3 ms·

> Tons of effort to keep that from happening, and to have a pet that doesn’t destroy your home? It's their home too. OP's situation was a rescue dog from a li

> Tons of effort to keep that from happening, and to have a pet that doesn’t destroy your home? It's their home too. OP's situation was a rescue dog from a likely abusive previous home. There are often pets available for people who are not able to handle that situation; My dog peed on the rug occasionally for about 3 weeks, and pooped indoors twice, and it's not happened again in 3 years. To pull the "children" card, children make huge messes, cannot be unattended or unsupervised for years, destroy homes, and yet that's not seen as "burdensome"

ako 5y ago
Children are seen as burdensome, but as most parents will say: "It's all worth it, you get so much in return"... I think what parent was really asking is "why bother having a dog at all"?
- jthrowsitaway 5y ago
  Companionship and undying loyalty. They are fun to have around.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    It’s undying physical and emotional dependence, not loyalty. That said, maybe that’s fun for you; everyone has their own preferences.
    - thih9 5y ago
      This comment seems needlessly condescending. It looks like the concept of dog ownership is making you worried or puzzled? In the past I also didn’t get dog ownership and now it makes sense to me, if that helps. I’m not saying that it should make sense to you (see also my earlier comment [1]). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30741072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30741072
      - teakettle42 5y ago
        I think the relationship is itself pathological, and it’s burdensome to the rest of us that have to deal with modern codependent dog owners bringing their ill-behaved pet everywhere.
        srean 5y ago
        As opposed to a cohort of self-centered, relationship handicapped, intolerant jerks prone to narrow mindedness and rude rants on discussion forums and elsewhere, I know which one I would prefer to have for a harmonious society and whom I find more offensive.
        teakettle42 5y ago
        > self-centered, relationship handicapped, intolerant jerks prone to narrow mindedness and rude rants on discussion forums and elsewhere You could easily be describing the dog owners here who were just confronted with the fact that their emotional codependency with a dirty animal — and tendency to replace healthy human relationships, foisting their pet onto others in public, at restaurants, on trails, et al — is not, in fact, a behavior subject to universal acclaim.
        thih9 5y ago
        I agree about causing actual inconvenience in public places, this shouldn't happen. But why are you bothered by the fact that some people are emotionally codependent with a dirty animal? I think you should either let people and dogs enjoy each other; or show some actual proof that the human-dog relationship is harmful; but many sources say otherwise [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–canine_bond#Benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–canine_bond#Benefits
        maccard 5y ago
        > it’s burdensome to the rest of us that have to deal with modern codependent dog owners bringing their ill-behaved pet everywhere. I have had _far_ more issues with people bringing their ill behaved friends/children/parents places than I have with pets. If you go out to a café for lunch, it's acceptable to leave children run around because that's what kids do, but dogs are almost always kept quietly under the table out of the way. It's common for people to blast crappy music on the beach that everyone else around them has to listen to, or for them to leave rubbish behind them, yet it's expected (rightly so) that I pick up after my dog and keep her out of the way of other people on the beach.
- maccard 5y ago
  It's the exact same response, you get so much in return!
teakettle42 5y ago
> It's their home too. It’s not. You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal to inhabit your home. There’s a difference. > To pull the "children" card … Children are seen as burdensome, but they are also seen as human, and eventually, will be human adults. They also tend to not do things like eat your furniture, can be more regularly bathed, and smell a lot better, too. Oh, and they’re humans. Did I mention that already? If a non-human animal is slotting itself into our biological drive to parent, that’s a parasite.
- caleb-allen 5y ago
  Jeez, what's with the hate? Why do you have such a problem with somebody else caring about an animal as if it were family?
- rawTruthHurts 5y ago
  > It’s not. It is. > Children are seen as burdensome Children are burdensome full stop. They eat my money, which hurts me more than if they chewed on the furniture. > Oh, and they’re humans. Yes, they are. The waste of resources and pollution they imply is massive compared to dogs. But why caring about the environment, there's a lot of everything for everyone laying around, isn't it. > non-human animal is slotting itself He hasn't. He roams around freely. > You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal Yes it's my choice and it gets as dirty as my kid does. Guess what, they're animals. Did you notice already? They're animals like you.
- maccard 5y ago
  > It’s not. You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal to inhabit your home. There’s a difference. My home with a dog is much cleaner than most of my friends with toddlers. My dog keeps herself _mostly_ clean and groomed, my friends kids do _not_. > They also tend to not do things like eat your furniture, can be more regularly bathed, and smell a lot better, too. Not all dogs chew destructively, and most that do tend to have other behavioural issues. Are you really claiming that children _aren't_ destructive to your home? My parents tell the story of the time I decided that the TV character was thirsty so I poured a soda into the VCR over the CRT TV and destroyed both of them. Dogs don't sweat, so they dont' _need_ to be bathed as regularly. Sure she rolls around in crap in the park every few days and gets hosed down in the bath, but that's about the extent of it really. > Oh, and they’re humans. Did I mention that already? Children being human doesn't mean that dogs don't deserve to coexist with us.

ako 5y ago

Children are seen as burdensome, but as most parents will say: "It's all worth it, you get so much in return"... I think what parent was really asking is "why bother having a dog at all"?

jthrowsitaway 5y ago
Companionship and undying loyalty. They are fun to have around.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  It’s undying physical and emotional dependence, not loyalty. That said, maybe that’s fun for you; everyone has their own preferences.
  - thih9 5y ago
    This comment seems needlessly condescending. It looks like the concept of dog ownership is making you worried or puzzled? In the past I also didn’t get dog ownership and now it makes sense to me, if that helps. I’m not saying that it should make sense to you (see also my earlier comment [1]). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30741072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30741072
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      I think the relationship is itself pathological, and it’s burdensome to the rest of us that have to deal with modern codependent dog owners bringing their ill-behaved pet everywhere.
      - srean 5y ago
        As opposed to a cohort of self-centered, relationship handicapped, intolerant jerks prone to narrow mindedness and rude rants on discussion forums and elsewhere, I know which one I would prefer to have for a harmonious society and whom I find more offensive.
        teakettle42 5y ago
        > self-centered, relationship handicapped, intolerant jerks prone to narrow mindedness and rude rants on discussion forums and elsewhere You could easily be describing the dog owners here who were just confronted with the fact that their emotional codependency with a dirty animal — and tendency to replace healthy human relationships, foisting their pet onto others in public, at restaurants, on trails, et al — is not, in fact, a behavior subject to universal acclaim.
        thih9 5y ago
        I agree about causing actual inconvenience in public places, this shouldn't happen. But why are you bothered by the fact that some people are emotionally codependent with a dirty animal? I think you should either let people and dogs enjoy each other; or show some actual proof that the human-dog relationship is harmful; but many sources say otherwise [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–canine_bond#Benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–canine_bond#Benefits
      - maccard 5y ago
        > it’s burdensome to the rest of us that have to deal with modern codependent dog owners bringing their ill-behaved pet everywhere. I have had _far_ more issues with people bringing their ill behaved friends/children/parents places than I have with pets. If you go out to a café for lunch, it's acceptable to leave children run around because that's what kids do, but dogs are almost always kept quietly under the table out of the way. It's common for people to blast crappy music on the beach that everyone else around them has to listen to, or for them to leave rubbish behind them, yet it's expected (rightly so) that I pick up after my dog and keep her out of the way of other people on the beach.
maccard 5y ago
It's the exact same response, you get so much in return!

teakettle42 5y ago

> It's their home too. It’s not. You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal to inhabit your home. There’s a difference. > To pull the "children" card … Children are seen as burdensome, but they are also seen as human, and eventually, will be human adults. They also tend to not do things like eat your furniture, can be more regularly bathed, and smell a lot better, too. Oh, and they’re humans. Did I mention that already? If a non-human animal is slotting itself into our biological drive to parent, that’s a parasite.

caleb-allen 5y ago
Jeez, what's with the hate? Why do you have such a problem with somebody else caring about an animal as if it were family?
rawTruthHurts 5y ago
> It’s not. It is. > Children are seen as burdensome Children are burdensome full stop. They eat my money, which hurts me more than if they chewed on the furniture. > Oh, and they’re humans. Yes, they are. The waste of resources and pollution they imply is massive compared to dogs. But why caring about the environment, there's a lot of everything for everyone laying around, isn't it. > non-human animal is slotting itself He hasn't. He roams around freely. > You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal Yes it's my choice and it gets as dirty as my kid does. Guess what, they're animals. Did you notice already? They're animals like you.
maccard 5y ago
> It’s not. You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal to inhabit your home. There’s a difference. My home with a dog is much cleaner than most of my friends with toddlers. My dog keeps herself _mostly_ clean and groomed, my friends kids do _not_. > They also tend to not do things like eat your furniture, can be more regularly bathed, and smell a lot better, too. Not all dogs chew destructively, and most that do tend to have other behavioural issues. Are you really claiming that children _aren't_ destructive to your home? My parents tell the story of the time I decided that the TV character was thirsty so I poured a soda into the VCR over the CRT TV and destroyed both of them. Dogs don't sweat, so they dont' _need_ to be bathed as regularly. Sure she rolls around in crap in the park every few days and gets hosed down in the bath, but that's about the extent of it really. > Oh, and they’re humans. Did I mention that already? Children being human doesn't mean that dogs don't deserve to coexist with us.