Hahaha they are low quality because I didn't want the page to suck up too much bandwidth (at the bottom there is a link for high(er) quality version, but the full quality version is not on the server). Thank you for your kind comments about my dog, I'm crazy in love with him and the bond only gets stronger as time passes.
I love the last paragraph, it's a great attitude to have. We should apply it in other areas of our lives too. It's like putting up Christmas lights, we rarely enjoy our own Christmas lights, but people driving or walking past our homes do enjoy them a lot.
> 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.
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").
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.
> 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.
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
What a great story. We have a 3 year old Bernedoodle who resembles a walking sheep on stilts and is around 90 pounds. It is always a joy to take her out at pet allowing public places and see people’s faces just light up when they see her trotting around, tail wagging. She is friendly but also doesn’t greet strangers unless we initiate it. Never had to train her for that, she just always seems to know my comfort levels.
> But it’s not the same as with the other two dogs I’ve had in adulthood, who were so much more excited to see me every day. It has been a disappointment, if I’m honest.
That's the weird thing about dog people (mostly). They need this affection. They crave it. It's nearly the core reason they have a dog. As a cat person, begrudging tolerance on their own terms is the only thing I'd expect from a pet.
The most annoying thing is cat people being smug about people who like dogs and pets that visibly show affection. "I'm cooler than you because I don't need the affection of a dog."
This mark of pride in not needing love, probably borne out of misanthropy or misplaced sense of superiority, isn't as cool as you guys think. You still synthesise happy love and bonding chemicals when you stroke your cat like everybody else, or you wouldn't get one in the first place.
Sincerely, one that loves the independence of cats and the empathy of dogs. I only wish I could have both...
But that's where you are wrong. I, like many other cat people /live/ for cat affections. My cat gives it only whe deserved or when affection back is requested, and I accept it with enthusiasm every time. Every time she does it, it feels like a gift. Every time a strange cat does it, it feels like the biggest gift. Cat affection (from my experience) is not unconditional, and that's what makes it special. My cats get mad at me sometimes, and they show it, but they always forgive.
Maybe it's co-dependence, and maybe it's the inverse of a human/dog relationship.
Maybe it's like earned love vs unconditional love? Love earned with patience and care feels better for cat lovers. Dog lovers prefer unconditional kind. Maybe?
Ridiculous. This is such an odd generalization, but I can only assume it's coming from a self satisfied "cat person."
Have you done enough polling out on the street to determine the sole reason for people owning dogs?
Anecdotally the reason that I own a dog rather than a cat is because I prefer a playmate that I can physically roughhouse and wrestle with. Try tackling your 10 pound cat and see what you get.
My 80 pound half husky half great Pyrenees has zero issues with going out on a 5 mile run with me every morning too - she's like a drooling portable gym membership.
Yeah. I won't go so far as "weird", but definitely "foreign". I think of it as an introvert/extrovert-type self-selection. Some people are energized by energy! Having a dog be excited just to be around you puts so much energy into the area that it's hard to ignore. Dogs are just bright glowing balls of pure joy.
But for those of us who do NOT get energized by energy, but rather get drained by things around us being too energetic (music is oppressively loud, sports fans are happy or angry, games are too chaotic, everyone is talking over everyone else, etc.), a dog is more like a very small version of those things which grate on us. And, in the same way that I love a good concert but still find someone cranking up their stereo in the car irritating can't be boiled down to "loud music bad"; dogs can't be boiled down to "dogs too energetic/needy".
Personally, I'm a "friend of dogs". I will never own one (though I may cohabitate with one; I wouldn't dream of imposing pet limitations on my SO), I won't spent a lot of time with any of them. But I will always be happy to see a dog; I will always try to engage them and play with them; I will always be grateful that there is a dog around, so long as it's not my responsibility to attend to their neediness. Dogs are some of the greatest friends I've ever known. I'm just not the type of person who can responsibly care for one, so I won't.
Cats, on the other hand, are the inverse. For people who are bored when they sit in silence, or people who constantly want to be "active", or people who like to lead instead of follow - for extroverts, cats are such non-entities. It's like... why hold affection for something that can't clearly demonstrate any particular feeling about me?
But I'm 1000% with you; I like to live around animals and essentially let them live their own lives with the small exceptions of providing stable food and water. That goes for any kind of animal, but doing so with dogs tends to make neurotic and depressed dogs, so I don't. But I'd live with apes, rodents, avians, and reptiles, so long as they manage their own business and leave me alone. Hell, cows are delightful if you've ever been around them long enough for them not to run away from you. So it's a blanket policy of "limited affection available for temporarily-needy stoics" for my pet ownership (and most human friendships, honestly), which is pitch-perfect for cats.
As an introvert with dogs, this is spot on. I also think that for some introverts, part of the introversion has a social anxiety aspect where we’re over analyzing every interaction, which is also exhausting. With dogs you have none of that. It’s relaxing because of how straightforward it is.
That isn’t to say “replace people with dogs”, we all need human relationships. Just that it’s sometimes nice to have a furry friend who doesn’t judge you.
Ah, good point! Even after the introvert/extrovert split (which, itself, has outliers), there's still the "what kind of introvert" splitting to be done.
As a "cat person", I think there is another dimension that's somewhat related to introvert/extrovert, but not the same - independence vs hierarchy (aka boundaries). If a cat doesn't want you to interact with them in some way, they're going to react negatively regardless of their opinion of you. They're essentially their own independent entities who come together by mutual consent. That is an anathema to someone expecting to dictate the agenda for those "under" them, which I suspect is responsible for that tired refrain that cats don't love their owners.
There are different kinds of dogs. Mine is a couch potato. He just wants to curl up in your lap, nothing more. Not too energetic. I've met those dogs too. Friendly but can be annoying.
Also, we have a native central american dog, according to her DNA and Cornell Vet School's database, and she's basically like our cats.
She's not attention seeking, unless we're all playing, and she's very pack loyal, like our cats.
With strangers, like the local coyotes or bobcats(lynxes), she'll just stare observing the person but never be up in their personal space seeking attention. Just observes...
