Emotional Support Animals - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Emotional Support Animals


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, euan2020 said:

joking apart - are some of these dogs not trained to recognise & warn of a pending seizure/epilepsy ?

There will be some, I’m sure. But honestly, it’s everywhere I go here. Most, I’m sure are just typical arsehole Yanks who needs the latest craze. With the amount I see, there’s no way it’s justified. 

Remember, these dogs are not just like you or I having a dog because we love dogs. They claim they are emotional support as it then gives them a “right” to take it into every single place where people can’t say they are not allowed because then the wankbag owner claims discrimination. These bastards really do think they should have the same rights as a bling guy with a dog. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DoonTheSlope said:

We could survive without eating meat but it's not the revolution that people will have you believe. Anyone who says that veganism etc is healthier than eating meat is talking keech

May not be healthier for the individual (moderation in all things), but I imagine there's a good argument that its healthier for the planet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know to what extent it's related to emotional support, but the whole pet café thing is big in these parts. Went to one a fortnight back - over-priced coffee served with a dwarf rabbit, or hairless guinea pig (the wife chose that one - the most hideous creature on God's green earth ... not the wife), any number of fat and furry giant gerbil-like critters, a rat or a lizard. I downed a couple of cups of java accompanied by the last two. Don't think I came out of it emotionally buoyed, but it's certainly an interesting way to pass the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Don't know to what extent it's related to emotional support, but the whole pet café thing is big in these parts. Went to one a fortnight back - over-priced coffee served with a dwarf rabbit, or hairless guinea pig (the wife chose that one - the most hideous creature on God's green earth ... not the wife), any number of fat and furry giant gerbil-like critters, a rat or a lizard. I downed a couple of cups of java accompanied by the last two. Don't think I came out of it emotionally buoyed, but it's certainly an interesting way to pass the time.

Are these not just wee snacks in your neck of the woods. Do you get to cook them yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Are these not just wee snacks in your neck of the woods. Do you get to cook them yourself?

The Japanese are fairly orthodox these days when it comes to the consumption of terrestrial fauna - a cow's a cow, provided it's been fed on caviar and vintage Burgundy. Seafood is a different matter - potentially lethal blowfish, any number of molluscs, and minced jellyfish are all delicacies. 

Hedgehogs were another popular item on the zoological café menu ... like most of these things, they aren't indigenous to Japan - they import them along with the coffee beans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

May not be healthier for the individual (moderation in all things), but I imagine there's a good argument that its healthier for the planet. 

Do you mean healthier for our human habitation?

Sort of stealing off George Carlin here but i had the thought too, the planet has survived plenty it just adapts without too much trouble. looking at it historically, we've hardly any carbon in the atmosphere, in fact the conditions are getting good for mega-fauna. In fact looking at decrease in large mammals we're getting to the stage of over-staying out time anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phart said:

Do you mean healthier for our human habitation?

Sort of stealing off George Carlin here but i had the thought too, the planet has survived plenty it just adapts without too much trouble. looking at it historically, we've hardly any carbon in the atmosphere, in fact the conditions are getting good for mega-fauna. In fact looking at decrease in large mammals we're getting to the stage of over-staying out time anyway.

Yeah, I suppose 'the health of the planet' is fairly meaningless if you exclude the life that exists on it. Interesting point about mega-fauna, but they'd need us out of the way first, and we're more adaptable than just about anything, beyond bacteria. As we've discussed before, I think, Homo sapiens has effectively stepped out of evolutionary processes through our development of culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the issue of domesticated animals only very rarely get mentioned alongside the debate around livestock?

Ok, there are nowhere near as many pets as livestock, and leaving aside the whole argument of whether it’s acceptable to keep a sentient being for your own recreational purposes, surely the whole pet industry comes with huge and entirely avoidable environmental consequences? From the transport and manufacture of food and drugs to plastic toys and goodness knows what else, it’s an industry that also has to be questioned, surely? Why the blind spot?

If anyone’s interested, here’s a wee article concentrating more on one view of the ethics of a habit I have always found bizarre.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/01/should-we-stop-keeping-pets-why-more-and-more-ethicists-say-yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yeah, I suppose 'the health of the planet' is fairly meaningless if you exclude the life that exists on it. Interesting point about mega-fauna, but they'd need us out of the way first, and we're more adaptable than just about anything, beyond bacteria. As we've discussed before, I think, Homo sapiens has effectively stepped out of evolutionary processes through our development of culture.

Yeah but conditions that aren't good for humans are good for other life. So you can't exclude all life.

We might have(stepped outside) or that might be the hubris common to our species. We're 4 missed meals away from anarchy. Society/culture isn't that strong, and without the workings of society/culture, it's a shit life for humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, phart said:

Yeah but conditions that aren't good for humans are good for other life. So you can't exclude all life.

We might have(stepped outside) or that might be the hubris common to our species. We're 4 missed meals away from anarchy. Society/culture isn't that strong, and without the workings of society/culture, it's a shit life for humans.

Definitely, but there's a difference between a shit existence and extinction. Hubris or not, I can't see us going the way of the passenger pigeon for a long, long while. It's not a great existence for much of humanity now, and it could easily get a whole lot worse. I'm rather relieved that I'm unlikely to be here in 25 years' time.

On the evolution / culture thing. I'm fairly short-sighted. In 'the wild', I'd've been helpless and then dead in short measure. As it is, I can pass on my myopic genes to the next generation with no noticeable evolutionary disadvantage (in fact it has been argued that the ladies find bespectacled men attractive as it connotes intelligence ... a theory generally spread around by bespectacled men).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DonnyTJS said:

Definitely, but there's a difference between a shit existence and extinction. Hubris or not, I can't see us going the way of the passenger pigeon for a long, long while. It's not a great existence for much of humanity now, and it could easily get a whole lot worse. I'm rather relieved that I'm unlikely to be here in 25 years' time.

On the evolution / culture thing. I'm fairly short-sighted. In 'the wild', I'd've been helpless and then dead in short measure. As it is, I can pass on my myopic genes to the next generation with no noticeable evolutionary disadvantage (in fact it has been argued that the ladies find bespectacled men attractive as it connotes intelligence ... a theory generally spread around by bespectacled men).

Of course but our effect on the world would dramatically decrease and it would put us back into the evolutionary rat race.  Let's hope neither of us finds out whether we're right or not, as you say we might be getting out about the right time!!

I also wear specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Definitely, but there's a difference between a shit existence and extinction. Hubris or not, I can't see us going the way of the passenger pigeon for a long, long while. It's not a great existence for much of humanity now, and it could easily get a whole lot worse. I'm rather relieved that I'm unlikely to be here in 25 years' time.

On the evolution / culture thing. I'm fairly short-sighted. In 'the wild', I'd've been helpless and then dead in short measure. As it is, I can pass on my myopic genes to the next generation with no noticeable evolutionary disadvantage (in fact it has been argued that the ladies find bespectacled men attractive as it connotes intelligence ... a theory generally spread around by bespectacled men).

I think it is possible that as individual beings, we may have got to the stage where our our evolution has slowed down dramatically. As you say we have become so good at protecting our offspring, that most folk will live long enough to reproduce no matter how weak, blind or unintelligent we are. So survival of the fittest might not mean that much to us? On the other hand a lot of evolution is driven by chance mutations. If our mutated offspring have more chance of reproducing, then that might drive evolution faster? It would be hard for us to judge though as evolution happens over such huge time scales in large animals. 

But as a species our culture is continuing to evolve faster than ever before. Maybe faster than we can control. But then again, we have never been in control of our own evolution anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I think it is possible that as individual beings, we may have got to the stage where our our evolution has slowed down dramatically. As you say we have become so good at protecting our offspring, that most folk will live long enough to reproduce no matter how weak, blind or unintelligent we are. So survival of the fittest might not mean that much to us? On the other hand a lot of evolution is driven by chance mutations. If our mutated offspring have more chance of reproducing, then that might drive evolution faster? It would be hard for us to judge though as evolution happens over such huge time scales in large animals. 

But as a species our culture is continuing to evolve faster than ever before. Maybe faster than we can control. But then again, we have never been in control of our own evolution anyway.

 

I learned recently that the phrase 'Survival of the fittest' was not coined by Darwin, but by the social Darwinist Herbert Spencer whose ideas led directly to compulsory sterilization for the socially undesirable in many countries, were used to justify imperialism and the wilder shores of eugenics and arguably to the holocaust. All clunky ways (among other things) of humans trying to control evolutionary processes. Now that we are getting to grips with in vitro gene manipulation we could theoretically have great control over our own evolution - it's only ethics committees that are holding it back.

It's hard to imagine an isolated random mutation that would have similar evolutionary significance, beyond a very small island population or similar. Humans have been responsible for unnatural selection for millennia (Darwin's interest in the work of pigeon fanciers and the like was the basis for his theory of natural selection), and unnatural selection hugely outpaces natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough was listening to cbc radio last week about this ; first time i think ive been shouting at the radio in the car

woman from vancouver with ptsd ( dont know cause) brought her dog on flights as letter from Doc said it made her feel calmer; she was miffed as lots of folk “abusing” the system

theres loads of folk bring their dogs to hotels over here too

last summer a big dog was running thru the hotel in montana trying to get into folks rooms

owner cared not a jot

weve got cat,dog etc but its getting out of control

whatever takes off here usually jumps the pond....

allergies/ teeth whitening etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

I learned recently that the phrase 'Survival of the fittest' was not coined by Darwin, but by the social Darwinist Herbert Spencer whose ideas led directly to compulsory sterilization for the socially undesirable in many countries, were used to justify imperialism and the wilder shores of eugenics and arguably to the holocaust. All clunky ways (among other things) of humans trying to control evolutionary processes. Now that we are getting to grips with in vitro gene manipulation we could theoretically have great control over our own evolution - it's only ethics committees that are holding it back.

It's hard to imagine an isolated random mutation that would have similar evolutionary significance, beyond a very small island population or similar. Humans have been responsible for unnatural selection for millennia (Darwin's interest in the work of pigeon fanciers and the like was the basis for his theory of natural selection), and unnatural selection hugely outpaces natural selection.

Aye, your'e right. I suppose we have tried to control our own evolution without really knowing what we were doing. Inbreeding amongst the aristocracy being one example. We have been much more "successful" with other species (especially plants). The science of genetics is now advancing very fast and it could change everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bonzo said:

She loved her emotional support hamster, just not enough to miss her flight. 

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/08/woman-told-cant-take-emotional-support-hamster-flight-flushes-toilet-7296709/

So, does Richard Gere and Neil Tennant apparently. Except the rumour is that they flush them up the wrong un. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...