Do you have trouble with dog owners?

Saul Goodman wrote:

I think it's a fairly safe bet that not one of you alarmists in this thread never have / never do exceed the speed limit - statistics on the subject are relatively easy to find. Look, I don't care. I'm not here to tell you you're a bad person for it or that you're endangering everyone's life (except in hyperbolic example). I would expect any reasonable human being with an ounce of logical reasoning skills to be able to understand the hypocrisy. Me running with my dog off-leash is akin to driving a few mph over the speed limit. Someone taking their crappy dog off-leash is akin to driving way over the speed limit and driving recklessly.

Are you really so obtuse you can't see the flaw in your argument?

There are thousands of people that drink and drive and arrive at their destinations without any problem. Does that mean it's more acceptable for some people than others? People text while driving as well. Maybe that's also more acceptable for some.

Leash laws are not usually in effect to protect people. Where I live some open space area allow dogs off leash and others do not. The reason for that is protection of wildlife and the watershed. Is it fine for you to ignore that consideration as well?

What about mountain bikers? Are you fine with them riding on trails that are off-limits?

Obviously, laws are only meaningful if the apply to everyone. If I speed (and I do) I should pay a fine if I'm caught. If you let your dog off leash in a non-designated area you should pay a fine as well.

There are thousands of people that drink and drive and arrive at their destinations without any problem. Does that mean it's more acceptable for some people than others? People text while driving as well. Maybe that's also more acceptable for some.

This reasoning would hold water if the leash were the factor in whether or not a dog was dangerous. This is not the case. The dog/owner are the factors (see my example of my dog being attacked by a leashed dog). Drinking and texting are inherently dangerous factors as distractions to the driver. Of course, these are both on a sliding scale (BAC low to high, level of attention devoted to texting, etc). I can't speak from experience on either, but the fact that you can legally drive between .001 and .079 suggests that there are acceptable levels of 'drinking and driving'. Similarly, I'd imagine fidgeting with the radio could approximate the low end of texting.

Leash laws are not usually in effect to protect people. Where I live some open space area allow dogs off leash and others do not. The reason for that is protection of wildlife and the watershed. Is it fine for you to ignore that consideration as well?

Not sure that it factors in my case. She doesn't really run off the trail (sometimes a bit, but she doesn't like to be far from me and gets back in tow pretty quickly).

What about mountain bikers? Are you fine with them riding on trails that are off-limits?

I'm pretty sure most trails that are off limits to bikes are the ones that are too narrow/treacherous/blind for a bike to navigate past other walkers. At least that's the way it seems on the trails around here. If those bikes are in danger of knocking someone down a hill because of a blind corner, then no, I'm not okay with them riding off-limits trails. Or if the ground is too soft and bike tires ruin them.... I really don't know enough about them to comment.

Obviously, laws are only meaningful if the apply to everyone. If I speed (and I do) I should pay a fine if I'm caught. If you let your dog off leash in a non-designated area you should pay a fine as well.

If you get caught speeding, you'd be a fool to just pay it as-is. 90% of the time you can fight it and win or at least get it reduced (unless you were driving like a maniac). The system is set up that way. That's beside the point.

This isn't about paying fines or not paying fines. You (and you may be the only one that ends up admitting it in the context of this thread, anyways) admitted that you break a law. This law is designed to keep people safe. But you've determined that you can break this law safely. I have done the same thing. It's a different law, but the same principle. You want me to stop breaking my law, but you have no intentions to stop breaking yours. I don't fault you, just need you (by 'you' I mean all of the people who act so wounded and outraged that I happen to break a different law than you do) to stop acting like a douche.

You have my full permission to yell at, throw rocks at, stab, do whatever you want to me once my dog attacks you. But while she's happily jogging along with me and not bothering you, how about you just reel it in a bit?

If I speed (and I do) I should pay a fine if I'm caught. If you let your dog off leash in a non-designated area you should pay a fine as well.

By the way, I'm sure there's a chance this was just a slip, but I happened to notice you said you should pay a fine if you're caught and that I should pay a fine if I perform the act. Interesting whether it was intentional or just a slip-up. Maybe Freud would have something to say about it.

Saul Goodman wrote:

I mean, break it down into children's-book-esque terms for me because I'm simply not picking up the message.

Here goes. No words with more than two syllables.

Me: I do not defend my breaking of the traffic law by saying I am a "good driver" and therefore the law does not apply to me.

You: You defend your breaking of the leash law by saying you have a "good doggie" and therefore the law does not apply to you.

Random suburbanite wrote:

Henry Hough wrote:

Back when I was a kid, my neighbors had this incredible Saint Bernard with an incredibly fluffy coat. They also owned a couple sports cars and a sailing boat. The boat was nice, but always needed repairs. They would send this fella named Rick Dudley over almost once a month to patch up all the marks they made in the hull of the boat from all the rocks they would bash into when coming into shore. I never understood why they wouldn't just moor the boat off shore and use a dingy, but boy, did they sure have a lot of money!

That was a great story. Tell it again.

IF you insist!

Back when I was a kid, my neighbors had this incredible Saint Bernard with an incredibly fluffy coat. They also owned a couple sports cars and a sailing boat. The boat was nice, but always needed repairs. They would send this fella named Rick Dudley over almost once a month to patch up all the marks they made in the hull of the boat from all the rocks they would bash into when coming into shore. I never understood why they wouldn't just moor the boat off shore and use a dingy, but boy, did they sure have a lot of money!

Me: I do not defend my breaking of the traffic law by saying I am a "good driver" and therefore the law does not apply to me.

You: You defend your breaking of the leash law by saying you have a "good doggie" and therefore the law does not apply to you.

A few things:

-Please go back and read your original story about paying your traffic fine and then tell me how the above quote is supposed to be the moral to take away from it.

-I'm not saying the law doesn't apply to me. I'm saying my breaking of the law doesn't affect you or anyone in the slightest so shut the eff up.

-You're not explicitly defending breaking the law, you're defending it by continuing to speed. We are both doing the exact same thing, I'm just being up front about doing it and explaining why it doesn't affect your life. Yet for whatever reason, you feel like you should be able to continue and I should not. You're so special that you can pick and choose which laws you get to break, but if someone else wants to break a law that has no negative impact on your or anyone else's life, you're going to lay your judgement via the whine-and-cry method.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Saul Goodman wrote:

so shut the eff up.

Congratulations, Sollie. Your arguments have become so clever I simply can no longer rebut. I know when I'm licked. Best wishes to you and your doggie.

You make a very solid argument. There's not one other point or statement in my post. Certainly no other points that logically destroy your genius reasoning. Let's focus on five words, that way you can bow out with you dignity.

Kinda like a boxer getting the crap beat out of him, then when the better boxer taunts the loser, the loser says "well, I'll have none of this tomfoolery, clearly you can't box and have resorted to verbal attacks. Good day, sir" and walks out of the ring.

Well played.

With one big exception Saul. Your dog has a mind of it's own, a car does not. If your dog 'decided' to attack someone (however unlikely) or even knock someone over, by accident let's assume, you would have no control whatsoever to prevent it.

Once a gain, a few things:

-The leashed dog that attacked my dog was not under control despite being leashed. The owner was not able to control her vicious dog from attacking my harmless one. How many times do I have to say it - the leash isn't the factor, it's the dog/owner combination.

-Does a speeder have control over whether or not a child runs in front of their car? When you travel at higher speeds, your reaction time does not compensate for unforeseen circumstances.

Stop being a hypocrite.

I understand that this is confusing to you so I'll explain. I'm only applying your guys' logic about my dog to you driving a car. I don't actually care that you speed. I'm just trying to get you to see how well your arguments hold up against mine in the closest analogy that popped into my head.

Care to reassess whether you think I'm being a hypocrite? Or at least expand on your conclusion for me?

-

Look, are one of you guys going to pose an argument that holds water? Or is someone just going to say "okay, I get it, but I still don't like that your dog is off-leash and that's my own personal preference"? I can readily invalidate any of your points quite easily, but at some point I'm going to get bored.

Hey guys, this is unrelated to the topic, but did you know scientists were recently able to discover the center of the universe? It turns out that it's Saul Goodman.

well wrote:

Hey guys, this is unrelated to the topic, but did you know scientists were recently able to discover the center of the universe? It turns out that it's Saul Goodman.

This ^ is incredibly lame. Lame in a record-breakingly sort of way.

Hey guys, this is unrelated to the topic, but did you know scientists were recently able to discover the center of the universe? It turns out that it's Saul Goodman.

Yup. Me and every other human being that ever exceeds the speed limit. Well said.

Saul, I think the problem is that you only see the effect on yourself. Try to see it from the side of people with wives, families, children, etc. who like to use the park as a family friendly environment and not have to worry about their children being "alpha" around your dog. One day this could even be you.

Try to see it from the side of people with wives, families, children, etc. who like to use the park as a family friendly environment and not have to worry about their children being "alpha" around your dog. One day this could even be you.

You can go ahead spare me your lecture on "family values". I have been in a committed and loving relationship with my partner for seven years now. He and I have one adopted one son already and will be adopting our second child next year. Nice try though!

Once again, can anybody here even put together a cogent thought, or are you going to continue with these easily refuted arguments? I'm getting bored.

Saul, I think the problem is that you only see the effect on yourself. Try to see it from the side of people with wives, families, children, etc. who like to use the park as a family friendly environment and not have to worry about their children being "alpha" around your dog. One day this could even be you.LOL, I see that this has become (probably long ago) a refuge for trolls. I started to suspect there's only been one person I've been responding to under different names a while back, but I do enjoy a good debate (especially when I can feel smart by destroying the people I'm "arguing" against) so I kept going. Well done.

NOT Saul Goodman wrote:

You can go ahead spare me your lecture on "family values". I have been in a committed and loving relationship with my partner for seven years now. He and I have one adopted one son already and will be adopting our second child next year. Nice try though!

Once again, can anybody here even put together a cogent thought, or are you going to continue with these easily refuted arguments? I'm getting bored.

^Look^ I even got my name hijacked! Is that a badge of honor here? Either I'm a gigantic sucker or I've really ticked someone off.

Now that I think about it, you guys are right. I'm and ego-centric person who only thinks of myself. I don't care about putting others in fear and danger. But I should.

Saul, you can bring your poodle on over to my place anytime.

NOT Saul Goodman wrote:

Now that I think about it, you guys are right. I'm and ego-centric person who only thinks of myself. I don't care about putting others in fear and danger. But I should.

Actually, the real Saul Goodman genuinely doesn't care about putting others in fear when there's nothing to be afraid of. And has never put anyone in danger. And knows that egocentric doesn't have a hyphen.

I did a dog yesterday