Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.