If that dog bites someone it dies, how is that not empathetic?
dogs are typically required to be on leashes in parks and public areas for a reason.
I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and cause an actual disturbance, you can be cited. When that relationship between order and law is inverted, the result is cops nickle-and-diming the populace when there was no actual underlying problem.
The real application of law requires, you know ... nuance, discretion and situational awareness. That's the standard we should hold police to, not throwing every single page of the book at people all the time.
How does that make sense?
This is an excellent example of 'ridiculous government overreach' that actually makes perfect sense and some people just don't like.
In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
It actually is a pretty good example of overreach insofar as you're advocating the removal of any judgement call from the equation. That is the surest way to build a relentless bureaucratic machine that makes everyone miserable without actually protecting anyone.
The human in the loop is a feature, not a bug.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2021/may/...
Now consider why it is you didn't know this?
You respond with a strawman.
He eventually explained that he grew up in the poor neighborhood, where people keep large, poorly trained "guard dogs" that occasionally escape and roam the streets. As a child he had to evade roaming dogs several times, including one occasion where he genuinely believes he was running for his life. Apparently it fucked him up pretty badly. Poorly trained dogs (especially those that are bread for aggression) are no joke, even to full grown adults.
>Maybe take a step back and realize that it's perfectly ok when people disagree with you about stuff on the internet.
Exactly what of what I said implies that I have a problem with disagreeing with people? All I said was "if you do these two things, your behavior is incongruous". That's as politely as I can disagree with someone. Maybe your problem is that I said anything at all, in which case I think you're the one who has a problem with disagreement.
That risk lessens significantly if dogs are mandated to be leashed.
unleashed dogs are regularly picked up by the city and if they're not claimed by someone w/i a specific amount of time, they're euthanised.
This isn't actually helping your case.
We shouldn't outlaw murder because some people will murder anyway. We shouldn't outlaw rape because some people will rape anyway.
You have no leg to stand on here, you're grasping at straws.
If not, I'd be careful with how loudly you proclaim ignorant opinions without consideration for people who might have a wider experience than you. Wisdom is knowing when to shut up and listen, sometimes.
This is like saying it is okay for good drivers to drive through stop signs, because they’re there for the bad drivers. Just moronic.
If you want to be somewhere where you can behave however you want, move away from other people. Pretty straightforward.
> In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.
Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situation calls for applicability of a black and white law?
raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there.
Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.
I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point.
Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.
I don't have to be "beyond reproach" to conclude this.
your problem is trying to apply one to the other, it's an equivalency issue.
jaywalking is not equivalent to murder, and it never will be.
I don’t know why you are latching on to this scenario when it aligns with my point. It is illegal to rape a child, you are agreeing with me. This is black and white.
Now, there is some person out there who thinks this is okay, are they allowed to judge this is okay, break the law, and do it because in they judged the child is mature? No. Okay. We agree.
That same exact reasoning applies to other laws that we, as a society, have deemed necessary for public life. Because you don’t get to judge those laws as inapplicable. If you do not like them you can try and have them changed or you can leave to a place that has different laws.
Where I live it is illegal to have a dog off leash in public places, this law exists for a reason. People should not decide the law doesn’t apply to them because they “discern” their dog is not a threat. If someone cant accept that law, they need to move somewhere where they can have the lifestyle with their pet that they want.