3 ms·

> Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Holy red herring, Batman. Are you serious equating drunk people with disabled peopl

> Should they forced to shuttle around drunken and incontinent people too? Holy red herring, Batman. Are you serious equating drunk people with disabled people who need physical accommodations? The ADA does not have anything to say about mandating accommodations for drunk people. Separately, people who are incontinent actually, you know, do things to manage their condition (like wear adult diapers as necessary). They aren't just randomly shitting everywhere. Your contrived examples are just downright offensive.

NikolaNovak 6y ago
I didn't read it as fully a red herring. 1. It was in response to the poster that put forward a proposition that any and all passengers must at all times be taken; let's not take the response fully out of context just to attack it with outrage. Similarly, I charitably assumed by "drunk & incontinent" they mean, literally and as written, "those who are irresponsibly drunk to the point of losing control over their bodily functions"; not those who may have a permanent and manageable/managed medical issue. 2. In practical terms, if I may be blunt and practical for a second, a e.g. service animal shepherd: a) Legally and morally SHOULD be allowed b) ...Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses (and in some ways worse - follow-up passengers may have severe allergy issues, or even the driver themselves!) There's no easy "win" here. We have to acknowledge the necessity of regulating/providing for all; but also the non-zero impact on the actual real live person driving the car. They are human too!
- darkerside 6y ago
  > Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses I know which I'd rather clean up after
  - NikolaNovak 6y ago
    Besides the point. I may rather clean up after a service animal; but it might well take me far longer, and thus incur a higher real cost on business - it's all very circumstantial. There are shepherds (a common service animal) that will saturate a closed vehicle with hair in 2 minutes - front, back, between the seats, under the carpet, on the ceiling, everywhere. And the hair gets tangled in the fabric weave so you need special rotary brushes or hours of painstaking manual work to remove. Whereas some vomits, disgusting as they are, are 3 min with a cloth and bucket. Anyhoo - point being, there are desirable things we as society want to see; but we shouldn't be blind as to impact/cost that those goals have on those who are on point to actually enact them; and at the very least they should have our empathy, if not ideally an attempt to compensate/accommodate/compromise.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      Thanks for the context

NikolaNovak 6y ago

I didn't read it as fully a red herring. 1. It was in response to the poster that put forward a proposition that any and all passengers must at all times be taken; let's not take the response fully out of context just to attack it with outrage. Similarly, I charitably assumed by "drunk & incontinent" they mean, literally and as written, "those who are irresponsibly drunk to the point of losing control over their bodily functions"; not those who may have a permanent and manageable/managed medical issue. 2. In practical terms, if I may be blunt and practical for a second, a e.g. service animal shepherd: a) Legally and morally SHOULD be allowed b) ...Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses (and in some ways worse - follow-up passengers may have severe allergy issues, or even the driver themselves!) There's no easy "win" here. We have to acknowledge the necessity of regulating/providing for all; but also the non-zero impact on the actual real live person driving the car. They are human too!

darkerside 6y ago
> Yet is absolutely equivalent to a vomiting drunk in terms of cleanup expenses I know which I'd rather clean up after
- NikolaNovak 6y ago
  Besides the point. I may rather clean up after a service animal; but it might well take me far longer, and thus incur a higher real cost on business - it's all very circumstantial. There are shepherds (a common service animal) that will saturate a closed vehicle with hair in 2 minutes - front, back, between the seats, under the carpet, on the ceiling, everywhere. And the hair gets tangled in the fabric weave so you need special rotary brushes or hours of painstaking manual work to remove. Whereas some vomits, disgusting as they are, are 3 min with a cloth and bucket. Anyhoo - point being, there are desirable things we as society want to see; but we shouldn't be blind as to impact/cost that those goals have on those who are on point to actually enact them; and at the very least they should have our empathy, if not ideally an attempt to compensate/accommodate/compromise.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Thanks for the context