Anything for attention...sigh.

SoonerAviator said:
Both wearing skinny jeans and thick black framed eyeglasses. Male had a bow tie with a short sleeve plaid shirt and suspenders. Were talking about some new all-natural restaurant they'd just tried and about which one of the new iPhones they were going to upgrade to. Female was exclaiming how "totally zen" the dog was being, and then proceeded to worry about the dog being able to clear his ears of the air pressure. Hipster was about the only descriptive term I can attribute to that.

My earbuds went in shortly after.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh god. The only problem here is that I just got black framed glasses.
 
JimNtexas said:
I don't hate dogs per se, but I just dislike the majority of dog owners, at least we're there a precious little pets are concerned.

When I am king in order to own a dog you must have at least 10 acres per dog in your household. If your lot is smaller than 10 acres then you're banned from owning dogs.

I'm tired of barking pooping biting licking irritating creatures operated by owners with no sense of responsibility to their neighbors whatsoever.

Dog possession outside your 10 acres per dog should be strictly regulated, and require an examination by a designated dog examiner who charges $1000 cash per examination to determine if you are qualified to allow your dog off your personal property.

.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree. I loved my little dogs to pieces. Still can't think about them without getting choked up. But I don't necessarily want anything to do with other people's dogs. I fully understand YOU love them that much. But I don't love your dog so pick up its poop, don't let it jump on me, don't leave it outside to bark all day and don't expect me to oooh and ahhh over it beyond a polite acknowledgement. It's just another animal to me, unless and until it and myself form a friendship which may happen after which I may love your dog. But that's up to me and the dog so don't try to force it.
 
denverpilot said:
That could be a whole thread to itself. I hate it when we drive elderly relatives in their car with a tag, and they exclaim "You can use the handicapped spot!"

No, I can't. I can drop you guys off at the door and park like anyone else and walk my happy ass inside leaving the handicapped spot for someone who actually needs it today. Or an ass who thinks their relative's sticker means they can be a lazy f***.



Now I want to know what "dress attire" on a hipster looks like, and what they talked about. You're killing me Smalls.
Click to expand...

Nate,

Respectfully disagree at least under Michigan law. It is not contingent on the driver being handicapped. If someone aboard is we can park in a handicapped spot but the authorization to do so is contingent on that person having the tag that allows them to do so.
 
Norman said:
Nate,

Respectfully disagree at least under Michigan law. It is not contingent on the driver being handicapped. If someone aboard is we can park in a handicapped spot but the authorization to do so is contingent on that person having the tag that allows them to do so.
Click to expand...

Legal and moral/smart, are rarely the same thing.
 
denverpilot said:
Legal and moral/smart, are rarely the same thing.
Click to expand...
Well that begs the question. If laws are rarely moral, then what defines morality? Laws must represent someone's, or something's morality. Isn't the purpose of laws to enforce a moral code?
 
Love animals.
But don't be rude with them.
If your dog is barking it annoys others, shut it the hell up. Drives many of us crazy.
If it's sniffing around me make it stop. If you don't I will.
Most likely if it's well behaved, I'll ask to pet it.
And for the love of doG pick up after it. If you don't, you're the turd.
Keep it off my property. I have a bb gun if an unleashed dog keeps returning. Works every time.
But i do love the little buggers. Cats too.
 
Cooter said:
Well that begs the question. If laws are rarely moral, then what defines morality? Laws must represent someone's, or something's morality. Isn't the purpose of laws to enforce a moral code?
Click to expand...
No, not entirely. I don’t agree they are "rarely moral" but they do not "define morality."

Feel free to disagree, but I do not think it is morally bad to go 35 in a 30 mile zone or to not await the green light at 3am when there is no other traffic in sight at an intersection you would cross without hesitation based on a stop sign but has traffic light because it’s busy during the day. OTOH, yes, I agree with @denverpilot that it is a limit of ones morality to force a person with limited mobility to walk all the way to the restaurant from the handicapped parking space instead of dropping them off near the door just so you can take advantage of their tag and deny it to someone who actually needs it.

The purpose of laws is to have an ordered society, some being more ordered than others. Basic criminal law philosophy (taught in criminal law 101 but quickly forgotten) discusses two kinds of laws, in Latin of course. "Malum in se," things society believes morally wrong, and "malum prohibitum," things society chooses to prohibit but are not intrinsically bad. I’ll leave exact translations to the scholars, but mine have been, "bad because they are," and "bad because we say so."
 
midlifeflyer said:
"bad because they are," and "bad because we say so."
Click to expand...

I think of it as bad in essence, and "bad" by decree, but we are basically in agreement there. So what Nate is probably saying is that "bad by decree" laws rarely match his idea of what brings about the goal of an ordered society. The powers who possess the right to decree these laws likely have a different vision of an ordered society than he does.

That leaves the question of this moral code that defines behaviors that are good or bad in and of themselves. It must be distinct from that which simply guides us to an orderly society. What makes behaviors bad in their very essence?
 
Cooter said:
I think of it as bad in essence, and "bad" by decree, but we are basically in agreement there. So what Nate is probably saying is that "bad by decree" laws rarely match his idea of what brings about the goal of an ordered society. The powers who possess the right to decree these laws likely have a different vision of an ordered society than he does.

That leaves the question of this moral code that defines behaviors that are good or bad in and of themselves. It must be distinct from that which simply guides us to an orderly society. What makes behaviors bad in their very essence?
Click to expand...
IMO, for better or worse, a consensus of society. That's not "moral relativism." I can judge even an ancient society by my standards. It's just recognizing that societal norms of right and wrong are not universal once we get past a very few generalities.
 
I don't mean to be argumentative. Feel free not to continue but I think this is a good discussion to have. Because if society disagrees on the "mallum in se", there are going to be problems greater than the frustration that Nate expressed.

midlifeflyer said:
That's not "moral relativism."
Click to expand...
:) Hmmm. Sure it is. You are judging another society relative to yours, or relative to your survey of other cultures. The question becomes, by what standard are you judging? Simply by the differences from your own? Or maybe by the prevalence or universality of a certain behavior?
 
Cooter said:
I don't mean to be argumentative. Feel free not to continue but I think this is a good discussion to have. Because if society disagrees on the "mallum in se", there are going to be problems greater than the frustration that Nate expressed.


:) Hmmm. Sure it is. You are judging another society relative to yours, or relative to your survey of other cultures. The question becomes, by what standard are you judging? Simply by the differences from your own? Or maybe by the prevalence or universality of a certain behavior?
Click to expand...
I’m judging by my standards of morality.

I guess you are right. I’ve always thought of moral relativism as an acceptance of the validity of other moral imperatives even if they were different than yours. Looking at the definition, it appears you are correct.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I’m judging by my standards of morality.

I guess you are right. I’ve always thought of moral relativism as an acceptance of the validity of other moral imperatives even if they were different than yours. Looking at the definition, it appears you are correct.
Click to expand...
You were looking at the effect of moral relativism, which will often lead further to the conclusion that all moral principles are equal. Many people hold this view without being aware of it.

I agree that you are judging by your own standard of morality, but that leaves us with the problem that is encountered when your neighbor disagrees with you.
 
Cooter said:
You were looking at the effect of moral relativism, which will often lead further to the conclusion that all moral principles are equal. Many people hold this view without being aware of it.

I agree that you are judging by your own standard of morality, but that leaves us with the problem that is encountered when your neighbor disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. But those areas tend to be small because most societies as a whole have a set of common moral principles. A successful diverse society will also understand that everything one believes is not a moral absolute and recognize the validity of some divergence - people can disagree on issues without one of them being evil or unhuman - you don't need to stone people who don't believe in =your= version of a supreme being. If we're waxing philosophical (and no one but you and me seems interested), there is a balance between the purported effect of relativism and moral absolutism, and most of the problems in this country right now can be traced to that balance being way out of kilter. I have people I consider good friends on both sides of the political spectrum - "gun nuts who want to kill everyone" and "anti-gun lunatics wito want to take away our rights" for example. Some on each end would consider the other an extremist who has views not even worth considering. There's no way to even discuss an issue rationally. We've always had that problem; I think it's intrinsic to a diverse society. The successful ones adapt; the unsuccessful ones fall apart.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Of course it does. But those areas tend to be small because most societies as a whole have a set of common moral principles. A successful diverse society will also understand that everything one believes is not a moral absolute and recognize the validity of some divergence - people can disagree on issues without one of them being evil or unhuman - you don't need to stone people who don't believe in =your= version of a supreme being. If we're waxing philosophical (and no one but you and me seems interested), there is a balance between the purported effect of relativism and moral absolutism, and most of the problems in this country right now can be traced to that balance being way out of kilter. I have people I consider good friends on both sides of the political spectrum - "gun nuts who want to kill everyone" and "anti-gun lunatics wito want to take away our rights" for example. Some on each end would consider the other an extremist who has views not even worth considering. There's no way to even discuss an issue rationally. We've always had that problem; I think it's intrinsic to a diverse society. The successful ones adapt; the unsuccessful ones fall apart.
Click to expand...
You've obviously done some thinking on this. My thoughts aren't complete but I think some understanding of it is necessary in order to have real stability. The problem we face now, in an increasingly diverse society, is that we no longer agree on which moral principles are absolutes. I wish there was more discussion along those lines. Diversity as a goal in itself is problematic without considering the ramifications of trying to blend cultures with differing moral principles. Pragmatic approaches to ordering a society fall short of providing a stable framework. The result will be something very similar to what we're seeing today.

Thanks for the interaction!
 
SoonerAviator said:
Now, neither one had any sort of service animal regalia on, so I assume they just paid to have them on the flight, but who knows.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe there is any airline that would for any amount of money allow a non-service dog in the cabin (except the under-the-seat kind).

Were you flying charter?
 
deonb said:
I don’t believe there is any airline that would for any amount of money allow a non-service dog in the cabin (except the under-the-seat kind).

Were you flying charter?
Click to expand...

Was a UAL flight on an Airbus A319. No charter flight at all. Neither dog had a service vest of any sort, and were both easily 40lbs+. They may have been PTSD-related, but who knows.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Was a UAL flight on an Airbus A319. No charter flight at all. Neither dog had a service vest of any sort, and were both easily 40lbs+. They may have been PTSD-related, but who knows.
Click to expand...

There was a large dog on my flight this week. Had a vest that said "don't pet this dog" but nothing about why not. I figured it was either a service dog or a drug/bomb sniffer. Security had come around to the gate and pulled one of the pax just as we were boarding for some sort of search. Alarmed me at first, I thought they were after me because my carry on had been pulled for open search due to the few dozen metal wires embedded into my foam hair rollers, my big tub of eczema cream, my powdered herbal supplements, and my assorted personal hygiene products he held up for the world to see. I was sure he thought he hadn't screened me enough. He asked me what each item was, (Me: "foam hair curlers containing wires so you can twist them shut!:D" "prescription eczema cream!:D" "That? That's exactly what it says on the box.") After reading the box he puts it all back without actually opening and testing any of it. I figured he had second thoughts and sent them after me but no, it was someone else.
 
Any dog can be called a service dog and the lawyers have made sure it’s a violation of someone’s “rights” to ask for proof.

Still waiting for someone to show up at a store with a Great Dane with one of those cute little vests on. LOL.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I disagree with kicking a dog in the head, but at the same time if a dog comes running up to me unprovoked, my first assumption is going to be that it is aggressive - not friendly. I don't understand why people allow their dogs to do this. Just yesterday I was out walking along a country road with my kids when all of a sudden a pit bull comes running out of nowhere straight at us. I quickly grabbed up my kids and started backing up to a fence, ready to throw them over.
Click to expand...

I've been attacked requiring stitches three times from loose dogs that the owner says,"Well, he never did THAT before" ... all times on a walk or bike ride and the dog is loose/running free. I also worked with two other guys prying a pit bull off of a 6 year old that had a lock on the child shoulder and neck - we had to use a rake handle to pry the jaws open, one of the guys even tried the "finger up the dog's ass" wives tail and it did not let go.

To Humanity: Am glad you love your dog(s), I love mine and keep her on a leash ... would appreciate it if everyone else did as well.
 
denverpilot said:
Any dog can be called a service dog and the lawyers have made sure it’s a violation of someone’s “rights” to ask for proof.

Still waiting for someone to show up at a store with a Great Dane with one of those cute little vests on. LOL.
Click to expand...

Under the ADA, (Americans with Disabilities Act) a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

Q37. Do commercial airlines have to comply with the ADA?
A. No. The Air Carrier Access Act is the Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in air travel. For information or to file a complaint, contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, at 202-366-2220.


frequently asked questions: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

And yes, I have thought about getting a vest off the internet and put it on cow and see what people do.....:lol::lol::lol:
 
Zeldman said:
Under the ADA, (Americans with Disabilities Act) a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.

In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

Q37. Do commercial airlines have to comply with the ADA?
A. No. The Air Carrier Access Act is the Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in air travel. For information or to file a complaint, contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, at 202-366-2220.


frequently asked questions: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

And yes, I have thought about getting a vest off the internet and put it on cow and see what people do.....:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
I've seen them on a pig and a goat, so why not?
 
Zeldman said:
And yes, I have thought about getting a vest off the internet and put it on cow and see what people do.....:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

1445481545035.jpg
 
Under the ADA:

>>>
  • Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA.
<<<

>>>
Q1. What is a service animal?

A. Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog must be directly related to the person's disability.
<<<


>>>
In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. (Miniature horses generally range in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weigh between 70 and 100 pounds.) Entities covered by the ADA must modify their policies to permit miniature horses where reasonable. The regulations set out four assessment factors to assist entities in determining whether miniature horses can be accommodated in their facility. The assessment factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken; (2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner’s control; (3) whether the facility can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the miniature horse’s presence will not compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation of the facility.
<<<

>>>
Service Animals. The rule defines "service animal" as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals. Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely for emotional support, are not service animals. The final rule also clarifies that individuals with mental disabilities who use service animals that are trained to perform a specific task are protected by the ADA. The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."
<<<

Definition of "service animal" for different situations - ADA vs Air Carrier Access Act:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/P3.SA_.HUD Matrix.6-28-6.pdf
 
danhagan said:
I've been attacked requiring stitches three times from loose dogs that the owner says,"Well, he never did THAT before" ... all times on a walk or bike ride and the dog is loose/running free. I also worked with two other guys prying a pit bull off of a 6 year old that had a lock on the child shoulder and neck - we had to use a rake handle to pry the jaws open, one of the guys even tried the "finger up the dog's ass" wives tail and it did not let go.

To Humanity: Am glad you love your dog(s), I love mine and keep her on a leash ... would appreciate it if everyone else did as well.
Click to expand...

Dan,

In spite of my wife having bit in the face by a Border Collie when she was three she loved dogs. We loved Norwegian Elkhounds for their temperament and being easy going.

I have had only one encounter that was worrisome. While out for a morning walk A German Shepherd tried to come over the fence but couldn't. He then found an open gate and challenged me on the sidewalk. I drew my gun and had he lunged at me I would have fired. He didn't quit barking at me till I was several hundred feet away. I reported the encounter to our local PD and a week or so later the dog was nowhere to be found. I suspect he was an older dog who had lost it mentally. I didn't want to harm him but he was near a road elementary kids walk to school. I thought it best to report my encounter just in case he may have harmed one of them.
 
Norman said:
While out for a morning walk A German Shepherd tried to come over the fence but couldn't. He then found an open gate and challenged me on the sidewalk. I drew my gun and had he lunged at me I would have fired. He didn't quit barking at me till I was several hundred feet away. I reported the encounter to our local PD ...
Click to expand...

I live nearly out of town in a farming area. The neighbor behind me on 5 acres had 5 German shepherds with two very aggressive. When my son was 3 they used to jump over the 8 foot fence into my yard and run us into our own home. On one occasion, after they attacked a biker, they cornered me in my own drive way, but I was able to escape with only a damaged jacket. I called the police, who went over to the neighbor's house (I warned him how bad that pack was) ... he got jumped as soon as he exited his cruiser. He returned to my house and told me to shoot them the next time they came over. I never had additional problems, but was fairly certain one of the neighbors took care of it.
 
It was on a Sunday morning and had I torched off the .40 I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood would have been in my case ASAP. If it happens again I will not hesitate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top