Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

wesleyyang.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#31

Post by foxyv »

munk-a wrote: post #3

If a blind woman enters your office with her dog and it poops on the rug you may be rather peeved over the event - but seeing eye dogs are exceedingly rare and blindness itself is a rather uncommon condition. I think part of the issue with ESAs was that suddenly they were everywhere - it didn't come on as a slow adaptation - it exploded like a fad because, well, it was one to a big portion of the population abusing i…

I think the huge number of ESAs are a symptom of the problems our country is having with mental health. So many people are suffering from untreated or poorly controlled mood and personality disorders. Dogs in the grocery store are a cheap therapy that some people need because that is literally all they can afford.

On the other hand it's frustrating to see dogs in the supermarket licking stuff and snagging cookies off the bottom shelf of the supermarket. What's worse is when owners then put it back leaving me wondering if I'm getting dog slobber with my package of oatmeal cookies. Not to mention barking and lunging dogs sometimes make aisles impassable.

Luckily it's gotten a lot more rare lately. I think people quickly realize that taking poorly trained animals out in public just makes their lives harder.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#32

Post by foxyv »

derbOac wrote: post #14

Am I the only one who feels like there are more important things to worry in the world about than emotional support animals?

It seems like a non-issue unless you are one of the many people who have been bitten by a dog. A lot of people are rightly afraid of un-trained and poorly socialized animals in public. When you share a grocery aisle with them it can be a bit hair raising. Just ask anyone who does work involving delivery or home service.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#35

Post by dang »

dotcommand wrote: post #13
taurath wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're really fundamentally misunderstanding treatment modalities that allow people to be better, because you're conflating having an injury with weakness. Ex-soldiers with PTSD are one of the best studied. > A wide body of anecdotal evidence and scientific studies reflects what many already suspected—animal companionship can help support positive outcomes in physical and mental health. https://www.dav.org/ve…

> I think you're really fundamentally misunderstanding treatment modalities that allow people to be better, because you're conflating having an injury with weakness. I don't think the white woman with an emotional support dog who got the black man kicked off the flight had any ptsd. > Ex-soldiers with PTSD are one of the best studied. Do they need animals to serve as their crutch to go everywhere? Don't think so. I h…

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Flamewar like this is not cool, and using HN primarily for ideological battle is something we ban accounts for—regardless of which flavor they favor.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#36

Post by taurath »

dang wrote: post #35
dotcommand wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're really fundamentally misunderstanding treatment modalities that allow people to be better, because you're conflating having an injury with weakness. I don't think the white woman with an emotional support dog who got the black man kicked off the flight had any ptsd. > Ex-soldiers with PTSD are one of the best studied. Do they need animals to serve as their crutch to go everywhere? Don't think so. I h…

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Flamewar like this is not cool, and using HN primarily for ideological battle is something we ban accounts for—regardless of which flavor they favor. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apologies for the bit of contribution myself, not really my intention ^^

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#37

Post by noptd »

nate_meurer wrote: post #30
subjectsigma wrote: post #25

1. My sister has a registered emotional support animal. She did this purely because she could as a convenience thing. IE instead of shipping her pet in a crate she wanted to hold it in the cabin so she could avoid the hassle of checking it in. During the process of getting it registered her psychiatrist was 100% aware she did not need an emotional support animal and said that other patients did the same thing. Based…

> if I ever encountered an animal on a plane it would probably be one of the worst experiences of my life. If this is true, it sounds like a phobia, which is arguably itself a disability. > I've met way too many people who treat their "fur babies" better than the actual human beings around them. I sympathize with this in a way, but I urge you to recognize that your phobia may render you unable to understand or relate…

> I have horrendous allergies to animal dander, and just don't like animals in general. Not life threatening but ...

There's the proceeding context that you ignored in order to claim the parent has some emotionally blinding phobia, and that'd be a super uncharitable interpretation even if that context wasn't included btw.

I'm sure that bringing your pet everywhere is nice but when your non-service animal triggers physical issues for others, why would you expect a company to prioritize your preference of convenience and slight increase in comfort over the preference of others to avoid unnecessary physical ills? It seems silly to me that there would even be a debate.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#38

Post by nate_meurer »

noptd wrote: post #37
nate_meurer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I ever encountered an animal on a plane it would probably be one of the worst experiences of my life. If this is true, it sounds like a phobia, which is arguably itself a disability. > I've met way too many people who treat their "fur babies" better than the actual human beings around them. I sympathize with this in a way, but I urge you to recognize that your phobia may render you unable to understand or relate…

> I have horrendous allergies to animal dander, and just don't like animals in general. Not life threatening but ... There's the proceeding context that you ignored in order to claim the parent has some emotionally blinding phobia, and that'd be a super uncharitable interpretation even if that context wasn't included btw. I'm sure that bringing your pet everywhere is nice but when your non-service animal triggers phy…

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for a phobia--there usually is, whether a physical or emotional reaction. If the word doesn't fit here, that's fine, but "one of the worst experiences of my life" is pretty strong language, and I don't think it's a stretch to describe such a reaction as a disability.

The real point of contention is the extent to which the parent apparently believes their disability should be accommodated by society.

I have a few allergies myself, including to cats. I consider allergies, like I have, to be a very mild form of disability. I take some responsibility for my own very mild disability by packing an inhaler and antihistamines when I travel.

What I don't do is go around insisting that everyone else keep their animals away from me.

Now, does this mean that I believe everyone who fancies flying with a cat should be allowed to do so? Certainly not. There's a balance between those two extremes.

> preference of convenience and slight increase in comfort

That's a bit of a strawman itself don't you think? No, I don't think everyone should be allowed to fly with their pets simply because they prefer to. But your description certainly doesn't fit my friend, nor does it give adequate credit to the extent to which many people's companions help them with emotional and mental barriers to travel, such as agoraphobia.

So if the question involves a fantasy battle between @subjectsigma and my friend, then my desire would be for my friend to be allowed to bring her companion, and @subjectsigma to bring an inhaler and antihistamines. Just like I do.

Re: The arc of history bends toward emotional support peacocks

#39

Post by blacktriangle »

foxyv wrote: post #32
derbOac wrote: post #14

Am I the only one who feels like there are more important things to worry in the world about than emotional support animals?

It seems like a non-issue unless you are one of the many people who have been bitten by a dog. A lot of people are rightly afraid of un-trained and poorly socialized animals in public. When you share a grocery aisle with them it can be a bit hair raising. Just ask anyone who does work involving delivery or home service.

There is no such thing as a well socialized dog. They are pack animals and their owner is their pack, everybody else is the enemy. It doesn't matter how friendly you think they are, if they perceive a threat to their family they will attack.

Nothing worse than a dog owner who doesn't realize that the way that his dog treats him does not extend to the rest of the world, which from what I can tell lately is all of them.

Post reply on HN