I don't own a dog. And as I've said elsewhere, this really isnt about dogs.
It's about whether the appropriate response to rare events of danger, imagined in abstract circumstances, should be met with 'fantasy compassion' where people go around policing each other.
An unleashed dog in a park is safe as people in the park, indeed, much more so. More people are attacked by other people in parks than by dogs.
If we're going to police society to this level, it'll be a nightmare.
If there's a dangerous person in the park: call the police. Likewise if there's a dangerous dog.
I find it a certain moral sickness to go around in a fantasy that people are all dangerous, or likewise dogs are, or anything else. This is just some internal emotional licence to appoint yourself a police officer.
In the comment i replied to above: why was that woman afraid? Because of a dog? No. She reacted to another person. Another person hurt her.
People are dangerous. I guess we should have a sign 'no people in the park' -- then we can really enjoy it
As far as the topic goes, the topic is about how emotional disregulation in autistic people can lead to feelings of injustice and concequentially hostile behaviour.
Dogs and their owners are just an illustrative case.
As an autistic person, your sense of (in)justice matches mine. I see no greater injustice than the oppression of arbitrary authority (e.g. dog leashing signs); and no worse person than those who perpetuate it.
I classify it into three tribes, using neutral language: the organisers, the dreamers and the demystifies.
Organising autistic people are highly conscientious, motivated by (often disregulated) compassion, rule-imposing, morality is quite personal and imposing, etc. -- board games, civil service, etc. They feel controlled by others having too much freedom, their unexpected behaviour makes them feel unsafe.
The dreamers do not follow any rules, create rich fantasy worlds, like fiction, like high moral principles -- morality is monkish, self-imposing, sacrificial. They feel controlled by too much detail, too many tasks -- they want to live in a removed space.
The demystifiers are ultra pragmatists in many areas (but not all), like non-fiction, are suspicious of 'moral formulas', are suspicious of fantasy, and so on. They feel controlled by others trying to define the bounds of acceptable behaviour. They want to live in a space where everyone is maximally accepted for their invidual preferences.
We're all mixtures, but I find I cannot abide people of the first tribe -- and my friends belong to the other two. That I also have ADHD means I tend to sit across the latter two, depending on the area.
But in general, i'm ruthelessly sceptical of the imaginary worlds people create to make meaning in the world; very sceptical of abstraction in morality; very sceptical of lack of abstraction in philosophy; and so on.
In otherwords, i'm very sceptical of certain emotions (compassion, wonder, ...) and very fond of others (irony, say, esp.).
I think having ADHD also makes you more likely to be in the latter two tribes -- i think the classical popular presentation of autistic personalities lie much more in the first category.
