• SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    EDIT: I misread/misinterpreted OPs comment, but I’ll leave my reply - fuck penalising the poor for being poor.

    I completely disagree. I’ll never get a mortgage because I can’t work. That doesn’t mean I can’t look after my cat - I take better care of her than I do myself! I wasn’t ill when I first got her - I had no idea I’d be permanently unable to work within a year of getting her. Should I have lost my pet as well as my health, my job, my future? Not if I could look after her properly, which I do. Here in the UK, the RSPCA help people like me who got a pet and then suffered an unforeseen change in circumstances. They offer heavily reduced vet care and vaccinations because being low income/disabled/elderly/not owning a freaking house doesn’t mean you can’t be a loving, responsible pet owner.

    No one can see into the future or know what will befall us. Aren’t an alarming percentage of people just a couple of paycheques away from losing their homes? Should no one get a pet just in case something bad happens in the future? No. That’s ridiculous.

    That’s not to say I’m not sensible about it. I really really want a dog, but I know that would stretch my finances too far. I will take in my mums cats when she passes away though - and they we be loved and cared for, despite my failure to own a house.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, the comment you’re replying to says “If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop”

          They’re agreeing with you, I think you must have misread should as shouldn’t or something like that. It’s easily done :) I was just a bit confused reading the comment and reply.