Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

> and the stylist insisted that Agnes roam the place unattended

Am I alone in thinking this is rude and inconsiderate? If you bring an animal in public around other members of society, you should supervise and control it. Not doing so is at a bare minimum irresponsible.

How well-behaved the animal has been historically is not relevant.

Liking dogs is not a universal trait, not everyone wants them near. It’s the owner’s responsibility to the rest of society to supervise their animal and make sure it doesn’t go near people who don’t want it near them.

View on HN

Be willing to accept that things you find discomfiting not only exist, but are actually good and valuable parts of life for other people. You're not expected to like everything. You're also not entitled to a world tailored to your preferences.

Imposing your preferences on the world leads to a gray, dull uniformity as people race to the bottom of inoffensive, unobjectionable sameness. Find some other salon where you fit better instead of insisting that other people's lives be made worse in order to accommodate you. It's not all about you. Let other people be happy and leave them in peace.

> gray, dull uniformity as people race to the bottom of inoffensive, unobjectionable sameness

You really, quite politely, hit the nail on the head here. I have sort of struggled with my thoughts on this for years at this point. On one hand, I empathize that others don’t want to be uncomfortable. But the process of systemically removing everything remotely objectionable leaves the world soulless.

(And now, suddenly, this is no longer about dogs) I used to be brash and opinionated. I have friends who have always accepted me for who I am, and was generally comfortable with my self. Sometime in the mid 2010s I found myself being more sensitive to the offensiveness of everything. I became more aware of a wider range of faux pas, and began to feel a self-consciousness that I might say or so something that would make others uncomfortable.

I found it easiest to just say less. Reveal less of who I was, what I felt. In a lot of ways I think this was social anxiety. But not just mine, this is a collective effect many of us seem to have suddenly developed on similar timelines. I don’t think this has been a good change and I do feel like part of me is just gone.

I see a lot of raging against woke culture. I don’t ride that train, but in some ways I do get it. If something is offensive (within reasonable limits), I think the world is a little better when we encourage people to cope rather than implore the institutions of the world to cater to universal comfort.

This conversation goes the extra mile in terms of mental gymnastics in order to justify a code violation and a legal liability. This is past the point of preferences or removing possibly offensive elements to end up with a souless society. It's not unreasonable to supervise your dog in a public place, period. This is not a preference thing, this is a legal liability thing.

It's hilarious, really, to draw a parallel between this and generally 'offensive' stuff. Nobody is 'offended' by a lose dog. I see way more people being offended by other people pushing back against the current dog culture by just asking folks to obey social norms and even laws and regulations (just watch downvotes - or the equivalent - pouring in pretty much any online community when you say something even remotely critical). I mean just look at this thread. OP just said it's rude to bring a pet into a public space and not supervise it and got philosophical-level pushback trying to convince everyone that being polite may lead us to a sterile souless society. I'm not sure who feels more offended here.

And this is going to get worse as modern society is using pets as a pacifier against the loneliness crisis we're all facing.

I suppose I'm another mental gymnast, but I understand the sentiment. It's not just about offensiveness, either. I'd add safety. Humans weren't meant to live in protected bubbles. A little bit of chaos is what makes life interesting. And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private.

> And regarding the outrage, a hair salon is not a public place. A park is a public place. Or a public library. Spaces owned by everyone. A private business is exactly that - private.

You're arguing semantics. Replace public place to 'place open to the public' which is what a salon is. Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave. This is why we regulate these spaces as well. The public has access to them, so we have the local government sometimes sending inspectors and such to make sure it's all safe and 'up to code' regardless of how private it is.

If I have a private business, say a store selling candy and toys to kids. And inside my private business, I allow people to smoke and vape freely. Would that be a nice escape from the protected bubble? I think it just adds the little bit of chaos making life interesting.

Another aspect which will spice things up and make life interesting is the premium for the general liability insurance of the business. I mean you only need one person to get mauled and everyone (alive) will learn a very expensive lesson.

It's more than a semantic difference. The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion.

I kind of hear your point about smoking and the fact that we do sometimes regulate certain aspects of these spaces, but I'm not aware of any leash laws, at least in my area, that apply to indoor private spaces.

And I don't mean that just in the sense that "it's not against the law, so to heck with you." You draw a parallel between smoking and a wandering dog (with more snark than was necessary, IMO), but "one of these things is not like the other" as they say.

> The only person with a right to occupy a private person is the owner. Everyone else does so at their discretion.

Not entirely sure why you wrote this, it does not invalidate what I said ("Private business or publicly owned spaces, people do have access to it, unless asked to leave").

More details here: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-private-property

For this conversation, it does not matter. Everyone is free to enter the salon (there is no guard at the door, there is no entry fee, there is no key access, etc..) until asked to leave.

> "one of these things is not like the other"

I agree. One has the possibility of killing a person in a couple of years, another one can kill a person on the spot.

This could just as easily be said verbatim to the person disrupting the status quo with an animal.

You also seem to be assuming that I’m writing this from a place of personal preference to not have dogs near. I wrote very carefully; even if I liked dogs around, I would still consider it rude and inconsiderate, much like smoking indoors.

> It’s the owner’s responsibility to the rest of society to supervise their animal

The rest of society isn't present in the hair salon. Only a select few. If someone objects sure keep the dog leashed, but if no one does I don't see the point. You can't live your life placating hypothetical people who might possibly get upset.

Presumably the stylist had the authority to speak for the salon, and could judge the customers' comfort level.

> How well-behaved the animal has been historically is not relevant.

Not only is it historically relevant, but in fact it is the only thing that is relevant.

Small, well-behaved companion dogs have been allowed to roam free since medieval times, including indoors.

> Liking dogs is not a universal trait, not everyone wants them near. It’s the owner’s responsibility to the rest of society to supervise their animal and make sure it doesn’t go near people who don’t want it near them.

As long as we agree to do the same for little children, who are size and mentally similar to dogs.

> Small, well-behaved companion dogs have been allowed to roam free since medieval times, including indoors.

The dog in question is not small. In fact, a pyr is one of the largest dog breeds.

You are in this case because the problem is with the owner of the business.

I'd say it really depends on the situation: knowing the dog and the people in the vicinity, and being in a position to accept responsibility if anything goes wrong.

But there's also a question of what we want to optimize for: maximize the average pleasure of the people nearby, minimize the worst-case displeasure of anyone nearby, or some mix.

I.M.E. people differ on what that ideal balance is.

I am the owner of the great Great Pyrenees (several in fact: we use them to guard our sheep from cougars - but one that sounds much like Agnes in temperament), and he would never consider going near people. People need to come to him. In this, like most activities, great Pyrenees self-supervise quite well.

> In this, like most activities, great Pyrenees self-supervise quite well.

Hm, except the many cases of them attacking and sometimes killing hikers? I don’t have any specific expertise in the matter but these dogs are famous for being aggressive and attacking anything they deem too close to the cattle, incl humans

I cannot find a single instance of a pyr killing someone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com