5 ms·

Wish we had a hell of a lot more of these in the USA. Especially pet-free apartments. Something needs to be done about the service animal loophole though, far t

Wish we had a hell of a lot more of these in the USA. Especially pet-free apartments. Something needs to be done about the service animal loophole though, far too many people abusing that system to bring e.g. pair of pitbulls into communities that only allow small dogs or the few rare gems that allow no dogs at all.

ryan93 3y ago
[flagged]
- warning26 3y ago
  Why? Kids probably cause more property damage than pets do. Seems reasonable IMO.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    And the people arguing for white-only spaces said whites caused less property damage than certain other races.
    - decremental 3y ago
      [dead]
    - warning26 3y ago
      And that’s related how? Choosing to have a kid (or a pet) is a choice, while race isn’t. Seems to me that’s a pretty major distinction.
      - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 3y ago
        Choosing to have a kid is a choice of the parents, not the child. You're forgetting the child is also a person, one as deserving of the same civil rights as anyone else, at least where we can give them without causing harm to the child.
      - Dma54rhs 3y ago
        Are these serious opinions? I'm sure in America they said to black folk having kids is a choice as well - you can skip the discrimination by not having a new generation.
      - mcphage 3y ago
        Being a child is not a choice. No-kid zones ban children, not parents.
  - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 3y ago
    It's cheaper to have no disability access than to have it. It's probably cheaper to exclude poor, black people from your property. Too bad, when you live in a society, you have to deal with other people living in the society including those under the age of 18.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Black people aren't children.
  - alvarezbjm-hn 3y ago
    "Black people aren't children" Deflection Both concepts (white only and childfree) are the same (Exclusion of the others), and come from the same place (My right to have what I want is more important than everybody else's) Same as it was considered bad taste to have blacks lingering around, now it is bad taste to have children running around.
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      Parents are allowed in, just not with their kids, much like people with dogs are allowed in without the dogs. It's also funny that you are OK with "it is bad taste to have dogs running around", almost like it's your preference..
- mecsred 3y ago
  This logic makes no sense. What about no smoking spaces? Basically every nation implements these and it benefits everyone (including smokers, more reasons to quit). Are you going to try and tell me "no smoking in front of the building" is the new apartheid? Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    Childfree is a lifestyle choice which must be taxed (and already is in some countries like Germany). Parenthood is a matter of survival of our species and our economy.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Childfree absolutely isn't a choice for everyone. The idea that we should punish those who are too unattractive, disfigured, or disabled to attact potential mates, or those with medical conditions preventing them from having offspring, or those with highly heritable diseases that would negatively impact the quality of life of their offspring, is as inhumane and cruel of an idea as I could think of. There is no justification for punishing those who already have a hard enough life as-is, give them a break FFS!
  - clktmr 3y ago
    Parenthood isn't always a lifestyle decision and being a child certainly never is.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      I'm gonna take a stand here and say that up until extremely recently in the US, parenthood almost invariably was a deliberate decision. When abortion was legal in all 50 states and programs were available that offered free family planning services (contraceptives and abortions) to low-income households who might not otherwise have the means to access these services, parenthood became almost ubiquitously optional. In any case, the woman has, at minimum, several months of time between the moment she becomes aware of a pregnancy and the moment a viable, live birth occurs. Since the 70's, PP could get you in same week for an abortion. It didn't matter what the pregnant woman's skin color, income/wealth, zip code, age, disability, national origin, religious views, or any other bit of demographic data was - this was something rapidly and easily accessible to anyone with thousands of locations across the U.S. Granted, this has regrettably changed in recent times, so I'll give you that. On a tangent - it's so bizarre to me that when the conservatives who can almost incessantly be found talking about the importance of "small government" finally seized a modicum of real power in the US via SC majority, some of their very first actions were increasing the scope of the rules and regulations of big government. :|
- newaccount74 3y ago
  Online discussion forums are full of child free people because they have nothing to do all day.
BrotherBisquick 3y ago
[flagged]
- throw47474777 3y ago
  [dead]
cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one. And there are plenty of instances of untrained and abused animals. My downstairs neighbor keeps a dog so loud its bark can be heard through a concrete floor. It barks at all hours of the day, night, and early morning. It's because these neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. The apartment complex management shrugs their shoulders. Hipster ghetto and I'm breaking my lease.
- derstander 3y ago
  > I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one. I don’t know if I’m parsing this correctly. Are you saying that the only reason people get dogs in your particular apartment building in Austin is because everyone else has one? Or are you saying that, in general, the only reason that people get dogs is because everyone else has one? The latter just isn’t correct. And I can’t speak to your particular apartment building, but I’d expect it’s not true for everyone there either.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
What’s wrong with pitbulls? Every one I’ve met is a sweet little thing. And I know the stats on dog attacks. Something like 10 a year from pitbulls could easily be down to owners buying them specifically to use them as weapons and training them as such.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Since you're aware of the statistics, how can you reconcile that only pitbulls seem to have bad owners? Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds, making golden retrievers, great danes, or bloodhounds just as likely to maim and kill other pets or children?
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds I don’t think so… given breeds have different reputations, there’s no reason to expect that anything about their owners distributions to be random.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    Dog breeds are an object of human fascination with fashion. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12715176/most-popular-dog-breeds https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12715176/most-popular-dog-bree... I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, but in my life, Doberman Pinchers and German Shepherds have gone through phases of being seen as dangerous breeds as well. My suspicion is that owners who desire aggressive dogs also tune into this and train their dogs accordingly.
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    If you’re an owner who wants an attack dog pitbulls will be on your short list along side German Shepherds. Now, there are definitely some breeds that don’t have it in them to attack (and if they do it’s less likely to be reported). Even if you get bitten by a chihuahua you’re not super likely to file a police report. And I will admit that you would be hard pressed to get a French Bulldog or Pug to hurt someone. But I don’t think pitbulls deserve to be singled out.

ryan93 3y ago

[flagged]

warning26 3y ago
Why? Kids probably cause more property damage than pets do. Seems reasonable IMO.
- logicchains 3y ago
  And the people arguing for white-only spaces said whites caused less property damage than certain other races.
  - decremental 3y ago
    [dead]
  - warning26 3y ago
    And that’s related how? Choosing to have a kid (or a pet) is a choice, while race isn’t. Seems to me that’s a pretty major distinction.
    - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 3y ago
      Choosing to have a kid is a choice of the parents, not the child. You're forgetting the child is also a person, one as deserving of the same civil rights as anyone else, at least where we can give them without causing harm to the child.
    - Dma54rhs 3y ago
      Are these serious opinions? I'm sure in America they said to black folk having kids is a choice as well - you can skip the discrimination by not having a new generation.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      Being a child is not a choice. No-kid zones ban children, not parents.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 3y ago
  It's cheaper to have no disability access than to have it. It's probably cheaper to exclude poor, black people from your property. Too bad, when you live in a society, you have to deal with other people living in the society including those under the age of 18.
pessimizer 3y ago
Black people aren't children.
- alvarezbjm-hn 3y ago
  "Black people aren't children" Deflection Both concepts (white only and childfree) are the same (Exclusion of the others), and come from the same place (My right to have what I want is more important than everybody else's) Same as it was considered bad taste to have blacks lingering around, now it is bad taste to have children running around.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Parents are allowed in, just not with their kids, much like people with dogs are allowed in without the dogs. It's also funny that you are OK with "it is bad taste to have dogs running around", almost like it's your preference..
mecsred 3y ago
This logic makes no sense. What about no smoking spaces? Basically every nation implements these and it benefits everyone (including smokers, more reasons to quit). Are you going to try and tell me "no smoking in front of the building" is the new apartheid? Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Childfree is a lifestyle choice which must be taxed (and already is in some countries like Germany). Parenthood is a matter of survival of our species and our economy.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Childfree absolutely isn't a choice for everyone. The idea that we should punish those who are too unattractive, disfigured, or disabled to attact potential mates, or those with medical conditions preventing them from having offspring, or those with highly heritable diseases that would negatively impact the quality of life of their offspring, is as inhumane and cruel of an idea as I could think of. There is no justification for punishing those who already have a hard enough life as-is, give them a break FFS!
- clktmr 3y ago
  Parenthood isn't always a lifestyle decision and being a child certainly never is.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    I'm gonna take a stand here and say that up until extremely recently in the US, parenthood almost invariably was a deliberate decision. When abortion was legal in all 50 states and programs were available that offered free family planning services (contraceptives and abortions) to low-income households who might not otherwise have the means to access these services, parenthood became almost ubiquitously optional. In any case, the woman has, at minimum, several months of time between the moment she becomes aware of a pregnancy and the moment a viable, live birth occurs. Since the 70's, PP could get you in same week for an abortion. It didn't matter what the pregnant woman's skin color, income/wealth, zip code, age, disability, national origin, religious views, or any other bit of demographic data was - this was something rapidly and easily accessible to anyone with thousands of locations across the U.S. Granted, this has regrettably changed in recent times, so I'll give you that. On a tangent - it's so bizarre to me that when the conservatives who can almost incessantly be found talking about the importance of "small government" finally seized a modicum of real power in the US via SC majority, some of their very first actions were increasing the scope of the rules and regulations of big government. :|
newaccount74 3y ago
Online discussion forums are full of child free people because they have nothing to do all day.

BrotherBisquick 3y ago

[flagged]

throw47474777 3y ago
[dead]

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago

I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one. And there are plenty of instances of untrained and abused animals. My downstairs neighbor keeps a dog so loud its bark can be heard through a concrete floor. It barks at all hours of the day, night, and early morning. It's because these neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. The apartment complex management shrugs their shoulders. Hipster ghetto and I'm breaking my lease.

derstander 3y ago
> I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one. I don’t know if I’m parsing this correctly. Are you saying that the only reason people get dogs in your particular apartment building in Austin is because everyone else has one? Or are you saying that, in general, the only reason that people get dogs is because everyone else has one? The latter just isn’t correct. And I can’t speak to your particular apartment building, but I’d expect it’s not true for everyone there either.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago

What’s wrong with pitbulls? Every one I’ve met is a sweet little thing. And I know the stats on dog attacks. Something like 10 a year from pitbulls could easily be down to owners buying them specifically to use them as weapons and training them as such.

missedthecue 3y ago
Since you're aware of the statistics, how can you reconcile that only pitbulls seem to have bad owners? Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds, making golden retrievers, great danes, or bloodhounds just as likely to maim and kill other pets or children?
- mcphage 3y ago
  > Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds I don’t think so… given breeds have different reputations, there’s no reason to expect that anything about their owners distributions to be random.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  Dog breeds are an object of human fascination with fashion. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12715176/most-popular-dog-breeds https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12715176/most-popular-dog-bree... I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, but in my life, Doberman Pinchers and German Shepherds have gone through phases of being seen as dangerous breeds as well. My suspicion is that owners who desire aggressive dogs also tune into this and train their dogs accordingly.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  If you’re an owner who wants an attack dog pitbulls will be on your short list along side German Shepherds. Now, there are definitely some breeds that don’t have it in them to attack (and if they do it’s less likely to be reported). Even if you get bitten by a chihuahua you’re not super likely to file a police report. And I will admit that you would be hard pressed to get a French Bulldog or Pug to hurt someone. But I don’t think pitbulls deserve to be singled out.