Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehmmmmmmmm | Hacker News Reader

No. I shouldn't have to be around dogs. My fear is justified and I don't need to work on myself.

Service robots are fine with me. But I shouldn't have to be forced to be around dogs.

If someone was deathly allergic to peanut butter would you force them to drive Uber while passengers eating peanut butter sandwich in the back? And tell them to "work on themselves"?

View on HN

Fear of dogs is psychological, you can work it out through therapy. Peanut allergies are physiological, words wouldn't really help you there.

I think it's unfair to hand-wave a deathly fear of something away as "just work on urself lol." PTSD is a real thing, and it's not as easy as a handful of video chats with a therapist. Not to mention, someone driving for Uber probably doesn't have the resources to be in therapy in the first place.

Eating peanut butter sandwich isn't protected by law. Having service dogs is.

How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

> Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.

Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening.

You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger.

If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.

>because they don't have much of a choice job-wise

That is not an excuse to put other people in grave danger

>End of story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com