709
I see their point
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
709 points (95.0% liked)
General Memes & Private Chuckle
776 readers
239 users here now
Welcome to General Memes
Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cruel
We’re here for laughs, not fights.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults
Rule 2: No Forbidden Formats
Not every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
- NSFW memes must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.
Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
They would charge extra if it was not illegal
They would make them dig coal if it was not illegal
This goes for everything...
Maybe they would if they could, but they can't so they don't. I'm struggling to find the part OP thinks is a "scam".
The fact that pets cause less damage to the property than kids, but you have to pay more fees if you have a dog.
Because it's illegal to discriminate against tenants with children, such as by charging additional fees. Whether pets or children are more destructive is beside the point.
Who is more destructive is exactly the point. This is also how insurance companies work. Anyways, pet fees are a scam and should not exist either.
The part where it's illegal to charge extra for children but not illegal to charge extra for pets.
They're right, it's bullshit and it shouldn't be allowed.
I think it's a false equivalence. A human child is not the same thing as a pet animal. Framing the issue purely in terms of how much damage potential they have seems to be dismissing that distinction for no good reason.
Any reason is a good reason to dismiss that distinction. Pets are family. We don't love them less than human family, or at least decent people don't.
Still, if like takes a shit on you and you have to give up your pets, that's a little less traumatic than losing your kids.
All I'm hearing is you're the kind of monster who'd abandon a family member when things get hard.
My ex-wife was worse, she was going to put our dog down when we split up. I am not a dog person to begin with, and I was moving to an apartment so I wasn't planning on taking him to begin with, but it was quite disturbing how nonchalant she was about it. I was looking into rescues, but we ended up giving him to our neighbors. She moved in with her mom, then immediately got a new dog. We also had 3 cats - I could only have two at my apartment, so I took the two boys, she said she would take the girl, which is the one our daughter had picked out and named... But then she ended up giving her to her brothers.
Meanwhile, she keeps trying to find ways to get majority custody of the kids, I have to keep fighting for 50/50...
"Help control the human population, have your children spayed or neutered." (/s)
Maybe we shouldn't dismiss the distinction so readily.