Without quoting specific people since I'm very clearly not interested in personal attacks and flamewars (despite having been personally called out as "bs" and other such things by some of you in this thread), some of you are now bringing up the argument that the dog may actually be more important than the human from a societal standpoint; i.e., the dog may be a SAR dog and may save numerous human lives trapped beneath a building, and thus it's more important than another human's health.

Effectively, what you're arguing is, the rights of society are greater than individual rights. Since the dog can help multiple people, it's a greater benefit to society than a single human's health, and its presence takes precedent regardless of the resulting infringements on individuals.

My disagreement with that argument aside, I'm pretty sure posts like that belong in the "OMNI" forums. Y'all had a decent enough, relevant argument when you were talking about comparing the rights of two individuals... but clearly we're off that track now.

On that note, I think I'm done on this thread... My points have been made; those of you who are going to agree with me probably did before I even wrote a single word, and those of you who don't aren't going to no matter what, so really, what's the point? It's like arguing politics in high school... it's all a load of BS, and you're never going to persuade anyone else anyway.