Or when you throw them away....

Post #16,632 by addison 11/5/01 2:24:01 PM Reply	Or when you throw them away.... As it appears, that she did. Oh, but they were told not to let her on board. ... First, by harassing anyone who doesn't conform. Like she didn't. First, you've made a moral judgement. At the very least, it appears that she was uncooperative. Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd want me harrassed, just a bit. She didn't lose her "rights" to anything. OTOH, she did have a problem, and we've expanded "rights" to many things - and "lost" them. You can't walk on the interstate. So you have the "right" to travel, but the only way available to you might be outlawed. Right? (if you can't walk down the road, and all the land is privately owned....) But you and I accept this. We accept being disarmed, and searched, and the inability to joke in airports - is that a loss of rights? Yes, and no. Beep's assertation was way too strong. But what about the other people? If I get on an airplane, muttering about killing people, what responsibility does the airline have towards me, regarding the OTHER PASSENGERS? Oh, so their rights have to be abridged? Its never that simple. And in this case, its certainly not sounding like a simple case of "Oh, she's a liberal bitch, lets give her the 1-2". The phrase "looking for trouble" is sometimes very relevent. [link\|http://www.kithrup.com/brin/brin.htm\|IAAMOAC. ] "I am a member of a civilization." (IAAMOAC) This is more true now than ever! Our society has many flaws, but if you ponder history, and cantankerous human nature, it's astonishing how far we've come. (Wouldn't our ancestors have wanted us to be better?) We just don't say IAAMOAC often enough. ... Keep the faith! - David Brin. Its far more complex than her rights were violated - she was quite happily violating other's rights, as well. The current Mallard Fillmore story line has a similar ring - the "Liberals" shouting down the "Conversative" so no one can hear what she has to say - using their free speech rights. Addison
Post #16,640 by Brandioch 11/5/01 2:59:04 PM Reply	Your reality check just bounced. "Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd want me harrassed, just a bit." Let's just TRY to keep this in the realm of possibility, okay? Carrying a gun is a lot different. "She didn't lose her "rights" to anything." So, she didn't have a right to enter a contract with another airline? For a legal service they were providing to other people? Like I said, you lose your rights one by one. As for your example of walking on the interstate, I see people walking on the interstate at times. Usually because they've had car problems. But that isn't the point. The point is when someone tells someone ELSE not to provide you with a service. I can call a cab to go down the interstate. But when the cops tell the cab companies NOT to pick me up, we have a problem. Do I have a "right" to any particular cab? No. Do I have a "right" to enter into a business contract with any particular cab? Yes. Her right to enter into a business transaction with another airline were taken. They were taken when the other airlines were TOLD not to sell her a ticket. "After the incident, Oden was told she could not take her scheduled flight to Chicago, and that she could not travel on any other airline at the airport that day." "But what about the other people? If I get on an airplane, muttering about killing people, what responsibility does the airline have towards me, regarding the OTHER PASSENGERS?" Reality check. She was NOT doing this. "Oh, so their rights have to be abridged?" Reality check. She was NOT doing this. "Its far more complex than her rights were violated - she was quite happily violating other's rights, as well. " Ummm, how?
Post #16,664 by addison 11/5/01 4:18:51 PM Reply	P, K, B. "Second, if I walk through with a gun, I'm "non conforming" and I suspect you'd want me harrassed, just a bit." Let's just TRY to keep this in the realm of possibility, okay? Carrying a gun is a lot different. Nope. Its not even different. There are rules set up. One of those is you can't take guns past there. Another is you're subject to search. I personally think the restriction on guns is absurd and a violation of rights, but that's another topic, entirely. I carry a gun, I'm in violation, and BY DEFINITION, I'm no longer conforming. You're taking her word - unless you want to tell me you were there , that she was singled out for her political afflications. This doesn't seem to be backed by much fact. The testimony of other people who were there apparently showed she was objecting/resisting, thus causing problems, drawing attention to herself, AND breaking the agreed rules. So, she didn't have a right to enter a contract with another airline? For a legal service they were providing to other people? Like I said, you lose your rights one by one. And they had the right to refuse her. This again, isn't clear cut. Ask Denny's about what happens if people think you discriminate, and sure, despite posting "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". You keep saying it, but that's all you're doing. The "loss" of rights already occured. I'm not sure what you're advocating - everybody can be searched except those who object? As for your example of walking on the interstate, I see people walking on the interstate at times. Usually because they've had car problems. But that isn't the point. Notice the sign on the entrance ramp on the interstate. Pedestrians, Horses, Mopeds (that's can't go interstate speed), etc - are PROHIBITED. Its a public road. You might not LIKE the fact its exactly on point, but that's your problem. There exists precedent to deny rights, because of OTHER people's needs and safety. Reality check. She was NOT doing this. Check your reality check at the door. First, you don't know. Neither do I. We've got one HIGHLY politicized account, and one less so, that disagree. The second sounds more reasonable, but we don't know. She was creating a disturbance in some fashion. Now ANSWER the question - HOW do you deal with the "RIGHTS" of the OTHER PASSENGERS? Because its crucial to the whole point underling a culture/civilization/non-anarchy. They have the right to safe passage, and not fear for their lives, right? Yes or no, please. And if yes - as you should say (or else you've got no business arguing "rights" - how do you balance a possible problem, one where they are scared, with her rights to be outraged at being searched? It requires a balance. Its not a black and white issue. Ummm, how? Disrupting security, for one. But golly, its so HARD to think about these things, its so much EASIER to scream about "Loss of rights" and never postulate how you CAN'T HAVE A SOCIETY where EVERYBODY HAS EVERY "RIGHT" they want ANYTIME". Must be those damn evil repos. Their fault! Addison
Post #16,667 by Brandioch 11/5/01 4:28:24 PM Reply	She did not have a gun. She did not have ANY weapons. She was searched. Her baggage was searched. No weapons were found. Again, let's try to keep this in the realm of reality.
Post #16,703 by addison 11/5/01 5:14:46 PM Reply	What did she do? Reality? Ahem. Anyways. OK, forget the gun then, how about ANYTHING ELSE, you know, the points that apparently you want to ignore? Like other people's rights, and how not everybody can have all their rights? Addison
Post #16,707 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:17:54 PM Reply	The other points? Like your comment about muttering about killing people and scaring other passengers? She didn't do that, either. Why don't you tell me how other passenger's rights were impacted? Without her carrying a gun or muttering death threats or any other fantasy. Just tell me how other passenger's rights were impacted by what she DID do.
Post #16,709 by addison 11/5/01 5:23:48 PM Reply	I see part of the problem. Like your comment about muttering about killing people and scaring other passengers? Called an analogy. Its where you show a comparision of a similar event, to hopefully get comphrension. My apologies, I thought you'd understand what one of those was, thought I've seen you use them.... So if you didn't understand that, no wonder we had a problem. In this case, she apparently caused a scene in security. In case you haven't noticed, people are rather jumpy. If other passengers were being discomfited (one of the other points you've forgotten about), then their rights are being infringed upon. I'd have far more sympathy with her if she hadn't gone hyperbole on the issue - leading me to believe that she did it FOR the attention and press (I've certainly never heard of her before). But of course, you wouldn't suspect a pure Anti-Bushian like that of such dastardly deeds. The journalist who wrote about his problems, I have sympathy for, and hope he is able to change the system, to protect our rights. But I don't particularly think that screaming bitches are a good figurehead for "right protection", especially ones that don't exist now, even if you don't understand them, or the analogies. Addison
Post #16,717 by Brandioch 11/5/01 5:47:47 PM Reply	Whatever. "Called an analogy. Its where you show a comparision of a similar event, to hopefully get comphrension." Nope. Because she wasn't making any comments nor performing any actions even remotely similar to that. Now, if you were showing that someone muttering death threats would have been allowed on the plane, then I could understand the analogy. You'd be showing how a greater threat was allowed an action therefore a non-threat should be allowed the same action. But going from a threat being denied an action therefore a non-threat should be denied the same action .......I'm not seeing that. So, you say she creates a scene at security. Were the other passengers "jumpy"? Nothing in either story said anything about other passengers being discomfited.
Post #16,734 by Ashton 11/5/01 6:51:28 PM Reply	Now if she'd been merely a screaming son-of a bitch..

Welcome to IWETHEY!