> Was babysitting a family members Pit Bull mix. Her family believes the fatal attack occurred while attempting to stop a fight between the Pit Bull and her 2 Chihuahuas.
...
> Bitten by the family dog while playing outside with adult supervision, later died in hospital.
...
> Was at home to check on his daughters dogs when they attacked him.
...
> A 6-year-old boy was killed by the family dog, a pit bull mix; the boy was severely injured and died in hospital the next day.
---
this isn't abstract or theoretical, this is reality. These are dogs that killed _family members_ in 2023, the list of dogs that injured _people_ is much larger.
The signs aren't abstract and the people who put them up aren't doing them for abstract reasons, but for some reason you want this to be an abstract debate while at the same time complaining that the signs were put up.
If you think that's a reply to me, you havent understood my point. I am well aware of such situations.
The question is whether a particular person, in a particular park, on a particular day, with a particular dog is causing that situation. It is an absurd level of paranoia to suppose they are.
Dogs kill people. People kill people. Everything is harmful to someone at somepoint.
The question is whether we should go around replaying 6olds dying by dogs in our heads when we're wandering around in a park.
I think we shouldnt. And it is a moral and psychological sickness to do so.
That you're still only able to evaluate my position in terms of the saftey of dogs tells me you have not understood it and are making no efforts to.
It seems like you're arguing in bad faith, perhaps because you usually deal with people you can brow-beat into losing arguments by appealing to extreme cases.
You can point to all the murdered children you want; that isn't going to work with me. I'm not an idiot.
One wonders if you also rail at the authoritarian nature of stoplights.
At that on one particular 4-way with that one particular car with that one particular driver, they successfully ran a red light without causing an accident, therefore, we should all just ignore stop lights because they're an authoritarian construct designed to cow us into submission.
Or perhaps it's those authoritarian posters telling young people to use condoms. Because in that one particular bed in that one particular house with that one particular young couple they had unprotected sex without transmitting any STDs or getting pregnant, therefore we can conclude that signage telling people to use condoms is purely a social construct with no long term real world consequences.
But by all means Don Quixote, you keep fighting the good fight.
Sure, conventions that create shelling points to enable coordination on roads are the same as preventing dogs from running around in parks -- the things dogs want to do by nature, in the nature-based parts of cities.
Perhaps it's my inclination against speciesism, and my seeing people much closer to dogs than not -- but I think the regulation of the behaviour of animals, against their natures, is a moral matter.
A convention around how to drive isnt.
As far as STDs go, again: no idiotic blanket rules, indeed. Morality occurs in the negotiation between people in particular circumstances.
Sometimes not wearing a condom is exactly what one should do -- if one wishes, one's partner wishes, and one thinks that this sort of intimate sex is more interesting -- and a core part of a life worth living.
I fear greatly the life painted by how regulated people "ought" be in these trivial matters: how they walk their dogs, how they have sex, and so on. This is very far away from a life which any human animal ought live. It's a life full of petty regulations on behaviour to create the illusion of a safe world.
An illusion which comes at an extremely heavy price: that of enjoying life. A cost I do not want to pay.
Imagine for a moment a person like you, with your impulse to constrain and regulate, was in charge of you
Imagine they did not agree with how you should live your life
What then, would you say to them?
For any issue they wil have their data about marginal changes to safety
You want to do X? why, 0.y% of times X happens, bad things happen!
this is a universal feature of life, and so any idiot can appeal to it
now what do you say to this overbearing regulator of your enjoyment? this person who denies you what you wish to do?
i cannot imagine you are so naive to suppose that what you enjoy is unimpeachably safe
i don't think you have anything to say
rather i read this line of thinking as just moral hypocrisy: you allow yourself to enjoy whatever it is you enjoy, despite these marginal risks -- but when you get no enjoyment from it --- Ah! well then it can be banned
> Was babysitting a family members Pit Bull mix. Her family believes the fatal attack occurred while attempting to stop a fight between the Pit Bull and her 2 Chihuahuas.
...
> Bitten by the family dog while playing outside with adult supervision, later died in hospital.
...
> Was at home to check on his daughters dogs when they attacked him.
...
> A 6-year-old boy was killed by the family dog, a pit bull mix; the boy was severely injured and died in hospital the next day.
---
this isn't abstract or theoretical, this is reality. These are dogs that killed _family members_ in 2023, the list of dogs that injured _people_ is much larger.
The signs aren't abstract and the people who put them up aren't doing them for abstract reasons, but for some reason you want this to be an abstract debate while at the same time complaining that the signs were put up.
That's not how it works.