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.

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.