saulblum

Has anyone been successfully able to convince someone who believes "anything for safety" that there do need to be limits on government searches?

Over the months I have gotten into a few debates, some with acquaintances and others with strangers (e.g. on Facebook), and there appear to be a frighteningly large number of Americans who are terrified of "another 9/11" and see absolutely no problems with anything that's been done the past decade in the name of security. (Either that, or this crowd is a lot more vocal than those who do believe there need to be limits.)

Take this thread on the local news station's Facebook page about the woman whose large hair was patted down --

https://www.facebook.com/7NEWS

Most of the comments can be summed up with the following: "It's possible to hide stuff in hair. There are terrorists out there who are very creative in finding ways to hurt us. I'd rather suffer five minutes of discomfort than suffer the discomfort of crashing into a skyscraper. This woman needs to STFU."

I asked one commenter if she would be okay with police frisking fellow pedestrians on the street and searching drivers in their cars and searching shoppers as they enter the mall to make sure that no one around her is trying to harm her. Her response? "I wouldn't object to any of those things you listed. As long as it's in place people need to stfu and follow the rules. terrorists are a real threat. they have no fear of death and no respect for life. they may not use planes again, they do like car bombs, but you just don't know. i'm wary of any potentially dangerous situation but I'm not going to fight security which is in place to keep us safe. i don't understand why people insist on complaining about something that's for our benefit."

Is it hopeless to try to reason with folks with these views?

And if so, is it reality that this country has little hope of change until the generation of Americans who were alive on 9/11/01 has passed on?

JoeBas

You can't reason with a jackass.

goingbananas

Easy..I invoke my 2 rules:

Rule #1: Do not argue with a crazy person.
Rule #2: Do not try to understand a crazy person.


Its just not worth the time to have the discussion. State the facts/position and move along.......

IslandBased

Anything? I draw a line at that word... A couple of days of detention and water boarding before your flight, anyone?

Actually, my circle of friends and associates are all reasonably intelligent, and very divided on this issue. Sort of like how things were on TS/S a few months ago. Though more civil.....

It is easier to argue about "If it makes us safer" though not by much.

saulblum

In my experience, though, those who are most scared of "another 9/11" are also the least willing to even entertain the idea that some of the measures in place really are not adding to safety.

tehiota

Ask them if they're willing to subject themselves, or possibly their young child(ren) to a Full Body Cavity Search since terrorists could obviously hide explosives there and we know of at least 1 instance where one did try it.

If they say yes, then wow, god help this person and their family--they are definitely lost sheep. If they answer no, ask them why not and argue the point where one draws the line between privacy and civil liberties and violations of both all for 'making us safer'.

brendog

Very simply, you don't. It's akin to arguing religion with evangelicals or quantum physics with your dog.

IslandBased

Well, as we are finding out locally, all it takes is a feral rooster to divide a neighborhood. (There is a local government worker in the neighborhood who supports the rooster's "rights".)

Some people just don't care.
Some just take the other side just for the sake of argument.
Some do fear for their own safety, but like to get out of bed once in a while.
Some love freedom and put it above safety.
:-: Some know that there is risk in every moment of life. :-:

loops

<sigh>

I do my best to spread the word. Most people really have no idea what's going on and will believe without question whatever is "reported" on the news source they consider credible. Most seem to find security measures an inconvenience, but are resigned to whatever the authorities decide is best. I have had my best success in making a difference I hope, by pointing out absurdities. Example: in a long line at a craft shop, I noticed a display of snow globes near the register. "Did you know that these will be confiscated at the airports now?", the surprised replies, "Whatever for?", "Well, seems it's because they contain an unknown amount of liquid that ~could~ possibly be explosive doncha know." Started a whole conversation! All seemed to see the absurdity of it all, changing indifference to disapproval and disgust at how much we are spending for this charade. As my "audience" was a group of mostly elderly women, I made sure to mention how those with mobility and medical issues are now subject to intimate gropes by the clerks.

chollie

Mostly, people aren't going to really believe it until it happens to them or to someone they are very close to and trust implicitly.

We've seen too many folks post/blog "I thought people were exaggerating or not doing what they are supposed to do...and then it happened to me".

You know, the kind of folks who enter a conversation or post, saying "Well, I guess I just must be lucky, because I never have any problems", followed by hints about being friendly to the gropers and not looking for trouble.

photodave

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

chollie

Looking at the thread title again, it struck me:

The fundamental problem is that you can't use ration arguments against irrational fears.

InkUnderNails

I am an evangelical and I resent that.

I'll be happy to discuss religion with you, you just will have difficulty changing my mind. Wait.....maybe it is the same. Oh, well, back to the OP.

I think that most of the AFS crowd are infrequent fliers. If one flies once or twice a year, even a significant aggravation does not seem like that much in the scheme of things.

The strange ones to me are the frequent fliers that still think AFS is acceptable. I just do not get them. The more I fly, the more I think the process is unacceptable.

By the way, you can argue quantum physics with my dog. He will listen to you all day long. He is more interested in differential calculus though.

doober

Echoing chollie's post, you hope and pray for the day when they get "patted down" at the checkpoint. That will make converts out of them.

IslandBased

It was mostly my experience, however my girlfriend gets searched and patted down every time we travel. We stopped flying.