Dogs should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

You ran from a dog that "attacked" you (Probably just started barking at you) and your blaming the dog?

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

[Destiny Island]

You ran from a dog that "attacked" you (Probably just started barking at you) and your blaming the dog?

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

A basic predatory animal instinct is to chase what's running from you, so if a dog is giving you 'tude and you run away from it, you're only getting yourself into a worse situation.

[Versail]

You ran from a dog that "attacked" you (Probably just started barking at you) and your blaming the dog?

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

You were likely in its territory.

[Destiny Island]

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

You were likely in its territory.

>Doesn't know how to handle dogs.
>Blames dogs when they can't handle one.

[Bojikami]

But... I like dogs...

[Destiny Island]

But... I like dogs...

So does half of the world. I don't know the actual statistic for the dogs vs. cats thing but it's pretty close I remember from somewhere. Anyway, this whole thread is on the premise of butthurt so everything will be fine.

[The Flutterlands]

Hmph! Cats are way better than dogs.

[Page]

It does not follow that just because dogs should be banned... that anything ranging from humans to mosquitos to lightning and to whatever (most of which can't be effectively banned) should be banned.

Dogs are a special category. They can and often do bite people and so are a serious threat (and a very serious one because their teeth can maim/kill/infect, many people have horror stories about dog attacks), they aren't necessary for a society or a modern economy to function (unlike say cars or elevators), and the ban can be practically carried out (ex you can round up all dogs and move them to government-run reservations to be raised as colonies away from population centers, thus banning them from regular domestic use... by contrast, you can't ''ban'' human beings or lightning or bad dog owners). Thus, I consider many of these melodramatic ''humans should be banned'' or ''mosquitos should be banned'' to be silly arguments.

The above criteria are part of the reason why for example, I would say guns should be banned while cars shouldn't be (one is essential to the modern economy, the other isn't while both can be characterized as a serious threat).

Please stay away from slippery slopes. If someone says ''we should regulate the economy'' it seems silly that some people should jump to conclusions like ''along the same line of reasoning we should regulate everyone's private life.'' Come on... really?

I am very dissappointed by the majority of counter-arguments. They all do one or more of the following things.

1) They jump to absurd places (''dogs should be banned? Lightning should be banned'') without considering subtle distinctions or policy considerations

2) They downplay the danger of dogs and their teeth. Its a scientific fact that dogs can and do kill/injure people. Its a scientific fact that dogs spread dangerous diseases and make our streets unsanitary with their droppings. Its a fact and I can testify to it personally, that leash or no leash dog attacks will happen.

I see that there is no changing the mind of many of you. Many of you (and I suspect many dog owners) are quite content to focus only on the benefits that dog bring to YOU as dog owners while ignoring all the dangers that activity exposes all of the rest of us to with or without our consent (this is not at all, unlike some gun owners who dismiss casualties of gun violence as acceptable statistical anomalies). You downplay the danger that dogs (leashed or unleashed) pose to ALL of us (people who spend money to buy dogs and everyone else)... to civilians, to children, to the every day pedestrians. You don't focus on overall social utility and social safety; you are content to continue sacrificing what you consider a marginal number of people as casualties so that you can continue to keep dogs... endangering everyone while making our streets unclean and unsightly.

That is how I would characterize your position. My position is ''silly'' and yet it would create a better, safer, and cleaner world. It would get rid of unfair externalities (why should all of us have to pay the price for the decisions of a few people to raise carnivores as pets who leave droppings on public streets?).

The majority of the people aren't willing to stand behind a ban? Then how about a series of less decisive but still firm decisions (accidents will STILL happen that don't need to happen if only dogs were not on the domestic front)

1) A special tax against dog owners to disincentivize dog ownership (this would be like a carbon tax except against dog owners) That way, they can also pay for the externalities they impose on everyone else.

2) All dog owners MUST register their dogs and MUST attach to dogs while they are in public or in the presence of house guests a special type of very firm mask (there will be regulation, registration, and licensing of these masks by the government; they will prioritize safety) which prevents them from chasing down and biting the hell out of people

3) If a court case involves a dog, civil or criminal, the law shall operate with the assumption that the victim is telling the truth (a rebuttable presumption) and the penalties shall be very steep for the owners involved (mandatory imprisonment). This is to deter irresponsible dog owner behavior.

4) When an owner decides to purchase or adopt a dog, during registration, the purchase/adoption will NOT be allowed UNLESS... ALL member of the household sign forms of consent (to the effect of saying: I CONSENT to putting myself in danger of having a dog in the house and am fully aware of the possible consequences)... if there are children in the households or toddlers who cannot consent, people in that family obviously cannot buy the dog (all signing parties must have capacity to consent to the dangerous activity).

5) Anyone who violates ''1)'' or ''2)'' and ''4)'' would be fined heavily to ensure compliance

I'm sorry but you cannot be serious. Poe's Law and all the crap. I don't buy it.

And if you are serious I find it hilarious how self-entitled you are to think your personal phobia should be made into legislation. News flash: the world does not revolve around you.

[Wisconsin9]

Dogs are a special category. They can and often do bite people and so are a serious threat... Its a scientific fact that dogs can and do kill/injure people... Its a scientific fact that dogs... make our streets unsanitary with their droppings.

It's a scientific fact that the odds of being killed by a dog are 1 in 144,899, but you don't seem to care about that. And you should be blaming owners who don't pick up after their dogs for the shit, not the dogs. My dog crapped in public places twice today and it isn't lying around because I got rid of it.

[Bojikami]

It does not follow that just because dogs should be banned... that anything ranging from humans to mosquitos to lightning and to whatever (most of which can't be effectively banned) should be banned.

Dogs are a special category. They can and often do bite people and so are a serious threat (and a very serious one because their teeth can maim/kill/infect, many people have horror stories about dog attacks), they aren't necessary for a society or a modern economy to function (unlike say cars or elevators), and the ban can be practically carried out (ex you can round up all dogs and move them to government-run reservations to be raised as colonies away from population centers, thus banning them from regular domestic use... by contrast, you can't ''ban'' human beings or lightning or bad dog owners). Thus, I consider many of these melodramatic ''humans should be banned'' or ''mosquitos should be banned'' to be silly arguments.

The above criteria are part of the reason why for example, I would say guns should be banned while cars shouldn't be (one is essential to the modern economy, the other isn't while both can be characterized as a serious threat).

Please stay away from slippery slopes. If someone says ''we should regulate the economy'' it seems silly that some people should jump to conclusions like ''along the same line of reasoning we should regulate everyone's private life.'' Come on... really?

I am very dissappointed by the majority of counter-arguments. They all do one or more of the following things.

1) They jump to absurd places (''dogs should be banned? Lightning should be banned'') without considering subtle distinctions or policy considerations

2) They downplay the danger of dogs and their teeth. Its a scientific fact that dogs can and do kill/injure people. Its a scientific fact that dogs spread dangerous diseases and make our streets unsanitary with their droppings. Its a fact and I can testify to it personally, that leash or no leash dog attacks will happen.

I see that there is no changing the mind of many of you. Many of you (and I suspect many dog owners) are quite content to focus only on the benefits that dog bring to YOU as dog owners while ignoring all the dangers that activity exposes all of the rest of us to with or without our consent (this is not at all, unlike some gun owners who dismiss casualties of gun violence as acceptable statistical anomalies). You downplay the danger that dogs (leashed or unleashed) pose to ALL of us (people who spend money to buy dogs and everyone else)... to civilians, to children, to the every day pedestrians. You don't focus on overall social utility and social safety; you are content to continue sacrificing what you consider a marginal number of people as casualties so that you can continue to keep dogs... endangering everyone while making our streets unclean and unsightly.

That is how I would characterize your position. My position is ''silly'' and yet it would create a better, safer, and cleaner world. It would get rid of unfair externalities (why should all of us have to pay the price for the decisions of a few people to raise carnivores as pets who leave droppings on public streets?).

The majority of the people aren't willing to stand behind a ban? Then how about a series of less decisive but still firm decisions (accidents will STILL happen that don't need to happen if only dogs were not on the domestic front)

1) A special tax against dog owners to disincentivize dog ownership (this would be like a carbon tax except against dog owners) That way, they can also pay for the externalities they impose on everyone else.

2) All dog owners MUST register their dogs and MUST attach to dogs while they are in public or in the presence of house guests a special type of very firm mask (there will be regulation, registration, and licensing of these masks by the government; they will prioritize safety) which prevents them from chasing down and biting the hell out of people

3) If a court case involves a dog, civil or criminal, the law shall operate with the assumption that the victim is telling the truth (a rebuttable presumption) and the penalties shall be very steep for the owners involved (mandatory imprisonment). This is to deter irresponsible dog owner behavior.

4) When an owner decides to purchase or adopt a dog, during registration, the purchase/adoption will NOT be allowed UNLESS... ALL member of the household sign forms of consent (to the effect of saying: I CONSENT to putting myself in danger of having a dog in the house and am fully aware of the possible consequences)... if there are children in the households or toddlers who cannot consent, people in that family obviously cannot buy the dog (all signing parties must have capacity to consent to the dangerous activity).

5) Anyone who violates ''1)'' or ''2)'' and ''4)'' would be fined heavily to ensure compliance

I was bitten by a dog once, and I have no irrational hatred of these animals. I even own a dog myself and it shows no signs of aggression towards me or others.

[Page]

Also is anyone imagining a face mask on a basset hound and a government mandated sign on the owner's door that says "killer beast inside"? Cause I so am right now.

[Infected Mushroom]

Dogs are a special category. They can and often do bite people and so are a serious threat... Its a scientific fact that dogs can and do kill/injure people... Its a scientific fact that dogs... make our streets unsanitary with their droppings.

It's a scientific fact that the odds of being killed by a dog are 1 in 144,899, but you don't seem to care about that. And you should be blaming owners who don't pick up after their dogs for the shit, not the dogs. My dog crapped in public places twice today and it isn't lying around because I got rid of it.

I DO blame the owners more than the dogs (dogs do not have moral agency in the same way humans do). But removing the dogs is easier than pre-emptively detecting all bad owners and stopping them (this is impossible).

[Wisconsin9]

It's a scientific fact that the odds of being killed by a dog are 1 in 144,899, but you don't seem to care about that. And you should be blaming owners who don't pick up after their dogs for the shit, not the dogs. My dog crapped in public places twice today and it isn't lying around because I got rid of it.

I DO blame the owners more than the dogs (dogs do not have moral agency in the same way humans do). But removing the dogs is easier than pre-emptively detecting all bad owners and stopping them (this is impossible).

So you admit that the dogs aren't actually at fault, but you're just too lazy to try and come up with a better solution? That's pathetic.

[The Black Forrest]

You ran from a dog that "attacked" you (Probably just started barking at you) and your blaming the dog?

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

Awwww. I should have read your signature earlier.

Sorry you blew your poe cover. Can't seriously respond anymore.

[Marcurix]

Dogs are a special category. They can and often do bite people and so are a serious threat (and a very serious one because their teeth can maim/kill/infect, many people have horror stories about dog attacks),

humans to mosquitos to lightning and to whatever can kill, maim, infect and do too have many horror stories about them. This special category you keep insisting exists for dogs only exists if you ignore the potential of many other things to do the same.

they aren't necessary for a society or a modern economy to function (unlike say cars or elevators),

Neither of those things you listed are necessary for a society or a modern economy to function.

and the ban can be practically carried out (ex you can round up all dogs and move them to government-run reservations to be raised as colonies away from population centers, thus banning them from regular domestic use... by contrast, you can't ''ban'' human beings or lightning or bad dog owners).

Actually you can ban bad dog owners, it's quite a common punishment in developed countries and is a hell of a lot easier then rounding up all the dogs.

Thus, I consider many of these melodramatic ''humans should be banned'' or ''mosquitos should be banned'' to be silly arguments.

This entire arrangement is silly, you seem to be either willfully ignoring contradictions or just woefully inexperienced when it comes to dogs.

Please stay away from slippery slopes. If someone says ''we should regulate the economy'' it seems silly that some people should jump to conclusions like ''along the same line of reasoning we should regulate everyone's private life.'' Come on... really?

That last bit is how the vast majority of posters feel about your argument. It's poor reasoning and an even poorer attempts to "fix" the problem.

I am very disappointed by the majority of counter-arguments.

and that matters because....

They all do one or more of the following things.

1) They jump to absurd places (''dogs should be banned? Lightning should be banned'') without considering subtle distinctions or policy considerations

It's called a joke. Take it.

2) They downplay the danger of dogs and their teeth.

and you just hype it.

Its a scientific fact that dogs can and do kill/injure people.

As it is with all the other things people have listed.

Code: Select all

Its a scientific fact that dogs spread dangerous diseases and make our streets unsanitary with their droppings.

See above.

Its a fact and I can testify to it personally, that leash or no leash dog attacks will happen.

Your testimony doesn't shift the argument in the slightest.

I see that there is no changing the mind of many of you.

Shocker.

Many of you (and I suspect many dog owners) are quite content to focus only on the benefits that dog bring to YOU as dog owners while ignoring all the dangers that activity exposes all of the rest of us to with or without our consent (this is not at all, unlike some gun owners who dismiss casualties of gun violence as acceptable statistical anomalies).

and you ignore that the vast, vast, vast majority of dogs pose no threat at all.

You downplay the danger that dogs (leashed or unleashed) pose to ALL of us (people who spend money to buy dogs and everyone else)... to civilians, to children, to the every day pedestrians.

and you, as a person with next to no experience, understanding or solid reasoning overplay the danger they pose.

You don't focus on overall social utility and social safety; you are content to continue sacrificing what you consider a marginal number of people as casualties so that you can continue to keep dogs... endangering everyone while making our streets unclean and unsightly.

So...were you live is there a lot of dog poop or something? They way you play this it's like you live in an area where the streets are covered in it.

That is how I would characterize your position. My position is ''silly''

Indeed it is silly.

and yet it would create a better, safer, and cleaner world.

No, no and no.

It would get rid of unfair externalities (why should all of us have to pay the price for the decisions of a few people to raise carnivores as pets who leave droppings on public streets?).

Again, how much are you coming across?

1) A special tax against dog owners to disincentivize dog ownership (this would be like a carbon tax except against dog owners) That way, they can also pay for the externalities they impose on everyone else.

No. The external effects on everyone else are too minimal to justify a tax on all dog owners.

2) All dog owners MUST register

Is this not already the case where you live?

their dogs and MUST attach to dogs while they are in public or in the presence of house guests a special type of very firm mask (there will be regulation, registration, and licensing of these masks by the government; they will prioritize safety) which prevents them from chasing down and biting the hell out of people

This is used when a dog actually does bite people. No need to change the current rule.

3) If a court case involves a dog, civil or criminal, the law shall operate with the assumption that the victim is telling the truth (a rebuttable presumption)

No. It's either guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (criminal) or on balance or probabilities (civil). We are not transforming the legal system in such a discriminatory manner.

and the penalties shall be very steep for the owners involved (mandatory imprisonment). This is to deter irresponsible dog owner behavior.

They usually are already.

4) When an owner decides to purchase or adopt a dog, during registration, the purchase/adoption will NOT be allowed UNLESS... ALL member of the household sign forms of consent (to the effect of saying: I CONSENT to putting myself in danger of having a dog in the house and am fully aware of the possible consequences)... if there are children in the households or toddlers who cannot consent, people in that family obviously cannot buy the dog (all signing parties must have capacity to consent to the dangerous activity).

No.

5) Anyone who violates ''1)'' or ''2)'' and ''4)'' would be fined heavily to ensure compliance

This is where i ask if you've even glanced at rules governing dogs at all.

[Destiny Island]

I DO blame the owners more than the dogs (dogs do not have moral agency in the same way humans do). But removing the dogs is easier than pre-emptively detecting all bad owners and stopping them (this is impossible).

So you admit that the dogs aren't actually at fault, but you're just too lazy to try and come up with a better solution? That's pathetic.

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure this deserves a topkek.

[Galenical Confederacy]

Ban the dogs! Vive la revolucion!


Seriously though, I can't believe this discussion has gone on for 29 pages already. Go outside and get some fresh air. (Says the guy typing at his computer, yes. What about this isn't absurd?)

[Sun Wukong]

Dogs share a closer evolutionary history with us than any other animal. Dogs and humans are truly a wonderful combination, and the love between the two cannot be matched.

I'm thinking tapeworms got them beat.

[Marcurix]

You ran from a dog that "attacked" you (Probably just started barking at you) and your blaming the dog?

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

You only increase that chance by running.

[Page]

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

You only increase that chance by running.

I swear I'd bet a kidney it was a dachshund.

[Infected Mushroom]

I DO blame the owners more than the dogs (dogs do not have moral agency in the same way humans do). But removing the dogs is easier than pre-emptively detecting all bad owners and stopping them (this is impossible).

So you admit that the dogs aren't actually at fault, but you're just too lazy to try and come up with a better solution? That's pathetic.

There isn't some rule written in the skies where you can't ban something unless it has moral agency.

Rocket launchers are not outlawed in cities because they are more at fault than people who might choose to use them to unleash destruction.

Also, this is not about assigning fault. Its about harm prevention. Not RESPONDING to harm after it occurs (punishing the owners), its about preventing the harm in the first place. As far as effectiveness, this is as good as it gets.

No dog = no possibility of dog bites. It doesn't get better.

[Infected Mushroom]

was I supposed to stand there and get bitten and mauled?

You only increase that chance by running.

This is veering dangerously close to victim blaming...

[Sun Wukong]

So you admit that the dogs aren't actually at fault, but you're just too lazy to try and come up with a better solution? That's pathetic.

There isn't some rule written in the skies where you can't ban something unless it has moral agency.

Rocket launchers are not outlawed in cities because they are more at fault than people who might choose to use them to unleash destruction.

Also, this is not about assigning fault. Its about harm prevention. Not RESPONDING to harm after it occurs (punishing the owners), its about preventing the harm in the first place. As far as effectiveness, this is as good as it gets.

No dog = no possibility of dog bites. It doesn't get better.

Rocket launchers don't curl up next to you when you're sick either.

[Wisconsin9]

So you admit that the dogs aren't actually at fault, but you're just too lazy to try and come up with a better solution? That's pathetic.

There isn't some rule written in the skies where you can't ban something unless it has moral agency.

Rocket launchers are not outlawed in cities because they are more at fault than people who might choose to use them to unleash destruction.

Also, this is not about assigning fault. Its about harm prevention. Not RESPONDING to harm after it occurs (punishing the owners), its about preventing the harm in the first place. As far as effectiveness, this is as good as it gets.

No dog = no possibility of dog bites. It doesn't get better.

A dog bite is very unlikely to cause serious harm.

[Othelos]

While we're at it, ban cars. Much more dangerous.