3 ms·

> I have horrendous allergies to animal dander, and just don't like animals in general. Not life threatening but ... There's the proceeding context that you ig

by noptd 5y ago

> I have horrendous allergies to animal dander, and just don't like animals in general. Not life threatening but ... There's the proceeding context that you ignored in order to claim the parent has some emotionally blinding phobia, and that'd be a super uncharitable interpretation even if that context wasn't included btw. I'm sure that bringing your pet everywhere is nice but when your non-service animal triggers physical issues for others, why would you expect a company to prioritize your preference of convenience and slight increase in comfort over the preference of others to avoid unnecessary physical ills? It seems silly to me that there would even be a debate.

nate_meurer 5y ago
I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for a phobia--there usually is, whether a physical or emotional reaction. If the word doesn't fit here, that's fine, but "one of the worst experiences of my life" is pretty strong language, and I don't think it's a stretch to describe such a reaction as a disability. The real point of contention is the extent to which the parent apparently believes their disability should be accommodated by society. I have a few allergies myself, including to cats. I consider allergies, like I have, to be a very mild form of disability. I take some responsibility for my own very mild disability by packing an inhaler and antihistamines when I travel. What I don't do is go around insisting that everyone else keep their animals away from me. Now, does this mean that I believe everyone who fancies flying with a cat should be allowed to do so? Certainly not. There's a balance between those two extremes. > preference of convenience and slight increase in comfort That's a bit of a strawman itself don't you think? No, I don't think everyone should be allowed to fly with their pets simply because they prefer to. But your description certainly doesn't fit my friend, nor does it give adequate credit to the extent to which many people's companions help them with emotional and mental barriers to travel, such as agoraphobia. So if the question involves a fantasy battle between @subjectsigma and my friend, then my desire would be for my friend to be allowed to bring her companion, and @subjectsigma to bring an inhaler and antihistamines. Just like I do.

by noptd 5y ago

nate_meurer 5y ago

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for a phobia--there usually is, whether a physical or emotional reaction. If the word doesn't fit here, that's fine, but "one of the worst experiences of my life" is pretty strong language, and I don't think it's a stretch to describe such a reaction as a disability. The real point of contention is the extent to which the parent apparently believes their disability should be accommodated by society. I have a few allergies myself, including to cats. I consider allergies, like I have, to be a very mild form of disability. I take some responsibility for my own very mild disability by packing an inhaler and antihistamines when I travel. What I don't do is go around insisting that everyone else keep their animals away from me. Now, does this mean that I believe everyone who fancies flying with a cat should be allowed to do so? Certainly not. There's a balance between those two extremes. > preference of convenience and slight increase in comfort That's a bit of a strawman itself don't you think? No, I don't think everyone should be allowed to fly with their pets simply because they prefer to. But your description certainly doesn't fit my friend, nor does it give adequate credit to the extent to which many people's companions help them with emotional and mental barriers to travel, such as agoraphobia. So if the question involves a fantasy battle between @subjectsigma and my friend, then my desire would be for my friend to be allowed to bring her companion, and @subjectsigma to bring an inhaler and antihistamines. Just like I do.