325
submitted 11 months ago by x4740N@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 61 points 11 months 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 11 months ago
[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 11 months ago

i think murder is already illegal

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago

~~unintended consequence~~ desirable effect

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months ago

Not always. See Japan and Korea, for instance.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 6 points 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago

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

[-] derpgon@programming.dev -1 points 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago

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

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months ago

There is no need, birthrates are already falling.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But the ones breeding shouldn't be...

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months 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 11 months ago

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

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 11 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
325 points (91.1% liked)

World News

45793 readers
2435 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS