I can't stand the sense of entitlement that we nurture, here. "My son is allergic to peanuts, thus all two thousand students will be required to go without any peanut based products. That seems fair to me." "I hate the smell of smoke, thus I will push to pass a law that makes it illegal to smoke in public places." "I don't like dogs, and thus am entitled to dictate the behavior of others, because THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND ME!" UGH.
I could say the same thing about an incompetent dog owner. His irresponsibility (or incompetence?) deters many from going to parks simply because he feels the world revolves around him. How about listening to loud music at nights while the whole block is trying to sleep? Certainly self-centred to me. Cigarettes smell worse than shit, so I've got no problem with such laws and easily see their underpinnings: things that bother people are made illegal. Laws don't tell you what to do in your own home or on your property; merely, they create the most neutral atmosphere possible that is conducive to the comfort of most. Most people are not smokers, why should they put up with the odious stench of cigarettes? With dogs the answer is even simpler: I'm not saying don't walk them or don't own them--saying so would undermine people's autonomy to too great of an extent. Merely, leash them and respect people's rights to be left alone. I'm not special and am not unique, yet I like all deserve to be left alone unless stated otherwise. What if I were to go up to you and start sniffing you and act doggishly in front of you; certainly you would feel uncomfortable, but I could just say that you should not tell me how to live and that the world does not revolve around you.
Regarding peanuts, the answer is so clear-cut, I can't believe you even raised this issue: it's a simple matter of welfare. A kid allergic to peanuts will react severely when exposed to them, even to the point of death. You being deprived of peanuts may deprive you of a small amount of welfare, but not even comparatively the same amount as that allergic kid who could possibly die as a result of a small amount of peanut exposure. I'm willing to relinquish my rights to eating peanuts so that it decreases that kid's chances of having an allergic reaction. I'm sure many others would make that small sacrifice as well to prevent a much greater harm. Unless of course one is as self-centred as you Morro.....
Morro;15217 said:
You honestly don't see the irony in telling OTHER PEOPLE that the world doesn't revolve around them, because they like their dogs? They're not telling you what to do. You are telling them what to do. WHO is self-centered, in that equasion? If you don't like smoke, then DON'T go to a bar that's notorious for smokers! If you don't like dogs, then DON'T go near them. You do NOT have the right to force others to live their lives according to YOUR idiosyncratic preferences.
There is nothing idiosyncratic about my preferences because many people are irritated by unleashed hounds. In fact it is a law in virtually every park to have your dog leashed. Parks are public venues; bars are not, restaurants are not, clubs are not. See the equation? Don't turn public property into your own. I'm even willing to put up with dogs insofar as they're leashed, that way everyone wins: it would be mildly inconvenient for the owners (just keep your hand on the bloody leash, that's all), but it would many other people an immeasureable amount of worry when they're leashed. Owners will still be able to walk their dogs insofar as they're leashed and people like me will be able to go to parks without being irritated by dogs--everybody wins. Can't we just share parks?
Morro;15217 said:
I hate loud, pounding bass. It causes me physical pain, and nausia. My solution? I don't go to clubs! I also don't like the smell of seafood. My solution? I don't go to seafood restaraunts where I'm likely to come in contact with it. If someone DOES order seafood at a table near me, do I get mad at them? Of course not, because I'm not a self-centered prick. I either tough it out, or switch tables or, in an extreme case, I might leave. The point is: my problems are MY problems, not theirs.
Parks are public venues to which everyone can go. As such, there are many things we cannot do in public that we are allowed to do in private. I don't care how much you love your dog, don't have it running around unleashed in public places. Not everyone loves dogs, let alone your dog. So why not respect laws (dictating that owners leash up their dogs in practically every park) and people's rights to be left alone? It's really a simple solution that can be reached if owners took more responsibility for their animals and leashed them up!
Exactly. Thus, it is as much theirs as yours. Yet, you believe you have the right to tell them what they may or may not do on that land, based on your preferences. You... have only confirmed what I already said.
Once again: You don't like dogs. That's YOUR problem. Stop making it everybody else's.
I'm willing to relinquish my rights to eating peanuts
And here inlies the distinction: You may be willing to give up peanuts, *I* probably would be, too. But that's not what's happening. We are FORCING people to keep certain foods out of the schools, FORCING people to go outside when they smoke, and people of your opinion on pets are FORCING pet owners to act in a certain way. That has nothing to do with being willing to do anything. You ask me to be nice and keep peanuts out of my kid's lunchbox, that's fine. You tell me I may not send my child to school with his lunch of choice, and you are in a completely different arena.
Exactly. Thus, it is as much theirs as yours. Yet, you believe you have the right to tell them what they may or may not do on that land, based on your preferences. You... have only confirmed what I already said.
Once again: You don't like dogs. That's YOUR problem. Stop making it everybody else's.
You're saying I'm the only one who doesn't put up with unleashed dogs? I'm in fact looking out for everyone's interests: I respect the fact that dog owners love their dogs and am even willing to put up with their doggishness by letting them walk in the park. But when their preferences interfere with my privacy and privilege of the person (i.e. when the bloody dog runs up to me and starts sniffing or biting me), then that is where I draw the line. Yet other people's preferences should also be respected: namely that they do not like to be around unleashed dogs. Why not come to a compromise? Leash the dogs and and you can walk them. Doesn't that benefit everyone? You telling me this is strictly my problem is an overly parochial way of seeing things. Plenty of others are irritated by unleashed dogs and there are even laws dictating this (almost every parks has laws dictating owners to leash their dog). So is it really just my problem? Am I the only one who seems bothered by dogs? I honestly don't think so.
Morro;15237 said:
And here inlies the distinction: You may be willing to give up peanuts, *I* probably would be, too. But that's not what's happening. We are FORCING people to keep certain foods out of the schools, FORCING people to go outside when they smoke, and people of your opinion on pets are FORCING pet owners to act in a certain way. That has nothing to do with being willing to do anything. You ask me to be nice and keep peanuts out of my kid's lunchbox, that's fine. You tell me I may not send my child to school with his lunch of choice, and you are in a completely different arena.
Call it whatever you want but our autonomy stretches only to the extent that it does not interfere with the autonomy of others. That is one reason why we have criminal laws.
And all this jazz with peanuts is similar. Having peanuts in schools may severely cause some people to have near-death allergic reactions. As such, if you're not willing to relinquish your rights to having what you want (in this case peanuts), then you are not being considerate of others' needs. If anything, I'm glad we have such laws.
And all this talk with cigarettes: second-hand smoke may not be harmful, but it certainly smells far worse than an open sewer. Most people are non-smokers (the percentage of smokers in Canada is somewhere in the high 20s but somewhat varies by age group), as such, it is presumable that most of them will not put up with second-hand smoke. As such, if anything, I'm glad we have anti-smoking laws. Sure it hurts to see the government interfere with people's autonomy, but more people's autonomies would be compromised if second-hand smoke were everyhwere (since most people are not smokers). As such, having the government promulgate anti-smoking laws is merely the lesser of the two inevitable evils. Hence, second-hand smoke does not even have to be a matter of health in order for anti-smoking laws go be legitimate! If you want to smoke, there should be smoke pits; if there are none, then do not smoke (and respect the autonomy of most people).
P.S.: I don't know why anyone would start smoking. I won't hate you if you do it, but I'm a bit apprehensive as a taxpayer because part of my income will eventually be going towards treating conditions induced by your repugnant habit (that is potentially preventable). Either be smart enough not to start or have the willpower to quit.
Autonomy: You have no right to not be inconvenienced. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to have the whole world conform to your preference. None of those things have anything to do with "autonomy."
It is not "taking away someone's autonomy" for a person to let their dog off the leash in a park. It is taking away their autonomy to say that they can't.
You should look up words before you use them.
This post brought to you by the number 6 and the letter Y.
You cant hate someone for driving the speed limit, or for driving at the limit they deem safe.
baby e;15170 said:
I hate slow drivers who sit in the left lane.
How is this any different from your previous statement? As long as they are going the speed limit, there is nothing you can do. Also some would argue that the left lane is the safest one. Since there are no cars merging and no need to slow down to cars exiting.
baby e;15170 said:
I hate slow drivers who are driving too slow that they dont make the yellow light and then you're stuck behind them for even longer.
Running the yellow lights is ILLEGAL. PERIOD.
baby e;15170 said:
I hate when you pass a slow driver and they stare at you like you're a crazy person.
Assuming that the slow driver is on the left, and you are passing on the right, which is illegal, and assuming you are angry that they were driving slowly, this probably means that you are driving fast. Also you are NOT looking in front of you as you are looking at the person you are passing. Nice. We need more safe people like you on our roads.:thumbs_up:
You cant hate someone for driving the speed limit, or for driving at the limit they deem safe.
People here drive ridiculously slow. How is going 40 in a 50 zone any different than going 60 in a 50 zone?
IMTEHKING;15246 said:
How is this any different from your previous statement? As long as they are going the speed limit, there is nothing you can do. Also some would argue that the left lane is the safest one. Since there are no cars merging and no need to slow down to cars exiting.
I would disagree. The left lane is for passing. It is called the "passing lane" for a reason. If you are going to go slower than cars behind you, you should be in the right lane. This is common sense that most people here do not seem to grasp. If people dont know how to merge, that is not my problem. It is a very simple concept.
IMTEHKING;15246 said:
Running the yellow lights is ILLEGAL. PERIOD.
And there are caps because you think you'll drill your point into me? I DONT CARE IF ITS ILLEGAL. If i cant stop in time, i will go through a yellow light. If there is no one turning left opposite me, i will go through the yellow light. Thanks so much, Zach Spencer.
IMTEHKING;15246 said:
Assuming that the slow driver is on the left, and you are passing on the right, which is illegal, and assuming you are angry that they were driving slowly, this probably means that you are driving fast. Also you are NOT looking in front of you as you are looking at the person you are passing. Nice. We need more safe people like you on our roads.:thumbs_up:
Why are you assuming that? I could passing on the left. Or I could be passing over a solid line (oh no, its illegal! gasp!). I am very aware of everything that goes around me when i drive. If i wasnt, do you know how many people would have crashed into me with it being their fault? And who cares if i glance at them? Do you look at your stereo when you're changing cd's or looking for a new song? Most likely. Your eyes are off the road there. You're being a hypocrite.
Slow drivers are just as hazardous as fast ones. Just because i am driving fast, it does not mean that i am a danger on the road. Am i swerving from lane to lane? No. Am i hitting objects on the road? No. I am simply driving faster. People who drive slow are a danger to other drivers because they are not keeping up with the speed of traffic. That is not to say that faster drivers arent a danger too, because they are if they are being unsafe, but i am not hurting anyone by driving faster. People should be courteous and if you see someone that wants to pass you and you are in the left lane going as slow as those in the right lane, you should move over. It is just common sense. I do that if i see someone that wants to pass me. Im not like, "oh, well im doing the speed limit so im staying here." Nope, im like, "ok he wants to pass me, so i'll let him." People in Europe seem to understand this. In Canada, they're oblivious and idiotic.
As for the dog situation, what is so wrong with people walking their dogs in a park off leash?
If the dog isnt doing anything, there is no problem.
If you dont like dogs and see a dog off leash, heres an idea, avoid the dog.
I walk my dog off leash on the beach. He loves it! He gets to wander into the water and have fun. If i see another dog approaching, i usually put him back on his leash cuz bigger dogs scare him a little and i dont want him to get scared. Otherwise, if its a small dog or just a person, i leave him off but watch him. Im very responsible with my dog. And not once have i had anyone complain about my dog being off leash. They usually just tell me how cute he is or they just walk on by. Its not a big deal.
Whenever I'm stuck behind someone going slow (in some cases that means going the limit, sometimes not,) I always wonder what that person's life is like. You have nowhere to be? Seems sad...
But when their preferences interfere with my privacy and privilege of the person (i.e. when the bloody dog runs up to me and starts sniffing or biting me), then that is where I draw the line.
LOL! What is so bad about a dog sniffing you? Just walk on by the dog if you dont want it to do that. If a dog sniffs me, who cares? And if it licks me, who cares?? Its a dog for christs sake. Its not the end of the world if a dog runs up to you and sniffs you. And what kind of dogs are you coming in contact with that bite you? Ive never met a dog that has bitten me. But then again, im smart enough to know that if a dog looks mean, i wont go near it.
You obviously just dont like dogs and have issues. And if thats the case, then you shouldnt go anywhere where there is a dog. End of story.
Whenever I'm stuck behind someone going slow (in some cases that means going the limit, sometimes not,) I always wonder what that person's life is like. You have nowhere to be? Seems sad...
People here drive ridiculously slow. How is going 40 in a 50 zone any different than going 60 in a 50 zone?
If you don't find it any difference, then why are you complaining in the first place about slow drivers? :D
Stopping distances increase almost exponentially with greater speed. Also, a crash at 40 vs 60 could be the difference between minor injuries or major, even death.
baby e;15248 said:
I would disagree. The left lane is for passing. It is called the "passing lane" for a reason. If you are going to go slower than cars behind you, you should be in the right lane. This is common sense that most people here do not seem to grasp. If people dont know how to merge, that is not my problem. It is a very simple concept.
No, its just a left lane in north America, unless it is specifically stated. And that is only in areas where the highway is 1 lane each way.
baby e;15248 said:
And there are caps because you think you'll drill your point into me? I DONT CARE IF ITS ILLEGAL. If i cant stop in time, i will go through a yellow light. If there is no one turning left opposite me, i will go through the yellow light. Thanks so much, Zach Spencer.
Why don't you just run red lights while you are at it? If you dont care about traffic laws. You claimed the car in front of you did not make the light and hence stopped, so you should also be able to stop too unless you are tail gating.
baby e;15248 said:
Why are you assuming that? I could passing on the left. Or I could be passing over a solid line (oh no, its illegal! gasp!). I am very aware of everything that goes around me when i drive. If i wasnt, do you know how many people would have crashed into me with it being their fault? And who cares if i glance at them? Do you look at your stereo when you're changing cd's or looking for a new song? Most likely. Your eyes are off the road there. You're being a hypocrite.
I'm assuming it by the tone of your post, "I hate slow driver in the left lane". Also how you repeat how you "hate slow drivers" in every statement. Your illegal shenanigans will land you in trouble someday. My eyes are never off the road, as my car has voice activation. And I have all the buttons memorized.
baby e;15248 said:
Slow drivers are just as hazardous as fast ones. agreed, that includes youJust because i am driving fast, it does not mean that i am a danger on the road.true, but at greater risk Am i swerving from lane to lane? No. Am i hitting objects on the road? No. I am simply driving faster. People who drive slow are a danger to other drivers because they are not keeping up with the speed of traffic. That is not to say that faster drivers arent a danger too, because they are if they are being unsafe, but i am not hurting anyone by driving faster.until you lose control People should be courteous and if you see someone that wants to pass you and you are in the left lane going as slow as those in the right lanespeed limit, doesnt need to go faster, and shanging lanes is a risk that person is not willing to take. , you should move over.you are dictating how people should drive, who are you? It is just common sense. I do that if i see someone that wants to pass me. Im not like, "oh, well im doing the speed limit so im staying here." Nope, im like, "ok he wants to pass me, so i'll let him." People in Europe seem to understand this.thats because its the law to sit int he right lane In Canada, they're oblivious and idiotic.because the left lane is not a pass only lane
Click on "Using Lanes Correctly" on the left hand side.
Read it.
On a multi-lane highway you are best to travel in one of the right-hand lanes. This is especially important if you are driving more slowly than other vehicles or if signs direct you to keep out of the left lane. Just because you are driving at the speed limit does not mean you should continually drive in the left lane. This may cause other drivers to try to pass on the right, which may not be as safe as passing on the left.
That is the driving handbook that we use here in BC....well it must be wrong then according to you since you said that driving in left lane was ok. No, its not ok if you are driving slower than other vehicles. Its proven right there....in writing.
And for the record, i am well aware what a yellow light means. However, i stand by what i think, which is if it is safe to go through the yellow light (ie no one is turning left opposite you) and you are going at a good pace, then there is no problem going through it. If you are waiting to turn left at a busy intersection, and you dont turn when the light turns yellow, you are a moron. That is how you get through a lot of busy intersections. I am not the only one who thinks this. Just go driving downtown and tell me what kind of driving you see there. People running red lights, people blocking intersections, etc etc etc. Some of it may be illegal to do, but you have to do it when you are in busy sections. Have you seen Taylor Way by the Lions Gate Bridge when its busy? Its chaos. People sit in the middle of the intersection to get through cuz the lights arent long enough and they block it for everyone else. Thats the way it goes. You have to do that kind of stuff to get where you're going.
Autonomy in this case refers to the autonomy of action. I have the freedom or autonomy to jog in the park. Someone else has the freedom to walk his dog. Someone else has the freedom not to be bothered (call it personal space). All of this is self-evident until some people abuse their freedom to the point of infringing on others'. For example, my neighbour plays loud music all night, making it very difficult for me to sleep at night. Whether or not it's his right is one thing, but that it irritates practically everyone on my block is another matter. Dog owners have the freedom to walk their dogs in the park. Seems like a normal idea--where man and beast can be one with nature. Yet if the beast begins to interfere with other people's personal space (which qualifies as autonomy)--when the dog, say, runs up to a person and begins to bark, or runs up and begins to sniff a person--problems emerge. You cannot exercise your freedom to walk your dog in such a manner that it interferes with other people's freedoms to be left alone or to their personal space. If you (or any dog owner) happen to tolerate dogs in your personal space, that is fine. But it does not mean that every person will have the same set of tolerances.
I don't mean to tell people how to live and I don't mean to be overly dictating. But when your freedom (to do whatever, apart from walking your dog) interferes with somebody else's, then I believe steps ought to be taken to ensure the minimum amount of freedom is undermined (such as leashing your dog and being respectful of others, that way people who don't like to be bothered by dogs will be able to go to parks and dog owners will be able to walk their dogs--a win-win situation if you ask me).
Morro;15244 said:
You have no right to not be inconvenienced. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to have the whole world conform to your preference. None of those things have anything to do with "autonomy."
Autonomy to you may be a nebulous concept, but this is understandable. The concept can mean many things because freedom and independence entail many things. Everyone has the right not to be inconvenienced; and what is this deal with the notion that I am the only one who thinks dogs should be leashed. There are plenty of other people who find it irritating but have the politeness not to complain about it. We have laws in this society protecting autonomy. Laws against theft, murder or even mischief are cases in point. Bylaws prohibit lesser harms (like bylaws against having dogs without a leash for example), but still exist to be abided by; they are there for a reason after all. Practically every park has bylaws ordering owners to leash their dogs. So is it only me who thinks dogs should be leashed or is there validity to what I'm saying? Perhaps Morro it is you who has it wrong.....
Morro;15244 said:
It is not "taking away someone's autonomy" for a person to let their dog off the leash in a park. It is taking away their autonomy to say that they can't.
Autonomy is such a sophisticated concept yet to you it appears that the only depriver of autonomy in our society is the government. How wrong of a notion. If I were your next-door neighbour and played loud music late at night, this would irritate you (you mentioned earlier that you do not like loud pounding bass) and would undermine your autonomy. You have the right not to have your personal space violated and you'd have the right to make a complaint; likely it would succeed. Just like with people like me and dogs: I plainly detest the filthy creatures yet I must put up with them. However, when a complete dumbass roams around the public park yapping away on his cell phone while his brooding rottweiler runs at me, that certainly interferes with my autonomy. What about when I go jogging and run into an unleashed dog? It charges at me and interferes with my workout. All this could be prevented if the owners are competent and respectful enough to leash up their beasts. Enjoy walking your dog all you want, but don't extend this enjoyment on to others. Not everyone share's a dog owner's love for dogs.
"Choose the lane that gives you the best vision and allows you to go where you want to go. On a multi-lane highway you are best to travel in one of the right-hand lanes. This is especially important if you are driving more slowly than other vehicles"
It does mention that you should choose the best lane. Also, this paragraph is just a suggestion and NOT the law. The person in the left lane is breaking no laws or anything, they are just annoying some people. And with your reasoning, they should move over to appease others.
Now should the dogs me kept on a leach at ALL times? With your way of reasoning with lanes, yes they should. As it annoys some people, and is inconvenient to them. If the dog is in a park that has no leach zones, which is legal, the dog should still be on a leach, as other people are getting upset. The dog owner has done nothing wrong, the car in the left lane has done nothing wrong, but to appease other people, the car should move over, and the dog should wear a leach.
LOL! What is so bad about a dog sniffing you? Just walk on by the dog if you dont want it to do that. If a dog sniffs me, who cares? And if it licks me, who cares?? Its a dog for christs sake. Its not the end of the world if a dog runs up to you and sniffs you.
It may not be to you, but I and many others find dogs dirty and disgusting. I want it to leave me alone but I don't speak doggish so I can't tell it fuck off. I'd ask the owner but he or she would be too busy telling me that "it's just a dog" and that "it's not the end of the world" and that "he doesn't bite" and that "he is so cute when he licks you, it's such a picture-perfect moment". LEASH IT UP FOR FUCK'S SAKE!
baby e;15251 said:
And what kind of dogs are you coming in contact with that bite you? Ive never met a dog that has bitten me. But then again, im smart enough to know that if a dog looks mean, i wont go near it.
I never stated I was bitten. As if being licked and sniffed was not enough! You seem to be smart enough to know not to go near an aggressive dog; what what if the dog is aggressive enough to go near you? And what if it's unleashed and the owner thinks it won't bite? What then?
baby e;15251 said:
You obviously just dont like dogs and have issues. And if thats the case, then you shouldnt go anywhere where there is a dog. End of story.
Since when has privacy of space become an issue? I want to be left alone when I jog, that is all! Can't I be left alone? Don't I have the right not to be sniffed or licked? If someone were to lick you without your consent, how would you feel? There are laws against such behaviours. Because we can't charge dogs with crimes, we leave their owners to be responsible for them. Too bad 95% of owners are utterly incompetent and inconsiderate.
baby e;15251 said:
ps my dog is super cute right now sleeping, awww
P.P.S. If it's massive enough and if it ever got near me, I'd besprinkle it in arsenic power since obviously you'd have it unleashed and I'd be justified :wink:
Now should the dogs me kept on a leach at ALL times? With your way of reasoning with lanes, yes they should. As it annoys some people, and is inconvenient to them. If the dog is in a park that has no leach zones, which is legal, the dog should still be on a leach, as other people are getting upset. The dog owner has done nothing wrong, the car in the left lane has done nothing wrong, but to appease other people, the car should move over, and the dog should wear a leach.
Seriously man. You need to stop using the word autonomy. You don't know what it means, or how to properly integrate it into a grammatically correct sentence.
But I'll mentally substitute in a word that might make your argument coherent.
I don't like seafood. Other people do like seafood. They act according to their wants by ordering seafood near me, which incidentally impedes my ability to enjoy my purely optional activity to its fullest. I understand that they have as much a right to be there as I do, and do not try to make everyone else miserable in a small minded and narcissistic attempt to better my situation at their expense.
You want to go to the park. They want to go to the park. You don't like dogs. They like dogs. They act according to their wants by letting their dog play, which incidentally impedes your ability to enjoy your purely optional activity to the fullest extent. You tell them that they can't do that any more. You are a whiner.
Those who feel entitled to squash other people's fun in order to better facilitate their own fun, are whiners. Those who make their own problems everyone else's problems are whiners. Those who feel no shame in doing these things honestly scare me a little.
But on to more important matters. How could you not like dogs, dude? They're so nice! I was just looking at some half German-Shepherd half Husky mutts the other day. What sort of cold hearted sociopath could look into their happy eyes and feel they were filthy creatures? j/k of course, but seriously. I bet you're a cat person. *shudder* =P
Seriously man. You need to stop using the word autonomy. You don't know what it means, or how to properly integrate it into a grammatically correct sentence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong (neither grammatically nor stylistically) with my usage of the word "autonomy".
Another dictionary (Oxford) defines "autonomy" as "freedom of action".
So let's take it slow now: my freedom of action is limited when someone else uses their freedom of action in such a way as to limit mine. For example, I will not go to the park during certain times of the day (even when it's a nice day and I really want to) because I know that it is full of dogs (whose owners exercise their freedom of action in such a way that it deters me from going to the park [i.e. by having their mutts unleashed]). I use autonomy in that exact sense, so I don't see why you're diverting the issue to my vocabulary. Perhaps you can explain the meaning of autonomy to me and "properly integrate it into a grammatically correct sentence"
Or perhaps you should have stayed as an English major rather than switching to MBB, but that is of course another matter.....
Morro;15281 said:
But I'll mentally substitute in a word that might make your argument coherent.
Thank you for being so considerate Morro. See, some of us are so incompetent that we don't even know what we're saying. We need your imaginative prowess to fill in the blanks for us, so to speak. In fact, you are so perceptive that I didn't even have to ask you to make my argument more coherent, how amazing is that?? Much obliged my dear friend.
Morro;15281 said:
I don't like seafood. Other people do like seafood. They act according to their wants by ordering seafood near me, which incidentally impedes my ability to enjoy my purely optional activity to its fullest. I understand that they have as much a right to be there as I do, and do not try to make everyone else miserable in a small minded and narcissistic attempt to better my situation at their expense.
You want to go to the park. They want to go to the park. You don't like dogs. They like dogs. They act according to their wants by letting their dog play, which incidentally impedes your ability to enjoy your purely optional activity to the fullest extent. You tell them that they can't do that any more. You are a whiner.
I honestly don't care what the fuck people do with their dogs at home. Let it roam around there in your back yard or in your house. Let it prepare your food. Let it sniff you and lick you, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN. But is someone like you willing to disregard the rights of humans (people who hate being licked and sniffed by dogs such as me) in order to uphold the rights of animals (dogs in this case). Utilitarians such as me would be greatly displeased.....
And here's another issue: who is to say whose rights prevail? You say dog owners' rights should, I say we should come to a compromise: leash your dog and make sure it doesn't come near anyone who's not asking for it. It's really that simple and just another extension of the social contract. You see the issue as one sided: you won't recognize the validity of my argument. I see things more tolerantly: I'll put up with your dog if it's leashed!
Morro;15281 said:
Those who feel entitled to squash other people's fun in order to better facilitate their own fun, are whiners. Those who make their own problems everyone else's problems are whiners. Those who feel no shame in doing these things honestly scare me a little.
With me and many other people, it's not fun that dog owners are squashing but a fundamental comfort level. When it's not there, I don't feel right, you know? Dog owners can sacrifice a bit of fun (and have most of it) and restore a lot of comfort in many people simply by leashing up their dogs.
If dog owners were all of a sudden compelled to leash their dogs (say, for example, because of a stiff fine attached to having unleashed animals), they would complain that it would take away their fun. Wouldn't they be whiners in that scenario? The way you look at things is far too one-sided, you don't see the other side's legitimacy whereas I do: I recognize people have the right to walk their dogs but only to the extent that it does not interfere with others' freedom of action. So why not leash it? That way, the least amount of well-being is endangered: owners will still walk their mutts while people like me will enjoy the parks much much more. Not everyone adores dogs and you should recognize this.
Morro;15281 said:
But on to more important matters. How could you not like dogs, dude? They're so nice! I was just looking at some half German-Shepherd half Husky mutts the other day. What sort of cold hearted sociopath could look into their happy eyes and feel they were filthy creatures? j/k of course, but seriously. I bet you're a cat person. *shudder* =P
Why do you equate my dislike for dogs with cold-heartedness? Since when does a mere preference entail being a sociopath? I like some animals but only ones that are noble: eagles, tigers, and horses for example. Such animals have been associated with liberty, courage, and strength. A dog is an animal worthy of contempt. Even our English language recognizes this (meanings 8 and 9):
Dogs are close to pigs in terms of status in Western culture. Eastern cultures eat them. I just don't want them near me. I don't like dogs because they're flithy animals. I don't want them licking me, I don't want them sniffing me, I don't want them near me. Will you recognize this or will you reproach me for it? I respect your right to own dogs and your right to be with them, but you have to respect (*not honour*) my opinions and preferences as well.
Dogs are close to pigs in terms of status in Western culture. Eastern cultures eat them.
Guess what? We're in a western culture, so get used to dogs being around. I mean really, what is the big deal if dogs are in the park and they are playing? I honestly think that you are exagerrating about dogs running up to you and being aggressive and sniffing and licking you, because most dogs do not do this. I have rarely come across a dog that will run up to me and start licking me. I might have a dog run by me and stop and smell my shoe or something, but thats it. I have had a little dog run up to me once and start growling at me, but once i took a step towards me, it ran off....i have had that happen once....in my whole life....once.
Dogs are cute!! They have cute little noses and the sweetest little eyes. If you dont like them running up to you in the park (which i highly doubt they do) then dont go running in a park that is full of dogs who are off-leash. Maybe find a new place to run, like say, oh i dunno, the seawall. Or a trail somewhere. Or a side street.
If you dont like something and it bothers you to the extent that you are saying it is, then avoid it. Avoid dogs that are in parks. Problem solved.
P.P.S. If it's massive enough and if it ever got near me, I'd besprinkle it in arsenic power since obviously you'd have it unleashed and I'd be justified :wink:
:/
I think you're obviously a very troubled person btw.
It does mention that you should choose the best lane. Also, this paragraph is just a suggestion and NOT the law. The person in the left lane is breaking no laws or anything, they are just annoying some people. And with your reasoning, they should move over to appease others.
Ok honestly, i dont know what else to say to you. It is common sense that you should move over to let someone pass you. Its just being courteous, otherwise you are being an asshole.
People who sit in the left lane, who could easily sit in the right lane, should do so.
Faster cars who want to pass slower cars should use the left lane and should not be forced to use the right lane.
I suggest that you take a trip to the country of Cyprus. Over there, they drive on the other side of the road, so the left lane is the slow lane and the right lane is the fast lane. Cars will travel in the left lane until they come across a car infront of them that is moving slower than them. They move into the right lane to pass them and immediately move back over into the left lane once they do so. I absolutely loved the way they drove over there, and if you were caught in the right moving slow, they would tailgate you, flash their lights, beep at you, pass you in the left lane, finger you, and brutally cut you off. Thats the way it should be imo.
If you dont agree, well then you dont. And i honestly think that you are a moron because your thinking is wrong and very uncourteous. Im pretty much done with this topic.
With me and many other people, it's not fun that dog owners are squashing but a fundamental comfort level. When it's not there, I don't feel right, you know? Dog owners can sacrifice a bit of fun (and have most of it) and restore a lot of comfort in many people simply by leashing up their dogs.
This would be fine, if we were talking about people bringing their dogs into your house. But we're not. In a public park, which you are not forced to go to, they have as much right to be there as you do. Your "comfort level" is not their concern. It CAN be their concern, if THEY choose to make it so, but you are not entitled to force that concern onto them if they choose their own preferences over yours.
Try to understand: your likes and dislikes are not more important that everyone else's.
As to hating dogs, I think you'll find that an uphill battle, man. :p This is a dog-loving culture.
about the dog thing, im not too fond of unleashed dogs either, though it doesnt bother me enough to stop me from doing whatever i choose to do
i do understand insatiable's pts, and i agree mostly with what hes sayin
if i recall though, ive seen signs posted up at parks saying 'owners must leash their dogs at all times' subject to warnings and fines etc.. so i suppose its more of an enforcement issue? owners arent held accountable enough, so why should they leash up their animals
whether ppl are really opposed to unleashed dogs.. some ppl dont care, some aren't bothered by it (prob the culture plays a part in this).. and the ones that are bothered by it, they are definitely in the minority so the resources wont be spent enforcing the issue at hand
its hardly about whether its law abiding to do such and such an action
isnt it more of a common sense thing? if u do speed limit on the left/fast lane (reason being = safety? law abiding? whatever the case may be) you could just as well do the same thing in the slow/right lane and therefore not hav other drivers angry or tailgating u because u are driving 'slower' than what the traffic behind u wants to move along at
driving speed limit in the left/fast lane, isnt against the law, its just a little inconsiderate b/c other ppl want to drive faster
I've relaxed a bit and I'm glad other understand my points even slightly (thanks imelting).
As such, I'll tolerate people walking their little doggies without a leash--but only if they're small (over 10kg = leash it!). The big ones have to stay leashed because would you really want rottweilers and pit bulls running around without leashes? Those things were bred to kill and now they're running around freely in parks--what gives!? Chances are, the owner is some teenage asshole who decided to get a pit bull or a rottweiler because hip-hop culture told him to do so. There's no point in telling such a prick to leash it because his machismo overshadows his receptiveness. There is a direct positive correlation between the number of dog attacks and unleashed dogs--need I say more? Should that not be a reason for owners to leash it.
Just because dogs have never attacked you baby e doesn't mean that others are so fortunate. Maybe others don't feel as comfortable near dogs for whatever reason (perhaps they're afraid or perhaps [like I think] they just don't want to be licked).
Sure this is a dog-loving culture Morro, but how come dogs' concerns override humans' concerns? Why do dogs roam around freely while many humans are deterred from going to the park because of that fact? Is that just? And shouldn't one's comfort level prevail over another's fun because comfort level is more fundamental than fun? I have as much right to go to parks as any dog owner, yet their fun in many cases overrides my comfort level. Why?
In the end, it is also an enforcement issue because practically every park has signs saying that owners should leash up their dogs. Why do people disobey laws? Because their dog is more important to them perhaps. And certainly because it is an unfair and dog-loving world.
Comments
Regarding peanuts, the answer is so clear-cut, I can't believe you even raised this issue: it's a simple matter of welfare. A kid allergic to peanuts will react severely when exposed to them, even to the point of death. You being deprived of peanuts may deprive you of a small amount of welfare, but not even comparatively the same amount as that allergic kid who could possibly die as a result of a small amount of peanut exposure. I'm willing to relinquish my rights to eating peanuts so that it decreases that kid's chances of having an allergic reaction. I'm sure many others would make that small sacrifice as well to prevent a much greater harm. Unless of course one is as self-centred as you Morro..... There is nothing idiosyncratic about my preferences because many people are irritated by unleashed hounds. In fact it is a law in virtually every park to have your dog leashed. Parks are public venues; bars are not, restaurants are not, clubs are not. See the equation? Don't turn public property into your own. I'm even willing to put up with dogs insofar as they're leashed, that way everyone wins: it would be mildly inconvenient for the owners (just keep your hand on the bloody leash, that's all), but it would many other people an immeasureable amount of worry when they're leashed. Owners will still be able to walk their dogs insofar as they're leashed and people like me will be able to go to parks without being irritated by dogs--everybody wins. Can't we just share parks? Parks are public venues to which everyone can go. As such, there are many things we cannot do in public that we are allowed to do in private. I don't care how much you love your dog, don't have it running around unleashed in public places. Not everyone loves dogs, let alone your dog. So why not respect laws (dictating that owners leash up their dogs in practically every park) and people's rights to be left alone? It's really a simple solution that can be reached if owners took more responsibility for their animals and leashed them up!
Once again: You don't like dogs. That's YOUR problem. Stop making it everybody else's. And here inlies the distinction: You may be willing to give up peanuts, *I* probably would be, too. But that's not what's happening. We are FORCING people to keep certain foods out of the schools, FORCING people to go outside when they smoke, and people of your opinion on pets are FORCING pet owners to act in a certain way. That has nothing to do with being willing to do anything. You ask me to be nice and keep peanuts out of my kid's lunchbox, that's fine. You tell me I may not send my child to school with his lunch of choice, and you are in a completely different arena.
Call it whatever you want but our autonomy stretches only to the extent that it does not interfere with the autonomy of others. That is one reason why we have criminal laws.
And all this jazz with peanuts is similar. Having peanuts in schools may severely cause some people to have near-death allergic reactions. As such, if you're not willing to relinquish your rights to having what you want (in this case peanuts), then you are not being considerate of others' needs. If anything, I'm glad we have such laws.
And all this talk with cigarettes: second-hand smoke may not be harmful, but it certainly smells far worse than an open sewer. Most people are non-smokers (the percentage of smokers in Canada is somewhere in the high 20s but somewhat varies by age group), as such, it is presumable that most of them will not put up with second-hand smoke. As such, if anything, I'm glad we have anti-smoking laws. Sure it hurts to see the government interfere with people's autonomy, but more people's autonomies would be compromised if second-hand smoke were everyhwere (since most people are not smokers). As such, having the government promulgate anti-smoking laws is merely the lesser of the two inevitable evils. Hence, second-hand smoke does not even have to be a matter of health in order for anti-smoking laws go be legitimate! If you want to smoke, there should be smoke pits; if there are none, then do not smoke (and respect the autonomy of most people).
P.S.: I don't know why anyone would start smoking. I won't hate you if you do it, but I'm a bit apprehensive as a taxpayer because part of my income will eventually be going towards treating conditions induced by your repugnant habit (that is potentially preventable). Either be smart enough not to start or have the willpower to quit.
You have no right to not be inconvenienced. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to have the whole world conform to your preference. None of those things have anything to do with "autonomy."
It is not "taking away someone's autonomy" for a person to let their dog off the leash in a park. It is taking away their autonomy to say that they can't.
You should look up words before you use them.
This post brought to you by the number 6 and the letter Y.
I would disagree. The left lane is for passing. It is called the "passing lane" for a reason. If you are going to go slower than cars behind you, you should be in the right lane. This is common sense that most people here do not seem to grasp. If people dont know how to merge, that is not my problem. It is a very simple concept.
And there are caps because you think you'll drill your point into me? I DONT CARE IF ITS ILLEGAL. If i cant stop in time, i will go through a yellow light. If there is no one turning left opposite me, i will go through the yellow light. Thanks so much, Zach Spencer.
Why are you assuming that? I could passing on the left. Or I could be passing over a solid line (oh no, its illegal! gasp!). I am very aware of everything that goes around me when i drive. If i wasnt, do you know how many people would have crashed into me with it being their fault? And who cares if i glance at them? Do you look at your stereo when you're changing cd's or looking for a new song? Most likely. Your eyes are off the road there. You're being a hypocrite.
Slow drivers are just as hazardous as fast ones. Just because i am driving fast, it does not mean that i am a danger on the road. Am i swerving from lane to lane? No. Am i hitting objects on the road? No. I am simply driving faster. People who drive slow are a danger to other drivers because they are not keeping up with the speed of traffic. That is not to say that faster drivers arent a danger too, because they are if they are being unsafe, but i am not hurting anyone by driving faster. People should be courteous and if you see someone that wants to pass you and you are in the left lane going as slow as those in the right lane, you should move over. It is just common sense. I do that if i see someone that wants to pass me. Im not like, "oh, well im doing the speed limit so im staying here." Nope, im like, "ok he wants to pass me, so i'll let him." People in Europe seem to understand this. In Canada, they're oblivious and idiotic.
If the dog isnt doing anything, there is no problem.
If you dont like dogs and see a dog off leash, heres an idea, avoid the dog.
I walk my dog off leash on the beach. He loves it! He gets to wander into the water and have fun. If i see another dog approaching, i usually put him back on his leash cuz bigger dogs scare him a little and i dont want him to get scared. Otherwise, if its a small dog or just a person, i leave him off but watch him. Im very responsible with my dog. And not once have i had anyone complain about my dog being off leash. They usually just tell me how cute he is or they just walk on by. Its not a big deal.
LOL! What is so bad about a dog sniffing you? Just walk on by the dog if you dont want it to do that. If a dog sniffs me, who cares? And if it licks me, who cares?? Its a dog for christs sake. Its not the end of the world if a dog runs up to you and sniffs you. And what kind of dogs are you coming in contact with that bite you? Ive never met a dog that has bitten me. But then again, im smart enough to know that if a dog looks mean, i wont go near it.
You obviously just dont like dogs and have issues. And if thats the case, then you shouldnt go anywhere where there is a dog. End of story.
ps my dog is super cute right now sleeping, awww.
I'm so happy I might poop.
Stopping distances increase almost exponentially with greater speed. Also, a crash at 40 vs 60 could be the difference between minor injuries or major, even death. No, its just a left lane in north America, unless it is specifically stated. And that is only in areas where the highway is 1 lane each way. Why don't you just run red lights while you are at it? If you dont care about traffic laws. You claimed the car in front of you did not make the light and hence stopped, so you should also be able to stop too unless you are tail gating.
I'm assuming it by the tone of your post, "I hate slow driver in the left lane". Also how you repeat how you "hate slow drivers" in every statement.
Your illegal shenanigans will land you in trouble someday. My eyes are never off the road, as my car has voice activation. And I have all the buttons memorized.
Click on chapter 4.
Open the link.
Click on "Using Lanes Correctly" on the left hand side.
Read it.
On a multi-lane highway you are
best to travel in one of the right-hand lanes. This is especially
important if you are driving more slowly than other vehicles or if
signs direct you to keep out of the left lane.
Just because you are driving at the speed limit does not mean you
should continually drive in the left lane. This may cause other
drivers to try to pass on the right, which may not be as safe as
passing on the left.
That is the driving handbook that we use here in BC....well it must be wrong then according to you since you said that driving in left lane was ok. No, its not ok if you are driving slower than other vehicles. Its proven right there....in writing.
And for the record, i am well aware what a yellow light means. However, i stand by what i think, which is if it is safe to go through the yellow light (ie no one is turning left opposite you) and you are going at a good pace, then there is no problem going through it. If you are waiting to turn left at a busy intersection, and you dont turn when the light turns yellow, you are a moron. That is how you get through a lot of busy intersections. I am not the only one who thinks this. Just go driving downtown and tell me what kind of driving you see there. People running red lights, people blocking intersections, etc etc etc. Some of it may be illegal to do, but you have to do it when you are in busy sections. Have you seen Taylor Way by the Lions Gate Bridge when its busy? Its chaos. People sit in the middle of the intersection to get through cuz the lights arent long enough and they block it for everyone else. Thats the way it goes. You have to do that kind of stuff to get where you're going.
I don't mean to tell people how to live and I don't mean to be overly dictating. But when your freedom (to do whatever, apart from walking your dog) interferes with somebody else's, then I believe steps ought to be taken to ensure the minimum amount of freedom is undermined (such as leashing your dog and being respectful of others, that way people who don't like to be bothered by dogs will be able to go to parks and dog owners will be able to walk their dogs--a win-win situation if you ask me). Autonomy to you may be a nebulous concept, but this is understandable. The concept can mean many things because freedom and independence entail many things. Everyone has the right not to be inconvenienced; and what is this deal with the notion that I am the only one who thinks dogs should be leashed. There are plenty of other people who find it irritating but have the politeness not to complain about it. We have laws in this society protecting autonomy. Laws against theft, murder or even mischief are cases in point. Bylaws prohibit lesser harms (like bylaws against having dogs without a leash for example), but still exist to be abided by; they are there for a reason after all. Practically every park has bylaws ordering owners to leash their dogs. So is it only me who thinks dogs should be leashed or is there validity to what I'm saying? Perhaps Morro it is you who has it wrong..... Autonomy is such a sophisticated concept yet to you it appears that the only depriver of autonomy in our society is the government. How wrong of a notion. If I were your next-door neighbour and played loud music late at night, this would irritate you (you mentioned earlier that you do not like loud pounding bass) and would undermine your autonomy. You have the right not to have your personal space violated and you'd have the right to make a complaint; likely it would succeed. Just like with people like me and dogs: I plainly detest the filthy creatures yet I must put up with them. However, when a complete dumbass roams around the public park yapping away on his cell phone while his brooding rottweiler runs at me, that certainly interferes with my autonomy. What about when I go jogging and run into an unleashed dog? It charges at me and interferes with my workout. All this could be prevented if the owners are competent and respectful enough to leash up their beasts. Enjoy walking your dog all you want, but don't extend this enjoyment on to others. Not everyone share's a dog owner's love for dogs.
to go where you want to go. On a multi-lane highway you are
best to travel in one of the right-hand lanes. This is especially
important if you are driving more slowly than other vehicles"
It does mention that you should choose the best lane. Also, this paragraph is just a suggestion and NOT the law. The person in the left lane is breaking no laws or anything, they are just annoying some people. And with your reasoning, they should move over to appease others.
Now should the dogs me kept on a leach at ALL times? With your way of reasoning with lanes, yes they should. As it annoys some people, and is inconvenient to them. If the dog is in a park that has no leach zones, which is legal, the dog should still be on a leach, as other people are getting upset. The dog owner has done nothing wrong, the car in the left lane has done nothing wrong, but to appease other people, the car should move over, and the dog should wear a leach.
But I'll mentally substitute in a word that might make your argument coherent.
I don't like seafood. Other people do like seafood. They act according to their wants by ordering seafood near me, which incidentally impedes my ability to enjoy my purely optional activity to its fullest. I understand that they have as much a right to be there as I do, and do not try to make everyone else miserable in a small minded and narcissistic attempt to better my situation at their expense.
You want to go to the park. They want to go to the park. You don't like dogs. They like dogs. They act according to their wants by letting their dog play, which incidentally impedes your ability to enjoy your purely optional activity to the fullest extent. You tell them that they can't do that any more. You are a whiner.
Those who feel entitled to squash other people's fun in order to better facilitate their own fun, are whiners. Those who make their own problems everyone else's problems are whiners. Those who feel no shame in doing these things honestly scare me a little.
But on to more important matters. How could you not like dogs, dude? They're so nice! I was just looking at some half German-Shepherd half Husky mutts the other day. What sort of cold hearted sociopath could look into their happy eyes and feel they were filthy creatures? j/k of course, but seriously. I bet you're a cat person. *shudder* =P
Look here (first meaning):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autonomy
Another dictionary (Oxford) defines "autonomy" as "freedom of action".
So let's take it slow now: my freedom of action is limited when someone else uses their freedom of action in such a way as to limit mine. For example, I will not go to the park during certain times of the day (even when it's a nice day and I really want to) because I know that it is full of dogs (whose owners exercise their freedom of action in such a way that it deters me from going to the park [i.e. by having their mutts unleashed]). I use autonomy in that exact sense, so I don't see why you're diverting the issue to my vocabulary. Perhaps you can explain the meaning of autonomy to me and "properly integrate it into a grammatically correct sentence"
Or perhaps you should have stayed as an English major rather than switching to MBB, but that is of course another matter..... Thank you for being so considerate Morro. See, some of us are so incompetent that we don't even know what we're saying. We need your imaginative prowess to fill in the blanks for us, so to speak. In fact, you are so perceptive that I didn't even have to ask you to make my argument more coherent, how amazing is that?? Much obliged my dear friend. I honestly don't care what the fuck people do with their dogs at home. Let it roam around there in your back yard or in your house. Let it prepare your food. Let it sniff you and lick you, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN. But is someone like you willing to disregard the rights of humans (people who hate being licked and sniffed by dogs such as me) in order to uphold the rights of animals (dogs in this case). Utilitarians such as me would be greatly displeased.....
And here's another issue: who is to say whose rights prevail? You say dog owners' rights should, I say we should come to a compromise: leash your dog and make sure it doesn't come near anyone who's not asking for it. It's really that simple and just another extension of the social contract. You see the issue as one sided: you won't recognize the validity of my argument. I see things more tolerantly: I'll put up with your dog if it's leashed! With me and many other people, it's not fun that dog owners are squashing but a fundamental comfort level. When it's not there, I don't feel right, you know? Dog owners can sacrifice a bit of fun (and have most of it) and restore a lot of comfort in many people simply by leashing up their dogs.
If dog owners were all of a sudden compelled to leash their dogs (say, for example, because of a stiff fine attached to having unleashed animals), they would complain that it would take away their fun. Wouldn't they be whiners in that scenario? The way you look at things is far too one-sided, you don't see the other side's legitimacy whereas I do: I recognize people have the right to walk their dogs but only to the extent that it does not interfere with others' freedom of action. So why not leash it? That way, the least amount of well-being is endangered: owners will still walk their mutts while people like me will enjoy the parks much much more. Not everyone adores dogs and you should recognize this. Why do you equate my dislike for dogs with cold-heartedness? Since when does a mere preference entail being a sociopath? I like some animals but only ones that are noble: eagles, tigers, and horses for example. Such animals have been associated with liberty, courage, and strength. A dog is an animal worthy of contempt. Even our English language recognizes this (meanings 8 and 9):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dog
Dogs are close to pigs in terms of status in Western culture. Eastern cultures eat them. I just don't want them near me. I don't like dogs because they're flithy animals. I don't want them licking me, I don't want them sniffing me, I don't want them near me. Will you recognize this or will you reproach me for it? I respect your right to own dogs and your right to be with them, but you have to respect (*not honour*) my opinions and preferences as well.
Guess what? We're in a western culture, so get used to dogs being around. I mean really, what is the big deal if dogs are in the park and they are playing? I honestly think that you are exagerrating about dogs running up to you and being aggressive and sniffing and licking you, because most dogs do not do this. I have rarely come across a dog that will run up to me and start licking me. I might have a dog run by me and stop and smell my shoe or something, but thats it. I have had a little dog run up to me once and start growling at me, but once i took a step towards me, it ran off....i have had that happen once....in my whole life....once.
Dogs are cute!! They have cute little noses and the sweetest little eyes. If you dont like them running up to you in the park (which i highly doubt they do) then dont go running in a park that is full of dogs who are off-leash. Maybe find a new place to run, like say, oh i dunno, the seawall. Or a trail somewhere. Or a side street.
If you dont like something and it bothers you to the extent that you are saying it is, then avoid it. Avoid dogs that are in parks. Problem solved.
I think you're obviously a very troubled person btw.
Ok honestly, i dont know what else to say to you. It is common sense that you should move over to let someone pass you. Its just being courteous, otherwise you are being an asshole.
People who sit in the left lane, who could easily sit in the right lane, should do so.
Faster cars who want to pass slower cars should use the left lane and should not be forced to use the right lane.
I suggest that you take a trip to the country of Cyprus. Over there, they drive on the other side of the road, so the left lane is the slow lane and the right lane is the fast lane. Cars will travel in the left lane until they come across a car infront of them that is moving slower than them. They move into the right lane to pass them and immediately move back over into the left lane once they do so. I absolutely loved the way they drove over there, and if you were caught in the right moving slow, they would tailgate you, flash their lights, beep at you, pass you in the left lane, finger you, and brutally cut you off. Thats the way it should be imo.
If you dont agree, well then you dont. And i honestly think that you are a moron because your thinking is wrong and very uncourteous. Im pretty much done with this topic.
Try to understand: your likes and dislikes are not more important that everyone else's.
As to hating dogs, I think you'll find that an uphill battle, man. :p This is a dog-loving culture.
about the dog thing, im not too fond of unleashed dogs either, though it doesnt bother me enough to stop me from doing whatever i choose to do
i do understand insatiable's pts, and i agree mostly with what hes sayin
if i recall though, ive seen signs posted up at parks saying 'owners must leash their dogs at all times' subject to warnings and fines etc.. so i suppose its more of an enforcement issue? owners arent held accountable enough, so why should they leash up their animals
whether ppl are really opposed to unleashed dogs.. some ppl dont care, some aren't bothered by it (prob the culture plays a part in this).. and the ones that are bothered by it, they are definitely in the minority so the resources wont be spent enforcing the issue at hand
its hardly about whether its law abiding to do such and such an action
isnt it more of a common sense thing? if u do speed limit on the left/fast lane (reason being = safety? law abiding? whatever the case may be) you could just as well do the same thing in the slow/right lane and therefore not hav other drivers angry or tailgating u because u are driving 'slower' than what the traffic behind u wants to move along at
driving speed limit in the left/fast lane, isnt against the law, its just a little inconsiderate b/c other ppl want to drive faster
As such, I'll tolerate people walking their little doggies without a leash--but only if they're small (over 10kg = leash it!). The big ones have to stay leashed because would you really want rottweilers and pit bulls running around without leashes? Those things were bred to kill and now they're running around freely in parks--what gives!? Chances are, the owner is some teenage asshole who decided to get a pit bull or a rottweiler because hip-hop culture told him to do so. There's no point in telling such a prick to leash it because his machismo overshadows his receptiveness. There is a direct positive correlation between the number of dog attacks and unleashed dogs--need I say more? Should that not be a reason for owners to leash it.
Just because dogs have never attacked you baby e doesn't mean that others are so fortunate. Maybe others don't feel as comfortable near dogs for whatever reason (perhaps they're afraid or perhaps [like I think] they just don't want to be licked).
Sure this is a dog-loving culture Morro, but how come dogs' concerns override humans' concerns? Why do dogs roam around freely while many humans are deterred from going to the park because of that fact? Is that just? And shouldn't one's comfort level prevail over another's fun because comfort level is more fundamental than fun? I have as much right to go to parks as any dog owner, yet their fun in many cases overrides my comfort level. Why?
In the end, it is also an enforcement issue because practically every park has signs saying that owners should leash up their dogs. Why do people disobey laws? Because their dog is more important to them perhaps. And certainly because it is an unfair and dog-loving world.