Right, OK, I get what you mean.

Well, other than this:

but leashed dogs that are aggressive are worse than a well behaved but unleashed dog so I let the unleashed and behaved ones slide.

Why?

Getting shot in the head is worse than getting stabbed in the calf, but I still think you shouldn’t stab me in the calf! Obviously that’s a very extreme example, but these rules exist for a reason.

The dog may seem well-behaved for now, but what if it gets bothered by something random, as dogs do? The whole point of the rule is to prevent aggressive dogs from bothering people, because owners seem to always think their dogs wouldn’t hurt a fly. If you only complain about a dog being unleashed after a dog misbehaves, then aren’t you just asking for an issue to happen, instead of preventing it by enforcing the rule?

You get what I mean?

Then again, it does bother me when people don’t use crosswalks or cut in line lol

I know it must’ve sucked, but I laughed out loud at your comment.

My thoughts exactly. Robin Hood, but he actually shoots those arrows at a good target.

Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.

Well, that’s why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that… I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said “well I wouldn’t want it banned.”

Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?

Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.

Edit: Wait, now I’m confused.

Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?

I feel like you might’ve misunderstood the question?

When I said “upset” I didn’t mean that you would fly into a fit of rage, I didn’t even really mean that you would confront the other person (though those are things that you might do, I suppose), just that you would find that it sat wrong with you and you would feel that the other person was wrong to do it. Perhaps “upset” was the wrong word to use there, sorry about that.

There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ. They need to be justifiably upset.

That’s why I said that you already agree that the thing should be banned! The whole point is that you already think that they are justifiably upset, and that what the people are doing is wrong and shouldn’t be done.

Sorry… I did get some people before saying that my hypothetical wasn’t very good. I see that it’s caused some confusion for several people.

IDK, frankly I’m just straight up a dog hater. That’s why I posed a hypothetical. With dogs, I just really can’t stand them… Aren’t there like, dog parks or something, where the whole point is that they get to roam free without bothering people? Maybe that’s not available where you are. Maybe you’re really reasonable with when you do it.

I don’t know… I really find it hard to keep my [strong dislike] out of my thoughts here!

Yeah, that makes total sense.

but don’t want it to be required.

That was a key point of my question - that you agree that it should be required - but maybe it shouldn’t have been… Could you elaborate on this?

What would be something that upsets others, but you think shouldn’t be banned/required, you still think people should act in a certain way, but it doesn’t upset you when they don’t?

For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters

Damn, that must suck balls…

I called her out on it

Good on you, dude! I wish I called dog owners on their leash-less dogs more often…

This makes sense!

t which point I get annoyed at someone trying to force other people to stop doing something that matters to them, even if I’m not doing the thing.

That’s why I said that, in the hypothetical, you already agree with the ban! Otherwise, you’d be upset that someone was infringing on someone else’s autonomy for no good reason - in other words, you’d be upset that someone is being upset. Which, yeah I mean it’s really the same thing, in reverse, I guess.

You know, sexism and racism would probably be a much better allegory than vanilla perfume…

What I’ll say is that I really don’t mind it. Personally, I’m not a big fan of AI art at all, and I don’t really use generative AI much in any capacity. I also don’t see generative AI on my feed… Basically ever? I guess because I don’t really browse Local.

db0 is anarchist, and that does come with some lenience that some people might find to be a little off-putting, but the AI part of it is pretty much irrelevant, unless you’re seeking it out - from my experience, at least, and based on how I use Lemmy.

Not that I mean to shill for db0 tho lol use whatever instance you feel like fits you best!

They claim they are not cool with generative AI

Are you sure about that? The instance description explicitly endorses generative AI. I think you might’ve misread.

I think it’s the one I use (dbzer0). I’m pretty sure it’s explicitly pro-AI generated content.

Sorry guys… My gooning streaks are skewing the data; I’m the masturbations Georg and shouldn’t have been counted…

…Nicole?!

How are we supposed to know what you have or have not seen?!

• The Iron Giant
• Succession

LOL… I guess!

That was the joke I think

And now you’re on the Fediverse. I’m thinking there’s something to this cyberastrology stuff…

Yeah, probably… I don’t know, I don’t really want to self-diagnose.