Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

upgrd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 243 posts

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#231

Post by jules »

lutusp wrote: post #222
jules wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to deceive the captain to get this guy…

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. Yes, it requires both -- both knowledge that the statement is false, and an intent to deceive. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive" Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[nou…

Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.

You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.

1 :

a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

2 : something that misleads or deceives

3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)

By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#232

Post by chc »

lusr wrote: post #145
chc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of indicating that he did not intend to stop? You assume she lied -- probably because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really, genuinely believe to b…

Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.

This definition would seem to make it impossible to be mistaken without lying. If you're wrong, the thing you said isn't true, so it's a lie. That hardly seems like a reasonable definition.

I would bet that you say things all the time that you do not know with 100% certainty but which seem likely enough than you assume them to be true. I have never met someone who does not.

For example, have you ever told somebody that you were meeting somebody else when you were not looking right at them as you prepared to sit down for the meeting? What you actually mean is that you believe you will meet them based on your understanding of a conversation you had. You could have heard the wrong day, they could be right about to cancel, your car could break down — you get the idea.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#233

Post by [deleted] »

emn13 wrote: post #200
UweSchmidt wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The terrorists have won if [something silly happens in America]" Not really. It is political and military pressure on certain countries with high birth rates and weak economies that radicalizes young men - lift the foot from their neck and see them be as indifferent/slightly dismissive towards our lifestyle/religion like we are to theirs. Airport/aircraft security seems to be part of a trend of law enforcement in th…

Perhaps it wasn't their aim; but it's certainly a victory: they caused society to start punishing itself in some quixotic overreaction. The billions of travellers since the attacks are now constantly nervous - not of an attack anymore because the odds of that are so vanishingly small you don't seriously consider it - but of saying or doing something that some over-eager security policy has irrationally branded danger…

[deleted]

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#234

Post by jongraehl »

pudquick wrote: post #62

Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation. However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards). In addition…

> err on the side of caution

The risk avoided is ... that the FA feels annoyed while serving this guy who talked back?

It sounds like the captain also made no attempt to evaluate whether the passenger was actually crazy (making eye contact would be a start). Seems like captain is earning points w/ the FA - "you don't like the guy? I'll throw him off".

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#235

Post by specialist »

pudquick wrote: post #62

Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation. However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards). In addition…

You were kicked off for acting odd.

He oddly took a picture of his seat, as he'd oddly done numerous times before. He oddly got embarrassed by being singled out for oddly not knowing that an oddly common benign act is now regarded as odd. He oddly felt the need to clear the air. When punished for acting oddly human, he oddly pointed out that he oddly felt that he had been maligned.

Yes, travel blogger was acting quite odd.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#236

Post by andrewfelix »

megablast wrote: post #181
andrewfelix wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak from experience. In the past when I've been caught doing something illegal or improper, I've been let off by being respectful and apologetic. Courtesy, respect and humility goes a long way.

I guess you can try to compare stealing cookies at home to be told by the pilot to get off the plane. There is no way this was being reversed. Once it gets to that stage, it is too late.

Could you be any more condescending?

I was referring to things like illegal turns and disorderly behaviour.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#237

Post by lutusp »

jules wrote: post #231
lutusp wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. Yes, it requires both -- both knowledge that the statement is false, and an intent to deceive. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive" Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[nou…

Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking. You are also selectively quoting from…

Here's what you said:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.

Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#238

Post by Anechoic »

Terretta wrote: post #225
Anechoic wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, how is that willfully breaking the rules? Am I will breaking the rules here becaus I don't explicitly state that I am following HN guidelines in all my posts?

Because arguing. If, after being shown the rule, he'd STFU, this article wouldn't be here. He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store. There are now (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story) homeland security guidelines about passengers exhibiting behavior that suggests they don't or won't accept the flight attendant's authority. Flowcharting those…

He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.

Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#239

Post by jules »

lutusp wrote: post #237
jules wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking. You are also selectively quoting from…

Here's what you said: > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth. Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be…

> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.

Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.

> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason

Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.

It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

Re: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures

#240

Post by kalleboo »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #88
hermannj314 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, as a guy that only flies coach I thought "hanging your coat" means putting it on the little peg that pops out on the back of the seat in front of you / putting it in the overhead bin. I was mistaken. I didn't realize coats at the front of the plane were treated so much better than the rest of the coats. :-)

Everything is better at the front of the aircraft (except the toilets for some inexplicable reason).

Sometimes they are: on the ANA 787s (I hope they fix those soon...) the business class toilets are washlets (bidet sprayers).
Post reply on HN