4 ms·

So many complaints in the comments about being single and the burden of having to find someone to care for your pet while you're out of town. If you can't affo

by rconti 9y ago

So many complaints in the comments about being single and the burden of having to find someone to care for your pet while you're out of town. If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. I often joke that I'm not responsible enough to own a dog, or that if I was I'd just have kids. I can leave extra food for the cats and they handle themselves for up to 5 days. If it's more than that, we find someone to check in on them. The fix is not to socialize my 'problem' by finding a way to scam on medical needs and gamble that nobody will challenge my 'medical condition'.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. Yes, but this logic is a slippery slope that drops off into a sewer depending on how far you want to take it. If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. Everything has trade-offs and I'm more inclined to say everyone else should be thicker skinned rather than individuals should be better behaved. It's not the individual's job to look out for everyone else. Bringing a pet or a crying baby on a plane isn't a big deal even if it's a pain in the butt for everyone else. As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be thin skinned when others are inconsiderate. That said, you'd better be pretty f-ed up in the head if you're bringing your dog into the supermarket, on public transit, into Walmart, etc for "emotional support". Edit: Not that I know where the line should be drawn, just that it probably should be drawn somewhere. Also revised some wording. I should have known better than picking this example for this demographic.
- geofft 9y ago
  > If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car. This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. > As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be snowflakes when others are inconsiderate. Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? I thought the original idea was that snowflakes were unique, which means that as an insult, it would be better placed against the person who's doing something unusual compared to the rest of society.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground This requirement is codified in the laws of several states, e.g. Montana [1]. Driving and flying are privileges, not rights. [1] https://www.thebalance.com/chain-laws-by-state-1361486 https://www.thebalance.com/chain-laws-by-state-1361486
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    >This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and behave accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions. More traction doesn't help if your margin for error is close to constant. Same problem with stuff like blind spot detection. >Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? Fixed the phrasing.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and behave accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions The risk of over-steering appears to be compensated for with reduced crash incidence and severity (at least for studded tyres) [1]. More to the point, you changed your goalpost from "this is an unreasonable cost to demand for safety" to "this isn't safe." [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457511003083 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
- paganel 9y ago
  For what it's worth even for those "only" two days per year with snow on the ground driving with snow tires vs driving with normal tires or even with all-seasons could make a hell of a difference (like getting back safe to your home vs kissing a ditch). Source, me, a guy who was at first against the relatively recently introduced legislation that mandated the use of snow tires during the winter months, but who changed his opinion pretty damn fast when I got caught by some early snow (late October - early November, I usually put my winter tires in late November) and I had to drive through the resulting slush like I was on a damn skate-rink. Snow tires do save lives and should be really mandatory even in places where it snows only two days per winter.
  - rconti 9y ago
    On the other hand, here I am driving around on snow tires in a 75 degree California February. They absolutely perform less well than my summer tires do. So in a way you could argue both are irresponsible. Similarly, you might end up in an accident because you bought all seasons instead of high performance tires, and were not able to stop in time. And one could say the same about opting for a car with lesser braking performance.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. I'm skeptical that such people actually exist, or at least exist in significant numbers in places where there's actually snow. You don't need snow tires to drive safely on a snowy road. You just need decent all season tires and the knowledge of when to slow down.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    >I'm skeptical that such people actually exist, or at least exist in significant numbers in places where there's actually snow. Well they exist in significant numbers online. >You don't need snow tires to drive safely on a snowy road. You just need decent all season tires and the knowledge of when to slow down. Exactly. Thinking ahead to the next turn solves most problems.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Maybe the ideal is certain kinds of lizards. Going on vacation? Just stick it in the fridge. Note well: This may not work for all lizards. In particular, it may be lethal for your lizard. Check before trying it.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  You would need a fridge that can maintain a uniform interior temperature of 5 degC--i.e. one with no freezer box--an aquarium air pump, and a UPS. If you're serious, you would also need a CO2/temp/humidity sensor that can report to you via e-mail whenever a fault is detected. It's dangerous to leave fridge hibernators unattended, because things can go wrong while you are away. But while they're in, you only need to check on them once or twice a day, and maybe rehydrate their burrowing substrate. The problem is that you have to prepare for it by gorging to build up energy reserves, then fasting to clear the gut of waste and build up water reserves. It's really not something you would want to do every time you go somewhere. But you can also use long term feeding options like burying beetle larvae and worms instead of just dropping them into the food dish. It will take a while to hunt them all down. More likely you end up with a breeding population in the habitat, and your pet gets fat. Aside from that, birds and mammals make superior pets in almost all ways. The only reason to have a reptile pet is if people in the household are allergic to both dogs and cats.
logfromblammo 9y ago
The other side of this coin is the number of times a passenger has entrusted their pet's well-being to the airline, and later discovered that was a really, really bad idea. This works out to about 0.5 deaths per 10000, but United apparently breaks guitars and kills or injures pets much more often than other carriers. That may be related to their willingness to actually attempt to transport species and breeds at higher risk from conditions experienced during air travel, like pugs. I am not surprised that people will do anything to keep their valuables--living or not--out of United's cargo holds. I am a bit surprised that their genius solutions still involve flying United. My terrapin is never flying. I get nervous enough about putting my clothing in checked baggage. And also, she's easier to keep fed than a cat. But cats poop in their litter box instead of their water dish, so there's that.

by rconti 9y ago

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. Yes, but this logic is a slippery slope that drops off into a sewer depending on how far you want to take it. If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. Everything has trade-offs and I'm more inclined to say everyone else should be thicker skinned rather than individuals should be better behaved. It's not the individual's job to look out for everyone else. Bringing a pet or a crying baby on a plane isn't a big deal even if it's a pain in the butt for everyone else. As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be thin skinned when others are inconsiderate. That said, you'd better be pretty f-ed up in the head if you're bringing your dog into the supermarket, on public transit, into Walmart, etc for "emotional support". Edit: Not that I know where the line should be drawn, just that it probably should be drawn somewhere. Also revised some wording. I should have known better than picking this example for this demographic.

geofft 9y ago
> If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car. This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. > As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be snowflakes when others are inconsiderate. Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? I thought the original idea was that snowflakes were unique, which means that as an insult, it would be better placed against the person who's doing something unusual compared to the rest of society.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground This requirement is codified in the laws of several states, e.g. Montana [1]. Driving and flying are privileges, not rights. [1] https://www.thebalance.com/chain-laws-by-state-1361486 https://www.thebalance.com/chain-laws-by-state-1361486
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and behave accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions. More traction doesn't help if your margin for error is close to constant. Same problem with stuff like blind spot detection. >Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? Fixed the phrasing.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and behave accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions The risk of over-steering appears to be compensated for with reduced crash incidence and severity (at least for studded tyres) [1]. More to the point, you changed your goalpost from "this is an unreasonable cost to demand for safety" to "this isn't safe." [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457511003083 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
paganel 9y ago
For what it's worth even for those "only" two days per year with snow on the ground driving with snow tires vs driving with normal tires or even with all-seasons could make a hell of a difference (like getting back safe to your home vs kissing a ditch). Source, me, a guy who was at first against the relatively recently introduced legislation that mandated the use of snow tires during the winter months, but who changed his opinion pretty damn fast when I got caught by some early snow (late October - early November, I usually put my winter tires in late November) and I had to drive through the resulting slush like I was on a damn skate-rink. Snow tires do save lives and should be really mandatory even in places where it snows only two days per winter.
- rconti 9y ago
  On the other hand, here I am driving around on snow tires in a 75 degree California February. They absolutely perform less well than my summer tires do. So in a way you could argue both are irresponsible. Similarly, you might end up in an accident because you bought all seasons instead of high performance tires, and were not able to stop in time. And one could say the same about opting for a car with lesser braking performance.
Slansitartop 9y ago
> If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. I'm skeptical that such people actually exist, or at least exist in significant numbers in places where there's actually snow. You don't need snow tires to drive safely on a snowy road. You just need decent all season tires and the knowledge of when to slow down.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >I'm skeptical that such people actually exist, or at least exist in significant numbers in places where there's actually snow. Well they exist in significant numbers online. >You don't need snow tires to drive safely on a snowy road. You just need decent all season tires and the knowledge of when to slow down. Exactly. Thinking ahead to the next turn solves most problems.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Maybe the ideal is certain kinds of lizards. Going on vacation? Just stick it in the fridge. Note well: This may not work for all lizards. In particular, it may be lethal for your lizard. Check before trying it.

logfromblammo 9y ago
You would need a fridge that can maintain a uniform interior temperature of 5 degC--i.e. one with no freezer box--an aquarium air pump, and a UPS. If you're serious, you would also need a CO2/temp/humidity sensor that can report to you via e-mail whenever a fault is detected. It's dangerous to leave fridge hibernators unattended, because things can go wrong while you are away. But while they're in, you only need to check on them once or twice a day, and maybe rehydrate their burrowing substrate. The problem is that you have to prepare for it by gorging to build up energy reserves, then fasting to clear the gut of waste and build up water reserves. It's really not something you would want to do every time you go somewhere. But you can also use long term feeding options like burying beetle larvae and worms instead of just dropping them into the food dish. It will take a while to hunt them all down. More likely you end up with a breeding population in the habitat, and your pet gets fat. Aside from that, birds and mammals make superior pets in almost all ways. The only reason to have a reptile pet is if people in the household are allergic to both dogs and cats.

logfromblammo 9y ago

The other side of this coin is the number of times a passenger has entrusted their pet's well-being to the airline, and later discovered that was a really, really bad idea. This works out to about 0.5 deaths per 10000, but United apparently breaks guitars and kills or injures pets much more often than other carriers. That may be related to their willingness to actually attempt to transport species and breeds at higher risk from conditions experienced during air travel, like pugs. I am not surprised that people will do anything to keep their valuables--living or not--out of United's cargo holds. I am a bit surprised that their genius solutions still involve flying United. My terrapin is never flying. I get nervous enough about putting my clothing in checked baggage. And also, she's easier to keep fed than a cat. But cats poop in their litter box instead of their water dish, so there's that.