The use “their” instead of his or her.
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
If you know it, that's one thing. Once I helped my mom buy something for a baby shower. We got yellow because we didn't know.
These are really just conventions though. I try not to get offended by others and their choice of language as long as it's well-meaning.
This mentality means you can't eat, drink, nor be in close proximity to ANYHING.
Seriously, there is someone that is allergic to or offended by DARN near anything you can imagine.
My bride is seriously allergic to latex rubber...does that mean you get rid of latex? NO!!! It means we make diligence to prepare ourselves, and keep her safe.
So sick of this cancel culture...
I'm more annoyed with people calling brakes, "breaks". Or people calling Mobil 1, "Mobile 1".
Scott
Scott
So our allergies (my son and I) mean I have to find an airline that will accompany our allergen profiles, but my freedoms have to be limited by the allergen profiles of others? I'm not sure I follow the logic.
How about we take care of ourselves, take responsibilities for ourselves, and our genetic limitations, and STOP limiting the freedoms for those around us?
Last edited:
If I had an allergy or health condition I would do what I have to do to protect myself. By the same token, as a not-afflicted individual, I am trying to not cause harm to others. If you come to my house I will let you know I have a cat. Two actually. If you tell me you can come in as long as the cat does not jump on you, I will arrange for the cat to be locked into a room. If you tell me you can't come in because of the severity of your allergy, I will change my clothes and we will have a beer and peanuts at the local pub.
Those actions would be much appreciated, and they are very kind. My son and I are so badly allergic to cats, that it would not be nearly enough. In minutes, my son would have bubbles on his eyeballs, and start having trouble breathing. That is why we carry medicine for him. I would NEVER expect you to cleanse your house, nor common area to accommodate a genetic defect we have, but instead, I would take the responsibility that I need to guard against my environment from things that are harmful to me or my family. The difference, is you are talking about your personal residence, not what I would consider as a public airline or airport (or any other public venue). I don't expect others to accommodate to our (my family) genetic limitations just because it makes life easier for me. Instead, I prefer to take precautions and actions to ensure the safety of myself and my family in a complex world without limiting the freedom of those around me.
In no way do I argue against you providing the best possible protection for yourself and your family. Where we do disagree is that I believe that the general public can be expected to abide by reasonable measures that can help protect others. If it's everyone just for himself (themselves?) then we don't have, in my opinion, an advanced society.
Then where do you draw the line? Where does it end? Is there a certain % of the population that must suffer from something to have it banned?
I am EXTREMELY allergic to cats...yet they are allowed as therapy animals
My son is EXTREMELY allergic to cats, and very allergic to dogs (that are not his, and we can debate this later if you want), yet they are allowed therapy animals
My bride is very allergic to latex and most plastics...yet they are used almost everywhere
While I have my own thoughts on "therapy animals", I would not support banning any of them. I realize that is part of our environment, and I must be prepared for it.
When do we stop cancelling things because it inconveniences a small portion of the population?
Who gets to decide between a serious allergy where someone might die, and an overreaction to something that might seem like someone is going to die (psychological overreaction) ?
Maybe we just prepare ourselves for the things we already know our body is weak towards, and be ready for our environment?
I think I remember that once...oh yeah...learned it in the Boy Scouts.
Be Prepared.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,118
Trust the science!!!!!
Yeah. Of course they do.
But in which sports division they are allowed to compete is a matter of fairness to everyone else in that division.
Born with male hormones, muscle strength, bone structure, and allowed to compete against persons born female? Not really fair. Sorry.
Pursue your happiness elsewhere while enjoying your life and Liberty.
That's the beauty of the English language - two words spelled differently but pronounced the same mean different things, and the same word spelled the same can mean more than one thing.
Fair enough. So what should be pursued is a separate category? Like how we have men's teams and women's teams, there could be a trans team. That way there is equal footing.
I don't draw the line at something with minimal impact like not being able to eat peanuts on a plane. You see that as a slippery slope leading to the end of freedom, I don't. Everybody chooses his own battles. I'm not going to die on Peanut Hill. I'll leave it at that.
The English language isn't so bad. Try a language heavy on intonation like Chinese or Japanese.
Please post some examples of said 'wrecking' and records set? Thanks.
In all jest...I guess some of us like peanuts more than others ;-)
Thank you for the kind banter.
Yeah, English isn't bad ... just a bit "tricky" sometimes.
Similar threads
