3 ms·

Generally, I believe people have the right to be offended by anything and voice their opinions about it. Because it can be for anything, people shouldn't have t

Generally, I believe people have the right to be offended by anything and voice their opinions about it. Because it can be for anything, people shouldn't have the right to force change. This should be as much company policy as the law allows. Also, I love dogs. They're so cute! http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/pups/index.html http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/pups/index.html There is a funny story related to this. My company has a tiny branch on the other side of the country. Essentially an elite group of engineers wanted more sun, and started a skunk-works. After paying tens of thousands of dollars for a video-conference system, it wasn't used often. This is because a golden retriever would be the only one on the small office side. He'd come after hearing the system start and would sit in front of the camera. The owner was off doing real work.

amichail 19y ago
How is this different from allowing people to bring guns to work that they may point at you occasionally?
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  Waving a gun at someone is a direct threat, which is totally different. In some states, you can bring guns to the office. If a dog is poorly trained, only a fool would bring it to the office. I suppose allergies make this more complicated, but that wasn't really the question.
  - amichail 19y ago
    I think people have better judgment than dogs. In a way, someone pointing a gun at you is less dangerous than a dog -- no matter how well trained it may be.
- willarson 19y ago
  Normally when you try to make a point using reduction to absurdity you jump straight to nuclear missiles: i.e. "How is this different from allowing people to bring nuclear missiles to work that they may point at you occasionally?" Unfortunately this is a contrived comparison. People who are bringing dogs into work are not bringing them as weapons that they then deliberately threaten their coworkers with. The key differences here is intentionality: bringing a dog to work is not intrinsically threatening, point a gun at someone is. Your comparison only becomes valid if the individuals brought their dogs into work and threatened to assault coworkers with them. This is likely not part of Google's acceptable policies.
  - amichail 19y ago
    The point is dogs are less predictable than people and may decide to attack for no obvious reason. It doesn't matter that their owners did not bring them to work to intimidate coworkers.
    - willarson 19y ago
      Your argument is based your intuitive view on the comparable reliability of dogs and people. It is your personal opinion that dogs are less predictable than people. Personally I find your opinion to be troubling, how can a much simpler creature be more complex and less predictable? There have been between 17 and 26 dog related deaths per year for the past two decades in the US. There were 28874 gun related deaths in 1999 in the US. These numbers don't tell a very complete story, but I think they are sufficient to raise doubts about your premise that dogs are less predictable or more dangerous than armed humans.
    - ivankirigin 19y ago
      Watch the dog whisperer. Dogs are extremely predictable. Now I'm exposing my biases :). I suppose a serious reason not to allow dogs is that some people might not know how to act around them, and would become a danger to themselves. But again, only the most well behaved dogs should be included. I should also mention that I don't feel very strongly about any of this.
- SwellJoe 19y ago
  "How is this different from allowing people to bring guns to work that they may point at you occasionally?" Wow. You're really nuts. What kind of dogs are you hanging out with? ;-)
ivankirigin 19y ago
I should note that this can conflict with what should also be a major goal: keeping employees as happy as possible. This is one reason why managers and HR folks have annoying jobs.

amichail 19y ago

How is this different from allowing people to bring guns to work that they may point at you occasionally?

ivankirigin 19y ago
Waving a gun at someone is a direct threat, which is totally different. In some states, you can bring guns to the office. If a dog is poorly trained, only a fool would bring it to the office. I suppose allergies make this more complicated, but that wasn't really the question.
- amichail 19y ago
  I think people have better judgment than dogs. In a way, someone pointing a gun at you is less dangerous than a dog -- no matter how well trained it may be.
willarson 19y ago
Normally when you try to make a point using reduction to absurdity you jump straight to nuclear missiles: i.e. "How is this different from allowing people to bring nuclear missiles to work that they may point at you occasionally?" Unfortunately this is a contrived comparison. People who are bringing dogs into work are not bringing them as weapons that they then deliberately threaten their coworkers with. The key differences here is intentionality: bringing a dog to work is not intrinsically threatening, point a gun at someone is. Your comparison only becomes valid if the individuals brought their dogs into work and threatened to assault coworkers with them. This is likely not part of Google's acceptable policies.
- amichail 19y ago
  The point is dogs are less predictable than people and may decide to attack for no obvious reason. It doesn't matter that their owners did not bring them to work to intimidate coworkers.
  - willarson 19y ago
    Your argument is based your intuitive view on the comparable reliability of dogs and people. It is your personal opinion that dogs are less predictable than people. Personally I find your opinion to be troubling, how can a much simpler creature be more complex and less predictable? There have been between 17 and 26 dog related deaths per year for the past two decades in the US. There were 28874 gun related deaths in 1999 in the US. These numbers don't tell a very complete story, but I think they are sufficient to raise doubts about your premise that dogs are less predictable or more dangerous than armed humans.
  - ivankirigin 19y ago
    Watch the dog whisperer. Dogs are extremely predictable. Now I'm exposing my biases :). I suppose a serious reason not to allow dogs is that some people might not know how to act around them, and would become a danger to themselves. But again, only the most well behaved dogs should be included. I should also mention that I don't feel very strongly about any of this.
SwellJoe 19y ago
"How is this different from allowing people to bring guns to work that they may point at you occasionally?" Wow. You're really nuts. What kind of dogs are you hanging out with? ;-)

ivankirigin 19y ago

I should note that this can conflict with what should also be a major goal: keeping employees as happy as possible. This is one reason why managers and HR folks have annoying jobs.