Dogs could soon be allowed in eateries in SA (San Antonio: camp, food)

[V3rtigo]

Originally Posted by perticusrex

throw in some skrimps

too expensive, those are only on the night tables.

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by V3rtigo

my last point here:

let the restaurant owner decide if to allow dogs. you can choose where you want to eat. the system corrects itself, but i can guarantee that any place that allows dogs will not be hurting for business.

Well said, and I agree.

[Bo]

Some posts in this thread were deleted. If the thread is to stay open, this discussion must be more civil and on-topic than it was with the deleted posts in it. For a useful discussion, follow the sections of the TOS below.

Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.

Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.

Hate speech, racism or bashing of ANY sort will NOT be tolerated. Rude posts will be removed and infractions issued. Do not quote or talk to trolls or your posts will also be deleted. Use the report feature instead.

[skeet09]

Originally Posted by budjb

You kidding me? That's no point. Its premise is flawed. We're talking about humans vs dogs. They're not even remotely close to the same thing.

I suppose making that distinction is anti-progressive?

The poster is making a argument about the noise level of loud children and dogs.

[rd2007]

I would vote against this, but because of the dog owners, not the dogs themselves. Unfortunately, too many dog owners fit this pathetic description: Kerry Katona replaces her brown puppy after deciding she didn't like the colour of its fur | Mail Online It would be great if all dog owners were responsible, but only a fool would think that is possible.

[budjb]

Originally Posted by skeet09

The poster is making a argument about the noise level of loud children and dogs.

Eh, kinda. But the point is moot. Children are your children and you must keep them supervised, therefore they go places with you. It's up the parent to discipline them; sometimes they don't. The fact remains that they still have to keep watch over them lest they be removed from their care.

A dog on the other hand is not your child, nor is it human. It's an animal. It may be better behaved than some children, but it matters not. You can leave a dog at home unsupervised and as long as it has basic necessities everyone's happy.

Point is loud, noisy, obnoxious children is a thing we HAVE to deal with, and dogs are not.

Now, I'm not saying I'm against the OT, I just didn't like how someone tried to spin the argument around to make a point, but it doesn't make sense.

[skeet09]

Originally Posted by budjb

Eh, kinda. But the point is moot. Children are your children and you must keep them supervised, therefore they go places with you. It's up the parent to discipline them; sometimes they don't. The fact remains that they still have to keep watch over them lest they be removed from their care.

A dog on the other hand is not your child, nor is it human. It's an animal. It may be better behaved than some children, but it matters not. You can leave a dog at home unsupervised and as long as it has basic necessities everyone's happy.

Point is loud, noisy, obnoxious children is a thing we HAVE to deal with, and dogs are not.

Now, I'm not saying I'm against the OT, I just didn't like how someone tried to spin the argument around to make a point, but it doesn't make sense.

In some neighborhoods where dogs are roaming the streets without homes, homeowners are required to experience loud dogs (barking all day and night because they're hungry) and obnoxious dogs(because they get into their yards, gardens and create a mess) so I can see how some folks are stressed about not only loud and obnoxious children in the neighborhood but from dogs as well. This has become a huge issue with the large amount of strays we have in our city.
In other words, folks like the poster go to a restaurant and be witness to the unruly behavior of a child and on the other hand another diner cannot bring their dog along even though the dog is well mannered and is not creating an unpleasant environment for the rest of the diners.
That's what I took from reading that post. Agree to disagree I suppose.

[skeet09]

Overall, I think it's something that is up to the restaurant to decide whether or not to allow pets in their patio/outdoor areas.

[stoneoak]

You know the cleanliness of restaurants in San Antonio -- particularly on the River Walk -- is already questionable...certainly don't want to be eating a meal while Lassie is at the next table licking his you know what. And gawd knows...people won't be picking up all that dog poop left behind either.

[HisLilSecret]

I love dogs and have had a few in my life, but a dog is a dog. There are people places and there are dog places. Restaurants (with or without patios) are people places. Children are people, so they belong in people places. See the logic?