gulogulo: To take a more extreme example, say that someone is offended by someone praying loudly in public. Is the person praying the asshole?

Jesus said "yes." See Matthew 6:6 and thereabouts.

hasty ambush: Just do not demand that the tax payers accept the financial burden of what you decide to do or the consequences of what you decided to do.

That has nothing to do with the regulation of private health insurance plans.

If you don't understand the debate, stay out of it. If your entire viewpoint on the debate has been shaped exclusively by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you don't understand the debate, so stay out of it.

StoPPeRmobile: Yes.

I should have used "conspicuously' rather than loudly. I'm not just going to restrict that to Christians (Tebow), but any faith.

sigdiamond2000: Peacefully practicing? In your example, you said they were "praying loudly".

Being conspicuous would have been a better example, but last time I checked, elevated volumes of praying isn't necessarily violent.

MANY religions aside from Christianity are conspicuous and practiced publicly. They are all assholes, yes?

gilatrout: My son will be wearing his favorite shirt on his next flight.

[www.dogmt.com image 288x315]

You must be very proud.

Priapetic: It's an obligation to be considerate to others. But I suppose you don't understand that.

There is no obligation to be considerate to others. None. Society works better when we are, but it's not an obligation. More importantly, though, your mileage may vary about what's considered 'considerate' and what's considered 'inconsiderate.' Why must you be so myopic?

gulogulo: Being conspicuous would have been a better example, but last time I checked, elevated volumes of praying isn't necessarily violent.

And going out of your way to annoy the people around you isn't "peaceful".

gulogulo: They are all assholes, yes?

If a Muslim dropped down in the middle of a busy sidewalk and became a praying obstruction, yea, he'd be an asshole. If he stepped to the side so he was out of the way, no, he wouldn't.

The Christians that come around to your door and interrupt your day so they can litter their stupid pamphlets and annoy you with their inane chatter are assholes, yea. A kid saying a quiet prayer in school at his desk isn't.

This is not rocket science. Don't be a dick applies just as well to the religious as anybody else. And enshrining dickishness as a routine practice in your worship, such as the example of the people who wander around littering Chick tracts, doesn't make you not a dick.

Being religious is not a free pass to intrude upon, obstruct, or annoy other people without ridicule or backlash.

Splinshints: The Christians that come around to your door and interrupt your day so they can litter their stupid pamphlets and annoy you with their inane chatter are assholes, yea. A kid saying a quiet prayer in school at his desk isn't.

You're missing the nuance here: that's annoying to you, but may not be universally annoying. The point is that what makes someone's behavior 'dickish' is entirely subjective (barring the example of someone being physically obstructive and causing a safety hazard). I would look at this woman's shirt and not be offended, so to me the airline was overreacting assholes for kicking her off. Yes, they have the right to do it, but if there are more people like me out there than they are going to suffer for that choice.

Moreover, 'annoying' is not the antonym to 'peaceful.' Many protests are annoying yet still peaceful.

sigdiamond2000: Farkers generally mock and deride attention whores, as we should. Why is this woman different?

Unless she's showing her tits, in which case you're ok with her attention whoring.

The whole point I was trying to make was YMMV, and to assume that everyone feels the same way you do about something being offensive is illogical.

Here's one the baby can wear, until it's mixmastered:

If you didn't want me in your womb, why'd you fark anybody?

sigdiamond2000: If you don't think you're obligated to be considerate to your fellow human beings, there's no point in even having a discussion about this.

Read the next line, please.

gulogulo

You seem to have a lot of time to troll and give a contrary reply to all these comments, do you have a job?

RobSeace: RoyBatty: Bathia_Mapes: Also, some people access fark at work, hence the filters.

Drew wants people to access FARK at work so Drew can make more money hence Drew puts in filters.

American Airlines wants people that dislike the word FARK to come on board their airplanes(maybe with their kids) so AA can make more money hence AA puts in filters.

Kicking someone off the flight isn't really the equivalent of Fark's filters... It's more like if Fark banned everyone who posted a swear, rather than silently filtering it... If the airline placed a piece of tape over the word instead of kicking her off the plane, then you'd have a better point...

They did let her fly after she covered it.

BR549: gulogulo

You seem to have a lot of time to troll and give a contrary reply to all these comments, do you have a job?

Oh cool, a personal attack. Yes, I do, but it's only 6:30 AM here.

snocone: The woman is a ass.
So what.
The flight crew is assinine.
So what.

But, calling this a "safety" issue is a chickenchit lie.

I hate liers worse than I hate asshats.

Tell you what, ITG, when you get your pilots license and start your own airline, you can make your own rules.

Til then, how about a nice cup of STFU.

If it were a private company, I'd say they can refuse service to whomever they want, unless it's a protected class. However, given the level of governmental involvement in air travel, I think they should be subject to the first amendment.

gulogulo: BR549: gulogulo

You seem to have a lot of time to troll and give a contrary reply to all these comments, do you have a job?

Oh cool, a personal attack. Yes, I do, but it's only 6:30 AM here.


You ASSUME it's a personal attack, just wanted to know your employment status is all. :)

simkatu: Mugato: Gunderson: The plane is private property. If your son's girlfriend wore that shirt to Thanksgiving dinner at your house, you'd kick her out as well.

WTF does that even mean? It's a farking airplane. It's transit. Where'd Thanksgiving dinner come from?

It's an airplane that is owned by people that presumably have rights to use their private property as they wish. As owners of the plane they could require everyone to wear a red and yellow FARK shirt to be allowed on the plane, or they can prevent people from wearing shirts with words on them. It's their plane. They get to make the rules for that plane. Just like you get to make the rules for your house, on Thanksgiving or any other day. You can tell the neighbor he's not going to come in your home wearing his dirty wife-beater that says FARK on it. You can tell your daughter's boyfriend that he has to pull his pants up and put a belt on to come in the house.

/You don't have 1st amendment rights to say whatever you want on my property. THE END.

If you enjoy a government sanctioned monopoly on a resource your private property rights are limited.

If you use a public resource to run your business, the people can cut it off if you don't follow their rules. Airspace is a public resource, and one of the restrictions in using it is that you can only deny boarding for a very limited set of conditions if you want to keep the permission to use the airspace.

So you retain the right to kick people off your plane. The people retain the right to kick your plane out of our skies.

basemetal: Meh, she was looking for a reaction and she got one.

Exactly. She specifically picked a message because of the offensive language, then acts surprised that people are offended.

Sorry, we have way too many stories of the cabin crew not interceding when someone is being offensive, making everyone else miserable. I think they acted very reasonably here.

If you don't want the attention, don't be an attention whore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

BR549: You ASSUME it's a personal attack, just wanted to know your employment status is all. :)

I understand; if you have nothing relevant to add, ask about something irrelevant. Perfectly legitimate course of action for someone like you.


:)

Gwendolyn: A safety issue? Are you shiatting me? Cramming 205 people in a plane that should only seat 160 is a safety issue not a t-shirt.

In a sense, you are correct. Having a very crowded plane in a very isolated situation changes the margin for error in terms of what could be considered a safety issue. Allowing someone to be deliberately disruptive or offensive can very easily lead to a safety issue at 30,000 feet. The time to address it is before it becomes a problem.

Not sure why this is a tough concept.

MycroftHolmes: Sorry, we have way too many stories of the cabin crew not interceding when someone is being offensive, making everyone else miserable. I think they acted very reasonably here.

Exactly why it seems strange to single her out. You think it might just because they disagreed with the message rather than the language used? Especially with the spurious excuse of 'safety' to back their actions up

I actually don't mind her attention whoring with this. Some causes necessitate being conspicuous and calling attention to yourself.

Priapetic: offensive by herself and others,

Just a subtle correction, yes she knew it offends others but it didn't offend her. She wasn't staging a riot on the plane. If a riot happened that would because the other passengers couldn't control themselves.

gulogulo: BR549: You ASSUME it's a personal attack, just wanted to know your employment status is all. :)

I understand; if you have nothing relevant to add, ask about something irrelevant. Perfectly legitimate course of action for someone like you.




So you want to try to goad me into a personal attack? I refuse to take the bait. Have a nice day though.

Asinine.

More like Dumbass.

It's a private airline and there are probably kids on board. She's an attention whore and got what she deserved (and probably wanted).

I have a t-shirt that says "There are two people farking on the back of this T-shirt". I wouldn't be retarded enough to where it on a private airline.

gulogulo: MycroftHolmes: Sorry, we have way too many stories of the cabin crew not interceding when someone is being offensive, making everyone else miserable. I think they acted very reasonably here.

Exactly why it seems strange to single her out. You think it might just because they disagreed with the message rather than the language used? Especially with the spurious excuse of 'safety' to back their actions up

I actually don't mind her attention whoring with this. Some causes necessitate being conspicuous and calling attention to yourself.

You are very much reaching here. The use of the F word was specifically included due to it's offensive nature and ability to generate reaction. I doubt that anyone got past the language to really worry too much about the message. I guarantee you if she had worn a shirt that said 'If I wanted the government in my womb, I would have had a senator's kid', there would have been no reaction.

Priapetic: gulogulo: Priapetic: offensive by herself and others,

Just a subtle correction, yes she knew it offends others but it didn't offend her. She wasn't staging a riot on the plane. If a riot happened that would because the other passengers couldn't control themselves.

In what way is that relevant to this discussion? Are you suggesting people can do whatever they like as long as they don't find their own actions personally offensive?

Not at all, but I'm saying cheering the airline for kicking her off because "well, she should have known better" is not exactly logical either. On an esoteric level, it implies we cannot be held responsible for the actions we take inspired by when we are 'offended.' On a more practical level, to assume everyone feels the same about the 'status quo' is also illogical. I'm not offended by her shirt. I bet there's many others out there like me. I agree the airline is within its rights to do so, but I don't think it should be cloaked under the 'consideration of others.'

Frankly, I find the movement by the government against reproductive rights of women is a million times more offensive, and I find any attempt to silence people speaking out against it inconsiderate. Whether or not she is attention whore, in my opinion, is irrelevant.

It should also be pointed out, if no one else did so, that she was not kicked off of any flight. She was told that her style of dress was offensive, and it would have to be changed before she boarded the connecting flight. She is the one who decided she had to go buy a new shirt (not sure why she couldn't just turn the offensive one inside out, which is the usual remediation for offensive clothing), which caused her to miss her connection. That must have been a very tight connection that an extra 10 minutes caused her to miss her flight.

Methinks that this is just a way to get her 15 minutes.

LOL, what dumb biatch thought she could wear an offensive shirt on a plane? The news reporting it even blurs it out. That takes some stupid.

MycroftHolmes: The use of the F word was specifically included due to it's offensive nature and ability to generate reaction. I doubt that anyone got past the language to really worry too much about the message. I guarantee you if she had worn a shirt that said 'If I wanted the government in my womb, I would have had a senator's kid', there would have been no reaction.

True...but is the offensive language (fark on a t-shirt) unilaterally enforced by American Airlines? I have seen people getting on their planes with these kinds of shirts, and I fly pretty regularly.

MycroftHolmes: not sure why she couldn't just turn the offensive one inside out, which is the usual remediation for offensive clothing

Because this meant the airline's cruel, uncaring and unfair actions not only inconvenienced and delayed her, they also cost her money.

Do you know nothing of victimology, sir?

MycroftHolmes: The use of the F word was specifically included due to it's offensive nature and ability to generate reaction.

Actually, no.

The entire phrase was written on a sign by a young woman protesting the actions of the Oklahoma state senate in requiring invasive ultrasounds prior to any abortion. One of the state senators who opposed the bill saw the sign and came outside to take pictures with it and the woman that made it. That event made Fark many months ago and someone posted a picture of the event about 50 messages up. Anyway, the t-shirt was made to duplicate the language of that note-worthy sign and technically became political speech. The F-bomb wasn't tossed in by the t-shirt company, it was part of the original message.

A few years ago I was on a Jet Blue flight with Joan Jett and she was wearing a black T-shirt that said in bright pink letters, "I LOVE PUSSY".

madgonad: MycroftHolmes: The use of the F word was specifically included due to it's offensive nature and ability to generate reaction.

Actually, no.

The entire phrase was written on a sign by a young woman protesting the actions of the Oklahoma state senate in requiring invasive ultrasounds prior to any abortion. One of the state senators who opposed the bill saw the sign and came outside to take pictures with it and the woman that made it. That event made Fark many months ago and someone posted a picture of the event about 50 messages up. Anyway, the t-shirt was made to duplicate the language of that note-worthy sign and technically became political speech. The F-bomb wasn't tossed in by the t-shirt company, it was part of the original message.

Not sure how this contradicts the stand that the F word was specifically chosen due to its offensive and attention grabbing nature. If anything, you have reinforced that it was an effective slogan specifically because people found it offensive and provocative.

MycroftHolmes: Gwendolyn: A safety issue? Are you shiatting me? Cramming 205 people in a plane that should only seat 160 is a safety issue not a t-shirt.

In a sense, you are correct. Having a very crowded plane in a very isolated situation changes the margin for error in terms of what could be considered a safety issue. Allowing someone to be deliberately disruptive or offensive can very easily lead to a safety issue at 30,000 feet. The time to address it is before it becomes a problem.

Not sure why this is a tough concept.

I think people just haven't had their coffee. This is really simple.