The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
You're confusing sales and economics with rights. The entire premise of your argument is bad, which is a shame, because there are some really interesting problems with true gender equality in relevant things like work pay and legal treatment.
I've never actually worked for any like huge companies or anything, but the places I have worked I've only seen equal treatment (as far as workload, pay, etc) for both sexes. Of course that was only in the lower to middle management.
Wager a quick guess at the sex distribution in upper management? Your post makes it seem like you're saying workplace discrimination doesn't exist because of your anecdotal evidence, which I'm going to assume isn't what you mean, because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Did some one (I couldn't tell who) just compare a laptop to a baby?
Really?
Yes, yes I did.
The reason you cannot have a laptop out during takeoff/landing is because if for whatever reason it goes flying, it could injure people.
A baby weighs more than enough to do the same.
And the baby could wind up dying when it splatters against the overhead compartments. You know, little things like that.
Now explain to me how it makes sense to allow an unsecured baby to be held on a plane during takeoff/landing? We don't even allow that on the freeway, on the ground...how fast is an airplane going, again?
a baby is easier to hold on to than a laptop. Ap parent is also likely to put their baby's safety ahead of they own (which is why they have to remind folks to put on their own masks first) but a laptop owner can always get another laptop.
Where do you suggest they should put the baby? The seatbelts aren't exactly designed for babies, after all. Should they go in the overhead compartments?
On the other hand, when people make these 'reverse sexism' statements like you did, they tend to have an underlying misogynistic motive, so you'll please pardon my reluctance to give a more full-hearted endorsement.
It is a matter of statistical fact that men are more likely to be convicted of a crime than women, and that when a man is convicted they are more likely to receive a longer/harsher sentence for the same crime when compared to the sentence a woman would receive.
The exception to this is when a woman was perceived as violating her 'maternal mandate'. That is to say she did something like abandoned her children. In those cases the woman is more likely to receive a harsher punishment.
While our androcentric society clearly places men over women in many ways, men still are hurt by in it many ways.
Yeah, the problem with this thread is that not all forms of discrimination are equivalent; not all demographic classes are equivalent. Discrimination against blacks =/= discrimination against women =/= discrimination against young people =/= discrimination against your mother because she's a goddamn slut. (By the same token, discrimination in employment =/= discrimination in housing =/= discrimination at the movies =/= discrimination or lack thereof in your mother's bedroom because the bitch will fuck anybody.) If we wanted to talk about sentencing disparities between gender (or race) that'd be great. There's a good thread there. But that has nothing to do with movie tickets and reading such comparisons kills brain cells.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You're confusing sales and economics with rights. The entire premise of your argument is bad, which is a shame, because there are some really interesting problems with true gender equality in relevant things like work pay and legal treatment.
I've never actually worked for any like huge companies or anything, but the places I have worked I've only seen equal treatment (as far as workload, pay, etc) for both sexes. Of course that was only in the lower to middle management.
Wager a quick guess at the sex distribution in upper management? Your post makes it seem like you're saying workplace discrimination doesn't exist because of your anecdotal evidence, which I'm going to assume isn't what you mean, because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
That's probably not a good idea.
Anyway, to the topic at hand, there's a reason why hospitals should have special parking for pregnant women and people with 2 or more kids. Ever tried to walk long distances while very, very pregnant? I haven't but it seems like it would be a damn hassle. So that's ok by me.
Ever tried to control more than 1 child in a parking lot? It's terrible. Kids are freaking dumb. You have to take them by the hand or else they tend to get squished by cars. Closer parking spots = less chance Junior gets lucky that the hospital is so conveniently located so he can get the bumper removed from his torso.
Are these really objectionable to you? Or are you trying to rack up "misanthrope points" that you can save up and eventually redeem for the Holden Caulfield halloween costume you've been lusting after since 8th grade?
On the other hand, when people make these 'reverse sexism' statements like you did, they tend to have an underlying misogynistic motive, so you'll please pardon my reluctance to give a more full-hearted endorsement.
It is a matter of statistical fact that men are more likely to be convicted of a crime than women, and that when a man is convicted they are more likely to receive a longer/harsher sentence for the same crime when compared to the sentence a woman would receive.
The exception to this is when a woman was perceived as violating her 'maternal mandate'. That is to say she did something like abandoned her children. In those cases the woman is more likely to receive a harsher punishment.
While our androcentric society clearly places men over women in many ways, men still are hurt by in it many ways.
Yeah, the problem with this thread is that not all forms of discrimination are equivalent; not all demographic classes are equivalent. Discrimination against blacks =/= discrimination against women =/= discrimination against young people =/= discrimination against your mother because she's a goddamn slut. (By the same token, discrimination in employment =/= discrimination in housing =/= discrimination at the movies =/= discrimination or lack thereof in your mother's bedroom because the bitch will fuck anybody.) If we wanted to talk about sentencing disparities between gender (or race) that'd be great. There's a good thread there. But that has nothing to do with movie tickets and reading such comparisons kills brain cells.
Fucking awesomed.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
On the other hand, when people make these 'reverse sexism' statements like you did, they tend to have an underlying misogynistic motive, so you'll please pardon my reluctance to give a more full-hearted endorsement.
It is a matter of statistical fact that men are more likely to be convicted of a crime than women, and that when a man is convicted they are more likely to receive a longer/harsher sentence for the same crime when compared to the sentence a woman would receive.
The exception to this is when a woman was perceived as violating her 'maternal mandate'. That is to say she did something like abandoned her children. In those cases the woman is more likely to receive a harsher punishment.
While our androcentric society clearly places men over women in many ways, men still are hurt by in it many ways.
Yeah, the problem with this thread is that not all forms of discrimination are equivalent; not all demographic classes are equivalent. Discrimination against blacks =/= discrimination against women =/= discrimination against young people =/= discrimination against your mother because she's a goddamn slut. (By the same token, discrimination in employment =/= discrimination in housing =/= discrimination at the movies =/= discrimination or lack thereof in your mother's bedroom because the bitch will fuck anybody.) If we wanted to talk about sentencing disparities between gender (or race) that'd be great. There's a good thread there. But that has nothing to do with movie tickets and reading such comparisons kills brain cells.
Fucking awesomed.
It is and it isn't.
The thing is, all LEGITIMATE claims of discrimination ARE equal. If we allow discrimination anywhere, then it is as good as allowing it everywhere.
But it's that legitimacy that we need to take a look at. Race, gender, and sexuality, those are legitimate claims. Market segmentation isn't discrimination, though. It is just a good business practice.
a baby is easier to hold on to than a laptop. Ap parent is also likely to put their baby's safety ahead of they own (which is why they have to remind folks to put on their own masks first) but a laptop owner can always get another laptop.
Where do you suggest they should put the baby? The seatbelts aren't exactly designed for babies, after all. Should they go in the overhead compartments?
We have carseat laws precisely because "I'll just hold on to it" doesn't work when large accelerations are involved. That's why a parent in the passenger seat legally can't just hold the baby on their lap. So if a laptop in a lap is a safety issue (putting other passengers in danger) they why isn't a baby?
When it comes to "I think I should get to hold this," I get why you could argue that parents are "special." But when the justification is the safety of other passengers, it stops making sense. The airline could easily provide a "carseat" that fits the seat/seatbelts, and the cost for use could come out of the savings on the fact that the baby weighs less. Easy.
Of course then people would have to pay airfare (or more airfare) for it. Which is just unthinkable.
We have carseat laws because you can't hold a baby while you drive. If the PILOT of your plane was holding a baby OR a laptop, then yeah, that would be an issue.
As far as airplane baby seats, I think you're overlooking plenty of logistical issues. You see, n0ot every airpolane seat is identical, meaning that the parents owning a seat and bringing it with them wouldn't work. It is also a much more difficult to justify expense because one goes flying with their baby a lot less often than they go driving with their baby (once or twice, versus multiple times per day).
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
So yes, there's a bit of an issue of parents not wanting to pay for an extra seat, but it's not that they get away with it because they are "special". They get away with it because the airline wants their business.
Until the airline decides to charge you for an extra seat for your laptop, quit bitching.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
Minor quibble, but people have sort of been misstating the justification for lower movie prices for kids. It's not because the kids can't pay as much, or because you're trying to hook them at a young age. It's because taking a family of four pretty much anywhere is fucking expensive. Taking that family to the movies at full price would be about $40 assuming you get no food. And you know what that means? That means fuck it, I ain't going to the movies. If you can knock $10 off that combined price, it's a big incentive to keep going.
Same thing with the price of kid's meals in restaurants (and the rules against adults ordering them), or the Kids Eat Free! nights at IHOP, et al. They don't care about the kids, they just want to get the grown-ups in there.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Equal rights, when taken to its logical extreme—like any ideological position—is absurd. It has to fit into the contours of reality and our other social systems. In reality, women are physiologically different than men (namely, are capable of getting pregnant and making more people). In reality, old people and children tend to be significantly more vulnerable and incapable of supporting themselves than regular people.
I consider myself pretty damn liberal and I'm all for giving old people, pregnant women, and small children some extra perks based on limited circumstances. And I actually hate old people and children.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
The tangent is actually less dumb than the complaints in the OP.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
a baby is easier to hold on to than a laptop. Ap parent is also likely to put their baby's safety ahead of they own (which is why they have to remind folks to put on their own masks first) but a laptop owner can always get another laptop.
Where do you suggest they should put the baby? The seatbelts aren't exactly designed for babies, after all. Should they go in the overhead compartments?
We have carseat laws precisely because "I'll just hold on to it" doesn't work when large accelerations are involved. That's why a parent in the passenger seat legally can't just hold the baby on their lap. So if a laptop in a lap is a safety issue (putting other passengers in danger) they why isn't a baby?
When it comes to "I think I should get to hold this," I get why you could argue that parents are "special." But when the justification is the safety of other passengers, it stops making sense. The airline could easily provide a "carseat" that fits the seat/seatbelts, and the cost for use could come out of the savings on the fact that the baby weighs less. Easy.
Of course then people would have to pay airfare (or more airfare) for it. Which is just unthinkable.
We have carseat laws because you can't hold a baby while you drive. If the PILOT of your plane was holding a baby OR a laptop, then yeah, that would be an issue.
It's more like if the passenger was holding the baby while you drove.
But someone mentioned selective service? That right there is another prime candidate for unequal rights. It is again a discrimination based on sex and there's really no reason for it, since woman are put into combat roles now.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
It's no dumber than the topic of senior discounts.
We have carseat laws because you can't hold a baby while you drive. If the PILOT of your plane was holding a baby OR a laptop, then yeah, that would be an issue.
It's more like if the passenger was holding the baby while you drove.
But someone mentioned selective service? That right there is another prime candidate for unequal rights. It is again a discrimination based on sex and there's really no reason for it, since woman are put into combat roles now.
No, we have carseat laws because seatbelts are unsafe for very small people.
And we require the kids to be strapped in because it is fundamentally impossible to hold onto a child during a crash. Their momentum would tear them from your grip, I don't care if you're a fucking grizzly bear.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
It's no dumber than the topic of senior discounts.
As a former movie theater employee I can tell you that the price difference is made up in volume. The average old person has more time on their hands than the average 20-30 year old.
The price difference stuff is all economics as someone said earlier. Like most situations money > all your points combined.
Minor quibble, but people have sort of been misstating the justification for lower movie prices for kids. It's not because the kids can't pay as much, or because you're trying to hook them at a young age. It's because taking a family of four pretty much anywhere is fucking expensive. Taking that family to the movies at full price would be about $40 assuming you get no food. And you know what that means? That means fuck it, I ain't going to the movies. If you can knock $10 off that combined price, it's a big incentive to keep going.
Same thing with the price of kid's meals in restaurants (and the rules against adults ordering them), or the Kids Eat Free! nights at IHOP, et al. They don't care about the kids, they just want to get the grown-ups in there.
I was just going to pop in to say this, but it had already been said!
We have carseat laws because you can't hold a baby while you drive. If the PILOT of your plane was holding a baby OR a laptop, then yeah, that would be an issue.
It's more like if the passenger was holding the baby while you drove.
But someone mentioned selective service? That right there is another prime candidate for unequal rights. It is again a discrimination based on sex and there's really no reason for it, since woman are put into combat roles now.
No, we have carseat laws because seatbelts are unsafe for very small people.
And we require the kids to be strapped in because it is fundamentally impossible to hold onto a child during a crash. Their momentum would tear them from your grip, I don't care if you're a fucking grizzly bear.
That quote tree got jacked. I was actually responding about why kids should be in a seat on a plane. Since it's required they need to be in a seat in a car.
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
It's no dumber than the topic of senior discounts.
As a former movie theater employee I can tell you that the price difference is made up in volume. The average old person has more time on their hands than the average 20-30 year old.
The price difference stuff is all economics as someone said earlier. Like most situations money > all your points combined.
As an economist, I agree wholeheartedly.
I remember all the free time that my grandfather used to have in his last couple of decades (he died at 92.) He didn't go to the movies, but that had more to do with eye troubles, and English being his third or fourth language.
You have to ask yourself, who might be going to the movies during off-peak hours. The answer is retired seniors, parents who are watching their kids, and students who don't have classes. Those three groups all get discounts (of some sort) at most theaters.
Evander on
0
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Jumping in late about this (and it's kind of not the point) but every flight I've been on where the baby is sitting on the parent's lap they've been given a special seat belt for the baby that attaches to the main one and straps the baby to the parent. So, no real chance of flying babies hitting you on the back on the head.
Also, WTF. I can't believe you guys are arguing these points. I mean really, you guys honestly are going to bitch because kids get cheaper tickets at the cinema and on the bus, and see it as a form of discrimination?
Babies won't go flying around the cabin in a crash because in an emergency situation the procedure is to put them on the floor.
also, as I mentioned earlier, a parent is MUCH more likely to put their baby's safety ahead of their own, compared to a laptop owner and their computer.
Jumping in late about this (and it's kind of not the point) but every flight I've been on where the baby is sitting on the parent's lap they've been given a special seat belt for the baby that attaches to the main one and straps the baby to the parent. So, no real chance of flying babies hitting you on the back on the head.
Also, WTF. I can't believe you guys are arguing these points. I mean really, you guys honestly are going to bitch because kids get cheaper tickets at the cinema and on the bus, and see it as a form of discrimination?
They get cheaper seats on the bus too?!? Those bastards.
Posts
It's anti-not-coupon-having-ism, I tell ya. There oughta be a law.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Fuck that, they should be in the "must be checked" catagory.
Wager a quick guess at the sex distribution in upper management? Your post makes it seem like you're saying workplace discrimination doesn't exist because of your anecdotal evidence, which I'm going to assume isn't what you mean, because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Plus, you know, I doubt anyone would mind if their face breaks a baby's fall.
a baby is easier to hold on to than a laptop. Ap parent is also likely to put their baby's safety ahead of they own (which is why they have to remind folks to put on their own masks first) but a laptop owner can always get another laptop.
Where do you suggest they should put the baby? The seatbelts aren't exactly designed for babies, after all. Should they go in the overhead compartments?
Well, yes. Compared to laptop owners they are.
Yeah, the problem with this thread is that not all forms of discrimination are equivalent; not all demographic classes are equivalent. Discrimination against blacks =/= discrimination against women =/= discrimination against young people =/= discrimination against your mother because she's a goddamn slut. (By the same token, discrimination in employment =/= discrimination in housing =/= discrimination at the movies =/= discrimination or lack thereof in your mother's bedroom because the bitch will fuck anybody.) If we wanted to talk about sentencing disparities between gender (or race) that'd be great. There's a good thread there. But that has nothing to do with movie tickets and reading such comparisons kills brain cells.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's probably not a good idea.
Anyway, to the topic at hand, there's a reason why hospitals should have special parking for pregnant women and people with 2 or more kids. Ever tried to walk long distances while very, very pregnant? I haven't but it seems like it would be a damn hassle. So that's ok by me.
Ever tried to control more than 1 child in a parking lot? It's terrible. Kids are freaking dumb. You have to take them by the hand or else they tend to get squished by cars. Closer parking spots = less chance Junior gets lucky that the hospital is so conveniently located so he can get the bumper removed from his torso.
Are these really objectionable to you? Or are you trying to rack up "misanthrope points" that you can save up and eventually redeem for the Holden Caulfield halloween costume you've been lusting after since 8th grade?
I ave yet to see a laptop do that.
Fucking awesomed.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Well, as it happens, eMachines just came out with their newest line of . . .
The Japanese are addressing this problem as we speak.
It is and it isn't.
The thing is, all LEGITIMATE claims of discrimination ARE equal. If we allow discrimination anywhere, then it is as good as allowing it everywhere.
But it's that legitimacy that we need to take a look at. Race, gender, and sexuality, those are legitimate claims. Market segmentation isn't discrimination, though. It is just a good business practice.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
We have carseat laws because you can't hold a baby while you drive. If the PILOT of your plane was holding a baby OR a laptop, then yeah, that would be an issue.
As far as airplane baby seats, I think you're overlooking plenty of logistical issues. You see, n0ot every airpolane seat is identical, meaning that the parents owning a seat and bringing it with them wouldn't work. It is also a much more difficult to justify expense because one goes flying with their baby a lot less often than they go driving with their baby (once or twice, versus multiple times per day).
So the airline would have to be the ones providing these baby seats, and we all know how cheap they are. This means that they would essentially be charging MORE for a seat for your baby, and no one would be interested in paying that. They'd choose to find another way to their destination.
So yes, there's a bit of an issue of parents not wanting to pay for an extra seat, but it's not that they get away with it because they are "special". They get away with it because the airline wants their business.
Until the airline decides to charge you for an extra seat for your laptop, quit bitching.
That I do agree with.
Fewer babies on airplanes? Oh no! The horror!
So the parents are to, what, leave their children behind when they go flying somewhere?
Actually, you know what, can we get off this dumb tangent?
Same thing with the price of kid's meals in restaurants (and the rules against adults ordering them), or the Kids Eat Free! nights at IHOP, et al. They don't care about the kids, they just want to get the grown-ups in there.
I consider myself pretty damn liberal and I'm all for giving old people, pregnant women, and small children some extra perks based on limited circumstances. And I actually hate old people and children.
The tangent is actually less dumb than the complaints in the OP.
It's more like if the passenger was holding the baby while you drove.
But someone mentioned selective service? That right there is another prime candidate for unequal rights. It is again a discrimination based on sex and there's really no reason for it, since woman are put into combat roles now.
There was some merit into examining how cops treat men and women differently, but other than that, yes, that's true. The tangent is still dumb though.
It's no dumber than the topic of senior discounts.
No, we have carseat laws because seatbelts are unsafe for very small people.
And we require the kids to be strapped in because it is fundamentally impossible to hold onto a child during a crash. Their momentum would tear them from your grip, I don't care if you're a fucking grizzly bear.
As a former movie theater employee I can tell you that the price difference is made up in volume. The average old person has more time on their hands than the average 20-30 year old.
The price difference stuff is all economics as someone said earlier. Like most situations money > all your points combined.
I was just going to pop in to say this, but it had already been said!
And the baby thing is for the exact same reason.
That quote tree got jacked. I was actually responding about why kids should be in a seat on a plane. Since it's required they need to be in a seat in a car.
As an economist, I agree wholeheartedly.
I remember all the free time that my grandfather used to have in his last couple of decades (he died at 92.) He didn't go to the movies, but that had more to do with eye troubles, and English being his third or fourth language.
You have to ask yourself, who might be going to the movies during off-peak hours. The answer is retired seniors, parents who are watching their kids, and students who don't have classes. Those three groups all get discounts (of some sort) at most theaters.
Also, WTF. I can't believe you guys are arguing these points. I mean really, you guys honestly are going to bitch because kids get cheaper tickets at the cinema and on the bus, and see it as a form of discrimination?
also, as I mentioned earlier, a parent is MUCH more likely to put their baby's safety ahead of their own, compared to a laptop owner and their computer.
They get cheaper seats on the bus too?!? Those bastards.