back legs and hold them high...). Dogs even when jammed together in tiny city dogruns (metro NYC) typically get along. I realize as I write this that it is terribly anecdotal and i could go on about it as hanging out in the dogrun has made me an amateur cultural anthropologist. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbi...

ars 17y ago

Add "frequency of occurrence" to the argument and it works. Smoking is disgusting every time it's done near you. But someone with a dangerous pet is not very common.

BigZaphod 17y ago
Logically, adding in the frequency works - I totally agree. In reality, though, people don't understand frequency and how it applies to them which is why we get into these security theater situations in the first place.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >people don't understand frequency and how it applies to them Or perhaps they do. Frequency works when assessing statistical risk for a population. Statistics work for populations not for individual instances. The fact that my chances of being attacked by a dog are statistically low are little solace when faced with a frothing mad pitbull. Ultimately individuals want to preserve themselves (and family/friends) not simply preserve a high proportion of the population.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

A pet may be "potentially dangerous", but cigarette smoke is "actually dangerous". That's the difference.

BigZaphod 17y ago
That wasn't always "true," though. It can take a long time to convince the majority of the truth of something if it's inconvenient to them personally. What do you do about determining the danger of things in the meantime?
derefr 17y ago
Another difference is in the fact that all the regulation does nothing to stop people from abusing their previously-safe pets until they become dangerous. Before any consideration of whether a law is just, we should really stop and notice whether a law would even be effective.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  IMO if the law states the desire of the people, for example the law makes it clear that irresponsible dog ownership is not acceptable to the degree that a law has been passed, then it is effective. Will passing the law alone make everyone obedient to it? No, of course not.
mbubb 17y ago
Yes but there is more nuance here. Only a few dog breeds are potentially dangerous. Look at the CDC stats (link below) over 20 years for fatal dog attacks and there are a relatively few breeds. In fact, looking at the data, if you lump 'pitbulls and related breeds', rottweilers and german shepherds together you have 75% of the fatalities. A dog advocate would point out irregularities of lumping 'pitbulls and related...' but even allowing for that you have a pretty tiny slice of the overall dog breeds that can be called dangerous. As some breeds become more popular you might see them on the updated list - like rodesian ridgebacks which are sweet but massive enough to cause real damage. I have an Irish terrier. He has some of the same temperament as a pit bull. That curious, relentless, stubbornness. But if he is about 17 kilos and if he ever lost it - he would not do much more than draw blood and give a nasty cut or two. The biggest problem with pits/ rottweilers, etc. is that people often dont know what they are getting into. These dogs are generally smart, strong and dominant. It is an open question as to who is in charge. The best pit owners that I have seen know this and are firm, gentle and consistent. Then there are recently graduated fratboys who get a pitbull, call it Mojo or Samson and teach it how to do death locks on car tires... Over the past 9 years in the 3 local dogruns, my dog and I have come into contact with numerous other dogs and have seen less than ten fights in that time frame (none that he was a participant in). The only human bites were from breaking up fights improperly (always grab the back legs and hold them high...). Dogs even when jammed together in tiny city dogruns (metro NYC) typically get along. I realize as I write this that it is terribly anecdotal and i could go on about it as hanging out in the dogrun has made me an amateur cultural anthropologist. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbi...