oh bull shit same logic, theres a difference between being on the plane and being moved on the plane
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Virgin bans men from sitting next to children (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Selador
- Start date
soloooooo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 3,311
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
So should all men be banned from sitting next to women on a plane and forced to move?
No, obviously there is a greater need to protect children, CHILDREN are more vulnerable than GROWN ADULT WOMEN, in this case.
also....
Last edited:
theind1996
Active Member
Lentern
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,980
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
It's not entirely bad logic, his point is that you are allowing for discrimination of the basis of a statistical correlation rather than any tangible causative link. There is no reason that I can see why you shouldn't ban black's or gays sitting next to children on planes if you're going to say men can't. Would that be acceptable to you?
Most sexual assault upon children is done by someone they know (this is true of all sexual assault, at any age), a member of their family or a friend, by a huge margin, 'stranger danger' is basically a myth, it's almost always someone you know.
They talk about 'stranger danger' in schools, because it's not politically correct to tell children the ones they really have to watch out for are their mums and dads, that wouldn't fly with the p&c.
Sitting next to stranger men is the safest place for children on planes.
Last edited:
iBibah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,374
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
+1
If someone doesn't want their unaccompanied child sitting next to man, the they should accompany them, or the child doesn't take the flight.
Then you should pay for double then....... dickhead
soloooooo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 3,311
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
but their opposition (Qantas) is worse... so
Lentern
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,980
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Beat me to it, and it's not just sexual assault of children. Aside from armed robbery violent crime in pretty much all it's manifestations normally occurs between close acquaintances not strangers, and yet people want more privacy. It's a strange world.
kaz1
et tu
Catholic clergy are even more likely to be paedophiles, I think it should just be restricted to them imo.
Fuck it..... i guess its time to break laws
http://theweek.com/article/index/23...ingle-men-from-sitting-next-to-kids-on-planes
An Australian man, Daniel McCluskie, is lashing out at Qantas Airlines, saying the company humiliated him by forcing him to move because he was seated next to a 10-year-old girl traveling without her parents. The story surfaced days after reports that another man, a firefighter named Johnny McGirr, had been forced to trade seats with a woman on another carrier, Virgin Australia, because he had been seated next to two unaccompanied boys, ages 8 and 10. Is it wrong to treat passengers as if they're a potential sexual threat to kids simply because they're men? Here, a brief guide:
Why is McCluskie so mad?
He says the airline treated him like a criminal, and the woman who switched seats with him like a saint. "It seemed I had this sign I couldn't see above my head that said 'child molester' or 'kiddie fiddler,'" said McCluskie, a nurse. He got even angrier after a flight attendant thanked the woman who moved next to the girl, but not him. "It's totally and utterly discriminatory," he said.
What did the airline say?
Qantas confirmed the policy, but said it rarely moves passengers. Usually, it ensures that male adults aren't placed next to unaccompanied minors when passengers are assigned their seats. A Qantas spokesperson said the policy is consistent with other airlines' protocols, and "reflects parents' concerns and the need to maximize the child's safety and well-being." Virgin Atlantic, which faced a similar backlash after moving McGirr away from two unaccompanied children on a flight in April, said on Friday that it would review its policy. British Airways, which had a similar policy in place, began seating unaccompanied minors in their own special section after being successfully sued for sexual discrimination by a man who'd been asked to move in 2010.
Are the carriers being unfair?
Of course they are, says McGirr, 33, at The Rant Nation. "Not all men are pedophiles or rapists and we shouldn’t be made to feel this way." Thanks to the rise in "stranger danger" paranoia that grotesquely "constructs men almost exclusively as potential predators," says Karen Brooks in Australia's Herald Sun, normally open-minded women feel able to "declare openly and without risk of being called to account, that they feel comfortable with Virgin's stance." Get over it, says Cynthia Dermody at The Stir. "As a parent, I think this policy is an excellent one for protecting kids. As a passenger, this is an even excellenter policy, because who wants to sit next to a kid on a plane when you absolutely don't have to"?
An Australian man, Daniel McCluskie, is lashing out at Qantas Airlines, saying the company humiliated him by forcing him to move because he was seated next to a 10-year-old girl traveling without her parents. The story surfaced days after reports that another man, a firefighter named Johnny McGirr, had been forced to trade seats with a woman on another carrier, Virgin Australia, because he had been seated next to two unaccompanied boys, ages 8 and 10. Is it wrong to treat passengers as if they're a potential sexual threat to kids simply because they're men? Here, a brief guide:
Why is McCluskie so mad?
He says the airline treated him like a criminal, and the woman who switched seats with him like a saint. "It seemed I had this sign I couldn't see above my head that said 'child molester' or 'kiddie fiddler,'" said McCluskie, a nurse. He got even angrier after a flight attendant thanked the woman who moved next to the girl, but not him. "It's totally and utterly discriminatory," he said.
What did the airline say?
Qantas confirmed the policy, but said it rarely moves passengers. Usually, it ensures that male adults aren't placed next to unaccompanied minors when passengers are assigned their seats. A Qantas spokesperson said the policy is consistent with other airlines' protocols, and "reflects parents' concerns and the need to maximize the child's safety and well-being." Virgin Atlantic, which faced a similar backlash after moving McGirr away from two unaccompanied children on a flight in April, said on Friday that it would review its policy. British Airways, which had a similar policy in place, began seating unaccompanied minors in their own special section after being successfully sued for sexual discrimination by a man who'd been asked to move in 2010.
Are the carriers being unfair?
Of course they are, says McGirr, 33, at The Rant Nation. "Not all men are pedophiles or rapists and we shouldn’t be made to feel this way." Thanks to the rise in "stranger danger" paranoia that grotesquely "constructs men almost exclusively as potential predators," says Karen Brooks in Australia's Herald Sun, normally open-minded women feel able to "declare openly and without risk of being called to account, that they feel comfortable with Virgin's stance." Get over it, says Cynthia Dermody at The Stir. "As a parent, I think this policy is an excellent one for protecting kids. As a passenger, this is an even excellenter policy, because who wants to sit next to a kid on a plane when you absolutely don't have to"?
nurses can also be pedophiles.