Considering how many pets got dumped after the pandemic, its worth the question
Should People Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to Own a Pet?
Comments
- 1
- 2
That's a bit contradictory isn't it. You say no pets are necessary, then say they keep people sane and healthy, sounds necessary to me :)
A missing comma after No would make more sense.
practise safe text; use commas
"They like keep…" ?
Like totally OMG!!
Rigorous psychological assessments for pet ownership! Quick background checks waived at gun shows for firearms!
Hey, if the vet bill exceeds the cost of a bullet, gotta make that call!?
Pets are the opium of the people.
Or Children for that matter…
Or posting in forums (particularly those in “covid” area)?
Or Breathing Air?
or using internet?
It's different with having a pet or children
How about a very rigorous test to become eligible to vote? And one for politicians too?
Guessing this is written by a man. My understanding is that IVF is a hugely invasive procedure.
Partner works in IVF and she agrees.
It's no more invasive than having sex@Herbse: I know she claims she is working her way through medical school, but the ladies in those clubs really aren't to be trusted.
The health outcomes for children conceived through IVF are poor across every metric, especially unfortunate for those who require/choose such intervention.
I think all kids should have to wear something like an Apple Watch that monitors them for stress and records everything being said (or screamed) at them, and if it detects abuse it uploads the evidence of that to the police. It seems crazy that we just take it for granted that millions of kids are gonna get abused in some way each and every year. When you turn 18 you get the device removed, but until then it's impossible to remove and if an adult tampers with the device they get Big Brother style cameras put in their house or something. In the long run it will save the health system billions and those kids will grow up to be more productive which will help the economy earn billions extra. I don't plan on ever having kids, but if I did I would want them to have something on them that detects abusive situations because you can't really trust anyone. It's always the person you "least suspect" who treats kids like trash.
I advocate for a system where people posting crazy authoritarian nonsense on the internet should be able to be locked up. We can both only dream though huh?
One day we will have the technology to make what I proposed, the only question then will be should we use it or not. I don't think people can ever be trusted to not abuse kids so I think we inevitably will use it, it will be argued that if the state can detect and prevent child abuse then it owes it to those kids to do it.
Who decides what is determined as the "correct" psychological assessment in order to have children?
This is a dumb idea.
How would this be enforced, to much resources would be required making it a bad idea.
Is this a thought bubble? Has there been a pet dumping flare up?
Most recent data I can find is 2020/2021 RSPCA stats that shows a decline in animals they're taking in:
https://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/RSPCA%20Austral…
Yeah really wanting to know what they're basing this on. Can't see any reports of an increase in pets being put up for adoption.
Don't question boogerman, he'll tell you off for being a filthy conservative with low IQ.
Interesting stats those!
There seems to be a massive problem with cats it seems, twice as many end up at RSPCA as dogs… but you rarely see the "adopt don't shop" extremists on forums re: Cats.
Also interesting to see the dog adoption rates steadily increasing (86%, 87%, 88%, 89% between FY18 and FY21), and euthanasia is decreasing. Also, the numbers received are decreasing at positive rates too (-10%, -16%, -17%, -21% YoY for the same period).
Of the 2,500 dogs euthanised last year, 68% of them were for behavioural issues - I'd say a good chunk of those would struggle to assimilate into a family household unless they're well versed in dog ownership and training anyway.
I'd say as a country - we're getting pretty good at dog ownership (based off these stats at least).
With absolutely no experience or knowledge on the subject, I'd guess it's more "oh no my cat's had kittens!" that's the factor.
People want to breed various species of dogs and go to specialists and so forth, but cats, eh, cats get everywhere and weird breeds aside (sphynx, Maine Coon), they're largely interchangeable. Long hair and short hair seems the main thing. Also, whether they're pretty or not.(Note 1)
I'd say more people would pay $3,000 for a (specific) dog than a cat, and animals you don't pay for ("Someone adopt my kittens!") you don't have the sunk cost to be "Well, I'd better keep at it, I don't want to lose money by handing it in to the RSPCA".
Full disclosure: I'm a cat person and think they're awesome. Cats rule, dogs drool.
(Note 1) Assholes in America used to adopt black cats basically for appearing in Instagram Halloween pics and then dump them in November. Luckily the ASPCA is wise to this now and they make it a lot harder to adopt black cats leading up to Halloween.
(Note 1) My faith in humanity has just been lowered.
Anyways, have a great weekend!
More so, if they can afford to look after and maintain a pet.
Ensure that it doesn't bother the neighbours.
You don’t need a Rigorous Psychological Assessment to work out some people are just idiots with no foresight.
Well Biden is a potato Head and he's president. So it checks out I guess.
Do you know what the 'oz' in 'ozbargain' means? Can you go away with your American shit?
Obvious superiority complex, let me guess… Liberal voter?
Wrong
UAP? 😂
How on earth would this be enforced with so many pet shops, breeders etc etc all selling animals
When I got my cat from the RSPCA, the people next to me were 2 international students trying to get a kitten and they were asked some quite rigorous questions about their living conditions and future plans, which surprised me
RSPCA do seem quite strict. That's my experience aswell. I guess that's a good thing.
Maybe something like a drivers license test and registration process, but with some sort of accommodations for people who might not be able to pass a written test but may be able to care for a pet.
A lo of people who hold a driver's license don't deserve to…
That’s very true…
So might as well let all people drive freely without license..
how about those homeless on the street but own dog ? centrelink pays for the pets food ?
There are organisations that can assist with this. I think if the person can demonstrate that they can provide food and shelter for the pet it should still be okay. Many homeless take great care of their doggos.
have a heart, a homeless persons only security and friend maybe that dog, and as far as the dog is concerned is 24/7 company better than someone going to work
I hope centrelink pays for the pet food too. A lot of homeless are mentally ill and having a pet will make them feel good and supported.
Alternatively, the government could pay for new houses, etc. So, paying for pet food can be cheaper
Dogs are pretty good for garnering sympathy, might pay for themselves in terms of extra money while begging.
I keep hearing about these pets being dumped after the pandemic, but the news stories talk to the RSPCA who say they haven't seen it.
The usually end up talking to a volunteer little shelter that says they saw a 50% rise because they picked up 3 dogs last month instead of the usual two.It's probably clickbait articles by pseudo journalists who can bullshit their way
I think "People Should Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to Have Children"
There was this art student in Germany in the 30s who had a brilliant idea about how inferior people shouldn't be allowed to breed.
I can't recall how that turned out…
Dunno how you define inferior. But the test probably composes of just psychological behaviour of the norm and how likely you're likely gonna take care of the child to avoid neglect.
Also if you really care for your infant you would've already done research and have basic knowledge of infants themselves.
Compared to when I was born there's heaps of help for children nowdays. There's like newborn schooling, day care, parent meetups. So much support that if you have the heart you'll be able to overcome the milestones of the infant.
If the answer of the parent is IDK that's extremely precarious. Eg. If they only found out later the first three months is going to distrupt their sleep cycle and then found out later and regret having the baby. Just a little forward thinking but who knows.
And yet the comment who wants to legally restrict a persons right to use their body has multiple up votes.
I guess some people really did think the failed artist had a point.
shouldnt be allowed to dump them, i think anyone who does that to a dog or cat etc is selfish
You can't stop these selfish people dumping pets some just leave their home gate open and hope they just disappear others go for a drive into the bush and dump them. I can't get over the price of pets now but the advantage of the high price is some people are less likely to dump them.
Should People Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to Have children?
How about this? I vote, yes.
It's actually the same problem.
Moral panic: We need to make sure bad things don't happen to kids/pets!
Reality: It's the minority of cases where this bad outcome happens.
Solution: Instead of spending additional resources (psych tests etc) gatekeeping people from having kids/pets, put the resources into punishing the minority (rules against child/animal abuse).put the resources into punishing the minority (rules against child/animal abuse).
A lot of the time, people don't know that kids are being abused. People know they will get away with it. Child services have limited power, and parents have more rights than the kids as "being with the biological parents" is more important than being in a stable foster home.
Instead of spending additional resources
I personally think children being abused is more important than saving a few bucks. Children can not defend themselves, they have no way of getting out of a bad situation.
Moral panic
It's not "moral panic" if you have any idea what happens to these kids, and the flow on effects to them as adults.
"A lot of the time, people don't know that kids are being abused. People know they will get away with it. Child services have limited power, and parents have more rights than the kids as "being with the biological parents" is more important than being in a stable foster home"
I'm yet to see compelling evidence the "parents are the actual parents from Matilda, the Goonies and all the other things combined" being the issue however. I'm not making light of child abuse, which is terrible, but is the system inadequate as it currently is? Are there enough biological parents flaunting the system in the ways you describe that we have to resort to spending thousands of dollars per person repeatedly testing every single sexually active fertile adult who could potentially parent a child? Is it possible psychologically testing every single one of those people is a ridiculous over-correction? (For this discussion we're ignoring the eugenics/ethical problems of telling adults whether they're allowed to breed in the first place as well, but let's not pretend that's not an even bigger problem to address).
"I personally think children being abused is more important than saving a few bucks. Children can not defend themselves, they have no way of getting out of a bad situation."
Yeah, is it a 'few bucks' or is it probably millions or billions of dollars?
"It's not "moral panic" if you have any idea what happens to these kids, and the flow on effects to them as adults."
'Moral panic is defined as a public mass movement, based on false or exaggerated perceptions or information that exceeds the actual threat society is facing' according to my Google. That's exactly what we're discussing, right now. How big is the actual threat of child abuse to society as a whole, etc. I'm not sure constant psychological testing of every single adult on the offchance we stop a small number of them maybe having a child and then maybe being abusive parents is worth the cost.
Are there enough biological parents flaunting the system in the ways you describe
My wife works with these people, trust me, there are plenty of people being abused, in both ways, and number, that you probably can't imagine.
Not only is it absolutely horrible for children to grow up like this, they are for more likely to abuse others than the general population. The cycle then continues.
But sure, saving a few bucks, and letting absolute ferals have kids, purely because they don't have the brain cells required to put on a condom when they are off their heads on meth, is definitely more important than making sure kids can be safe.
@brendanm: It seems you have an addiction to black and white thinking. Maybe in the society you propose instead of spending literally 100% of the budget preventing child abuse you could allocate some funds to classes on appraising proportions…
…
.. is the sort of thing I'd say if I wanted a drawn out argument based on bad faith mis-interpretation of the others' points.
If you want the moral high ground of looking me in the eye and saying "No child should ever, ever, ever be abused and that's why it's not unreasonable to do anything I can imagine to prevent it, regardless of practicality and cost" then I'll conceed the point. But that later stuff you're saying is really Eugenics 101 stuff. Be careful of slippery slopes!
But that later stuff you're saying is really Eugenics 101 stuff. Be careful of slippery slopes!
Do you think abusive crack heads should be allowed to have children?
It seems you have an addiction to black and white thinking. Maybe in the society you propose instead of spending literally 100% of the budget preventing child abuse
I'm not saying this at all, I'm saying we don't do enough. The money that we do spend, and the people that we do have to police anything, do not have enough power to enact change. I'm well aware that people will rape, abuse, murder, etc, regardless of what anyone does, however there are ways to reduce these things.
I've posted before my idea which would not only save money, but reduce abuse.
A reverse baby bonus. Instead of giving out money for having children, give people money to have some form of permanent contraception. Only people who don't want kids, and would be terrible parents, would accept the money. Child abuse would be massively reduced, the cycle of welfare dependence and abuse would also be reduced. It is also personal choice, so is not imposing anything on anyone.
@brendanm: "Do you think abusive crack heads should be allowed to have children?"
I'm sure I can hunt around and find some heroin addicted abusive monster who ended up having an important kid (probably some jazz era performer or future doctor), and that would entirely invalidate your argument.
Eugenics is, I say again, a ridiculous slippery slope. What's abusive, exactly? Is it just crack or should be ruling out alcoholics as well?
Luckily for you I'm not engaging in a bad faith argument. My wife has worked with abused children herself and I'm full aware of the importance of vouchsafing the children, who are our future. But you really need to put the eugenics pamphlets down, there's a reason the Nazis were so into it.
"A reverse baby bonus. Instead of giving out money for having children, give people money to have some form of permanent contraception. Only people who don't want kids, and would be terrible parents, would accept the money. Child abuse would be massively reduced, the cycle of welfare dependence and abuse would also be reduced. It is also personal choice, so is not imposing anything on anyone."
Yeah, this is such a shitty idea, it actually exists in America ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention )
Just make abortion safe and legal. Boom, you're letting adults make their own body decisions and whether they want to raise kids or not. Not that hard, really.
Yeah, this is such a shitty idea
Why?
Just make abortion safe and legal.
I have no issue with that, however that requires a level of responsibility that these people don't have.
But you really need to put the eugenics pamphlets down, there's a reason the Nazis were so into it.
We got to the Nazis eventually. Nazis wanted everytime to look alike. I'm talking about stopping shitty people having children. It is ridiculous false equivalence.
@brendanm: Alright, is it possible that crackheads are they themselves in a situation where they are vulernable and prone to exploitation (e.g. is being a drug addict a good thing to aspire to, do people want to become drug addicts?)?
If so, asking them to make lifetime decisions about their bodies for financial reasons is a shitty, exploitative thing to do to someone in that state. What happens when they hit the clinic and clean up five years later and want a kid? "Too bad, so sad, cleaned-up former crack head! You shouldn't have taken money when you were vulernable!". What a well thought out idea you've had.
You don't get to be outraged at kids being abused by more powerful adults and then decide the best solution is to manipulate drug addicts to suit your personal moral compass. That's using shitty behaviour to prevent potential shitty behaviour. Also, the Nazis weren't obsessed with 'everyone looking alike'. There's a difference between appreciating a look and perpetuating the Holocaust because you're the actual Master Race. Learn the difference before you start reading up more on the strangely-untouched public policy area of eugencis.
Clutch your pearls, get high on moral superiority, stop trying to sterilise other people.
get high on moral superiority
This is a little ironic coming from someone telling me to "think about the poor crack heads".
perpetuating the Holocaust because you're the actual Master Race
Yes, they hated Jews. Completely different from suggesting that unfit parents, shouldn't be parents. I'm not the one saying they are the same thing, you are.
@brendanm: "This is a little ironic coming from someone telling me to "think about the poor crack heads".
And there we have it, the mental compartmentalisation in action. You're a man who wants to protect vulernable children, a man who wants to protect them from adult crackheads who might abuse them, a man who's acknowledged that victims of abuse commonly (usually?) grow up to perpetuate the same abuses themselves due to their conditioning, which they couldn't help… and yet, when faced with an adult crackhead abuser. Well, rehabilitation is a waste of time, time to punish them. "Think of the poor crackheads" is now an appropriate term of scorn.
All the help in the world when they're 17 and 364 days old (money is no object, the children are everything) but that same drug addicted child 2 days later? Get in the van, you monster.
Your problem isn't that you don't think, it's that you just don't think very deeply. Simple answers to 'simple' problems. 'A few bucks' to protect abused children. Very simple indeed. The words and thoughts of a simple man.
I think I'm about done trying to talk you out of eugenics. Maybe we can agree to disagree - you can keep a mental list of the types of people you'd sterilise to make society better (which is a totally normal thing to do) and I'll … not. And if we're both lucky, neither of us will be appointed to some sort of government role where we would actually affect other people's lives.
neither of us will be appointed to some sort of government role where we would actually affect other people's lives
Would be fun to watch during question time though…
Well, rehabilitation is a waste of time, time to punish them.
No, nothing to do with punishment. To break the cycle. "Definition of I sanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" etc etc.
you can keep a mental list of the types of people you'd sterilise
I wouldn't sterilise people. I would give them an incentive to do so, if they lack the ability to look after children adequately.
Your problem isn't that you don't think, it's that you just don't think very deeply. Simple answers to 'simple' problems.
It's not a simple answer, and isn't a simple problem. It's actually looking at the state of the world, and the sort of people in it. It's realising that things have been tried over and over, with no or limited success. It's realising that not everyone in society can be fixed, not everyone wants to be fixed, and a lot of people don't think they are broken. There is no "rehabilitating" these people, they are simply broken. Is it better to stop these people having kids, or should we let them do it, and continue the cycle of misery?
I'll ignore the personal attack, I know you are better than that usually.
@brendanm: There are plenty of terrible parents out there who think they are the most wonderful parents.
@2esc: There are terrible parents, and then there are those who beat, humiliate, starve etc, children. One is not the same as the other.
@brendanm: Wait. Aren’t you on the side of personal freedoms and moving away from authoritarian type policies? i.e. Covid? Weren’t you the one that said it should be the choice of the individual to either get or not get the vaccine?
So what’s changed here? Should it not be up to an individual to decide whether they have kids or not? Maybe this ‘reverse bay bonus’ can still be argued as a choice but what about if they change their mind? Too bad so sad? And what about if one of these ‘meth beads’ don’t want the bonus do we force them? Sounds a lot like China to me.
Does anyone else think that this is quite the contradiction given the post history?
Should it not be up to an individual to decide whether they have kids or not?
It is, read what I wrote.
one of these ‘meth beads’ don’t want the bonus do we force them?
No, again, read what is written.
Does anyone else think that this is quite the contradiction given the post history?
People not taking the vaccine does not affect anyone else. Terrible parents abusing children does affect other people.
People doing what they want, with no ill effects on others = ok
People doing what they want, which inflicts pain and suffering on others = not ok
It's not that difficult.
@brendanm: Well.
People not taking the vaccine does not affect anyone else.
That can be argued as yes it does. (Not my personal argument). What about face masks? That one’s a bit more clear cut, you not wearing a face mask in a public does affect someone else. So would you be supportive of mask mandates? (Again I’m not personally just seeing where the logic goes)
How far can we go? Alcohol is a major contributor to domestic abuse. It has the ability to turn a potentially abusive parent into an actual abusive parent. Should we then ban alcohol?
Anyway just so that we’re on the same page, you would not wanting to be imposing a policy on would be parents? People should be free to have kids or not have kids regardless of whether they are deemed to be fit parents?
That one’s a bit more clear cut, you not wearing a face mask in a public does affect someone else.
No it doesn't. Hardly anyone wore correctly rated masks, and of those that did, most wore them incorrectly. Also, if you don't have covid, it isn't changing a thing.
I didn't take the vaccine, as it's my personal choice, and affects no one else.
I did stay at home when I had covid, as going out and about may affect others, and I'm not happy for my choice to have a negative affect on others.
Alcohol is a major contributor to domestic abuse. It has the ability to turn a potentially abusive parent into an actual abusive parent. Should we then ban alcohol?
No, we should punish the person who is a domestic abuser, as they are scum, alcohol or not, alcohol simply lowers their inhibitions.
Anyway just so that we’re on the same page, you would not wanting to be imposing a policy on would be parents?
You still aren't on the same page. I have written my idea above, read it, or don't, it doesn't bother me either way.
@brendanm: Interesting idea that immediately seems shocking but on second thought has some merit. I personally know someone who may not have had 2 accidentally pregnancies while high and involved in criminal activity, whos children have been supported for years through dhs while living elsewhere etc. It's easy for people to think you're being harsh, until they've really seen it. And yeah, they do need more power to do more to protect children and future children. Whether or not the child becomes "important" has nothing to do with it.
@brendanm: The baby bonus was for a generation to work in childcare and aged care.
Particularly aged care. The population is again and they need a workforce that doesn’t need a high level of education.
The people they wanted to have babies did.
If they had wanted a different demographic they would have offered a different incentive like a high level and long term of maternity leave or lower childcare fees.
Studies that comprehensively measured the prevalence of child sexual abuse found that males had prevalence rates of 1.4-7.5% for penetrative abuse and 5.2-12% for non-penetrative abuse, while females had prevalence rates of 4.0-12.0% for penetrative abuse and 14-26.8% for non-penetrative abuse. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/prevalence-child-abuse…
And that's just sexual abuse, there's a whole range of other kinds of abuse kids experience. Up to 1 in 4 girls experience some kind of sexual abuse, that's hardly a "minority" case. And how many children are unlawfully slapped or punched or psychologically abused in some way? Far too many.
Animals are personal property.
Handbags are animals too.
Which existing theories do you propose using?… or have you developed your own already?
There are a great many responsibilities that should require rigorous testing before pet ownership.
1) Marriage
2) Conceiving a child.
3) Driving licence.correct.
but… seems what some people think are:
1 = the first thing, most important- wife (or wifes)
- having lots of babies (because i like children! dont care i can afford or not, centrelink here i come)
- get a racing car (because it will make me good and famous)
- and if possible get a house - no rush on this, gov. will help us anyway
1) So they simply won't go through the process of getting married.
2) How do you stop them, a chastity belt fitted at puberty?.
3) A lot of people simply drive unlicenced when they can't get a drivers licence. And that makes them more dangerous because when they see a cop they run.2) How do you stop them, a chastity belt fitted at puberty?.
They should be ineligible for medicare for a birth at a public hospital. The child (if born) will not be recognised by the state, ineligible for Health, education, welfare.
So the child is set up for an even worse life than they were already?
I think people should have to pass a rigorous psychological assessment themselves before being allowed to demand that other people should have to pass a rigorous psychological assessment for anything.
To own a pet? No.
To raise a child? Yes.
Only if acquiring a poodle.
Our pets own us, so it is they who ought to be having the psychological tests. I do believe, however, that before you can keep a bowl of goldfish, you ought to be able to prove you can swim.
1) There is a big shortage of psychologists currently. Expecting every pet owner to now have a psychological assessment is completely unfeasible.
2) There is no simple means of assessing this kind of risk. Ed Kemper famously had a severed head in the boot of his car while at the psychologist appointment where he was cleared as no longer a threat. The complete (profanity) who burned his family in their car in Queensland had recently been assessed by a psychologist as posing no risk to them.
People can be deliberately deceptive.
Stopback on 07/04/2022 - 08:45 Comment score below threshold.
- 1
- 2