Hey. I heard you booked this flight legally. GET OFF THE F***ING PLANE!!!!

[KissingSunlight]

At this point, since its clear the train has left the station and no one cares about anything other than shitting on United...

I hope United sues the Chicago Police department. Sure, United made an unpopular decision about refusing service at a really late date, but the Chicago police are the ones who took this up to 11 with the excessive force and negligence. The fact that United and United alone is eating this is utter horseshit. They're not even the employers of the people that really need to be punished here. But everyone hates airlines, so zzzzzz.

I'm with you. I'm done with this subject. I love it, that people insist that I am wrong. Yet, they don't produce any evidence that they are right. However, trying to dismiss my opinion, because I don't state explicitly what exact rules that gives airlines the right to kick people off of a plane. Which isn't what my point is at all. My point that this guy handled the situation the wrong way. Regardless, if you thought United had the right to kick him off or not.

There are several ways of looking at what is 'right'. There is 'right' as in morally right and there is 'right' as in the the most practical.

First, a look at morality. As morality is extremely malleable, and varies from person to person and culture to culture, it's impossible to nail down to one solitary 'right'. However, if you look at it from the perspective that the laws are just and apply to everybody equally, then it is each of our responsibility to ensure that they are upheld. By standing up for his own rights, Dr. Dao not only defends himself, but makes a point for everybody who does not want to be forcibly removed from their seat on a plane. You can guarantee that the next time an airline wants to throw their weight around and kick people out of a seat they purchased without cause they are going to think twice. By making an example of himself, he protects everyone. Thus, from that perspective his actions are morally right.

Now, for practicality. He does not want to give up his seat and miss the flight. Passively acquiescing to United's demands that he do is not going to accomplish this goal. Kicking up a fuss is a better course of actions, because there was a good chance that the attendants would simply find a less belligerent target too bully off the plane, or find another solution to their seating problem. Of course, this didn't happen, however, by being dragged out of his rightfully purchased seat, and being injured in the process, he is very likely to receive a massive payout for damages from United and be financially set for the rest of his life. If becoming incredibly rich wasn't the 'right' course of action, I don't know what would be.

So there, both morally and practically Dr. Dao was in the right to act as he did.

Thank you for demonstrating the length that people will go to justify why people should not be held accountable for their actions.

I have reached the conclusion that the people who are arguing with me are privileged to never have dealt with criminally obnoxious customers. The kind of asshole who think they have a right to do whatever they want. Still insists on having that right, even when the police officer gets called and tells them, "No, you don't have that right. Please leave this premise."

 

[DoPo]

Yet, they don't produce any evidence that they are right.

Reminds me of somebody there...

Thank you for demonstrating the length that people will go to justify why people should not be held accountable for their actions.

Like you did?

I have reached the conclusion that the people who are arguing with me are privileged to never have dealt with criminally obnoxious customers. The kind of asshole who think they have a right to do whatever they want. Still insists on having that right, even when the police officer gets called and tells them, "No, you don't have that right. Please leave this premise."

And here we are again - you have not at all managed to provide any proof that was the case. The customer, by all accounts WAS right and the business by all accounts WAS wrong. You don't seem to be able to provide any proof that is not the case and now you are going "oh, I'm backing out" without ever acknowledging this. And you still complain about people "not owning up".

The hypocrisy is off the charts.

 

[Saelune]

I have reached the conclusion that the people who are arguing with me are privileged to never have dealt with criminally obnoxious customers. The kind of asshole who think they have a right to do whatever they want. Still insists on having that right, even when the police officer gets called and tells them, "No, you don't have that right. Please leave this premise."

Did you just say "check your privilage"? Cause Im pretty sure if I ever used that at you, you would flip out on me.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

At this point, since its clear the train has left the station and no one cares about anything other than shitting on United...

I hope United sues the Chicago Police department. Sure, United made an unpopular decision about refusing service at a really late date, but the Chicago police are the ones who took this up to 11 with the excessive force and negligence. The fact that United and United alone is eating this is utter horseshit. They're not even the employers of the people that really need to be punished here. But everyone hates airlines, so zzzzzz.

I'm with you. I'm done with this subject. I love it, that people insist that I am wrong. Yet, they don't produce any evidence that they are right. However, trying to dismiss my opinion, because I don't state explicitly what exact rules that gives airlines the right to kick people off of a plane. Which isn't what my point is at all. My point that this guy handled the situation the wrong way. Regardless, if you thought United had the right to kick him off or not.

There are several ways of looking at what is 'right'. There is 'right' as in morally right and there is 'right' as in the the most practical.

First, a look at morality. As morality is extremely malleable, and varies from person to person and culture to culture, it's impossible to nail down to one solitary 'right'. However, if you look at it from the perspective that the laws are just and apply to everybody equally, then it is each of our responsibility to ensure that they are upheld. By standing up for his own rights, Dr. Dao not only defends himself, but makes a point for everybody who does not want to be forcibly removed from their seat on a plane. You can guarantee that the next time an airline wants to throw their weight around and kick people out of a seat they purchased without cause they are going to think twice. By making an example of himself, he protects everyone. Thus, from that perspective his actions are morally right.

Now, for practicality. He does not want to give up his seat and miss the flight. Passively acquiescing to United's demands that he do is not going to accomplish this goal. Kicking up a fuss is a better course of actions, because there was a good chance that the attendants would simply find a less belligerent target too bully off the plane, or find another solution to their seating problem. Of course, this didn't happen, however, by being dragged out of his rightfully purchased seat, and being injured in the process, he is very likely to receive a massive payout for damages from United and be financially set for the rest of his life. If becoming incredibly rich wasn't the 'right' course of action, I don't know what would be.

So there, both morally and practically Dr. Dao was in the right to act as he did.

Thank you for demonstrating the length that people will go to justify why people should not be held accountable for their actions.

I have reached the conclusion that the people who are arguing with me are privileged to never have dealt with criminally obnoxious customers. The kind of asshole who think they have a right to do whatever they want. Still insists on having that right, even when the police officer gets called and tells them, "No, you don't have that right. Please leave this premise."

Backtrack more, dude. First it was he's a criminal, then it was he should follow the rules, then you slink to the rules don't matter!

But the thing is, your entire argument for why he acted wrong was because he was supposed to follow the rules.

It's very clear you're more of an emotional than rational person here and you'll twist it any way to justify your feelings, spouting nonsense about him being a criminal and breaking rules then backing off when reality confronts your nonsensical justifications

Oh and it's kind of funny how you seem to try to latch on to Eljin there just because he vaguely sounds like the disagrees with some of us even if it's not for the same reason at all XD

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Honestly kind of interesting how the anti-Dao lot don't even question the people who asked him to leave. Like, what, is their part in it supposed to be glossed over? Should they not be considered responsible for making the absurd choice to ask someone to leave for *that* reason?

 

[Parasondox]

At this point, since its clear the train has left the station and no one cares about anything other than shitting on United...

I hope United sues the Chicago Police department. Sure, United made an unpopular decision about refusing service at a really late date, but the Chicago police are the ones who took this up to 11 with the excessive force and negligence. The fact that United and United alone is eating this is utter horseshit. They're not even the employers of the people that really need to be punished here. But everyone hates airlines, so zzzzzz.

I'm with you. I'm done with this subject. I love it, that people insist that I am wrong. Yet, they don't produce any evidence that they are right. However, trying to dismiss my opinion, because I don't state explicitly what exact rules that gives airlines the right to kick people off of a plane. Which isn't what my point is at all. My point that this guy handled the situation the wrong way. Regardless, if you thought United had the right to kick him off or not.

There are several ways of looking at what is 'right'. There is 'right' as in morally right and there is 'right' as in the the most practical.

First, a look at morality. As morality is extremely malleable, and varies from person to person and culture to culture, it's impossible to nail down to one solitary 'right'. However, if you look at it from the perspective that the laws are just and apply to everybody equally, then it is each of our responsibility to ensure that they are upheld. By standing up for his own rights, Dr. Dao not only defends himself, but makes a point for everybody who does not want to be forcibly removed from their seat on a plane. You can guarantee that the next time an airline wants to throw their weight around and kick people out of a seat they purchased without cause they are going to think twice. By making an example of himself, he protects everyone. Thus, from that perspective his actions are morally right.

Now, for practicality. He does not want to give up his seat and miss the flight. Passively acquiescing to United's demands that he do is not going to accomplish this goal. Kicking up a fuss is a better course of actions, because there was a good chance that the attendants would simply find a less belligerent target too bully off the plane, or find another solution to their seating problem. Of course, this didn't happen, however, by being dragged out of his rightfully purchased seat, and being injured in the process, he is very likely to receive a massive payout for damages from United and be financially set for the rest of his life. If becoming incredibly rich wasn't the 'right' course of action, I don't know what would be.

So there, both morally and practically Dr. Dao was in the right to act as he did.

Thank you for demonstrating the length that people will go to justify why people should not be held accountable for their actions.

I have reached the conclusion that the people who are arguing with me are privileged to never have dealt with criminally obnoxious customers. The kind of asshole who think they have a right to do whatever they want. Still insists on having that right, even when the police officer gets called and tells them, "No, you don't have that right. Please leave this premise."

Then stop. No really. Stop. People are arguing against your point. Thats the whole point of a discussion/debate. They come up with points, you come up with points. If you think its getting ridiculous then stop. Stop messaging and watch away. You can do so. You can just not reply back if you do not like the discussion. Also the thread did die a few days ago but you brought it back up again.