It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Male poses danger to children on Virgin Flight?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


You read into my post what you will.

The fact remains a man was discriminated against




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by magma
 

Discriminated against is kind of severe wording for the situation. He was not being denied anything, he was just asked to switch seats because the company had a policy that was created to minimize personal risk. He would have still had access to the same experience as the other passengers from his other seat.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by magma
 

Discriminated against is kind of severe wording for the situation. He was not being denied anything, he was just asked to switch seats because the company had a policy that was created to minimize personal risk. He would have still had access to the same experience as the other passengers from his other seat.


Explain to me why it made the news. Also if it was a women asked to swap seats for exactly the same policy, what would be the difference?

Minimize personal risk? If it was a women would that risk still require mitigation?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican
 



Oh but we are equal. Just women get more rights than men it seems in todays age.


What rights do women have that men don't?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


If a child is molested on their airplane, they could get sued over it. Since men are more likely to molest, or at least more likely be prosecuted for it, they asked him to move to reduce personal risk.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by australianobserver
 


I dunno......What if he looked like this guy?






posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
While I agree with the sentiment of the policy it does not mean I agree with the policy. I understand that men are far more likely to be pedophiles but in all fairness would you like to be prejudged (note the closeness of that term to prejudice) in front of a crowd of people? I personally would have been mortified. I think every male who is not a pedophiles worst fear is being accused of pedophillic acts. Those accusations never leave you. You could do nothing wrong and be accused.... And every man and woman who hears that the accusation was made instantly determine you to be guilty due to the seriousness of the crime.

I know they didn't confront the man in this manner but even then, "Sir I must have you switch seats, as it is company policy that men are not to sit next to unaccompanied minors" .... thats probably the nicest way to say it and I still would be mortified.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Um last time I checked women are pedophiles too. Just do a quick search of sex offenders in your area and that becomes very clear.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
On topic, no one was being victimized by this policy. Men were not kicked off of airplanes because they were seated next to a child, just asked to switch seats.

However minor it's viewed as, it's still discrimination as it includes all men while presuming guilt.


That is completely harmless and I feel like any reasonable person would acquiesce.

If I boarded a plane, was sat next to a kid and then was later told to move in front of everyone and I asked why and the explanation was that 'I can't sit next to children... well that would be be embarrassing for one but it would also be infuriating being accused of potentially being a pedophile. Again, you can view this as something minor, but saying it's completely harmless isn't really appreciating the situation. And what about the principle of it? Where I come from we embrace innocent until proven guilty as a virtue.


The numbers don't lie, men are more likely to commit sexual and violent crimes across the board.

This is like the movie Minority Report except without the precognition yet some people in this thread think it's a good idea. So strange to me.

Anyways... if we base discriminatory policies on statistics like this just about any policy could be argued. That's just the nature of these statistics... whatever you can think of there is a corresponding majority of men, women, races, etc that do it. African American men are statistically more likely to XYZ therefore a policy to prevent all African American men to XYZ.

Sorry but I just don't believe in presumed guilt. And I certainly don't believe in being punished for it.


I mean men pay more for auto insurance because the numbers say they are more likely to drive recklessly. Is that discrimination to?

Yes.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I think the airline should be able to do what they wish. And so should every other business. If you don't like it go elsewhere. I'm tired of discrimination being an issue with EVERYTHING and everyone micromanaging what everyone else is doing.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by seethetruth
 


No, it is because of stranger danger programs that now tell kids it is ok to report molestation, as opposed to spending your life hiding a secret and thinking you did somethign wrong because this information wasn't around.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WildWorld
I think the airline should be able to do what they wish. And so should every other business. If you don't like it go elsewhere. I'm tired of discrimination being an issue with EVERYTHING and everyone micromanaging what everyone else is doing.


Well fortunately there was enough people around without your mentality otherwise we would still allow discrimination against race in business and the work place.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


It is the new white guy victim mentality because powers are starting to equalize and they can't stand it. Note, I didn't say equal, but starting to equalize.
It got much worse when a black president got elected.

Notice that there are not a thousand birther threads for Romney, though his father was born in Mexico.

But they will scream that you are using the race card when you call them on it.

And then they wonder why the rest of thinks that mental illness is so rampant.

But anywhoo, boohooing that everyone has more rights then them is just a privelaged white guy flare up.


It is like when an impoverished child gets their first toy in life and an upper middle class brat nearby starts whining that they don't have one of those too.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
OMG!

First off this policy is wrong. Way wrong.

The policy should be children under a certain age should always be accompanied by a supervising adult. My personal suggestion would be 16.

If the parent or guardian, for what ever reason, cannot accompany the child then I think, for a fee, the airline could have a nanny type sit with the child.

The shear existence of this rule admits that the parents have abandoned their child for a said period of time.

It is wrong to leave your child alone, except in airports? I can't leave a 10 year old at the pool alone.

Male passenger profiling is not a good thing. Pre-crime. Guilty because of your sex. WTH!

Did they bump up that male passenger to first class for his inconvenience and embarrassment?

Makes me afraid what this world will become for my boys.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by WildWorld
I think the airline should be able to do what they wish. And so should every other business. If you don't like it go elsewhere. I'm tired of discrimination being an issue with EVERYTHING and everyone micromanaging what everyone else is doing.


Well fortunately there was enough people around without your mentality otherwise we would still allow discrimination against race in business and the work place.


Not sure why you added "discrimination against race" instead of just saying -discrimination in the workplace - but whatever.........If I own a business I should be able to hire and pay with my own money whomever I want. It's my money if I only want to hire black I should be able to. If I want to hire white I should be able to. It's my money and my business.
IMO If the parents or the airline are that worried about kids getting molested on flights they should not allow them on alone. But they do, it doesn't matter what you or I think about it. We can't decide for them. What gives us the right to anyway?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Virgin can do what it wants. Discrimination or not it's a private company and if they honestly think treating all adult males as predators is good for business then more power to them. There's no need to list off all the women or juveniles who have committed a sexual offense against a child or other juvenile.

When some perv woman assaults a child on a flight or some crazy maladjusted 12 year old assaults an 8 year old on one of their flights I hope they're ready for the massive lawsuit that comes their way.

It really is disturbing though. How would people feel if cities banned single adult men from living in certain areas? Should all single adult men be listed as sex-offenders until proven otherwise? Do single women, married men, married women, other children not commit these crimes?

Just seems stupid all over the place and completely unnecessary.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


Abuse is abuse and is u acceptable in any terms. Weather raped beaten starved or whatever else horrible parents or people will do.

Yet you are arguing like a child that a child that is raped should get more sympathy than a child severely beaten.

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Abuse to a child is unacceptable in ANY terms. So stop saying that one is technically better than the others.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I'm sorry I don't see why it is appropriate to introduce race in this topic. This is a gender oriented topic and the comment you are replying to was not race oriented. My question is why you feel the need to appropriate race in a discussion that is about gender.

My next question is why would you bring up social classes and speak so harshly of "an upper middle class brat".
edit on 15-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


They actually cannot. You cannot make a rule supporting gender profiling I don't care how rich or powerful you are.

So if I would have a private gym could I make a rule saying no women on the account of they have a higher chance of bleeding on the equipment. Due to mensuration? And will be doing this for sanitary reasons only?

This is just a make believe scenario and does not reflect my personal views.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Many factors come into play here, what did he look like? what was he wearing? were the children specifically requested to be seated not near women ( maybe the father was abusive and since has a court order against him )

Personally? Id rather my daughter to be seated next to a female, or even no one, instead of a man.

I mean, how would you feel if the male gardeer at school sat next to her for 3-4-5hrs ?

Sometimes you need to be careful and wary.. imagine what would have happened if this man abused her mid flight, think of the uproar?


If people are so worried about their 10 year old boys, then maybe....just maybe....the 10 year olds should be accompanied?

Nah, that makes too much sense.




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join