Service animals for psychiatric illness

[deleted480308]

What the hell are you talking about?

She's sarcastically expressing her displeasure at my stance that service animal owners should not be allowed to force businesses to let them in

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Crayola227]

What the hell are you talking about?

we have someone here who is a libertarian, and has issue with laws that force private businesses to let blind people take their seeing-eye dogs with them

I was sort of sarcastically mimicking the argument of how we can just stop telling people how to act re: blind people, and making private businesses deal with the dogs, and how that's going to play out

the libertarian argument of course, always comes back, you don't have to impinge my freedom to have yours (like to the blind guy)

my point is that it isn't realistic to think we'll remove these laws about the blind guy and his dog, and expect him to cope well in such a society

 

[splik]

She's sarcastically expressing her displeasure at my stance that service animal owners should not be allowed to force businesses to let them in

Service animal owners don't force businesses to let them in, and no business owner has ever gone to jail for refusing entry so i don't know wtf you are going on about. It is the ADA that says that people with disabilities must be granted reasonable accommodations, and there are civil penalties for failing to do so (which could be a fine up to 75k). Many businesses flout the ADA left, right, and center, and disabled people are vulnerable. Few are going to go through the effort of filing a complaint with the department of justice. The main issue is I see quite a few dogs wearing "service animal" vests when it is obvious from their behavior they are not service animals so the system is open to abuse but if a dog is badly behaved then they can be excluded from the place of business.

 

[Crayola227]

so at the end of the day, what prevents private businesses from not kicking the blind out with their dogs is most likely public shame

HI-LAR-IOUS

 

[deleted480308]

Service animal owners don't force businesses to let them in, and no business owner has ever gone to jail for refusing entry so i don't know wtf you are going on about. It is the ADA that says that people with disabilities must be granted reasonable accommodations, and there are civil penalties for failing to do so (which could be a fine up to 75k). Many businesses flout the ADA left, right, and center, and disabled people are vulnerable. Few are going to go through the effort of filing a complaint with the department of justice. The main issue is I see quite a few dogs wearing "service animal" vests when it is obvious from their behavior they are not service animals so the system is open to abuse but if a dog is badly behaved then they can be excluded from the place of business.

and if you don't pay the $75k you go to jail...it all comes down to guys with guns saying you aren't allowed to have a business unless you allow people with service dogs to bring the dogs in....that's an improper violation of property rights

 

[Crayola227]

and if you don't pay the $75k you go to jail...it all comes down to guys with guns saying you aren't allowed to have a business unless you allow people with service dogs to bring the dogs in....that's an improper violation of property rights

who says you have to have a business on your property? Self sufficient agriculture, dude

 

[deleted480308]

who says you have to have a business on your property? Self sufficient agriculture, dude

smugness does seem to coexist with those who like to force others to do what they want...

 

[Salt Salt]

So far, the consensus seems to be:

1) We need more empirical data on this subject before we can draw conclusions, and
2) Criticizing the use of service dogs is the best conclusion in the meantime


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Crayola227]

smugness does seem to coexist with those who like to force others to do what they want...

same for people who think they are self-sufficient and shouldn't be "forced" to help others (edit: add need other people)

Seriously, whenever I read about your attitudes, I think they work really well for back in the day when the main unit of production was a nuclear family on the land

The degree of interdependence really was less, people could just rely on trade even

The ideas you have about public shaming, well they would work in such a setting

(edit add: I'm not capturing the nuance of public vs private vs business vs culture in the time I'm thinking of, very well)

 

[deleted480308]

same for people who think they are self-sufficient and shouldn't be "forced" to help others

Seriously, whenever I read about your attitudes, I think they work really well for back in the day when the main unit of production was a nuclear family on the land

The degree of interdependence really was less, people could just rely on trade even

The ideas you have about public shaming, well they would work in such a setting

people rely on trade now....I trade my time for money, I trade my money for goods. It really is that simple

None of that requires sending the police to make people do business with me to avoid jail

 

[WisNeuro]

This thread has gone from the discussion of emotional support animals just being bad clinical practice to land rights. About time to kick this over to SPF

 

[Crayola227]

people rely on trade now....I trade my time for money, I trade my money for goods. It really is that simple

None of that requires sending the police to make people do business with me to avoid jail

I'm not really sure with these statements that you understand the finer points of economics, and coming from me that's really saying something

You think trading grain for bullets like in the Oregon Trail game, is as to you being a med student using loans to buy internet service for SDN?
Simple trade/barter system =/= money based system

Even if you work, still, no, newsflash, this is not a trade based economy.

But if you'll believe that what you do now constitutes simple barter, than you'll think the ADA non-compliance scenario can be similarly simplified.

As one person noted, I'm not sure the punishment is prison or police in the earlier scenario of ADA non-compliance.
Even if it went that far, think of a democratically established government fining you for behavior, and then you not paying the fine, and you being hauled to prison, as a really really elaborate public shaming. That is what it is, after all. Or did you think public shaming typically was only a words based proposition? [insert Monty Python clip of him in medieval stocks getting rotten food thrown at him]. Methinks one needs some more cultural anthropology to know how we humans tend to act in packs.

I'm tired of getting all SPF libertarian comments of little sensitivity in the psych forum of all places, about whether or not mentally ill people should be accommodated or treated with support animals, and how that affects the landed gentry. The bar owner will just have to deal with the blind guy's well-behaved dog until the democracy decides something else.

Let's first decide if a significant amount of human suffering, some of which can likely be translated to monetary terms, can be appropriately treated with an animal, then we can consider the cost to others of that animal being used, and balance it out. But just wanting to refuse to accommodate people's illnesses as a matter of right - are we sure we're having the right discussion in the right field in the right forum?

 

[splik]

It's worth mentioning that very, very few experiences of discrimination will be reported to DOJ as an ADA violation. The DOJ will only pursue the matter if there is an established pattern of violating the law (i.e. one or even 2 incidents won't result in anything). In these instances they will first negotiate a settlement (they will promise to make accommodations from now on). If they don't then they pay the fine. If they then refuse to pay, they could technically be criminally prosecuted, but only a small proportion of these would be. Out of those criminally prosecuted you would never go to prison (maybe jail) but that is unlikely, as the places that like putting people in jail are the same places that don't really care about people with disabilities. So you would likely be looking at community service, probation etc. Also this would only be if they knew that the violator could afford to pay it (i.e. you would not be criminally prosecuted if you couldn't afford to pay).

I think the issue of positive vs negative rights is an interesting one, and I always find myself asking "whose right is it anyway" but the law is quite clear: if you are operating a business like a restaurant or store etc, it constitutes of a public (not private) space and you don't get to discriminate against disabled people in public spaces.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not really sure with these statements that you understand the finer points of economics, and coming from me that's really saying something

You think trading grain for bullets like in the Oregon Trail game, is as to you being a med student using loans to buy internet service for SDN?
Simple trade/barter system =/= money based system

Even if you work, still, no, newsflash, this is not a trade based economy.

But if you'll believe that what you do now constitutes simple barter, than you'll think the ADA non-compliance scenario can be similarly simplified.

As one person noted, I'm not sure the punishment is prison or police in the earlier scenario of ADA non-compliance.
Even if it went that far, think of a democratically established government fining you for behavior, and then you not paying the fine, and you being hauled to prison, as a really really elaborate public shaming. That is what it is, after all. Or did you think public shaming typically was only a words based proposition? [insert Monty Python clip of him in medieval stocks getting rotten food thrown at him]. Methinks one needs some more cultural anthropology to know how we humans tend to act in packs.

I'm tired of getting all SPF libertarian comments of little sensitivity in the psych forum of all places, about whether or not mentally ill people should be accommodated or treated with support animals, and how that affects the landed gentry. The bar owner will just have to deal with the blind guy's well-behaved dog until the democracy decides something else.

Let's first decide if a significant amount of human suffering, some of which can likely be translated to monetary terms, can be appropriately treated with an animal, then we can consider the cost to others of that animal being used, and balance it out. But just wanting to refuse to accommodate people's illnesses as a matter of right - are we sure we're having the right discussion in the right field in the right forum?

Given the context of service animals, this absolutely the proper field for a discussion like this

I've certainly heard the appeal to authority applied to "but my votes outnumber yours" before, but I'll just note that I'm working from a context or moral right/wrong based on non-aggression. From that framework, "but a bunch of us want to force you into this behavior with police" doesn't at all imply it's the right thing. Legal and right aren't inherently connected

 

[Crayola227]

Given the context of service animals, this absolutely the proper field for a discussion like this

I've certainly heard the appeal to authority applied to "but my votes outnumber yours" before, but I'll just note that I'm working from a context or moral right/wrong based on non-aggression. From that framework, "but a bunch of us want to force you into this behavior with police" doesn't at all imply it's the right thing. Legal and right aren't inherently connected

You just said public shaming was OK. Again, how is this not public shaming? Public shame is definitely more effective when it's the majority enacting it, and if you read the Scarlet Letter and Bible it's even been codified in terms of "right/wrong" and in legal code - meaning a predetermined public shaming for a given act is already arranged. How is this not in line with what you said was OK?

You are not forced into the behavior. You have choices. One choice leads to you being forced into the behavior that is living in prison. Not the same as forcing the behavior of allowing the blind guy with his dog into your establishment. You could sell the business. You could go into a business where seeing eye dogs shouldn't be an issue. If you somehow want what you think is right to just be the law of the land, live and let live, unfortunately for all your rights and moral authority, that's not how this works.

For one, a premise of non-aggression always fails. The state proclaims a monopoly on violence and then it's up to them to convince us life is better when we let them have it. Otherwise bets are off and it's a failed state. Hint, any society beyond a certain size has a degree of anonymity where violence is only controllable by having the state. Otherwise it fails. I'm not going to get into what it means for a certain population to have their state fail. It isn't good. So take violence and state monopoly as a given, unless you want some event that brings the population down to a completely different structure for survival, like a zombocalypse. We may as well be talking ant structures here, because this isn't about what I think is "right," by some moral authority, it's about what I think has been accurately observed for how humans behave and how that plays out in terms of birth/death rate.

I don't think think legal and right are inherently connected, the issue is that we don't all agree on what is right, but we can count votes. It comes down to pragmatism. There are other ways to decide the rules for a group, but as the saying goes, as soon as you have 3 people in a room you have politics, or some such nonsense. Live together or die alone, etc. The onus is on you to either get with everyone's program, adapt, or try to create change.

Yours is the appeal to authority. Mine is the appeal to.. I dunno? Science? Look around. Put the whatever book is in your hands giving you these ideas and pick up ones about history, cultural anthropology, game theory, psychology, sociology, any -ology that isn't about how things "ought" to be, but why they are as we have observed.

 

[deleted480308]

You just said public shaming was OK. Again, how is this not public shaming? Public shame is definitely more effective when it's the majority enacting it, and if you read the Scarlet Letter and Bible it's even been codified in terms of "right/wrong" and in legal code - meaning a predetermined public shaming for a given act is already arranged. How is this not in line with what you said was OK?

You are not forced into the behavior. You have choices. One choice leads to you being forced into the behavior that is living in prison. Not the same as forcing the behavior of allowing the blind guy with his dog into your establishment. You could sell the business. You could go into a business where seeing eye dogs shouldn't be an issue. If you somehow want what you think is right to just be the law of the land, live and let live, unfortunately for all your rights and moral authority, that's not how this works.

For one, a premise of non-aggression always fails. The state proclaims a monopoly on violence and then it's up to them to convince us life is better when we let them have it. Otherwise bets are off and it's a failed state. Hint, any society beyond a certain size has a degree of anonymity where violence is only controllable by having the state. Otherwise it fails. I'm not going to get into what it means for a certain population to have their state fail. It isn't good. So take violence and state monopoly as a given, unless you want some event that brings the population down to a completely different structure for survival, like a zombocalypse. We may as well be talking ant structures here, because this isn't about what I think is "right," by some moral authority, it's about what I think has been accurately observed for how humans behave and how that plays out in terms of birth/death rate.

I don't think think legal and right are inherently connected, the issue is that we don't all agree on what is right, but we can count votes. It comes down to pragmatism. There are other ways to decide the rules for a group, but as the saying goes, as soon as you have 3 people in a room you have politics, or some such nonsense. Live together or die alone, etc. The onus is on you to either get with everyone's program, adapt, or try to create change.

Yours is the appeal to authority. Mine is the appeal to.. I dunno? Science? Look around. Put the whatever book is in your hands giving you these ideas and pick up ones about history, cultural anthropology, game theory, psychology, sociology, any -ology that isn't about how things "ought" to be, but why they are as we have observed.

You're ready to jail a guy who doesn't want a dog in his business and your justification is outnumbering him. I'm proposing you need more than that to be in the right. We aren't discussing abstract philosophy. This is a thing you are currently actively supporting. It's worth it to run through the thought process of where you claim to get the right to put him in jail...

 

[Crayola227]

I can't post my reply because SDN hates me, I hate this site sometimes

 

[birchswing]

@sb247 I completely get your world view and find it interesting and something I want to think about more. I would imagine people's views vary based on whether they are or see themselves as autonomous agents with great capability or interdependent creatures who thrive when they cooperate. Out of curiosity, how would you feel about the government not regulating restaurants and allowing a proprietor to keep a variety of live animals in kitchens?

 

[deleted480308]

@sb247 I completely get your world view and find it interesting and something I want to think about more. I would imagine people's views vary based on whether they are or see themselves as autonomous agents with great capability or interdependent creatures who thrive when they cooperate. Out of curiosity, how would you feel about the government not regulating restaurants and allowing a proprietor to keep a variety of live animals in kitchens?

I have a "buyer beware" philosophy on business licenses. If I want to buy spaghetti from your mom and shr wants to sell some, we shouldn't have to ask anyone else

 

[Crayola227]

@sb247 I completely get your world view and find it interesting and something I want to think about more. I would imagine people's views vary based on whether they are or see themselves as autonomous agents with great capability or interdependent creatures who thrive when they cooperate. Out of curiosity, how would you feel about the government not regulating restaurants and allowing a proprietor to keep a variety of live animals in kitchens?

lol we had a talk once about Judy's Burritos. We should just have a "Ask @sb247 how he feels about..." thread in SPF if it doesn't already exist

 

[WingedOx]

So far, the consensus seems to be:

1) We need more empirical data on this subject before we can draw conclusions, and
2) Criticizing the use of service dogs is the best conclusion in the meantime


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

A sham treatment is a sham treatment. Doesn't matter if it's furry and cute.

 

[splik]

A sham treatment is a sham treatment. Doesn't matter if it's furry and cute.

speaking of which this is a quite clearly a cat forum. bring back officer meow meow fuzzyface!

 

[WingedOx]

speaking of which this is a quite clearly a cat forum. bring back officer meow meow fuzzyface!

I'll just depress everyone and bring back Sarah Lynn instead.

 

[ZedsDed]

Friend: "Go lurk in the psych forum!"
Me: "Good idea!"
"Oh God. The SPF is spreading"

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

speaking of which this is a quite clearly a cat forum. bring back officer meow meow fuzzyface!

He's a loose cannon, but he gets results.