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]
and therefore you get no special treatment under the ADA. [1support, 4conflict]
ALL minors should have additional protections [2support, 2conflict]
I fully support a ban on peanuts and food containing peanuts. [4support, 1conflict]
I would support a full ban of peanut products on any airline. [4support, 1conflict]
but banning peanuts from flights via a DOT regulation seems to go too far. [3support, 1conflict]
I am 100% in favor of banning peanuts from planes. [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 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 it lessens that risk to an extent. [2support, 1conflict]
I am utterly amazed at the ignorance displayed by some of those commenting here. [2support, 1conflict]
Leave my peanuts alone! [2support, 1conflict]
I have to say I think this is going too far. [1support, 2conflict]
this proposal goes too far. [2support, 1conflict]
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]
DOT should set maximum tarmac delay trigger. [2support, 1conflict]
Maybe the ban could extend to all foods when there is a specific request. [1support, 2conflict]
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]
These sound like essential symptoms of disordered eating and addiction, which, in all likelihood, derive from some longstanding issues. [1support, 1conflict]
And 3 hours is too long to keep people on a grounded airplane. [1support, 1conflict]
Again, the only prudent course of action is to require that distribution of peanut on airplanes be discontinued. [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]
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]
The result is that the air in the cabin is cleaner than most public buildings, [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]
It's fairly clear that meanspiritedness abounds, here [1support, 1conflict]
Didn't think so. [1support, 1conflict]
In other words, people with severe peanut allergies have the right to be protected. [1support, 1conflict]
This goes too far. [1support, 1conflict]
Buffer zones aren't quite enough for those in the highest reactivity grouping. [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]
I think a bufferzone would be a more realistic approach to the issue than select peanutfree flights. [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]
why does this have to be a Federal issue? [1support, 1conflict]
I don't think there is anything wrong with banning airlines from serving bagged peanuts. [1support, 1conflict]
I tire of the constant harping that peanut allergies are on the rise, [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Minors and elderly that can not take care of themselves should not fly alone.[2] -> ALL minors should have additional protections[2]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
You have no idea what you are talking about.[1] -> Didn't think so.[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]
I know I would ignore any such ban[1] -> Buffer zones aren't quite enough for those in the highest reactivity grouping.[1]
This slippery slope argument is a false one.[1] -> I have to say I think this is going too far.[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]
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]
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]
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]