The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Peanuts and Airplanes: The New Religion Thread
hruka(piglet)
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
Peanuts on Northwest Airlines prompt protests
This article really isn't that different from all the other "Airplane + Peanut Allergy = Flamewar" articles, but it did get me thinking. Should peanuts be served on airplanes, and what rationale drives both sides of the argument?
According to the The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 150 die annually from all food allergies combined. Although any number is upsetting, 150 deaths from -any- food allergy in -any- setting does imply that peanut allergy problems are not very prevalent aboard airplanes.
However, why should it matter how prevalent it is? All these peanut-allergy people want is for the airline to switch to pretzels. Is your desire for peanuts over pretzels really worth someone's life? And just because someone is allergic to peanuts, does that mean they don't have the same right to fly around the country like you do?
And that's where I feel this issue gets interesting. We try to create a society of equal opportunity, but often times with equal opportunity come limitations.
-Public buildings now need to be made handicap accessible, and the trade-off is the cost of upgrading buildings to do so. Is it worth it? Yes. Why? Because the cost/benefit ratio is better than some undefinable bar. However much money it cost to upgrade the buildings was worth it so that all the thousands (millions?) of disabled people can access buildings.
-In other cases, it's not worth it. Subways can be dangerous late at night, and a lot of people avoid using them because of this. We could employ millions of police officers to stand at every subway station all night every night, so that people can feel safe and therefore have equal opportunity to ride the subways. Unfortunately, the cost/benefit ratio doesn't make such a thing possible.
In this situation, we're asking millions of flyers to give up eating a snack, so that some peanut-allergy people will feel safe enough to fly, and as to prevent some of the food allergy deaths. The cost is minor when you think about a single person, but it's a sacrifice (albeit very small), that millions must take. On the benefit side, we may prevent a very small number of deaths. Also, we may make a very small percentage of our population feel more safe and grant them equal opportunity.
Is it worth it? It's hard to say, I suppose it's based on how much you value equal opportunity, but I don't think it is. There are millions of other small sacrifices we could ask tens of millions of people to make that would save a lot more lives than the 50 (at best) that this would save. Ten million people's actions have such a huge effect that even something as simple as 'donate one shirt this year' would save an incredible amount more lives. Perhaps we should ask people to donate one shirt a year, but until our society reaches that stage, I don't think it needs to do this either.
Furthermore, if one is willing to make the sacrifice there for 50 lives, it would seem hypocritical not to do so in other realms. Should airplanes serve fish? Chicken? Any of the hundreds of other food allergies? Should movie theaters serve peanuts? Should baseball games? Those may not have gotten as much media attention as airplanes and peanuts, but the situation is comparable.
I think ultimately, it's a difficult decision, but we need to be willing to set boundaries on what equal opportunity is worth. We strive to make the world equal, but in going to the extremes of this quest, we end up lowering the overall quality of life of everyone else in it. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to make the world equal opportunity, but we need to decide whether the cost is worth the benefit, rather than always instinctively jumping to "yes, of course it is".
What do you think?
This article really isn't that different from all the other "Airplane + Peanut Allergy = Flamewar" articles, but it did get me thinking. Should peanuts be served on airplanes, and what rationale drives both sides of the argument?
According to the The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 150 die annually from all food allergies combined. Although any number is upsetting, 150 deaths from -any- food allergy in -any- setting does imply that peanut allergy problems are not very prevalent aboard airplanes.
However, why should it matter how prevalent it is? All these peanut-allergy people want is for the airline to switch to pretzels. Is your desire for peanuts over pretzels really worth someone's life? And just because someone is allergic to peanuts, does that mean they don't have the same right to fly around the country like you do?
And that's where I feel this issue gets interesting. We try to create a society of equal opportunity, but often times with equal opportunity come limitations.
-Public buildings now need to be made handicap accessible, and the trade-off is the cost of upgrading buildings to do so. Is it worth it? Yes. Why? Because the cost/benefit ratio is better than some undefinable bar. However much money it cost to upgrade the buildings was worth it so that all the thousands (millions?) of disabled people can access buildings.
-In other cases, it's not worth it. Subways can be dangerous late at night, and a lot of people avoid using them because of this. We could employ millions of police officers to stand at every subway station all night every night, so that people can feel safe and therefore have equal opportunity to ride the subways. Unfortunately, the cost/benefit ratio doesn't make such a thing possible.
In this situation, we're asking millions of flyers to give up eating a snack, so that some peanut-allergy people will feel safe enough to fly, and as to prevent some of the food allergy deaths. The cost is minor when you think about a single person, but it's a sacrifice (albeit very small), that millions must take. On the benefit side, we may prevent a very small number of deaths. Also, we may make a very small percentage of our population feel more safe and grant them equal opportunity.
Is it worth it? It's hard to say, I suppose it's based on how much you value equal opportunity, but I don't think it is. There are millions of other small sacrifices we could ask tens of millions of people to make that would save a lot more lives than the 50 (at best) that this would save. Ten million people's actions have such a huge effect that even something as simple as 'donate one shirt this year' would save an incredible amount more lives. Perhaps we should ask people to donate one shirt a year, but until our society reaches that stage, I don't think it needs to do this either.
Furthermore, if one is willing to make the sacrifice there for 50 lives, it would seem hypocritical not to do so in other realms. Should airplanes serve fish? Chicken? Any of the hundreds of other food allergies? Should movie theaters serve peanuts? Should baseball games? Those may not have gotten as much media attention as airplanes and peanuts, but the situation is comparable.
I think ultimately, it's a difficult decision, but we need to be willing to set boundaries on what equal opportunity is worth. We strive to make the world equal, but in going to the extremes of this quest, we end up lowering the overall quality of life of everyone else in it. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to make the world equal opportunity, but we need to decide whether the cost is worth the benefit, rather than always instinctively jumping to "yes, of course it is".
What do you think?
hruka(piglet) on
0
Posts
Wait, people are avoiding flying altogether because of their peanut allergies? Can't they avoid this by NOT EATING THE PEANUTS?
Also, what about the people with gluten allergies. If we switch to pretzels, where will they be?
In any event, yes. They should switch out peanuts given the circumstances of a captive audience in a closed, pressurized environment which is recirculating its air supply. Movie theatres, even with air conditioning, aren't pumping the same air into the building so any allergen inducing snack dust isn't going to get reshuffled around.
Depending on the severity of their allergy, no.
You know how many deaths this would prevent annually? Zero. None. Zilch. Because people who have peanut allergies and fly on airplanes know they have peanut allergies and can muster up the willpower to not eat the fucking peanuts. What about the people on low-carb diets? They can't eat pretzels! Oh noes! What about people on low-sodium diets? They can't have pretzels or peanuts or any other salty snack item! Oh shit we better switch to boiled tofu squares.
This nation needs to grow a pair.
I work in a bakery, and more than once we've had a mother bringing cupcakes to her kid's class party request a letter stating that the bakery is peanut free, otherwise the school wouldn't allow the cupcakes in the building.
Never have you been more wrong.
Last time I flew Southwest, I got TWO bags of peanuts. They had out snacks like a parade float.
Because the massive amount of flying experience I have (two flights) .. I was offered crackers.
With cheese!
What are the relative severities of reaction between peanut and other allergies?
So there are people who cannot be within 50 feet of a peanut in a poorly circulated area without dying?
Cashews are the best. They should start serving cashews.
It makes sense in a school environment, because five year olds cannot be trusted to not share their sandwiches with others or to not run around smearing peanut butter all over everything.
I trust that airline patrons have slightly more self control.
Can you blame him?
The peanut lobby made me do it.
If it's just sitting there they'd be fine; if it's been crushed to all hell then shoved into a bag with peanut dust and everything they might have some problems. Especially if the area isn't poorly circulated, but recirculated in atmosphere.
Bush's brain is roughly equal to a peanut, in both form and function.
Does that count?
There was that one time Mr. Peanut went on a killing spree.
For schools, I think it's insane. It's the Clorox Wipe/Heliocpter Parents who want to ban any penut products just because their snowflake may be exposed.
I just bought a 5lbs bag of penuts, and it's awesome.
He tried to go on the lam, but didn't go with the mint jelly?
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I can't believe people have to bitch enough about something so retarded that this is actually considered news.
The airline already said they'll have special zones for people with peanut allergies and give them different snacks. Problem solved, really no need to cause a huge, pointless stink over it.
I don't understand how this could pose a threat when merely being in a shopping mall containing peanuts (apparently) does not.
I wish I could lime this even harder... This dirty hippie politically correct entitlement mentality that 3/4 of the USA has makes me want to snap and start throwing feces at people like a pissed off monkey. It's going to continue to get worse as these assclowns procreate and allow their children to behave in the same fashion.
Douchebags that whine about shit like this need to grow a thicker skin and just not eat/decline the goddamned peanuts. We are going to turn ourselves into some backwater dumbass whiny bitch everyone gets their own way obscurity one goddamned legume at a time.
I'm going to make it a point to bring a fucking giant ass ziplock bag of dusty ass unshelled peanuts with me from home every flight I'm on from now on.
Are you meaning an entire cycle through? Because, yeah, it can take ~12-14 hours for every bit of air to be different from what it was in a house, but that's due to the fact that the air pretty much isn't circulated at all and just seeps in/out due to not being truly sealed. If you did seal the building then you'd have to run HVAC to ensure a high turnover rate in order to avoid 'sick building syndrome.' Which is why every ~5 ceiling tiles has a supplier in office buildings that don't have operable windows.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
You should totally blow smoke in the face of asthmatics too. That'll learn 'em to be born with different genes.
on a scale from one to Hitler, it's not that bad.
Corlis, why did you quote yourself one post afterwards? I do appreciate the not -> no, though.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer