Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
FlushingExpress

Discrimination against men?

Recommended Posts

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/17035446/discrimination-against-men/

 

Even though this is from Australia, it hits close to home because Virgin and Qantas's seating policy is the modern form of segregation of blacks and whites in the US before the Civil Rights movement, which was also done for "safety" reasons. It also brought back memories of when I was shooting bus videos right outside a daycare center five years ago. I lingered for 30 minutes filming away while the children were playing in the front yard playground. As I was leaving, I noticed the supervisors looking at me suspiciously like I was going to come back to photograph the kids or something. Luckily, they didn't call the cops or anything. This is the link to the Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/TodayTonight/posts/549148768457917) and the comments some people made accusing all men of being pedophiles and support Virgin Australia and Qantas make me sick! (one even said this should be applied to all public transportation while another) I commented saying that if it would not kill men to take a few minutes of thier life to switch seats to ensure a child's safety (which one feminist group, Feminist Current, advocates as a "minor inconvenience"), it certainly would not have killed Rosa Parks and other black people here to take a few minutes of their lives to move to the back of a bus to avoid controntation or sexual harassment from deadly white folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their plane, their policy.  Although I disagree with their execution (it should have been figured out well before the passengers even arrived at the airport), I can't exactly blame them for their actions.

 

When women start luring little children, then they can turn the tables.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their plane, their policy.  Although I disagree with their execution (it should have been figured out well before the passengers even arrived at the airport), I can't exactly blame them for their actions.

 

When women start luring little children, then they can turn the tables.

 

Pretty much sums up my answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH. As if there aren't female child molestors. Yes, child molestors are usually male, but let's not act like there aren't female child molestors. For instance (and there's plenty more where that came from)

 

And because 1% (or whatever the percentage is) of males molest little children, that means all males should automatically be excluded from sitting next to children, solely on the basis of them being male?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their plane, their policy.  Although I disagree with their execution (it should have been figured out well before the passengers even arrived at the airport), I can't exactly blame them for their actions.

 

When women start luring little children, then they can turn the tables.

 

Oh please, that's like saying "their restaurant, their policy" and throwing all the blacks out of a diner. Still not okay. This is something of a bizarre example, and while I can understand the reasons behind this, the precedent is still completely flawed. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH. As if there aren't female child molestors. Yes, child molestors are usually male, but let's not act like there aren't female child molestors. For instance (and there's plenty more where that came from)

 

And because 1% (or whatever the percentage is) of males molest little children, that means all males should automatically be excluded from sitting next to children, solely on the basis of them being male?

They teach you this mantra in feminism 101 (lol) - All men are potential rapists & child molesters.

 

Same old tired misandrist bullshit....

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, that's like saying "their restaurant, their policy" and throwing all the blacks out of a diner. Still not okay. This is something of a bizarre example, and while I can understand the reasons behind this, the precedent is still completely flawed. 

Speaking of which, Qantas (another Australian airline) is facing some cases regarding racial/ethnic discrimination as well.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16876079/qantas-to-fight-claim-aboriginals-removed/

 

But hey, it's their policy to have groups seperate, thus making it acceptable, right?

 

And regarding the OP, this story is nearly a year old, and I think most have already shared their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, that's like saying "their restaurant, their policy" and throwing all the blacks out of a diner. Still not okay. This is something of a bizarre example, and while I can understand the reasons behind this, the precedent is still completely flawed. 

 

Free will extends to those who have ideas different from yours.  Quit being such a crybaby for a change.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free will extends to those who have ideas different from yours.  Quit being such a crybaby for a change.

 

Insulting people doesn't advance your point.

 

As for this situation, completely unacceptable. This is segregation by definition, and is unethical. Just because some sicko decides to molest a child doesn't mean all men are child molesters. It's like saying all black people are criminals because a few of them are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insulting people doesn't advance your point.

 

As for this situation, completely unacceptable. This is segregation by definition, and is unethical. Just because some sicko decides to molest a child doesn't mean all men are child molesters. It's like saying all black people are criminals because a few of them are.

"A few" is a bit of an understatement, be it child molesters or criminals ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A few" is a bit of an understatement, be it child molesters or criminals ... 

 

Really, because as checkmate stated, 1% of all men are child molesters, so I don't see your point.

 

It definitely isn't a majority for either, so it still remains an unfair stereotype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free will extends to those who have ideas different from yours.  Quit being such a crybaby for a change.

 

Sorry, I draw the line with free will when it turns to racism. These are complex issues without unidimensional answers: when the action is wrong, it doesn't matter what broad-strokes term you cover it with ('free will, rights, etc.'). Quit seeing everything in black and white for a change.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free will extends to those who have ideas different from yours. Quit being such a crybaby for a change.

 

And that free will is encroaching on other people's rights and free will.

 

"A few" is a bit of an understatement, be it child molesters or criminals ...

 

There's over 300 million people in this country. For simplicity's sake, let's say half of those are male, and 25% are children themselves. That means that there's around 112.5 million men in this country.

 

When you're dealing with large numbers, even taking a small percentage of that is still going to give you a large number. One percent of 112.5 million means there's over a million sex offenders, which is a lot. But then there's 111.5 million men who aren't sex offenders, so in the grand scheme of things, that's still a few.

 

Now, maybe I could see a modicum of logic if there were absolutely no female sex offenders, and there was proof that women don't molest children, but there isn't. Hell, there's even been cases of children molesting children (e.g. A 14 year-old molesting a 6 year-old). And most children are molested by people they know. Of course, there's instances of kids being kidnapped and dragged into some stranger's house (that whole bit about luring them with candy or a puppy), but most of the time, it's a relative, neighbor, or teacher.

 

And to top it all off, it's on a damn airplane for crying out loud! Seriously, what are the odds that a man is going to molest a child in plain view of all the other passengers? Come to think of it, from the time airplanes have been invented, how many instances have there been of children being molested by a random stranger on them?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's over 300 million people in this country. For simplicity's sake, let's say half of those are male, and 25% blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Mother of God.... This is not Stats class...  <_<

 

Really, because as checkmate stated, 1% of all men are child molesters, so I don't see your point.

 

It definitely isn't a majority for either, so it still remains an unfair stereotype.

Of course you wouldn't...

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother of God.... This is not Stats class...  <_<

 

I see you lack the mental capacity to understand simple math (which doesn't surprise me), so my point went right over your head.

 

1% of men are child molesters. 99% aren't. You're treating the 99% the same as the 1%. The only reason 1% is not "a few" is because there's so many men in this country, but either way you look at it, the vast majority of men don't molest children. Understand? Comprendes? Capisci?

 

On a side note, how the hell did you edit the post a minute before you even posted it?

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you lack the mental capacity to understand simple math (which doesn't surprise me), so my point went right over your head.

 

1% of men are child molesters. 99% aren't. You're treating the 99% the same as the 1%. The only reason 1% is not "a few" is because there's so many men in this country, but either way you look at it, the vast majority of men don't molest children. Understand? Comprendes? Capisci?

 

On a side note, how the hell did you edit the post a minute before you even posted it?

OMG... Like really... Have you heard of the term nerd before?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard of the term "retard" before? It seems that in addition to being retarded, you seem to have a fear of any mention of numbers. I believe that term is called "arithmophobia".

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and you're going to make some stupid comment about how looking up the term for fear of numbers makes me a nerd, blah blah, blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard of the term "retard" before? It seems that in addition to being retarded, you seem to have a fear of any mention of numbers. I believe that term is called "arithmophobia".

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and you're going to make some stupid comment about how looking up the term for fear of numbers makes me a nerd, blah blah, blah.

Because in this case you've made a big deal out of a simple comment that did not need any explanation.  I already know all of this that you're going on and on about, but feel free to keep posting stats if it makes you feel any better.  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in this case you've made a big deal out of a simple comment that did not need any explanation.  I already know all of this that you're going on and on about, but feel free to keep posting stats if it makes you feel any better.  <_<

 

Yup, here we go with the projection again, starting a whole argument about stats and then saying I'm the one making a "big deal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey hey, whatever tension is going on here, knock it off.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother of God.... This is not Stats class...  <_<

It's far from stats class. It's non-technical plain English, in fact. In stats class, we use terms like "conditional probabilities."
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's far from stats class. It's non-technical plain English, in fact. In stats class, we use terms like "conditional probabilities."

Whatever you want to call it, it's useless gibberish as far as I'm concerned.  Now let's continue with the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you want to call it, it's useless gibberish as far as I'm concerned.  Now let's continue with the topic at hand.

 

Boy, the education system must've failed you if you can't understand plain English. Anything you can't understand is automatically "gibberish". Alright, gotcha. (And then you come in talking about "I know all that already". Well, how could you know it if it's gibberish?)

 

Funny thing is, you've accused me of replacing hard stats with gibberish. Now I understand why you thought it was gibberish: Because they were hard stats! It was your simple brain that was replacing hard stats with gibberish, not me.

 

In any case, there's not much more to say on this topic. You either agree with them restricting where men can sit, or you don't. Either way, it only applies to this one airline (which is a good thing IMO).

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, the education system must've failed you if you can't understand plain English. Anything you can't understand is automatically "gibberish". Alright, gotcha. (And then you come in talking about "I know all that already". Well, how could you know it if it's gibberish?)

 

Funny thing is, you've accused me of replacing hard stats with gibberish. Now I understand why you thought it was gibberish: Because they were hard stats! It was your simple brain that was replacing hard stats with gibberish, not me.

 

In any case, there's not much more to say on this topic. You either agree with them restricting where men can sit, or you don't. Either way, it only applies to this one airline (which is a good thing IMO).

No, I understood it the first time.  It's gibberish because you've posted something unnecessarily.  Yes it's a few based on the stats you've provided. My point was on something else, which was how many crimes go unreported.  That can't be included in the stats and even if it is somehow included, they can only make a guess at best.  Either way, I'm not up for continuing this with you, so I'd rather just drop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I understood it the first time.  It's gibberish because you've posted something unnecessarily.  Yes it's a few based on the stats you've provided. My point was on something else, which was how many crimes go unreported.  That can't be included in the stats and even if it is somehow included, they can only make a guess at best.  Either way, I'm not up for continuing this with you, so I'd rather just drop it. 

 

What stats I provided? You mean the stats I made up off the top of my head? :rolleyes:

 

The vast majority of people aren't criminals. Regardless of what the percentage is (whether we're talking about reported crimes or unreported ones), it's a small amount in the grand scheme of things. If it wasn't "a few", you wouldn't be able to walk around without being a victim of a crime, because there would be way more criminals walking around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.