Are you serious? You cannot be serious.

11/25/2010 10:26:03 AM

I am dead fucking serious, I have no respect for half-men like yourself who walk around programmed by propaganda. Think for yourself and join the rest of us as fully formed human beings with some measure of executive control over belief-formation.

Think about it; no good arguments for your position. None. You've provided us with nothing, just "it may catch stupid terrorists from the past". Yet this lack of evidence or argumentation doesn't phase you one bit, and you insist on handing over your rights. For PERCEIVED safety (only perceived as such by those who are committed to being deceived such as yourself).

If people like you and your masters aren't my enemies, then who the fuck is?

Also let me take this opportunity to address the OP: go fuck yourself you milquetoast liberal.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 10:30:51 AM

Ever try bowling? Or golf? I've heard they're great for relieving stress and anxiety.

11/25/2010 10:35:40 AM

You worry about your own damn self. Because I'm currently worked up over the sad state of pants-pissing-cowardice in my country means I don't know how to relax? Check your head, you don't know shit.

11/25/2010 10:37:41 AM

For realz, playa.

11/25/2010 10:38:53 AM

Keep fucking around like it doesn't matter, you fucking moron. Yuck it up.

People like you should be herded into a time machine and teleported to some pre-enlightenment culture. You do not deserve the cultural inheritance earned by thinkers whose sacrifices and efforts your authoritarian nonsense will eventually erase.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 10:40:28 AM

+1 for McDanger.

11/25/2010 10:41:47 AM

I promise, McDanger, that I know more than you about every subject discussed in this thread, including Enlightenment philosophy, authoritarianism, airport security, time machines, and wretches. When you take your medication, and are prepared to have a reasonable conversation, I might consider discussing these things with you. Until then, if you want to continue channeling your populist rage in my direction, feel free. It's pretty fucking hilarious, if nothing else. But at some point you might consider why it is that I don't take you seriously. Or don't.

11/25/2010 11:07:22 AM

Quote :

"I promise, McDanger, that I know more than you about every subject discussed in this thread, including Enlightenment philosophy, authoritarianism, airport security, time machines, and wretches."

Claiming it doesn't make it so. Your ability to reason is too poorly developed for what you said to be true. If you knew your shit with respect to literally anything, then you would demand real reasons and strong, sound reasoning.

This entire thread you've done nothing but demonstrate your low epistemic standards. Abysmally low. Hilariously low. Authority doesn't require justification, evidence, or reasoning that's accountable to the people according to you. Because of this, I am compelled to believe you are lying about having carefully read any philosophy at all. Nobody is stupid enough to make it through a careful study of modern political philosophy retaining your standards, beliefs, and habitual mental blunders.

You see, I know you're bullshitting me because studying philosophy carefully isn't like studying some factual subject carefully. It improves your epistemic habits; it's like training your rational mind. It's intellectual self-defense. You're in here slap fighting and getting manhandled by any goon in a suit; what would any reasonable, informed individual conclude? You should pound alt+f4 immediately if you remotely give a fuck about yourself, and spend the next 100 times you would have gone on TWW reading instead.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 11:22:33 AM

Point to one logical error I've made in this thread.

11/25/2010 11:24:33 AM

"Logical error"? How about the rational error of surrendering for no gain? How about the rational error of allowing somebody else to program your attitudes and beliefs without even an attempt to build a strong argument based on the facts?

Again, I'm going to keep saying it until anti-American, ignorant mouth-breathers like you get it. Liberty is important. Privacy is important. Rights are important. When these are infringed upon, it MUST BE JUSTIFIED IN PROPORTION TO THE SEVERITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT. Nothing you or any of your masters have said even attempt to justify these procedures. They don't work. Everybody knows they don't work, even the people you slavishly and foolishly defend.

"I MUST MAKE MICHAEL CHERTOFF RICH AT ALL COSTS"

Wake up. Please. I feel bad for you. Wake the fuck up. Sheep like you are the worst; you're convinced you're alpha wolves.

11/25/2010 11:28:23 AM

Quote :

"They didn't deter Abdulmutallab."

His flight didn't originate in the US. Now you're going to have to enforce TSA standards everywhere in the world or bar flights originating from those airports. You've just damaged our own airlines industry and all it took was a failed inept terrorist with some clever handlers who steered him through all the holes in the security plan (of which this machine wouldn't fill). Congrats! You're doing their work for them!

Quote :

"They might as well cross their fingers and pray if that's their strategy."

How many times have I posted and you keep willfully ignoring the fact that these scanners are WAY down the chain of defense against these scum? We don't have to cross fingers and pray. Our current measures are more than effective. Even if this guy had succeeded, my odds of dieing from many other things in life are vastly higher than from a terrorist bomber.

Quote :

"And from their perspective, the Internet-fueled backlash over these new machines is absolutely nothing compared to the outrage they'll see when a passenger jet explodes over Boston"

It's a good thing our track record is so god damned good we don't need these machines.

Quote :

"I don't claim to be an expert in airport security."

You're certainly acting like it.

Quote :

"Perhaps there are more effective ways to detect and deter would-be terrorists."

Again, it already exists.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 11:31:37 AM

Quote :

"How about the rational error of surrendering for no gain?"

I don't feel that I've surrendered anything of significance. And I do gain something: peace of mind, plus whatever security benefit that is gained by the use of scanners that can detect bombs underneath clothing. Reasonable people can debate whether this trade-off is worth it. Unreasonable people will throw tantrums and howl about police states.

Quote :

"How about the rational error of allowing somebody else to program your attitudes and beliefs without even an attempt to build a strong argument based on the facts?"

Actually, I've drawn my conclusion, tentative as it is, by consulting my own feelings about modesty, by reading reams of articles on the subject (both as part of my job and out of personal curiosity), and by talking to several mid- to upper-level TSA and DHS officials who are in a position to something about the issue.

Quote :

"You've just damaged our own airlines industry and all it took was a failed inept terrorist with some clever handlers who steered him through all the holes in the security plan (of which this machine wouldn't fill). Congrats! You're doing their work for them!"

Last I read, there had not been a drop-off in air traffic since the implementation of these procedures. In fact, air travel is forecast to be up this year, if I recall correctly. Certainly, whatever effect these procedures have on the airline industry is minuscule compared to the effect of a successful terrorist attack. Look it up.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2010 11:34:49 AM

Quote :

"Actually, I've drawn my conclusion, tentative as it is, by consulting my own feelings about modesty, by reading reams of articles on the subject (both as part of my job and out of personal curiosity), and by talking to several mid- to upper-level TSA and DHS officials who are in a position to something about the issue. "

Then you realize these scanners will increase the death toll? Or are you just incapable of statistical inference or reasoning probabilistically?

Everything you've said in this thread amounts to nothing more than empty propaganda. Give me an actual argument. An actual fact, a sound inference. You keep failing, yet you're so confident you're right. Why?

This is why I don't buy your "I read philosophy" bullshit. You cannot think.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 11:51:07 AM

Oh, I apologize, I thought you had critical thinking skills.

These scanners would only (theoretically) stop Abdulmutallabs if they were actually installed in airports outside the jurisdiction of the United States where he flew from. The only way we can enforce this is by telling other countries we won't let flights to our country unless they have them. It just so happens, our own airline industries are flying people from some of these connections. So, unless you can convince foreign governments to install the same machines we do, you've just taken revenue out of our industries. Give yourself a pat on the back, the terrorists won!

11/25/2010 11:52:50 AM

Quote :

"Give me an actual argument. An actual fact, a sound inference. You keep failing, yet you're so confident you're right. Why?"

I've made my argument several times, and have provided the necessary facts. Fact: People have tried to explode planes with explosives hidden under their clothing. Fact: These scanners see under clothing. As I've said, there is plenty to debate about as to whether this is the best way to combat this particular threat. But it seems fairly reasonable, just based on those two facts.

But this isn't what has your panties in a bunch, anyway. Your hysterical reaction to these procedures, as well as to anyone who has the audacity not to be terrified by them, revolves around some half-baked association between them and an emergent police state. You're every crackpot anarchist protesting the WTO right now. It's stupid. And boring.

11/25/2010 8:52:00 PM

Quote :

" Fact: People have tried to explode planes with explosives hidden under their clothing. Fact: These scanners see under clothing. As I've said, there is plenty to debate about as to whether this is the best way to combat this particular threat. But it seems fairly reasonable, just based on those two facts."

Shoebomber originated in paris, underwear bomber originated in Amersterdam.

What you're saying is that it would be reasonable to build a mote inside your castle to keep invaders out.

11/25/2010 9:01:18 PM

I'm sure even a moron could find the error in that lousy bit of reasoning.

11/25/2010 9:11:13 PM

you got me, i spelled "moat" wrong

11/25/2010 9:34:11 PM

Quote :

"Fact: People have tried to explode planes with explosives hidden under their clothing. Fact: These scanners see under clothing."

Fact: People have always tried to commit murder with weapons hidden under their clothing. In fact, this was even prior to 9/11 a common method for getting a weapon or bomb aboard a plane.

Fact: Despite this, we don't require you to submit yourself to x-rays or sexual molestation every time you enter a school, a federal building, a court house, a bus, a train, the olympic games, the UN building, a parade, a movie theater or any number of other places where large numbers of people gather and all of which have been the sites of some form of mass killing if not outright terrorism.

Is it not possible that perhaps these new techniques are not actually making us safer and are in fact just another example of people with authority assuming that they have the right to do whatever they want to us since they are the ones with guns? As I said before, there need be no conspiracy for this to be both an encroachment of civil rights and liberties and a bad precedent to set. What pray tell shall we do when they start hiding bombs in their body cavities?

Further if there already exists technology which allows us to discover explosives hidden under clothing, does not require as I have said either exposing citizens to unnecessary x-rays, sexual molestation, and doesn't require a complete rewiring of the way our brains work, and still the government chooses to ignore these well known and well established technologies for a new, unproven, invasive and harmful technology, is it really so unreasonable that people object?

11/25/2010 9:36:47 PM

Civilian, stop resisting.

11/25/2010 10:33:23 PM

Quote :

"Is it not possible that perhaps these new techniques are not actually making us safer and are in fact just another example of people with authority assuming that they have the right to do whatever they want to us since they are the ones with guns? As I said before, there need be no conspiracy for this to be both an encroachment of civil rights and liberties and a bad precedent to set. "

Yet you've just postulated a theory that says the federal government has implemented a policy under the guise of security when, in fact, their real motive is basically to fuck with us. This is conspiracy-minded claptrap. As is this:

Quote :

"sexual molestation"

This implies that the motive behind these procedures is sexual in nature, which is asinine.

Quote :

"we don't require you to submit yourself to x-rays or sexual molestation every time you enter a school, a federal building, a court house, a bus, a train, the olympic games, the UN building, a parade, a movie theater"

A lot of those building do have pretty rigorous security procedures. And I would not be surprised to see some of these screening methods employed there, especially if these buildings become as big of a target for Islamist radicals as the airline industry currently is.

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ]

11/26/2010 10:40:39 AM

Why aren't they targets now? You (and generally everyone else) is showing a fundamental lack of understanding about terrorists intentions. They should know by now that these things are relatively unguarded compared to the airlines, yet outside of a disgruntled dude that had no clue how to build a bomb (and failed), they haven't attempted any attacks outside of the airlines. Why?

It seems it would take no more than 3-5 home grown suicide bombers to go blow themselves up in a highly visible place (sports stadium, big mall, you name it) to instill the same kind of fear from getting blown out of the sky. And yet, they don't.

Again, we can conclude that all our other counter measures that act long before someone has a chance to get to the airport are highly effective and we don't need additional capability, especially when it comes at a price of liberty and inconvenience.

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/26/2010 11:27:34 AM

I'm not really understanding what you're saying there. It is a fact that terrorists have spent a disproportionate amount of time and energy trying to attack airplanes. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes they don't. Sometimes they come very close to succeeding, but fail due to some minor mistake. Sometimes the plots are foiled by law enforcement before they become operational. All these things are true. But none of them lead to the logical conclusion that we shouldn't increase airport security. Certainly none of them lead to the conclusion that increasing airport security must be the work of a tyrannical police state trying to get its rocks off by looking at or touching your private parts.

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/26/2010 11:45:57 AM

Quote :

"Yet you've just postulated a theory that says the federal government has implemented a policy under the guise of security when, in fact, their real motive is basically to fuck with us."

Not at all. I said nothing to their real motives. I imagine their real motive is to provide the illusion of security since the reality is they have no idea how to provide real security. That doesn't mean that they don't feel they have a right to do whatever they want to us in order to provide this illusion and secure their re-elections. Again, you need to ascribe malice to something which is more easily explained as simple human nature as demonstrated throughout the entire course of human history.

Quote :

"This implies that the motive behind these procedures is sexual in nature, which is asinine. "

Not at all, motive does not play into it. The actions being taken here would be sexual assault if performed by any other government or private employee of any organization. Since it would be a crime by anyone else, it seems simple enough to conclude it's still a crime here, just a crime perpetrated under the guise of being "necessary for the security of the state". Again, history shows us time and again that the motivation for an oppressive government is almost always "necessity".

Quote :

"A lot of those building do have pretty rigorous security procedures."

For most of those buildings, the most rigorous security is a metal detector and an old cop, you know, the same stuff that has served the airlines plenty well in the past.

Quote :

"And I would not be surprised to see some of these screening methods employed there, especially if these buildings become as big of a target for Islamist radicals as the airline industry currently is. "

And they would be as much of a waste there as well. The problem with our "security" policy is simply that it is both ineffective and invasive. Each new TSA policy since its inception has been a direct response to an attack previously carried out. In other words, not a single TSA policy has been proactive. The TSA is the equivalent of the coach who sets up his defense to react not to the likely reality of the situation, but to the last play the opposing team ran. And the TSA is losing for the same reason that coach will.


Lastly, the argument that trumps any argument you can possibly make. Amendment IV of the United States Constitution reads:

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What reasonable probable cause can the government articulate to search me? There is no exception there to state that the right shall not be violated, except if some brown people make us scared. There is no exception that the right shall not be violated unless everyone is subject to the same violation.

So tell me, what probable cause does the government have to search me?

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/26/2010 11:50:41 AM

Do alert Mulder and Scully.

11/26/2010 11:56:17 AM

Quote :

"Sometimes they succeed"

No. Not since we realized they were actually capable have they succeeded. This is without needing new expensive scanners and junk touching.

Quote :

"Sometimes they come very close to succeeding, but fail due to some minor mistake"

We don't know how close.

Quote :

"Sometimes the plots are foiled by law enforcement before they become operational."

Well, now we have a conundrum. Either there aren't many plots nullifying the need for new procedures and expensive scanners or there are and it's just the plots are being foiled, also nullifying the need.

Quote :

"But none of them lead to the logical conclusion that we shouldn't increase airport security."

Point taken. The most logical way to secure our airlines is simply to end the airline industry as the only real effective way to keep attacks from happening.

11/26/2010 12:02:28 PM

Quote :

"Not since we realized they were actually capable have they succeeded. "

You're not suggesting 9/11 was the first time terrorists successfully attacked an airplane, are you?

Quote :

"We don't know how close."

Um, we know precisely how close. I imagine Wikipedia could be of use here.

Quote :

"Either there aren't many plots nullifying the need for new procedures and expensive scanners or there are and it's just the plots are being foiled, also nullifying the need."

I said "sometimes" the plots are foiled before becoming operational.

Quote :

"The most logical way to secure our airlines is simply to end the airline industry as the only real effective way to keep attacks from happening."

Because there is no such thing as a middle ground, where threats are reduced as much as possible without making air travel too much of a hassle to be worthwhile.

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2010 12:13:07 PM

Quote :

"It seems it would take no more than 3-5 home grown suicide bombers to go blow themselves up in a highly visible place (sports stadium, big mall, you name it) to instill the same kind of fear from getting blown out of the sky. And yet, they don't."

I've often wondered why this has never been part of "the plan." It wouldn't even need to take a big place to make an impact.

A couple walmarts, grocery stores or credit unions in a random swash of bodunk middle-of-nowhere midwestern towns would be "highly visible" due to 24/7 news cycle and could really ramp up paranoia.

Course I guess all it took was 9/11 for "Bleed Until Bankruptcy" to work. We took care of the rest.

11/26/2010 12:25:58 PM

Quote :

"Do alert Mulder and Scully."

You don't get it do you? The seeds of oppression and tyranny are never planted out of maliciousness. The seeds are planted long before out of "necessity" and good intentions, and are what give the malicious the powers they exploit when they come to power.

^ I imagine there are multiple parts to this. Assuming the the goal is actually striking terror into people rather than kill counts, airlines have multiple things going for them that make them juicier targets. For one, there's nowhere to run on an airplane. Although it's silly and irrational, I bet most people would feel safer with an attack in an open setting like a wal-mart simply due to the belief (however flawed) that they might get away. More than anything else, I bet the idea of being trapped hundreds of stories above the earth with a raging inferno below and the choice of jumping to your death or burning alive is probably the scariest part of 9/11 for most people these days. We like the illusion of control, even if we really don't have it ... hence the TSA.

Secondly, I imagine that since the TSA is worthless, it invokes more fear to continue attacking that which we keep trying to make safer than that which we already know isn't safe. Think of a horror movie, it isn't the monster breaking through the thin plywood wall that scares us, it's the one that gets through 3 layers of concrete, 7 steel doors, 50 vicious hounds, 5 tanks, and the impenetrable laser defense grid that really scares us.

11/26/2010 1:16:55 PM

What would be more terrifying to Joe USA than random terror attacks on McDonald's in small towns across America?

11/26/2010 1:46:30 PM

Quote :

"You're not suggesting 9/11 was the first time terrorists successfully attacked an airplane, are you?"

Quote :

"Um, we know precisely how close."

Oh, so now it just depends on the definition of "close", right? They both were inept and couldn't detonate their weapons. So, not very.

Quote :

"I said "sometimes" the plots are foiled before becoming operational. "

And what about the times they aren't foiled? They...blew up planes? Are you starting to realize how stupid you are?

Quote :

"Because there is no such thing as a middle ground, where threats are reduced as much as possible without making air travel too much of a hassle to be worthwhile. "

For the nth time that you're ignoring...WE ALREADY HAVE THAT MIDDLE GROUND YOU TROLLING ASSHAT.

11/26/2010 1:55:17 PM

Quote :

"What would be more terrifying to Joe USA than random terror attacks on McDonald's in small towns across America?"

Random terror attacks on the plans that Joe USA's grand kids use to fly and visit him, despite the TSA assuring us that they're perfectly safe because everyone has been groped or x-rayed and they would never mis something as obvious as two 12 inch razor blades.

11/26/2010 2:29:02 PM

We're not talking about the same thing. But I suppose that's my fault for not talking about airplanes in the TSA thread. My bad.

[Edited on November 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM. Reason : The Hun is everywhere.]

11/26/2010 5:03:15 PM