This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
A dog without leash shows that the owner hasn’t bothered taking dog training classes or in the case of my country that they haven’t bothered learning the law. If they can’t be bothered to do that, I worry that they are not responsible enough to take care of the dog, and they shouldn’t be allowed to own a dog. Dog ownership ought to require a license or mandatory training.
The person using the perfume might also not even know about the issue, but in that case, I don’t think it makes sense to blame the consumer. There are simply too many types of products that are potentially dangerous when used wrong. Perhaps the seller ought to have warned about it, but I doubt that would make much difference. You can still be upset about it being produced. Lots of things are like that.
Sometimes you can blame the consumer and sometimes you can’t.