• SbisasCostlyTurnover@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop. That’s the sentence.

    If the landlord doesn’t like that it may affect their investment, well… sometimes investments go bad. Might I suggest selling the house and investing in a market that isn’t built around the exploitation of regular people trying to not die on the street.

    Just sayin’.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      First off, fuck landlords - they shouldn’t have a say in whether you’re allowed to keep pets.

      I do however think that people in your house should have a say with loud animals. There are few things more annoying to me than incessant barking - and even if that usually isn’t the case with a well-trained dog, you usually have little guarantee how it will turn out.

      That’s not to say I’m absolutely against dogs. Someone in my house is a dog trainer, and they wanted to get one, and asked the house for permission. I agreed since they have the necessary knowledge - but if it were someone else I probably wouldn’t have agreed, because there isn’t much you can do once they own a loud dog.

    • SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      EDIT: I misread/misinterpreted OPs comment, but I’ll leave my reply - fuck penalising the poor for being poor.

      I completely disagree. I’ll never get a mortgage because I can’t work. That doesn’t mean I can’t look after my cat - I take better care of her than I do myself! I wasn’t ill when I first got her - I had no idea I’d be permanently unable to work within a year of getting her. Should I have lost my pet as well as my health, my job, my future? Not if I could look after her properly, which I do. Here in the UK, the RSPCA help people like me who got a pet and then suffered an unforeseen change in circumstances. They offer heavily reduced vet care and vaccinations because being low income/disabled/elderly/not owning a freaking house doesn’t mean you can’t be a loving, responsible pet owner.

      No one can see into the future or know what will befall us. Aren’t an alarming percentage of people just a couple of paycheques away from losing their homes? Should no one get a pet just in case something bad happens in the future? No. That’s ridiculous.

      That’s not to say I’m not sensible about it. I really really want a dog, but I know that would stretch my finances too far. I will take in my mums cats when she passes away though - and they we be loved and cared for, despite my failure to own a house.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the comment you’re replying to says “If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop”

            They’re agreeing with you, I think you must have misread should as shouldn’t or something like that. It’s easily done :) I was just a bit confused reading the comment and reply.