katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Scissors said:
Scissors said:
i just mean that your views are real rigid. they're unbending.katie tully said:
I was not, not, not paid maternity leave.Scissors said:i just mean that your views are real rigid. they're unbending.
also, as iron said, we need kids.
and katie, were you paid maternity leave when you had your kid? if so, could you have done without it?
this is a good point. if you think about it, theres no issue if airlines weren't forced to, but rather did this for their own reputation. (cost vs benefit would determine whether they do it or not..)zimmerman8k said:The real issue is the interference by the courts. If airlines want to subsidize fatties that's fine. But they should not be forced to.
how did you do without it? what was your source of finance?katie tully said:I was not, not, not paid maternity leave.
I did just fine because my partner worked/works full time. I also worked during pregnant and anticipated that I'd be without the double income for at least 6 months while I stayed at home.Scissors said:how did you do without it? what was your source of finance?
agreed. if you need another seat, then you should pay for another seat.Pace_T said:everyone is treated equally. they all get the same sized seat. if you don't fit in that seat, then you require additional capacity, i.e. another seat. you have to pay extra for that seat.
Good argument. But I don't think we should base our argument on the current situation - but rather - what we think should happen.Pace_T said:this is a good point. if you think about it, theres no issue if airlines weren't forced to, but rather did this for their own reputation. (cost vs benefit would determine whether they do it or not..)
Rockyroad needs to learn the concept of discrimination, and also needs to learn that special needs in situations like this create MARKETS so that businesses can capitalise on them to make a profit.
because of your silly arguments, im going to assume you're unintelligent so i'll break it down for you - the courts are not supposed to intervene. what's supposed to happen is either a new airline or a current airline should make special seats for these special customers, and charge them a special price. just like car insurance (under 25s).
"Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics." (wikipedia)
everyone is treated equally. they all get the same sized seat. if you don't fit in that seat, then you require additional capacity, i.e. another seat. you have to pay extra for that seat.
its like a court deciding that all restaurants have to serve meals that fill up all customers. you, being a skinny person will get full on a $10 meal. but your obese friend will eat $50 worth. because of the court ruling, the restaurant is forced to satisfy both customers entirely and even out the charge across both of you, i.e. $30. is that fair?
you might argue in the airline case its still discrimination, but its not. No one is saying there is a limit of one seat per person (and hence fatties have to go by boat, and thus discrimination) we're just saying they should be charged for the extra seat.
What about single mums?katie tully said:I did just fine because my partner worked/works full time. I also worked during pregnant and anticipated that I'd be without the double income for at least 6 months while I stayed at home.
What about single mums? Why would single mums be any different? They had to be sperminated some how.Rockyroad said:What about single mums?
If you don't have that double income it will be alot harder.
Do you think you could have done it without your partner?
I'm addicted to cigarettes. Should they accomodate for me?Rockyroad said:Also, I still think that charging someone with a disability extra money on a flight is discrimination. I think that Obesity is a disability and an addiction.
I think everyone should get a seat (suited to theur needs) for the same price.
Can we has smoking chair plz?Ms. BRIGHTSIDE said:I'm addicted to cigarettes. Should they accomodate for me?
As a law student you are probably more welcoming of our judicial overlords then most. I think there's a danger with defining "rights" down. It invites a backlash and a general (often justified) cynicism about the "rights" movement. For example much of the opposition to a human rights charter/bill of rights revolves around the idea that judges would make stupid decisions like this one.Iron said:Id imagine that theyd say that they were enforcing anti-discrim laws, or interpreting a shift in values re human rights. Not sure what their constitution looks like, but probably has a bill of rights
That made me laugh. Good point. I guess an overweight person needs a seat - period. And a smoker could (thereotically) wait until they got off to have a cigarettte.Ms. BRIGHTSIDE said:I'm addicted to cigarettes. Should they accomodate for me?
That made me laugh. Good point. I guess an overweight person needs a seat - period. And a smoker could (thereotically) wait until they got off to have a cigarettte.Ms. BRIGHTSIDE said:I'm addicted to cigarettes. Should they accomodate for me?
Perhaps an overweight person could hold off on eating six months before the flight and resume eating when they got off?Rockyroad said:That made me laugh. Good point. I guess an overweight person needs a seat - period. And a smoker could (thereotically) wait until they got off to have a cigarettte.
typical social conservative you are.katie tully said:What about single mums? Why would single mums be any different? They had to be sperminated some how.
Don't become pregnant if you can't afford to take the time off work.
they DO have a seat. they can have TWORockyroad said:That made me laugh. Good point. I guess an overweight person needs a seat - period. And a smoker could (thereotically) wait until they got off to have a cigarettte.
Small seats stops overweight guy from flying full stop. But the smoker has a choice.