Originally Posted by
SeriouslyLost
Utterly false and immoral position
and much as I hesitate to use the simple example (although it's not invoking Godwin because it is apt for this point) the stark bankruptcy of it pre-1940's Germany. You are effectively saying that you wouldn't protest or argue about, say, a Chinese court railroading charges against you (because you offended some local official) & sentencing you to death and harvesting your organs simply because your doing so would be "un-guestly"? I can't see many people agreeing with your "reasoning".
I am "effectively saying" nothing of the sort. This guy wants to pick a fight with TSA, not stand up to being railroaded in a Chinese court. You must be either an engineer, a computer programmer, or extremely young, given that everything is either black or white to you.
Speaking of China, my first visit there I received a fine (a couple of dollars) for putting out my cigarette on the ground outside the Shenzhen train station. Enforcement was, obviously, selective.
What would you do?
a. Argue with official because it's unfair.
b. Demand to see the statute under which you were required to pay the fine.
c. Apologize, pay the fine, and remind yourself that both legal and cultural rules may be different in the country you are visiting.
Three guesses what I did.
People, and nation states do, IMO, have a moral duty to intervene in certain circumstances.
And you think people and nation states have a moral duty to intervene with respect to TSA asking you to pronounce your name? Really?
Individuals, when it affects their own person, certainly have a right to express an opinion and undertake protest.
Where do you find this "right"?
To argue otherwise is positively bizarre IMO.
To argue that you can impose your moral views on another country when you are visiting is both bizarre and rude. It's like the tipping threads in which foreign visitors to the U.S. say, "I don't believe in tipping, so I don't tip in America." What is so mystifying about, "proper conduct as a guest"?
Low grade protest for low grade violation, suh as the name game with TSA, is well within any individuals rights (& sometimes duty) IMO.
And IMO, the only "protest" a foreign visitor who objects to the practice is to stay home and let the US state department know why they don't want to visit.
I don't like compulsory x-ray full-body scanning in the UK. I'm not going to go and "stand on my rights" (which I don't understand in the UK and, I guarantee, the OP doesn't understand in the US). I simply won't fly into those airports that use it.
Nice. I particularly liked the bit where you threw in the "homotextual" bit. Very adult. Really paints you as rational.
You should have read the link, which was
satire.
Again, your position simply doesn't make sense. The example I gave simply used different terms with the same logical structure. That it stands out as absurd isn't a comment on my example...
Your "example" is completely off-point, extreme and most certainly does not use, "the same logical structure." Please show me the court decision holding the name game unconstitutional. Please explain how the name game violates any constitutionally-secured right. Please explain which Amendment of the Bill of Rights is violated by the name game.
This should be interesting.
You ascribe intent that hasn't been shown, so you're off to a bad start already.
The intent of the OP is not only quite clear, but he has stated it expressly several times.
The OP asked a question about what they can or can't do under law.
And I told him. And I also gave my
opinion about foreign visitors who come here to test the law.
Is it really your position that they have no right to security & protection & privacy simply due to the passport they present?
Please explain what
right is violated by the name game. A foreign visitor who, for example, is pulled stopped on the street by a LEO who heard a "foreign accent," is arrested without probable cause, brought to the station and strip-searched, most certainly SHOULD protest this clear and present violation of rights secured to all by the 4th Amendment. The name game is
stupid. It is not presumptively unconstitutional.