Should people be able to take 'support' animals everywhere?

[muichimotsu]

An epipen does not affect anyone else. Another poor comparison.

The affecting of another person is not the sole justification based on some varying degree of inconvenience. Your standards are so loose, you might as well just restrict anything due to whatever inconvenience it may cause someone, real or imagined

Me possibly being allergic to dogs is not a reason for someone to not have their dog, even if we're just talking an emotional support animal. If you're about personal responsibility, you can't simultaneously say that other people should be responsible for not inconveniencing you when it's as much your responsibility to manage various conditions

 

[pleinmont]

The affecting of another person is not the sole justification based on some varying degree of inconvenience. Your standards are so loose, you might as well just restrict anything due to whatever inconvenience it may cause someone, real or imagined

Me possibly being allergic to dogs is not a reason for someone to not have their dog, even if we're just talking an emotional support animal. If you're about personal responsibility, you can't simultaneously say that other people should be responsible for not inconveniencing you when it's as much your responsibility to manage various conditions

I totally disagree with you, if people want an animal they should not burden others others with it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Because an animal is automatically a burden in all contexts? The hygiene concern is one thing, but there are ways around that, domesticated animals would tend to work within that context, but if we're talking private businesses and such, legally they can bar animals (barring service animals, I'd imagine, per ADA)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Does your right to breathe somehow trump a person's freedom to engage in society in spite of severe anxiety they may have? That's like saying a diabetic is inconveniencing others by needing to have an epipen on them.

Yes, absolutely. Right to breathe trumps nervousness.

No, the right to breathe is equivalent to the diabetic's epipen, not equivalent with the demand to have a pet with you. Bring a stuffed animal, if you think it comforts you. It won't cause allergic reactions in others.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Anxiety is on a spectrum and someone who needs an emotional support animal may have legitimate issues and also not be able to afford the medication or such. Assuming you know their degree of anxiety or that they can just deal with it is ableist rhetoric that assumes mental illness is less important than physical disabilities in terms of what deserves consideration

Mental illness won't kill you, the way lack of air will. Take that extreme "ableist" argument somewhere applicable.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, that's literally the comparison that's been used; you've failed to point out something that's not a silly comparison, far as I recall

The major objection apart from someone just not liking that someone has their pet with them in the function described for an emotional support animal (which I agree would need more qualification so it isn't abused) is that allergies, particularly severe ones, could create a problem when someone has the animal in their presence. But that's insane to think that you will never encounter such animals and expect the world to just always walk on eggshells so they don't aggravate some dangerous allergy rather than you taking precautions like a rational person would (like a diabetic with an epipen, just one example)

Oh, one will encounter animals. However, you can escape them and just walk away, pretty much everywhere - except on a plane.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Me possibly being allergic to dogs is not a reason for someone to not have their dog, even if we're just talking an emotional support animal.

Um, no one is expecting others "not to have their dog". However, it needs to remain in THEIR space, at home, not in someone else's air space they cannot escape, such as on a plane.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, absolutely. Right to breathe trumps nervousness.

No, the right to breathe is equivalent to the diabetic's epipen, not equivalent with the demand to have a pet with you. Bring a stuffed animal, if you think it comforts you. It won't cause allergic reactions in others.

Allergic reactions can be caused by virtually anything, if you're going with such a vague notion, then you're favoring one thing over another based on something that isn't necessarily certain to be known ahead of time. Again, it's like physical ailments would just always trump mental illness in a legitimate sense, like you expect everyone to just get medicated, as if that's always a solution

 

[muichimotsu]

Um, no one is expecting others "not to have their dog". However, it needs to remain in THEIR space, at home, not in someone else's air space they cannot escape, such as on a plane.

Airlines can dictate what they would allow or not, they're not subject to much in terms of federal law beyond stuff that's more basic, including ADA, but if they wanted to allow ESAs, your objections wouldn't matter unless it was steadily losing them money, I'd imagine. Not that they'd necessarily allow ESAs if they understood that it wouldn't get them a HUGE amount of money to cover the people that'd no longer use them, and it's an airline by airline basis anyway

 

[muichimotsu]

Oh, one will encounter animals. However, you can escape them and just walk away, pretty much everywhere - except on a plane.

Yet the animal is somehow an inconvenience because of something that can be assuaged in ways that don't involve telling the person they can't have it. The solution can be a compromise rather than just favoring one side over another, I fully acknowledge ESAs need regulation, but that is distinct from a flat ban

 

[muichimotsu]

Mental illness won't kill you, the way lack of air will. Take that extreme "ableist" argument somewhere applicable.

Mental illness can create situations that could kill you, it's not an entirely unlikely situation, given how intense panic attacks can cause symptoms not unlike having severe heart trouble. This is spoken like someone who seemingly doesn't have the perspective to see how invisible illnesses should be given consideration, rather than just dismissed

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Mental illness can create situations that could kill you, it's not an entirely unlikely situation, given how intense panic attacks can cause symptoms not unlike having severe heart trouble. This is spoken like someone who seemingly doesn't have the perspective to see how invisible illnesses should be given consideration, rather than just dismissed

They cannot take priority over the breathing of another person, the absence of which WILL kill the other person. Period. This taking your pets with you nonsense in small, enclosed areas should not be happening at all. Leave your pets home and figure out how to deal, as generations did before you.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Allergic reactions can be caused by virtually anything, if you're going with such a vague notion, then you're favoring one thing over another based on something that isn't necessarily certain to be known ahead of time. Again, it's like physical ailments would just always trump mental illness in a legitimate sense, like you expect everyone to just get medicated, as if that's always a solution

Oh, no. Animal allergic reactions are well known. Sure, someone could have some odd reaction to plastic or something, but that wouldn't be the fault of another person on the plane who couldn't come without his pet. Not remotely the same thing.

 

[muichimotsu]

They cannot take priority over the breathing of another person, the absence of which WILL kill the other person. Period. This taking your pets with you nonsense in small, enclosed areas should not be happening at all. Leave your pets home and figure out how to deal, as generations did before you.

And there it is, you essentially stated that mentally ill people should be shut out of interacting in society if they can't fit your preconceptions how they ought to cope with it, as if you remotely understand their perspective beyond some vague "awareness"

Also, I never said priority, you're putting words in my mouth, I'm talking about a compromise, like civil rational adults

And they're not their pets when the situation is assessed by a psychiatric professional, this isn't like an old lady who doesn't want to put her cat in the storage area, this is someone with panic attacks or the like.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And there it is, you essentially stated that mentally ill people should be shut out of interacting in society if they can't fit your preconceptions how they ought to cope with it, as if you remotely understand their perspective beyond some vague "awareness"

Also, I never said priority, you're putting words in my mouth, I'm talking about a compromise, like civil rational adults

And they're not their pets when the situation is assessed by a psychiatric professional, this isn't like an old lady who doesn't want to put her cat in the storage area, this is someone with panic attacks or the like.

There IS no compromise, with allergic people confined in small spaces with animals. The allergic person cannot get away. So you are suggesting priority for those who are nervous about flying. They are indeed pets, no matter what new category they are trying to create, if they are not service animals, like seeing eye dogs. That is all they are; Pets soothe people. Fine. Take a photo of your pet or a stuffed animal and let everyone else breathe.

FYI, the law requires no "psychiatric professional" to write a note for the person to be able to force his pet on his no-pet landlord in his no-pet housing. Just any medical person at all. Your dental hygienist can do it. Some nurse. ANYONE. It's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the airlines are going to do what they are going to do until someone dies. Then it will change.

 

[muichimotsu]

Oh, no. Animal allergic reactions are well known. Sure, someone could have some odd reaction to plastic or something, but that wouldn't be the fault of another person on the plane who couldn't come without his pet. Not remotely the same thing.

I never said animal allergic reactions weren't uncommon, the point is that we can't accommodate people with allergies to the extent you'd seemingly expect, it's virtually impossible

 

[muichimotsu]

There IS no compromise, with allergic people confined in small spaces with animals. The allergic person cannot get away. So you are suggesting priority for those who are nervous about flying. They are indeed pets, no matter what new category they are trying to create, if they are not service animals, like seeing eye dogs. That is all they are; Pets soothe people. Fine. Take a photo of your pet or a stuffed animal and let everyone else breathe.

FYI, the law requires no "psychiatric professional" to write a note for the person to be able to force his pet on his no-pet landlord in his no-pet housing. Just any medical person at all. Your dental hygienist can do it. Some nurse. ANYONE. It's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the airlines are going to do what they are going to do until someone dies. Then it will change.

No, I'm not suggesting priority, I'm suggesting that there can be a compromise, which necessarily does not prioritize one group over another in the meaning of the term

I'm not claiming expertise, but methinks you'd have to substantiate that claim, because I can't imagine it would be that loose, even if it does need qualifications beyond what already exists

 

[RDKirk]

The affecting of another person is not the sole justification based on some varying degree of inconvenience. Your standards are so loose, you might as well just restrict anything due to whatever inconvenience it may cause someone, real or imagined

You don't know what my standards are. I have not asserted any standards, except that anxiety does not trump death when it comes to the priority of addressing issues...with which any reasonable person would agree.

Me possibly being allergic to dogs is not a reason for someone to not have their dog, even if we're just talking an emotional support animal. If you're about personal responsibility, you can't simultaneously say that other people should be responsible for not inconveniencing you when it's as much your responsibility to manage various conditions

If the allergy is life-threatening, that is well reason to put the dog-owner on a different flight or at least seated well away. That would be the case even with a service dog.

 

[bèlla]

If you require an animal to help you get through the day. How do you work? Or are your coping skills operable between 9-5 and nonexistent afterward?

I can’t imagine these people are bringing animals to work. I don’t see employers accommodating that.

~Bella

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't know what my standards are. I have not asserted any standards, except that anxiety does not trump death when it comes to the priority of addressing issues...with which any reasonable person would agree.



If the allergy is life-threatening, that is well reason to put the dog-owner on a different flight or at least seated well away. That would be the case even with a service dog.

I never said anxiety trumped death, not sure why you'd insinuate that

And there, you gave a basic solution that an airline could arguably manage, it's not like this is that difficult, like some seem to make it