Why can you pack scissors in your carryon, but not mascara?

[NotUrsula]

C'mon Bicker, regardless of what DHS is doing with their budget priorities, examining this "serious threat" has to be bumped to the top of the list. (Or at least they have to claim that it has been, even if it isn't, because the GOP can't afford that kind of bad press right now.)

Hi-tech explosive-detection devices are just lovely, and yes, I think that DHS should be careful not to spend money on them unless they know they will work properly. That's long-term, though. Short-term is finding out if 1.3 oz of a gel explosive (the amount you could hide in a travel-sized tube of toothpaste) is really enough to do any serious damage. (Heck, to be sure, make it 3X that amount.) If it isn't really very dangerous, I should be able to carry it.

 

[bicker]

C'mon Bicker, regardless of what DHS is doing with their budget priorities, examining this "serious threat" has to be bumped to the top of the list.

How do you know that they're not already investigating it? that they haven't already discounted it because they disagree with you? that they don't have other things that they feel are more important than you do? that they have enough budget to pursue what you have indicated you feel is important? (And so on...)

I'm not saying don't object -- I'm saying folks need to acknowledge that their objections are coming from a spot where they don't have all the data. The government has a substantial amount of oversight. Different perspectives on these issues are debated from a position of knowledge on both sides. And yet, the status quo is the status quo. How did that happen? Are folks suggesting that everyone, including everyone involved in oversight, are incompetent?

I think people too readily discount the legitimacy of the status quo as evidence that reasonable people, experts with data, have thought about what should be, and still decided what is is what should be. That's not to say they never change their minds, or even that they never do things that are unnecessary, but, again, my point is that people often jump too quickly to the assumption that something they find they don't want to be, based on what they know (regardless of how limited it is, and regardless of how limited their scope of concern is) is therefore unquestionably and objectively wrong.

Again, I'm concerned that people jump too quickly... that people too readily discount the legitimacy... that people make judgements from too narrow of a perspective...

 

[salmoneous]

No, I won't answer simple questions about complicated subjects, because that does nothing more than trivialize the important stuff and highlight the meaningless stuff.

I merely asked what *you* think is going on. That isn't "a simple question that does nothing more than trivialize the important stuff and highlight the meaningless stuff".

What do you think is going on? What's your opinion? What do you believe? Come on - those aren't trick questions. They are the heart of every discussion on the internet. What's so scary about posting your honest opinion?

You've been throwing out all sorts of possibilities in the thread. Yet you think it unfair to ask if you actually believe those possibilities?

Most people debate things do so because they believe in what they are saying. Are you just arguing to hear yourself argue here?

 

[bicker]

Come on - those aren't trick questions.

I know you may not intend for them to be, but I have no interest in answering them because they don't have any relevance to what I'm saying. I really haven't even thought up answers to those questions and have no interest in doing so. I just really couldn't care about those questions.

Most people debate things do so because they believe in what they are saying. Are you just arguing to hear yourself argue here?

I think that's a pretty rude assertion. I am debating something I believe in very strongly. I've outlined it, often using bold and italics. Please don't disrespect me by refusing to acknowledge the very strong beliefs I've highlighted in this thread. Disagree, if you wish, but don't claim I haven't been making a very strong point.

And this is a point I make quite often on these boards. Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up about black, white and grey that they forget that sometimes even the context of the question is debateable, and is really the more important issue.

 

[salmoneous]

I know you may not intend for them to be, but I have no interest in answering them because they don't have any relevance to what I'm saying.

Just as a reminder - here are the questions, er, in question:

What do you think is going on? What's your opinion? What do you believe?

I really haven't even thought up answers to those questions and have no interest in doing so. I just really couldn't care about those questions.

You haven't thought about what is going on. You haven't thought about what your opinion is. You haven't thought about what you believe. Not only haven't you thought about what you believe, you have no interest in thinking about what you believe. You "couldn't care less" about what is really going on.

That's what you are saying here - right? I want to be clear I'm not misrepresenting you in any way.

I think that's a pretty rude assertion. I am debating something I believe in very strongly. I've outlined it, often using bold and italics. Please don't disrespect me by refusing to acknowledge the very strong beliefs I've highlighted in this thread.

Huh? Now you've completely lost me. You are the one saying you have no interest. You are the one saying it is irrelevant. Not me - I'm not making any assertion - rude or otherwise - you are.

 

[bicker]

What I found rude was the assertion that I didn't believe in what I was saying, and just arguing to hear myself argue. That's what I found rude. I've said repeatedly what I believe in:

Again, I'm concerned that people jump too quickly... that people too readily discount the legitimacy... that people make judgements from too narrow of a perspective...

Since that is my point, it would be idiotic for me to comply with your wishes to second-guess the TSA folks; you could then just reply, "But don't you see you just did it too?" That's why I said your questions were unfair: My point was that we shouldn't doing what you were (are still) explicitly demanding me to do.

[size=-1]"Have you stopped beating your wife?"[/size]

 

[salmoneous]

Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand what you are saying. Let me see if I've got this right, then we can just move on.

You believe the government might have secret information that would justify what appears to be a pointless safety rule. You strongly and sincerely believe in this possibility and aren't just throwing it out to be argumentative. However, you have no opinion whatsoever as to whether the government really does have any such secret information. You don't care and my asking you to take a guess, to speculate, is the equivalent of asking you when you stopped beating your wife.

Seems a bit goofy to me, but if you feel it would be wrong for your to form an opinion, who am I to criticize. However, if you are telling the rest of us that we shouldn't speculate - then I've got a huge problem.

 

[bicker]

You believe the government might have secret information that would justify what appears to be a pointless safety rule.

Maybe, maybe not; it may or may not be a critical aspect of my point. The government might also have different objectives to satisfy -- different from those that you personally would impose based on your own personal feelings about what is and isn't important.

Seems a bit goofy to me

I think your refusal to acknowledge the point I am making is a bit goofy, so I guess we're even on that score.

However, if you are telling the rest of us that we shouldn't speculate - then I've got a huge problem.

Speculation is fine, as long as you accept that it is just speculation, as long as you accept speculation contrary to what you speculate about as readily as you expect others to accept your speculation.

 

[salmoneous]

I think your refusal to acknowledge the point I am making is a bit goofy, so I guess we're even on that score.

For the record, I fully acknowledge your point that the government might have secret knowledge or secret agendas. I've said so in several posts in this thread - but if you want one more acknowledgment of your point here it is.

 

[bicker]

Hmmm... the problem is that wasn't the point I am making. (This is: "The government might also have different objectives to satisfy -- different from those that you personally would impose based on your own personal feelings about what is and isn't important.")

So it seems we're still talking past each other. Since this has become just a back and forth between you and I, I'll continue this discussion with you via personal messages, and since we've reached Page 5, I'll be unsubscribing.