No, their determination is nothing more than the co-mingling of the opinions of a lot of people (read, lobbyists) motivated by many factors that have nothing to do with the perspectives of the nation (read, money). The fact that you choose to have blind faith in them
I never said I had blind faith in them. Please stop with this deceptive corruption of what I'm posting, just to have something easier to argue against. What I said was that their determination was reflective of the co-mingling of perspectives of the nation -
while your personal preference is not. That's critical. You continually insinuate that your personal preference should prevail. It shouldn't. Critics of the policy are trying to impose their own personal preference instead of the determination made by the duly authorized reasonable consideration of many perspectives, and there is no legitimate defense for doing so.
to do what's right by us does not in fact make us their primary concern at all.
Their primary concern is doing whatever will prompt voters to vote for the people who put them in that position. That is superior in merit to the imposition of your own personal preference on everyone. If your personal preference had so much merit that would warrant it prevailing, it would more likely to be that which would prompt voters to vote for the people who put them in that position than what they actually decided to do. To claim otherwise is, again, to accuse them of wrongdoing, but you've refused to explain your accusations, so how can anyone conclude that your accusations have any merit?
As soon as they present evidence of this duly authorized reasonable consideration, I will take a look at it.
You're placing yourself in a position of supreme and definitive arbiter over that which affects all of us. You haven't been duly appointed to that position. You
have the power to play arbiter with regard to that which affects only you: Don't fly.
If you want to run the agency, then become qualified and connected enough to warrant that appointment. Otherwise, you have no especial privilege with regard to owning that portion of the public trust. If you are dissatisfied with the quality of people who are granted that portion of the public trust, then blame the spoiled-brat Americans that I referred to earlier, who's appetite for salaciousness and sensationalism ensures that the best people to make such decisions refuse to seek to serve the public. Regardless, even the determinations of these flawed people warrants magnitudes more merit than one person's personal preferences. Civilization requires a means of having conflicting perspectives drawn to resolution.
Your personal fiat is not that means.
For now, there is no more proof that this was done in a legitimate effort to keep us safe
Again you are clearly demonstrating your narrow, one-dimensional view of the obligations and objectives of the agency and the government, clearly highlighting the lack of foundation of your implication that your personal preference should prevail over that of the duly appointed reasonable consideration the agency says it applied to this issue, and for which you've provided no evidence to show that they did not.
than is that it was done for more nefarious reasons.
What nefarious reasons? Someone arguing your side of the argument, a page or two ago, implied that people generally don't lie. I disagreed, but here you are implying that the TSA has "nefarious" motivations. That's just FUD. Again: Critics use such propaganda tactics to create fear, uncertainty and doubt to try to unfairly reverse conclusions where their own personal preference failed to prevail.
Not at all. I used the "quote" function to quote a post in which you stated what was clear to you. If you've changed your mind since making that post, I can hardly be held accountable for your changing whims.
I haven't changed my mind. I caught you trying to tell me what I think. Admit it and move on please.
Or a very clear indicator that the "duly authorized reasonable consideration" was neither reasonable nor considered.
FUD. No evidence... the only foundation you claim you have for making that accusation is that they disagree with you and that's
not foundation. It's self-fulfilling circular-reasoning - something that you erroneously accused
me of earlier.
Just because you see it differently doesn't make your determination accurate.
How I see "it", specifically, doesn't even enter into it: All that is necessary is that you are claiming something self-serving without foundation. That's all I'm pointing out and all that I need to make that point.
The only one-dimensional and inadequate argument here is the circular one you've been making for at least 40 pages, using quite a few words to say absolutely nothing.
In other words, you're saying, "Nuh-uh!" My argument is deliberately not one-dimensional: I repeatedly have referred to the fact that the agency and the government have myriad obligations and objectives, while you continually insist on the only criteria being one you care about. There is nothing circular about my argument: It is strongly supported by a foundation built from basic principles, indeed based on highlighting the absence of merit to the critic's advocacy. It may seem circular to you because it is sound; because what I'm actually saying is not readily refutable. That's because I don't post things if they're refutable. If they're refutable, then they don't deserve to be posted.
My field is mental health. I can assure you that I am well-versed in all relevant research concerning human behavior. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.
So you claim. Did you even look up the research on the Attitude-Behavior Gap? If you really are in mental health, you should be outlining your objections to its principles, and explaining why you disagree with the conclusions of the volumes of research into the phenomenon, rather than trying to deny it exists.
Of course you did. I caught you and showed it clearly.
In one post you stated that we cannot use higher-dollar security measures because the American public won't stand for it.
Quote me directly, so we can see how you have perverted the meaning of what I wrote. I'm growing tired of pointing out the deception your paraphrasing exhibits.
In one post you stated that we cannot use higher-dollar security measures because the American public won't stand for it.
Unlike you, I have never resorted to attacking someone's precise wording. I actually attack the issues.
Thanks for making it so easy to demonstrate the falsehood of what you posted, by posting these two lines so close together.
).
