|
|
|
|
|
|
by sosuke
765 days ago
|
|
|
I can see the author's perspective I think but the argument comes out like a little rant at the world and how things are than any real objection. Places say no pets, which keeps out 99% of the pets, but then a more responsible or at least more determined 1% came up with a way to excuse their pet presence. They "earn" the ability to take their pet into areas otherwise restricted. Is that a class system? I wouldn't relate the two since it isn't something assigned at birth. However I know I'm woefully ignorant on these matters. Pets are responsibility. They are entirely dependent on the owner for continued existence. I do not agree with relating them to Adderall prescriptions in any way shape or form. ------ Or! Can this be related to the viewpoint of "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." and we just put up with all the bad actors for the good of the people who really need it. Given my bad experiences in medicine I'd side with this argument if nothing else. |
|
|
They are dependent on someone but an owner moving to a new apartment could theoretically find another person to take care of them.