OK there guy you can step off your HIGH HORSE any time now. PERIOD . . .
I am very sorry if I have been atop a high horse. But, you know what? Sometimes thats OK. I guess I am still up there.
Now, as for your post:
- "free pass with kids:" what nonesense, no one is advocating that
- then you spit out a bit of nonsense about daddy getting in with the wrong guy - what crap: its just plain stupid policy to not stand up for whats right or important because the other guy might pull a gun and shoot you. Something tells me that that's not how you operate. Like with tazzmenn, the way you write has all the markings of someone who self-identifies as a tough guy. Yeah, we have to judge situations and use our reason, and our need to generally get along with others. We always need to try to avoid unecessary conflict, but you pushing that the people you don't side with should cower. Weak argument.
- "shitbag parents?" yes there are some, though the vast majority are not. Besides, you are quite wrong in even hinting that children, even those of shitbag parents, kind of get what's coming. As an adult yourself, it should be your duty to safeguard children; from dog interference, dog attack, stupid dog owners, and yes, stupid shitbag parents. (Never seen a situation where a child needs someone, even the police/child services, to protect them?) I don't like brats or obnoxious kids either. They can make me angry. But maturity means that, while I would rather get them away from me, I would engage in whatever I could manage to protect them from a danger. The angle of your opinion on this is screwed.
- "dad's with baseball bats" - let me give you a hint: when you start using examples of extreme or criminal behaviour to argue your point, you have lost it and should start over. Lots of horrible stuff goes on in this world. None of that will ever excuse the violation of any individual rights, and even moreso, will never absolve adults from their duty to protect those who need it. I include dogs, cats, horses and even idiots in this.
- "you and your bro in law:" again, you really think its reasonable to attack the stupidity of children. Wow. Children are not fully developed cognitively. You are supposed to be. So, protect kids from their idiocy, and stop being an idiot yourself. Your arguments are at the level of a pissed off confused adolescdent.
- "screaming superdad?" He sounds like a complete shit, I think your take on him is probably on the money. What does that prove?
- situation #3: sounds like some obnoxious ill mannered kids. You say they were not listening to you telling them to stop. Well, because they are just stupid kids, its up to you to be a grownup and go over, take your dogs away from them and probably talk to their parents. You say you approached the moms and they reacted aggressively and uncooperatively. They obviously sucked at that moment. BUT, here is where you miss the big important point. Do they get a pass? No, I would have given them a piece of my mind. But, knowing that unpleasent interactions are a part of life, after yelling at them, I would take my dogs and move on.
- a note on situation #3: I know municiplal law very well. In fact I have written some of it in a past life. You seem to assume you know about where your dog has a right to be and where your dog does not need to be leashed. You are grossly overestimating. In British Columbia, your dog should be leashed on all property within a municipal boundary. There is no such thing as a "multi use off lease acceptable area." The only exception is within designated off-leash areas. The only exception! Now, like so many bylaws, this is almost completely unenforced. And don't get me wrong! I am fine with this. You are right to imply that life is a kind of messy open affair. It would be extremely dumb to live trying to insist that everything goes properly and all the rules are obeyed all the time. Many rules are there and enforced only when things go wrong. But by then the enforcement is not by Police Officers, or by ByLaw Officers, but by Lawyers and courts. Being an adult means that you remain vigilant against things going wrong, and this means the important things. Thus, the ByLaw is on the books anyway, and it is there for any lawyer to use against you. So, if something bad happened, say one of those kids were to be hurt by one of your dogs, regardless that the kids were brats, and the moms were crappy people, the law would come down on you. Is being a hardass defender of your incorrectly percieved rights worth being sued over?
- "me, the fearless defender of bad parents." Sorry to disappoint. I hate bad parents. But this discussion is about dog-human and safety issues. I have two sons, who would never have been allowed to do what those brats did to your dogs. I would not have told you that your dogs should be leashed. I would have intervened and stopped my boys from doing anything that your dogs didn't like. I would have apologized to you.
- "you don't have kids." No fucking fooling. Playing with your nephews is obviously not helping you understand. And I don't mean understanding parenting. I mean understanding the deeper meaning of all of this. I think we are responsible for our children and our dogs. But, your inability to prioritize between children (people in general) and dogs is the real disagreement I have with people that talk like you. So, even though I love dogs, up against the safety of a child (it doesn't have to be mine) there is a quantum difference. Children and people are not just more important and valuable than any domesticated animal, they are countlessly more valuable. And this is not a parent thing, its a human thing. Canvas everyone you know. Ask your mother. But, so what does it mean. All I ask that this mean is that we adults protect other people and be humble in assessing the 'rights' of our dogs. Is that too much for you?
- you probably don't see yourself this way, but self-entitled dog people like you are the problem. Your post is like a little expression of events that have pissed you off and you can't let go. And because they involve parents and kids, you would like to absolve yourself of your "legal duty to protect" and argue that dogs shouldn't be demonized because sometimes people do dumb/mean shit. Wake the fuck up. All I have concluded in this thread is simply that "dog owners should control their dogs and prevent those dogs from violating any person's space, unless the dog is invited in by that person. Is that really so unreasonable to you? If so, like tazzmenn, stay the hell away from me (and probably most other people).
- trying to write this discussion off because the thread began with issues about a poor guy's phobia. Thats just like you giving up. Fine by me. If your views are unwavering, well you are the problem and are in the way.
- Phobias - something tells me you know shit about phobias, so you should stand silent on that.