TSA mess and the police

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am surprised that no one has used this image yet:

bs.jpg


It is the main image on the drudge report right now and unless I am missing something there is no way this can be construed as sexual.No ones little girl is being sexualized in these images. I cannot imagine anyone having an issue with this picture? One can argue the radiation level, but it has already been established as much much less than your actual flight (1/100 of the flight radiation on an 3 hour flight???)
 
I am surprised that no one has used this image yet:

bs.jpg


It is the main image on the drudge report right now and unless I am missing something there is no way this can be construed as sexual.No ones little girl is being sexualized in these images. I cannot imagine anyone having an issue with this picture? One can argue the radiation level, but it has already been established as much much less than your actual flight (1/100 of the flight radiation on an 3 hour flight???)

The guy looks like a Ken doll:rotfl:... unless it's a very flat woman. I think we should call it Pat from SNL. OK, that's insensitive to whoever that person is but the image is really androgynous... to a ridiculous degree, I don't think that is what most people look like on there. But I suppose that is why the image was selected. I've seen more detailed images of people, I think this image was selected to be tasteful and non offensive. From what I've seen the images that use more white and less black are much more detailed and similar to what an actual photograph looks like. Regardless it is NOT going to happen to my kids. I don't even allow photos of my kids on Face book or anywhere else public domain, this is out of the question.
 
My DH just came home from a business trip. They did not do anything new in Newark but in St Louis he went through the scanner. He had nothing on him, nothing in his pockets. Even so the TSA agents had him step aside where they questioned him about having something in his pockets, he said no & turned them out. They then asked him if he had something bound to his leg and of course he did not. Still they did the all over body touch with cupped hands and felt ALL THE WAY UP. Of course, they found nothing.

So IF these scanners are supposed to be completely foolproof AND my DH did not have anything on him, WHY exactly did he get the pat down????

Since he was away I didn't get a chance to ask him to weigh in on what's going on here before now but tonight we had a chance to talk and he agreed that it is out of the question for anyone to touch either our DS12 or DD11 in the manner in which he was touched. As for the radioactive situation, he wasn't as bothered by that as he was when he looked on line to see the detail that these scans provide so for that alone, he wants our kids nowhere near it.

So now no-one can say I don't have a direct link to experience, I do and the answer is still a resounding "Not acceptable."

Just wanted to pop back in for a minute - and then I really need to get to bed.. As if the time change didn't mess me up enough, I should have been in bed awhile ago.. LOL..

Anyhow, thanks for sharing your DH's experience..:goodvibes
 
By the way, for those who have absolutely no problem with this, what else are you willing to give up for security?
Why? Do you know that something else is necessary? :confused3

Your question is a bit like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Carefully constructed with that "Think of the children!!!" chest-beating aspect that seeks to make a point based on shock value that on merit. The point is that, at the extreme, you're presenting a choice between "Believe what I want you to believe about how horrible this thing I am complaining about is" or say you're willing to let them kill you to make you safe.

Humans adapt to their environment. If there were armed bands of thugs roaming the American countryside, rampant, we'd all make different decisions about what kind of armed police presence we want walking the streets in our towns and cities. To make an absolute determination of what is and is not acceptable, without regard to context, is ridiculous, because what is the alternative? Committing suicide to avoid being subjected to that kind of policing protecting you? Utterly ridiculous.

I think the key is that the people who put things like these scanners in place are working diligently to satisfy obligations we have placed on them. Perhaps you should revisit the obligations we place on them. Maybe crafting the kind of comfortable environment we live in, here in the United States, should be removed from the list of objectives. Maybe we should be more like the Israelis, since they don't use scanners like this, right? I'm sure the Arabs living in Israel can help us understand what it is like there.
 

I'm kind of stunned by the number of people who are choosing to take up a pro position about the new searches and radioactive body scans.
I'm kind of stunned that you think that that is what some of us are saying. It isn't necessarily a matter of being in favor of the scanners, rather than being opposed to the manipulative exhortation critics are using to try to get their way, attempting to impose their personal preference through salaciousness and sensationalism, rather than due process. The critics didn't win on the merits when the matter was researched and decided within the agency that our nation has duly appointed to work such issues, so the critics have chosen to go to the media.

I respect people's right to disagree but I really don't get the why behind it.
I also respect people's right to disagree, but your approach is a bit like letting a jury hear a murder trial, and then presenting the most sexy parts on the 6PM news, and having the verdict determined not by the jury, but rather by folks calling in, American Idol style, after the news report of the trial.

The decision should be made on rational logic. It should factor in all objectives that the agency and government are charged with, not just the ones easier to argue against. Mob mentality is a very effective political tactic. It is also a very immoral political tactic, afaic.

I'll strongly support anyone who did the moral thing, followed the correct process, and made a reasonable decision, over raving exhortations and cynical chest-beating after-the-fact, even if my personal preference would be for what the latter group advocate.


I'd especially like to hear an answer from bicker
You have been served.
 
I am not a proponant of the new 'safety measures'...far from it. What I am against is the hysterical (yep, I used it again!!) posting about invasive body searches.
Precisely. You're absolutely on-target there.

And I resent the feeling that if I choose to hold a different thought than you do, that I am somehow off my rocker...or pro-Nazi...or have no issue living in a police state.
Yes, definitely. The abusively cynical hyperbole some folks are trying to use is really a part of the overall problem.
 
I'm not at all hysterical and I don't think anyone else is either. The allegation that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of irrational fear is inappropriate at best, and offensive at worst. I'm ticked because the situation is disruptive to my lifestyle but hysterical, no. Recent reports have lead to my decision to halt any and all plans until the dust settles. Things will either go my way or they won't. If they do I will open my wallet, if they don't I will keep it closed. That's hardly hysterical, it is a rational progression of events.

You are hysterical. And the more people try to sooth your fears, the louder you scream.

By calling the machines radioactive you turn off the sane portion of the DIS - we already know you will be unable to rationally have a discussion. Do you call x-ray machines radioactive? How about the SUN?

Please note this about the TSA machines:
In 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from screening with any general-use x-ray security system.

Therefore you are not "saving" your snowflake from anything.

A little paranoia is healthy - a lot of paranoia not so much.
 
I think the national debate is just beginning on this issue.

CAIR Travel Advisory: New Airport Pat-Downs Called Invasive, Humiliating
Posted 11/10/2010 4:03:00 PM



(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/10/2010) -- CAIR today issued a travel advisory for airline passengers who may be subjected to new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "enhanced pat-downs" that many of those who undergo the procedure describe as invasive and humiliating.

The advisory comes after two of the nation's largest pilots' unions urged commercial pilots to avoid both full-body scanners and public pat-downs. Pilots have compared the new pat-downs to "sexual molestation." A union for flight attendants has expressed similar concerns.

SEE: Pilots Refusing to Use Full Body Scanners or Submit to Patdown
Flight Attendants Union Upset Over New Pat-Down Procedures
TSA Statement on New Pat-Down
ACLU: TSA Pat-Down Search Abuse

Travelers are being asked to educate themselves about the new policy and to know their rights if asked to undergo security pat-downs. CAIR's advisory is particularly important for Muslim travelers leaving for or returning from Hajj because of concerns that they will be singled out for secondary screening by security personnel.

CAIR offices have already received complaints, particularly from female travelers who wear hijab, about being subjected to the new pat-down procedure.

The enhanced pat-down involves a much more intrusive manual search of passengers' bodies by TSA officers. Passengers who have undergone the new pat-down procedure have reported feeling humiliated by a search they describe as invasive and that has involved TSA officers touching the face and hair, the groin area and buttocks, and in between and underneath breasts.

SEE: CNN Report on TSA Pat-Down
Pilot Refuses Full-Body Pat

One traveler wearing hijab, a 56-year-old Muslim flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, told CAIR the TSA screener patted-down her entire upper body, including, head, neck, chest, and hips, with the backs of her hands. The Muslim woman said she had "no idea" how invasive the procedure would be and would otherwise have opted for a private room or demanded to know why she was selected for secondary screening.

[NOTE: The woman had been referred to secondary screening even though the metal detector did not go off, a phenomenon reported frequently to CAIR by female Muslim travelers.]

BACKGROUND: Beginning earlier this year, the TSA began using full-imaging scanners in airports. In February, CAIR supported a statement by a prominent group of Muslim scholars that the full-body scanners violate religious and privacy rights.

SEE: Airport Body Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say

As of August 2010, passengers who opted out of the full-body scanners were subject to the enhanced pat-down.

In light of the growing concerns about the invasiveness of the new enhanced pat-down procedure, CAIR offers the following recommendations to Muslim travelers:

* If you opt out of the full-image body scanner, you have the right to request that the manual search be conducted in private.
* It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender. The TSA states in its Head-to-Toe Screening Policies: "It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner."
* If you experience any disturbing incidents with the new pat down procedure, particularly if you feel you have been subjected to religious or racial profiling, harassment or unfair treatment, immediately file a complaint with the TSA and report the incident to your local CAIR chapter.

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.




http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26681&&name=n&&currPage=1

-----------------------------


ETA- It will be interesting to follow the reaction to these suggestions. It raises a host of questions and concerns.
 
rie'smom said:
Next week we're flying. According to the parameters set by some on the thread, if my daughter gets pulled for a search, I had better film it or else it will be considered second hand testimony and not 100% believable.
Not at all. Don't fall for JLTraveling's misguided claims ;). Just as I trust ccgirl's and eliza61's reports of their recent flight experiences, I trust you to accurately report your and your family's TSA experiences on your upcoming trip. The fact that I've never met you notwithstanding, I would believe you over an actor taping himself 'reporting his mother's experience' on YouTube, or a radio talk show host's observations (not experience, but what he thinks he saw), or assumptions based on what people have heard from other sources.
 
Not picking on you particularly, but I did notice that some posters are calling other posters "hysterical". Is that discourse or hyperbole?
Well, okay, I'm relatively certain I never used the word hysterical, and probably not hysteria or any other form of it :teeth: - but, neither. That'd be simple exaggeration.
 
Without regard to any specific posters, I think there is a point to be made with regard to the believability of first-hand experiences: They are going to invariably be colored by someone's personal preferences and personal sensibilities regarding the issue. Fewer people who are viciously anti-search are going to report that, "It wasn't badly invasive," as compared to other folks. Indeed, people should only "believe" the report of someone who they know is viciously anti-search if that report is, "It's was not badly invasive," just like people should only "believe" the report of someone who they know is viciously anti-hysteria if that report is, "Oh my gosh this is incredibly horribly invasive."

And what about what these "hysterical" criticisms are implying about TSA employees? Are people supposed to so readily believe them to be generally perverts, as is implicit in the criticisms many folks are engaging in? What's next? In case of a toxic spill, emergency response personnel are instructed, in part, to have those affected strip, and then they're hosed off. Are these people going to be subjected to insinuation that they're just being voyeurs? It's ridiculous.
 
LuvOrlando said:
I'm kind of stunned by the number of people who are choosing to take up a pro position about the new searches and radioactive body scans
Again, not pro. Neutral. But I'm a fatalist. We're all going to die of something. If this backscatter scanner makes me miss out on the opportunity to be immortal, well, I never expected to live forever anyway. I figure the sun exposure I get today is going to be more hazardous than a few seconds of these rays. Heck, driving to and from work ALWAYS is!

Telling me it's to keep us safe isn't enough because I already feel safe. Nothing has happened recently to make me think i was less safe in July than I am now in November. So again WHY are these measures better than the measures of a few months ago?
This sounds somewhat like the "why does Disney have to refurbish Space Mountain when I'M there? Why? It was working fine before!" It needs to be or is going to be done some time - pick an arbitrary date, pick a date when everybody can coordinate, whatever. Nobody plotted around YOU (or me, or rie'smom, or ccgirl...)
 
The people posting about their concerns are not alone.

Growing backlash against TSA body scanners, pat-downs

(CNN) -- A growing pilot and passenger revolt over full-body scans and what many consider intrusive pat-downs couldn't have come at a worse time for the nation's air travel system.

Thanksgiving, the busiest travel time of the year, is less than two weeks away.


Grassroots groups are urging travelers to either not fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergo time-consuming pat-downs instead.

Such concerns prompted a meeting Friday of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with leaders of travel industry groups.

Napolitano met with the U.S.Travel Association and 20 travel companies "to underscore the Department's continued commitment to partnering with the nation's travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people," the department said in a statement.

Federal officials have increased security in the wake of plots attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Industry leaders are worried about the grassroots backlash to Transportation Security Administration security procedures. Some pilots, passengers and flight attendants have chosen to opt out of the revealing scans.

More of the units are arriving at airports, with 1,000 expected to be in place by the end of 2011.


"While the meeting with Secretary Napolitano was informative, it was not entirely reassuring," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement.

"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, 'where do we draw the line'? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the statement said. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."

The travel industry is concerned that consumers may decide not to take a plane to Aunt Gertrude's for the holiday.


"We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying," Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told Reuters.

A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.

One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.

Another group argues the TSA should remove the scanners from all airports. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-profit privacy advocacy group, is taking legal action, saying the TSA should be required to conduct a public rule-making to evaluate the privacy, security and health risks caused by the body scanners.

Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints, citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security officer behavior.

"Pilots should NOT submit to AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology) screening," wrote Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, in a letter to members this week. USAPA represents more than 5,000 US Airways pilots.

"Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote.


Napolitano told industry leaders that biometric identification, such as retinal scanning and thorough background checks will expedite the screening of 80,000 passengers who participate in "trusted traveler" programs, the department said.

But the chorus against the security measures is getting louder.

The website "We Won't Fly" urgers travelers to "Act now. Travel with Dignity."

"We are opposed to the full-body backscatter X-ray airport scanners on grounds of health and privacy. We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history," the site says.

"National Opt Out Day," organized by Brian Sodegren, encourages solidarity on November 24, amid the crush of Thanksgiving travelers.

"It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat-down" that touches people's breasts and genitals. You should never have to explain to your children, 'Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.' "

According to the group, passengers who say "I opt out" when told to go through body scanners are submitted to a pat-down.

"Be sure to have your pat-down by TSA in full public -- do not go to the back room when asked. Every citizen must see for themselves how the government treats law-abiding citizens," the website says.

The Facebook page of the group includes a litany of complaints about the scanners.

"I'm completely appalled by this," one woman wrote. "What happened to our right to privacy? Has Homeland Security forgotten our rights because they think its going to stop terrorists?"

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued its own travel advisory over pat-downs many "describe as invasive and humiliating."

Muslim women who wear a hijab and are selected for secondary screening because of a head scarf should remind TSA officers "that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They should not subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down," the group said.

The TSA has deployed nearly 350 advanced imaging technology (body scanner) units in nearly 70 U.S. airports, administrator John Pistole said recently. "By the end of calendar year 2011, we plan to have deployed approximately 1,000 units."

The agency is exploring enhancements to the technology.

"This capability would make screening more efficient and would eliminate most privacy concerns about the technology," Pistole said.

Privacy concerns aren't the only reason for protests.

Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions contend not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of X-ray radiation emitted by one of the two types of airport scanning machines.


The Transportation Security Administration's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.

While the TSA says the machines are safe, backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. The use of millimeter-wave technology hasn't received the same attention, and radiation experts say it poses no known health risks.

The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.

The TSA says the technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/travel.screening/index.html?hpt=T1
 
I'm kind of stunned that you think that that is what some of us are saying. It isn't necessarily a matter of being in favor of the scanners, rather than being opposed to the manipulative exhortation critics are using to try to get their way, attempting to impose their personal preference through salaciousness and sensationalism, rather than due process. The critics didn't win on the merits when the matter was researched and decided within the agency that our nation has duly appointed to work such issues, so the critics have chosen to go to the media.

I also respect people's right to disagree, but your approach is a bit like letting a jury hear a murder trial, and then presenting the most sexy parts on the 6PM news, and having the verdict determined not by the jury, but rather by folks calling in, American Idol style, after the news report of the trial.

The decision should be made on rational logic. It should factor in all objectives that the agency and government are charged with, not just the ones easier to argue against. Mob mentality is a very effective political tactic. It is also a very immoral political tactic, afaic.

I'll strongly support anyone who did the moral thing, followed the correct process, and made a reasonable decision, over raving exhortations and cynical chest-beating after-the-fact, even if my personal preference would be for what the latter group advocate.


You have been served.

I have not been served because by saying so you imply that your argument is pressing, it's not and here is why.

In case you didn't notice, this is my thread and this is an opinion board, therefore expecting anything but biased opinion is irrational.

Next, I'm a private citizen. I have no obligation to you or anyone else to be anything but preferential to my own predilections. MY personal decisions do not need to be based on anything other than "because I like it that way", my word is final for me because it's my money, my family, my choice. In stark contrast, the 'experts and professional decision makers" are bound by ethical standards I am not because THEIR decisions, unlike my own, effect millions and millions of people.

Normally I'm not this harsh but your continued attempts to side step the issue at hand is getting under my skin so since you asked for it. Again Bicker, you are resorting to telling me why I am wrong instead of telling me why you are right. So far all you've come up with is an explanation of why you think my decision making is flawed and that just doesn't cut it. What you still have not done is tell me why you are right. Your position is, as far as I can tell, simply a negative mirror image of me. I don't respond well to these tactics because I'm a straight shooter, IF you want to engage on a higher level please do but where you keep taking me is not a place I like to be. Verbal sparring without substance is a bore, I just don't care for it because it's an attempt to dominate without any regard for the actual issue and I'm all about the issue.
 
You are hysterical. And the more people try to sooth your fears, the louder you scream.

By calling the machines radioactive you turn off the sane portion of the DIS - we already know you will be unable to rationally have a discussion. Do you call x-ray machines radioactive? How about the SUN?

Please note this about the TSA machines:
In 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from screening with any general-use x-ray security system.

Therefore you are not "saving" your snowflake from anything.

A little paranoia is healthy - a lot of paranoia not so much.

Are four University of California professors, who are recognized as international experts on imaging, biochemistry, biophysics and cancer research, hysterical and paranoid as well?

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

The problem isn't with the so-called "whole body dose" of radiation, which is what the TSA's argument is based on. It's the fact that the backscatter does not penetrate the entire body. Instead, it delivers its entire dose of radiation to the skin and the tissues immediately below. Sperm mutagenesis, breast cancer, skin cancer...are these the potential prices you're willing to pay for "safety"? The risks are highest in the elderly, small children, and those with compromised immune systems--as usual, the weakest and most marginalized members of society are hit with the highest potential for danger.

Oh, and for the record? Lead wraps and shields are used to protect the rest of the body and the X-ray tech when X-rays are needed. And, yeah, the SUN...you mean the same one that delivers UVA and UVB rays that are KNOWN to cause cancer? Or did you miss the memo about sunscreen being a good thing?

Hey bicker, thanks for the shoutout. Now maybe you'd be interested in answering the original question--the one about the data you have that demonstrates how these new security procedures are keeping us safer. I already know that you think I'm hysterical and paranoid, you don't have to keep hammering that point home. But you've dodged every single question regarding the actual merits of the scanners/pat downs. I guess it really is as simple as "because the TSA says so." :sad2:
 
Telling me it's to keep us safe isn't enough because I already feel safe. Nothing has happened recently to make me think i was less safe in July than I am now in November.
This sounds somewhat like the "why does Disney have to refurbish Space Mountain when I'M there?
Yes, I agree: That was my first reaction as well, though in a bit of a different manner: I think a lot of people are looking at this solely from the standpoint of their own perspective, their own preferences, their own sensibilities, etc., without any regard for the fact that they live in a society with other people, who believe differently from they do, who react to things different from how they do (or claim to), etc., and without regard to broader considerations that they themselves choose not to value, but other people do value.
 
All kinds of weapons and bomb components have made it past them.

But my ****s apparently WONT make it past them. They either get to look OR touch......
Well, I'm not positive muscle and fat show up on the backscatter image, but if they do - so the person watching the screen gets to see the image of the part of our anatomy of which the primary purpose is to provide nourishment to infants? :confused3? And if a TSA officer does need to do a pat-down, based on the descriptions here and on other threads, that would be only in any area where items could be concealed.

Too many potential/possible/non-passengers are, frankly, sexualizing the pat-down. That's not its intent. Never was.
 
Too many potential/possible/non-passengers are, frankly, sexualizing the pat-down. That's not its intent. Never was.

That's just a silly argument. Rape is actually a crime of control/hate, not sexual attraction. Does that mean rape isn't sexual either? The issue isn't whether the TSA agents are getting their jollies or not (although there is now a higher possibility that those who DO enjoy touching strangers will now seek employment with the TSA). The issue is that our bodies are private, and we get to decide who touches them in ANY way. Now a bureaucratic organization has taken away our right to choose.
 
The people posting about their concerns are not alone.
That's why it is called a "mob". A few people wouldn't qualify.



I have not been served because by saying so you imply that your argument is pressing, it's not and here is why. In case you didn't notice, this is my thread
Wrong. This is a discussion thread on a discussion forum. If you want an unrebutted soap-box for your own personal opinion then you want to post to your blog.

and this is an opinion board, therefore expecting anything but biased opinion is irrational.
That much is true, but that's okay: Your voicing your opinion (that specific opinion) is the only reason that I would post what I posted. You say X, and my response, I assert, shows that X is not a legitimate expectation for what the agency should do. If you didn't say X, my point wouldn't have any context.

Next, I'm a private citizen. I have no obligation to you or anyone else to be anything but preferential to my own predilections.
Also true, but again, that just underscores my point about the lack of legitimacy beyond you, yourself, in terms of expectation. What you're saying is that if you ran the world you'd do things different. Fine. Granted. But you don't. That's my point.

In stark contrast, the 'experts and professional decision makers" are bound by ethical standards I am not because THEIR decisions, unlike my own, effect millions and millions of people.
Absolutely 100% unequivocally correct, and indeed the main point I was making. I'm glad we can agree on something. :)

Normally I'm not this harsh but your continued attempts to side step the issue at hand is getting under my skin so since you asked for it.
I'm not side-stepping anything. I'm responding directly on-point. You only want to discuss the proving of your point; you don't want to discuss the disproving of your point. I can sympathize, but that's not the way things work.

Again Bicker, you are resorting to telling me why I am wrong instead of telling me why you are right.
You are confused because you refuse to acknowledge what the objections to your comments are. You are only able (or willing) to refute certain objections, so you insist that all objections must be among those you are capable (or willing) to refute, and that any other objections are therefore "side steps". That's utterly self-serving and ridiculous. Please stop trying to dictate to those who disagree with you what the context of their disagreements with you are allowed to be.

So far all you've come up with is an explanation of why you think my decision making is flawed and that just doesn't cut it.
First of all, you made it clear that you're not making decisions, but rather expressing your preferences. Second, what I said absolutely "cuts it". Your claiming otherwise is self-serving nonsense and therefore ridiculous.

What you still have not done is tell me why you are right.
Yes, I have. You're simply ignoring the points I've made.

Your position is, as far as I can tell, simply a negative mirror image of me.
And your insistence on seeing objections to what you've written in that one-dimensional manner is why you can't understand what I've actually said.

I don't respond well to these tactics because I'm a straight shooter, IF you want to engage on a higher level please do but where you keep taking me is not a place I like to be. Verbal sparring without substance is a bore, I just don't care for it because it's an attempt to dominate without any regard for the actual issue and I'm all about the issue.
This is a very common tactic for avoiding the issues that someone isn't able to or willing to respond to. Trying to control the discussion so that it can only possibly support your opinions isn't a defensible approach to supporting what you're trying to assert.


Hey bicker, thanks for the shoutout. Now maybe you'd be interested in answering the original question
You are also trying to impose onto someone who disagrees with you the parameters of their objections to what you wrote. I made the points I made. Not necessarily the ones you would find it easier to argue against. Now, maybe you'd be interested in responding to my objections? ... especially the ones about the broader obligations that the agency and the government is required to try to satisfy? ... and about due process and reasonable consideration of myriad objectives? ... and about abuse of the media through salaciousness and sensationalism, instead of making decisions based on considered, rational logic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom