After the harassment had escalated from verbal to sexual assault, the mother requested that the flight attendant change their seats, but they allegedly said there was nothing they could do.
A different male passenger volunteered to switch seats with the teen, however, and sat between the man and the mother for the remainder of the trip, according to the filing.
It it sometimes shocking how little it takes to be someone's hero when nobody else seems to care.
Seriously. I hate that some rando has to step in because the people who are literally there to step in either can’t or won’t.
When did fucking around on planes stop being followed by finding out? This guy had zero consequences after being so overt about it that a separate third party intervened.
It reminds me of being in a reverse situation. In that instance, I was the teenage girl, stuck between two guys who were drinking. Fortunately, it didn’t escalate to this extent, but it definitely made me realize my vulnerability.
Airlines should be required to have at least a row of seats vacant. The current standard of intentionally over booking gives the flight staff very few options to deal with unruly passengers. SOMEONE needs to occupy the seats next to belligerent passengers, because there aren’t any other options.
I have some entirely speculative guesses about what sorts of stickers adorn that man's vehicle, and what sorts of flags are flying in front of his house.
Do they like anything? I don’t even think they like each other or Christianity much. I’ve looked at the conservative subreddit several times and I’ve never seen anyone I consider particularly happy.
You are absolutely spot on when it comes to right wing neo-libertarians. But off base when it comes to actual libertarians. And you can use this small point to infuriate any Rothbard acolyte you come across. If you suggest that they aren’t libertarian, and instead just deeply selfish. Having that fact pointed out. Will wound them on a deep personal and emotional level. Because they’ve built their life around having plausible deniability for being assholes.
Actual left libertarians tend prioritize the freedom of everyone. Not just themselves and their property. Many left libertarians refrain from voting out of principle and not just laziness. Voting for something, no matter how much they like it. Could negatively impact someone else’s freedom. The anarchist end get pretty squirrely sometimes still. But on the whole they’re not all that bad. Nothing like their pretend right wing counterpart.
Dog meat consumption is a centuries-old practice on the Korean Peninsula and has long been viewed as a source of stamina on hot summer days. It’s neither explicitly banned nor legalized in South Korea, but more and more people want it prohibited. There’s increasing public awareness of animal rights and worries about South Korea’s international image.
I haven’t met anyone below sixty who eats dog meat. Even if it doesn’t get banned, I’m sure the practice will die out within one generation. It’s definitely getting rarer and rarer.
It’s sad that a fringe, outdated practice reflects poorly on the whole country. Most Koreans love dogs and they’re as horrified by the practice as Westerners are.
I don’t get what’s so horrifying about eating dogs that wouldn’t be just as horrifying when applied to other animals. Why can’t we love other animals just as much as we love dogs?
I agree with you on principle. However, it shouldn’t surprise you that people draw a distinction since dogs are often pets and people develop strong emotional bonds with them, whereas very few people have interacted with pigs or cows.
It doesn’t surprise me, but it does disappoint me. You’d think people would apply the logic they use for dogs to other animals as well, or at least see the hypocrisy.
I am truly and honestly trying to wrap my head around why I feel (as a meat eater) that cows and chickens are okay to eat, but not dogs or cats. For me, I think It’s part social conditioning, part perceived intelligence of the animals, part eating habits of the animals themselves (dogs and cats are predators, cows and chickens are prey; pretty consistently, humans will eat the animals that don’t eat meat).
As with very many things in humans, the logic doesn’t match the emotional decision. I personally don’t think there is anything morally wrong with eating meat and I understand that if I’m okay with eating cows, I should also be okay with people eating dogs. But I just can’t seem to change that opinion.
What I absolutely can’t support is the mistreatment of animals in farming. At the very least, we can respect their lives and respect the things they provide us when we kill them.
I’ve worked with pigs on an organic farm, and I’m convinced that if people in general spent any amount of time with a happy, relaxed pig, they’d swear off pork altogether. Pigs are extremely smart and sociable, and even have a sense of humor.
That being said, I’m with you, it’s the unnecessary suffering that I can’t abide. And it’s not even a matter of intelligence; chickens are pretty dumb (though they’re a lot smarter than people credit them for), and I wouldn’t want to see one suffer either. They’re sensitive animals all the same, as any basic interaction quickly illustrates. The idea that it’s fine to torment an animal because they’re dumb is borderline inhuman to me.
i respect your ability to self-reflect and assess yourself rationally and logically. It’s fine to feel the way you do, as long as you’re aware that your choices may not be rooted in inherent rationality or morality of an action.
More generally, I think it’s perfectly ok to have emotions, and I think it’s ok to make distinctions between those who I’m emotionally attached to and those who I’m not emotionally attached to.
For example, I have houseplants that I nurture and I don’t want to see die, but I don’t really care if see some other plant of dying in the wild.
On Mother’s Day, do you give every Mom a present or just your own Mom?
So you admit that you, and everyone else who supports the killing of animals except a particular species, purely because you personally think that particular species is ‘cute’, are being irrational and only bigoted against the practice because you like that particular species. Good to know.
Also, that ‘Mother’s Day’ example is beyond ridiculous. I love my own mom above all else, of course, but I wouldn’t be apathetic to other moms out there being slaughtered.
Well, there are children dying in parts of the world. Is it morally ok to give your children birthday gifts, take them to movies, and help them pay for college, when that money could be used to save the life of a distant child?
Noted vegans like Peter Singer argue that it’s not ok. If a distant child’s life is at risk, then, you must prioritize all your gifts towards helping the distant child. He uses the same kind of reasoning for his vegan arguments: a child is equivalent to a child just as a dog is equivalent to a pig.
I think that’s ridiculous. “Irrational” or not, humans will always prioritize those close to them, whether their own children over others or their own pet over random animals.
I totally understand valuing your own pet over random animals (I would too) but those dogs in Korea aren’t your pets; they’re random animals that you have no association with.
Feeding animals plants is responsible for 3/4 of the agricultural land. The goal of veganism is to reduce suffering as much as possible. There is no illusion of living on earth with zero impact, the goal is a minimize the impact. We could reduce the land use to 1/4 with a plant based diet. And obviously stop the intentional killing and abusing of sentient beings.
Then don’t eat animals you have to feed. If you really want to reduce animal suffering as much as possible, then you should try to survive via hunting and fishing as much as possible.
In fact, if you consider that a wild-caught fish was likely about to kill other fish, then catching a fish may be as morally necessary as flipping a switch on a runaway trolley.
Why is it that you insist on killing others? My plant based diet is cheaper, healthier and creates less suffering. Do you think everyone could or should just kill wild animals when they don’t need to? xkcd.com/1338/
a wild-caught fish was likely about to kill other fish, then catching a fish may be as morally necessary
The fish has no alternative and if you catch one you steal it without the need for it from other animals. Are you trying to make lions vegans? We have options, we have moral agency.
Killing animals is inevitable regardless of diet. Your plant based diet requires growing crops, but tilling soil and harvesting plants kills millions or billions of invertebrates. They are so small that they escape everyone’s attention, yet they are still animals killed to make your food.
Fishing and hunting kills animals too, of course. But it does not require literally uprooting an ecosystem.
Finally, a trolley has no moral agency either. That doesn’t mean nobody should interfere with it, or even destroy it if it threatens enough other lives.
Killing animals is inevitable regardless of diet. Your plant based diet requires growing crops, but tilling soil and harvesting plants kills millions or billions of invertebrates. They are so small that they escape everyone’s attention, yet they are still animals killed to make your food.
Are you a concern troll or do just don’t know that we could reduce with a plant based diet the land use, the tiling of soil and the killing of those billions invertebrates? The intentional killing of 90 billion land animals and trillions of fish aside
Sure, you could reduce land use for farm raised animals.
But I’m not talking about eating those, I’m talking about eating wild caught animals. Unlike vegetables, wild caught animals require no land use at all.
So neither pure fish based nor pure plant based, but rather a combination of the two. Also one could occasionally eat other wild animals obtained via hunting, like deer.
Right, but you got to acknowledge that dogs and cats are a far more available in cities. Just because you have the privilege of easy to kill fish you can not blame others for killing wild dogs and cats. Cats kill so much birds, it is much better for the environment to kill them instead of fish.
I don’t need to jump in a lake for the same reason I don’t need to operate a farm. It is equally moral if others do it for me, so I buy wild fish and vegetables from my grocery just like most people.
Also, pure veganism isn’t necessary. For example, honey is not vegan but producing honey likely kills fewer animals than producing almonds. Beekeeping might even be a net positive given the benefits to the ecosystem at large
I think that is the best way to avoid unnecessary animal deaths (honey is also on that list).
It is something I often consider when shopping, but I don’t always try to minimize unnecessary animal deaths. Just as I generally try to avoid big box stores and products made in certain countries, but sometimes buy those things anyway.
Why do I make exceptions? Because I don’t believe that every single thing I do needs to be aimed at improving the world. It is simply an aspiration.
Maybe you would more of a impact on others if you decide to stop support the killing. I do shitpost sometimes, it be like that. But I also try to inform others. The point is not that you will change the world alone, but maybe convince others. If avoiding unnecessary deaths is your aspiration you can be a example to others.
If there is some event that puts us all back to pre industrial times it will work.
A plant based diet would feed with the amount we grow 10 billion right now. How many would a forage and hunting society sustain? To give you a idea of the proportions: xkcd.com/1338/
I’m not sure why you linked me to a chart of mammals. Hunting mammals may be a good way to feed a small population, but as you point out it’s not feasible for the entire world.
Three fourths of all animal biomass is aquatic (fish, crustaceans, and mollusks), together accounting for 30-40 times more biomass than humans. Mollusks are the smallest component, but they still have more biomass than all the mammals in your link put together. Fish by themselves account for seven times as much biomass as all animal livestock put together. And crustaceans have even more combined biomass than fish.
I’m not even suggesting that people eat only fish. Rather, by including some fish in our diet we would reduce our reliance on farm-grown vegetables.
Globally, humans currently eat an average of 20 kg of fish/crustaceans/molluscs per year. That might be a bit too much, but I have no doubt that we could sustainably eat 10-15 kg per year.
Holy shit. It cycles through a bunch of animation presets like a giant fucking set of high beam Christmas lights or a modded out Nissan Z.
In not even going to link a video, because it comes dangerously close to the photosensitive seizure threshold in some parts. Also because the video was in a tweet.
Twitter is dead. Calling it X will drive that home.
Also, Twitter has amazing brand equity. Much of Twitter’s value was the brand. If this idiot is dumb enough to throw that away, I’ll gladly help him burn money.
" Delta has not commented on the lawsuit but, in a statement to Fox Business, said that the airline “has zero tolerance for customers who engage in inappropriate or unlawful behavior.”
“Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and our people,” Delta told the outlet. "
That’s actually not that many, assuming they weren’t guzzling 10 in the first hour. Depending on height and body weight, a drink an hour wouldn’t even put a male’s BAC above the legal driving limit in most places in the U.S.
Drunk or not, they should definitely be catching charges
Drinking on a plane typically hits people harder, I’ve seen estimates that say you essentially double your level of inebriation when drinking while flying
I’ve heard that as well, though I looked it up and it doesn’t seem to have any hard evidence (from a cursory google search). The one thing I did see that seemed convincing is that higher altitudes have less oxygen, so your blood will have less oxygen making you feel more drunk at a BAC level you would be fine with on the ground.
I’ve personally never felt any different after some drinks on a flight versus on the ground. I didn’t find any study or anything that supports this, I was trying to find something that supported what they said (and I have also heard it said). All I could find was speculation. I wouldn’t even feel a drink an hour at my height and weight.
According to a search warrant obtained by investigators and reviewed by Forbes, the equipment allegedly taken by the engineer cost nearly $90,000. It also added that when law enforcement agents searched his home, they found that he had “unauthorized administrator access” to radio communication technology used by the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), which is one of the nine major commands of the air force and in turn affected 17 defense department installations.
“It added that a colleague had reported him twice due to “insider threat indicators” as well as unauthorized possession of air force equipment, according to investigators”
Makes me wonder what the hell was going on over there. Guy clearly had a bit of a reputation so why was he allowed to just do whatever while people obviously suspected?
As someone who flies a lot for both work and travel, Delta is by far the best of the domestic airlines for customer service. Their planes aren’t as new as American/United, but they make up for it with better service. Alaska is decent but doesn’t fly nearly as many places, and they also give long, annoying “sign up for our credit card” speeches on every flight.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.