Praying Man Removed From Plane

[Kanastrous]

I hear that in Israel, Orthodox Jews are accustomed to basically being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they can claim a religious basis. I was under the impression that they're treated almost like a special noble class, in the sense that the rules which apply to normal people don't apply to them.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to that.

And they're fucking aggressive, too.

My favorite item involving Haredi Jews in Israel, being the tale of some hapless doof who made a wrong turn, drove into one of their neighborhoods on a Saturday afternoon, and was physically pulled from his car and roughed up (thereby violating the strictures against performing labor on the Sabbath) and watched the crowd torch his car (thereby violating the commandment against kindling a fire, on the Sabbath).

Driving *that* particular and specific segment of Israeli society into the sea, sometimes almost looks like a decent idea.

[Darth Onasi]

So, in other words, to use any measures at the FA's disposal anything short of de-planing the passenger is treating him with kiddy-gloves?

Again, booting him off is a precaution, not a punishment. So it's not nearly as harsh as you make it sound.
Secondly, what other measures do they have? They can either boot him off for demonstrating that he won't respond when asked to, or trust that he won't do it again and waste time being concerned about any further antics of his.

Sorry, but flight attendants have a job to do other than having to deal with uncooperative morons.

[Darth Wong]

"Sorry passengers, but we can't serve dinner right now. An Orthodox Jew is praying near the lavatories and blocking the food cart. Please wait for as long as it takes for him to complete whatever rituals he feels are important to his belief system."

"Passengers, we are encountering some turbulence. Everyone please take your seats and fasten your seatbelts immediately, unless of course you are an Orthodox Jew and engaged in some kind of prayer ritual, in which case you can ignore these instructions with impunity and if you smash your head on something due to the turbulence and sue us, I guess it's the Will of God."

I have to wonder about the people who say he wasn't getting in anyone's way because he was near the lavatories rather than standing in the main aisle. Have these people ever been on a fucking airplane? There's barely enough room to achieve an erection, for fuck's sake.

[SCRawl]

Like it or not, it is a case of some guy saying "I will listen when I am goddamned good and ready". When you're praying, you may choose to pretend you can't hear outside voices, but that's bullshit and you know it.

That's not quite so clear-cut, at least not to me. The OP states that he was "saying his prayers" (probably in Hebrew), which implies to me that he was vocalizing, as opposed to just thinking to his imaginary friend. I can't talk to myself and still follow what someone else right next to me is saying. Can you? If we further assume that his eyes were closed, or that he wasn't looking in the direction of the FA at the time -- not a huge jump -- then it's entirely possible that he had no idea that he was being addressed by a member of the cabin crew.

Don't be a goddamned idiot. Are you telling me that if you're talking to yourself and someone taps your shoulder and says "Hey YOU" in your ear, it won't register? You're making it sound as if the flight attendant was dictating War and Peace into his ear, and his only crime was not following it. What a load of horseshit.

First of all, I seriously doubt that that's what the FA did. If I had to guess, I'd say that a firm but polite "Excuse me, sir, you need to return to your seat now, please" would have been the first bullet in the gun, with physical contact a little further down the list. And as I just posted to Zod, I'm not trying to say that the passenger was unaware that he was being spoken to, but rather that he might not have been aware of the content of what he was hearing, or who was delivering it. In his own mind, he might have had some sort of rationalization along the lines of "someone's talking to me, I think. I'll only be here for another two minutes, so whatever it is can wait until then," without taking into consideration the fact that he might be being confronted by the FA at the time. Not all that smart a move, but as I've said, this whole scenario was pretty stupid.

What the fuck makes you think that a logical conclusion is a matter of negotiation? And why the fuck should there be a "fair and measured response" when someone is refusing to listen to flight crew instructions? Boot the fucker off until he learns how to listen to the flight crew. Like it or not, when you are on the plane, it is not supposed to be 'fair". When they say that you should get in your seat, you're supposed to obey.

We happen to differ over this. The way I read it, "boot the fucker off" was too stiff a penalty. Of course, if his first words to the FA were something like "This is America, I'll pray wherever and whenever I want" instead of "Sorry, I understand now, it won't happen again" then yeah, he's a lost cause, and a de-planing might do his attitude some good.

[Darth Wong]

First of all, I seriously doubt that that's what the FA did. If I had to guess, I'd say that a firm but polite "Excuse me, sir, you need to return to your seat now, please" would have been the first bullet in the gun, with physical contact a little further down the list.

Irrelevant to the point, fucktard. You're acting as if a lot of concentration is required in order to understand that kind of instruction, so if he was thinking about something else, he couldn't have comprehended it. That's bullshit of the highest order. The exact phrase the flight attendant used is immaterial as long as it doesn't require concentration to understand.

We happen to differ over this.

Yes we do. If that's your only point, then just leave it at that instead of pretending that there's anything more, because there isn't. I've seen your arguments and they ALL either butcher logic or appeal to your personal subjective sense of what you think the flight attendant should have done.

[Rye]

I had diarrhoea on a plane once. A sudden rush to the bogs would've been severely impeded by some beardy asshole talking to magical men in his head. There's a time and a place for that, and it's certainly not in the way of the toilets when the flight crew have asked you to sit down in your seat like a normal person.

If he were some punk teenager playing on his DS and ignoring people who were telling him to sit down, similar "insensitivity" would be wholly justified, even though a punk teenager is probably more likely to be reasoned with than someone communing with the almighty creator of the universe.

[Darth Servo]

A friend of mine is a flight attendant and she has repeatedly told me how many passengers seem to not understand the attendant's job. Many people think its to see to their comfort and serve them snacks. Its not. The attendants' number one priority is passenger safety.

People, you board a plane, you do what the flight attendant tells you. The flight attendant can essentially invoke their own version of Susan Ivanova's Babylon 5 mantra...

The Flight Attendant is GOD

If you don't like it, you can always complain to customer service after the flight.

[Darth Onasi]

A friend of mine is a flight attendant and she has repeatedly told me how many passengers seem to not understand the attendant's job. Many people think its to see to their comfort and serve them snacks. Its not. The attendants' number one priority is passenger safety.

You know, I suspect there's an amount of subconcious prejudice against flight attendants. As in "Who does this air waitress think she is, booting off a pious religious man!?"

[Singular Intellect]

A friend of mine is a flight attendant and she has repeatedly told me how many passengers seem to not understand the attendant's job. Many people think its to see to their comfort and serve them snacks. Its not. The attendants' number one priority is passenger safety.

People, you board a plane, you do what the flight attendant tells you. The flight attendant can essentially invoke their own version of Susan Ivanova's Babylon 5 mantra...

The Flight Attendant is GOD

If you don't like it, you can always complain to customer service after the flight.

But...but...what if the attendent tells you you're not allowed to wear a particular shirt? What if they tell you to strip down naked and dance for them? [/Coyote][/SCrawl]

[Darth Onasi]

But...but...what if the attendent tells you you're not allowed to wear a particular shirt? What if they tell you to strip down naked and dance for them? [/Coyote][/SCrawl]

Sounds like the opening of a bad porn movie.
Imagine if this logic were applied to law enforcement though. "If a cop can arrest us for petty theft, what if he also decides to arrest us because he doesn't like what we're wearing? Stop this abuse of power now!"

[Singular Intellect]

But...but...what if the attendent tells you you're not allowed to wear a particular shirt? What if they tell you to strip down naked and dance for them? [/Coyote][/SCrawl]

Sounds like the opening of a bad porn movie.
Imagine if this logic were applied to law enforcement though. "If a cop can arrest us for petty theft, what if he also decides to arrest us because he doesn't like what we're wearing? Stop this abuse of power now!"

Yeah, this point was made to both SCRawl and Coyote. They ignored it, or lacked the capability to understand it.

[SCRawl]

But...but...what if the attendent tells you you're not allowed to wear a particular shirt? What if they tell you to strip down naked and dance for them? [/Coyote][/SCrawl]

Sounds like the opening of a bad porn movie.
Imagine if this logic were applied to law enforcement though. "If a cop can arrest us for petty theft, what if he also decides to arrest us because he doesn't like what we're wearing? Stop this abuse of power now!"

Yeah, this point was made to both SCRawl and Coyote. They ignored it, or lacked the capability to understand it.

Point out where I made any mention at all about this line of reasoning, or shut the fuck up.

[SCRawl]

First of all, I seriously doubt that that's what the FA did. If I had to guess, I'd say that a firm but polite "Excuse me, sir, you need to return to your seat now, please" would have been the first bullet in the gun, with physical contact a little further down the list.

Irrelevant to the point, fucktard. You're acting as if a lot of concentration is required in order to understand that kind of instruction, so if he was thinking about something else, he couldn't have comprehended it. That's bullshit of the highest order. The exact phrase the flight attendant used is immaterial as long as it doesn't require concentration to understand.

The OP states that he was "saying his prayers", not merely thinking them. Do you find it easy to say something while simultaneously following another monologue? And anyways, to hammer away at that point again, my argument was that he might not have known who was addressing him, much less what he was being told.

We happen to differ over this.

Yes we do. If that's your only point, then just leave it at that instead of pretending that there's anything more, because there isn't. I've seen your arguments and they ALL either butcher logic or appeal to your personal subjective sense of what you think the flight attendant should have done.

I'd like to know where my logic went south -- for future reference -- but I don't expect you to go through eight pages of arguments to find it for me, just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Otherwise, yeah, my arguments mostly come down to that: I read the OP and my first reaction was "geez, that's a bit harsh". The passage of time and reading other arguments hasn't changed my position, though I have to say that I understand a little better where some of you are coming from.

"Sorry passengers, but we can't serve dinner right now. An Orthodox Jew is praying near the lavatories and blocking the food cart. Please wait for as long as it takes for him to complete whatever rituals he feels are important to his belief system."

"Passengers, we are encountering some turbulence. Everyone please take your seats and fasten your seatbelts immediately, unless of course you are an Orthodox Jew and engaged in some kind of prayer ritual, in which case you can ignore these instructions with impunity and if you smash your head on something due to the turbulence and sue us, I guess it's the Will of God."

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that anyone involved in this thread thinks that it's cool for people to pull the stunt that the passenger did. Clearly the passenger thought that he was okay doing it, but reality, as he found out, is rather different. I suppose it could be argued that the FA did the rest of the world -- or at least the rest of the world that read the article from the OP -- a favour: they now know that that sort of thing is very much not okay.

[General Zod]

I'd like to know where my logic went south -- for future reference -- but I don't expect you to go through eight pages of arguments to find it for me, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Your logic went south the moment you relied on your "gut instinct" to determine that it was harsh rather than anything resembling logic as to why it actually was harsh. When your argument boils down to "but, but, but, but. . . .I THINK IT'S HARSH, SHE COULD'VE BEEN LENIENT!!!111!!", then frankly there's really zero logic involved.

[Kanastrous]

I'd like to know where my logic went south -- for future reference -- but I don't expect you to go through eight pages of arguments to find it for me, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Your logic went south the moment you relied on your "gut instinct" to determine that it was harsh rather than anything resembling logic as to why it actually was harsh. When your argument boils down to "but, but, but, but. . . .I THINK IT'S HARSH, SHE COULD'VE BEEN LENIENT!!!111!!", then frankly there's really zero logic involved.

Now kneel before Zod.

[Singular Intellect]

Sounds like the opening of a bad porn movie.
Imagine if this logic were applied to law enforcement though. "If a cop can arrest us for petty theft, what if he also decides to arrest us because he doesn't like what we're wearing? Stop this abuse of power now!"

Yeah, this point was made to both SCRawl and Coyote. They ignored it, or lacked the capability to understand it.

Point out where I made any mention at all about this line of reasoning, or shut the fuck up.

You didn't make any mention of that line reasoning, thus you had ignored it previously. Thanks for proving my point for me.

[Darth Onasi]

You didn't make any mention of that line reasoning, thus you had ignored it previously. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Of course others have made that argument, but not mentioning it at all hardly constitutes ignoring it, if it was never specifically his argument to begin with.

[Singular Intellect]

You didn't make any mention of that line reasoning, thus you had ignored it previously. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Of course others have made that argument, but not mentioning it at all hardly constitutes ignoring it, if it was never specifically his argument to begin with.

Ah, my bad then. I mistunderstood and thought he had ignored the police officer arguement itself where it's demostrated you should be obeying one that issues you valid orders.

Sorry SCRawl.

[SCRawl]

I'd like to know where my logic went south -- for future reference -- but I don't expect you to go through eight pages of arguments to find it for me, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Your logic went south the moment you relied on your "gut instinct" to determine that it was harsh rather than anything resembling logic as to why it actually was harsh. When your argument boils down to "but, but, but, but. . . .I THINK IT'S HARSH, SHE COULD'VE BEEN LENIENT!!!111!!", then frankly there's really zero logic involved.

The fact that I relied on subjective judgement to take a position is not a failure of logic. You can't use pure logic to determine whether or not the FA's decision was the correct one. At some point, subjective judgement has to be applied. One looks at the situation, considers the evidence on both sides, and makes a decision.

Actually, my first thoughts about this incident were "Crap, it probably took longer to get the guy off the plane than any delay he could have possibly caused" or something to that effect.

[SCRawl]

You didn't make any mention of that line reasoning, thus you had ignored it previously. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Of course others have made that argument, but not mentioning it at all hardly constitutes ignoring it, if it was never specifically his argument to begin with.

Ah, my bad then. I mistunderstood and thought he had ignored the police officer arguement itself where it's demostrated you should be obeying one that issues you valid orders.

Sorry SCRawl.

Accepted. Let's file it under "shit happens".

[General Zod]

The fact that I relied on subjective judgement to take a position is not a failure of logic. You can't use pure logic to determine whether or not the FA's decision was the correct one. At some point, subjective judgement has to be applied. One looks at the situation, considers the evidence on both sides, and makes a decision.

Are you intentionally being retarded? You asked people to point out where your logic was faulty. BY DEFINITION relying on subjective judgment is a fault in logic. If you can't use logic to determine whether or not their decisions were correct then what the fuck is the point in arguing over it?

[General Zod]

I'll put it another way. . .can anybody arguing in favor of the asshole who got himself thrown off so much as give me a coherent reason why getting thrown off and put onto a different flight was too harsh besides the fact that there may have been other options available?

[Ghost Rider]

9 pages of this shit, when Broomstick made it fucking clear why what happened on page 2?

But the most salient point of entire post(read it and then come back because at this point, both SCrawl and Coyote are being nimrods because they want to).

The "spirit of regulation", as you put it, is to obey the flight crew at all times. If they ask you to sit down you sit down. Now. Because it's not a request, it's an order, even if there is a "please" and sweet voice attached to it. The "spirit" here is to prevent a problem, not wait for it to happen. An airplane is NOT a democracy.

She is absolutely right in this point. When they say "Sit down." ou don't cite "But my prayers!!!". Too fucking bad. Their property, their rules and the government of the land they derive said rules from will fucking punish them.

So unless one can come up with an OBJECTIVE reason why this was sound to say this particular fucker to disobey, shut the fuck up. I've heard all the subjective jabbering and at this point, it's post count padding.

[Darth Wong]

First of all, I seriously doubt that that's what the FA did. If I had to guess, I'd say that a firm but polite "Excuse me, sir, you need to return to your seat now, please" would have been the first bullet in the gun, with physical contact a little further down the list.

Irrelevant to the point, fucktard. You're acting as if a lot of concentration is required in order to understand that kind of instruction, so if he was thinking about something else, he couldn't have comprehended it. That's bullshit of the highest order. The exact phrase the flight attendant used is immaterial as long as it doesn't require concentration to understand.

The OP states that he was "saying his prayers", not merely thinking them. Do you find it easy to say something while simultaneously following another monologue? And anyways, to hammer away at that point again, my argument was that he might not have known who was addressing him, much less what he was being told.

"Monologue"? MONOLOGUE? A flight attendant saying "Excuse me" is a fucking MONOLOGUE now? So complex that without your full attention, you can't understand it? You are so full of shit that it's oozing out of the goddamned hair follicles on the top of your head.

We happen to differ over this.

Yes we do. If that's your only point, then just leave it at that instead of pretending that there's anything more, because there isn't. I've seen your arguments and they ALL either butcher logic or appeal to your personal subjective sense of what you think the flight attendant should have done.

I'd like to know where my logic went south -- for future reference -- but I don't expect you to go through eight pages of arguments to find it for me, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Take a GOOD look at the bullshit you spewed in the previous paragraph about how a praying person can't be expected to understand complex "monologues" like "excuse me" or "please take your seat". Not to mention your use of subjective preferences as rebuttals to statements about the rules of flying on a commercial plane.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that anyone involved in this thread thinks that it's cool for people to pull the stunt that the passenger did.

No, but some idiots think that the flight attendants should be willing to put up with this imbecile for the entire duration of his flight, when he clearly has a serious attitude problem about following the rules.

Clearly the passenger thought that he was okay doing it, but reality, as he found out, is rather different.

He found that out because he was thrown off the flight. If he was treated with kid-gloves as you demand, then he would not have learned that lesson.

[Wicked Pilot]

We happen to differ over this.

Does it make an impression on you at all that your opinion is also differing with the members of this board who are either professionals or highly knowledgeable through personal experience within the given subject matter?