6 ms·

"and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse" That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!

by forrestthewoods 12y ago

smsm42 12y ago
There should be a high bar to for prohibiting people from doing something that does not infringe anybody's rights.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  I agree. I mean I am assuming your referring to my right to runa private business and not allow animals on my property if I don't want them there. Yes? That's the right to which you were referring? Ok good.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I do not dispute the right of private business to not allow any animal, human, plant, bacteria, archaea or space alien on their private properties. However, these rights are routinely infringed right now, so if you want to stand for them, please stand for them without exceptions. I.e. if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way, that should be the case and all regulation concerning any such limitations should be removed. That's fine, consistent approach which has my full sympathy. On the other hand, if you allow exceptions, such as different handling of "public places", even privately owned, if you accept regulation that limits the exclusive authority of the owner to exclude anybody they wish for any reason, then you have to be consistent and have some rules that would guide such regulation, and then what would be your reason to exclude people with (well-behaved) animals accompanying them, not infringing on anybody? "I don't like them, and that's enough" wouldn't cut it anymore - not unless you agree to go all the way. I would prefer the former approach, but it's not the world we live in now, so either we strive for that world, or we go with one we have now, but we can't do both at once. Also, regardless of that, I think it is important for people to be a bit more accommodating to each other even if nobody forces you to. Let's assume you have full right to kick out every person with a dog out of your place of business. Why should you? Do they make any trouble? Every one of them, always? If not, why would you assume they are troublesome before any sign of trouble appears? Why not instead show some kindness and politeness and give people and dogs a chance to be good? If they don't, you can always kick them out later (ok, on the plane you can't but that's rather exceptional situation, in most situations resolution is very easy).
    - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
      >if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way Err... this didn't work out too well in the past, which is why now I can't put up a sign in my store that says "No Mexicans." Or as a landlord I cant say "I only rent to whites." These regulations didn't arise out of nowhere... I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. Other than food establishments it is generally the owner's choice to allow animals ot not. Most people just don't allow animals. You can bring your dog to PetsMart.
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      O_o It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
      - baddox 12y ago
        Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? What are the requirements for something being a protected class?
        UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
        Protected class is a term used in US law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people. Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act. Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law. Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.
- baddox 12y ago
  The word "rights" evokes messy normative claims. I prefer a more positive approach, and it's clear that a large portion of people would vastly prefer, all else being equal, to minimize their interaction in public places with strangers' animals.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    How large and how legitimate is their claim? Maybe it's just a product of irrational fear and ignorance, and knowing more about animal behavior and training they would be able to overcome their irrational revulsion and be content with animal presence? I don't see any rational reason to mind somebody having a dog or a turtle in my presence. Of course, there are can be religious etc. objections - but I don't think anybody would insist on going into a mosque or a synagogue or a kosher restaurant with a pig. At least if they try there would be completely reasonable to refuse them. But absent such matters, and other problems like obvious disturbing behavior (noise, smell, etc.) - why not? Why would you even call it "interaction" - after all, if you go on a bus with 50 strangers, you don't really "interact" with them. Why being in the same room with a dog be "interacting"?
    - baddox 12y ago
      We're back to normative with the word "legitimate." I can provide reasons why I or someone else might have certain preferences, but I'm not up to the task of proclaiming which reasons are "legitimate."
      - smsm42 12y ago
        OK, fine, but if we talk about pure preference, I don't see why preference not to be in the same room as a dog is better than preference to have a dog around. I.e. if somebody say "but your dog can bite me", we can talk about it and I can alleviate their concerns and maybe we'll arrive to agreement that would be ok with us both. But if somebody just says "I hate dogs and won't tolerate the sight of them!" then there's no way to go anywhere with that, and then I would question why their hate has to have more weight than my preference for canine companionship. Because the article and some other people sound like the preference is a given, but I question - why is that?

"and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse" That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!

smsm42 12y ago

There should be a high bar to for prohibiting people from doing something that does not infringe anybody's rights.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
I agree. I mean I am assuming your referring to my right to runa private business and not allow animals on my property if I don't want them there. Yes? That's the right to which you were referring? Ok good.
- smsm42 12y ago
  I do not dispute the right of private business to not allow any animal, human, plant, bacteria, archaea or space alien on their private properties. However, these rights are routinely infringed right now, so if you want to stand for them, please stand for them without exceptions. I.e. if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way, that should be the case and all regulation concerning any such limitations should be removed. That's fine, consistent approach which has my full sympathy. On the other hand, if you allow exceptions, such as different handling of "public places", even privately owned, if you accept regulation that limits the exclusive authority of the owner to exclude anybody they wish for any reason, then you have to be consistent and have some rules that would guide such regulation, and then what would be your reason to exclude people with (well-behaved) animals accompanying them, not infringing on anybody? "I don't like them, and that's enough" wouldn't cut it anymore - not unless you agree to go all the way. I would prefer the former approach, but it's not the world we live in now, so either we strive for that world, or we go with one we have now, but we can't do both at once. Also, regardless of that, I think it is important for people to be a bit more accommodating to each other even if nobody forces you to. Let's assume you have full right to kick out every person with a dog out of your place of business. Why should you? Do they make any trouble? Every one of them, always? If not, why would you assume they are troublesome before any sign of trouble appears? Why not instead show some kindness and politeness and give people and dogs a chance to be good? If they don't, you can always kick them out later (ok, on the plane you can't but that's rather exceptional situation, in most situations resolution is very easy).
  - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
    >if the owner is the sole authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way Err... this didn't work out too well in the past, which is why now I can't put up a sign in my store that says "No Mexicans." Or as a landlord I cant say "I only rent to whites." These regulations didn't arise out of nowhere... I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. Other than food establishments it is generally the owner's choice to allow animals ot not. Most people just don't allow animals. You can bring your dog to PetsMart.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    O_o It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
    - baddox 12y ago
      Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? What are the requirements for something being a protected class?
      - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
        Protected class is a term used in US law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Why shouldn't pets be a protected class? Because pets are not people, for one, and protected class refers to a class of people. Secondly, making something a protected class involves taking some freedom away from another group of people. It is a balancing act. Most people don't think you have the "right" to bring your misbehaving dog everywhere you go. Everywhere, no matter if it is appropriate or not. If most people did, it is possible pet owners would be made a protected class in US law. Family status is a protected class for housing. I can't say "I only rent to families without children" but I can ban children from my restaurant. It isn't all or nothing. Probably because kids can misbehave and the type of person who has a misbehaving child probably also is the one taking their child to places inappropriate for children.
baddox 12y ago
The word "rights" evokes messy normative claims. I prefer a more positive approach, and it's clear that a large portion of people would vastly prefer, all else being equal, to minimize their interaction in public places with strangers' animals.
- smsm42 12y ago
  How large and how legitimate is their claim? Maybe it's just a product of irrational fear and ignorance, and knowing more about animal behavior and training they would be able to overcome their irrational revulsion and be content with animal presence? I don't see any rational reason to mind somebody having a dog or a turtle in my presence. Of course, there are can be religious etc. objections - but I don't think anybody would insist on going into a mosque or a synagogue or a kosher restaurant with a pig. At least if they try there would be completely reasonable to refuse them. But absent such matters, and other problems like obvious disturbing behavior (noise, smell, etc.) - why not? Why would you even call it "interaction" - after all, if you go on a bus with 50 strangers, you don't really "interact" with them. Why being in the same room with a dog be "interacting"?
  - baddox 12y ago
    We're back to normative with the word "legitimate." I can provide reasons why I or someone else might have certain preferences, but I'm not up to the task of proclaiming which reasons are "legitimate."
    - smsm42 12y ago
      OK, fine, but if we talk about pure preference, I don't see why preference not to be in the same room as a dog is better than preference to have a dog around. I.e. if somebody say "but your dog can bite me", we can talk about it and I can alleviate their concerns and maybe we'll arrive to agreement that would be ok with us both. But if somebody just says "I hate dogs and won't tolerate the sight of them!" then there's no way to go anywhere with that, and then I would question why their hate has to have more weight than my preference for canine companionship. Because the article and some other people sound like the preference is a given, but I question - why is that?