4 ms·

You have not asked me once about what types of dogs they were or how the dogs were behaving. so I would say it’s you. That’s operating without any data and it’s

You have not asked me once about what types of dogs they were or how the dogs were behaving. so I would say it’s you. That’s operating without any data and it’s just acting out of your imagination. But it’s irrelevant. Because you’re just thinking about people being in danger and not the dog being in danger or not if it is disturb the other animals that also have at the park like the squirrels in the birds. You’re only seeing the dog owner as the victim in the circumstance. And all that doesn’t matter either, because we as a community created this rule, this law, that your dog needs to be on a leash went in this park. If you don’t like the law, you could push to overturn the law. Or if you don’t like the law, you can move to a place that doesn’t have these laws. We have decided that the risk of even a slight chance of a dog hurting someone is more important than the slight inconvenience of someone having a dog on a leash. Of all people you in data science should understand risk benefit. What is the harm of a dog being on a leash?

mjburgess 3y ago
As I said, it's not really about the leash -- nor the sign. It's about people who deputise themselves in the service of these rules, and who imagine risk, and appoint themselves enforces of a social order of values that is insensitive to particulars. There are many things I dislike, take littering. I would find it very obnoxious for a person to litter in a park, and to ignore the signs against it. But I feel no compulsion to go discipline them, or involve myself in their disciplining, or deputise myself as a member of some social police force. Were they to be murdering someone, that would be different. I am not a person who 'thinks of the children', quite the opposite. I think of a world designed for children, and would then go out of my way to destroy it. I am unsympathetic with these 'daily oppressions' which constrain people's lived freedom, in the service of radical abstractions with marginal effects; the service of imagined dangers, and the like. I would much prefer a society in which people occasionally littered to one in which no one dead out of fear of some reprisal. The problem with "what's the harm" thinking is its aggregation. When you have disciplined people's daily lives to that degree where all these "what's the harm"-level rules are in operation -- then you're living in a nightmare. It is for this reason I took against ever living in america. Where 'neighbourly policing' seems everywhere; and 'city bylaws' run amok
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Just stop, people want dogs leashed in public for safety. This isn't some social order of insensitive assholes, this is because people actually get maimed by dogs and it's easier to have a blanket rule that all dogs (or all animals) must be leashed. There is no magical effect of some cadre of people trying to enforce some silliness onto the general public, there's a reason behind these laws.
  - jchanimal 3y ago
    I think the op is saying, and I might not disagree with them, that a world where dogs run free is a better world, even if it’s more dangerous.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      I'm saying a world with too many of these signs in it is worse than one with too few. I'd prefer to visit a park with unleashed dogs than one where busy-bodies were constantly on the look out for rule violations. The second one feels more unsafe to me; more repulsive; more invasive. A busy-body is a much worse creature than a dog
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I once walked up to a woman in a parking lot at night while she was putting groceries away (we were coming out of a grocery store). She turns and says "please get away from me" in a way that made it obvious she was irrationally fearful, no idea why but I can guess. Most people would not have reacted in that manner. My point is this: Go tell the victims of dog attacks they're being busy-bodies by wanting dogs leashed in the park.
        mjburgess 3y ago
        I doubt the victims are. Its those people wandering through parks having this fantasy of victimisation to drive their 'compassionate' impulse to police others. If you wander around the world engaged in these fantasies, and police everyone around you such, then you're creating a nightmare for people to live in. Do you imagine teenagers attacking people, and then keep them out of parks? They're vastly more dangerous than dogs. Do you imagine so for everything? For knives and forks? For trees? Why! Trees do fall and kill people, we must be ever vigilant for the person with a tree on their property who has not put signs up warning people. Yes, the world has some minimal danger to it; and people are routinely injured one way or another. If you spend your life in fantasies of this danger you'll only make the world doubly unbearable -- as unsafe as it ever was, and now with self-appointed social police making sure no one can enjoy it If there's a dangerous dog in a park, that's a problem -- and call the police; make laws against it; make it a crime to own a dangerous dog. But if there isnt, if you're just having this fantasy that some random guy walking some random dog is endangering the people in the park -- well, I dislike you much more than I dislike that dog. And I'd like a sign to keep you out of the park. But people who make signs arent the kind to make that one; they're the busy-bodies.

mjburgess 3y ago

As I said, it's not really about the leash -- nor the sign. It's about people who deputise themselves in the service of these rules, and who imagine risk, and appoint themselves enforces of a social order of values that is insensitive to particulars. There are many things I dislike, take littering. I would find it very obnoxious for a person to litter in a park, and to ignore the signs against it. But I feel no compulsion to go discipline them, or involve myself in their disciplining, or deputise myself as a member of some social police force. Were they to be murdering someone, that would be different. I am not a person who 'thinks of the children', quite the opposite. I think of a world designed for children, and would then go out of my way to destroy it. I am unsympathetic with these 'daily oppressions' which constrain people's lived freedom, in the service of radical abstractions with marginal effects; the service of imagined dangers, and the like. I would much prefer a society in which people occasionally littered to one in which no one dead out of fear of some reprisal. The problem with "what's the harm" thinking is its aggregation. When you have disciplined people's daily lives to that degree where all these "what's the harm"-level rules are in operation -- then you're living in a nightmare. It is for this reason I took against ever living in america. Where 'neighbourly policing' seems everywhere; and 'city bylaws' run amok

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Just stop, people want dogs leashed in public for safety. This isn't some social order of insensitive assholes, this is because people actually get maimed by dogs and it's easier to have a blanket rule that all dogs (or all animals) must be leashed. There is no magical effect of some cadre of people trying to enforce some silliness onto the general public, there's a reason behind these laws.
- jchanimal 3y ago
  I think the op is saying, and I might not disagree with them, that a world where dogs run free is a better world, even if it’s more dangerous.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    I'm saying a world with too many of these signs in it is worse than one with too few. I'd prefer to visit a park with unleashed dogs than one where busy-bodies were constantly on the look out for rule violations. The second one feels more unsafe to me; more repulsive; more invasive. A busy-body is a much worse creature than a dog
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I once walked up to a woman in a parking lot at night while she was putting groceries away (we were coming out of a grocery store). She turns and says "please get away from me" in a way that made it obvious she was irrationally fearful, no idea why but I can guess. Most people would not have reacted in that manner. My point is this: Go tell the victims of dog attacks they're being busy-bodies by wanting dogs leashed in the park.
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        I doubt the victims are. Its those people wandering through parks having this fantasy of victimisation to drive their 'compassionate' impulse to police others. If you wander around the world engaged in these fantasies, and police everyone around you such, then you're creating a nightmare for people to live in. Do you imagine teenagers attacking people, and then keep them out of parks? They're vastly more dangerous than dogs. Do you imagine so for everything? For knives and forks? For trees? Why! Trees do fall and kill people, we must be ever vigilant for the person with a tree on their property who has not put signs up warning people. Yes, the world has some minimal danger to it; and people are routinely injured one way or another. If you spend your life in fantasies of this danger you'll only make the world doubly unbearable -- as unsafe as it ever was, and now with self-appointed social police making sure no one can enjoy it If there's a dangerous dog in a park, that's a problem -- and call the police; make laws against it; make it a crime to own a dangerous dog. But if there isnt, if you're just having this fantasy that some random guy walking some random dog is endangering the people in the park -- well, I dislike you much more than I dislike that dog. And I'd like a sign to keep you out of the park. But people who make signs arent the kind to make that one; they're the busy-bodies.