thieving_magpie
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
I don't understand the objection to a middle ground approach here, but if that's what we want then screw it.
You can't have it both ways that you don't want a child next to you and just expect parents to spend extra money to accommodate you.
Easily pay? I assure you it isn't easy for a lot of us. The irony of your use of entitlement.
Tough luck then buddy. Have fun with the kids.
There has to be some kind of middle ground here, imo. Nobody wants to sit next to kids. Families don't want to be penalized financially anymore than they already are for providing a benefit to society. We don't need to further disincentivize families and further our declining birth rates. At the same time it's wildly unfair to ask people to switch seats when they've paid for them (or even if they haven't).
(to be clear, I don't do this personally and pay extra to sit together but I do hope people start parking their kids all over the plane since that's what we all seem to want! It's tempting.)
In all seriousness I understand your point but I think it's worth considering that you're also applying social pressure.
I couldn't guess if it did well commercially, but I know I wasn't the only kid that had it.
Could you point me to that information?
It features a panda named Stillwater who tells this story (among others) in it.
- Change your mind when new information is given, that is thinking for yourself.
- Don't change it too much, that is not thinking for yourself.
- Not changing your mind is also not thinking for yourself.
Like I say, I agree with you but the nuance here is difficult to explain.