Male poses danger to children on Virgin Flight?

Oh boo hoo male rights. Men are FAR more likely to molest children, male or female. This policy makes complete sense and I am amazed anyone is upset by it. Granted they should sort this out before someone is taking there seat on the plane to avoid embarrassment, but come on. Men are far more molesty. Just facts.

reply to post by Domo1


HAHA i knew someone like you would come along. So are you being descriminatory against men now?
Or do i have to post the link to the lady that cooked her baby in her microwave oven?

reply to post by Domo1


it does not matter who is far more likely the fact is both males and females and been arrested and convicted of it and are capable. the policy makes no sense when it outright accuses men and exempts woman.

better seating arrangements and a policy of ensuring parents are sat next to their kids would avoid the need to accuse people of such things for simply being male.

reply to post by lifeform11

better seating arrangements and a policy of ensuring parents are sat next to their kids

Aren't you a shiny penny. What do you think unaccompanied minors means?

Would you rather your child sit next to a man or a woman on a flight. Don't lie, tell the truth. Your child sitting next to a stranger with only the stewardesses responsible for them. You aren't on the plane.

reply to post by lifeform11


I think we all like to believe that we won't judge people differently, but judging people, is a part of intelligence, it's what allows us to make decisions. It is an instinctual thing that allows us to navigate safely among others.

Actually that bring me up on a slightly different topic i used to discuss with my green mate. He is so against violence and wants to be at peace with everyone, (i to am against anything of such nature) but never thinks about the cost he may pay for assuming everyone thinks like him... To sum it up in short "Just because we don't want to make war, doesn't mean the enemy isn't going to make war. That's why we need to be prepared, that is why me spend money on our military."

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


It makes sense to discriminate. Not all child molesters re-offend. Does that mean they should be allowed to work with kids?

This is just common sense. Men rape and molest little boys and little girls at a FAR higher rate. If my child were alone on a flight I would much prefer they were seated next to a woman. Wouldn't you?

reply to post by Domo1


If you dont want your child next to a stranger dont put them on a plane alone.

Simple as that.

reply to post by Domo1


I really wouldnt care who I sit next to on a plane. Im not flying to make friends. Im flying to get from point A to point B.

Period.

reply to post by Domo1


I would be on the plane, i would never let my kids fly on their own, at the very least i would pay somebody i trusted to go with them and pay for their return trip to.

but it is simple don't let anybody sit next to them. ie: no males and no females, simple.

it is discrimination, something we are suppose to be getting away from, but obviously is still rampant in society. nothing has changed other than who we discriminate against. barring both sexes means both are being treated fairly and the same.

reply to post by lifeform11


Well I do agree that they should just sit alone. I would either pay a friend or family member which oddly enough arethe most likely to molest or just buy the extra seats too. Not everyone can do that though. I really dont think its a big deal to have a woman sit next to the kids. Yeah its not fair but it does make sense.

The children probably had more chance of the plane crashing than being abused by a random male passenger. Seriously, what is this world coming to when all men are looked at as a potential pedophile? Absolutely disgusting!!!!

reply to post by Domo1

Oh boo hoo male rights. Men are FAR more likely to molest children, male or female. This policy makes complete sense and I am amazed anyone is upset by it.

Men are more likely than women to do a violent crime.

So men should not board the plane.

One of the counterpoints in the article was 'men are more likely to be terrorists, therefore they shouldn't be on planes'.

The policy might protect some children hypothetically but it's certainly not protecting the men from unjust discrimination that takes a presumed guilty until proven innocent approach.

Minorities in some places are more likely to commit crime, so they should not be allowed to sit in the plane. Lets make it a policy. Policy makes perfect sense. I am amazed you would be upset

Originally posted by Domo1
Oh boo hoo male rights. Men are FAR more likely to molest children, male or female. This policy makes complete sense and I am amazed anyone is upset by it. Granted they should sort this out before someone is taking there seat on the plane to avoid embarrassment, but come on. Men are far more molesty. Just facts.

You have the highest likelihood of being raped by someone close to you. Say a family member or someone close to the family like a neighbor. This dwarfs the incidents of random strangers attacking women or children.


It doesn't matter who is more "molesty" we have seen enough of the incidents occur where the women were rapists and it appears to be on the upswing


www.guardian.co.uk...

The woman is a stranger, a woman can easily over power a child therefore she should be looked at under the same suspicion if we are going to get this ridiculous

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I just don't think it's going to hurt anyone to have male passengers switch seats. Of course I think this change should happen discreetly.

Hell us guys should embrace this. Who wants to sit next to kids for the whole flight? Not I said the little lipstick covered cat.

I get what you all are saying, and I completely agree that it is discriminatory. Now I would be pissed if this meant you had to give up a better seat (like a window seat etc.) but just swapping seats with a a woman seems like a very easy way to go that extra mile to protect kids.

In all honesty I think I'm just doing that thing where I want become disagreeable for no reason.

reply to post by Domo1


Domo1, i hope you are just replying for the sake of an argument. You cannot defend your stance. The policy is wrong, it will be changed i am certain of it, and it should be.

and just to further point out the flaw in this way of thinking lets say this

why allow blacks in public places? They have a higher crime rate than many other races. They are statistically more likely to be violent. lets face it blacks are more murdery so lets look at every individual black this way!

Or lets look at the statistics from cps that show that women have a huge rate of physically abusing and even killing their children . clearly women cant be trusted around kids they can snap at any moment!.


You see how things get stupid almost right off the bat? Then next thing you know we are a society that is extremely paranoid of everything and everybody and the individual suffers because he is lumped into a category over something they often have no control of. Ie what gender they are what race they are etc,etc

reply to post by paganini


Better watch out the Racist Police can smell those posts and be on them like flies on sheesh.

This world is getting to paranoid on policies that stereotype and descriminate.

Yet when they are challenged your the one in the wrong and are often shunned for what is the law...

Sigh, The age of being a respectable male has finally flew out the window.

How long is it until it turns into the movie Mars Needs Moms?

I heard..and it's completely unverified that while he was asleep..the kids used his necktie as a hankerchief,and planted victoria secret on him...outragous!..they should do time,i mean all this guy wanted was some extra peanuts

Originally posted by australianobserver
reply to post by Domo1

 

Domo1, i hope you are just replying for the sake of an argument. You cannot defend your stance. The policy is wrong, it will be changed i am certain of it, and it should be.

I kinda was. I really don't think this is keeping kids safe. I also don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think Virgin (lol by the way) was doing anything other than trying to keep kids safe.

Perhaps not the best policy, but I get why it was in place.

Originally posted by Domo1

Originally posted by australianobserver
reply to post by Domo1

 

Domo1, i hope you are just replying for the sake of an argument. You cannot defend your stance. The policy is wrong, it will be changed i am certain of it, and it should be.

I kinda was. I really don't think this is keeping kids safe. I also don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think Virgin (lol by the way) was doing anything other than trying to keep kids safe.

Perhaps not the best policy, but I get why it was in place.

Well i dont get why. And ill throw a fit if they dont get the policy removed.