| Immortal said: I totally saw this analogy coming, :P. Anyway, thanks to our brown skin, my family spends probably ten times as much time as most people at those immigration lines and whatnot. Is that wrong? No, of course not; it's averting risk. While I could feel very embarrassed that they are more or less implying, "look, brownie Arab terrorist" and we do often get looks from people behind us getting exasperated thanks to our processing taking so long, we rather have to deal with it. That's because, like it or not, I am far more likely to make the plane/country explode than white-skinned Mr. John Smith if you only consider my skin color, nationality and such. I can't see how this is very different; it's widely-accepted (I dunno about accurate, but that doesn't matter) that men are more dangerous than women. Therefore, not letting men sit next to unaccompanied kids is fine. The man in question really needs to not take this so personally. As for your question, I'd say the only thing wrong with that logic, if it can somehow be proved that black people are more likely to be dangerous than others, is that there's a long history of black people being unfairly treated as such and there is a hell lot more justification to take it personally and be offended. |
The problem is that it is discrimination. It is assuming that someone is guilty based on something that they have no control over. I understand your reasoning, but it is wrong to assume that a man is a pedophile because he is a man. Just because it might be more likely that he could be dangerous does not make him guilty of any sort of crime. Discrimination in any form is still discrimination, no matter how you want to justify it.
