Discrimination against men?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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

 

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.

Yeah the ones you provided off the top of your head... Either way there was no need to even mention it when the point was already evident.  When I say crimes, I'm talking about pedophiles and as far as I'm concerned even if it's a handful of them that's more than enough for me.  You're looking at it from a literal point of view as usual when I'm clearly not, hence why I said it was pointless to even mention any stats (be it made up ones or stats you got elsewhere).  Any family whose kid has been the victim of a pedophile could care less about any stats and how "few" of them they are because to them it's irrelevant in their situation.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah the ones you provided off the top of your head... Either way there was no need to even mention it when the point was already evident.  When I say crimes, I'm talking about pedophiles and as far as I'm concerned even if it's a handful of them that's more than enough for me.  You're looking at it from a literal point of view as usual when I'm clearly not, hence why I said it was pointless to even mention any stats (be it made up ones or stats you got elsewhere).  Any family whose kid has been the victim of a pedophile could care less about any stats and how "few" of them they are because to them it's irrelevant in their situation.

 

You said ""A few" is a bit of an understatement, be it child molesters or criminals ...", so you weren't only referring to child molesters. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

So let me get this straight: Because a few men decided to molest children, that means that you support yourself being restricted on where you can sit on an airplane, solely on the basis of you being a man. Not because of anything else, but only because of your gender.

 

And I guess while you're on this whole "Oh, stats are meaningless to families of children who've been molested" bit, how about restricting where women can sit? After all, there have been children who have been molested by women. I'm sure they don't care about whether or not it's "a few".

 

If they said "If you've been convicted of child molestation, you can't sit next to children", that would be a different story, because then there's a reason to believe you'd molest children. (Though I don't see how they'd really molest a child on an airplane in front of everybody, but at least it's understandable why they'd put that restriction in place). But saying "You're a man, so you can't sit next to children because you might molest them" is stupid.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You said ""A few" is a bit of an understatement, be it child molesters or criminals ...", so you weren't only referring to child molesters. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

So let me get this straight: Because a few men decided to molest children, that means that you support yourself being restricted on where you can sit on an airplane, solely on the basis of you being a man. Not because of anything else, but only because of your gender.

 

And I guess while you're on this whole "Oh, stats are meaningless to families of children who've been molested" bit, how about restricting where women can sit? After all, there have been children who have been molested by women. I'm sure they don't care about whether or not it's "a few".

 

If they said "If you've been convicted of child molestation, you can't sit next to children", that would be a different story, because then there's a reason to believe you'd molest children. (Though I don't see how they'd really molest a child on an airplane in front of everybody, but at least it's understandable why they'd put that restriction in place). But saying "You're a man, so you can't sit next to children because you might molest them" is stupid.

No I wasn't, that's correct.  I included the criminals part because Threxxx included them in his post.  As for your other question/point or whatever it's supposed to be, I don't recall making any comment about that part because I don't have an opinion on it.  You assume far too much...

[checkmatechamp13]

No I wasn't, that's correct.  I included the criminals part because Threxxx included them in his post.  As for your other question/point or whatever it's supposed to be, I don't recall making any comment about that part because I don't have an opinion on it.  You assume far too much...

 

So you're basically playing the fence, then.

 

My point is that the vast majority shouldn't be punished for the actions of the small minority (Whatever the exact percentages are is irrelevant). You're sitting there arguing about "Oh, well it's more than a few, and the families of the children who've been molested would disagree and yadda yadda yadda".

 

What's the point in arguing about that if you're not going to take the opposing viewpoint?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So you're basically playing the fence, then.

 

My point is that the vast majority shouldn't be punished for the actions of the small minority (Whatever the exact percentages are is irrelevant). You're sitting there arguing about "Oh, well it's more than a few, and the families of the children who've been molested would disagree and yadda yadda yadda".

 

What's the point in arguing about that if you're not going to take the opposing viewpoint?

I was never arguing, hence why I said that I wanted to drop it. I made a simple statement about a post that I disagreed with and from that you took it and ran with it and made assumptions that I had a position on the subject at hand...