Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Seriously, if I'm a businessman and have a medical condition that's fucking up my career because I can never board airplanes safely, because of something as silly and trivial as serving peanuts, something's wrong. The fact that peanuts are so nonessential (and in fact, barely consequential at all) to an airline's ability to serve its customers is important here. It would be quite easy and probably just about costless for airlines to switch over to food that doesn't contain such a common allergen, which is probably why they're actually doing it.

Again, I honestly could care less about the peanuts. It's another P I'm concerned about. Precedence.

There need not be a "trickle down effect" because they are not the same type of business; slippery slope logic need not apply. An airplane is a method of transportation that many people rely on fairly regularly; it would be a serious detriment to their life to be unable to ever board a plane safely.

You were just arguing that the scent of peanut oil alone can trigger an attack. In lawsuit happy America, I definitely worry about the slippery slope even when solid logic tells me I shouldn't. Because we're just that damn.....American.

I understand your concerns about precedence here, but any competent judge (which isn't to say all judges are competent) would have to take into consideration the relevant facts instead of jumping to conclusions and sliding down a slippery slope. Precedent isn't meant to give an excuse for another case to be ruled the same way just because it's superficially similar, and in the few times I've read court documents regarding things like this, a lot more analysis goes into it than that.

Not that that'll necessarily stop lawsuits, because damn near nobody in the US goes into a lawsuit to actually get the courts to find in their favor; it's to get the other person to not want to deal with you enough to settle out-of-court without admitting wrongdoing (or, from the defendant's perspective, it's to shovel money into your own company's lawyers so effectively that you can just settle out of court instead of ever being found culpable for anything). However, that's honestly a completely different problem there, and shouldn't prevent us from otherwise doing the right thing; what's necessary there is some kind of court reform, or something (I'm not sure what), but we can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater there.

[sonerohi]

We need to be more Eco-conservative here. The baby can bathe in natural streams rather than pumped water, and the old bathwater is still reusable. Throwing it out should be a crime.

[alway]

First off, the title of this thread inspired me to make this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Secondly, peanut's really aren't a major part of an airline's business, nor do they really do all that much to help their reputation for serving them. Neither pretzels nor peanuts are really all that memorable as of a part of the flight. And most people, I would think, would be willing to give up their peanuts for pretzels if they thought that their eating peanuts could endanger the safety of other passengars.

[Earthquake Damage]

The government is your mom and should take care of you.  Peanuts are dangerous and should be banned, as should cars, guns, knives, forks, sharp corners, spoons, shoelaces, belts, ropes, ball-gags, robots, swords, axes, hammers, hands, dogs, and people.

We don't need trolling in this thread.

Don't forget hurtful ideas Cthulhu. Your mother must protect you from emotional harm as well.

Same goes for you.

Making a point using sarcasm and/or hyperbole is trolling?  Judging by this and another recent thread, I'm beginning to suspect that "to troll" means "to not be my sycophantic pet".

[Lord Dakoth]

This is your flight attendant speaking. I am sorry to inform you that the plane's restroom has been closed, due to potential claustrophobia-related hazards. In the event of an emergency, please locate the emergency buckets near the front, rear, and sides of the cabin. Thank you for flying with American Airlines.

[HideousBeing]

I agree that we need some research if this is actually going to happen. Otherwise a friendly suggestion to airline companies might work fine.

Also comparing this to non-life-threatening stuff like claustrophobia is silly.

VV LOL! okay I take it back.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you have a claustrophobia attack on a plane and start freaking out, everyone else is going to assume "BOMB!!". They will then promptly beat you half to death as you hypervenilate into the floor. Non-life-threatening my ass.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, claustrophobia is a serious problem for people going on planes.  My grandfather was never able to get on one at all (partly why he did radar work in WW2).

There isn't really any way to solve this problem though.

[G-Flex]

Right. There's effectively no way to accommodate a claustrophobe on an airplane. There is a very easy way to accommodate people with peanut allergies.

The government is your mom and should take care of you.  Peanuts are dangerous and should be banned, as should cars, guns, knives, forks, sharp corners, spoons, shoelaces, belts, ropes, ball-gags, robots, swords, axes, hammers, hands, dogs, and people.

We don't need trolling in this thread.

Don't forget hurtful ideas Cthulhu. Your mother must protect you from emotional harm as well.

Same goes for you.

Making a point using sarcasm and/or hyperbole is trolling?  Judging by this and another recent thread, I'm beginning to suspect that "to troll" means "to not be my sycophantic pet".

It's not the sarcasm or the hyperbole, it's the bullshit straw-man arguments that they and Lord Dagoth are apparently trying to pull. They aren't productive and muddle the actual issue being discussed. Whether they're "trolling" or not, I guess I don't know, but it's still disingenuous, unproductive, and a bit inflammatory.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They are not bullshit strawman arguments. I am just sick of federal and state governments acting as if people are unable to protect themeselves, creating obtrusive laws and sanctions that don't help people at all. Personal responsibity is being phased out of people's lives. People are trying to create perfect lives by protecting the newer generations from all physical and emotional harm. This doesn't prepare children for the real world. It leaves them without vital experience. 

This incident may be an example of such be an example of such behavior. It may not. There are no conclucive studies on the matter. The only thing I know for certain at this point is that peanut dust in the air can cause severe, life threating reactions in very rare cases and that the mother who complained about this sounds very much like an overprotective mother from her comments.

So here is my proposed solution for when the Department of Transportation just keeps arguing and creating committies instead of a scientific study on the matter: All passengers will be asked by form at some point in the boarding process if they are afflicted by the afformentioned extreme peanut allergy. If any say yes, peanuts will not be served on that particular flight. If no say yes, they will be. The latter will likely make up almost all flights.

[Vester]

They are not bullshit strawman arguments. I am just sick of federal and state governments acting as if people are unable to protect themeselves, creating obtrusive laws and sanctions that don't help people at all. Personal responsibity is being phased out of people's lives. People are trying to create perfect lives by protecting the newer generations from all physical and emotional harm. This doesn't prepare children for the real world. It leaves them without vital experience.

I'd ordinarily agree with you, but in this case I don't see how peanut allergies are a vital experience at all.

Again: a peanut ban will not necessarily lead to other forms of restriction or regulation. I know the slippery slope is an attractive argument, but stay away from it unless you want to look like a silly goose.

Though your suggestion is good too.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In the case of peanut allergies, it wouldn't be that a reaction is a vital experiance. It would be fearmongering at the children with said allergies, extremely severe or not, about the horrors of the peanut. That is not needed. Those with peanut allergies need caution, not paranoid fear.

The peanut ban would lead to nothing at all. It itself may or may not be part of the trend I described.

[G-Flex]

Those with peanut allergies need caution, not paranoid fear.

Making sure airlines don't serve peanuts when severely allergic people are on board doesn't count as "caution" to you?

[Jackrabbit]

I think it's a bit silly when a better alternative could be to ask "is anyone in this row allergic?" when handing out peanuts.

[Vester]

I think it's a bit silly when a better alternative could be to ask "is anyone in this row allergic?" when handing out peanuts.

The planes are a closed system, though, and the fear is that the dust will circulate. Apparently even a little bit can trigger powerful reactions in the severely allergic.