• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    Okay. That would happen if you bought from a non renter too. Pets are a part lf the human experience and humans need housing. Landlords can live with the costs or sell up so people can buy.

    • FederatedSaint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Pets don’t need to be “part of the human experience” any more than drugs do. They’re optional and some people choose to have them and some don’t. Some people don’t like pets and don’t want to be forced to live around others’ pets.

      Have you even thought for a second that some people might CHOOSE housing based on the fact that a community doesn’t allow pets? And by “mandating all landlords allow pets” you are eliminating housing options for these people? God you people are like religious zealots and think everyone should be forced to believe in the same things you do.

      Friggin crazy fascists. “You’re going to like my pitbull (oh he’s harmless and you’re dog-racist if you believe otherwise) and now I want to force you to raise your kids around my untrained shit factory and step in his crap and listen to him bark constantly or you’re a horrible person.”

      Holy hell I hate you with the passion of a thousand suns.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Or we can mandate that pets should be allowed because humans want pets and landlords have driven humans out of home ownership, so now they need to be massively regulated.

        If landlord’s don’t like it, they can sell up and people can buy homes again.

        • FederatedSaint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not all humans want pets. And those humans don’t like to be forced to live among other people’s pets.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Oh that definitely overrides anything else. I don’t like the colour orange so I’ll just go ahead and claim no one else can have orange stuff incase we need to room together

            • FederatedSaint@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Dude you’re arguing opposite your position. The internal consistency of your argument has broken down.

              You say above you’re against a rule like “no one else can have orange stuff because I don’t like orange stuff” while at the same time arguing “everyone else has to like pets because I like pets.” Can’t you see how that’s hypocritical?

              And to be clear, you completely misrepresent my position in the first place. I’m not for requiring anyone to do anything. I’m against requiring landlords to allow pets. If they want to allow pets, great 👍.

              But if a property owner wants to advertise their community as quieter (no barking), cleaner, with less poop and pee on the grass, and less dander in the air, then why would you prohibit renters from seeking a nicer place like that for them to live?