324
submitted 1 month ago by x4740N@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

If she was unable to control them, she should not have gotten permission to own them in the first place.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 month ago

Definitely think owning dogs should require a license and a test of some sort like driving a vehicle.

Can't control a 120lb dog? Class B license instead of Class A license.

Only allowed to buy dogs under 100lbs.

Don't understand how feeding and training works? No license for you.

Licenses for being able to own non-fixed animals as well. Being able to breed dogs and cats needs to come with way more responsibility as well.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago
[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago

i think murder is already illegal

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

There should be, but I expect the unintended consequence is a severe drop in birth rate.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

The unintended consequence is genocide. When people need permission to reproduce that introduces a convenient method to keep certain people from having kids.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk -2 points 1 month ago

I think that's the point.

There are some people who just definitely don't have the wherewithal to be parents. They can barely look after themselves, often they don't look after themselves.

Part of the test would be to ask if you plan to name your kid after a Game Of Thrones character.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

~~unintended consequence~~ desirable effect

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

Not always. See Japan and Korea, for instance.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Let's hope they figure out how to reduce population gracefully. It's important to save the planet.

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

The problem is not reducing population, it's to have our economic system be able to cope with population reduction instead of just collapsing. Do you think we have any hope of changing it for the better?

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Do you think we have any hope of changing it for the better?

We do by working towards post scarcity and transitioning away from capitalism

And if they try to stop it we force the transitioning

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

We could also just move to space, we have the tech to start this process

[-] derpgon@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago

How is that bad? Less pollution and garbage, no need for as much housing (thus dropping house prices), no need for as many stores, vehicles, resources.

And less shitty parents, less homeless people, less crime. I see that as an absolute win.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

It TOTALLY won't be structured in a way to keep people of certain classes unrelated to child rearing ability from essentially reproducing at all.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

And this is why we can't have nice ~~things~~ democracy.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

https://time.com/4192760/hitler-munich-excerpt/

[-] derpgon@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago

It was almost 100 years ago, but yeah, everything leads to Hitler eventually.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

No... no. Not everything, but rhetoric like in your comment.

You're literally cheering on eugenics, with a false hope of what it would achieve.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

Alright, I should have prefaced this with "I assume society is working, there is no racism, corruption, non-cis non-hetero people have sufficient rights, and the government is working as intended."

Of course, unfeasible right now.

[-] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 3 points 1 month ago

There is no need, birthrates are already falling.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But the ones breeding shouldn't be...

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Now do whatnow!? Are we still doing phrasing? That still a thing?

[-] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

The UK used to have dog licences, but they were abolished in 1987. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP98-6/RP98-6.pdf

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amended to ban XL bully dogs in February 2024 unless an exemption certificate is held. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66775985

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

What if a dog grows over 100 american freedom units (lbs)

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 1 month ago

I'm assuming the fact that dogs grow would probably be accounted for in the license. It's a well documented phenomenon.

load more comments (21 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
324 points (90.7% liked)

World News

37311 readers
3006 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS