PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Ksandra]

How could figures about injuries to children on planes be used to support whether or not dogs should be allowed in seats? You're having a really hard time with this argument.

Also, there exist arguments for crating animals on planes for their safety (AS WELL AS) the safety of others. The exact same argument can be made for children based on the quoted statistics about how fucking prone they are at injuring themselves. There are no easily accessible figures that I can find about kids accidentally injuring other passengers due to being poorly restrained but you're being willfully retarded if you think it is zero.

Except, no one here in this current convo is arguing animals should be crated for safety to themselves. Not a single person. I definitely am not.

[Melena]

Is this actually allowed? I've never seen it.

Yup, has to be an approved car seat. Reason you don't see it too often is people are allowed to hold their babies during flights on the lap, and they are cheap bitches that would rather have their baby turn into a projectile then spending money for a seat.

[Ksandra]

Should be required.

I actually agree with this.

[Ksandra]

Yup, has to be an approved car seat. Reason you don't see it too often is people are allowed to hold their babies during flights on the lap, and they are cheap bitches that would rather have their baby turn into a projectile then spending money for a seat.

This is true, and I will fully admit I did this myself. I think airplanes could help by adding an extra service fee where they install their own or something.

[Gredival]

Yup, has to be an approved car seat. Reason you don't see it too often is people are allowed to hold their babies during flights on the lap, and they are cheap bitches that would rather have their baby turn into a projectile then spending money for a seat.

I think that a lot of the privileges afforded to children flying could be more easily given to pets/ESAs if we just required travelers pay up to give them their own seat if they can't fit underneath the seat in front.

[BerenTebogo]

Except, no one here in this current convo is arguing animals should be crated for safety to themselves. Not a single person. I definitely am not.

I guess it hasn't come up specifically, but I would/am arguing for crating them for their safety in the cabin. I am against the cargo bay in all shapes and forms. Crating isn't a bad thing when used for animals' safety (using it as an excuse to not have to deal with the pet you bought is another thing entirely) and is totally reasonable to put a crated animal, or child, in a passenger seat with proper restraints.

[archibaldcrane]

I actually authored the first draft of the California FEHA housing regulations including reasonable accommodations (which is where ESAs fall under). The obligation stems from a court case, Auburn Woods, and regulations issued in accordance with that case.

Unless the text has been substantially changed from when I wrote it, the only documentation necessary is proof of a disability and verification from the healthcare provider that the specific animal is has a positive effect for that disability. You can't charge pet rent or a security deposit, but tenants are liable for any damages in excess of what would be normal wear and tear that stem directly from having an ESA. ESA status does not grant exceptions to other relevant health and safety codes (which, for instance, means you can't bring many large or exotic animals in as an ESA)

I understand that as a landlord your ideal situation is to have tenants without pets since they are less likely to create problems for you. But I mean Donald Sterling's ideal tenants were Koreans because he says they were less likely to create problems by complaining or not paying rent on time.

If someone has a legitimate mental condition (which given the status of modernity, is probably a strikingly large percentage of us) I think the ability to have an animal with therapeutic effects in your own home shouldn't be denied.

Service animals are required to be admitted everywhere because they are necessary for their handler to enjoy the full rights and privileges afforded to everyone else who isn't disabled. The same logic applies to ESAs. They are required to be permitted in housing, despite pet policies, because persons with mental disabilities have the right to be comfortable in their own home and their ESA is necessary to enjoy that right. There is definitely abuse of ESA status to skirt no pets policies, but there's also abuse of regular service animals too -- there's no regulation on certifications and training for actual service animals so people just buy vests and fake licenses to take their pets everywhere.

There's a unique distinction between having an ESA in your own dwelling and everywhere you go through. That right in the home is distinct from entitlement to be as comfortable as possible everywhere you go regardless of the burdens imposed on everyone else by accommodating you.

While ESAs don't have to be trained to provide therapeutic effect, if you are expecting to bring them out in public then it's not unimaginable that there should be regulations that require them to be properly trained or restrained.





These are restrictions from the ADA to protect the persons who have disabilities and service animals, not emotional support animals. IIRC, the ADA only protects trained dogs and miniature horses as service animals. So right away you can immediately strike exotic animals from eligibility. The ADA requires that the animals be trained specifically so they don't cause the issues that ESAs traditionally cause from lack of training, so a poorly trained animal is removable regardless of whether it's a service animal vs. just an ESA.

I'm sure you realize that perfectly mentally healthy adults are getting bullshit $15 "certifications" to circumvent "no pet" rental policies thanks to your law, right?

If you want pets to have the same housing rights as black people, congrats I suppose, but relying on a comically unregulated internet industry to be the gatekeepers...well...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

I'm sure you realize that perfectly mentally healthy adults are getting bullshit $15 "certifications" to circumvent "no pet" rental policies thanks to your law, right?

If you want pets to have the same housing rights as black people, congrats I suppose,

I want people with anxiety and depression to have the same rights to their treatment as people with asthma have to nebulizers. And I wouldn't mind pet owners having the same rights as parents quite frankly.

but relying on a comically unregulated internet industry to be the gatekeepers...well...

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

"There is definitely abuse of ESA status to skirt no pets policies, but there's also abuse of regular service animals too -- there's no regulation on certifications and training for actual service animals so people just buy vests and fake licenses to take their pets everywhere."

You going to argue that we shouldn't have seeing eye dogs as well because other people are abusing them too?

[archibaldcrane]

Is this actually allowed? I've never seen it.

It rules. Of course, if your kid is under two and you don't want to buy a ticket you have to hope the flight isn't full (if it is, you have to gate check the carseat) but especially if your kid is over 2 and you have to buy a ticket anyway it is perfect.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

"There is definitely abuse of ESA status to skirt no pets policies, but there's also abuse of regular service animals too -- there's no regulation on certifications and training for actual service animals so people just buy vests and fake licenses to take their pets everywhere."

You going to argue that we shouldn't have seeing eye dogs as well because other people are abusing them too?

If I was going to argue that I'd be arguing it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

If I was going to argue that I'd be arguing it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

So why is abuse in one instance tolerable for the benefit of one class of disabled persons and not in another?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

So why is abuse in one instance tolerable for the benefit of one class of disabled persons and not in another?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Because it's comical to suggest people are pretending to be blind in large numbers for the purposes of their pets.

And the medical case for the utility of genuine ESAs is thin at best to begin with. The utility of a trained seeing eye dog is obvious.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Vandalhart]

Children aren't killing other people on the plane.

I mean, the terrorists on 9/11 were someone's children so it can be true.


I'll see myself out.

[Andalusian girls]

archi accusing gred of equating dogs with black Koreans gred defending his legislation with blind strawdogs sath revealed as a petaey animals are equal to people fanatic ksan admitting to risking a projectile baby

this really is the best thread

[Roranora]

If only we had a hefty kerosene/jet fuel tax, maybe we could get all these plebs like us out of the sky. Maybe.

[archibaldcrane]

Hey Gredival made that comparison himself!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[BerenTebogo]

I actually really fucking hate PETA but yeah I know how wonky this stance is so I just own it

[BerenTebogo]

Also I literally have a rescue chipmunk as a pet so like I figured this was common knowledge that I'm basically disney princess levels of friends with animals

[Greatguardian]

The problem is you are limited in what you can ask in the first place to even see if it's a legit animal or not.

The ADA approved questions really cover most of the bases. Parakeets and turtles are not dogs. An animal that hasn't been trained to do something very specific in an emergency is not a service animal. If someone's going to lie to your face about their emotional support dog they're going to do it regardless of the question imo.

[Gredival]

Because it's comical to suggest people are pretending to be blind in large numbers for the purposes of their pets.

And the medical case for the utility of genuine ESAs is thin at best to begin with. The utility of a trained seeing eye dog is obvious.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

People can fake all sorts of nonvisible disabilities under the ADA. Seizure dogs for epilepsy for example.

And your can dispute the utility but the idea that denying a person with anxiety and depression access to their beloved pet wouldn't adversely affect their mental health is obviously false.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk