Divisiveness 1

#support * #conflict

1
6
5
4
9
3
18
2
38
1
The confined space and recycling of the air in a plane is a peanut allergy sufferers nightmare. [6support, 1conflict]
I fully support a ban on peanuts and food containing peanuts. [4support, 1conflict]
ALL minors should have additional protections [2support, 2conflict]
I would support a full ban of peanut products on any airline. [4support, 1conflict]
and therefore you get no special treatment under the ADA. [1support, 4conflict]
I believe that it is reasonable to ban peanuts from airline flights if that assures the safety of a passenger that has a severe peanut allergy. [3support, 1conflict]
but banning peanuts from flights via a DOT regulation seems to go too far. [3support, 1conflict]
Unfortunately, personal responsibility and proactive steps on the part of the person with the allergy is likely the only viable solution. [3support, 1conflict]
I am 100% in favor of banning peanuts from planes. [3support, 1conflict]
I am utterly amazed at the ignorance displayed by some of those commenting here. [2support, 1conflict]
DOT should set maximum tarmac delay trigger. [2support, 1conflict]
but banning it lessens that risk to an extent. [2support, 1conflict]
The airline could call in adnvance and give the passenger their options (chance it that someone will be a no show, change the reservation) in addition to any required compensation. [1support, 2conflict]
Maybe the ban could extend to all foods when there is a specific request. [1support, 2conflict]
At the very least, DOT should make clear to airlines that they can discriminate on the basis of weight without fearing regulatory action. [2support, 1conflict]
I have to say I think this is going too far. [1support, 2conflict]
Leave my peanuts alone! [2support, 1conflict]
this proposal goes too far. [2support, 1conflict]
It's fairly clear that meanspiritedness abounds, here [1support, 1conflict]
These sound like essential symptoms of disordered eating and addiction, which, in all likelihood, derive from some longstanding issues. [1support, 1conflict]
Food allergy occurs in 6 to 8 percent of children 4 years of age or under, and in 3.7 percent of adults. [1support, 1conflict]
If an airline wishes to inform a customer about the cost of taxes, is should be allowed to list the base fare before taxes in no greater than 1/2 the typeface of the total fare along with the total fare. [1support, 1conflict]
The result is that the air in the cabin is cleaner than most public buildings, [1support, 1conflict]
I tire of the constant harping that peanut allergies are on the rise, [1support, 1conflict]
Maybe it would be a better use of the airlines resources to focus efforts on notifying passengers of delays that are 2 hours or more as soon as possible. [1support, 1conflict]
It is not a "right" if you have to impose that behavior on others for yourself. [1support, 1conflict]
Again, the only prudent course of action is to require that distribution of peanut on airplanes be discontinued. [1support, 1conflict]
I don't think there is anything wrong with banning airlines from serving bagged peanuts. [1support, 1conflict]
why does this have to be a Federal issue? [1support, 1conflict]
In other words, people with severe peanut allergies have the right to be protected. [1support, 1conflict]
Buffer zones aren't quite enough for those in the highest reactivity grouping. [1support, 1conflict]
To me, having contingency plans is not as important as a strong penalty for delaying passengers; [1support, 1conflict]
The problem is that the airlines will say "Flight 100, delayed till 7:00pm." then "Flight 100, delayed till 7:05pm". And so on and so forth. [1support, 1conflict]
I think a bufferzone would be a more realistic approach to the issue than select peanutfree flights. [1support, 1conflict]
And 3 hours is too long to keep people on a grounded airplane. [1support, 1conflict]
BUT, being a frequent traveler, I see all sorts of problems which are unavoidable and for which the airlines will be blamed by giving such notice with the intend that some flyers may be able to delay thier trip to the airport or even the departure gate. [1support, 1conflict]
This goes too far. [1support, 1conflict]
Didn't think so. [1support, 1conflict]

Divisiveness 2

for(N,M) in CA, #incomingRA(N) * #incomingRA(M)

1
12
2
10
6
6
7
4
10
3
16
2
30
1
Apparently Samsmom is the ignorant one.[6] -> I am utterly amazed at the ignorance displayed by some of those commenting here.[2]
In general, I think that blanket policies on this topic would be a bad idea,[5] -> ALL minors should have additional protections[2]
so you don't have any good numbers to back up the need for a fee for more bags or for heavier people.[3] -> At the very least, DOT should make clear to airlines that they can discriminate on the basis of weight without fearing regulatory action.[2]
If the air conditioning, and restrooms are functioning properly and there are plenty of beverages and snacks on board then that maximum number of hours should be flexible.[3] -> DOT should set maximum tarmac delay trigger.[2]
There's no truth to what you say about recycled air on planes.[1] -> The confined space and recycling of the air in a plane is a peanut allergy sufferers nightmare.[6]
it's a question of degree to which the allergic traveler (or parent) can reasonably manage the risks.[2] -> Unfortunately, personal responsibility and proactive steps on the part of the person with the allergy is likely the only viable solution.[3]
Minors and elderly that can not take care of themselves should not fly alone.[2] -> ALL minors should have additional protections[2]
The problem is if you ban any food product you've just opened the door to ban every food product, perfumes, and an uncountable number of other things.[1] -> I believe that it is reasonable to ban peanuts from airline flights if that assures the safety of a passenger that has a severe peanut allergy.[3]
This is a nonissue.[1] -> I am 100% in favor of banning peanuts from planes.[3]
FrequentFlyer, though I appreciate your attempt at proposed solutions, I cannot support them.[1] -> but banning peanuts from flights via a DOT regulation seems to go too far.[3]
I feel confident if you had a loved one with this life threatening allergy, you would feel differently.[2] -> why does this have to be a Federal issue?[1]
These sound like essential symptoms of disordered eating and addiction, which, in all likelihood, derive from some longstanding issues.[1] -> Leave my peanuts alone![2]
Mulder's comment about the ADA is only partially true, but thoroughly exaggerated,[2] -> and therefore you get no special treatment under the ADA.[1]
let's be civil to one another and not set unrealistic expectations[2] -> Maybe it would be a better use of the airlines resources to focus efforts on notifying passengers of delays that are 2 hours or more as soon as possible.[1]
You have a responsibility to keep your child safe.[1] -> but banning it lessens that risk to an extent.[2]
There is no indication that Mulder is qualified to make reliable claims on the subject of allergies.[2] -> I tire of the constant harping that peanut allergies are on the rise,[1]
What about my child's "right" not to die?[1] -> It is not a "right" if you have to impose that behavior on others for yourself.[1]
It takes more than blind recitation of numbers to make a case.[1] -> Food allergy occurs in 6 to 8 percent of children 4 years of age or under, and in 3.7 percent of adults.[1]
The problem can't be solved this way.[1] -> The airline could call in adnvance and give the passenger their options (chance it that someone will be a no show, change the reservation) in addition to any required compensation.[1]
and therefore you get no special treatment under the ADA.[1] -> In other words, people with severe peanut allergies have the right to be protected.[1]
There is indeed something wrong with banning peanuts on airlines.[1] -> I don't think there is anything wrong with banning airlines from serving bagged peanuts.[1]
the only thing you'd accomplish by banning all food is to have a large number of cranky, hungry passengers on longer flights.[1] -> Maybe the ban could extend to all foods when there is a specific request.[1]
This slippery slope argument is a false one.[1] -> I have to say I think this is going too far.[1]
I know I would ignore any such ban[1] -> Buffer zones aren't quite enough for those in the highest reactivity grouping.[1]
Buffer zones aren't quite enough for those in the highest reactivity grouping.[1] -> I think a bufferzone would be a more realistic approach to the issue than select peanutfree flights.[1]
That's being a hypocrite.[1] -> Again, the only prudent course of action is to require that distribution of peanut on airplanes be discontinued.[1]
Assuming he's not going to eat a peanut off the floor or someone's seat, I don't see why you feel the need to have peanuts banned.[1] -> Maybe the ban could extend to all foods when there is a specific request.[1]
You have no idea what you are talking about.[1] -> Didn't think so.[1]
Unfortunately, there's no way to give advance notice.[1] -> The airline could call in adnvance and give the passenger their options (chance it that someone will be a no show, change the reservation) in addition to any required compensation.[1]
You're the one who seems to be partisan.[1] -> These sound like essential symptoms of disordered eating and addiction, which, in all likelihood, derive from some longstanding issues.[1]