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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Inconceivable
 


Well said




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
I'm just gonna take a wild guess here and say he had a mustache.


Oh my, I laughed so hard I started to cough Ty for that.


From reading some of the replies and considering the options/possibilities, I think next time I'm on a plane and have a seat next to a unaccompanied minor I will ask to be moved. This guilty before proven innocent game isn't one I'm willing to play.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Wow.. and this is Virgin airlines policy? Stereo type much? I don't agree that the man was told to move, if it was policy, the airline should have took the necessary precautions before issuing the plane ticket/seat.

But to be honest, I would never (willingly, if I had a choice) want to sit close to someone's child, especially on an airplane. They can get very annoying, loud and... I don't want to put up with that kind of headache when/if someone else's child decides to throw a fit.

If I were this man, I'd consult a lawyer and see if anything can be done (in terms of lawsuit for defamation of character).

and good grief, where are the children's parents?
edit on 15-8-2012 by acidsweep because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2012 by acidsweep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


No factor should come into play here at all. If you don't want your children sitting next to "strange" men then don't put them on the boat, plane or bus to begin with. Women are just as capable of molesting children as men are, yet somehow you feel safer putting them next to one? It is idiocy of the highest order. It is a messed up world and messed up things happen to people all the time.


Using your logic children shouldn't play on swing sets because they may get hurt. Using this logic you shouldn't put them on the plane anyway, it may crash. Using this logic we shouldn't aspire to return to space because people have died doing it before. You cannot and will not be able to protect everyone from every conceivable bad outcome. When you do this you are playing the politics of fear.

I feel bad for the men of this world, I really do. I couldn't even begin to fathom the stress of deciding if it is ok to flirt with your coworkers. Or God forbid if you ran across a lost child in Walmart that needed your help finding their parents. Do you risk taking the child to the customer service desk? What happens if the parents realize their kid is missing spots you with them looking for help and you end up in jail? Do you just leave the child to cry and hope it's parents come looking? Or do you look down all the aisles you can keeping the child in your view so some nut doesn't abduct them while you look for a store clerk?

These are not things people should have to be asking themselves. And catering to the basket cases have made it so we are.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 



Using your logic children shouldn't play on swing sets because they may get hurt. Using this logic you shouldn't put them on the plane anyway, it may crash. Using this logic we shouldn't aspire to return to space because people have died doing it before. You cannot and will not be able to protect everyone from every conceivable bad outcome.

That's way too much introspection and logic to ask of the people that are supporting this policy.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



It is the new white guy victim mentality because powers are starting to equalize and they can't stand it.


Yup. It's so obvious.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
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?


Evidently the right to sit in your seat on an Airplane without being treated like a child rapist.

And the right in general to not have people instantly assume you are a rapist because you are a man.


Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



It is the new white guy victim mentality because powers are starting to equalize and they can't stand it.


Yup. It's so obvious.


Either of you care to explain how not letting kids sit next to men is considered "equalized" ? Or explain how being white has anything to do with MEN being treated like child rapists? I'd imagine men of any race would be upset by this.

I understand you don't like white people RealSpoke but you are a man, I'd had thought you'd be offended at the idea that you are a child molester simply for being born male. "Oh yes, treat me like a rapist, that's fine, I deserve it simply for being born a man"

That's real equality right there!


Originally posted by RealSpoke
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.


If a child is killed on their airplane, they could get sued over it. Since women are more likely to kill kids, or at least more likely to be prosecuted for it, they should ask women to move to reduce the personal risk.

See how that works? How is that ANY different? Would the women in this thread support a policy of not letting kids sit next to women to avoid getting killed by them?

If you want to make all men out to be rapist then we can make all women out to be child killers. Stats work both ways, and are either way it's BS to judge people because of them.
edit on 16-8-2012 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


I wasn't talking about the airplane incident, look at what I was replying to



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Sorry I have read through page 5 but can take no more and want to add my 2 cents. If parents are worried about a pedophile sitting next to their childeren they should go along or have to buy the extra seat. Overwieght people have to, rightfully so. If you want to control the seat pay for the ticket. Otherwise you role the dice. It is not ok for the airlines to discriminate against males. I will not fly Virgin (not that I ever had) while this policy is in place. Does anyone know if other airlines have similar policies?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
It seems it was their policy and had nothing to do with how he looked or if he had a handlebar mustache.
Him being a fireman is irrelevant. It also has nothing to do with if the male passenger touched them during the flight. He could have struck up conversation that was inappropriate.

Other airlines had similar policies, not just Virgin.
It could have been handled better as to not embarrass him in front of others. They messed up the seating plan causing them to move him, drawing attention to it. That was where it went wrong and he may have a case to sue, but the policy is ok when it comes to protecting children.

I was placed next to a man on a flight once as an 8 yr old child, my family was seperated all over the plane. He was a creepy guy but spoke Dutch, so no idea what he was saying to me. I was somewhat scared being beside him. I felt much more comfortable seated next to women who were strangers.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican

So does this mean now that any male gradeschool teacher is considered a pedophile by virgin airlines?




The policy assumes that man to be a potential pedophile. The policy is all men cannot sit next to unaccompanied minors. Whether its been effective in preventing harm to children doesn't change it's a guilty until proven innocent policy.



Well in that case, I don't ever want any unaccompanied children sitting anywhere near me either. They *may* just be annoying. Give me a break.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
If I was the guy I would have been glad to move away from two unsupervised minors. I would have asked to be bumped up to first class if it was available.
In this day and age parents should not be allowed to let children fly without an adult guardian anyway. Too many sickos out there.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
It's just a good thing he was a fireman instead of a Catholic priest.
The world is a much more dangerous place for kids now. Parents can't trust anyone.
I have 5 kids and I would never let them fly alone.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I just want to point out that in a SHTF situation most of the men I know would be better prepared than the women I know. Not only in terms of practical knowledge and the way we equip ourselves, but also the advantage of physical strength. I'm a small man but I'm naturally stronger than most women. Obviously I don't know too many ninja women (I know you're out there) but the ones I do know react with something of a "deer in headlights" look when presented with unexpected dangers. If some bad stuff goes down my training and knowledge coupled with my lack of family allow me to react confidently and quickly, again the women I know don't have this "danger is everywhere" mindset and awareness, despite all the female paranoia expressed in this thread.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Simple fact is that the majority of pedophiles are men. Yes, women can be also but the bulk is men. The Virgin policy mitigates the risk to children flying alone.

Are we supposed to substitute political correctness for the safety of children?

Funny, I bet half the men bitching about this have ZERO problem with airlines or TSA profiling Arab or Muslim people. LoL! The hypocrisy.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


The informed ones are rather against the TSA, maybe you should read around the forums a bit to gauge the climate before you make ridiculous comments like this.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KillerQueen
Simple fact is that the majority of pedophiles are men. Yes, women can be also but the bulk is men. The Virgin policy mitigates the risk to children flying alone.

Are we supposed to substitute political correctness for the safety of children?

Funny, I bet half the men bitching about this have ZERO problem with airlines or TSA profiling Arab or Muslim people. LoL! The hypocrisy.


The majority of child KILLERS are women. Why aren't we separating children from women on airplanes? Putting a kid next to a woman is dangerous, the odds are pretty high that woman will kill that kid.

What's the difference? It's a fact more women kill children than men do. So then why not keep the kids safe by not letting them sit next to women?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Yes im never letting my child sit next to a woman on the account that she may put him/ her in the microwave.

It is a fact that that does happen. So im looking into the safety of my child Haha.
edit on 16-8-2012 by TheCaucasianAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
Yes im never letting my child sit next to a woman on the account that she may put him/ her in the microwave.

It is a fact that that does happen. So im looking into the safety of my child Haha.
edit on 16-8-2012 by TheCaucasianAmerican because: (no reason given)



Good choice, better safe than sorry, right? Good for you not letting political correctness put your kid in danger of getting killed by some random maniacal women on an airplane.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 


I think judging by your posts you have been affected or are being affected in some way by this issue. You sound like you are exposed to the issue more then most of us, and that puts you in a different frame of mind. My wife is a nurse, she is currently working at a skin cancer clinic, her father died from skin cancer, her grandmother died from cancer. My wife is affected by cancer. I however have never been affected by cancer yet in my life so my view is somewhat lackadaisical when compared to hers. My point is, as terrible a thing as pedophilia is, how we would all wish it didn't exist, that isn't the real argument here and you are clearly to close to the topic to see the lines you all to easily willing to crossing; a valiant cause yes. The real question is, how far should we go to protect people, when that protection impedes upon the rights of the law abiding majority. Is the US government allowed to do whatever it needs to do, to protect its people from terrorists? Hows far do we go? When you stop basing your laws on common sense, you start loosing sight of what is right and what is wrong. People have been saying that men are more likely to offend, well, yes that may be true, and that is terrible. What about women, do they offend more then an empty seat next to the children? One poster said, that it is more likely to be a family member then a stranger. Maybe we shouldn't let family members sit next to children? Has a child ever offended? Maybe we should separate children from one another? Do you get my point? You cannot just say that it protects children it is alright. There are other ways to protect children that don't degrade our society by saying the male percentage of our population could be possible pedophiles. Because if we go down that path, 100 years in the future our world may be a totally individual place where no one is allowed contact with anyone because statistically they could visit any number of evils upon each other. I don't mean to offend you or lessen the tragedy that is pedophilia, but i want to make you see the real issue at hand.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join