3 ms·

The writer you're replying to is saying that all the rules make it difficult for pet owners to obey them all. So they take any advantage they can. They're not t

The writer you're replying to is saying that all the rules make it difficult for pet owners to obey them all. So they take any advantage they can. They're not trying to be law breakers. They're effectively put into a position, for example, that their dog lives a life only on a leash when outside or they go to the park and just let it run around. The park may not allow it, but many feel it's inhumane not to let a dog run free on a regular basis. I do that because my dog won't hurt anyone, and if someone in the park fears dogs, well, some people fear spiders.

jfim 6y ago
Many dogs actually do stay leashed in cities and are only free to run in dog parks and in areas where they're allowed to. Those dogs seem fine. If some pet owners decide that the rules aren't for them, that's their choice. Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. It's definitely inconvenient to have to throw trash in the bin instead of tossing it on the ground, but if everybody did that, the parks would be full of trash, hence there's a "no littering" rule. Responsible things to do would be to check whether local parks allow unleashed dogs before getting one, getting a smaller breed of dog that would get enough exercise by walking leashed, going to the dog park, writing to the city hall that there should be more areas that allow unleashed dogs, or getting housing that would have enough of a back yard to allow the dog to run freely. Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces?
- setr 6y ago
  > Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. Another part of living in a society is accepting that rules are blunt and broadly applied, and should not be complied with blindly. They may be broadly correct, but specifically may not be (or overly conservative). The law is the law is not sufficient justification for really anything, except for an officer of the law, the court, or judge dredd.
- curryst 6y ago
  > Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces? I think it is unreasonable to project your personal views as restrictions on other people. There are plenty of people in the world that are afraid that 5G is going to kill them or brainwash them or something; do you believe that they're less entitled to use public spaces, or should we shut down all the transmitters so they don't have to be afraid? Lots of people are also afraid of cars (as they should be), and yet we let them go pretty much everywhere. The line between reasonable and unreasonable has to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, if you're afraid of dogs, demanding that other people keep their pets locked away is unreasonable. That's a you problem, for you to deal with in the same way that if you're afraid of 5G then that's something you need to deal with yourself. There's nothing stopping them from using those public spaces other than themselves. Figure out how to get along with dogs. Horses scare the shit out of me. I still wouldn't ask anyone to not bring their horse to the park. If that's how you want to use the trails, who am I to stop you? It's a public space for everyone to enjoy. I'll just stay out of kicking range and we can all go on about our day. It's a park, it's full of wild animals. People who are afraid of squirrels can't go; are we going to go shoot all the squirrels so those people aren't "less entitled"? Or, in a flip, unruly children ruin a lot of stuff for me. Let's mandate a rule that children must be on a leash and quiet, or you have to leave them at home. You should have made sure you could afford a sitter when you wanted to go out before you had children. It doesn't matter that I'm in the minority, or that you really love your children, it makes me uncomfortable so we should just silo them to sitting at home.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    Many rules exist to avoid liability, particularly when regarding dogs. Private places often have these rules but don't enforce them, because they don't really care about the dogs. But, in case a dog does bite someone then they get to say it was the dog owner that wasn't responsible and that has to pay for damages. Many people don't know this and go around enforcing rules just for the sake of enforcement. But the rules actually exist to provide dog owners a way to let their dogs run free.

jfim 6y ago

Many dogs actually do stay leashed in cities and are only free to run in dog parks and in areas where they're allowed to. Those dogs seem fine. If some pet owners decide that the rules aren't for them, that's their choice. Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. It's definitely inconvenient to have to throw trash in the bin instead of tossing it on the ground, but if everybody did that, the parks would be full of trash, hence there's a "no littering" rule. Responsible things to do would be to check whether local parks allow unleashed dogs before getting one, getting a smaller breed of dog that would get enough exercise by walking leashed, going to the dog park, writing to the city hall that there should be more areas that allow unleashed dogs, or getting housing that would have enough of a back yard to allow the dog to run freely. Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces?

setr 6y ago
> Part of living in a society is accepting that there are rules that are inconvenient, and still complying with them. Another part of living in a society is accepting that rules are blunt and broadly applied, and should not be complied with blindly. They may be broadly correct, but specifically may not be (or overly conservative). The law is the law is not sufficient justification for really anything, except for an officer of the law, the court, or judge dredd.
curryst 6y ago
> Out of curiosity, do you believe that people who are scared of dogs are less entitled to use public spaces? I think it is unreasonable to project your personal views as restrictions on other people. There are plenty of people in the world that are afraid that 5G is going to kill them or brainwash them or something; do you believe that they're less entitled to use public spaces, or should we shut down all the transmitters so they don't have to be afraid? Lots of people are also afraid of cars (as they should be), and yet we let them go pretty much everywhere. The line between reasonable and unreasonable has to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, if you're afraid of dogs, demanding that other people keep their pets locked away is unreasonable. That's a you problem, for you to deal with in the same way that if you're afraid of 5G then that's something you need to deal with yourself. There's nothing stopping them from using those public spaces other than themselves. Figure out how to get along with dogs. Horses scare the shit out of me. I still wouldn't ask anyone to not bring their horse to the park. If that's how you want to use the trails, who am I to stop you? It's a public space for everyone to enjoy. I'll just stay out of kicking range and we can all go on about our day. It's a park, it's full of wild animals. People who are afraid of squirrels can't go; are we going to go shoot all the squirrels so those people aren't "less entitled"? Or, in a flip, unruly children ruin a lot of stuff for me. Let's mandate a rule that children must be on a leash and quiet, or you have to leave them at home. You should have made sure you could afford a sitter when you wanted to go out before you had children. It doesn't matter that I'm in the minority, or that you really love your children, it makes me uncomfortable so we should just silo them to sitting at home.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Many rules exist to avoid liability, particularly when regarding dogs. Private places often have these rules but don't enforce them, because they don't really care about the dogs. But, in case a dog does bite someone then they get to say it was the dog owner that wasn't responsible and that has to pay for damages. Many people don't know this and go around enforcing rules just for the sake of enforcement. But the rules actually exist to provide dog owners a way to let their dogs run free.