TSA mess and the police

[OceanAnnie]

Someone on here seems to think very highly of themselves demanding other people bring their thoughts to them for review and validation.

Personally, I've never met a person on this earth I felt obligated to kneel before, my kneeling is reserved for Sundays.

 

[bicker]

Finding humor in making irrelevant, passive-aggressive personal insults seems like a reflection of mob mentality to me, since it adds no value to the discussion of the issue. Or is the objective, at this point, to derail the discussion of the issue, because the points that I and others have made in opposition to the critics are too sound, too valid, and undercut the criticisms too effectively? Let's try to keep the the personal attacks out of this, please. If you want to attack something, attack the idea that there is more than one factor in this decision. Attack the idea that you haven't considered every single objective and obligation that the agency and the government has to factor in such decisions. Let's keep on-issue.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Finding humor in making irrelevant, passive-aggressive personal insults seems like a reflection of mob mentality to me, since it adds no value to the discussion of the issue. Or is the objective, at this point, to derail the discussion of the issue, because the points that I and others have made in opposition to the critics are too sound, too valid, and undercut the criticisms too effectively?

No. Finding humor in an accurate assessment.

 

[bicker]

But it isn't an accurate assessment. It's simply a personal insult probably reflecting frustration in an inability to refute a point that she doesn't like. How would you like it if I started making "accurate assessments" about you? about her? about each person who posts something contrary to what I like? We could turn the DIS into a mindless insult-fest. That's silliness, not mature discussion. And it isn't permitted here.

The reality is that I've made a good point. And you and others seem to be frustrated with that. That's all it appears to be.

 

[OceanAnnie]

But it isn't an accurate assessment. It's simply a personal insult probably reflecting frustration in an inability to refute a point that she doesn't like. How would you like it if I started making "accurate assessments" about you? about her? about each person who posts something contrary to what I like? That's silliness, not mature discussion.

The reality is that I've made a good point. And you and others are frustrated with that. Get over it.

You already have, but then you do it and don't "see it". It's okay. Just an observation. I'm not attacking you. But drawing out a point.

I'm not frustrated with your points. It's your delivery.

 

[bicker]

Sorry but I don't believe that that's the case. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Is that possible? To agree to disagree about it?

 

[LuvOrlando]

No I'm dead on accurate. I've been calling this out over & over again but the method refuses to deviate from the script.

A conversation is a 2 way street. Standing up and ripping everyone else's thoughts apart without offering anything substantive in return is not a conversation.

Absolutely disagree, it's good to disagree. If that disagreement is based on no more than feelings that's still fine, I will absolutely accept that especially on an issue that is this personal. What isn't fine is adopting a standard for oneself while holding everyone else to a different degree of accountability.

 

[bicker]

No I'm dead on accurate.

No, you're not. You're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

A conversation is a 2 way street.

Yes it is. How is your so-called "accurate assessment" in any way indicative of that? It isn't. It's non-constructive. What else is it other than self-gratifying and an effort to distract attention from good points that you don't like but cannot refute? If you insist on talking about it, then please help me understand what constructive value you are ascribing to it.

Standing up and ripping everyone else's thoughts apart without offering anything substantive in return is not a conversation.

That's ridiculously self-serving. Pointing out the lack of substantiation and legitimacy is a very important aspect of discussion. That is substance.

You yourself very clearly outlined the parameters of why your advocacy is without foundation for truly confronting the policy: You just don't like it. That's essentially what you said. That you aren't obligated to worry about all the things that the agency and the government is obligated to factor in. I respected you for admitting that, and I've even sent kudos to you for the points you made in that message several times. Now please go back and read and internalize what you said. You very effectively demonstrated why the back-seat driving is not a legitimate basis for changing anything about this policy. Just based on what you wrote.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Sorry but I don't believe that that's the case. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Is that possible? To agree to disagree about it?

Yes. We have agreed to disagree many times in the past. This will be another of those times.

It seems like we are destined to disagree about most things. And that's okay. I do enjoy reading your perspective (as well as others). It's the thing I took issue with that gets in the way, to me. I see you don't agree. And that's your choice.

 

[bicker]

Fair enough.

 

[Bell30012]

From my experience with TSA, I've found that it matters where you are. When an ATL TSA agent decided that my daughter who was four had to have a strip search, I understood the need for random searches and was willing to comply UNTIL the agent said that I could not go back there with her because I was male. No one in an airport is taking my daughter away from me. Several supervisor and agents decided that I could after all, go back with her for the search.

On the other hand we flew in/out of PVD every week and found that the TSA there were very friendly and even started kidding with my daughter and calling her by name. We were flying to/from ATL all those weeks and never experienced the same at ATL. When we fly to MCO we find that the TSA agents there are more used to dealing with families traveling. They know how to maintain security while keeping children and parents happy.

Certain places just have rude employees working for TSA while others have friendlier ones.

 

[LuvOrlando]

No, you're not. You're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Yes it is. How is your so-called "accurate assessment" in any way indicative of that? It isn't. It's non-constructive. What else is it other than self-gratifying and an effort to distract attention from good points that you don't like but cannot refute? If you insist on talking about it, then please help me understand what constructive value you are ascribing to it.

That's ridiculously self-serving. Pointing out the lack of substantiation and legitimacy is a very important aspect of discussion. That is substance.

You yourself very clearly outlined the parameters of why your advocacy is without foundation for truly confronting the policy: You just don't like it. That's essentially what you said. That you aren't obligated to worry about all the things that the agency and the government is obligated to factor in. I respected you for admitting that, and I've even sent kudos to you for the points you made in that message several times. Now please go back and read and internalize what you said. You very effectively demonstrated why the back-seat driving is not a legitimate basis for changing anything about this policy. Just based on what you wrote.

The whole point of this issue is completely self serving. I'm not an official. I am not obligated to take other people into consideration when i make choices about MY family. They are not getting my money and my kids and my body are not open for debate.

There is no getting away from the fact that this issue involves a particular set of very personal freedoms. Whether or not the methods are for the greater good is irrelevant to me because no-one gets to touch MY kids and no-one gets to expose MY kids to radiation, ANY radiation. It is unreasonable to expect people to not make this a personal issue because it is absolutely 100% a personal issue when we are talking about our bodies and our kids.

I don't know if you have kids or not but that is a fairly galvanizing point. No-on can argue the betterment of society into how i will or will not parent my children and I suspect my views on this are fairly common. Like I said before, there is a line and it's drawn around myself and my kids bodies and no-one gets to cross it. Again, I think this is a fairly common point of view.

Asking me, and anyone else to open our reasoning up to you for your personal review is inappropriate. It's not my obligation to make you see things my way. It's my obligation to parent in the best way I know how and the only person I have to answer to for that is the one I meet every Sunday when I kneel.

You keep trying to draw this out like we're talking about the pros and cons of getting a Multi-Day or Park Hopper, there is nothing cut and dry about it. It's all about feelings. Hopefully the letter of the law will side with me because I'd hate to think I'll never fly again but if that's how it goes, so be it.

 

[punkin]

No, you're not. You're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

What a lovely way to have a discussion. I'm right; you're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

bicker, I fully agree with your position except that I am right and you are wrong.

 

[bicker]

The whole point of this issue is completely self serving.

Like I said, you outlined those parameters very well earlier. In saying so, we're in "violent agreement".

I'm not an official. I am not obligated to take other people into consideration when i make choices about MY family.

Abso-friggen-lutely. I've been saying that "they" can't make the decision that way, but you absolutely are entitled to.

There is no getting away from the fact that this issue involves a particular set of very personal freedoms. Whether or not the methods are for the greater good is irrelevant to me

Again, that's absolutely and unequivocally your prerogative, but "they" are obligated to balance your personal freedoms, and how you feel about how this affects them, with the greater good. But you can, and reasonably should, be disappointed when that balancing determination runs against your personal preference - no question about that.

I don't know if you have kids or not but that is a fairly galvanizing point. No-on can argue the betterment of society into how i will or will not parent my children and I suspect my views on this are fairly common.

Very true, and as you've alluded to, I believe, parents make such decisions for their children, and so different parents may make different decisions for their children than you make for yours. These things do tend to work themselves out, even if the decision is imprecise - if more parents make the decision to stop flying, it may have impact on the industry, and that may change the parameters on which the policy decision was already made, prompting the agency to arrive at a different balance. (Of course, as I alluded to in another thread, it might actually be a good thing for the over-crowded and over-burdened airports and air-traffic control system, but that's another matter.)

Like I said before, there is a line and it's drawn around myself and my kids bodies and no-one gets to cross it. Again, I think this is a fairly common point of view.

My objection is to the terribly cynical way that many folks who agree with your personal preferences are trying to incite others away from their neutral position toward the flaming upset that some people hold in this regard. It's like they're saying, "I don't like this, so I need to do whatever I can, use whatever means available to me, including exploiting the salacious and sensationalistic media, to trick other people into being as incensed as I am." I find that kind of abuse reprehensible. I believe that the casual manner that some folks engage in that kind of exploitation is one of the most destructive factors in our society. Having just gone through the midterm elections, I'm sure most people know exactly what I'm talking about.

Asking me, and anyone else to open our reasoning up to you for your personal review is inappropriate.

And of course that wasn't what I did. Rather, I was pointing out that there were aspects of the issue that were not being considered and therefore was pointing out why the point you and others were making was not adequately defensible. Remember, critics aren't saying, "I'm making this decision for me and me alone." They are almost saying, "I'm going to try to incite anger in other people so that they will get so crazed that the government is going to be pressured into pulling back from the best decision and adopt a lesser approach, just to appease those I've incited to riot." Again, I find that kind of thing utterly reprehensible, and will speak out against it whenever it rears its ugly head. It's a cancer on our society afaic.

It's all about feelings.

But not just one side's feelings.

Hopefully the letter of the law will side with me because I'd hate to think I'll never fly again but if that's how it goes, so be it.

Personally, I think it would be a shame if some folks choose not to fly because of this, but I believe that the decisions made based on what's best for society overall are better than the decisions made based on trying to defend against mob mentality let loose.

But we can agree to disagree about that, too.

 

[bicker]

What a lovely way to have a discussion. I'm right; you're wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Hehe... Of course, I was mirroring her self-serving attempt to psychoanalyze my comments, as if by queenly fiat.

 

[JLTraveling]

Again, that's absolutely and unequivocally your prerogative, but "they" are obligated to balance your personal freedoms, and how you feel about how this affects them, with the greater good. But you can, and reasonably should, be disappointed when that balancing determination runs against your personal preference - no question about that.

And therein lies the crux of your problem with me. The definition of "the greater good." I believe that the greater good is served by civil liberties and freedoms, and you believe (or have chosen to take the position for purposes of debate) that the greater good is served by the illusion of absolute safety.

Very true, and as you've alluded to, I believe, parents make such decisions for their children, and so different parents may make different decisions for their children than you make for yours. These things do tend to work themselves out, even if the decision is imprecise - if more parents make the decision to stop flying, it may have impact on the industry.

I do believe that's the first point you and I have agreed on.

My objection is to the terribly cynical way that many folks who agree with your personal preferences are trying to incite others away from their neutral position toward the flaming upset that some people hold in this regard. It's like they're saying, "I don't like this, so I need to do whatever I can, use whatever means available to me, including exploiting the salacious and sensationalistic media, to trick other people into being as incensed as I am." I find that kind of abuse reprehensible. I believe that the casual manner that some folks engage in that kind of exploitation is one of the most destructive factors in our society. Having just gone through the midterm elections, I'm sure most people know exactly what I'm talking about.

This certainly happens in our society, but I have seen exactly zero instances of it happening on this particular thread. People on both sides have remained civil, and those of us who are speaking out the loudest against the policies have repeatedly stated that we have no issue with those who choose to remain either neutral or even in favor of the policies. I said several pages ago that I think it's important for people to be fully AWARE of the issues so that they can make their own choices. It's like the Obamacare debate--I won't turn this thread political by stating my opinions either way, but I have read every single word of the bill. Not too many arguing for or against it can say that.

And of course that wasn't what I did. Rather, I was pointing out the aspects of the issue that were not being considered and therefore was pointing out why the point you and others were making was not adequately defensible. Remember, critics aren't saying, "I'm making this decision for me and me alone." They are almost saying, "I'm going to try to incite anger in other people so that they will get so crazed that the government is going to be pressured into pulling back from the best decision and adopt a lesser approach, just to appease those I've incited to riot." Again, I find that kind of thing utterly reprehensible, and will speak out against it whenever it rears its ugly head. It's a cancer on our society afaic.

Point out exactly where someone here did that.

Personally, I think it would be a shame if some folks choose not the fly because of this, but I believe that the decisions made based on what's best for society overall are better than the decisions made based on trying to defend against mob mentality let loose.

But we can agree to disagree about that, too.

And yet again, it comes down to your specific definition of "best for society overall." Not everyone agrees with your opinion on that.

 

[bicker]

And therein lies the crux of your problem with me. The definition of "the greater good." I believe that the greater good is served by civil liberties and freedoms, and you believe (or have chosen to take the position for purposes of debate) that the greater good is served by the illusion of absolute safety.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. What I actually have said is that "the greater good" is much more complex than what you've outlined, and from how you doggedly refuse to discuss anything beyond one factor, perhaps more complex than you're willing to accept (or have chosen to accept, for purposes of debate). You've very clearly, in this message yet again, made it clear that you're insisting on looking at this whole issue solely from the very narrow lens of one criteria. The government doesn not have that luxury.

This certainly happens in our society, but I have seen exactly zero instances of it happening on this particular thread.

Go back and read the thread. Focus on words like "grope" and read through all the messages where people alluded to out how even the use of that word is a reflection of the effect of sensationalistic media on even online discussion rhetoric. Earlier in the thread there were links to photos posted that were modified from the actual in order to be as inflammatory and partisan as they possibly could be. It was not enough to post the images that the machines actually generate - the critics saw fit to change them in a way that there is no reason to think they're being changed. The trafficking in what could be done with the images, itself, is a reflection of salaciousness and sensationalism. The reasonable approach to such a thing is to show proof that the images are being misused, and the reasonable reaction to that is to punish people misusing the photos. But that's not the way the critics are addressing that aspect. Instead, they're seeking to foster irrational fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to further their cause.

People on both sides have remained civil, and those of us who are speaking out the loudest against the policies have repeatedly stated that we have no issue with those who choose to remain either neutral or even in favor of the policies.

And indeed, those of us who are speaking out against the criticisms have repeatedly stated that we have no issue with those who choose to refuse to fly due to the new security measures.

I said several pages ago that I think it's important for people to be fully AWARE of the issues so that they can make their own choices.

There is a difference between awareness of the issues, and being incited by sensationalism or fear-mongering. However, whether that is actually what's going on is something that several of us have agreed to disagree about.

It's like the Obamacare debate--I won't turn this thread political by stating my opinions either way, but I have read every single word of the bill. Not too many arguing for or against it can say that.

And even fewer can say that they read the entire bill considering the objectives and obligations of the entire government, rather than just their own personal preferences.

Point out exactly where someone here did that.

No, because that would just be used as a launching point for more discussion about the discussion. It happens, perhaps even in this thread. You are welcome to disagree.

And yet again, it comes down to your specific definition of "best for society overall." Not everyone agrees with your opinion on that.

Actually, you have yet-again missed my point: It has nothing to do with my definition of "best for society overall". My personal preferences in this are almost completely without significance, just like yours. Only collectively do such things add up to a level of significance.

Incidentally, I hate airport security so much that we're driving to Tennessee for the holidays. I've hated airport security long before this, and hate that aspect of every trip to Florida. But again, that's an insignificant factor with regard to what the TSA should be doing.

 

[JLTraveling]

And even fewer can say that they read the entire bill considering the objectives and obligations of the entire government, rather than just their own personal preferences.

And now who's putting words in whose mouth? Last I checked, you do not in fact reside inside my head. You have no concept as to what objectives or obligations I may or may not have considered. You have also failed to address the possibility that the way you see the objectives and obligations of the entire government is not the way that I see them. If there is a single, crystal clear list of objectives and obligations, then why do we have divided government in the first place? The government itself cannot agree on what its objectives and obligations are.

Actually, you have yet-again missed my point: It has nothing to do with my definition of "best for society overall". My personal preferences in this are almost completely without significance, just like yours. Only collectively do such things add up to a level of significance.

Wow, second post in a row that I've agreed with something you've said! The difference is, you have purported throughout this thread that collective agreement against the policies equivocates to "hysteria" and "mob mentality." I take the position that collective agreement is simply that--a large group of people who feel that something "the government" did is wrong. Our entire country was founded in the court of public opinion--that's the right and, according to Thomas Jefferson, the duty of a free people.

 

[C.Ann]

Before this thread gets closed (tossing around the word "government" left and right tends to make this discussion political - which is against the DIS guidelines), how do all of you feel about this big Thanksgiving boycott issue?

It's buried so far back in this thread, I don't know if there will be people at the airports boycotting - or simply not flying - and I'm too lazy to go back and look..

Personally I just choose not to fly anymore - as long as they continue to randomly select people for this new invasive/intrusive pat down.. (No personal issues with the scanner - too old to worry about radiation - LOL..) I don't feel the need to show up at an airport and boycott in person though..

How do the rest of you (who are opposed to the new pat downs) feel?

 

[JLTraveling]

I think Opt Out Day is a good idea. As I've said, I want people to be aware of the issues. I've read that a large portion of the public is not aware of the opt out possibility, or what the enhanced pat down entails. It's a good way to draw people's attention to what's going on.