PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[BerenTebogo]

Well, that number isn't an accurate representation since pets usually aren't in the cabin to begin with. That number would rise if we just full on let them as you are suggesting.



I don't think peanut butter being not on planes was a legislation. Was it?

Says you? We'd need data on this.

At the very least it is common practice to Benadryl (or other meds from a vet ) your animal pre-flight to prevent them from the injuries and from possibly injuring other passengers. Parents do not Benadryl their kids in this way. I think I've actually had that exact argument with you at some point in the distant past actually.

[Zetanio]

https://outline.com/yG9WFF

Fairly recent discussion of animals on planes from NYT.

[BerenTebogo]

Ed just smuggle Chippy in your bag

There was a case a while ago where a steward FORCED someone to flush the hamster that they brought with them on the flight and I genuinely don't understand how that happened. You literally would not be able to force me to do that without a marshal holding a gun on me. I'd rather end up on a no-fly list for the rest of my life than fucking flush my pet out of an airplane.

Blew my fucking mind.

[Zetanio]

I also hate children with a fiery passion and complain to no end about them on airplanes but the reality is, they are human (if only barely in some cases).

[Zetanio]

There was a case a while ago where a steward FORCED someone to flush the hamster that they brought with them on the flight and I genuinely don't understand how that happened. You literally would not be able to force me to do that without a marshal holding a gun on me. I'd rather end up on a no-fly list for the rest of my life than fucking flush my pet out of an airplane.

Blew my fucking mind.

Wasn't forced.

[Zetanio]

Also, she wasn't on a flight, it was in the airport.

[BerenTebogo]

https://outline.com/yG9WFF

Fairly recent discussion of animals on planes from NYT.

I do agree there needs to be some legislation and it should be licensed. I just don't think it should happen in a vacuum and that there should be hand-in-hand legislation about holding airplanes to a higher standard for prevention of injuries due to crating and there should be stricter civil liability when incidences occur. Per the article above, kids get injured occasionally from stewards spilling hot liquid on them. I'd be flabbergasted to find out that the parents don't sue the pants off of the airlines in cases like that.

[BerenTebogo]

Wasn't forced.

That is my recollection of the articles I read. At the very least "pressured" unless you have direct evidence otherwise?

Edit to your second post: Okay I guess I read retarded sources.

[Zetanio]

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ai...denied-n846116

"Pressured" is a stretch.

[Zetanio]

I do agree there needs to be some legislation and it should be licensed. I just don't think it should happen in a vacuum and that there should be hand-in-hand legislation about holding airplanes to a higher standard for prevention of injuries due to crating and there should be stricter civil liability when incidences occur. Per the article above, kids get injured occasionally from stewards spilling hot liquid on them. I'd be flabbergasted to find out that the parents don't sue the pants off of the airlines in cases like that.

Actually there's a liability waiver for shit like this if due to turbulence and shit.

[BerenTebogo]

I also hate children with a fiery passion and complain to no end about them on airplanes but the reality is, they are human (if only barely in some cases).

Personally, doesn't carry much weight for me in this argument. I get that I'm on the super extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to this but the "they are still human" argument elicits the same in-air jerk-off motion from me that my opinions on this do for you.

[BerenTebogo]

Actually there's a liability waiver for shit like this if due to turbulence and shit.

Right, a waiver. I'm arguing that there should be liability. Or do you mean for kids? If for kids that's kinda unexpected.

[Zetanio]

Right, a waiver. I'm arguing that there should be liability. Or do you mean for kids? If for kids that's kinda unexpected.

Like if you get hot fucking coffee spilled on you because of turbulence during service and get scalded, you can't sue the flight attendant.

If your kid runs down the aisle and donks himself on an armrest, that's his fuckin fault.

[Ksandra]

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi....ubmed/27941573

Here is non-paywall. It is a reasonable summation of the results to say that the injuries at large were due to them not being physically restrained 100% of the time, i.e. being crated.

Uh, not being restrained means one of two things. Either they were lap sitting (kids under 2 can) or they didn't have their buckle on. That doesn't mean they need to be crated.


The burns could be handled by not allowing children in the aisle rows.

[BerenTebogo]

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ai...denied-n846116

"Pressured" is a stretch.

According to Spirit there was no pressure. Spirit treats people like actual garbage so their official statement doesn't carry much weight for me. The girl is a colossal mess and clearly not a reliable witness either, but she was informed that she would be able to travel with the animal, she arrived and needed to travel due to medical reasons and was refused entry despite prior confirmation. That is pressured as far as I'm concerned.

[Zetanio]

Also if the kid knocks coffee on to you, I'm p sure you can't do shit.

[BerenTebogo]

Uh, not being restrained means one of two things. Either they were lap sitting (kids under 2 can) or they didn't have their buckle on. That doesn't mean they need to be crated.


The burns could be handled by not allowing children in the aisle rows.

You're not actually reading this medical paper are you. There's strong evidence presented that restraining children to roughly the same level that animals are restrained would actually be safer for everyone involved.

[Salodin]

Had a prospective tenant for my rental house circumvent my "no pets" policy by showing her registered emotional support animal documentation.

Reading the laws in California, there was nothing I could do to stop this. Fortunately she dropped out of consideration.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Haha we know full well why she was dropped from consideration. That's why you dont show the letter until after you move in, then you cant do anything about it!

Also, no pets is stupid. I can understand size and number restrictions, but an outright ban I just dont like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zetanio]

According to Spirit there was no pressure. Spirit treats people like actual garbage so their official statement doesn't carry much weight for me. The girl is a colossal mess and clearly not a reliable witness either, but she was informed that she would be able to travel with the animal, she arrived and needed to travel due to medical reasons and was refused entry despite prior confirmation. That is pressured as far as I'm concerned.

I'm saying they didn't flush old Peepers down the toilet themselves and they didn't push her into the goddamn bathroom.

[BerenTebogo]

Also if the kid knocks coffee on to you, I'm p sure you can't do shit.

This is actually pretty surprising and I'm quite sure I don't agree with it as a policy. Not that it matters.