TSA mess and the police

[OceanAnnie]

Cool - I am really just trying to have fun. If any of you become upset by one of my posts, I apologize. It is just in fun.

For the record - I do not consider myself to be any smarter than anyone else on this board. In fact, I have learned a great deal here. (especially from posters with whom I tend to disagree).

Likewise.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Perhaps, but that's not surprising because it shadows the perspective that they're presenting, itself, doesn't it? Very early in the thread LuvOrlando outlined her standing for making the comments she made. Very clearly she said, "My thread isn't about the big picture really. It's about me not liking what's happening here and now." I think, in the heat of the discussion -- and this applies beyond online forums - I believe it affect the overall national discussion on this -- in the heat of the discussion, many critics lose sight of this distinction that LuvOrlando made. They're projecting their own personal liking and not liking as a basis for what the big picture should be. They're asserting that the nation should be governed so as to make them like traveling, instead of governed so as to best serve the obligations and objectives of the nation.

The fact that both the government and the governed are made up of human beings makes the humanity of the issues unavoidable.

The law is logical, but the reasons behind the creation of the laws and the interpretation of those laws are anything but logical.

We can try but the two can't be separated, we're all flawed which is why respect is essential

 

[skater]

That's just it - if no offense is intended, we should just move forward. But if we have to walk around on egg shell because some posters are overly sensitive, how can we ever make topics like this fun?

I think there's a middle ground - it can be fun and respectful. I've been tempted to lash back several times (and maybe I have - this thread is too long to remember ), but I try to just ignore the attacks or respond respectfully. I think I was even called self-serving for my opinion . Anyway, I understand your point about walking on egg shells, but I still think all of us could be a little more kind. I don't mind people being sensitive - we're all made differently and that's what makes debates interesting.

 

[JLTraveling]

This thread can now be summed up easily -

You win! That is awesome!!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I think there's a middle ground - it can be fun and respectful. I've been tempted to lash back several times (and maybe I have - this thread is too long to remember ), but I try to just ignore the attacks or respond respectfully. I think I was even called self-serving for my opinion . Anyway, I understand your point about walking on egg shells, but I still think all of us could be a little more kind. I don't mind people being sensitive - we're all made differently and that's what makes debates interesting.

You are right - I went back and removed the joke. My apologies.

 

[bicker]

Even if your numbers are hypothetically correct, 10 percent of people who have traveled is statistically significant, especially when the sample size is so small to begin with.

My numbers were charitable. It is far more likely that the number of passengers "upset" is a very small percentage -- specifically an insignificant percentage.

So you should read my comments in that context, and in that context, your other comments are non-sequitur.

We've already hashed out the reality of how we'll know whether there is a significant number of people who are so negatively affected by this so as to affect their decisions, i.e., people who are not just whining for the sake of trying to exert unfounded control over the rest of society: Airline industry analysis will be watching flight bookings over the next few weeks and well before Christmas we'll know whether I'm correct or you are.

Say what you like, but I don't think the airlines are going to be thrilled if 10 percent of their 4 percent market share stops flying.

I agree. But the fact that some critics keep on trying to equivocate away the reality of how we'll know whether this is having a significant impact on bookings or not send a clear message that not even the critics truly believe that a significant number of people will be truly upset. Again, that's why the critics are principally relying on fear, uncertainty and doubt: They realize that on the merits they cannot prevail, so they're trying to distort and mislead to try to drive things their way.

I agree entirely. But somewhere along the line, someone decided that the government SHOULD engage in parenting. The entire TSA is based on the nanny state mentality. The government will protect us...

Someone? That would be Thomas Jefferson, I believe. It's not "nanny state mentality". It is "ensuring domestic tranquility".

Pot, meet kettle.

That is self-serving nonsense. I attack the concepts, not the people, like the quoted message did. Even this paragraph is a good example. I'm not referring to you in criticizing your statement here. I've labeled your comment, not you.

 

[bicker]

The fact that both the government and the governed are made up of human beings makes the humanity of the issues unavoidable.

True, but all such aspects of "the humanity of the issues" - the aspects reflective of you being a parent, and the aspects reflective of people being passengers, and the aspects reflective of people being business owners and managers, the aspects reflective of people being legislators and government officials, etc. None of those aspects gets to prevails over the others, just because it happens to be the one closest to your heart.

The law is logical, but the reasons behind the creation of the laws and the interpretation of those laws are anything but logical.

True, but laws that swing in the breeze of emotion, especially those buffeted by the winds of fabricated fear, uncertainty and doubt, are not laws at all. A society that allows the emotion of the moment to trump the logical consideration of the issue, including its emotional aspects, through defined processes of governance, rather than through salaciousness-hungry and sensationalistic media, is not a civilization but rather is an anarchy.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The new TSA measures introduce complicated and tangled legal issues.

Our legal system isn't known for efficiency. The legalities will be interesting to follow.

 

[skater]

You are right - I went back and removed the joke. My apologies.

 

[skater]

The new TSA measures introduce complicated and tangled legal issues.

Our legal system isn't known for efficiency. The legalities will be interesting to follow.

I agree. I want to hear what the courts have to say about it.

 

[JLTraveling]

We've already hashed out the reality of how we'll know whether there is a significant number of people who are so negatively affected by this so as to affect their decisions, i.e., people who are not just whining for the sake of trying to exert unfounded control over the rest of society: Airline industry analysis will be watching flight bookings over the next few weeks and well before Christmas we'll know whether I'm correct or you are.

Absolutely. I'm eagerly watching this topic throughout a variety of channels. It's a fascinating process regardless of the outcome.

I agree. But the fact that some critics keep on trying to equivocate away the reality of how we'll know whether this is having a significant impact on bookings or not send a clear message that not even the critics truly believe that a significant number of people will be truly upset. Again, that's why the critics are principally relying on fear, uncertainty and doubt: They realize that on the merits they cannot prevail, so they're trying to distort and mislead to try to drive things their way.

This is the portion of your posts in general that I have a problem with: You make unilateral statements such as "on the merits they cannot prevail," with no real justification for those statements, and then attack based on them. You believe there is no merit, I do. As you stated earlier, we will know the truth soon enough. Although I think it may end up only being fully decided by the courts, based on a constitutional challenge. The law professor I quoted earlier seems to agree with me on that.

Someone? That would be Thomas Jefferson, I believe. It's not "nanny state mentality". It is "ensuring domestic tranquility".

So you honestly believe that Thomas Jefferson would see invasive searches as merely "ensuring domestic tranquility"? Some quotes from Mr. Jefferson:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

Really read and think through those statements. Ensuring domestic tranquility does not equal a placid citizenry. The TSA and its unlimited power are fundamentally opposed to the freedoms that Jefferson held dear.

 

[bicker]

This is the portion of your posts in general that I have a problem with: You make unilateral statements such as "on the merits they cannot prevail," with no real justification for those statements, and then attack based on them.

My asserting a lack of foundation is perfectly legitimate. I realize that you might find it frustrating that you can't prove foundation for the things you put forward, but that's because there isn't such foundation. Yet again I'll refer you to what LuvOrlando said earlier in the discussion. Her criticism was founded on what she likes and doesn't like, from the standpoint of a parent. There is no basis whatsoever to expect that the airline transportation system should kowtow to her preferences as a parent. If you feel there is, then prove that (but please do understand that there isn't so you won't be able to).

You believe there is no merit, I do.

I've continually drawn the distinction between preference and merit. You have a preference. I've acknowledged that and respect it. That isn't merit. Merit is when your preference is supported by something external that we all buy-into. The law. Generally-accepted scientific proof. Logical inference.

Not personal preference.

Otherwise, let my personal preference prevail over yours -- would you be okay with that? Of course not.

So you honestly believe that Thomas Jefferson would see invasive searches as merely "ensuring domestic tranquility"?

Yes -- your abuse of Jefferson's quotes, notwithstanding. Let's look at this one:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

However, there is no despotism here, so that reference is irrelevant.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

However, there is no tyranny here, so that reference is irrelevant.

And so on. And that's really the point: You are failing to look at the issue objectively, and instead elevating your personal preference which casts what's going on into such nefarious light ("despotism", "tyranny"). These words have specific meanings, especially in the context Jefferson used them, and your petty abuse of them defiles Jefferson's intention.

Ensuring domestic tranquility does not equal a placid citizenry.

Placid? Do you think my objections to the fear-mongering going on is "placid"? It seems again that you've simply imposed your personal preference instead of merit: Because you believe it, only what you're doing is vital - and you assert that what people who disagree with you are doing is "placid". That's simply self-serving nonsense.

The TSA and its unlimited power are fundamentally opposed to the freedoms that Jefferson held dear.

The TSA's power is not unlimited. And the power they do have are not fundamentally opposed to the freedoms that Jefferson held dear.

 

[JLTraveling]

You know, bicker, I fully understand why posters tend to simply give up on you. You see the world in a very specific way, which you are entitled to do, but you have somehow determined that the way you see it is the way that it IS. If anyone challenges those deeply held beliefs, you react by trying to tear that person's arguments apart rather than explaining why yours are correct. My grandmother is the same way, and I gave up trying to argue with her years ago.

If you'd like to explain WHY I'm wrong and you're right, then go ahead. I'll listen. I don't think you will, because I've suggested that more than once (as have others) throughout this thread. But you simply asserting that I'm wrong doesn't hold a lot of water. I'm bored with you, so I'm choosing to disengage. But don't think for one second that it means you've somehow "won."

 

[bicker]

You know, bicker, I fully understand why posters tend to simply give up on you. You see the world in a very specific way

As do you. I don't know who or why anyone gives up on discussing anything with anyone, but the point is that I don't bother posting what isn't defensible (which is essentially what I'm saying you've done). That's why you may feel frustrated.

which you are entitled to do, but you have somehow determined that the way you see it is the way that it IS.

Be specific. What, precisely, are you claiming?

I've already been specific:

"There is no basis whatsoever to expect that the airline transportation system should kowtow to her preferences as a parent. If you feel there is, then prove that (but please do understand that there isn't so you won't be able to)."

Yet you haven't seen fit to address what I wrote, choosing instead trying to make it seem like you had a valid objection to it.

If anyone challenges those deeply held beliefs, you react by trying to tear that person's arguments apart rather than explaining why yours are correct.

I don't assert that my "beliefs" should prevail over others or over how society is structured, as you appear to be doing, so I never get into the sticky mess that you perhaps find yourself. Generally, my beliefs don't even need to enter into the discussion, since the issue is simply objecting to other people imposing their beliefs on others. You try to talk a good game with regard to freedom, but what you seem to be saying here runs diametrically opposite to freedom, in your trying to disparage my objections to having your personal perspective imposed on our airline transportation system through fostering fear, uncertainty and doubt, exploiting the salacious and sensationalistic media, rather than you respecting the processes our civilized society has put in place to integrate the myriad perspectives of citizens together into policy. I've said all these things before. They're all valid. They all clearly show why my objections have merit. Yet instead of addressing them, you seek to disparage the concept of objection to having your perspective imposed on others, itself. I find that mystifying.

Regardless, you've made this personal. If you have something to address the issues, then please do, but please don't stoop to personal attacks just because you don't care to address the comments made on the issue.

 

[kaytieeldr]

What exactly is wrong with you and your need to dominate, not just you but the others like you? Parenting is driven by part logic and part emotion. It's isn't logic that keeps me from sleeping at night when my kids are running high fevers. It wasn't logic that kept me sleeping on a cabinet for 10 days last year when my DD was hospitalized for H1N1. It isn't logic which drove me to quit an exceptional job to be a SAHM. It wasn't logic which drove me to have kids at all, they cost a hundred thousand dollars then leave. It wasn't logic which caused me to get each of my kids a $3,000 first haircut at the Barber Shop on Main Street in WDW and it isn't logic that causes me to spend a fortune on Christmas gifts to make my kids happy.

You just don't get it do you, you and your little group just don't get it at all.

Well, none of the actions you cite can be attributed to a LACK of logic. Combination of logic and emotion? Maybe. But long-term decisions like quitting a paying job to stay home and raise one's children? Not just logical and unemotional (despite what one may claim) but likely a rational decision made after much consideration.

The only item in the above list that would display a total lack of logic is the one where the poster claims to have paid $3,000 for each child's first haircut when in actuality that action was merely part of a Walt Disney World vacation.

 

[kaytieeldr]

No, your point is that you somehow felt that the joke was directed at you when it was not. You took it personally, even though it was not directed at you. Everything isn't about you.

Also, you have done worse by actually saying that me and people like me don't get it. Pot, meet kettle...

Yes - apparently it was directed at my post (not me) and I didn't even get to see it, because DisneyBamaFan deleted his post!!!!

DBF - feel free to PM me, if you remember what you wrote . I'm not easily offended.

 

[skater]

You know, bicker, I fully understand why posters tend to simply give up on you. You see the world in a very specific way, which you are entitled to do, but you have somehow determined that the way you see it is the way that it IS. If anyone challenges those deeply held beliefs, you react by trying to tear that person's arguments apart rather than explaining why yours are correct. My grandmother is the same way, and I gave up trying to argue with her years ago.

If you'd like to explain WHY I'm wrong and you're right, then go ahead. I'll listen. I don't think you will, because I've suggested that more than once (as have others) throughout this thread. But you simply asserting that I'm wrong doesn't hold a lot of water. I'm bored with you, so I'm choosing to disengage. But don't think for one second that it means you've somehow "won."

This is exactly why I won't bicker with bicker (once in a while I give into temptation, but usually I won't ).

 

[kaytieeldr]

You know, bicker, I fully understand why posters tend to simply give up on you. You see the world in a very specific way, which you are entitled to do, but you have somehow determined that the way you see it is the way that it IS. If anyone challenges those deeply held beliefs, you react by trying to tear that person's arguments apart rather than explaining why yours are correct. My grandmother is the same way, and I gave up trying to argue with her years ago.

If you'd like to explain WHY I'm wrong and you're right, then go ahead. I'll listen. I don't think you will, because I've suggested that more than once (as have others) throughout this thread. But you simply asserting that I'm wrong doesn't hold a lot of water. I'm bored with you, so I'm choosing to disengage. But don't think for one second that it means you've somehow "won."

I don't get this; I mean, I don't see bicker doing what you say. He provides his opinion, and generally backs it up with - granted, sometimes lengthy - reasoning/support. On the other hand, people on this thread who don't even currently fly are up in arms about the possibility that there's a chance that if they were to purchase passage on a commercial aircraft that they or a traveling companion might perchance have to experience a more invasive security search than in the past.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I don't get this; I mean, I don't see bicker doing what you say. He provides his opinion, and generally backs it up with - granted, sometimes lengthy - reasoning/support. On the other hand, people on this thread who don't even currently fly are up in arms about the possibility that there's a chance that if they were to purchase passage on a commercial aircraft that they or a traveling companion might perchance have to experience a more invasive security search than in the past.

Actually the new measures have the potential to impact much more than airline travel.

It's already been in the news that broadening the scope of these measures (to include other modes of transportation) is being considered.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...If you'd like to explain WHY I'm wrong and you're right, then go ahead. I'll listen...

Not bicker, but bicker just asked that you prove your case - that this is unconstitutional. You have put this forward many times, even suggesting that it will not hold up under the scrutiny of a judge.

You have stated your case as opinion - which is fine - but then later turn around and present it as though that opinion is fact. Then bicker asks you to prove those facts - which can't be done because they are just opinions.

I am of a belief that this is completely constitutional, and have stated why (including legal precedent). Now, that doesn't mean that it will survive the courts, but it is my opinion that it will.

If it does survive the courts, would you be more likely to accept it?