Flying to Mexico... For a girl. Is it legal to bring her back?

Everskyward said:
I would suggest that you are stereotyping people according to their gender without knowing them.
Click to expand...
I'm stereotyping the gender, not any specific person identified by that gender. That is what I think you are missing.
 
Cooter said:
I'm stereotyping the gender, not any specific person identified by that gender. That is what I think you are missing.
Click to expand...
I think stereotyping by the gender is wrong, because it causes you to made assumptions about individuals. That's what I think you are missing.
 
Everskyward said:
I think stereotyping by the gender is wrong, because it causes you to made assumptions about individuals. That's what I think you are missing.
Click to expand...
Why won't you just admit that you are wrong and let me enjoy the satisfaction of an internet battle won? Is it because women are stubborn in general and you are a woman?

I think you and I have hit a stalemate before. You don't give up easily!
 
There were supposed to be sarcasm emojis attached, my taunt was in jest!
 
Cooter said:
Why won't you just admit that you are wrong and let me enjoy the satisfaction of an internet battle won? Is it because women are stubborn in general and you are a woman?
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's because I don't play the (stereotypical) game of letting the guy think he's right even though I think he's wrong. ;)

Cooter said:
I think you and I have hit a stalemate before. You don't give up easy!
Click to expand...
I could say the same about you.
 
Everskyward said:
I think stereotyping by the gender is wrong, because it causes you to made assumptions about individuals. That's what I think you are missing.
Click to expand...
I'm quoting this rather than just liking it because I think it's the point I would like to have made :D

I missed the finale because I had to step out to do my makeup and hair, my wife is taking me to dinner after she finishes welding up a boiler.

Nauga,
who is just kidding...she welded the boiler last night.
 
nauga said:
I'm quoting this rather than just liking it because I think it's the point I would like to have made :D

I missed the finale because I had to step out to do my makeup and hair, my wife is taking me to dinner after she finishes welding up a boiler.

Nauga,
who is just kidding...she welded the boiler last night.
Click to expand...

If someone says Minneapolis has cold winters, do you automatically assume every winter day in Minneapolis is colder than Louisville, Ky? If someone brought out a chart and demonstrated that several days in Ky were colder than Minneapolis, would you on that basis be obligated to also describe Louisville as having cold winters? This is an easy concept to understand, unfortunately it is also easy to distort. It is fallacious to demand that any and every exception disprove the rule.

I think it is safe to make generalizations, without always having to evaluate every possible exception. I am happy to be called a conservative even though I don't really consider myself one. Because, I know it fits the label as most people understand it. I don't need to clarify every exception if it is mentioned because there is a better chance that the label fits in the context they intend.

I think we are so hyper sensitive to being offended or of being offensive that we have become too guarded with our language.
 
Last edited:
camel said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2423

18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors
(a)Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.—
A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

Not sure if that applies here, read the whole statute.
Click to expand...


weilke said:
Yup. There is a version of that for crimes committed outside of the US. So if a prosecutor in Mexico decides that the OP used coercion to get some action and whatever he does turns into 'criminal activity', he not only has to pay his way out of a mexican jail, he also has to deal with the feds when he returns.
Click to expand...

Love finds a way :D
 
BTW, how do you explain marketing if generalizations are so incapable of being accurate?
@Everskyward, are you offended when you walk into a department store and the women's clothes are on one side and the men's are on the other? Are taller than average women in an outrage that their sizes may be easier to find in the men's section than in the women's? I really find it hard to believe that you can't accept the idea of there being general differences among men and women.

I can continue to provide examples to further make my point if you wish? Do maternity wards have to determine the sex of their incoming patients or are they ok to assume it is going to be a woman? Come on, you are letting your personal experience, probably negative, close your mind to a reasonable and inoffensive idea.
 
Last edited:
Cooter said:
Then we'll have to define Political Correctness. If we do, then I think it will be easy to associate it with the left. My first inclination will be to cite the limits on free speech on college campuses, and I'm sure I can find many examples of that. Anne Coulter and Milo at Berkeley immediately come to mind. I would be interested to see how the Right promotes PC although I won't deny that they play their part.
Click to expand...
Political correctness is the widespread, automatic, unquestioning acceptance of a political point of view. Yes, it exists on the left, but the right has their own version of it. For example, the Republican version of political correctness requires one to believe that tax cuts will pay for themselves through increased economic growth, corporations are people, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, Obamacare is a failure, and the most recent Democratic president, whoever he is, is "the worst president in history."
 
Palmpilot said:
Political correctness is the widespread, automatic, unquestioning acceptance of a political point of view. Yes, it exists on the left, but the right has their own version of it. For example, the Republican version of political correctness requires one to believe that tax cuts will pay for themselves through increased economic growth, corporations are people, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, Obamacare is a failure, and the most recent Democratic president, whoever he is, is "the worst president in history."
Click to expand...
When has it been suggested that those that don't agree with the ideas you mention be silenced or punished? I disagree with your definition of political correctness. It is not believing your ideas are correct. It is suggesting that people with ideas different than yours should be punished.
 
Rebel Lord said:
Love finds a way :D
Click to expand...

Woah woah woah..how'd we get from bringing her over for a "party" to this? I mean surely she doesn't expect to "put out" after you transport her across international lines right? You're doing this because you just want to sit next to her at a party or something right?

:rolleyes:
 
Wow. I learned a few things on this thread about the terrible struggles of the modern wimp. LOL. WTF is wrong with young men these days? You do not have to reclaim your masculinity if you never surrendered it in the first place. If you did surrender it then just start acting like a man and you reclaim it. No need for any organization or movement or a colored pill. Just man up.
 
Palmpilot said:
Political correctness is the widespread, automatic, unquestioning acceptance of a political point of view. Yes, it exists on the left, but the right has their own version of it. For example, the Republican version of political correctness requires one to believe that tax cuts will pay for themselves through increased economic growth, corporations are people, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, Obamacare is a failure, and the most recent Democratic president, whoever he is, is "the worst president in history."
Click to expand...
Political correctness seeks to alter behavior and language. Your list is simply political positions or beliefs. Global warming advocates are seeking to change the behavior of the masses as are the PC police that seem to have taken complete control of many campuses. I'll leave it at that because I know I'm under the watchful eye of Everskyward. But I do accept your generalization of the Republican Party's platform.:)
 
Ok, I'm out with this because it has finally reached the political parties and that will go no where good!

Saying generalizations about the genders cannot be made is part of the problem we face. Controlling language is an attempt to control thoughts. There are obvious truths that somehow when given a voice, are now off limits because of the perceived offense it might bring. But the reality cannot be denied unless a willful ignorance is embraced. (And I mean that in the most generous sense:)).

Do choral performances offend? Is it sexist that the parts are segregated by sex? Does it grate on the ears to hear the women's part since we all know women should be allowed to sing Bass? Quite the contrary, it is what makes the music beautiful. It is foolish to assume that acknowledging differences necessarily discriminates in a negative way. How about letting your dander down and accepting the differences in a way the appreciates them. There's freedom in not allowing yourself to be perpetually offended.
 
Cooter said:
Ok, but that statement would look different. Contrast these statements:

Women are more nurturing and compassionate than men. Men are better able to provide physical protection of the home.

Everskyward is more compassionate than Cooter because she's a woman. Cooter is better than Everskyward at defending his home, since he is a man.

You are speaking of the second group of statements, while I have in mind the first.
Click to expand...

To clarify your statements a bit:

On average, women are more nurturing and compassionate than men. On average, men are better able to provide physical protection of the home.

You and Everskyward have both correctly pointed out that this statement does not allow you to conclude that Everskyward is more compassionate or that you are better at protecting the home.

But consider this statement:

Because on average women are more nurturing and compassionate than men, the statistical likelihood is greater that any one randomly chosen woman is more nurturing and compassionate than any one randomly chosen man.

That statement is a true fact, IF the first statement is true. Logic demands it. The problem with political correctness is when the first statement indeed has been scientifically proven to be true but people are silenced from using statistical likelihood to advantage for fear of hurting somebody's feelings.

The truth is our brains are hard wired to build stereotypes based on past encounters with individuals, and use that information to better predict how a future encounter with a similar individual will go. I have learned from past experience that very young humans are less able to restrain themselves when in social situations requiring silence, such as a cavern tour I went on yesterday where a baby whined and a boy kept interrupting the tour guide with stupid questions. No adult behaved that way, but I was not surprised the children did.

The next day we went on a brewery tour, and a young boy signed up with us. It crossed my mind this kid is going to be a pain, interrupting the tour guide with stupid questions. I thought this about him, perhaps unfairly, because of the base of data built in my memory from past experience. Maybe it was unfair of me to think this about him because maybe that particular kid would have been silent the whole time. As it turned out he wasn't; he kept interrupting the tour guide with questions out of time with the tour.

It is statistical likelihood that told me that kid would do that, NOT personal knowledge of that individual kid. All of us accept this syndrome all day long every day on a thousand little events in our lives. I bet every single one of you when boarding a commercial plane and seated near an infant thought, "I hope that baby doesn't cry the whole flight." PROFILING! STEREOTYPING! You should be ashamed of yourselves. There are some individual babies who don't make a peep on an airplane flight, therefore you shouldn't think these stereotyping thoughts in your head.

By the way, before anyone bashes me for dissing talkative kids and crying babies, I've raised children myself, I tolerate this and don't feel ill will toward them. I am merely pointing out that my brain can accurately predict their behavior.

Also, I am not trying to claim that we have scientifically proven women are more nurturing and men are better at protecting the home, I am saying IF that is true, then it would be understandable to stereotype. Is there a problem of people stereotyping when on average it ISN'T true? Absolutely. I believe this happens when propaganda has been used against groups, we have a ton of examples in history and is the reason we are careful to beware of stereotypes. But we shouldn't go too far in the other direction, and completely ignore real behavior. The little old grandma in a wheelchair being patted down by TSA while the young male muttering Allah Akbar is waved through comes to mind.
 
Rushie said:
To clarify your statements a bit:

On average, women are more nurturing and compassionate than men. On average, men are better able to provide physical protection of the home.

You and Everskyward have both correctly pointed out that this statement does not allow you to conclude that Everskyward is more compassionate or that you are better at protecting the home.

But consider this statement:

Because on average women are more nurturing and compassionate than men, the statistical likelihood is greater that any one randomly chosen woman is more nurturing and compassionate than any one randomly chosen man.

That statement is a true fact, IF the first statement is true. Logic demands it. The problem with political correctness is when the first statement indeed has been scientifically proven to be true but people are silenced from using statistical likelihood to advantage for fear of hurting somebody's feelings.

The truth is our brains are hard wired to build stereotypes based on past encounters with individuals, and use that information to better predict how a future encounter with a similar individual will go. I have learned from past experience that very young humans are less able to restrain themselves when in social situations requiring silence, such as a cavern tour I went on yesterday where a baby whined and a boy kept interrupting the tour guide with stupid questions. No adult behaved that way, but I was not surprised the children did.

The next day we went on a brewery tour, and a young boy signed up with us. It crossed my mind this kid is going to be a pain, interrupting the tour guide with stupid questions. I thought this about him, perhaps unfairly, because of the base of data built in my memory from past experience. Maybe it was unfair of me to think this about him because maybe that particular kid would have been silent the whole time. As it turned out he wasn't; he kept interrupting the tour guide with questions out of time with the tour.

It is statistical likelihood that told me that kid would do that, NOT personal knowledge of that individual kid. All of us accept this syndrome all day long every day on a thousand little events in our lives. I bet every single one of you when boarding a commercial plane and seated near an infant thought, "I hope that baby doesn't cry the whole flight." PROFILING! STEREOTYPING! You should be ashamed of yourselves. There are some individual babies who don't make a peep on an airplane flight, therefore you shouldn't think these stereotyping thoughts in your head.

By the way, before anyone bashes me for dissing talkative kids and crying babies, I've raised children myself, I tolerate this and don't feel ill will toward them. I am merely pointing out that my brain can accurately predict their behavior.

Also, I am not trying to claim that we have scientifically proven women are more nurturing and men are better at protecting the home, I am saying IF that is true, then it would be understandable to stereotype. Is there a problem of people stereotyping when on average it ISN'T true? Absolutely. I believe this happens when propaganda has been used against groups, we have a ton of examples in history and is the reason we are careful to beware of stereotypes. But we shouldn't go too far in the other direction, and completely ignore real behavior. The little old grandma in a wheelchair being patted down by TSA while the young male muttering Allah Akbar is waved through comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I like the way you think. Your last statement is part of the reason why I press the point. Denying reality in an effort to avoid generalizations will often lead to absurdity.
 
Cooter said:
Do you think the use of stereotypes is always wrong?
Click to expand...
It is always wrong to use a stereotype to draw a conclusion about an individual.

It is often wrong to apply it to groups as well. It's laziness in the first degree.

In the case at hand, it creates an incorrect correlation.
 
Cooter said:
BTW, how do you explain marketing if generalizations are so incapable of being accurate?
@Everskyward, are you offended when you walk into a department store and the women's clothes are on one side and the men's are on the other? Are taller than average women in an outrage that their sizes may be easier to find in the men's section than in the women's? I really find it hard to believe that you can't accept the idea of there being general differences among men and women.

I can continue to provide examples to further make my point if you wish? Do maternity wards have to determine the sex of their incoming patients or are they ok to assume it is going to be a woman? Come on, you are letting your personal experience, probably negative, close your mind to a reasonable and inoffensive idea.
Click to expand...
I am not offended by stereotyping. Where did you get that idea? I simply think it leads to misconceptions about people. Your other arguments are straw women.
 
Cooter said:
I like the way you think. Your last statement is part of the reason why I press the point. Denying reality in an effort to avoid generalizations will often lead to absurdity.
Click to expand...
How do you know that's reality?

He explicitly said it wasn't scientific. That means he doesn't know.

At best, it's an extrapolation from a limited and poorly selected, biased sample.

And what, exactly, do you do with the information?
 
MAKG1 said:
How do you know that's reality?

He explicitly said it wasn't scientific. That means he doesn't know.
?
Click to expand...
How dare you assume it's a man just because it is being posted on a pilot forum, what kind of brute are you?
 
Everskyward said:
I am not offended by stereotyping. Where did you get that idea? I simply think it leads to misconceptions about people. Your other arguments are straw women.
Click to expand...
They aren't straw men. They point out that you do accept generalizations.
 
There is nothing wrong with flying to Mexico and bringing back a seventeen year old girl.

As a matter of fact, as a 44 year old dude, I'd be happy to help. I don't think my wife would min...


...wait, what? You DO mind? I what now? ...but honey, it's innocent, I'm just... and then we'll... you see she's...


Hey guys, I'm sorry, can I please call you back? She's not understanding the whole dynamic here.
 
MAKG1 said:
How do you know that's reality?

He explicitly said it wasn't scientific. That means he doesn't know.

At best, it's an extrapolation from a limited and poorly selected, biased sample.

And what, exactly, do you do with the information?
Click to expand...

Do you believe in diversity in the workplace?
 
MAKG1 said:
Do you believe in wild non-sequitirs?
Click to expand...
Like this post? Don't avoid the question. I'm happy to connect it to my main point. Do you think diversity should be encouraged?
 
MAKG1 said:
He explicitly said it wasn't scientific. That means he doesn't know
Click to expand...
You fault in assuming that we can only "know" that which is proven by science. If you are going to jump into the conversation, jump all the way in. Don't just throw spears from the sideline.
 
Cooter said:
Like this post? Don't avoid the question. I'm happy to connect it to my main point. Do you think diversity should be encouraged?
Click to expand...
I will not answer an intentionally vague question with several different contradictory meanings. You will have to be A LOT more specific if you want an answer.
 
Cooter said:
They aren't straw men. They point out that you do accept generalizations.
Click to expand...
Read @Rushie's post. She (I think she's a she, but not sure) said it best. Judging people according to a group they belong to, especially if it's one they were born into and didn't choose, can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding. Of course I don't care that department stores have men's and women's sections. Now you're just being ridiculous.
 
MAKG1 said:
I will not answer an intentionally vague question with several different contradictory meanings. You will have to be A LOT more specific if you want an answer.
Click to expand...
Also, that would get us into political territory, @Cooter is lucky his one foray so far didn't get erased.
 
MAKG1 said:
Do you believe in wild non-sequitirs?
Click to expand...
Everskyward said:
Read @Rushie's post. She (I think she's a she, but not sure) said it best. Judging people according to a group they belong to, especially if it's one they were born into and didn't choose, can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding. Of course I don't care that department stores have men's and women's sections. Now you're just being ridiculous.
Click to expand...
i'm not being ridiculous, please follow my argument. The point is we do accept generalizations the argument has now become about which generalizations we will accept.
 
MAKG1 said:
I will not answer an intentionally vague question with several different contradictory meanings. You will have to be A LOT more specific if you want an answer.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can get any more specific. Do you think that it is good to promote diversity in the workplace? If you need absolute specifics, then do you think gender equality should be a goal as represented by the workforce?
 
Cooter said:
I don't think I can get any more specific. Do you think that it is good to promote diversity in the workplace? If you need absolute specifics, then do you think gender quality should be a goal as represented by the workforce?
Click to expand...
I think this exposes what you're missing.

It IS still quite vague.

What you do to "promote diversity" makes a large difference. And what, exactly, do you mean by "diversity?" The answer to the second question affects the first.

You seem to want me to make assumptions and then react to them. No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top