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.
My response might be sligtly convoluted, but I’ll try to keep it simple. It relates to allergies.
For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters, and largely also allergic to shellfish. I’m so badly allergic to oysters that I cannot be in the same room as someone else eating them, the smell alone makes me gag, my eyes water, and makes my bronchial tubes swell where I can’t even breathe.
I however am luckily not allergic to peanuts. Regardless, I totally understand how potentially deadly a peanut allergy can be to those with the allergy, and if I’m in a public place around strangers, I tend to assume that anyone around me might have a peanut allergy.
Last year, I was in line at a gas station, and the woman in front of me waiting to pay had bought boiled peanuts. And she was fucking shelling and eating the peanuts while waiting in line, the bitch couldn’t even wait to pay for them, with cash, and exit the store first.
I called her out on it, and even pretended that I did have a peanut allergy, and what she was doing was not only nasty, but also a danger to others handling her peanut juice covered money.
She proved to be a Karen and not give a fuck, but I did speak my mind, on behalf of people that could possibly fucking die over her nastiness and carelessness.
For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters
Damn, that must suck balls…
I called her out on it
Good on you, dude! I wish I called dog owners on their leash-less dogs more often…
Even though the woman proved to be a Karen, the cashiers working the store that day totally understood why I was upset. If only they had or enacted a policy of don’t consume any products in the store…
As far as the dog on the leash thing, we’re about 99% in favor of that, only exception being when we take our dog out to our city park, where we adopted him from as abandoned.
Brownie knows every inch of the park and I feel it would be wrong to not let him roam free occasionally when there’s not many people or other animals around. Those sort of days are few and far between though, so 99% of the time he’s on the leash.
IDK, frankly I’m just straight up a dog hater. That’s why I posed a hypothetical. With dogs, I just really can’t stand them… Aren’t there like, dog parks or something, where the whole point is that they get to roam free without bothering people? Maybe that’s not available where you are. Maybe you’re really reasonable with when you do it.
I don’t know… I really find it hard to keep my [strong dislike] out of my thoughts here!
Anti-social behavior should be shunned. There are varying degrees of harm which people tip the scale on, but I think minimizing harm is an admirable attribute, doing no deliberate harm reduction is sociopathic, and maximizing harm is sadistic.
I think the latter two traits are rare, but education on effects is just as rare.
If they effect others greatly and only reason to use them is for convenience it actually does bother me to be honest.
Like if some stranger tells me they often commit drunk driving I see them as assholes even if they never almost hit me.
Interestingly, how nuch I care would depend on physical distsnce between us. I care less if they are in a different state and even less in a different country.
I rarely care about stuff people do outside the continent I am living in.
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.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
but don’t want it to be required.
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:
but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide.
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.
I used to think leashes should be optional until I had a dog who was perfect off-leash. I could be anywhere from a wooded path to a crowded sidewalk and that dog would be right beside me, but I only ever took her on hikes or through calm neighborhoods. Plenty of people knew my dog was friendly and would stop to pet her when I was out.
My boyfriend at the time had her just as long as I did, but couldn’t control her off-leash as well as me. He tried anyway. He walked her next to a highway, she got overwhelmed, went chasing someone across the street, through traffic. Both him and the dog almost got fucked up on the highway when he tried to get her under control.
After that I only let her off leash in places where it was safe and allowed because she’s a dog and it just takes one bad moment to get her or someone else killed.
Beyond that personal anecdote, if you look at pet insurance claims statistics there are hell of a lot of accidents and attacks that start with “Dog was off-leash.”
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.
I get upset because of upsets me first and foremost. If others get upset and I don’t, it doesn’t change my feelings. If they share their reasoning, I can see their point of view. If it makes sense, I can empathize with them because I see how it has upset them. It still may not upset me. Sometimes they will present a view that is compelling that will then make me upset.
I’d say no, you can develop an allergic reaction to many things, doesn’t mean we should ban it all because of that or because it’s upsetting to some people. As for “upsetting” I think it’s everyone’s freedom to perfume however they want, if it’s something socially concerning like idk, smell of puke, then feel free to raise an eyebrow at their choice and vacate the premises (if possible, if it’s on a plane then yeah might need to get them to cover it up), but just because it’s generally unacceptable to use that as an aroma doesn’t mean it should be banned still, unless it directly causes death. Banning something should be a last resort.
Nah. Only when I need to be upset to fit in socially. Would that hypothetical vanilla smell upset me? Nah. They probably bought it before it went illegal, maybe even hoarded it because they like it.
But if it was socially needed to be upset about that to gain something, I’d probably be. That’s why I agreed to have it banned in the first place, because the situation at that time made it socially useful.
I think I’m kind of autistic/sociopathic? Didn’t get testet yet lol
