A 21 year old woman tried to board a Spirit Airlines flight with her hamster after reportedly receiving faulty information from the airline that it would be allowed. She claimed the pet was an "emotional support animal". However, when she actually tried to board the plane, airline staff told her the pet would not be allowed due to health and safety policies. After hours of not really trying that hard to do anything other than flush her animal down an airport toilet, she decided that was her only recourse and flushed it down a toilet. Now she is claiming the airline made her do it and is suing.

Full story here

So we have a young woman who was apparently so emotionally fragile that she couldn't go through life without her hamster at hand constantly, borrowing on the good will normally reserved for people with physical disabilities by claiming her pet was an "emotional support animal" (which I call a "pet") and then utterly failing at finding any kind of creative solution to allow the animal to continue living, so she killed it and is now blaming others instead of acknowledging any responsibility. I feel that her mindset is tragically emblematic of the way we prepare our younger generations to deal with reality. Truly, we are doomed.

I don't think it's too emblematic, but rather she obviously needs some professional help.

Yeah. This is clearly not normal behavior...

She needs help...

And poor hamster :(

It did need not die because you got barred from a flight.

 Luciferian wrote:
I feel that her mindset is tragically emblematic of the way we prepare our younger generations to deal with reality. Truly, we are doomed.

While this person obviously needs help I fail to see how one person flushing a hamster is "emblematic" of the "younger generations", besides providing an offhanded swipe at 'millenials'.

I meant that in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way, but professional help doesn't really cover it. Aside from the fact that she flushed her supposedly beloved animal down an airport toilet, she demonstrated a complete failure of cognition on multiple levels, and is now doubling down on it with a lawsuit. I think her type of behavior is unfortunately more and more typical; that is, wandering through life in a solipsistic fugue expecting everything to accommodate to your own special brand of specialness, taking the most convenient way out when that inevitably leads to adversity, and then finding a way to blame others for all of it. Humor me, I'm just having fun being cynical with this one.

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, this is a tragic story for the poor lil' hamster makes me sad.

On the other, OP undoubtedly pulled a muscle with that ridiculous leap of logic to have a cry about 'kids these days', so that's amusing.

Can I be upset and amused at the same time?

I did it for you. You're welcome.

I fail to see the humor in disparaging an entire age group based on the actions of one person. Every generation has its outliers, every generation has plenty of issues. And if this person actually has mental health problems it comes off as especially insensitive.

This will just be another kick to those who actually need emotional support animals, as people give a critical eye to those who say they need an animal.

1. Where is PETA when they'd actually be useful
2. I wonder if anyone considered inspecting the hamster at any point? I.E using hamsters to transport drugs in some way, and then flushing the evidence before a dog got wind of it?

A sad story certainly, and one to get good and outraged about, but...

A single hamster wouldn't really allow you to transport any significant amount of drugs to make that worth it, plus why risk smuggling drugs on a domestic flight?

Disciple of Fate wrote:I fail to see the humor in disparaging an entire age group based on the actions of one person. Every generation has its outliers, every generation has plenty of issues. And if this person actually has mental health problems it comes off as especially insensitive.

K. Shall I just go flagellate myself then?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:This will just be another kick to those who actually need emotional support animals, as people give a critical eye to those who say they need an animal.

Emotional support animals are simply pets. They have no special legal distinction, unlike service animals, which are protected by the ADA. Service animals are trained to perform a medically necessary task for a person with a physical disability - as in, this person could not function in their day to day life or could possibly die without the aid of the animal. Service animals are not pets, they have a job. So seeing eye dogs or dogs that remind their diabetic owners when their blood sugar is low are to be allowed anywhere their owner goes in the US; "companion animals" or "emotional support animals" are not.

 Luciferian wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:I fail to see the humor in disparaging an entire age group based on the actions of one person. Every generation has its outliers, every generation has plenty of issues. And if this person actually has mental health problems it comes off as especially insensitive.

K. Shall I just go flagellate myself then?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:This will just be another kick to those who actually need emotional support animals, as people give a critical eye to those who say they need an animal.

Emotional support animals are simply pets. They have no special legal distinction, unlike service animals, which are protected by the ADA. Service animals are trained to perform a medically necessary task for a person with a physical disability - as in, this person could not function in their day to day life or could possibly die without the aid of the animal. Service animals are not pets, they have a job. So seeing eye dogs or dogs that remind their diabetic owners when their blood sugar is low are to be allowed anywhere their owner goes in the US; "companion animals" or "emotional support animals" are not.

No, but maybe you should abandon the hyperbole of "lol millenials" and "flagellate".

As for emotional support animals, its likely that they eventually will become a special category to help people with more severe mental problems such as depression or such. Untill it becomes an accepted category its going to be hard to prove that however to any airline. In this case though? It depends if flushing the hamster was a rational decision but I doubt we will get anywhere near the full story on her state of mind.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, but maybe you should abandon the hyperbole of "lol millenials" and "flagellate".

As for emotional support animals, its likely that they eventually will become a special category to help people with more severe mental problems such as depression or such. Untill it becomes an accepted category its going to be hard to prove that however to any airline. In this case though? It depends if flushing the hamster was a rational decision but I doubt we will get anywhere near the full story on her state of mind.

Irony and hyperbole are what the internet is for (other than being self-righteously indignant, of course), but OK, I'll try to be serious.

"Emotional support animals" are actually a big problem. Where I live, as I'm sure is the case in many metropolitan areas, more and more people are simply buying their pets a vest with some patches or printing off a phony certificate and then demanding that every place of business accommodate them, regardless of how disruptive or potentially hazardous it might be for other customers. So many people are doing it that a year or so ago a law imposing fines on those who falsely claim they have a service animal was passed where I live. It's not just a problem for businesses and patrons, it's a problem for people with debilitating physical ailments because they are the ones that suffer the increased scrutiny. Shortly before this incident, another airline refused a passenger with an emotional support peacock. Now I love animals and I won't deny the emotionally fulfilling and therapeutic benefits they provide via a healthy relationship with their owners, but if you're trying to capitalize off of people's good will toward the disabled in order to bring your pet where it wouldn't otherwise be allowed, you're a bad person.

 Luciferian wrote:
I feel that her mindset is tragically emblematic of the way we prepare our younger generations to deal with reality. Truly, we are doomed.

Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt.
-Horace, 20 BC

 Luciferian wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, but maybe you should abandon the hyperbole of "lol millenials" and "flagellate".

As for emotional support animals, its likely that they eventually will become a special category to help people with more severe mental problems such as depression or such. Untill it becomes an accepted category its going to be hard to prove that however to any airline. In this case though? It depends if flushing the hamster was a rational decision but I doubt we will get anywhere near the full story on her state of mind.

Irony and hyperbole are what the internet is for (other than being self-righteously indignant, of course), but OK, I'll try to be serious.

"Emotional support animals" are actually a big problem. Where I live, as I'm sure is the case in many metropolitan areas, more and more people are simply buying their pets a vest with some patches or printing off a phony certificate and then demanding that every place of business accommodate them, regardless of how disruptive or potentially hazardous it might be for other customers. So many people are doing it that a year or so ago a law imposing fines on those who falsely claim they have a service animal was passed where I live. It's not just a problem for businesses and patrons, it's a problem for people with debilitating physical ailments because they are the ones that suffer the increased scrutiny. Shortly before this incident, another airline refused a passenger with an emotional support peacock. Now I love animals and I won't deny the emotionally fulfilling and therapeutic benefits they provide via a healthy relationship with their owners, but if you're trying to capitalize off of people's good will toward the disabled in order to bring your pet where it wouldn't otherwise be allowed, you're a bad person.

Well sometimes I get to be indignant as a millenial who went through several 'difficult' periods by the time I was the of the woman from the article, without flushing any hamsters. So yeah, it does kinda piss me off when older generations with no insight into our lives whatsoever dismiss us as emotionally undeveloped babies based on a few media stories. But then again, a basic level of empathy isn't what the internet is for right? Whatever...

The current problem with emotional support animals is that its a huge gray area but even some form of oversight is going to be problematic because a physical issue that requires an animal is much easier to identify than a mental one. Besides that, even if you have some form of official certification for an emotional support animal, people will always look at you funny due to the lack of obvious problems. I agree that basically blackmailing people over your pet if you have no problem whatsoever is being a pretty bad person. Yet flushing your own animal doesn't sound like the hallmark of 'healthy' either. On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I feel that her mindset is tragically emblematic of the way we prepare our younger generations to deal with reality. Truly, we are doomed.

Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt.
-Horace, 20 BC

See, Iron Captain saw my hyperbolic complaint and raised me a Roman poet from over 2000 years ago, proving that people have been saying "kids these days" for pretty much all of recorded history. Good form.

So now what happens when a mutated hamster returns seeking revenge?

 thekingofkings wrote:
So now what happens when a mutated hamster returns seeking revenge?

Wouldn't the alligators in the sewer have eaten it by now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I think about it, doesn't flushing the hamster fall under some sort of animal abuse law?

 malamis wrote:
1. Where is PETA when they'd actually be useful

Too busy killing people's pets and other kind of animals. Gosh I hate PETA. They are radicals and terrorists, and the animals are the ones that suffer they stupidity. Don't give money to PETA guys.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well sometimes I get to be indignant as a millenial who went through several 'difficult' periods by the time I was the of the woman from the article, without flushing any hamsters. So yeah, it does kinda piss me off when older generations with no insight into our lives whatsoever dismiss us as emotionally undeveloped babies based on a few media stories. But then again, a basic level of empathy isn't what the internet is for right? Whatever...

The current problem with emotional support animals is that its a huge gray area but even some form of oversight is going to be problematic because a physical issue that requires an animal is much easier to identify than a mental one. Besides that, even if you have some form of official certification for an emotional support animal, people will always look at you funny due to the lack of obvious problems. I agree that basically blackmailing people over your pet if you have no problem whatsoever is being a pretty bad person. Yet flushing your own animal doesn't sound like the hallmark of 'healthy' either. On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

PTSD is categorized as a disability with coverage under the ADA. There really isn't a grey area. The only distinction that really matters is whether or not the animal has been specifically trained to help the person cope with the disability. For example, someone with PTSD might have a dog that can sense both chemically and empathetically when its owner is in an impaired state of anxiety, and perform a certain task to calm them down. Service animals are also painstakingly trained to operate in public without endangering or even being a nuisance to their owners or other people. Providing emotional comfort or companionship alone is specifically not covered under the ADA. If you can train a peacock to sniff out your blood sugar, lead you across the street, or snap you back to reality when you're in the throes of a post-traumatic episode, then yes, that is a service animal. If you have a legitimate disability, there are systems and protections in place for you to get the help that your well-being and your life depends on from a trained service animal that can be trusted to perform its life-saving task in all conditions. If your untrained pet can't be depended on to perform that kind of work, then you don't absolutely need it to be with you at all times.

And yes, she probably broke the law when she flushed the hamster.

 thekingofkings wrote:
So now what happens when a mutated hamster returns seeking revenge?

A very cheap horror B-movie. With extra low-budget special effects.

"Emotional Support Animals" are the largest load of crap ever. It's basically an excuse to bring your pets into places where animals are normally not allowed for health reasons.

Seriously, people could get sick and/or DIE because you brought your stupid emotional support rat-dog into the grocery store. Plus, Emotional Support Animals are not actually defined as Service animals. Thus your claiming the right to enter places where animals are forbidden is actually a Federal felony, punishable by $10,000 fine and imprisonment.


Really, US service animal laws need to be seriously overhauled just for public health reasons. There needs to be an actual official certification system. IE: Your animal must have been verified by a Doctor as being necessary, and the animal must have passed an official training course and proved that it can behave in public. That information must then be on an ID card of some kind that is displayed on the animal's vest while its working, so that a business can verify that you are indeed an actual service animal and not an imposter. No vest, no ID, then its not working. And even then, unless the animal must be with you at all times for your safety, then the animal should be able to be barred from places like grocery stores and restaurants. Because again, someone could get sick and die because you brought an animal into a place where food is prepared. IE: You can function long enough without your emotional support animal to go get some groceries. There is no reason for you to contaminate other people's food.

You know, someone could get sick and die because you sneeze into his face.

Normally, Service Animals are cleaner and more healthy than many people out there. At least here. (And I'm saying service animals, because I have seen people try to use the excuse of "Oh but my doggo is ultra-clean!" to bring their pets where they can't, and thats a big no-no)

 Galas wrote:
You know, someone could get sick and die because you sneeze into his face.

Normally, Service Animals are cleaner and more healthy than many people out there. At least here. (And I'm saying service animals, because I have seen people try to use the excuse of "Oh but my doggo is ultra-clean!" to bring their pets where they can't, and thats a big no-no)

Allergies are a thing, and can be deadly. Plus you know, dogs eat their own feces.

Its mostly an issue when people are putting their animals in the shopping carts(which is illegal even if its a service animal with the only exception being seizure detection animals). Even a service dog will walk in stuff.

It doesn't matter if your dog is clean. You can't prove that. And exceptions really cannot and should not be made for health safety.

Is there something about getting on a plane that acts as a trigger for people to meltdown? Because it seems like a really high number of plane flights have to deal with some lunatic or another. And I don't think it's just news bias, because I've been on three or four flights that were delayed because some looper argued something stupid with airline staff, and I haven't been on that many flights.

 Luciferian wrote:
I meant that in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way

I think her type of behavior is unfortunately more and more typical; that is, wandering through life in a solipsistic fugue expecting everything to accommodate to your own special brand of specialness...

You're trying to have it both ways, making a serious statement that many people seriously believe about younger generations, then jumping to 'just joking' when you're called on it, only to start making the claim seriously again.

You can't have it both ways. Saying something seriously, then trying to duck any response by saying 'just joking' is bs. So stop.

On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

Because birds tend to be much harder to train to not crap all over the floor. Especially one that isn't fitted into a cage that'll hold something for it to poo into.

All the while on a long flight that other people will have to be tolerating this as well.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

Because birds tend to be much harder to train to not crap all over the floor. Especially one that isn't fitted into a cage that'll hold something for it to poo into.

All the while on a long flight that other people will have to be tolerating this as well.

Indeed.

A Peacock alone on a plane is a bad idea simple because the animal does not fit. Its tail feathers will be in someone's face all the time.

You couldn't justify a horse or other similarly sized animal either.


I would also be a fan of there being only a select few types of animals which would legally be allowed as Service/Support animals. IE: No Chihuahuas or other Toy breeds because those are clearly pet type animals.

Sigh. This thread went exactly where I expected it to, and that's not a good thing. Some of you would really benefit from spending some time contemplating why it is you feel the need to look down on people who are already in a bad position, and perhaps gain some sympathy for them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
So now what happens when a mutated hamster returns seeking revenge?

Wouldn't the alligators in the sewer have eaten it by now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I think about it, doesn't flushing the hamster fall under some sort of animal abuse law?

It is a creepy thought if it recruits them, and yeah its illegal as hell


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
So now what happens when a mutated hamster returns seeking revenge?

A very cheap horror B-movie. With extra low-budget special effects.

I wanna see it!

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. This thread went exactly where I expected it to, and that's not a good thing. Some of you would really benefit from spending some time contemplating why it is you feel the need to look down on people who are already in a bad position, and perhaps gain some sympathy for them.

Emotional comfort < the health of the general public or the general discomfort a support animal might cause.

IE: bringing a massive peacock on a plane is a massive jerk move. Bringing an emotional support animal inside a grocery store or restaurant is a jerk move on many levels, you could get the restaurant shut down for violating the health code and make someone sick because you contaminated the food.

Disabled people are entitled to enjoy the same services other people are. But they are NOT, and should not be, entitled to violate health laws or make other people uncomfortable/sick in the process of bringing a dog or other animal with them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. This thread went exactly where I expected it to, and that's not a good thing. Some of you would really benefit from spending some time contemplating why it is you feel the need to look down on people who are already in a bad position, and perhaps gain some sympathy for them.

Emotional comfort < the health of the general public or the general discomfort a support animal might cause.

IE: bringing a massive peacock on a plane is a massive jerk move. Bringing an emotional support animal inside a grocery store or restaurant is a jerk move on many levels, you could get the restaurant shut down for violating the health code and make someone sick because you contaminated the food.

Yeah, because things like "I think her type of behavior is unfortunately more and more typical; that is, wandering through life in a solipsistic fugue expecting everything to accommodate to your own special brand of specialness, taking the most convenient way out when that inevitably leads to adversity, and then finding a way to blame others for all of it" are clearly genuine and reasonable attempts to protect the health of the general public. Obviously that statement has nothing at all to do with smug superiority over "kids these days" or kicking people while they're down.

The airlines in america are pushing for legislation banning emotional support animals flying for free, "you really need that pet well cough up some cash or the marshals will turn it into stir-fry"

 Luciferian wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well sometimes I get to be indignant as a millenial who went through several 'difficult' periods by the time I was the of the woman from the article, without flushing any hamsters. So yeah, it does kinda piss me off when older generations with no insight into our lives whatsoever dismiss us as emotionally undeveloped babies based on a few media stories. But then again, a basic level of empathy isn't what the internet is for right? Whatever...

The current problem with emotional support animals is that its a huge gray area but even some form of oversight is going to be problematic because a physical issue that requires an animal is much easier to identify than a mental one. Besides that, even if you have some form of official certification for an emotional support animal, people will always look at you funny due to the lack of obvious problems. I agree that basically blackmailing people over your pet if you have no problem whatsoever is being a pretty bad person. Yet flushing your own animal doesn't sound like the hallmark of 'healthy' either. On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

PTSD is categorized as a disability with coverage under the ADA. There really isn't a grey area. The only distinction that really matters is whether or not the animal has been specifically trained to help the person cope with the disability. For example, someone with PTSD might have a dog that can sense both chemically and empathetically when its owner is in an impaired state of anxiety, and perform a certain task to calm them down. Service animals are also painstakingly trained to operate in public without endangering or even being a nuisance to their owners or other people. Providing emotional comfort or companionship alone is specifically not covered under the ADA. If you can train a peacock to sniff out your blood sugar, lead you across the street, or snap you back to reality when you're in the throes of a post-traumatic episode, then yes, that is a service animal. If you have a legitimate disability, there are systems and protections in place for you to get the help that your well-being and your life depends on from a trained service animal that can be trusted to perform its life-saving task in all conditions. If your untrained pet can't be depended on to perform that kind of work, then you don't absolutely need it to be with you at all times.

And yes, she probably broke the law when she flushed the hamster.

That's why I mentioned PTSD, its a reason for a service dog without an obvious physical disability. Its a service dog for what amounts to mental trauma from the work they did. Certain people with other mental health problems could also benefit from service animals but aren't covered by law to have them, the grey area I refer to. Legitimate disability is exactly that, whatever gets put on the list to make it legitimate, an emotional support animal might almost fill the same role for some issues without the recognition. But without legitimacy its hard to prove anything.

 Rolsheen wrote:
The airlines in america are pushing for legislation banning emotional support animals flying for free, "you really need that pet well cough up some cash or the marshals will turn it into stir-fry"

To be fair, the airlines would push for legislation requiring passengers to pay extra for the air they breathe if they thought they could get away with it...

 Peregrine wrote:


Yeah, because things like "I think her type of behavior is unfortunately more and more typical; that is, wandering through life in a solipsistic fugue expecting everything to accommodate to your own special brand of specialness, taking the most convenient way out when that inevitably leads to adversity, and then finding a way to blame others for all of it" are clearly genuine and reasonable attempts to protect the health of the general public. Obviously that statement has nothing at all to do with smug superiority over "kids these days" or kicking people while they're down.

I was in no way addressing that toward disabled people. I was addressing it toward people who would try to poach the benefits of the disabled for a reason as flimsy as temporary emotional comfort, casting suspicion on actually disabled people who need their service animal to fething survive, and as others have said, endanger the public by bringing their impostor animals where pets are not normally allowed for health and safety reasons, all at the same time. And in this specific case, kill the animal when it becomes inconvenient. She had nine (9) hours to figure out something to do with the hamster, and the most humane thing she came up with was to flush it down a toilet. And I'm the jerk?

Get a grip. Someone like this doesn't deserve my sympathy, nor does anyone else who can't bring their companion boa constrictor on a plane even though they say the words "emotional support animal".

 Luciferian wrote:
Get a grip. Someone like this doesn't deserve my sympathy, nor does anyone else who can't bring their companion boa constrictor on a plane even though they say the words "emotional support animal".

Thank you for demonstrating my point very effectively.

What point? That I hold standards for decorum and behavior above literally taking advantage of disabled people and the good will afforded to them by the public for a few minutes or hours of avoiding the emotional distress it causes to not shove your goddamn peacock on a plane? I'm such a bad man!

I saw this story from a "less reputable", yet favorite news network, and I saw comment after comment that ran along the same lines:


I breaks down to: "I work for [insert competitor airline] as a flight attendant ant OUR policy is that any service or "support" (quotes there my emphasis) animals be accompanied by appropriate marking and a doctors note"

Seems a no brainer here. . I've never heard of any doctors prescribing any kind of service animal that wasn't a dog, or very rarely a cat.

The ADA is crystal clear. If you have a disability, ANY disability that has been medically diagnosed, and an animal can be trained (pretty much dogs) to perform a medically necessary task for you in regards to that disability, you can take that animal where ever you go. Period.

If you can't say that you have a medically diagnosed disability, or that your animal has been trained to keep you alive as well as conduct itself in public, then you are capitalizing on the protections afforded to the disabled under the ADA, and you are a bad person. I will not apologize for saying so.

I think the answer here is that these animals need clear and explicit paperwork, need to certified by a doctor or other medical professionals and a clear distinction written into law about what is a service animal. What is a emotional support animal and exactly what they they entail and types.

If you make the rules clear exactly what is covered under them and exactly what is apcepted as such then these situations will not arise.

No conflicting rules internally, a law sets out what is and is not emotional support. How it is certified and what can never covered under it.

She defenitely was not right in the head and down s need help, more than a support animal though I think and probbly should see someone. She obviously has somthing she needs to deal with or get help with. Plus poor hamster :(

Again, the laws are clear! The ADA specifically states that animals which provide only companionship or emotional support are not considered service animals and do not fall under the protection of the law!

Any disabled person with a service animal knows exactly what the law says, what they can and can't do, and how to deal with people who give them trouble over it. Because they probably need that animal to cross the fething street!

 Luciferian wrote:
If you can't say that you have a medically diagnosed disability, or that your animal has been trained to keep you alive as well as conduct itself in public, then you are capitalizing on the protections afforded to the disabled under the ADA, and you are a bad person. I will not apologize for saying so.

Sure, but what you and Grey Templar have both done in this thread is focus on theoretical abuses of support animals, with fictitious and fairly silly suggestions like comfort peacocks. It isn't that such abuses of the system don't exist, it's that focusing on only the hypothetical abuses is a way of ignoring the challenges many people face, and instead just whinging about privileges someone else gets.

You started this thread with a story about a women who was improperly claiming her hamster was a support animal, but who showed that she was pretty clearly going through a mental episode, which actually underscored how flimsy the complaint about cynical claims of support animals actually is.

I think you need to take a bit of a look at yourself to be honest. You started the thread trying to make a silly point whinging about kids these days, which you engaged in by pretending it was a joke, only to repeat several times quite seriously. Then when Grey Templar started up a little rant about people falsely claiming support animals, including some pure nonsense about Federal jail time, you attached yourself to that cause. It seems like you're really keen to feel outraged about something, even though this fairly silly story doesn't really have anything to actually get outraged about. I'd be careful with that urge if I was you.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. This thread went exactly where I expected it to, and that's not a good thing. Some of you would really benefit from spending some time contemplating why it is you feel the need to look down on people who are already in a bad position, and perhaps gain some sympathy for them.

Emotional comfort < the health of the general public or the general discomfort a support animal might cause.

IE: bringing a massive peacock on a plane is a massive jerk move. Bringing an emotional support animal inside a grocery store or restaurant is a jerk move on many levels, you could get the restaurant shut down for violating the health code and make someone sick because you contaminated the food.

Disabled people are entitled to enjoy the same services other people are. But they are NOT, and should not be, entitled to violate health laws or make other people uncomfortable/sick in the process of bringing a dog or other animal with them.

I didn't read the linked article; didn't realise she was taking a huge dinosaur on to the plane, as well as her small, uninvasive rodent.

I'm also really impressed with how american airliners apparently include a grocery store and restaurant kitchen onboard. In Europe all the flight food is prepreped and packaged sealed.

 sebster wrote:

Sure, but what you and Grey Templar have both done in this thread is focus on theoretical abuses of support animals, with fictitious and fairly silly suggestions like comfort peacocks. It isn't that such abuses of the system don't exist, it's that focusing on only the hypothetical abuses is a way of ignoring the challenges many people face, and instead just whinging about privileges someone else gets.

You started this thread with a story about a women who was improperly claiming her hamster was a support animal, but who showed that she was pretty clearly going through a mental episode, which actually underscored how flimsy the complaint about cynical claims of support animals actually is.

I think you need to take a bit of a look at yourself to be honest. You started the thread trying to make a silly point whinging about kids these days, which you engaged in by pretending it was a joke, only to repeat several times quite seriously. Then when Grey Templar started up a little rant about people falsely claiming support animals, including some pure nonsense about Federal jail time, you attached yourself to that cause. It seems like you're really keen to feel outraged about something, even though this fairly silly story doesn't really have anything to actually get outraged about. I'd be careful with that urge if I was you.

You know, if you're going to pretend that you can read someone's mind, you might want to start by actually reading what they write. I've made this about people abusing the notion of service animals from my very first post, and repeated that in nearly every subsequent post. Go ahead, read them again.

I'll admit that at first I wasn't taking this very seriously. I meant to share it as exactly the silly story that it is, replete with my addition of taking the piss out of millennials. And yes, I was having fun with that, unless you want to call me a liar because you understand my own intentions better than I do. Again, you can read over it all once more. I even made sure to use phrases like, "humor me, I'm having fun," and the overly dramatic "truly, we are doomed," just for prospective mind readers.

But seriously, do you guys even think through the implications of what you're saying? The peacock thing is 100% real, by the way. So are widespread abuses of the ADA. Like I said, they made a law to deal with it where I live, because so many people were claiming their pets were some kind of service or support animal that it was having a negative impact on people with real disabilities and real service animals. Are you really so keen to come down on me that you're going to say that's OK, or even that you want to live in a world where every other person at a restaurant or on a plane is able to bring their barely house trained pet with them because they aren't feeling 100% today? You're trying to gaslight me because I have no sympathy for people who take advantage of other people's disabilities? Or do you truly believe that anyone who faces "challenges" (everyone) should rightfully take whichever animal they wish, wherever they wish, and damn whatever problems that may cause?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, here is the peacock story, along with an update about how the airline was forced to change their policies to require stricter scrutiny of support and service animals as a result, which is exactly the kind of thing I'm fething talking about.

Yeah..unfortunately it goes from "hypothetical abuse" of the rules to actual abuse of the rules when someone stupidly attempts to use their peacock or hamster as an "emotional support animal".

To me it is obvious these people intended to....circumvent..the rules of the system. They aren't the first (many fake certificate sites are around) it is just that theirs are the more extreme animals involved.

And then the heartless, senseless, thoughtless and cruel killing of the hamster by someone "intelligent" enough to research (somewhat) the rules involved in an emotional support animal is just icing on the cake.

Do I think the woman in the stort has some kind of emotuonal issues? Sure. It's called a lack of empathy. It could possibly even go as deep as a psychopathic behavior. One hallmark of psychopathic personalities is their distinct lack of empathy (or ability to fake it, but not actually "feel it"). Abuse and mistreatment of animals has also been shown to be a warning sign of psychopathic tendencies.

On top of those...add in the pretty typical manipulative mentality (gaming the system, shifting blame, denial of wrong doing, etc) and I could honestly see this woman as being some type of psychopath/sociopath.

A *normal* person wouldn't flush and kill a hamster. A *normal* person would have some regret. A *normal* person would not blame the airline for actions that they actually did with no prompting.

Is she a poster child for her generation? No, I don't think so.

BBC - Airlines get tough after surge in requests for 'support pets'

 TheMeanDM wrote:
A *normal* person would not blame the airline for actions that they actually did with no prompting.

We have only the airline's word that they did not say "flush it" as she claims, and the airline has every incentive to lie about this.

Consider the alternate scenario: this is someone with emotional problems, being denied a flight they need to get on for a medical appointment (already a stressful situation), and the authority figure is saying "just flush it and get a new one, it's just a hamster". Hours pass, they're still not getting on the plane, and their emotional state is getting worse and worse. Maybe it's anxiety, maybe it's depression and a lack of self-worth, who knows. Eventually they give in to the pressure and desperation, listen to the authority figure, and do what they feel they're expected to do to get on the plane. Later, at a safe distance and possibly with the support of their friends and family, they are able to realize what a the airline person was and make a phone call to the lawyers.

But no, let's not consider the possibility that the poor woman might actually deserve sympathy, better to rant about how awful and entitled the younger generations are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:
I didn't read the linked article; didn't realise she was taking a huge dinosaur on to the plane, as well as her small, uninvasive rodent.

I'm also really impressed with how american airliners apparently include a grocery store and restaurant kitchen onboard. In Europe all the flight food is prepreped and packaged sealed.

Yeah, this is really the core of the issue. The airline is a bunch of s for refusing in the first place, regardless of whether it's a pet or a legitimate support animal. We're talking about a tiny animal that can sit in its carrier for the whole flight, one that nobody would have noticed if she'd just stuck it in her pocket and never bothered to ask permission. There's zero reason to refuse, especially when an airline employee already granted permission and created a situation where making alternate travel arrangements for the animal at the last second would be a major inconvenience.

The amount of like...
Niceness in this thread is staggering.

I've seen people be nicer about Eldar Scatterbike lists.
This is a story about a mentally ill woman, and a dead Hamster, and you're just generally being words I can't use on this forum. Not debating constructively, not being serious. You're just all generally [most of you] being horrid.

Forget kids these days. What about the adults?

I hope the poor woman is okay, and I feel bad for her Hamster. There is no way the airline should of let it come to this, there are plenty of options that didn't involve letting the Hamster on the plane or killing it.

From the OP:

After hours of not really trying that hard to do anything other than flush her animal down an airport toilet, she decided that was her only recourse and flushed it down a toilet.

Makes me suspect that it was the only thing she could think of.
I honestly doubt the airport staff would have suggested flushing it down a toilet (surely the most likely suggestion for getting rid of a rodent is to let it go outside?).

I'm not sure what the airline should suggest she do with a hamster? Put it in a cat carrier in the hold, or get someone else to collect it?

If she spent "hours" doing whatever it was she was doing to Mr./Ms. Furry....how early was she for her flight? I mean really...it seems like an *awful* long time.

Anyways...

I have worked with many over the years with various behavioral/mental issues.

Sometimes the worst thing that we can do for them is to find some way to excuse their behavior when what they would really benefit from is to learn accountability.

When we are constantly looking for some way to justify a person's actions and explain/excuse them away, we enable that person to contunue to choose those actions. You could almost say that we "disable" them because instead of learning "proper" behavioral norms (including accountability for ones actions) we encourage improper decisions.

I say *sometimes*

 TheMeanDM wrote:
If she spent "hours" doing whatever it was she was doing to Mr./Ms. Furry....how early was she for her flight? I mean really...it seems like an *awful* long time.

She was bumped from her original flight and had to take a much later one. This is in the article in the OP.

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Missed that. Thanks.

I find a few things about her situation a bit...odd....

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Maybe they should get a pet to help them cope with emotional support animals


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
If she spent "hours" doing whatever it was she was doing to Mr./Ms. Furry....how early was she for her flight? I mean really...it seems like an *awful* long time.

Anyways...

I have worked with many over the years with various behavioral/mental issues.

Sometimes the worst thing that we can do for them is to find some way to excuse their behavior when what they would really benefit from is to learn accountability.

When we are constantly looking for some way to justify a person's actions and explain/excuse them away, we enable that person to contunue to choose those actions. You could almost say that we "disable" them because instead of learning "proper" behavioral norms (including accountability for ones actions) we encourage improper decisions.

I say *sometimes*

While what you say can hold merit sometimes (behavioral more than mental of course) as you say, its hard to make judgement calls in cases like this. Only having very little information on a singular event does not lend itself well to any judgements on accountability. Yet some people already have their opinion ready on a woman they don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

On the subject of a peacock, why not, people are making a wide variety of animals pets nowadays, no reason for support animals to only be dogs or cats. Without any insight into those people, its hard to ascertain to what extent they might have been lying. Just because they aren't physically disabled doesn't mean they don't require an animal to help them, soldiers with PTSD but no physical injuries being a good example (which would fall under service animal even though you could say it blurs the line between emotional and service).

Because birds tend to be much harder to train to not crap all over the floor. Especially one that isn't fitted into a cage that'll hold something for it to poo into.

All the while on a long flight that other people will have to be tolerating this as well.

Sure, but if peacocks ever get accepted as a type of service animal it no longer becomes a choice. I'm not saying a peacock lends itself well to airtravel in any case, but I would assume some type of cage could be used if needed, but that would fall on the person transporting it.

Besides, exchange peacock with baby and plenty of people who have flown would still share that sentiment

 sebster wrote:
It seems like you're really keen to feel outraged about something, even though this fairly silly story doesn't really have anything to actually get outraged about. I'd be careful with that urge if I was you.

If you were to make a venn diagram of people who refer to people as "snowflake", and so on in conversation with a straight face, there is a pretty big overlap with the kind of person who literally spends all of their time patrolling the internet looking for things to be butthurt about.

also: Millennials! shakes fist

Sure, but if peacocks ever get accepted as a type of service animal it no longer becomes a choice. I'm not saying a peacock lends itself well to airtravel in any case, but I would assume some type of cage could be used if needed, but that would fall on the person transporting it.

Besides, exchange peacock with baby and plenty of people who have flown would still share that sentiment

You've seen the size of peacocks right? The size of the cage to be able to contain the bird and not cause it problems would block an aisle which would be a massive airline issue for both passengers and plane.

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sure, but if peacocks ever get accepted as a type of service animal it no longer becomes a choice. I'm not saying a peacock lends itself well to airtravel in any case, but I would assume some type of cage could be used if needed, but that would fall on the person transporting it.

Besides, exchange peacock with baby and plenty of people who have flown would still share that sentiment

You've seen the size of peacocks right? The size of the cage to be able to contain the bird and not cause it problems would block an aisle which would be a massive airline issue for both passengers and plane.

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

Airline saftey of humans comes first and formost in any cases. as it stands support animals are often highly trained and have right temparment to function in a wide range of enviroments a untrained animal might panic or become a danger.

a Peacock is definitely not on that list, be sympathetic and rty to work with people but some things are just plain not safe/just will not be a good idea. its not discrimination to say that everyone wants the plane to land safely with everyone alive.

no matter how many things they try or try to claim, some stuff just will not work well on a aircraft.

For example..

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2017/02/Saudi-prince-and-his-80-hawks.jpg

a wide range of things where done here to make sure they would be safe, and passengers such as boards for birds to stand on, own seats, handlers and other precautions taken.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

Important read.
That is, as far as I can find, the most recent guidelines. It does allow for you to ask about the service animal and it does provide for circumstances for the removal of a poorly behaving service dog.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

Important read.
That is, as far as I can find, the most recent guidelines. It does allow for you to ask about the service animal and it does provide for circumstances for the removal of a poorly behaving service dog.

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

Q28. What can my staff do when a service animal is being disruptive?
A. If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

Q37. Do commercial airlines have to comply with the ADA?
A. No. The Air Carrier Access Act is the Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in air travel. For information or to file a complaint, contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, at 202-366-2220.

Q33. Are gyms, fitness centers, hotels, or municipalities that have swimming pools required to allow a service animal in the pool with its handler?
A. No. The ADA does not override public health rules that prohibit dogs in swimming pools. However, service animals must be allowed on the pool deck and in other areas where the public is allowed to go.

looking at these rules and taking a few as examples, theres abit of sense and reason to the laws, Service dogs have alot of rights, but theres also rules to obey and you cannot just do anything you like. with prvidges comes responsibilities/

The ADA doesn't cover airlines.

The Air Carrier Access Act covers airlines.

I wont assume that a hamster cannot be a service animal for a mentally ill person.
While bad news for the hamster the story is not inconsistent with a genuine mental health issue. Depending on how the mentally ill person was handled they might go off the rails this way.
I do not know if the airport/airline can be successfully sued for the randomness of a mentally ill individual as the consequences were apparently not immediate. The airline employee was allegedly being 'unhelpful' and 'insensitive' but the airline is denying that instruction was given to dispose of the hamster.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1630436/3-woman-flushes-hamster-airport-toilet-refusal-board/

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sure, but if peacocks ever get accepted as a type of service animal it no longer becomes a choice. I'm not saying a peacock lends itself well to airtravel in any case, but I would assume some type of cage could be used if needed, but that would fall on the person transporting it.

Besides, exchange peacock with baby and plenty of people who have flown would still share that sentiment

You've seen the size of peacocks right? The size of the cage to be able to contain the bird and not cause it problems would block an aisle which would be a massive airline issue for both passengers and plane.

Yeah, just like I have seen the size of large service dogs. Like I said, I'm not saying a peacock lends itself to airtravel. Maybe the owner has to buy more seats to put the cage down etc. I'm saying that IF peacocks would ever become accepted (but likely won't) a solution would have to be found. But while a peacock would be an incredible cumbersome service/emotional animal, I don't think anyone can argue that a hamster would be difficult.

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, the laws are clear! The ADA specifically states that animals which provide only companionship or emotional support are not considered service animals and do not fall under the protection of the law!

Any disabled person with a service animal knows exactly what the law says, what they can and can't do, and how to deal with people who give them trouble over it. Because they probably need that animal to cross the fething street!

This is where you have problems. Veterans often get service dogs for PTSD even when they are physically unimpaired. At first there were problems but it looked bad on the airlines. So cases for emotional support service animals are existent. At that point it becomes an issue of equality.

It's tricky. An emotional support animal needs to be registered somehow, and certified to weed out fake cases, and an understanding made that any travel enablement will only effect internal flights.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, the laws are clear! The ADA specifically states that animals which provide only companionship or emotional support are not considered service animals and do not fall under the protection of the law!

Any disabled person with a service animal knows exactly what the law says, what they can and can't do, and how to deal with people who give them trouble over it. Because they probably need that animal to cross the fething street!

This is where you have problems. Veterans often get service dogs for PTSD even when they are physically unimpaired. At first there were problems but it looked bad on the airlines. So cases for emotional support service animals are existent. At that point it becomes an issue of equality.

It's tricky. An emotional support animal needs to be registered somehow, and certified to weed out fake cases, and an understanding made that any travel enablement will only effect internal flights.

give someone say a card that states there right and fact they have a aprroved and certified animal and reason?
simple card you can fit in a wallet etc, or other forms that work for person.

it could even be issued by a suitible doctor who so? pretty easy and in extreme cases if a problem then the numver can be verified,

Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

This is why disability is classified on a yes/no basis with terms to certification.

However if you do this it becomes easier to cheat the system. Someone takes some prescribed pills and then decides they need a certificated rodent....or peacock.

I would be happy with emotional support hamsters on principal, so long as international travel is still understood to be a big no. Environmental and transportation of animals and live seeds laws trump service animal laws IMHO. Even guide dogs for the blind are heavily monitored and regulated.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

This is why disability is classified on a yes/no basis with terms to certification.

However if you do this it becomes easier to cheat the system. Someone takes some prescribed pills and then decides they need a certificated rodent....or peacock.

I would be happy with emotional support hamsters on principal, so long as international travel is still understood to be a big no. Environmental and transportation of animals and live seeds laws trump service animal laws IMHO. Even guide dogs for the blind are heavily monitored and regulated.

I was thinking more for cases of alirlines, of travel options that more restricted and such to smooth over problems for approved service animals.
Means that both airlines and the users have some solid legal ground on what is, and is not required to have boarding permission, and which are up to the airlines discresion.

Maybe your right, i was just thinking in sense of it means theres somthing solid in law on what is allowed, is not, or whats up to airlines.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

Flushed? Oh dear ... and people thought the H in C.H.U.D. stood for humanoid...

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

Well the situation seems clear; emotional support animals simply need a nation level of formal certification and training to be approved to quality to be except from regular standards that we adhere to animals. Until such standard is enacted and enforced people will continue to abuse the emotional support card to try and get out of having to pay for animals in the hold; or for carers to look after their pets.

As for the woman in question; it sounds like she simply tried to get the hamster on board; failed; didn't really care about the pet that much and flushed it so that she could continue with her holiday and then became convinced that she could sue. Anyone can sue for anything, so long as you've got the money you can start a court case. Of course something like this would be highly unlikely to succeed and many a case like this gets thrown out before it even properly makes it to the courts.

 sebster wrote:
Is there something about getting on a plane that acts as a trigger for people to meltdown? Because it seems like a really high number of plane flights have to deal with some lunatic or another. And I don't think it's just news bias, because I've been on three or four flights that were delayed because some looper argued something stupid with airline staff, and I haven't been on that many flights.

Flying is scary to a lot of people, plus the whole airport process can be intimidating and scary to people, especially if they are not used to it. Lots of people around, a situation totally out of your control; delays or issues that might well mean that connecting flights or other forms of transport (all prepaid) might get interrupted etc.... Couple that to invasion of privacy (pat downs) and people snooping through your luggage etc... It can all add up to put people not used to it on edge.
Once stressed people start to act differently to when they are relaxed or at least content and confident in their situation and surroundings.


In addition the nature of flights likely means that people who have significant mental issues are likely to be more apparent. The various interactions, prolonged procedure and suchlike likely starts to erode away mechanisms that they use to get by normally in day-to-day life.


And finally people do get scared of flying. Sure its a normal thing people do every day, but its still pretty scary to people to be thinking that very soon they'll be right up in the air going at very fast speeds with no chance of escape; and no control over their situation. That's why some people request seats away from the windows or take calming pills before a flight.


All that added together and you can start to appreciate that yes, flying and the whole airport atmosphere can put people on edge and tip those near the edge over into being stressed out and more hostile or antagonistic.

Birds shouldn't be support animals. They don't have anuses, they have cloacas. They can't control where they poo. They just poop. You can't train a bird to not poop.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

We have serious estigmas agaisnt mental health. And mental health will become the most common mental dissease for humans in the future. Nobody gives you crap if you have a medical problem and go to the doctor for it, but many people will see you with prejudice if you have mental problems.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

it would clear up some of the headaches of is it a service, is it a pet, is it a emotinal animal etc.
yes not always needed but if someone was say unsure, them the ID can be checked, confusion cleared and no need coe court cases. likewise if you try it on and someone asks for the card, no card, the airline is protected from lawsuot when they refuse someone for good reasons etc

I see service and support dogs in the airport all of the time. Never saw an unrulely one, and I have no problem with them. If people can also bring “purse dogs” onto a plane that clearly aren't support dogs, why not a hamster in a cage?

If it was a “free range” hamster, then feth that girl. Put it in a cage.

 War Drone wrote:
Flushed? Oh dear ... and people thought the H in C.H.U.D. stood for humanoid...

Someone remembered CHUD!

Good on you!

 Galas wrote:

We have serious estigmas agaisnt mental health. And mental health will become the most common mental dissease for humans in the future. Nobody gives you crap if you have a medical problem and go to the doctor for it, but many people will see you with prejudice if you have mental problems.

I remember watching a documentary done by Steven Fry on himself and his battle with depression. He said the problem is that people do not talk, nor are they encouraged to talk about mental health issues. As soon as its mentioned people want to shut down the communication - "oh you've got depression, right, er, so how's the weather."

Because its a hidden part of life people (esp adults) don't know how to react to it nor what they "should do". They've no real experience tackling it so it becomes a stigma very easily.

And then there's the fact that it is hidden; you can't see on a person many kinds of mental illness; but you can see if their foot is in a cast or their arm missing (even then most people often avoid that topic of conversation*)


*reminds me of a war veteran who had lost a limb in war who said that kids were better than adults with regard to it. Adults would try to avoid the whole topic of the missing leg; trying hard not to look at it or talk about it, as if its something to be embarrassed and hidden away. Most kids would, instead, be openly curious and often far more accepting and tolerant of the difference.

There already is a national code of conduct regulating the use and transport of service animals, pets, and emotional support animals.

If you need an emotional support animal, you have to get a note from your doctor.

The airline is not legally bound to carry it and can deny boarding if your animal is thought to pose a potential danger to the safe operation of the flight.

Then we get bogged down into the nitty-gritty particulars of individual cases.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

It's been an issue long before the tide pods garbage.

One of the, in my opinion, biggest issues is that you are not required to have any paperwork or proof that the animal has successfully completed a service animal training course. It does restrict the types of animals significantly in this regard(some animals are easier to train than others)...but it also opens up abuse as people are allowed to say they 'trained the animal' personally.

One of the better things to come of the trend is that a lot of veteran and disability support groups are turning to animal shelters as a source of dogs to try to rehabilitate them as service dogs on the cheap for those who genuinely need them.

This was on the news this morning, but the way they were reporting it, it sounded like someone from the airline took the hamster and flushed it for her. I didn't really try to read more into it till now. Sad the poor hamster had to die.. I hate when people hurt pets.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

This is in no way what I meant and I have no idea how you managed to think that from the whole context of my post.

What I mean was, abusive use of service animals isn't a serious problem, it's just a hot news story (such as with that peacock the other day).

Still flabbergasted you thought I was essentially handwaving away mental illness.

It doesn't really sound like a mental health issue.

It sounds a lot like an entitled brat trying to make a quick buck by suing an airline company on dubious grounds because of recent news reports where someone sued an airline because they actually abused him.

Someone with mental health doesn't sue an airline because they "forced" her to flush a beloved pet down a toilet, that is the actions of someone who is an idiot, not a victim.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It doesn't really sound like a mental health issue.

It sounds a lot like an entitled brat trying to make a quick buck by suing an airline company on dubious grounds because of recent news reports where someone sued an airline because they actually abused him.

Someone with mental health doesn't sue an airline because they "forced" her to flush a beloved pet down a toilet, that is the actions of someone who is an idiot, not a victim.

Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

I suppose anything's possible, especially to white knights on the internet. I do wonder what is most likely though. An airline employee lies to someone about policy for an unknown reason and despite considerable risk to themselves/their job and that person just so happens to believe said employee because they have mental health issues. Then of course her family hear of the mistreatment and convince her to sue, instead of seek treatment or help. The family that was, until now, nowhere to be seen with this poor, mentally ill woman, who is left to travel alone and without any support at all (apart from a Hamster).

Either she has mental health issues, in which case her family are abusing her to make a quick buck and are scumbags, or she is a liar and is doing this herself to make a quick buck and is a scum bag. I don't see how anyone can blame an airline for someone choosing to flush their supposed pet down the toilet. What garbage.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

I suppose anything's possible, especially to white knights on the internet. I do wonder what is most likely though. An airline employee lies to someone about policy for an unknown reason and despite considerable risk to themselves/their job and that person just so happens to believe said employee because they have mental health issues. Then of course her family hear of the mistreatment and convince her to sue, instead of seek treatment or help. The family that was, until now, nowhere to be seen with this poor, mentally ill woman, who is left to travel alone and without any support at all (apart from a Hamster).

Either she has mental health issues, in which case her family are abusing her to make a quick buck and are scumbags, or she is a liar and is doing this herself to make a quick buck and is a scum bag. I don't see how anyone can blame an airline for someone choosing to flush their supposed pet down the toilet. What garbage.

If I'm a 'white knight' for presenting an opposing view in a situation we barely have info on, does that make you a 'black knight' for immediately going for the worst scenario, with some insults for the woman on top? I guess its easier to bash strangers on the internet for the lolz than to consider mental health problems. Also have you ever called an airline costumer service? I have had a couple of times when the people at the bag check make directly opposite statements to that of the costumer service rep (who obviously couldn't care less going by tone). That is the big question isn't it, what did they tell her over the phone? Then people making off handed comments or jokes about flushing it might have entirely different impressions to people. I guess not making it a stark black and white issue makes me a 'white knight'.

Also note that your assumption is strange to say the least. If she actually has mental health problems and it is the airlines fault, the family are still "scumbags" for trying to hold the airline responsible? Plus the assumption that she has to be herded around by her family because she has mental problems is just being ridiculous.

If she actually has mental health problems it might not be so simple as "choosing" what to do, its a severe misunderstanding/gross oversimplification of the complications of mental health issues, with zero insight about what was actually said to her.

 Luciferian wrote:
The ADA is crystal clear. If you have a disability, ANY disability that has been medically diagnosed, and an animal can be trained (pretty much dogs) to perform a medically necessary task for you in regards to that disability, you can take that animal where ever you go. Period.

Yeah, and thats fine. The wrinkle is that there is no burden of proof on someone to prove that their service animal is actually a service animal.

Businesses are explicitly NOT allowed to demand any sort of proof that a service animal is what a person claims it is. You are allowed to ask two questions. 1) Is the animal a service animal? 2) What is the task it performs? A person can then just lie and make up any answer on the spot and you must then let them it.

There is no ID card system that can be demanded as proof.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If I'm a 'white knight' for presenting an opposing view in a situation we barely have info on, does that make you a 'black knight' for immediately going for the worst scenario, with some insults for the woman on top? I guess its easier to bash strangers on the internet for the lolz than to consider mental health problems. Also have you ever called an airline costumer service? I have had a couple of times when the people at the bag check make directly opposite statements to that of the costumer service rep (who obviously couldn't care less going by tone). That is the big question isn't it, what did they tell her over the phone? Then people making off handed comments or jokes about flushing it might have entirely different impressions to people. I guess not making it a stark black and white issue makes me a 'white knight'.

Also note that your assumption is strange to say the least. If she actually has mental health problems and it is the airlines fault, the family are still "scumbags" for trying to hold the airline responsible? Plus the assumption that she has to be herded around by her family because she has mental problems is just being ridiculous.

If she actually has mental health problems it might not be so simple as "choosing" what to do, its a severe misunderstanding/gross oversimplification of the complications of mental health issues, with zero insight about what was actually said to her.

You're a white knight for trying to take the moral high ground where there is none to take.

Not sure who I'm bashing on the internet? You offended? Additionally there are no mental health problems here to consider, as you said earlier, neither you (or the article) has access to enough information to make a determination of this.

I don't know why you feel the need to argue with me. I said what I thought. I didn't say it was fact, merely my opinion. I actually said it "sounds like" and "seems like" it isn't a mental health issue. I don't need to patronised by a white knight thanks. I have my opinion and you're not going to change it unless you present more facts, which you seem incapable of doing.

And yes, when a family tries to sue an airline, they aren't trying to hold it accountable, they are trying to make money. They are scum bags.
If her condition is such that she is at risk of flushing her pets because she was told to (or not), then suffering a ton of distress from the act, then yes I think she might need some support when boarding a plane. I think if she actually had a condition she would have this support.

An airline isn't going to provide exceptions to the rules for one person, regardless of their sad story. The rules are the rules and they exist for a reason. What would happen if the lady had been allowed on the flight with her hamster and someone allergic had died because the microscopic particles had traveled throughout with the air conditioning?

There is no case here. The woman is either an idiot, an entitled scum bag or genuinely has mental health issues, neither of which is the fault or responsibility of the airline. If the "best case" is that she genuinely has a mental health problem, the responsibility should lie with her carers or family to provide the appropriate level of support when she is boarding a plane.

As I said - it all seems a little convenient to me. This is my opinion and you can share it or not, but don't try to force yours on me because it is different to your own.

I also don't think there's enough information to know what actually happened in terms of how the hamster came to be flushed, but I'd like to point out if nothing else, Spirit sure screwed up when they told her she could bring the hamster on the flight and then decided once she was at the gate with the hamster that she couldn't have it after all. I can't help but think perhaps they could have just given her a box to put it in.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

And yes, when a family tries to sue an airline, they aren't trying to hold it accountable, they are trying to make money. They are scum bags.

An airline isn't going to provide exceptions to the rules for one person, regardless of their sad story.

On this first bit. . .let's hypothetically say that a person is flying on an Airline's plane, when this aircraft successfully makes an "emergency water landing" in the atlantic. Now, the people on the flight are being forced to use their seat cushions as a flotation device. In this hypothetical, let's say that this passenger was unable to float due to some fault in the seat cushion. In this case, I would tentatively agree to the idea that this person's family is holding the airline accountable because they've said for years that you can use their seat cushions to float if they survive a crash in the water.

This case isn't like my hypothetical though.


On this second point, I agree. . . However, as I mentioned above, based on a number of FB comments that I've seen from people claiming airline employment, there is an exception to policy, but ONLY when the person asking for the exception has proof of their need (ie, a doctor's note)

"Because it's policy" and "the rules are the rules" are incredibly insipid defenses of a tedious dura lex, sed lex argument, by the way. Every single airline makes exceptions to policy literally every day, from refunding non-refundable tickets in the case of medical emergency to letting people in economy sit up in first class when the plane is under-booked.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If I'm a 'white knight' for presenting an opposing view in a situation we barely have info on, does that make you a 'black knight' for immediately going for the worst scenario, with some insults for the woman on top? I guess its easier to bash strangers on the internet for the lolz than to consider mental health problems. Also have you ever called an airline costumer service? I have had a couple of times when the people at the bag check make directly opposite statements to that of the costumer service rep (who obviously couldn't care less going by tone). That is the big question isn't it, what did they tell her over the phone? Then people making off handed comments or jokes about flushing it might have entirely different impressions to people. I guess not making it a stark black and white issue makes me a 'white knight'.

Also note that your assumption is strange to say the least. If she actually has mental health problems and it is the airlines fault, the family are still "scumbags" for trying to hold the airline responsible? Plus the assumption that she has to be herded around by her family because she has mental problems is just being ridiculous.

If she actually has mental health problems it might not be so simple as "choosing" what to do, its a severe misunderstanding/gross oversimplification of the complications of mental health issues, with zero insight about what was actually said to her.

You're a white knight for trying to take the moral high ground where there is none to take.

Not sure who I'm bashing on the internet? You offended? Additionally there are no mental health problems here to consider, as you said earlier, neither you (or the article) has access to enough information to make a determination of this.

I don't know why you feel the need to argue with me. I said what I thought. I didn't say it was fact, merely my opinion. I actually said it "sounds like" and "seems like" it isn't a mental health issue. I don't need to patronised by a white knight thanks. I have my opinion and you're not going to change it unless you present more facts, which you seem incapable of doing.

And yes, when a family tries to sue an airline, they aren't trying to hold it accountable, they are trying to make money. They are scum bags.
If her condition is such that she is at risk of flushing her pets because she was told to (or not), then suffering a ton of distress from the act, then yes I think she might need some support when boarding a plane. I think if she actually had a condition she would have this support.

An airline isn't going to provide exceptions to the rules for one person, regardless of their sad story. The rules are the rules and they exist for a reason. What would happen if the lady had been allowed on the flight with her hamster and someone allergic had died because the microscopic particles had traveled throughout with the air conditioning?

There is no case here. The woman is either an idiot, an entitled scum bag or genuinely has mental health issues, neither of which is the fault or responsibility of the airline. If the "best case" is that she genuinely has a mental health problem, the responsibility should lie with her carers or family to provide the appropriate level of support when she is boarding a plane.

As I said - it all seems a little convenient to me. This is my opinion and you can share it or not, but don't try to force yours on me because it is different to your own.

I'm not taking any moral high round, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to make sweeping and insulting statements based on a case neither of us knows much about. If you think simply disagreeing with you constitutes taking the moral high round then this is going to be a short discussion.

I wasn't referring to me when I said bashing, I was referring to the woman who may or may not have mental health problems who you referred to as an "entitled brat", an idiot and a "scumbag". Flushing a hamster clearly isn't the action of a sound mind, so I think some mental problems seem likely.

I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion on a discussion board, I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to offer a counterpoint. Also, using white knight as an insult isn't going to help this discussion in any way so why use it? I'm just saying you could tone it down on the insults against a woman you have no information about. I'm sorry if that makes me a 'white knight'

Wait, how would you hold an airline accountable then? What recourse do you have to take them to account besides suing them? There it goes again, you insulting the family for no reason, this is exactly why I questioned your first comment.
First of all, flushing a pet doesn't have to be an existing risk, it could be the deterioration of her condition based on the circumstances which as others have pointed out also included medical problems. Just assuming someone with mental health problems needs contant supervision is pretty weird.
What would have happened if the woman got an anxiety attack or had a heart condition and died as a result of not having a hamster on the flight? What if not taking the hamster would have caused the plane to crash? Any other ridiculous circumstances you would like to submit?

Well, I guess the court will decide if there is a case here. If she does have mental health problems and the airline personnel did first say she could take the hamster and then made an offhanded comment about flushing it, it seems pretty clear that some of the fault might lie with the airline. Which would be something for the court to decided.

Again, I'm not forcing my opinion on you, I'm asking you to consider the fact that she might actually have mental problems, the possible consequences of that, and not throw around insults with that possibly being the case. But I will leave it, as this obviously serves no point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I also don't think there's enough information to know what actually happened in terms of how the hamster came to be flushed, but I'd like to point out if nothing else, Spirit sure screwed up when they told her she could bring the hamster on the flight and then decided once she was at the gate with the hamster that she couldn't have it after all. I can't help but think perhaps they could have just given her a box to put it in.

They sure did when they told her that, sadly there likely won't be any evidence of that conversation beyond he said she said.

Something I found interesting....

She wanted to fly from PA to FL with her hamster.
Couldn't do it....but bucked up and put on her brave face and flew later.

I am wondering.....can we assume that she has quite possibly flown from FL to TX to change schools? Again...without apparent support from an animal..? I realize the article isnt clear on this.

Something just really feels off to me about her whole situation/story.

 Ouze wrote:
"Because it's policy" and "the rules are the rules" are incredibly insipid defenses of a tedious dura lex, sed lex argument, by the way. Every single airline makes exceptions to policy literally every day, from refunding non-refundable tickets in the case of medical emergency to letting people in economy sit up in first class when the plane is under-booked.

Except that those policies exist for a reason. A major part of which is safely serving the needs of disabled people with service animals! Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences. What if someone's untrained "emotional support" animal distracts or attacks a service animal that another patron depends on to live? That's not just a hypothetical situation I'm thinking up because I want to be a meanie, it's likely to happen, and it's possible that injury or death could really result!

Legally, there is no such thing as an "emotional support animal". It doesn't exist, at least not federally. Sometimes doctors or therapists will use comfort animals in a clinical setting, but no one's untrained house pet is prescribed to them by a medical professional. Anyone who says they must legally be allowed to bring an untrained animal with them because it's a support animal is stating a bald-faced lie. Not only that, they are capitalizing on the general lack of knowledge the public has about service animals, and using the willingness of the public to help the disabled in a manipulative way, in order to get something they want, not need. There are simply no two ways about that.

I wasn't going to play this card, but I am a disabled veteran. I know veterans who have service dogs, and others who train service dogs. I have been present for a fair amount of the training of one PTSD dog in particular. I have seen first hand how random people bringing random animals with them and deceptively claiming or implying protection under the law can negatively impact the disabled. This is not a hypothetical to me, and if I'm mean or callous or insensitive for calling out people who try to game the system at the detriment of those around them, including the people the system is meant to protect, then so be it.

I have also been in a position where I was required to ask those two questions from the ADA before allowing any animals to enter, for legitimate health and safety reasons. For every legitimately disabled person with a service animal there were multiple malingerers who claimed their animal was protected under the law, but clearly didn't know the law. You ask someone with a service animal those two questions and they know exactly what you are talking about and how to answer. You ask a malingerer, and they immediately make a scene and demand that you let them in with their "support animal" when the law has no such protection for support animals. They are lying to access the benefits and protections afforded to disabled people.

Now, maybe this is just something not a lot of people really know the nitty gritty of, but some of the responses here absolutely blow me away. If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

 Luciferian wrote:
Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences. What if someone's untrained "emotional support" animal distracts or attacks a service animal that another patron depends on to live? That's not just a hypothetical situation I'm thinking up because I want to be a meanie, it's likely to happen, and it's possible that injury or death could really result!

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

 Luciferian wrote:
Now, maybe this is just something not a lot of people really know the nitty gritty of, but some of the responses here absolutely blow me away. If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

It's easy to stump yourself with crazy situations when you invent them in your head. Literally no one in this thread is making the arguments you are claiming they are making; and what started out as pretty weak sauce with the OP has been significantly diluted with these no-effort strawman arguments.

text removed.

Reds8n

Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Something I found interesting....

She wanted to fly from PA to FL with her hamster.
Couldn't do it....but bucked up and put on her brave face and flew later.

I am wondering.....can we assume that she has quite possibly flown from FL to TX to change schools? Again...without apparent support from an animal..? I realize the article isnt clear on this.

Something just really feels off to me about her whole situation/story.

To be fair, without knowing the development history of a possible mental illness its just guesswork as to when the hamster needed to come into the picture for her. It might not have been so severe when she went to Texas.

ITT, someone who purportedly is mentally ill does something irrational and this is proof that this person is not mentally ill.

 daedalus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

 daedalus wrote:
TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

 daedalus wrote:
Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

MY experience is completely irrelevant.

I have had experience of different illnesses. I used to teach children with different illnesses but it doesn't matter. My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Must have not been a very effective "emotional support" animal if the individual in question is willing to drown it so they don't miss their flight. That sounds more like somebody who is self-centered and shallow, not to mention cruel as hell to the hamster (I used to have hamsters, and have a soft spot for the fuzzy little turds). She's a piece of in my book. You don't have to be inflicted with mental illness to be shallow, self-centered as hell, and cruel to animals. There are plenty of supposedly sane individuals who do far worse every day.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.

 Luciferian wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo....

And as everyone gets diagnosed from birth and conditions never worsen nobody ever falls through the cracks! /sarcasm

 Ouze wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.

Guess what happens to people who are this 'crazy'?

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo.... /sarcasm

Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

Yea they have, but those people have constant supervision. They do not go on flights alone.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And as everyone gets diagnosed from birth and conditions never worsen nobody ever falls through the cracks! /sarcasm

Yea of course she must have fallen through the cracks! It all makes sense! I'm sure it's nothing to do with the looming animal cruelty case because of her flushing her beloved hamster down a toilet and possibility of profiting from claiming it was the "airlines fault". Man thanks for opening my eyes! So wise.../sarcasm

 Ouze wrote:

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

Yes, you clearly are!. You want a straw man? How about ascribing a heretofore unmentioned mental illness to this person or anyone else who would engage in similar behavior, and repeatedly saying nonsense like "TIL people with mental illness something something." Literally implying that there is no legitimate complaint here except to bash on people with mental illness!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo.... /sarcasm

Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

Yea they have, but those people have constant supervision. They do not go on flights alone.

Your insight and diagnosis of a woman over the internet is truly amazing, you clearly know all there is to know about mental illness and its consequences.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

Yeah, that's where I am.

I dunno if she really is incapable of travelling without an emotional support animal. I never met her. I would have to suppose it's possible, and that someone who is unstable - to the point that they need an animal so they can travel without a breakdown - might in fact have a breakdown when told they must be seperated from said animal so they can get the medical treatment they themselves need - and do something a mentally disturbed person would do.

Or maybe she's a terrible person who doesn't actually need an emotional support animal, didn't care about the hamster, and flushed it so she couldn't be inconvenienced further. Maybe it was a pretext towards a frivolous lawsuit against the airline. That seems unlikely to me since lawsuits are expensive and the actual tort is nearly nonexistent, but who knows.

We're probably never going to know. My only real conclusion is that for some reason Spirit is somehow escaping their due opprobrium for manufacturing this situation by telling her she could bring the hamster and then changing their minds at the gate. They could have better accomodated the customer to rectify the situation they readily admit to manufacturing.

 Luciferian wrote:

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

No, it's not my professional opinion, because it has nothing to do with software, computers, or telecom. I can explain to you the steps I followed to arrive at that conclusion though.

I read in the article that she has ongoing health issues of an otherwise undisclosed nature. Fine. She's not on trial (in theory) and we have no right to her medical history. Cool.

So, the hamster is an "emotional support animal". I have no idea WTF that is. I'm not a medical professional. So I googled it. It looks like it's an animal (not a "pet" per some law) that provides therapeutic benefit to an individual with a mental or psychiatric disability. No, it's not recognized by the ADA unless its a dog that's trained to perform support tasks of a specific nature. Okay, cool, so if that's what it was, which I have no reason to believe it isn't, then maybe she DOES have a mental disorder.

So, she had no right to take it onboard, but someone supposedly indicated that she would be able to. She reacted poorly to the situation, and wound up killing it for the sake of being able to catch the flight to be able to make her medical appointment.

I can either presuppose ill faith on her part and put on my inquisition outfit and tear her apart for acting irrationally, or, I can come to the conclusion I did by taking far less leaps of faith and assumption.

And from an entirely unprofessional level, it kinda sounds like something I'd expect someone autistic to do.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

Yes, you clearly are!. You want a straw man? How about

No, I'm sorry, you don't get to just move the goalposts when you got caught garbage posting.

 Luciferian wrote:
Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences.

Who specifically said that? Quote them here.

 Luciferian wrote:
If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

Who specifically said that? Quote them here.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

Man, this thread is a delicious jambalaya of emotional handwringing and outrage addiction. What a time to be alive!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.
Guess what happens to people who are this 'crazy'?

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

No sir. I believe that somewhere civilized, but this is the US. We promote our mentally ill to the highest level of power and authority, at least when we're not letting them stockpile emotional support weapons in hotel rooms above crowded conventions.

In another 14 years, I'd like to see her for president.

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

Yeah, that's where I am.

I dunno if she really is incapable of travelling without an emotional support animal. I never met her. I would have to suppose it's possible, and that someone who is unstable - to the point that they need an animal so they can travel without a breakdown - might in fact have a breakdown when told they must be seperated from said animal so they can get the medical treatment they themselves need - and do something a mentally disturbed person would do.

Or maybe she's a terrible person who doesn't actually need an emotional support animal, didn't care about the hamster, and flushed it so she couldn't be inconvenienced further. Maybe it was a pretext towards a frivolous lawsuit against the airline. That seems unlikely to me since lawsuits are expensive and the actual tort is nearly nonexistent, but who knows.

We're probably never going to know. My only real conclusion is that for some reason Spirit is somehow escaping their due opprobrium for manufacturing this situation by telling her she could bring the hamster and then changing their minds at the gate. They could have better accomodated the customer to rectify the situation they readily admit to manufacturing.

The idea that someone would buy a hamster, call ahead to knowingly get the wrong answer and then to be certain to be refused at the gate so she can flush said hamster sounds like the most convoluted idea for a lawsuit I have ever heard. There must be easier ways to stiff your airline out of a couple bucks

Although as far as I'm aware she called ahead to check. In the Netherlands its pretty standard for those calls to be recorded and saved. Is that the case too in the US? If so and that tape still exists then some of the blame falls on the airline. I do wonder how the hamster was being transported, as that doesn't get reported, if it was in a cage why make such a big deal out of it in the first place?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Man, this thread is a delicious jambalaya of emotional handwringing and outrage addiction. What a time to be alive!

 Ouze wrote:
I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

I believe it's the hair that people are allergic to.

Or it could be the tiny animals they carry.

Or both.

You never met anyone allergic to an animal? Wow.

Edit - I should add that animal cruelty =/= mental illness. Legally. Also throughout history people have been incredibly cruel to animals and have never been considered mentally ill.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Although as far as I'm aware she called ahead to check. In the Netherlands its pretty standard for those calls to be recorded and saved. Is that the case too in the US? If so and that tape still exists then some of the blame falls on the airline. I do wonder how the hamster was being transported, as that doesn't get reported, if it was in a cage why make such a big deal out of it in the first place?

It's not in dispute that they said she could bring the hamster, so the recording of the call is irrelevant. It's what happened at the gate that's in dispute, and if there was a recording I would imagine Spirit would have released it already. Or maybe it makes Spirit look awful so they're not releasing it, who knows.

So far as how it was being transported, yeah that's the real question. It's not clear why they couldn't fix the situation they made. It would make more sense if it turned out she had it in a pocket or something which would be difficult to deal with but that seems like a good way to get bitten so seems unlikely.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

I believe it's the hair that people are allergic to.

Or it could be the tiny animals they carry.

Or both.

You never met anyone allergic to an animal? Wow.

Well, that's begging the question a bit, since I never claimed that I've never met anyone allergic to an animal. However I'll answer anyway: I've definitely never met anyone or heard or anyone or honestly believe in the existence of anyone who is so sensitive to animal dander that a few molecules of it would make them die. I imagine a person so sensitive, if they existed, and I bet they don't, would avoid public transportation.

You know, I read an article once by someone who was deathly allergic to lavender. Like, would have to go to the hospital with an anaphylactic reaction if she caught a whiff of it.

No one's ever suggested banning lavender from planes.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that's begging the question a bit, since I never claimed that I've never met anyone allergic to an animal. However I'll answer anyway: I've definitely never met anyone or heard or anyone or honestly believe in the existence of anyone who is so sensitive to animal dander that a few molecules of it would make them die. I imagine a person so sensitive, if they existed, and I bet they don't, would avoid public transportation.

And if the animal escaped the woman's clutches and bit someone and that killed them? Or if it rubbed itself on them and they had a severe reaction and died?

It doesn't have to be a few hairs in the air con.

What about if the hamster escaped and gnawed through a critical cable that meant the plane didn't land correctly and everyone died?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that's begging the question a bit, since I never claimed that I've never met anyone allergic to an animal. However I'll answer anyway: I've definitely never met anyone or heard or anyone or honestly believe in the existence of anyone who is so sensitive to animal dander that a few molecules of it would make them die. I imagine a person so sensitive, if they existed, and I bet they don't, would avoid public transportation.

And if the animal escaped the woman's clutches and bit someone and that killed them? Or if it rubbed itself on them and they had a severe reaction and died?

It doesn't have to be a few hairs in the air con.

What about if the hamster escaped and gnawed through a critical cable that meant the plane didn't land correctly and everyone died?

What if the hamster was packed full of C4, and the whole thing was a ruse for a terror attack on American soil?

Rule #1 can only take so much abuse before a lot of people get warned and/or banned.

So instead of that (for now), threadlock.