In recent days, a video was uploaded by a friend of the Internet stating that a man walked his dog without a dog rope and that he met a brother-in-law who was in a hurry to deliver food. As a result, the man forced him to apologize to the dog, and after he was forced to apologize, the man continued to say that he had to wait until “I see how anxious you are to leave later”. In the video, the delivery boy who was prevented from leaving was helpless and repeatedly said, “I didn't mean it, I did not see it.” The Chaoyang police issued a circular stating that the man in the video, Liu Chia, had been subject to administrative punishment.
The aggressiveness of the dog owner in the video and the discomfort of the delivery boy led to a strong and painful contrast, with some netizens saying, “Dogs can understand”: “Not just untie the dog, but look at the aggressive posture as a moral deficit”. As netizens have said, it is neither scientific nor ethical for a dog owner to ask for an apology from a dog-seller instead of a dog-tie to hit him.
First, at the scientific level, the purpose of the apology was to seek forgiveness from the other party. While dogs are the best friends of humanity, we must acknowledge that people are different from dog species, that language is incompatible and emotional incompatibility. So, how does one say "porn" and "forgive" between a man and a dog? The owner of the dog requested that the dog be apologized to him, which would be of no use other than to humiliate the other.
Subsequently, from the standpoint of moral law, the newly amended Animal Disease Prevention Act of the People's Republic of China, which entered into force on 1 May 2021, expressly states: “The carrying of dogs shall be confined to the household and shall be in accordance with the provisions of the regulations and shall be accompanied by such measures as canine plaque”. Thus, in this case, the leashing of the dog by the owner is already illegal. Moreover, the act caused a collision between the dog and the vendor, and it was assumed that the owner had taken the initiative to apologize to the delivery boy and assumed the corresponding legal responsibility. However, instead of “or change” the owner of the dog, he asked the seller to apologize to his dog, a practice that could not be justified.
Now, a lot of dog breeders are used to calling their dogs "masters" and expressing their love for dogs in a tactful way. Dog-keepers treat dogs as “masters” with care and care, and such behaviour itself is a personal preference. However, the fact that pets can be treated as “masters” does not mean that others can be treated as “slaves”; it can be filled with love for pets, and it does not mean that one can lose consciousness for others.
Where's the dog master's arrogance? This may be due in part to extreme dog love and in part to the disrespect inherent in the profession of a salesman. However, as a human being, the delivery brother is also consistent with the Maslowian demand theory and has a spiritual need for respect. More importantly, the fact that there is no distinction between high and low occupations and that hand-outs belong to service staff does not mean that they are inferior. On the contrary, they are truly worthy of respect when they come out of the rain every day only to send their meals to their homes. As members of the public, we should have more goodwill and less malice with regard to the group of hand-outs; more tolerance and less hardship.