3 ms·

This conversation goes the extra mile in terms of mental gymnastics in order to justify a code violation and a legal liability. This is past the point of prefer

This conversation goes the extra mile in terms of mental gymnastics in order to justify a code violation and a legal liability. This is past the point of preferences or removing possibly offensive elements to end up with a souless society. It's not unreasonable to supervise your dog in a public place, period. This is not a preference thing, this is a legal liability thing. It's hilarious, really, to draw a parallel between this and generally 'offensive' stuff. Nobody is 'offended' by a lose dog. I see way more people being offended by other people pushing back against the current dog culture by just asking folks to obey social norms and even laws and regulations (just watch downvotes - or the equivalent - pouring in pretty much any online community when you say something even remotely critical). I mean just look at this thread. OP just said it's rude to bring a pet into a public space and not supervise it and got philosophical-level pushback trying to convince everyone that being polite may lead us to a sterile souless society. I'm not sure who feels more offended here. And this is going to get worse as modern society is using pets as a pacifier against the loneliness crisis we're all facing.

jaredhallen 3y ago
I suppose I'm another mental gymnast, but I understand the sentiment. It's not just about offensiveness, either. I'd add safety. Humans weren't meant to live in protected bubbles. A little bit of chaos is what makes life interesting. And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private. You're arguing semantics. Replace public place to 'place open to the public' which is what a salon is. Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave. This is why we regulate these spaces as well. The public has access to them, so we have the local government sometimes sending inspectors and such to make sure it's all safe and 'up to code' regardless of how private it is. If I have a private business, say a store selling candy and toys to kids. And inside my private business, I allow people to smoke and vape freely. Would that be a nice escape from the protected bubble? I think it just adds the little bit of chaos making life interesting. Another aspect which will spice things up and make life interesting is the premium for the general liability insurance of the business. I mean you only need one person to get mauled and everyone (alive) will learn a very expensive lesson.
  - jaredhallen 3y ago
    It's more than a semantic difference. The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion. I kind of hear your point about smoking and the fact that we do sometimes regulate certain aspects of these spaces, but I'm not aware of any leash laws, at least in my area, that apply to indoor private spaces. And I don't mean that just in the sense that "it's not against the law, so to heck with you." You draw a parallel between smoking and a wandering dog (with more snark than was necessary, IMO), but "one of these things is not like the other" as they say.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      > The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion. Not entirely sure why you wrote this, it does not invalidate what I said ("Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave"). More details here: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-private-property https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-private-property For this conversation, it does not matter. Everyone is free to enter the salon (there is no guard at the door, there is no entry fee, there is no key access, etc..) until asked to leave. > "one of these things is not like the other" I agree. One has the possibility of killing a person in a couple of years, another one can kill a person on the spot.

jaredhallen 3y ago

I suppose I'm another mental gymnast, but I understand the sentiment. It's not just about offensiveness, either. I'd add safety. Humans weren't meant to live in protected bubbles. A little bit of chaos is what makes life interesting. And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private. You're arguing semantics. Replace public place to 'place open to the public' which is what a salon is. Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave. This is why we regulate these spaces as well. The public has access to them, so we have the local government sometimes sending inspectors and such to make sure it's all safe and 'up to code' regardless of how private it is. If I have a private business, say a store selling candy and toys to kids. And inside my private business, I allow people to smoke and vape freely. Would that be a nice escape from the protected bubble? I think it just adds the little bit of chaos making life interesting. Another aspect which will spice things up and make life interesting is the premium for the general liability insurance of the business. I mean you only need one person to get mauled and everyone (alive) will learn a very expensive lesson.
- jaredhallen 3y ago
  It's more than a semantic difference. The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion. I kind of hear your point about smoking and the fact that we do sometimes regulate certain aspects of these spaces, but I'm not aware of any leash laws, at least in my area, that apply to indoor private spaces. And I don't mean that just in the sense that "it's not against the law, so to heck with you." You draw a parallel between smoking and a wandering dog (with more snark than was necessary, IMO), but "one of these things is not like the other" as they say.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    > The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion. Not entirely sure why you wrote this, it does not invalidate what I said ("Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave"). More details here: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-private-property https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-private-property For this conversation, it does not matter. Everyone is free to enter the salon (there is no guard at the door, there is no entry fee, there is no key access, etc..) until asked to leave. > "one of these things is not like the other" I agree. One has the possibility of killing a person in a couple of years, another one can kill a person on the spot.