NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is just out-frakking-rageous! All men are potential pedophiles? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Idiots! :(


Airline Seating Policy 'Demonizes' Men (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200511/FOR20051129a.html)


By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
November 29, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Two airlines "down under" are under fire after acknowledging their policy of not allowing an unaccompanied child passenger to sit next to a man.

The policy emerged when a New Zealand man said he was asked by airline staff to move because an unaccompanied minor had been assigned the seat next to him.

Mark Worsley was told to swap seats with a woman sitting nearby, who then moved into the seat next to the boy, about eight years old, for the 80-minute flight.

"I was pretty shocked -- I think most people would be," the 37-year-old shipping manager and father of two said Tuesday.

"I complied straight away and moved seats. But as I sat on the plane during the flight I got more and more angry about it."

Part of the problem, Worsley said, was that the plane was full. When the flight attendant arranged the seat swap, "certainly there was enough disruption that people in the immediate vicinity would have heard what was going on. I felt totally embarrassed."

He had later confronted the airline staff, who confirmed the company policy.

Worsley said someone asked him after the event why he had not simply refused to move. "But these days you can't really do that. With [fears of] terrorism, if you cause any fuss on the plane you're out walking."

"Most males in the world, I'm sure, are perfectly law-abiding, good parents, good fathers, brothers, whatever," he said. "They're basically accusing half the population of the world of being a potential pedophile."

Worsley had been traveling on a flight operated by Qantas, the Australian national carrier. Both Qantas and Air New Zealand have now confirmed that they would not seat a child traveling alone next to an adult male passenger.

Worsley came forward following the recent decision by New Zealand's opposition National Party to name one of its lawmakers, Wayne Mapp, as a spokesman on eradicating "political correctness."

Mapp, whose appointment to the post drew ridicule from the left, has invited New Zealanders to come forward with information about practices they perceive to be "PC," primarily those carried out by the Labor government.

Worsley was one of those who had approached him.

Mapp said the airline policy implied that children were not safe sitting next to men.

He found rare common ground with a left-leaning lawmaker, Keith Locke of the Green Party, who said Tuesday that airlines should recognize that "men are people too."

Decrying what he called "the moral panic about men being a potential threat to children," Locke said it was "prejudicial to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained."

He said the incident clearly is a breach of New Zealand's Human Rights Act -- which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender -- and he asked a government human rights commissioner to investigate.

Some of the Green Party's policies occasionally have been labeled "politically correct" by conservative critics.

Locke said he was glad the National Party's "PC eradicator" had come out against the airline policy, but he argued that it was wrong to call it political correctness.

"The anti-PC brigade usually criticize what they see as an overemphasis on equal rights, including between the genders. The Greens are sometimes the target of their attacks, so I'm glad to see them supporting equal rights in this case," he said.

The airlines did win support from one quarter. Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro, a government appointee, commended Qantas and Air New Zealand for their efforts to keep child passengers safe.

Kiro said she doubted the policy was meant as a slur against men.

But her intervention drew a strong response from the Men's Coalition, whose spokesman Kerry Bevin said Tuesday the commissioner was not fit for her post and should resign.

"Kiro is telling our children that men are dangerous to children," Bevin charged. He also called for the airlines to make a public apology.

For Worsley, the incident was part of a far broader problem, which seemed to affect Western countries in general, he said.

"Men are being demonized in the media for a long time now. I think probably this is just society's reaction -- they think, 'We'd better start tightening up on everything.' It's getting to the stage when all men are viewed with distrust," he said.

"They've already chased men out of the teaching profession, especially for young children. I wouldn't want to be a Scoutmaster now. I wouldn't want to be a Catholic priest ..."

Men are People!!!

Why was I not informed!

Men are People!!!

Why was I not informed!
[ smaks South Islands around a bit just to validate the vileness of men! ] :D

This is dumb, but is raises an important issue. We need to get rid of the men responsible for this distrust.

This is dumb, but is raises an important issue. We need to get rid of the men responsible for this distrust.
Contact your legislative representatives and get Jessica's Law (or a version thereof) passed.

[ smaks South Islands around a bit just to validate the vileness of men! ] :D

*cries to mommy*

They should make the kid move.

That pisses me off. It's sexist. It's implying that only women should deal with children because men are "inherently incapable" when both are perfectly capable. It makes me angry when people expect stupid things like that from people in society because of their sexual organs.

Contact your legislative representatives and get Jessica's Law (or a version thereof) passed.
I totally agree!

They should make the kid move.
LOL! :D

Isn't there just a simple solution? Don't allow unaccompanied minors on planes.

Or don't allow minors on planes :p

(*Gets old before his time, listens to Radio 4*)

They should make the kid move.

Well it makes more sense. The kid is probably smaller, has less luggage etc

Disgusting. That's all I have to say about it.

That pisses me off. It's sexist. It's implying that only women should deal with children because men are "inherently incapable" when both are perfectly capable. It makes me angry when people expect stupid things like that from people in society because of their sexual organs.
I love children, having had five of my own and now seven grandchildren, and I always smile and wave at little ones. Usually the reaction I get from Mom and Dad is a positive one, but every once in awhile some media-focused caregiver will glare at me as if I was going to molest their child that instant. Surely there's some "middle way" where men can be accepted as humans too, yet have sufficient safeguards to prevent most pedophilia? :(

A sad day indeed :(

Time for some male emancipation to stop this injustice :D

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.

It is also a fact that a man is more likely to rape a woman than a woman. So men shouldn't sit next to unattended women on planes? :D

Bullshit. The kid is so much more likely to terrorize the flight (in typical brat fashion). Unless I publicly whip it out, my penis isn't a threat to anyone.
Where has our sense of smell gone? I hate it when BS goes undetected.

COMMENTARY: This is just out-frakking-rageous! All men are potential pedophiles? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Idiots! :(


Airline Seating Policy 'Demonizes' Men (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200511/FOR20051129a.html)


By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
November 29, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Two airlines "down under" are under fire after acknowledging their policy of not allowing an unaccompanied child passenger to sit next to a man.

The policy emerged when a New Zealand man said he was asked by airline staff to move because an unaccompanied minor had been assigned the seat next to him.

Mark Worsley was told to swap seats with a woman sitting nearby, who then moved into the seat next to the boy, about eight years old, for the 80-minute flight.

"I was pretty shocked -- I think most people would be," the 37-year-old shipping manager and father of two said Tuesday.

"I complied straight away and moved seats. But as I sat on the plane during the flight I got more and more angry about it."

Part of the problem, Worsley said, was that the plane was full. When the flight attendant arranged the seat swap, "certainly there was enough disruption that people in the immediate vicinity would have heard what was going on. I felt totally embarrassed."

He had later confronted the airline staff, who confirmed the company policy.

Worsley said someone asked him after the event why he had not simply refused to move. "But these days you can't really do that. With [fears of] terrorism, if you cause any fuss on the plane you're out walking."

"Most males in the world, I'm sure, are perfectly law-abiding, good parents, good fathers, brothers, whatever," he said. "They're basically accusing half the population of the world of being a potential pedophile."

Worsley had been traveling on a flight operated by Qantas, the Australian national carrier. Both Qantas and Air New Zealand have now confirmed that they would not seat a child traveling alone next to an adult male passenger.

Worsley came forward following the recent decision by New Zealand's opposition National Party to name one of its lawmakers, Wayne Mapp, as a spokesman on eradicating "political correctness."

Mapp, whose appointment to the post drew ridicule from the left, has invited New Zealanders to come forward with information about practices they perceive to be "PC," primarily those carried out by the Labor government.

Worsley was one of those who had approached him.

Mapp said the airline policy implied that children were not safe sitting next to men.

He found rare common ground with a left-leaning lawmaker, Keith Locke of the Green Party, who said Tuesday that airlines should recognize that "men are people too."

Decrying what he called "the moral panic about men being a potential threat to children," Locke said it was "prejudicial to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained."

He said the incident clearly is a breach of New Zealand's Human Rights Act -- which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender -- and he asked a government human rights commissioner to investigate.

Some of the Green Party's policies occasionally have been labeled "politically correct" by conservative critics.

Locke said he was glad the National Party's "PC eradicator" had come out against the airline policy, but he argued that it was wrong to call it political correctness.

"The anti-PC brigade usually criticize what they see as an overemphasis on equal rights, including between the genders. The Greens are sometimes the target of their attacks, so I'm glad to see them supporting equal rights in this case," he said.

The airlines did win support from one quarter. Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro, a government appointee, commended Qantas and Air New Zealand for their efforts to keep child passengers safe.

Kiro said she doubted the policy was meant as a slur against men.

But her intervention drew a strong response from the Men's Coalition, whose spokesman Kerry Bevin said Tuesday the commissioner was not fit for her post and should resign.

"Kiro is telling our children that men are dangerous to children," Bevin charged. He also called for the airlines to make a public apology.

For Worsley, the incident was part of a far broader problem, which seemed to affect Western countries in general, he said.

"Men are being demonized in the media for a long time now. I think probably this is just society's reaction -- they think, 'We'd better start tightening up on everything.' It's getting to the stage when all men are viewed with distrust," he said.

"They've already chased men out of the teaching profession, especially for young children. I wouldn't want to be a Scoutmaster now. I wouldn't want to be a Catholic priest ..."

This is an utter disgrace

Eutrusca, have you ever thought of copyrighting the phrase: "WTF over?"

But wait, are they thinking that women are never sex offenders? Maybe they shouldn't let children sit next to ANYONE... because there is a minute chance that they might be molested!

It is also a fact that a man is more likely to rape a woman than a woman. So men shouldn't sit next to unattended women on planes? :D
It's certainly something that may need to be considered. However, the prevailing point is that we need to take the pro-active approach to preventing child abuse we can.

We need to stop sitting here going "A child was just raped. How horrible. I think we should castrate the abuser" and start going "What can we do to reduce the possiblity of abuse to a child"

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.

So I, being a man, am placed next to an unaccompanied child on an airplane. I decide to molest child, with a few hundred witnesses looking on - really. I'm sure that you think that all men are stupid, but I don't think that I'm that stupid.

Try using your brain instead of all that PC crap you're filled up with.

I'm all for reducing the possibility. But I'm not for discriminating people, nor for humiliating them in public while they're innocent. If the company just had organised it so that the man wouldn't sit next to the child in the first place, he would never have known it. That would save the public embarassment (this is probably the worst kind of embarassment you can give to a man).


But how can we stop child abuse? Easy, the human population shouldn't reproduce for 18 years. No kids, no abuse ;)

Edit: And what Purple major said.

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.
This is an absurd position. What about the fact that an adult is much more likely to commit abuse than other kids.... so perhaps minors should only be allowed on flights with other minors? Can't have adult flight attendants, they might take advantage of thier position of authority... no adult flight crew either.

Try something that actually has a chance of doing good, and not just a rather poorly thought out knee-jerk.
Contact your legislative representatives and get Jessica's Law (or a version thereof) passed.

But how can we stop child abuse? Easy, the human population shouldn't reproduce for 18 years. No kids, no abuse ;)


How do you figure doing that would be "easy?"

So I, being a man, am placed next to an unaccompanied child on an airplane. I decide to molest child, with a few hundred witnesses looking on - really. I'm sure that you think that all men are stupid, but I don't think that I'm that stupid.

Try using your brain instead of all that PC crap you're filled up with.

Here-fucking-here.

It is also a fact that a man is more likely to rape a woman than a woman. So men shouldn't sit next to unattended women on planes? :D
It's certainly something that may need to be considered.
Men also rape more men. So should men be allowed to sit next to anyone on planes?

How do you figure doing that would be "easy?"

Well, I haven't reproduced for 21 years, so it is possible. I never said that you're not allowed to practice :D

So I, being a man, am placed next to an unaccompanied child on an airplane. I decide to molest child, with a few hundred witnesses looking on - really. I'm sure that you think that all men are stupid, but I don't think that I'm that stupid.

Try using your brain instead of all that PC crap you're filled up with.
If you want to keep using this forum, donot make an ad hominum attack on me again.

Moving onto your arguement. There is a man named Bill Daracy in Australia, his wife was my High School Librarian. He molested 12 children in full veiw of onlookers. I don't want him, or someone like him sitting next to any child.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with political correctness. Infact it conflicts with political correctness, which would state that men and woman should receive the same treatment on airlines.

Well, I haven't reproduced for 21 years, so it is possible. I never said that you're not allowed to practice :D

You make it sound like unplanned pregnancies are planned :p

Men also rape more men. So should men be allowed to sit next to anyone on planes?
The likelyhood of a man raping a man on a plane is extremely unlikely, as is the likelyhood of him raping a woman and as is of a him raping a child.

However, I can understand the policy. The same reason I don't let my younger cousin chat to men I don't know in the park, etc.

Yeah, but what about innocent until proven guilty? Everyone on this planet is a potential criminal. You just need the right circumstances.

If someone who's already been convicted of a child molesting crime is next to a kid on a plane, than it is a different matter. But until then the man is innocent.

That's absolutely ridiculous. It appears that the hysteria over child molestation has reached new heights. I think its so sad that the community at large is so sexist and uninformed that we assume that women could never possibly molest children.

Amazing how quickly we men react to sexism, yet if a woman so much as raises her voice in a world which still rarely sees her as an equal, she is called a "feminist bitch" or a "****" or who knows what. This is the kind of stuff we have been doing to women for thousands of years, yet it alarms us when it is done to us. Indeed, there should be no sexism. Maybe this is a wake up call for men.

I wouldn't call that PC gone mad. I'd call that paranoia.

Amazing how quickly we men react to sexism, yet if a woman so much as raises her voice in a world which still rarely sees her as an equal, she is called a "feminist bitch" or a "****" or who knows what. This is the kind of stuff we have been doing to women for thousands of years, yet it alarms us when it is done to us. Indeed, there should be no sexism. Maybe this is a wake up call for men.
I know.

Shall we invent a term for them that will equal feminazi in terms of asshole-ness? Phallinazi perhaps?

Haha, not a bad idea ;) Seriously though, discrimination between genders has to stop, period. Men may require a taste of it before they realise this though it seems.

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.
Slight modifcation:
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with taking necessary steps to reduce the likelyhood of terrorism. The fact is a Middle Easterner is more likely to terrorize an American than a white man.

Personally, I'd rather see Middle Easterners decriminated then one American terrorized because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) terrorist.

Slight modifcation:
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with taking necessary steps to reduce the likelyhood of terrorism. The fact is a Middle Easterner is more likely to terrorize an American than a white man.

Personally, I'd rather see Middle Easterners decriminated then one American terrorized because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) terrorist.
It's not polite to steal my debate tactics.

Haha, not a bad idea ;) Seriously though, discrimination between genders has to stop, period. Men may require a taste of it before they realise this though it seems.
I doubt many of them will take how something like this makes them feel and then apply it to a discussion about how women are discriminated against. They'll probably throw it in just to say "oh, well, men face discrimination too!" really though, I think that the men who are screaming bloody murder here while telling women to suck it up and all about how good we've got it need to shut the hell up.

I agree that this is not 'PC'. It seems every time some policy or arumgent appears unreasonable to a particular person (or persons), that it is labled as 'PC'.

If you think it is reasonable to assume every 'Middle Eastern looking' person is a terrorist, being against racial profiling is labled as PC, if you think it is unreasonable to assume every male person is a potential sex offender, gender profiling is 'PC'.

Apparently everything that is wrong with the world this decade is either caused by terrorists, or PC. Last decade everything that was wrong was caused by pedophiles or feminists, and the decade before it was cocaine or communism (this one was popular for many decades and still surfaces amongst the old fashioned)....what's next decade? Biting dogs and atheism I suppose....

While I think the policy is denigrating and insulting to men, I dont think it's PC but rather paranoia (as another poster has already pointed out). I also think it's mighty interesting that in another thread many posters seem to think that if women do not behave as though every male on the planet is a potential sex offender, that they are at least partially responsible if they do get sexually assaulted. We all know children are more vulnerable than women, yet when it is assumed that all men are potential sex offenders in regards to children, that is considered way over the top.

I completely disagree with this gender profiling and with the notion that nearly half the population on the planet ought to be vilified as potential sex offenders 'just to be on the safe side'. I think it is wrong and denigrates men, whilst placing an unreasonable burden on all men who would never behave this way and all people who are by virture of this revolting assumption are presumed to be responsible for 'avoiding' sex offences.

This policy is a perfect example of why we ought to hold sex offenders and only sex offenders to blame for sex offences. Innocent people shouldnt have to behave as though every male were a potential sex offender and innocent men ought not to be treated as though they were a potential sex offender.

It's not PC, it's simply another example of the contraryness of modern-media hysteria-of-the-week thinking.

So far as women are concerned all men ought to be considered potential sex offenders, otherwise the woman is to blame if she is sexually assaulted. So far as children are concerned we ought to presume that not all men are potential sex offenders and never mind that children are more vulnerable than the women we send the opposite message to....sheer stupidity on a grand scale, frankly I'm more surprised when a day goes past without stupidity of this nature coming to light than I am at coming across it.

Although I am a guy, I am all for genderial equality, so I will agree with you Dakini, and I guess you are right, this won't teach men anything. :rolleyes:

Slight modifcation:
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with taking necessary steps to reduce the likelyhood of terrorism. The fact is a Middle Easterner is more likely to terrorize an American than a white man.

Personally, I'd rather see Middle Easterners decriminated then one American terrorized because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) terrorist.

Let's modify it again:

This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with taking necessary steps to reduce the likelyhood of violent crime. The fact is an African American is more likely to commit a violent crime than a white man.

Personally, I'd rather see African American decriminated then one white criminalized because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) criminal.

It's not polite to steal my debate tactics.Ah, allow me to correct:

Tactic courtesy of Rotovia-. All rights reserved.;)

EDIT: Can anyone else not reach page two of this thread? I get an error message.

Amazing how quickly we men react to sexism, yet if a woman so much as raises her voice in a world which still rarely sees her as an equal, she is called a "feminist bitch" or a "****" or who knows what.

hey man, if we don't fight tooth and nail to protect our privilege, we might wind up being treated as mere equals with the obviously inferior sex.

Ah, allow me to correct:

Tactic courtesy of Rotovia-. All rights reserved.;)

EDIT: Can anyone else not reach page two of this thread? I get an error message.
Thank you. It's alot of work playing Devil's Advocate...

Although I am a guy, I am all for genderial equality, so I will agree with you Dakini, and I guess you are right, this won't teach men anything. :rolleyes:
It's not all men. It would be stupid to say that. It's the sort of men who exist on these forums who go about proclaiming how the "feminazis" are at it again when someone points out some discrimination against women that are the ones who probably won't learn a damn thing from this experience.

Also: I can't get to page two either.

hey man, if we don't fight tooth and nail to protect our privilege, we might wind up being treated as mere equals with the obviously inferior sex.
When women do it they are seen as wrong or excessive though.

Also: I can't get to page two either.

I can't get to page one. Stupid server.

It's not all men. It would be stupid to say that. It's the sort of men who exist on these forums who go about proclaiming how the "feminazis" are at it again when someone points out some discrimination against women that are the ones who probably won't learn a damn thing from this experience.

Also: I can't get to page two either.
People who cannot learn from experience suffer from idiocy, IMO.

When women do it they are seen as wrong or excessive though.

that's because they, by the very nature of their demands, seek to end male privilege and therefore must be stopped.

I can't get to page one. Stupid server.
I'm in the 'no page 2 category...maybe those of us who can get page 1 but not page 2 could come to some arrangment with those who can get page 2 but not page 1....we could start up some kind of black market trading in jolt pages....;)

that's because they, by the very nature of their demands, seek to end male privilege and therefore must be stopped.
Privilege is not a right and can be taken. Therefore, they must not be stopped, until both genders stand with equal rights and privileges.

Privilege is not a right and can be taken. Therefore, they must not be stopped, until both genders stand with equal rights and privileges.

oh i fully agree. i'm just explaining why it works like that. i probably should have tagged my "mere equals with the obviously inferior sex" line better, but i sort of assumed people would know my position.

Sorry, I am new here, so I have no idea of what your predispositions are, although I was puzzled at first that a person with your nick would express sexist views. Glad that you agree then :)

This has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with taking nessacary steps to reduce the likelyhood of child abuse. The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Personally, I'd rather see men decriminated then one child molested because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) child molester.
Hmm. I see your point, but surely there's some way to avoid so deeply offending people who have done nothing wrong whatsoever! :(

And I DEFINITELY would like to see some proof of this: The fact is a man is more likely to abuse a child then a woman.

Bullshit. The kid is so much more likely to terrorize the flight (in typical brat fashion). Unless I publicly whip it out, my penis isn't a threat to anyone.
Where has our sense of smell gone? I hate it when BS goes undetected.
ROFLMFAO!!! GOOD one! :D

Eutrusca, have you ever thought of copyrighting the phrase: "WTF over?"

But wait, are they thinking that women are never sex offenders? Maybe they shouldn't let children sit next to ANYONE... because there is a minute chance that they might be molested!
I can't copyright it. Some unknown soldier in Veitnam has prior rights. :)

Yeah! Segregate the children! They're all destructive lil brats anyway! :D

So I, being a man, am placed next to an unaccompanied child on an airplane. I decide to molest child, with a few hundred witnesses looking on - really. I'm sure that you think that all men are stupid, but I don't think that I'm that stupid.

Try using your brain instead of all that PC crap you're filled up with.
Hehehe! [ Salutes the Major ] :D

(this is probably the worst kind of embarassment you can give to a man).
Aaaaa-MEN! :mad:

Well, I haven't reproduced for 21 years, so it is possible. I never said that you're not allowed to practice :D
Hehehe! After my ex had a tubal ligation, I asked her if she wanted to help me make another baby. She said that was now impossible. I replied that there was no law against going through the motions. :D

If you want to keep using this forum, donot make an ad hominum attack on me again.
Um ... that didn't look like an "ad hominum" to me. :p

I wouldn't call that PC gone mad. I'd call that paranoia.
Either way, it still sucks! :headbang:

Middle Easterners decriminated then one American terrorized because he was placed next to (at the time not convicted to knowledge of the airline) terrorist.
ROFLMAO!!! :D

I think that the men who are screaming bloody murder here while telling women to suck it up and all about how good we've got it need to shut the hell up.
Oh? And just who did that, pray tell? :(

Thank you. It's alot of work playing Devil's Advocate...
Perhaps, but "playing" Devil's Advocate and "being" one are two different things. :D

I doubt many of them will take how something like this makes them feel and then apply it to a discussion about how women are discriminated against. They'll probably throw it in just to say "oh, well, men face discrimination too!" really though, I think that the men who are screaming bloody murder here while telling women to suck it up and all about how good we've got it need to shut the hell up.

Hmmm. Although in a sense I agree with you, it's interesting that a thread concerning the implication that all men are a great deal more likely to be paedophilic and therefore have no rights when it comes to protection of children on planes, results in your immediate reaction that "women are discriminated against too."

What the ... (horrible nasty words) ...

What the ... (horrible nasty words) ...
Exactly! :headbang:

Exactly! :headbang:

I sit next obnoxious children in buses. Yes, there are those who like their kiddies doing dirty things to them, but at times you need to protect the adults from the kids more often than not.

I sit next obnoxious children in buses. Yes, there are those who like their kiddies doing dirty things to them, but at times you need to protect the adults from the kids more often than not.
LOL! Hey, you're preaching to the chior here ... I helped raise five 'o dem rascals! :D

Let me get this straight:

These airlines are going out of their way to prevent you from having to sit next to an unaccompanied, and hence untamed, brat...

... And you're complaining?

LOL! Hey, you're preaching to the chior here ... I helped raise five 'o dem rascals! :D

You're a better man than me for that too. :eek: :D
That's why this thing is stupid. They must think Peds grow on trees on planes.

You're a better man than me for that too. :eek: :D
That's why this thing is stupid. They must think Peds grow on trees on planes.
I consider it a case of overraction to a serious but not very widespread problem on the part of "politically correct" airline officials.

And no, it doesn't automatically make me a "better man." Just older and hopefully a bit wiser as a consequence. :)

I consider it a case of overraction to a serious but not very widespread problem on the part of "politically correct" airline officials.

And no, it doesn't automatically make me a "better man." Just older and hopefully a bit wiser as a consequence. :)

Sadly being PC is all the rage. The Pollies like it that way.

What REALLY shits me about this kind of thing is that it gets used as ammunition against feminism. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Although in a sense I agree with you, it's interesting that a thread concerning the implication that all men are a great deal more likely to be paedophilic and therefore have no rights when it comes to protection of children on planes, results in your immediate reaction that "women are discriminated against too."
Actually, my initial reaction was that this was more paranoia and stupidity than anything.

Someone else pointed out that if a woman were to react to discrimination the way these guys do, there'd be people jumping all over her calling her a feminazi. I agreed with this statement.

That would have been me, and I stand by that position.

COMMENTARY: This is just out-frakking-rageous! All men are potential pedophiles? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Idiots! :(



It's not about PC... it's not about innocent till proven guilty.

It's about the fact that children are more often abused by men, than by women.

It's about lessening the risk, and perhaps the gentleman in question should get over HIS OWN ISSUES, and think about who HE wants sitting next to HIS children?

That would have been me, and I stand by that position.
Indeed it would be you.
I'm terrible with names, whether real or just real on the screen. :S

I'm from New Zealand. I'm pretty ashamed we have this thing going on. I don't get it. It's stupid.

I think its just a sign of the increasing paranoia over peadophilia. Its got to the point where you're afraid to talk to a lone crying child in case of being branded peadophile. Its gone too far espcially considering child molestation acts are rarely commited by a random stranger, its far more likely to be a person a child knows like an uncle or a friend of the family.

COMMENTARY: This is just out-frakking-rageous! All men are potential pedophiles? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Idiots! :(

The policy is outrageous and obscene, but your reaction is ridiculous.

What does this have to do with political correctness? Nothing.

Oh? And just who did that, pray tell? :(


You should see the contrast between the outraged statements made about this policies preconceptions about men and the outrageous statements made in defense of the proposition that women bear some responsibiity for being raped.

In fact, you defend the "we have to be real, folks" view that women must take precautions to defend themselves from rapists. Apparently that only applies to grown women and not to children.

I await the day that men grow up and give up such infantile argumentatives. I fail to see how a woman can be seen as responsible for being raped, in the case that she truly did not consent to sex. No means no. Hopefully Cat Tribe, most guys will grow up.

P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A.

Of course, sitting next to some kids would be a horrid experience so maybe the guy should be thankful.

I await the day that men grow up and give up such infantile argumentatives. I fail to see how a woman can be seen as responsible for being raped, in the case that she truly did not consent to sex. No means no. Hopefully Cat Tribe, most guys will grow up.

Sadly, there is a whole long thread of people who do blame the woman for being raped.

I saw it, and decided not to even bother :rolleyes:

I saw it, and decided not to even bother :rolleyes:
Same here. I mean I should, being a feminist, but... Ugh.

You should see the contrast between the outraged statements made about this policies preconceptions about men and the outrageous statements made in defense of the proposition that women bear some responsibiity for being raped.

In fact, you defend the "we have to be real, folks" view that women must take precautions to defend themselves from rapists. Apparently that only applies to grown women and not to children.
I see nothing wrong with a grown woman ( or man, for that matter ) having a bit of caution and good judgment. The same thing usually cannot be expected from a child. Perhaps you have some sort of information to which I'm not privy?

Same here. I mean I should, being a feminist, but... Ugh.

Its not worth it. This is a discussion that should ultimately take place in courts. If you are, however, conversing with immature individuals, you are not going to learn anything new, nor manage to get your points through.

Eutrusca, ever been raped? I haven't. But from what I can see, it affects many women profoundly. Its not just a matter of privy and caution.

I await the day that men grow up and give up such infantile argumentatives. I fail to see how a woman can be seen as responsible for being raped, in the case that she truly did not consent to sex. No means no. Hopefully Cat Tribe, most guys will grow up.
I have never, ever stated or even implied that women bear any of the responsibility for being raped. The fact that CatTribe insinuates that I have is little short of an outright, bald-faced lie.

I doubt that you have, yet I don't think she was referring to you specifically.

Its not worth it. This is a discussion that should ultimately take place in courts. If you are, however, conversing with immature individuals, you are not going to learn anything new, nor manage to get your points through.

Eutrusca, ever been raped? I haven't. But from what I can see, it affects many women profoundly. Its not just a matter of privy and caution.
Do me a big favor, please. Read what I actually say as opposed to what you would like me to say, or what others would like me to say. I have known several women who have been raped and it's not funny at all. Neither is it their fault. As many others have stated, and as I have stated repeatedly, rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of passion.

A modicum of caution should be de riguer for most women as well as for most men.

True, women should exercise more caution, as should men nowadays. I see that you are aware of the true nature of rape then. I just hope others get out of this state of ignorance they are in.

True, women should exercise more caution, as should men nowadays. I see that you are aware of the true nature of rape then. I just hope others get out of this state of ignorance they are in.
That would be nice, but I won't hold my breath. I sometimes think most men aren't going to change their opinions on this until they have a long talk with a woman who has been raped, particularly if the woman is a friend or family member. It's a kind of defensive denial that men can be that violent or insensitive, I suspect. :(

The problem is most women who have been raped are too afraid to speak about it. Its sort of a catch-22 situation. Who knows though, maybe society will evolve.

What? I no longer get to sit near minors on the plane, offer them candy, ask a lot of personal questions, and then maybe invite them over for a sleepover? That's like racism or something man!

What? I no longer get to sit near minors on the plane, offer them candy, ask a lot of personal questions, and then maybe invite them over for a sleepover? That's like racism or something man!
You're neither funny nor helpful. Desist.

I've never actually been on a plane and you will have to forgive me if I think something this stupid if funny.

So umm, since this isn't racial profiling that makes it legal, right?

So umm, since this isn't racial profiling that makes it legal, right?
Perhaps, but should it happen to me I plan to make a LOT of money suing the airline in question for defamation of character, acute emotional distress, and anything else which a team of really creative lawyers can devise. Mwahahahaha! :D

I would, by nature, have to make some smart ass comment, probably something along the lines of "What, I was just offering them a little bit of candy." Because see I do shit like that and it gets people really upset, and the best part is when I make a run for the door and everyone panics, that be great.

Perhaps, but should it happen to me I plan to make a LOT of money suing the airline in question for defamation of character, acute emotional distress, and anything else which a team of really creative lawyers can devise. Mwahahahaha! :D

Maybe they'll bump you up to first class for your trouble. :)

Rotovia, a very well respected member of this communtiy, not only disagreed with a challenge to his/her stance on this issue, but threatened said person's ability to continue to participate on this website. I find that reprehensible. I will not produce quotes, they are there to be found if you care to look. As far as my arguement on this thread, here is my Message to Rotovia...

You posted several comments recently on the forums in a conversation about men being discriminated against on an airline from Kiwi country and Australia. If you want to argue the general fact that men are not unfairly discriminated against, fine.... If you want to imply that a child is not safe next to a man on a plane, you really need to rethink your world view.
As a male survivor of child sexual abuse, I think I have the morla authority to call you onto the caprpet on this point. Pedophiles are pure evil demon spawned monsters from hell. No doubt in my mind... And, in an almost 3 to 1 instance, it is men who sexually abuse minors. (many more women than actively participate in sexual abuse of children either allow it to happen or don't prevent it, knowingly)Pedophiles are amongst the sickest, most soulless people on the planet. However, they are an almost insignifigant population of the world. If someone would have ever suggested that I move seats on a plane, simply because I was male, my reaction would have been signifigantly more violent than the man mentioned in this article. Having experienced the horrors of being molested, I know how easily a child's world can be turned upside down. But to blanketly assume that any man next to a minor on a plane is such a blatantly ugly accusation that no real man could help but to be insulted.

I have never spoken up before on the threads, but a combination of factors made me feel it was necessary.

Hey and there usually aren't that many kids there! So you wouldn't be endangering anyone that way :p

I'm on both sides of this issue...

On the one hand, I really don't what an unrully child sitting next to me on a plane, I feel responsible for them, and I'd rather just read or nap.

On the other hand, WTF, OVER????????
:sniper:

I would, by nature, have to make some smart ass comment, probably something along the lines of "What, I was just offering them a little bit of candy." Because see I do shit like that and it gets people really upset, and the best part is when I make a run for the door and everyone panics, that be great.
Uh huh. Well, if it's not too far away from here, I'll visit you in jail. :)

Rotovia, a very well respected member of this communtiy, not only disagreed with a challenge to his/her stance on this issue, but threatened said person's ability to continue to participate on this website. I find that reprehensible. I will not produce quotes, they are there to be found if you care to look. As far as my arguement on this thread, here is my Message to Rotovia...

You posted several comments recently on the forums in a conversation about men being discriminated against on an airline from Kiwi country and Australia. If you want to argue the general fact that men are not unfairly discriminated against, fine.... If you want to imply that a child is not safe next to a man on a plane, you really need to rethink your world view.
As a male survivor of child sexual abuse, I think I have the morla authority to call you onto the caprpet on this point. Pedophiles are pure evil demon spawned monsters from hell. No doubt in my mind... And, in an almost 3 to 1 instance, it is men who sexually abuse minors. (many more women than actively participate in sexual abuse of children either allow it to happen or don't prevent it, knowingly)Pedophiles are amongst the sickest, most soulless people on the planet. However, they are an almost insignifigant population of the world. If someone would have ever suggested that I move seats on a plane, simply because I was male, my reaction would have been signifigantly more violent than the man mentioned in this article. Having experienced the horrors of being molested, I know how easily a child's world can be turned upside down. But to blanketly assume that any man next to a minor on a plane is such a blatantly ugly accusation that no real man could help but to be insulted.

I have never spoken up before on the threads, but a combination of factors made me feel it was necessary.

Ok, drop the emotional appeal and let's face facts...

First of all, women are prosecuted for these offenses far less often.

Is it because they molest fewer children?

Hell no.

It's because we view an older woman having sex with a minor boy as teaching him right, and if they have sex with a minor girl, well, that's just kinky, no harm done, right?

I say we need to start frying these people if caught, women or men, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

WTF, OVER????????
Hey! That's MY phrase! Thief! Thief! Heh!

I say we need to start frying these people if caught, women or men, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
I couldn't possibly agree more! Kudos! Seabear for Prexy! :)

Hey! That's MY phrase! Thief! Thief! Heh!

It really captured the moment.
:sniper:

Ok, drop the emotional appeal and let's face facts...

First of all, women are prosecuted for these offenses far less often.

Is it because they molest fewer children?

Hell no.

It's because we view an older woman having sex with a minor boy as teaching him right, and if they have sex with a minor girl, well, that's just kinky, no harm done, right?

I say we need to start frying these people if caught, women or men, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
I agree with you on the whole, but the first line was somewhat harsh.

I agree with you on the whole, but the first line was somewhat harsh.

It was an emotional appeal, and he's not the only person alive that's been molested.

He needs to get over the pain and help fix the problem.

Perhaps that is so, yet such traumatic experiences in one's childhood are not easily forgettable.

Perhaps that is so, yet such traumatic experiences in one's childhood are not easily forgettable.


Tell me about it...

:sniper:

It really captured the moment.
:sniper:
Which is one reason I used it in the first place. :p

Dropping the emotional appeal, the simple fact is that that sort of discrimination is wrong. And having said yourself that women get off with lesser sentences or not even get prosecuted only bolsters my arguement. Singling out men as molesters is just plain wrong.
Personally, I agree that molesters should just be killed or locked away for life. I'm not sure where your personal attack against me came from as we both agree on seemingly every point? I hope it's not because you've suffered the same fate I did.

On that note, I would not mind rapists who are found guilty of their crime beyond reasonable doubt to suffer much harsher sentences than they currently do, such as multiple life imprisonments without parole.

Dropping the emotional appeal, the simple fact is that that sort of discrimination is wrong. And having said yourself that women get off with lesser sentences or not even get prosecuted only bolsters my arguement. Singling out men as molesters is just plain wrong.
Personally, I agree that molesters should just be killed or locked away for life. I'm not sure where your personal attack against me came from as we both agree on seemingly every point? I hope it's not because you've suffered the same fate I did.


I try to leave my past in the past, and it took a lot of years to learn how to do that.

What I see these days are emotion based politics which is the ultimate Bull Shit in my book.

Oh we can't excecute him, he's got a disease. So we let the sick fucker inflict that disease on the public again after 5 years.

I was reading about a law in Iowa that requires sex offenders to live 2000 ft away from a school or a daycare, and the newspaper chose a 60 year old man to champion the cause of why this law was so wrong.

He was on oxygen and in a wheel chair and not expected to live another ten years.

What they did not mention was that he brutally raped two 9 year olds ten years ago, and is now living off our tax dollars.

I say drop him in an open grave and bury him alive.

Then there's the woman in the news who molested several 14 year old boys. The Judge says she is the victim because she had sex when they were all drunk. Please ignore the fact that she bought the booze.

How about we scar her face and body with battery acid and then turn her loose wearing a tattoo on her face saying child molester?

:sniper:

BTW : That was not your fate...

That was your past.

:sniper:

This is true, way too many people get away based on emotional appeals. It makes one wonder whether justice is truly served.

Seabear, we can indeed do all those things, in my book. I am still unsure why you attacked me persoanlly. I thought I laid out a fairly logic based argument.

This stuff is all disgusting but I don't see how forcing men not to sit next to kids on airplanes is supposed to accomplish anything. Parents should just teach their kids not to talk to strangers.

This is true, way too many people get away based on emotional appeals. It makes one wonder whether justice is truly served.

Then again, the urge in people to fry them is also based on emotion.

Prents have in the majority abdicated their responsibility to nurture and protect their children.... I could never send my daughter on a plane unattended.

Then again, the urge in people to fry them is also based on emotion.
Based on pure logic, the risk of them perpetrating the crime again makes them a risk to society. Thus, without arguing from an emotional point of view, one could argue that they should be contained or eliminated.

Agreed.

Based on pure logic, the risk of them perpetrating the crime again makes them a risk to society. Thus, without arguing from an emotional point of view, one could argue that they should be contained or eliminated.

Sex offenders are much less likely to re-offend than any other criminal demographic. Therefore, you could argue that a prision term is the best thing for both them and society.

Seabear, we can indeed do all those things, in my book. I am still unsure why you attacked me persoanlly. I thought I laid out a fairly logic based argument.

Look back on your post carefully, and with an open mind, and you will understand.

:sniper:

Then again, the urge in people to fry them is also based on emotion.


Nope, Logic...

The only way to be certain they never committhe crime again is if they are dead.

:sniper:

Sex offenders are much less likely to re-offend than any other criminal demographic. Therefore, you could argue that a prision term is the best thing for both them and society.
Yet this costs tax payers money. Killing them may well be cheaper. The Chinese even charged the criminal's family for the bullet they used in an execution. :p

Drunkendove, your statistics. Where on earth did you get them? The recitivism rate on molesters is higher than almost any other criminal demographic.
Seabear, I don't deny throwing in the emotional appeal. But I backed it up with facts. It is hard not to get emotional on this particular subject.

Sex offenders are much less likely to re-offend than any other criminal demographic. Therefore, you could argue that a prision term is the best thing for both them and society.


That has got to be the dumbest thing ever written...

Child molesters do not molest on child in their lives...

They tend to molest dozens.

Of those mollested, over half will become mollesters.

They do however have a lower incodence of prosecution, that should tell you something right there.

:sniper:

Yet this costs tax payers money. Killing them may well be cheaper. The Chinese even charged the criminal's family for the bullet they used in an execution. :p

The Chinese are not people you want to emulate.

In making sure that the criminal pays for their punishment, here I think we should emulate them.

Drunkendove, your statistics. Where on earth did you get them? The recitivism rate on molesters is higher than almost any other criminal demographic.
Seabear, I don't deny throwing in the emotional appeal. But I backed it up with facts. It is hard not to get emotional on this particular subject.


Dude, you just cannot get emotional about this, even my most horrid imaginings about what to do to those monsters is based on logic.

If you give up logic, then they will win, because an emotional appeal can be fought, and an emotional person can be backed down.

Be outraged, but be entirely controlled.

Don't give people any hook to hang you from.

:sniper:

Indeed. Cold logic in the end is what wins the day.

Drunkendove, your statistics. Where on earth did you get them? The recitivism rate on molesters is higher than almost any other criminal demographic.
Seabear, I don't deny throwing in the emotional appeal. But I backed it up with facts. It is hard not to get emotional on this particular subject.

From http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period........

.......It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population. For example, one study of 108,580 non-sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63% were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release from incarceration; 47% were reconvicted; and 41% were ultimately returned to prison or jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

The Chinese are not people you want to emulate.


I'd vote for it in this case.

That has got to be the dumbest thing ever written...


There is no need for insults. Or all the sniper smilies.

From http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html


Would you care to quote NAMBLA next?

:sniper:

There is no need for insults. Or all the sniper smilies.

I sign everything that way...

Feeling guilty?

:sniper:

Would you care to quote NAMBLA next?

:sniper:

It's a goverment site. Hardly NAMBLA.

I sign everything that way...

Feeling guilty?

:sniper:

Guilty? No, I advised you stop because people tend to look down on post with the sniper smily in them.

It's a goverment site. Hardly NAMBLA.


Funny thing about that site...

it's got a .org extension...

what that means is that the government didn't want to stand behind it, so they chose not to put it under their domain. It can be flushed at any time and it's hard to prove that any one had anything to do with it.

:sniper:

Guilty? No, I advised you stop because people tend to look down on post with the sniper smily in them.


I really don't care.

:sniper:

Funny thing about that site...

it's got a .org extension...

what that means is that the government didn't want to stand behind it, so they chose not to put it under their domain. It can be flushed at any time and it's hard to prove that any one had anything to do with it.


Hah. It's has no robot file, so is cached by automated crawlers. It can't just dissapear.

I really don't care.

You should. On the interweb appearances are everything.

It is also a fact that a man is more likely to rape a woman than a woman. So men shouldn't sit next to unattended women on planes? :D


No, the answer is obvious. Only adult men should be allowed on planes. No, wait. That would look gay. I know! Outlaw all travel! Nobody move! :rolleyes:

Hah. It's has no robot file, so is cached by automated crawlers. It can't just dissapear.

So...

Either it's a bogus site...

Or someone at the DOJ's playing fast and loose with statistics again.

You should. On the interweb appearances are everything.


And right now you look like a child molester, or at least someone who considers molesting children to be no big deal.

I'd worry about your own appearance if I were you.

:sniper:

Contact your legislative representatives and get Jessica's Law (or a version thereof) passed.

What is Jessica's Law? Or did I just miss a post?

1983 statistics? Did you know that child porn wasn't even illegal in the US before 81?

Or someone at the DOJ's playing fast and loose with statistics again.

Why would they possibly do that?

And right now you look like a child molester, or at least someone who considers molesting children to be no big deal.

I'd worry about your own appearance if I were you.

Good thought process there. Just because I don't call for the immediate excution of everyone convicted of child molesting, I myself am a child molester. Good call.

1983 statistics? Did you know that child porn wasn't even illegal in the US before 81?

Feel free to find more up to date statistics.

How paranoid. Don't they keep a freak database like we do?

Better yet, we should just start executing them. They will never be rehabilitated anyways.

Besides what if the dude was Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan? It would be absurd to do this to them as they be the best choices. Think about it, they know how to entertain people and provide protection with their martial art skills.

What is Jessica's Law? Or did I just miss a post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica%27s_law

Jeez, sounds like getting pulled over by a cop because you're black. Similar at least

Jeez, sounds like getting pulled over by a cop because you're black. Similar at least


So, you're saying that we shouldn't descriminate based on the fact that a person is a child molester?

You voted for Kerry, right?

:sniper:

I think he means the contents of the original article :p

So, you're saying that we shouldn't descriminate based on the fact that a person is a child molester?

You voted for Kerry, right?


The person in question was not a child molester. Also, as far as I'm aware, both parties have a no-tolerence policy towards child molesting.

I think he means the contents of the original article :p

Oh, sorry...

I thought he was talking about Jessica's law...

I say execution on a second conviction of a prepubescent child.

One thing I will say is that sexoffender is way too broad of a catagory, someone can get labeled as a sex offender for picking up a woman in a bar and later finding out she is 16, or taking a leak on a sidewalk.

In both those cases, the label is just dead wrong.

:sniper:

Yes, and it does nothing to strengthen the case of those actually suffering from sexual offences, like rape or child molestation.

it is sad it comes to such a stage, but quite frankly when statistics show certain things, its safe to try to avoid creating another statistic.

Very true.

it is sad it comes to such a stage, but quite frankly when statistics show certain things, its safe to try to avoid creating another statistic.

What?

This stuff is all disgusting but I don't see how forcing men not to sit next to kids on airplanes is supposed to accomplish anything. Parents should just teach their kids not to talk to strangers.
Jesus. What a sad, sad world we live in. :(

What?
He means incarcerating/eliminating a criminal so as to avoid further crime being perpetrated.

He means incarcerating/eliminating a criminal so as to avoid further crime being perpetrated.

Thanks for clarifing.

the fact that this issue is even being argued is retarded. what sick fuck even imagined a kid being molested on a crowded plane to invent such a policy?

oh, and whoever it was who said they knew some guy that molested 12 kids in a library in front of people.... how did he get about molesting all 12 without the people watching it not even saying a word. and regardless of your answer to that, im more inclined to believe that you were lying because i dont know you and how you just happened to have a personal experience to add to your argument.

and while im at it, why not just segregate all races from one another, since we all have a history of violence against one another. then further segregate the races by religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, hair color, eye color, ect

Why even go to the effort of asking for an answer then? :rolleyes:

Prents have in the majority abdicated their responsibility to nurture and protect their children.... I could never send my daughter on a plane unattended.
Really, so if the courts ordered (in a custody order) that your child had to fly between countries so many times a year and you could not afford it and were using all the credit available to you to meet the terms of the custody order would you rob a bank to pay for your airfare or just get arrested for failing to abide by the custody order.

Why even go to the effort of asking for an answer then? :rolleyes:


now that i think about it, i dunno, i guess i was just being a dick, oh well

oh yea, its true that most molestations are done by men, but mostly by men related to the child, so no man, family or not should not be allowed to come within 20 feet of a child under penalty of law

While this entire topic may seem stupid and discrimatory against men, it makes sense from the airline's point of view. The airline would much rather deal with a few unsatisfied male clients who spend (rough estimate) at most $2,000 than a multi-million dollar molestation lawsuit. The company is smart to be cautious and take preventive steps to save themselves a lot of trouble.

Yet what if the child is molested by a woman? Perhaps they should have all children flying unattended sitting together, perhaps supervised by a trustworthy airline official.

Yet what if the child is molested by a woman? Perhaps they should have all children flying unattended sitting together, perhaps supervised by a trustworthy airline official.


lol this is what makes unfounded paranoia so fun, what would make any airline official "trustworthy"? an in depth background check proving that they haven't molested a child or thought about a child in a impure way. but then again, what if the children molest each other?

Well is it not better than discriminating against all male passengers? :p The children are the least likely category to molest each other (is this even possible). Better to have an airline official next to a child than a passenger the company is unfamiliar with.

Well is it not better than discriminating against all male passengers? :p The children are the least likely category to molest each other (is this even possible). Better to have an airline official next to a child than a passenger the company is unfamiliar with.
Just as long as they're a female airline official! Can't trust dem male animials, doncha kno, even if they're "official!" :rolleyes:

Well is it not better than discriminating against all male passengers? :p The children are the least likely category to molest each other (is this even possible). Better to have an airline official next to a child than a passenger the company is unfamiliar with.


why not go even further and have 2 heavily armed men guarding the child, who point their guns at anyone who so much as looks at the kid. then we'll need 2 female guards to guard the kid from the maled guards. oh oh, what if we just put the kids on Military transport planes. but then the soldiers might molest the kid. dosent seem to be any solution until we have a child ran and operated airline company

In the case of an employee, the company would be more liable for any molestation charges, so I guess they would choose a female employee for this role. That way they can argue they took all necessary precautions, whether or not this argument is of any merit.

why not go even further and have 2 heavily armed men guarding the child, who point their guns at anyone who so much as looks at the kid. then we'll need 2 female guards to guard the kid from the maled guards. oh oh, what if we just put the kids on Military transport planes. but then the soldiers might molest the kid. dosent seem to be any solution until we have a child ran and operated airline company
Why take a simple measure and make it ridiculous? :rolleyes: The company could always inconvenience its clients instead. Or, it could have the children together, supervised. Which is the best way to minimise risks of law suit? The policy could not be extreme, as if the cost of a law suit is less than the money used in taking preventions, then its hardly worth it at all.

Why take a simple measure and make it ridiculous? :rolleyes: The company could always inconvenience its clients instead. Or, it could have the children together, supervised. Which is the best way to minimise risks of law suit?

i was just trying to show how ridiculous this all is, the policy, this debate, and why anyone cares. but the ones we should worry about molesting kids on planes are the ones who took the time to think up the scenario and making a policy to keep themselves from doing it

i was just trying to show how ridiculous this all is, the policy, this debate, and why anyone cares. but the ones we should worry about molesting kids on planes are the ones who took the time to think up the scenario and making a policy to keep themselves from doing it
Lawyers create any number of hypothetical scenarios to protect companies from criminal law suits. This could well be the result of such supposition.

Lawyers create any number of hypothetical scenarios to protect companies from criminal law suits. This could well be the result of such supposition.

then like i said, we should worry most of all about the lawyers. seriously tho, i dont care about any of this, anyone who does is ridiculous. everything about this (aside from actual child molestations, which more often occur in catholic churchs and private homes) is ridiculously funny to me, so im just having my fun insulting the whole thing
if this thing is meant to be taken seriously, why not give an example of a child molestation ever have taken place on a populated airplane?

Lawyers appear on both sides of the battlefield. They must be crafty in order the best defence possible for their client. Thus, you could say the problem lies with the advocates indeed, yet even if this is so, its not going to change.

not to be rude, but whats your point? i've made my point clear, and thats to make fun of everything and anyone associated with this policy and debate in anyway. yours is.............? to convince me that this is indeed something to be taken seriously? lol, if thats the case, you wont get very far

My point is, that at least from a legal point of view, the policy may not be so illogical as I originally thought it to be. These are the realities of the legal world.

My point is, that at least from a legal point of view, the policy may not be so illogical as I originally thought it to be. These are the realities of the legal world.

no, like most things in this world, its illogical. that also is the realities of the legal world.

Heh I won't disagree there. Hence, illogical measures are adopted. What can one do though.

you could do what i do, though im not saying you have to. and that is to recognize and call out things that are rediculous, then have your fun making fun of everything and everyone associated with it. people like these lawyers you mentioned, the airline ceo's, and whoever else does crazy shit like this are simply a waste of human lives

To further compound what you said regarding the law, I am half way in my first undergraduate year of law at uni, and to be honest, I am changing over to French. The more I learn of the subject, the more it disenchants me. Its hardly the blind, efficient system it prides itself on being. I'd rather do a Masters in Economics later to get a well-paying job as an economist (or diplomat with my language skills) until such point in time that I can become a successful writer (I hope). Law is not something I want to waste my time on.

you could do what i do, though im not saying you have to. and that is to recognize and call out things that are rediculous, then have your fun making fun of everything and everyone associated with it. people like these lawyers you mentioned, the airline ceo's, and whoever else does crazy shit like this are simply a waste of human lives

If you are ever sued or arrested, please tell your lawyer he or she is a "waste of human li[fe]."

or ..... grow up.

Like I said on another forum, its a fucking great idea only they should move the kid.

I'm more than happy for 'discrimination' to happen if it means that I don't have to sit next to a shitty little kid on a plane. Move the kid to the back somewhere.

Actually, my initial reaction was that this was more paranoia and stupidity than anything.

Someone else pointed out that if a woman were to react to discrimination the way these guys do, there'd be people jumping all over her calling her a feminazi. I agreed with this statement.

Apologies, it might help if I read the whole thread before replying :(

It's not all men. It would be stupid to say that. It's the sort of men who exist on these forums who go about proclaiming how the "feminazis" are at it again when someone points out some discrimination against women that are the ones who probably won't learn a damn thing from this experience.

why not go even further and have 2 heavily armed men guarding the child, who point their guns at anyone who so much as looks at the kid. then we'll need 2 female guards to guard the kid from the maled guards. oh oh, what if we just put the kids on Military transport planes. but then the soldiers might molest the kid. dosent seem to be any solution until we have a child ran and operated airline company

But who's to stop the evil men molesting the staff of this child run airline?:eek:

The only logical solution is to take children away from their parents as soon as they're born and transfer them (via this child run airline) to Australia (which will be adult free to protecxt the children). These tiny children will then be raised by slightly older children who will be raised by slightly older children who will be raised by slightly older children who will be raised by slightly older children who will file law suits against the 17.9 year olds for molestation and agism.

It's the only way to keep our children safe.

There's only one reasonable solution: We must seal our children in thick layers of acrylic resin.

That pisses me off. It's sexist. It's implying that only women should deal with children because men are "inherently incapable" when both are perfectly capable. It makes me angry when people expect stupid things like that from people in society because of their sexual organs.
Well if you look at it from another point of view it's totally understandable. What if the kid starts crying or throwing some kind of fit? I, as a man, don't want to have to deal with that. If I can't punch it, eat it, or fuck it I don't know what to do with it, and doing any of those things to kids is considered rude.

Women are naturally suited to take care of kids. That's why nature gave them the responsibility and the equipment necessary to birth them, feed them, and change their diapers. Don't blame me if it's a woman's place to take care of kids, it's natural law and airline policy.

(standard disclaimer, The preceeding post does not necessarily represent the views of Drunk Commies Deleted, Max Barry enterprises, or the Jolt corporation.)

I heard about this on the news the other night. It's completely ridiculous, not to mention that it's probably illegal. This isn't about protecting children, it's about an airline company trying not to get sued. Ironically, they've probably bought a lawsuit or two on their heads with this policy.

Since children are more likely to be molested by someone close to them or their family, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and family friends should also be forced to move away from the children while on a plane. We have to protect the children, right?

I, as a man, don't want to have to deal with that. If I can't punch it, eat it, or fuck it I don't know what to do with it, and doing any of those things to kids is considered rude.

YAY! :D

If you are ever sued or arrested, please tell your lawyer he or she is a "waste of human li[fe]."

or ..... grow up.
Heh just because you don't need like how the Law works, doesn't mean you are immune to it. Maybe he will realise this one day.

They should make the kid move.
why should they do that? let's see, make a grown adult able to understand the situation move and get rid of the alleged "problem," or cause a child to worry they did something wrong? i agree that the man shouldn't be seen as a threat because 10 to one odds he's a perfectly good citizen and not a pedophile or dangerous at all.

The Chinese are not people you want to emulate.

Curious thing to say...

China has allowed UN investigators to look into reports of torture in their prisons, with reasonable freedom of access, and a tacit promise of no reprisals.

The US has said that THEY cannot agree to those terms, in order that the UN can investigate similar allegations at Guantanamo.

And yet... the 'cartoon badguy' is China?