We have a government agency devoted to groping old women and babies.
- Thread starter Chessie
- Start date
Okay, so here's my opinion on the TSA scanners and pat downs. I am a fairly emotionally fragile person. I honestly don't think I'd be able to emotionally handle either, so right now I'm abstaining from flying until they come to their senses and shut the whole thing down. In regards to the scanners: To me, nudity signifies weakness, vulnerability. And so I'm very protective of my body. The last time anyone saw me in any less than a swimsuit was when I was an infant. So no, I'm not going to allow a random old guy I've never met watch me under my clothing with a scanner. Also regarding the scanners: My family has a history of cancer stemmed from being exposed to radiation, so I do take a great deal of caution with that.
Now for the pat down: I have a hyper-sensitive skin condition in which I can not be touched by other people without feeling extreme discomfort and pain, so something like a pat down would be very traumatizing for me, my physical health and my sanity.
So that's that. Personally I think the US TSA should learn a bit from Israel's security system in the airport, where they are much more prone to threats and yet they avoid humiliating passengers.
Now for the pat down: I have a hyper-sensitive skin condition in which I can not be touched by other people without feeling extreme discomfort and pain, so something like a pat down would be very traumatizing for me, my physical health and my sanity.
So that's that. Personally I think the US TSA should learn a bit from Israel's security system in the airport, where they are much more prone to threats and yet they avoid humiliating passengers.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
My doctor, oddly enough has never asked to see me naked. And I'm too young and not sexually active, so there is no reason to go see a gynecologist, but the idea of it makes me very uneasy.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Well neither has mine, as thankfully I've yet to have an illness where seeing me naked is needed, but I know it could happen. In fact at one time in my life a doctor is going to check my prostate. Compared to that, an obscured blue image is nothing.
So when security cameras that can see through walls are invented, you wont mind the government installing one everywhere they can?
Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Sad fact is, by doing this, they're generating even longer, tighter-wound, lines of people waiting to get through security... and what does a large clump of people all stuck in one small contained spot represent? An easier-to-get-at target, if anyone really did want to incur collateral damage.
Largely, I think think this is all largely for naught, anyways... we're suffering MORE from corporagovernments discovering they can get their way more by keeping people afraid, just as has occurred in other notably bad periods in world history.
That and voting with your feet is probably the most effective way to solve this considered problem.
however thanks to the opt out day, I think most of the public don't actually care.
As always, the media is making more out of this than it is.
If they didn't do the pat down at all, and a plane was blown out of the sky and it was learned later that a simple pat down would have prevented it from happening, there would be hell to pay by the TSA for not doing pat downs.
I just want to get to my gate is all. X-ray me, pat me down. Whatever. Just let me be on my way quickly.
If they didn't do the pat down at all, and a plane was blown out of the sky and it was learned later that a simple pat down would have prevented it from happening, there would be hell to pay by the TSA for not doing pat downs.
I just want to get to my gate is all. X-ray me, pat me down. Whatever. Just let me be on my way quickly.
I'm pretty sure Washington did order his troops to strap dynamite to their chests and run into populated civilian areas.
Pretty sure at least.
edit:
also fear tactics are not the same as terrorist attacks
Not sure if the method makes that much of a difference given the objective.
I remember seeing a child being really distraught over having to be searched, I don't think the parents handled it well, I think the parents were trying to get out of it and that unfortunately made it far worse for her. I felt bad for the kid though I have to admit after a little while I kinda just wanted her to quieten down. I haven't been through the full body scanner yet, I don't think I would mind whether I went through the body scanner or being aggressively patted down but I can understand why some people would have a serious problem with it for example try and explain the aggressive pat down to an autistic girl and see how well that goes.
I do hope that things like above are taken into consideration before the pat down is performed, I'd imagine parents of an autistic child having serious problems with it.
Last edited:
Frankly, only the tiniest sliver of a percent of a percent of a percent of 'them' are doing that either. Let's not demean an entire quarter of the world's population over the actions of the desperately radicalized few. Unless, of course, we toss christians in the trash over the actions of McVeigh.
I have to ask, and it's been suggested...if the TSA were to introduce these scanners to every form of daily transportation, would that solution to that be 'don't travel using public transportation'?
If your job were to require a daily strip search would you allow it to be done? I just want to know exactly how far you think security of this type is 'okay' before it becomes a monstrous intrusion into your mental well-being. For some of you it's apparently not going to be a problem anytime soon but for a cross-section of the population it's a big issue.
Should it need to be a problem for more than half of America for it to be an intrusion unacceptable even in the name of security? If 10% of the country (30 million people) have a problem with it, should it be stopped?
Where do you draw the line? Is it at a place where your 4th Amendment rights have been violated just a little bit? Or is it where they've got their hand on your crotch? The government of this country looks at the Bill of Rights as an inconvenience. Security is not a viable reason to violate them. Ever.
I consider violations of the Bill of Rights to be right up there with sticking your hand down an 8 year old's shirt or making them walk naked in front of a camera. You do it, you're a rapist, whether you wear a badge or not.
Terrorism operates because it makes the governments of the countries involved begin to attack their people.
If your job were to require a daily strip search would you allow it to be done? I just want to know exactly how far you think security of this type is 'okay' before it becomes a monstrous intrusion into your mental well-being. For some of you it's apparently not going to be a problem anytime soon but for a cross-section of the population it's a big issue.
Should it need to be a problem for more than half of America for it to be an intrusion unacceptable even in the name of security? If 10% of the country (30 million people) have a problem with it, should it be stopped?
Where do you draw the line? Is it at a place where your 4th Amendment rights have been violated just a little bit? Or is it where they've got their hand on your crotch? The government of this country looks at the Bill of Rights as an inconvenience. Security is not a viable reason to violate them. Ever.
I consider violations of the Bill of Rights to be right up there with sticking your hand down an 8 year old's shirt or making them walk naked in front of a camera. You do it, you're a rapist, whether you wear a badge or not.
Terrorism operates because it makes the governments of the countries involved begin to attack their people.
1 person for many plus the additional bonus of striking terror into the enemy public, if a person is willing to do etc...
It's quite a sound tactic, disrupts communication, tourism suffers, depending on the target it might take out enemy soldiers or key personnel, causes structural damage which will have to be repaired, the news will spread across the country which will make people think twice about going to largely populated areas, some people won't come into work the next day.
All in all it's quite a cost effective and sound strategy.