Second Class citizen

The only reason you're begging us to "trust you on this one" is because you know how easy it is to defeat your case even if we barely try. You did it yourself! You pointed out that flip-flops won't give protection, so the airline would still be subject to "liability" -- defeating the case they try to make about why they won't let us board barefoot.

In "court arguments," all an airline would have to do is show that the person went willingly barefoot and assumes, naturally, the risks of doing so. The airline is also not responsible for some passenger dropping luggage on my foot. Nor is it responsible if a woman wearing sandals gets something dropped on her foot. Legally, the two scenarios are equal. Thus, there's no reason to deny barefoot passengers. Besides, I was not hiding on the first flight I took this weekend; why did they let me on then, but not on the return flight? They don't even consistently enforce this policy.

Then the airlines could easily protect their passengers from injury and themselves from liability by simply telling passengers that in addition to not being allowed to be barefoot, they also may not wear dangerous shoes.

You sound like an idiot. I don't know why you're even here. Who gives a shit if YOU don't understand why WE don't like to be told what to do and what to wear and how to be when we're not inconveniencing or harming anyone else? What if the asshole walmart manager refused to let people in because they had a fucking eyebrow ring? Would you say they should just take the eyebrow ring out for five minutes, or would you say the manager should fuck off because he's wrong to enforce his bullshit prejudices on other people when those others' choices don't affect him in the slightest?

Don't tell us that complaining about discrimination against bare feet "cheapens" so-called "real" discrimination. It's discrimination, period. And you don't seem to get it; you don't seem to get any of it.


Astaroth, you're nothing but a troll, and your rationalizations are just absurd, bullshit illogic.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

Oh, I see... "Don't ever complain or try to right a wrong unless it's a major huge deal. In the meantime, suffer quietly any indignities, no matter how unjust, other people heap on you. But if no one denied you because your skin is the wrong color or you fuck the wrong gender, you haven't been wronged."

Eat shit, man. Take your bullshit trolling and just leave.

-Jeffrey

 

Hmm... What do they look like? Do you have pictures of different styles? How much would you sell them for? I may be interested

 

Well, these are a couple that I've made....I used the smaller hemp for girls, usually, and make the guys' out of the thicker stuff. If you have any preferences as to what kind of beads and stuff, just let me know. I usually sell them for about $10, depending on the beads and how detailed I get with them.

 

If you see it as so insignificant, why are you spending so much time on it? Do something useful with yourself and pursue an issue that you think is more important.

 

Yeah, it's about time I think that we stop paying all this attention to Astaroth and wasting so much energy in all those replies. We'd better put this energy in something worthwile!

 

Jeffrey, why bother to write these long replies for such a troll like A.? He's really not worth the trouble

 

personally, i think astaroth is right on this subject. Owners of the shop have the right to decide whether or not they want their patrons to wear clothes or not. Why are you asking people to respect your wishes when you wont respect their wishes? That seems quite hypocritical, not to mention you are forcing your lifestyle on them.

I have np with people going barefoot in stores(though i wouldnt, dont want athletes foot), the owner should have the control of deicidng over his own store.

I think it is a bad argument to compare this to racial intolerance because that was clearly a violation of the constitution and the declaration of independence. People were affected over over something they had no control over.

Yes, it is stupid that airports make you take off shoes just to put them right back on, but it IS for legal reasons. While a sandal may provide you no protection if a 100 pound thing falls on you, neither would a normal shoe. It WOULD protect you from broken glass and other dangerous objects that can pierce the bareskin. It is about money, and money only that they are banned.

As much as you all want your rights to be accepted, you all need to learn to respect the rights of others too.

btw happy, those are really awesome

 

Thanks!


Actually, your chances of getting athletes foot actually decrease significantly if you are barefoot more...it thrives in gross, sweaty, enclosed places, like the shoes you wear every day but never wash. So you're better off. Also, it really strengthens the muscles in your feet, even though podiatrists will tell you that you need support here and there and buy this shoe and you'll be fine....that's just bullshit. You're healthier barefoot.

I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet, but it's got a lot of great information. I love it. And if you have kids, check out the link to the Parents for Barefoot Children site.
http://barefooters.org/

 

thats cool...i didnt know that.....but it seems the highest places of catching athletes foot seems to be in places where you are barefoot(i.e. shower/lockerroom/bathroom)....so i try not to be hehe

 

Yeah...I do wear flip flops in public showers and stuff. You don't really have to, once you get your feet conditioned to handle anything. They're really capable of pretty incredible things. But remember that 99.998757883% of the time, your feet are cleaner than the shoes that everyone else is wearing around. And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger....you can probably build up your immune system by toughing it out through that stuff. I'm not sure, though. You never know...

 

I remember when Disneyland turned people away because of long hair!'Bout the same ,I guess.I still wouldnt go there if you paid me.pricks.

 

Disneyland can be really anal about bare feet. I know someone who took his sandals off while waiting in line and the shoe police came over and told him to put his sandals back on.

I've been to other amusement parks where you can wear your bathing suit and go barefoot everywhere.

 

Well, as the 'control' theorists would say, you can control it. Just cut your hair and they will let you in. It's not discrimination.

 

it depends....barefeet/long hair can be dangerous around heavy machinery....which is what disneyland is.

 

We need to be serious. Disneyland is an amusement park, not an industrial factory. I've been to other amusement parks that don't have such policies. They shouldn't be operating a ride if it is a hazard to someone with long hair.

 

Many of these things are just societal perceptions and have nothing to do with money or lawsuits. The 'no-shirt no-service policy' is a good example. It has no connection with money and there is no threat of getting injured in a store by being shirtless. It is just a societal perception. Some areas view being shirtless as deragatory while others (like a beach town) see nothing wrong with it.

Women used to get arrested for wearing single-piece bathing suits at the beach which, by today's standards, were very conservative. One can argue that these women should have been paying respect to others and shouldn't have worn the bathing suits. Others argue that wearing them was a method of getting society to change the rules that seemed outdated.

One could also argue that Africans should have respected the law and the rights of others and continued to give up their seats on the bus (remember, they were separate but equal under the Constitution). Others would say they needed to break to rules to convince society that the rules didn't make sense. It depends on your point of view.

 

Again, the comaprison to blacks is such a bad, bad example. No where in our constitution has it ever said seperate was equal. The supreme court ruled in 1896 in plessy vs fergusson that seperate but equal was ok for the equal protection clause. Any idiot with a brain knows this was a bunch of bs and some bad judges(influenced by the public favor) ruled that it was acceptable. Our constitution makes no disctiontion between white or black.

Also, you flipped your argument from barefoot to barechested, which is something completely else. It is legitimate for companies to not want barefooters because if they step on glass THEY ARE LIABLE. You arent going to prick your stomach by crunching glass under your shoes.

It is better to compare this to women and them being allowed to show more skin. However, women cant wear bathing suits into fancy restaurants with dress cods, just like you cant wear barefeet. It is up to the owner. They set the STANDARDS for their establishment. That is their right. It would be better to argue for rights to go barefooting in public domains, not in private domains. Would you wear no shoes a friends house if they asked you not to? If not, why would you when you go to a business?

 

Yes, I'm aware of this. I was being sarcastic regarding the separate but equal clause. It shows you what type of rationalizations people will come up with to try to support a claim that doesn't make any sense. You see this same type of rationalization in other aspects of society. Businesses use the same tactics by citing fictitious health codes regarding things like bare feet or being shirtless. If it's nothing but their store policy, then they should state it that way.

 

There really are no health codes for this... therefore no rules. When they tell me it's health code and i tell them that i know the law and it's not illegal in any of the 50 states. So, since i am actually telling the truth and they can tell they ALWAYS say "Well, it's store policy." -- this is what i hope for because i get to comeback with the best, and truest (is that even a word?) line ever.. "How can i believe that? You told me before it's a *health code* and i know that's not true so why should i believe you now?" That gives me pure pleasure because they can only stutter. Usually i leave after that anyway but it's MY choice then.
peace
barefootnikki