Baltimore Sun's Michael Dresser TSA Apologist - Again

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    And still waiting for an answer. Have been asking this question for over two years, at venues over the blabbosphere, and still no TSA apologist will answer it. Ah, well. Guess that's an answer in and of itself.
     
  2. tobycash

    tobycash Member

    I think you've been waiting a long time for an answer because it's a silly question that you could have answered on your own using google:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

    I'm not saying these things justify the extensive security that one must go through in order to board a plane - just that your question is silly.

    In terms of all of you lot going on about your rights under the constitution:

    you have the right not to be searched like this, it's in your constitution that you don't have to get on no godam plane (to Quote BA - not the airline). If you were in some way forced to travel on a plane I could understand this argument, but you simply are not forced to travel by plane.

    I think you have to be consistent when you argue the constitution - you have a right to keep and bear arms, so why not argue that you should be able to carry a pistol onto a plane? - no one with any sanity would. Your weapons should not be allowed on a plane - not to protect you, but to protect me. A lot of people who have the legitimate right to bear arms do stupid things with them and I think we can all agree that this is best kept out of a pressurised cabin at 40,000 feet (where the owner should have no reasonable need of the weapon)

    The difference here is common sense - it doesn't make sense to carry a gun on a plane, it does make for good common sense to check passengers thoroughly before they get on a plane. What the majority of you lot seem to be saying is that because a few TSA officials don't pat down correctly the whole practice should be stopped and that you should be inately trusted as an american citizen, when what you should be saying is that officers should be better trained. The argument turns from stop everything to train better - which is a little more legitimate and reasonable.

    A load of people are complaining about some random person touching them in a "private place" - what is the world coming to? are you so scared of contact that anyone touching a breast is instantly a pervert? come on - there is a difference between being searched and being molested - occasionally a bad dentist will grope a patient when they are on gas - we don't call for an end to dentistry, we call for an end to that particular dentist.

    There is also a lot of fighting arguments with unrelated argumentshere too - that's the kind of thing children do - "your toy sucks, well your mum sucks" the sucky-ness of someone's mum doesn't stengthen your position about the toy.
    an example here:
    "
    Taking off shoes? Having someone's gloved hands touch your body? C'mon, give me a break. You and people like you make me giggle.

    this says it all. you have become so desensitized about what your doing you have no way to empathize with how people react to those gloved hands over their breasts, genitals, and buttocks, by force and duress. This lack of empathy is what typifies sociopaths. I guess we should be grateful that you aren't performing virginity checks yet. "

    Bart doesn't see a pat down as a big deal therefore he's a sociopath who is probably out to finger our virgins! (when in reality, he probably can empaphise with the majority of people who don't actually mind someone touching them in a non-sexual way, just not with those who do)

    you should probably all read these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy at least the top three before ever posting again.

    hope you like my first post.
     
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Talk about missing the point. Or two or three or four.

    No time to repeat arguments we've made here umpteen times before addressing everything you've brought up and then some. Spend some time reading past threads to get up to speed.
     
  4. tobycash

    tobycash Member

    lolz you were just saying how no-one answered your post - I just did.. talk about missing the point!
     
  5. I live in Alaska. My medical insurance has switched to a "centers of excellence" system where, should anyone in my family need a major surgery (which my husband may in the next year or so), it is cheaper for them to fly us to the lower 48 for the surgery than have it done up here. So that is what they will be covering from now on. In that situation I am forced to fly.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Phoebe, tobycash will just tell you that "you lot" have the choice of dying instead.
     
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Do you by chance have ties to TSA, or would you be ashamed to answer that question?
     
  8. Yep, I suspect you're right. Is tobycash British, do you think? He also said "your constitution." Isn't there a Brit over at "the other place" who likes to flame on like this?
     
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    "You lot" is a British locution. Other than that, I don't know anything about him (except he clearly likes to flame).
     
  10. Lisa Simeone likes this.
  11. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Good catch, Lisa! Our new troll is posting from Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.

    We'll keep an eye on the noise-to-signal ratio. :D

    Probably had too much Marmite on his cookie this morning.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  12. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Too much Yorkshire in his pudding...:rolleyes:
     
  13. I suspect his bangers got mashed at a checkpoint somewhere (and he liked it!).
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  14. tobycash

    tobycash Member

    of course I'm english, although the geo-ip-location is somewhat out. I thought you'd all get that from my correct placement of full stops (periods). I came to this topic as a non-american who has passed through many checkpoints in America. Whilst I think the level of security is a symptom of a desire by your government to engender fear in it's citizens to enable them to control you, the arguments raised on this board are so childish that should they ever draw the attention of someone with the power or inclination to change anything, your board and it's bickering would be ignored.

    You all seem to be arguing from an extremely personal standpoint and while this is fine in conversation, it's not going to help your cause very much. It's not the individual members of the TSA that are at fault here - they get instructed on how to behave and what mandate they have by your government - it's the system that you should be attacking. The prevailing thesis seems to be that you want a balance of civil liberties vs safty, but the way you are framing your arguments implies that you believe your civil liberties always come first, when the fact is - they don't. The reason they don't is that you are in a plane with 200 other people that is flying over 1000 other people, all of whom have some right to protection. Arguments such as "he's a bad TSA agent, so all TSA agents are bad" are just dumb. You'd all be better off asking yourself why this state of fear is happening and going after the root causes of that.

    The simple fact is that the great majority of people don't mind being patted down, or subjected to screening procedures as it seems that the security measures are working, and they are willing to trade a bit of discomfort for more safty in aviation.

    Where america has gone wrong in its quest for moral highness is this new assertion that it is somehow disgusting for one human to touch or see another's (digitally naked) body and that any adult who pats down a child is a paedophile. I'm not sure how it is bad for an adult to pat down a child in a non-sexual way, or a woman to touch another woman in a non sexual way in the conduct of their job. The same kind of hysterical political correctness is happening in the UK, but to a much lesser extent and frankly, statistically it's madness - there are he same number of sexual deviants as there have ever been, and the same mechanisms to deal with them.

    I love the fact that Phoebe thinks I'm gay because I don't think someone is sexually feeling me up when they are patting me down - it's the perfect illustration of my point. He must be gay, he doesn't think like me. (oh and BTW - you should probably be campaigning against your medical provider (or just change provider!) - if only for the environmental damage caused by flying people around for surgery)
     
  15. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    tobycash, I don't know if you are determined to miss the point here, but you have a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of American politics, government, and the Constitution.

    Might I suggest that before you come on this board and lecture people on what civil liberties are, what they should be, and from what standpoint they should be argued, that you invest a little time and forethought in getting the basic principles down first.

    Not one active member of this board is arguing for an absence of security. Not one active member of this board is arguing civil liberties above all else. You've missed it. You've missed it entirely. The US Constitution is so beautifully and painstakingly constructed as to allow for effective government and protection without hampering anyone's civil liberties. The fact of the matter is that time and time again the government uses fear to conveniently ignore these limits placed upon it. You see, the Constitution doesn't give the People rights, it grants the government limited (n.b. limited) powers. So your argument that there is no right to fly is fundamentally flawed. The People have a fundamental right to travel in any manner we choose. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

    This nonsense that we think it's disgusting for another person to touch us is no more hysterical than the point Lisa correctly tried to raise earlier. If there are terrorists around every corner, why only now is the TSA implementing such stupid, ineffective, and barbaric procedures?

    And I don't see phoebepontiac calling you gay. Sensitive much? I see phoebepontiac guessing that you like having your bits squeezed. Straight dudes like that too.

    And, no, going to the doctor is vastly different than going through an airport checkpoint. As a doctor, I find your correlation here both offensive, and symptomatic of your underlying cluelessness.

    Welcome to TUG, BTW. In the future you might find that you have a more genteel discussion if you don't come off as an aggrandizing (expletive deleted).
     
    Doober, DeafBlonde and Lisa Simeone like this.
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Again, we've already addressed all these claims (including some of your mischaracterizations of our arguments) here (and in other venues such at TSA News), more times than I can count. Using empirical evidence, risk assessment, statistical analysis, historical fact, and logic. Apparently that's not enough.

    If others want to repeat the arguments again, have at it. I don't have the energy.

    (And the implication that because she made a wisecrack Phoebe thinks you're gay is inane.)
     
  17. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    P.S. And Stephen G----, I certainly hope "tobycash" isn't you. If so, well, your debating skills have dropped since your college days. (Sorry, can't remember if you went to Oxford or Cambridge. Heresy, I know.)
     
  18. Pathos is as relevant to an argument as logos and ethos. In fact, when we're talking to our fellow citizens, a personal standpoint is often the most useful.

    And BTW, I was just trying to make a bangers and mash joke. Those things are time honored. :)
     
  19. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    It's interesting, though, isn't it that even though apparently the "pat downs" aren't sexual in nature, and that we're the ones all up in arms because we don't want our genitals handled, that that is precisely where the arguments go for these "oh, why are so you prudish? It's just a pat down, like going to the doctor's office!" people? I mean, really. The lady doth protest too much.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    @tobycash:
    Wrong. The majority of travelers don't believe that the TSA is doing anything to keep them safe but they put up with being groped and scanned because they need/want to get to their destination. If everyone who believed the TSA is useless would stop flying, the airlines would implode and the TSA would be gone in the wink of an eye.
     
    Lisa Simeone and barbell like this.

Share This Page