People that complain about 'PC gone mad' are often the same people who have bigotted views and can't accept that the world has moved on from a point when their views were considered the majority.

As I've said a thousand times, you're entitled to your opinion but so is everyone else and everyone is entitled to their thoughts on other opinions too. Too many people think that 'I'm entitled to my opinion' means 'You can't question my opinion or have an opinion that opposes mine'.

It has been defined, but you just refuse to accept the definition.

Nope, what NM posted was not a definition as he said himself it relies on what is 'perceived' and that can change from person to person.

This makes no sense and appears to be reaching further than a Stretch Armstrong doll.

What? You yourself said the dictionary definition you posted focused on the word 'perceived' :/

:laugh:

I mean 80% of the posts on the first page blamed an entirely different religion, although alot have rightfully been removed now. So perhaps research can be good. There are compromises to make in life, cultures conflict and religions are the main priorities to some people, this should be respected. Crying equal rights for all whilst saying religious people should skirt around the beliefs you dont like is just a bit hypocritical.

Their intentions were not sexist, it was the opposite, it was out of respect for the woman. Not researching this and making untrue assumptions is just intolerant.

The airline didnt handle this correctly, the woman certainly didnt handle this correctly, the monks should have probably explained themselves better to avoid the confusion from the woman and those who havent researched on this thread, but perhaps they didnt realise how little people know about cultural differences.

No religious belief is more important than the right of human equality. It's simple, not hypocritical at all. You can believe in fairies if you like, as long as you don't presume to infer that your belief in fairies somehow makes someone else less worthy to sit next to you. You have no way of knowing what their intentions were. But the simple fact is demanding not to sit next to a woman is sexist. Cultural differences piffle.

When you are busy pandering to others beliefs are you also agreeable with people, usually women, being stoned to death for appostacy or adultery? Those are religious beliefs too.

Bit in bold never happened though so your entire point is irrelevant, we do know what their intentions were because we understand buddhism and sunyata. There are battles to fight, this shouldnt be one of them. (It wouldnt be with a bit of research anyway)

Bah! PC research? No thank you! :fist:

Irrelevant piffle. As I pointed out, I don't care what brand of fairies they believed in.

It kinda explains the whole situation though :umm2:

Then dont make a comment on their actions haha.

Youre refusing half of the story and expecting everyone to agree with you... Well no, some like 2 halves before they make a conclusion.

There is nothing to refuse, it doesn't matter what fantasy they believe in, a belief is not more important than a person. It's not hard to understand.

Completely agree with you Jaxie. Religious beliefs don't take precedence over law, and last time I checked woman are not considered second class passengers

Exactly! :wavey:

Interesting, bringing this back to this Christian cake story, in your view then as it seems we can accept religious practices if it suits us, that story should have been spun as gay couple take Christian baker to court over beliefs when they could have gone down the road and ordered elsewhere :umm2:

Exactly:clap1:
Or 'gay couple try to stop Christians practicing their beliefs rather than using alternative cake maker'.
Anything can be spun

:clap1::clap1::clap1::laugh: O-U-C-H!!!!!!:hee:

..I do have to say that I have to step in for Withano here and all he's trying to say because he isn't saying that discrimination by the airline didn't take place any I don't see any 'ouch' here...with the Christian baker story, there was no 'spinning' that took place, the headlines ware factual...Christian baker being sued over refusal to make Bert and Ernie-themed gay marriage cake says she 'knew in her heart' she couldn't complete the order


...that was one media headline but they're all in the same vein of containing fact../no spinning at all and rightly, they we found to show discrimination in the courts because they did...with this headline in the vid and on news media sites, there isn't the same factual involved at all, it's almost totally inaccurate...the two people were Pakastani monks and they didn't 'force' anything, it wasn't in the control to do so... that was a decision made by the airline alone, all they could do was to request...but the airline chose to discriminate on gender.../that's clear cut and the lady has an option to bring legal action against the airline if she so chooses to do so.../that's her decision as the airline made theirs as the airline made theirs and discriminated against her in doing so....



...honestly some SD threads start to lose interest pretty quickly in how personal they seem to get with 'point scoring' that it's easy to wonder how much is in concern of the discrimination or story itself...so much 'concern' (by some, I will add that..)...about the respect of a female in this story and yet not the same respect for any female apparent at all when Donald Trump totally and completely disrespects females and more or less said that he practised sexual abuse of females and a defence of his age and his back in the day ways.../streuth....

Waiting for more ammi Aussie banter :laugh:

I do agree with what you are saying, the airline are ultimately responsible for the situation. However, making the request of them in the first place is out of order and rightly deserves criticism too

Irrespective of any other argument, Cherie identified a flaw in Withano's argument and the point she made is irrefutably true.

Besides being humorous. :hee:

..(I think, personally of course..)...that it's overlooking what he's saying by considering it 'an argument' because all he's really saying is that the world and situations are not black and white..I don't think anyone is disputing things that Jaxie has said in that the law is though/black and white and that discrimination did take place by the airline...and the lady is fully entitled to take action with that...but 'understanding' of cultures and religions/beliefs as well is what brings the colour to the world because that's a huge part in general tolerances..it doesn't mean the world has to accommodate but understanding/tolerance is never a bad thing..and I mean tolerance in everything should be had and also respect.../that doesn't mean that unlawful discrimination should ever play a part of that though...I wouldn't expect anything else from Withano, being the person that he is and having spent a large part of his adult life doing vocational work in 'differing cultures'..that he shows interest in a culture/belief involved as well and hopes for tolerance and 'colour' to be added....

With all due respect Ammi I don't see why you have to step in to help anyone? posts are made and responded to? I made a point based on Withanos (im beginning to think he is 5 :worry:) post which to me seems pretty obvious, you have said all along through the thread you couldn't see the similarities between the two cases and I respect that, so I assume you again can't see where I am coming from on this :shrug:

Also we've already established that the religion of these two is not important to the story.It shouldn't have happened on any airline but especially not a western one where womens rights are equal to mens.The way this was reported is inconsequential to the outcome.The religion keeps getting brought up but that doesn't change the fact that a woman was forced out of her seat which she had paid for.The bad reporting is just a distraction to the issue.