This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
If I understand and agree with the reason for being upset, yes.
Like I agree with banning peanuts on airlines because of allergy issues and think people who are upset about that are wrong so their being upset doesn’t impact me at all. Although I am not able to have an abortion, seeing people being upset that their rights are being denied does make me upset as well.
Then there are tons of things I either can’t relate to or understand and I don’t really care either way. There are lots of things I think people should choose to do voluntarily, but don’t want it to be required. I don’t get upset when I see people not do those things, even though they really should.
Wait, I’m confused about the peanuts thing.
How would people who are allergic to peanuts have a reaction, just because someone next to them is eating peanuts?
I thought to have a reaction, YOU have to eat the peanut?
Nope. Some people just need to be in the same room (especially one with limited ventilation) and it could set them off. Everybody’s reactions are different.
Oh.
Well then I fully agree to ban peanuts on planes. I didn’t know that.
Given that the general population doesn’t even know how allergies work half the time, it makes even more sense to ban peanuts on flights
Yeah, that makes total sense.
That was a key point of my question - that you agree that it should be required - but maybe it shouldn’t have been… Could you elaborate on this?
What would be something that upsets others, but you think shouldn’t be banned/required, you still think people should act in a certain way, but it doesn’t upset you when they don’t?
People should queue up when there are more people than things to interact with, and generally they do. I don’t care if someone lets someone with one thing ahead of everyone else as long as it still moves along. I would hate for ad hoc queuing to have enforced rules because doing it ad hoc is better overall and adding rules would make it more cumbersome.
It is required to have dogs on leashes here, but sometimes I see one off leash and if it is well behaved I don’t care. They should be on a leash as a best practice, but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide. The unleashed and aggressive ones are the worst.
There are a lot of things where it is best to do something a certain way in general, but when it doesn’t directly address the underlying issue or there are exceptions then I don’t get upset. Like people should use crosswalks properly, unless there is no traffic and they have no real benefit…
Right, OK, I get what you mean.
Well, other than this:
Why?
Getting shot in the head is worse than getting stabbed in the calf, but I still think you shouldn’t stab me in the calf! Obviously that’s a very extreme example, but these rules exist for a reason.
The dog may seem well-behaved for now, but what if it gets bothered by something random, as dogs do? The whole point of the rule is to prevent aggressive dogs from bothering people, because owners seem to always think their dogs wouldn’t hurt a fly. If you only complain about a dog being unleashed after a dog misbehaves, then aren’t you just asking for an issue to happen, instead of preventing it by enforcing the rule?
You get what I mean?
Then again, it does bother me when people don’t use crosswalks or cut in line lol
Aggressive dogs on leashes often pull themselves free or drag their owner close enough to start violence with other people and other dogs. Well behaved dogs tend to avoid confrontation.
It isn’t saying that any dog couldn’t be suddenly aggressive any more than saying any random person couldn’t suddenly become aggressive. Odds are higher that a dog who is frequently aggressive but on a leash getting close enough to bite or scratch than a well behaved one not on a leash.
While I am perfectly fine with the leash laws being enforced, not being on a leash when well behaved isn’t asking for trouble. Leash laws are there to address less well behaved dogs and the fact that it is impossible to know how well behaved a dog is the first time you meet them.