Anonymous wrote:My dog is an honor roll student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Soccer and Technology

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a field is posted no dogs like at sully so you have to walk past the sign with your dog, then it is someone saying the rules don’t apply to me.
When a parent yells at Ref when told not to, same thing
When parents yell at each other cursing they break the law of society
We have rules so people can get along.
There are always people who don’t like the rules or don’t follow them. Dog lover no one cares that your dog wants to say hi. I love dogs. I don’t love your dog and when you tel me he is just friendly I don’t know you or your dog. I don’t walk up to strangers and lick them smell their crotch and then have my wife tell you I’m harmless.
Just admit you are someone who intentionally doesn’t follow t rules. You are who you are. It’s not your dogs fault it’s yours

Not sure what (or who) you are talking about, but I'm the poster who pointed out that leashed dogs are allowed at Fairfax County Parks. I don't take my dog onto the field (inside the fence) at Sully (or anywhere else there is a sign clearly prohibiting dogs). On the walking paths or grassy area outside of the fence at Sully, dogs are fine. That is where my dog and I have watched my kids' games when I've taken him there.

I keep my dog leashed and under control at all times. I do not let him interact with anyone without their consent. I prefer when strangers don't interact with him without my consent either (or let their unwatched kids do so). Most dog owners are the same way.

It seems like you just don't like dogs. Either that or you are one of those obsessively negative people who focus on the minority of bad things and ignore the majority of good things. Either way I feel sorry for you.

This weekend my kid had one game at a school field, one at a county field, and the other at a private venue which does have a no dog policy. So the dog only came to one game. Shockingly, he did not smell anyone's crotch or run onto any fields. He did lick a few hands, but only of people who presented their hands to be licked. He's a cute dog. He thinks everyone in the world exists to be love and be loved, and that's the way he looks at everyone he sees. People smile when they see him. The world needs more smiles.

No need to feel sorry for me or my dog. Your dog may be great. Only now do you clarify and agree that your dog should not be inside fence at Sully. That is the point. Where your dog is allowed do whatever you want. Where your dog is not allowed follow the rule. Rules often have to be made for the worst. If everyone was a good dog or respectful we’d need fewer rules. The rule may bot be necessary for your dog but your dog has to follow it (through your decisions unless your dog can read) because of all the others who have ruined it and caused a rule to be needed.
So consider not trying to make it about me or my dog. It’s not about you or your dog. It’s a rule and you either respect it or you don’t.
And if you are at a game for your kid you are there as a guest and a parent typically and your team agrees to follow the hosting on clubs rules which include no dogs often. People like you just decide to do what you want until challenged then you react like it is the rest of the rule followers that are the problem.

Be a better example for your child and your dog.

WTF are you talking about?

You do realize there is more than one poster on this subject, right?

I am the rule following one.

In fact, I'm so obsessed with following the rules that I actually know what they are. I look them up ahead of time. I look for signs when I arrive, and I actually take the time to stop and read them, just to make sure I'm in compliance.

The OP was about the Dulles Tournament, and complaining how shameful it was that there were "dogs everywhere."

Here are the parks in which the fields for those tournaments were located: https://events.gotsport.com/events/fields.aspx?EventID=84562&FieldID=

Not a single one of them prohibits dogs. Unless the dogs were either (1) unleashed, (2) on the actual fields, or (3) pooping without the owners picking it up, the mere fact that they were "everywhere" doesn't break any rules.


Characterizing behavior as "shameful" even though it is perfectly in compliance with the rules, just because some (not saying you, b/c I don't know which posts were yours vs someone else's - see how that works) don't personally agree with the rules, or don't even bother to find out what the rules actually are - isn't exactly respectful of the rules, now is it?

1. You seem overly impassioned about this.
2. There were dogs within the fence at Sully, some behind goals barking during play - nice for a goalkeeper
3. Any dog owner had to walk past the plates No Dog sign to go inside the fence, I don’t blame the dog unless they can read, but to walk your dog in like that
is an attitude of no shame and no respect, it is shameful
4. You have parsed the OP to say law abiding dog owners are not shameful, the OP noted a series of behaviors and dogs inside the fence was just one
Your attempt to hijack it into a thread about you and your dog shouldn’t be shameful is just obtuse or intentionally deflecting

I guess I can take my cat to a dog park. Or play soccer on it with my friends as the rules don’t prohibit that at FFX Co

You are lucky to be in a county that has dog parks there is even a turf one.

Just stop being obtuse.

If two dogs meet at a field or narrow path and have an altercation, there could be injuries to animals or people. If a pet attacks a person, there is nowhere to go. Several people and pets have been bitten and injured in these circumstances. Well-behaved pets can instigate an incident with a more aggressive animal, and animal behavior experts cannot predict how any two animals will react to each other.

That’s a reason for the rule. Just put it to rest and don’t keep being the guy who says my BMW is very safe and designed to handle speed so I can go fast safely - it’s all about interaction.

Go take your dog for a walk and chill

I think laws prohibiting dogs from public spaces are clearly cruel and unsual punishment for dogs, and completely in contravention of dog rights. Where do you get off with the idea that you should be able to bar another animal from a space just because you are terrified of it, or offended by its smell or whatever other absurd reason you have not to want a dog near you. The dog has every right to be there, and you have every right to avoid the space where the dog is if you want. You do not have the right to ban the dog. What's next? You're going to try and ban birds from flying near your kid's soccer field? Or rabbits? You are absurd!

Anonymous wrote:Dog people be cray

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

1. Rules which exclude an entire species in favor of a different species are - by their nature - unjust.

2. The dogs were perfectly happy with the land in question before the park existed. What gave humans the right to fiddle around with their opposable thumbs ane make a mess of a perfectly good open space which dogs had been using for millions of years? Your "logic" amounts to the claim that humans can do whatever they want and no other species has any rights because they are not like humans. Animal rights cannot depend on the extent to which those animals look and behave like men.

Excluding the other species from what? A soccer field?

The dogs exist because of us. Foxes, Coyotes and other wild canines certainly roam free throughout our area without restriction. Domesticated dogs exist because of us. FOr the most part, they have had a pretty good run too.

Dogs exist because of us? They have had a pretty good run? Which dogs had a good run? The partially dometicated wolves we hunted with hundreds of years ago? Or their descendants born today, leashed every time they go outdoors, banned from public spaces, fed muck out tins, castrated, overweight and underexercised? Dogs are individuals and just because our treatment of a dog's forefather may have been more humane is not excuse to mistreat the god today. Each and every dog has a right to a fair shake.

You just come across as an abuser - justifying your abuse with nonsense arguments to allow you to hide your own complicity in a terrible crime from yourself.

Domesticated dogs have had a good run.

What crime did I commit?

What crime didn't you commit is a better question. And "I don't know" is the answer. I suppose you might be innocent of something, although I doubt it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

1. Rules which exclude an entire species in favor of a different species are - by their nature - unjust.

2. The dogs were perfectly happy with the land in question before the park existed. What gave humans the right to fiddle around with their opposable thumbs ane make a mess of a perfectly good open space which dogs had been using for millions of years? Your "logic" amounts to the claim that humans can do whatever they want and no other species has any rights because they are not like humans. Animal rights cannot depend on the extent to which those animals look and behave like men.

Excluding the other species from what? A soccer field?

The dogs exist because of us. Foxes, Coyotes and other wild canines certainly roam free throughout our area without restriction. Domesticated dogs exist because of us. FOr the most part, they have had a pretty good run too.

Dogs exist because of us? They have had a pretty good run? Which dogs had a good run? The partially dometicated wolves we hunted with hundreds of years ago? Or their descendants born today, leashed every time they go outdoors, banned from public spaces, fed muck out tins, castrated, overweight and underexercised? Dogs are individuals and just because our treatment of a dog's forefather may have been more humane is not excuse to mistreat the god today. Each and every dog has a right to a fair shake.

You just come across as an abuser - justifying your abuse with nonsense arguments to allow you to hide your own complicity in a terrible crime from yourself.

Domesticated dogs have had a good run.

What crime did I commit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

1. Rules which exclude an entire species in favor of a different species are - by their nature - unjust.

2. The dogs were perfectly happy with the land in question before the park existed. What gave humans the right to fiddle around with their opposable thumbs ane make a mess of a perfectly good open space which dogs had been using for millions of years? Your "logic" amounts to the claim that humans can do whatever they want and no other species has any rights because they are not like humans. Animal rights cannot depend on the extent to which those animals look and behave like men.

Excluding the other species from what? A soccer field?

The dogs exist because of us. Foxes, Coyotes and other wild canines certainly roam free throughout our area without restriction. Domesticated dogs exist because of us. FOr the most part, they have had a pretty good run too.

Dogs exist because of us? They have had a pretty good run? Which dogs had a good run? The partially dometicated wolves we hunted with hundreds of years ago? Or their descendants born today, leashed every time they go outdoors, banned from public spaces, fed muck out tins, castrated, overweight and underexercised? Dogs are individuals and just because our treatment of a dog's forefather may have been more humane is not excuse to mistreat the god today. Each and every dog has a right to a fair shake.

You just come across as an abuser - justifying your abuse with nonsense arguments to allow you to hide your own complicity in a terrible crime from yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

1. Rules which exclude an entire species in favor of a different species are - by their nature - unjust.

2. The dogs were perfectly happy with the land in question before the park existed. What gave humans the right to fiddle around with their opposable thumbs ane make a mess of a perfectly good open space which dogs had been using for millions of years? Your "logic" amounts to the claim that humans can do whatever they want and no other species has any rights because they are not like humans. Animal rights cannot depend on the extent to which those animals look and behave like men.

Excluding the other species from what? A soccer field?

The dogs exist because of us. Foxes, Coyotes and other wild canines certainly roam free throughout our area without restriction. Domesticated dogs exist because of us. FOr the most part, they have had a pretty good run too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

1. Rules which exclude an entire species in favor of a different species are - by their nature - unjust.

2. The dogs were perfectly happy with the land in question before the park existed. What gave humans the right to fiddle around with their opposable thumbs ane make a mess of a perfectly good open space which dogs had been using for millions of years? Your "logic" amounts to the claim that humans can do whatever they want and no other species has any rights because they are not like humans. Animal rights cannot depend on the extent to which those animals look and behave like men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.

1. Civil disobedience is dependent upon the rules being unjust. A public park may serve many purposes and some may include accommodations for pets and others may not include accommodations for pets. The motive for the rules may vary from general safety concerns for both pet and human.

2. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? Because the humans built the park. When dogs grow opposable thumbs, create a society beyond pack animals and build a civilization they are free to build their own parks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are we, as humans, going to evolve and stop "owning" any animals? There are FAR FAR too many animals on this planet, especially the human kind.

I'm with you brother. But first let's get rid of these ridiculous bans. One thing at a time.

I can't understand these people who think that because someone, somewhere writes a rule on a piece of paper the rest of us all have to follow it. It makes no sense to me at all. Surely the rest of us should continue to make our own judgments about what is right and wrong and ignore rules which go against our consciences and morality.

That's what the whole civil rights movement was about after all - ignoring rules that were immoral.

How can anyone think it's OK to discrimnate against dogs in this way?

What rights does a dog have? You understand that if your dog was running free in the countryside on a persons farm they have a right to shoot your dog to protect their livestock. Your dog is an animal and is only protected from cruel and unusual treatment. Your dog is property and needs to be licensed and registered within the county it is owned. Your dog is also owned. Your dog is not recognized as anything more than property like your car. It has no inherent rights. It can be put down for any number of reasons, it can be bred, it can be used for labor or entertainment. It has no choice regarding any of these possible paths.

It can be a service dog, it can be a racing dog, it can be breeding dog, a hunting dog, a bomb sniffing dog, a search and rescue dog, it can be used to protect farm animals, it can be used in police work. It can be any of these things with choice. It can be bred with the sole purpose of developing traits that are used for any of the above scenarios.

In short, the dog is what society allows it to be, and in regards of some county parks it is not allowed on them. Just as there are places that you are also denied entry.

You're describing all the rules. Yes - those are the rules. I'm pointing out that those rules are wrong and we have a duty to disobey them. Once upon a time we had rules that defined certain people as slaves. Then we had rules that black people couldn't enter some businesses, or sit in some seats on buses. No doubt by your logic we would still be following those rules - because rules are rules and must be followed.

Should people have followed those rules?

Should we follow the dog rules today? Did dogs get to vote on those rules? I didn't think so. You are a dog slaver.

While I certainly enjoy your trolling I'm willing to continue to play along with your bit as long as you actually make a case beyond false equivalencies. I know you're goofing but commit better and make a actual argument beyond satirical talking points.

My argument does not depend on false equivalencies at all. The proposition consists of "we must follow the rules because they are rules". My counter argument is very simple

1. We should not follow rules because they are rules. Comaprisons to the civil rights movement or Nazis are perfectly valid here and not false equivalence because I am not claiming tha the issues addressed by the rulesets in question are equivalent. m I am making the very basic claim that a rule should not be followed just because it exists, but instead because it is moral And when it is immoral it should not be followed.

2. The second part of my argument is about what is moral. What gives humans the right to ban other animals from parks? I used the question about whether dogs voted on it just to see if I could get the other party to this discussion to think about what gives rules moral weight (personally I don't think such a rule would have any moral weight even if dogs had voted on it - since one dog may not surrender the inalienable right of another dog).

And yes I'm trolling in one regard. In another I'm not.