Yes, its also necessary for them to look a certain way, smell a certain way, be a certain height, race and be in a particular tax bracket. They only look for conditional relationships, who you are is the least of their concerns...

I am aware of no valid excuse for having an uncontrolled pet animal anywhere but on one's own property or residence. The excuse, "It is just friendly" is extremely inconsiderate --�� many people do not like contact with animals, some are afraid of or allergic to animals, some have had bad experiences with animals in the past. In public they have a right to be unmolested by the "pets" of others.

Children can be traumatized by a "friendly" dog. People wearing nice clothes probably don't relish animal hair, saliva or paw prints. Those with nice vehicles perhaps do not wish to be "greeted" by a dog jumping on or a cat climbing on their car. Any who prefer to avoid fleas, ticks and animal-associated diseases do not desire close contact.

In one's own domain it is a different matter; however, visitors should be made aware that they will be entering an area that serves as animal housing and that they may be subject to various animal behaviors.

A while ago, we had a paramedic that was bitten by someone's dog as he was trying to help someone that called 911. Needless to say; dog was removed and owner fined. A good example of what I was saying about keeping your pets under control. If you cats run around the house; that is your business; but they shouldn't be running in the streets. We had two dogs and one cat recently killed by an animal abuser. I hope that person gets some prime jail time but I also hope the owners get a fine for letting their pets loose and not protecting them.

Oh no problem. You can be fined or even have the pet removed from the home. Think of it this way a pet comes rushing at a person and the person gets frightened; they could have a heart attack or fall back and injure themselves. Now its also grounds for a lawsuit as well as having your pet removed. Animals are unpredictable. If a person came running at you without warning; I doubt you would just stand there and smile. It would frighten you so you have to think about the person that is unfamiliar with your pet. To me; it's common sense to keep your pet under control when other people are in the house. We have very strict laws here about pets. Both cats and dogs must be licensed and neither is allowed to run freely outside of your property. Leashes must be used for both cats and dogs. Fines start at $250.00.

What Singmesweet said and yes, when I go out with my dog I do allow her to go up and say hello to people sometimes. I'm not responsible for other people's phobias and pet peeves, if you will excuse the pun. It doesn't matter what anyone on the internet says that I'm morally obliged to do because I will continue to do what I like within the law in my own country. I'll take hir into shops and pubs, or anywhere else that I like unless somebody tries to stop me. If they don't say to me that dogs aren't allowed I'm just going to assume that it's alright and the same goes for when she wants to go up to people or other dogs in the street. There isn't even a leash law in this city and I'm not obliged to keep her on one but I do because I want to be able to control her when I think that I need to and not in situations where people on the internet tell me that I'm morally obliged to. If you want to walk about the streets of this city you are going to see dogs in the streets and in parks. As long as they don't foul the pavement or bite anybody that's within the law and if I do choose to restrain my dog I do so as a courtesy to people that ask me to or back away when she aproaches them.

Here it is law to keep your pets under control. If someone is at your house be it the mailman, pizza delivery man, paramedics, police;etc you must keep it under control; friendly or not.

sounds like she wanted the ones she had

what I don;t get is why a 4 legged saliva producer is more important than a loving woman who will make you breakfast

Well said, sweetestgirl11.

Owners ARE ethically responsible for the actions of their pets, and a responsible owner does not allow their pet to inflict itself in any way where it is unwelcome.

. . .

Regarding "unconditional love" from an animal: Those who need or want that sort of relationship are certainly entitled to have one. It may, however, discourage a love relationship with a human who does not have similar needs.

if your dog jumps up on someone or makes physical contact in any way with someone who does not want that contact... it is definitively forcing the dog on them. I am simply giving the perspective of someone who does not want contact with pets - unless I choose to pat them on the head or whatever. I understand mistakes can happen. Perhaps the pizza delivery person should have called on his way to remind you to make sure any pets were restrained. My dog that I had as a kid used to jump on people, and I understand it can be hard to prevent - I'd put her in a bedroom and someone else in the family would open the door...

It sounds like you are a good dog owner, but definitely not going to be compatible with someone who does not want to live with a pet, and that's fine. It's a preference.

Quite frankly their are many dog owners who do not restrain their pets and have a snotty attitude about having to do so (therefore we have laws). I don't think you are one of those though. Not at all. I feel just as you do. I do not have pets and if someone does not like that...tough :)

doesn't mean we can't chat tho'

And all liberals do is whine

EXACTLY

Majority opinion seems to be "If you don't LOVE kids and pets (24/7) you can't be a very good person" (and if you don't worship / idolize one of the "gods" you must be a TERRIBLE person).

What is it about kids and pets that imparts "goodness?" If a person is an upstanding citizen, honest, dependable, generous, willing to help those in need, etc, etc -- but prefers to interact with adult humans vs. relating to kids and pets -- WHY, exactly, are they "bad" or "not very good?"

If religion makes a person "good", why are most incarcerated criminals Christians -- and why is the divorce rate among religious people as high or higher than that of non-religious couples?

Not important but lots o' fun! The only down side is I have to deal with women to do it, in the end it isn't worth the price they make you pay.

how ur two weeks spended

I think of India as a magical place to visit. As a female, however, there is no way I could go there. Lately there is too much bad pr. The village may decide Im out too late or dating the wrong person so I must be violently raped.

Agreed -- or some might confuse what is required of friends vs. what is required for coupledom.

When I see that in a profile (which is surprisingly often), no matter how appealing it might be otherwise, that is as far as I read



Agreed -- thankfully

Ladies, is it really necessary for a man to "love dogs, kids and god" to be your friend?

I get what your saying. But I'm probably one of those people guilty of this. Mostly because I can't remember which one of some of these to use. Like the then and than. Sometimes I just forget. It's called a brain fart. lol