Haven’t we been hearing lately about Female Sex Perv teachers taking advantage of their children.

Like someone said, they better be moving me to first class or they’d be in beaucoup troble.

Yeah, and (I’m guessing) 95% of pedophiles are males. That doesn’t mean that a person’s sex is a reliable indicator of that person’s level of criminality.

If 95% of men were pedohpiles (yikes!), then I’d understand this policy. Since, in reality, 0.001% of men are pedophiles, it’s a waste of time and public resources to profile them, in any way.

One would think that they would have a valid reasoning behind the profiling.

Follow the hypothetical.

1. We want to keep terrorists off of greyhound buses.

2. 97% of known terrorists were male, under the age of 50 and of Scandahoovian descent.

3. The bus driver should give Scandahoovians males under 50 a bit of extra attention. This is in addition to watching for those acting funny in other ways.

Under those circumstances I’d accept the fact that I was a member of the profiled class.

Yeah, and (I’m guessing) 95% of pedophiles are males. That doesn’t mean that a person’s sex is a reliable indicator of that person’s level of criminality.

Yeah it does. Your next point affirms it…

Since, in reality, 0.001% of men are pedophiles, it’s a waste of time and public resources to profile them, in any way.

Oh…it’s probably a bit more than one out of 100,000. I’m sure that there are more than 3,000 pedophiles out of a population of 300 million. Just a sad hunch…

My apologies. Yeah, my memory really butchered that post. Sorry for accusing you of saying something you didn’t say, Rob.

a story came out a couple months ago about a man who was forced off an airplane because he had an inappropriate t-shirt, and I was pretty sure you were the one who argued against his Constitutional right to travel. I may have been mistaken.

I figured that was what you were talking about. It was about a woman wearing a shirt saying “Meet the Fuckers” with faces from the Bush administration on it. Southwest Airlines asked her to cover it up, but later it inadvertantly (according to the woman) came uncovered again and Southwest felt it was enough of a reason to kick her off the flight.

The post is here.

My argument was that it was perfectly acceptable for Southwest Airlines to eject her. She has free speech rights, of course, but Southwest Airlines certainly has the legal ability to moderate decorum on their property. They weren’t discriminating based on politics, gender, race or creed but rather just behavior. And, judging from the way the story was told in the article, I found Southwest Airline’s actions perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

From a brief perusal of that thread, I don’t think that anyone argued against a Constitutional right to travel.

Plus, as Rob has in the past argued against a Constitutional right to travel, I’m not sure where the outrage originates from.

I have?

Wow. News to me.