Anonymous wrote:Did we ever find out which groups of parents were fighting?

Anonymous wrote:This is the single stupidest thread in the history of DCUM, and that's saying a whole lot!
Way to go people!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Damn, based on this craziness we might start hearing about giving dogs voting rights.

Well, it would have saved us from having to deal with the orange man for four years. Just saying ...

I'm not wrong though.

Too bad great grandpa is turning out worse... There were such high hopes. Enjoy, Comrade!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Damn, based on this craziness we might start hearing about giving dogs voting rights.

Well, it would have saved us from having to deal with the orange man for four years. Just saying ...

I'm not wrong though.

Anonymous wrote:
Damn, based on this craziness we might start hearing about giving dogs voting rights.

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