• 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?