Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by mscard88, Sep 22, 2018.
Yeah, it was foolish to serve him more alcohol.
We live in an age where following the rules and respecting others is going the way of the dodo. It has been researched and can be shown that a significant and growing portion of the population do not value laws and rules. Hence, when you have a lowered inhibition, then life turns short and brutish.
If they restrained him (with zip ties, the article said) why did they have to inconvenience the other passengers by making an "emergency" landing to drop him off?
I don't know that this is necessarily true, but rather that air travel is becoming cheaper (and worse) which then makes it more accessible to more of the population. The "worse" aspect turns many of the higher class people away from those airlines which leaves a higher proportion of people with lowered inhibition.
When you say "fools doing this crap" I assume you are referring to airports and airlines serving liquor to passengers...
He kinda looks like this guy
THat too. Agree 1000%! Always thought it was a asinine to serve booze on planes too. When I was at the airline I never understood airport bars and passengers getting drunk. Then gate agents turn a blind eye to them and let them board, putting it on the crew to deal with them. I’ve deplaned a number of drunks when I was there, and it’s wasnt a lot of fun dealing with it.
Of course, many of the laws and rules are stupid, and that makes it more difficult for some to respect the "good" ones. The Golden Rule no longer rules in any case.
They should serve pot brownies instead....because wow man, everybody down there looks like ants.
There are a lot of broken people out there. Boys who are indulged rather than corrected through their formative years are especially bad because they grow up to be man-babies unable to control themselves if they don't get their way. If you find yourself flying off the handle on little things you are probably a man baby.
I have no clue about women, story of my life.
If it has been researched and had been shown, how about a few citations to scientific journals of merit showing this?
Where’s the trap door to the cargo compartment? Shouldn’t have let him on in the first place, and shouldn’tbhave Served more booze in the second place. But boozed and belligerent should earn a space in confinement.
I had a beer on a plane once. Jammed up against the window seat, probably the furthest distance from the bathroom. Without fail, nature starts calling. Along with turbulence and the seat belt sign.
Why do fools do this crap? Because they are fools!
Isn't this obvious???
Only the crap changes between different fools . . . .
He can still be a threat. You never know. Hopefully Delta bills this guy the diverting fees.
I've been binge watching YouTube videos of a certain psychologist (not Jonathan Haight) and in one of this other guy's lectures he discusses the data that shows this.
This is DATA, scientifically collected. Not someone's opinion and not a political viewpoint. This data demonstrates that man-babies are created by two things: 1) lack of a strong father figure- no surprise there - but surprisingly, 2) lack of normal "violent" interaction with other males when very young.
Young boys, from about age 2, will tend to physically hit or tackle another boy who has wronged them. This usually leads to the boys becoming friends! Turns out that fights, up to and including physical violence (but not to the point of serious injury) seem to be one way males initiate social relationships. This way they size up and test each other. As they mature the physicality abates, but always remains as a last resort (if seldom used) in encounters with other males. Boys who are prevented from interacting with force when small actually grow up to be more violent as adult men. It's as if their aggression has been bottled up, or they have somehow failed to develop normally with respect to relating to peers.
Females are completely different. Females rarely engage in physical fights but when they do, they remain enemies for life.
These traits and sex differences are seen across most primate species including monkeys, great apes and humans. And there is strong evidence they are inborn. One study compared girls who had a congenital condition that bathes the brain in too much testosterone (for a girl) while in still in utero to boys and to normal girls. The boys preferred stories involving violence (fighting or conflict) while the girls preferred stories involving romance, but the girls who had the excess male hormone before birth preferred violent stories but not to the same degree as the boys. One presumes the amount of male hormone in the girls with this condition was not to the level of normal males. Maybe there is a linear relationship between exposure to testosterone and preference for violent stories. This suggests these preference differences between the sexes are not socially created.
The "healthy" male violence in the young does not apply to bullies. It is only acceptable if you have been provoked or wronged. Males who stand up for themselves in this way gain status in the eyes of their peers. But bullies attack the innocent and the weak. These males lose status in the eyes of the other males and tend to be rejected by the group.
This has interesting ramifications for the anti-bullying movement. It seems to me that trying to stop all violence, regardless of cause, may have unintended consequences, disrupting normal male social development.
I was flying back from Dallas a month or so ago. The gentleman in front of me prior to going through the security checkpoint could barely stand up he was so drunk. The agent had to keep pointing back at the ticket counter, because the mass of crumpled papers he kept giving to the agent apparently did not have a boarding pass on it. I'll give credit to the agent, he was very patient with the guy, but I'm curious to know what happened with his travel plans for that day.
They couldn’t zip tie his mouth
I like JP, but there are some critical pieces missing. Attributing the influence to violence or force is reductionist and misleading.
Yay! You figured out who it was. It's what he said, he discussed the data, I haven't looked at it myself. I have problems when he said studies prove that exercise helps prevent a decline in IQ as you age. Wrong. Association only. I have not yet seen any study that can blind control exercise. I think it's the other way around. A third factor that damages your brain also robs you of energy so you don't choose to exercise, or causes joint damage or whatever other effects limit your exercise. But on the whole I find his lectures very enlightening.
He’s refreshing in that he shares what is commonly known in science but has become too unpopular to say. He’s bold in a way that most have become cowardly.
I like him but other than an occasional YouTube clip, I don’t pay much attention to him anymore. He often ignores the idea that “correlation is not causation”. But he gets much of the larger, cultural issues right. T. Sowell has similar insights but from a different background and with fewer weaknesses. When you exhaust JPs offerings, check out Sowell. His videos have been organized into short clips that are easier to browse.
i think altitude brings in a mostly unknown/unpredictable result to usual sea level boozing,
ended up in yuuuuge consequences for brad pitt
usually the root cause is addictions that then manifest & get ugly/stupid, one way or another,
addiction also doesn't discriminate
ntsb report on this one
I have always been a bit puzzled why an airline diverts in situations such as this if the threat has already been contained. Strap him to his seat, gag him, and fly on.
And it's not just laws and rules that people do not respect or value anymore but also common courtesies and consideration for others.
It’s also interesting how people blame booze, I’ve been plenty drunk before, head butting a stewardesses never even crossed my mind.
good bet the behavior from the perp is on another level, kinda like when cops tazer & or have to subdue meth/pcp(?) users
some folks can deal with booze, prob way more are lost causes from the get go,
some folks on booze or worse a mix, can easily end up in blackout scenarios
Yeah, I'd probably come closer to trying to kiss her.
and then possibly banging on the cabin door yelling "let me show y'all how to really fly this pig!"
Someone once said something about conceal carry, if you can’t be trusted with a gun after a beer or two, you probably shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
I’d be more likely to hug people than fight them if I got super drunk, but the thing is I’m still smart enough to know I’m in a bad spot and normally just try to retreat out of the public spot lol
I have heard that booze, other drugs, and certain medical conditions, can remove your social filter and inhibitions, so you are more likely to act in the way you are predisposed to act. Some may be lovers, some are fighters.
here's the pcp deal
I adore Sowell! I own several of his books. Until now I had never heard of JP, maybe I'm living under a rock but you've described him to a T from what I've seen in the videos. I'm trying to decide whether to buy his book. The Amazon preview got me interested talking about the territory defense and mating habits of lobsters.
Someone actually did that (served pot brownies) recently to an SWA crew.
Umm...the FA he head-butted was a dude....
Maybe he still would have!
The citations requested have been removed because of researcher's analysis turned political. If you would like the information I was referring to, please PM me directly.
a few cups & 21mil to broke & jail time
then a fresh start
What happened to the old days
Reason #341 why I’m not airlines.