Why does my dad do this?
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 616
#17
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 240
They're lost causes. For whatever reason, they've decided that it's perfectly reasonable to put their personal safety into the hands of a collective of GED-bearing knuckle-dragging clerks who're all convinced they're smarter than doctors and represent the vanguard of National Security.
The sad thing is, it doesn't matter who is in charge, I think the machines are here to stay. Thank goodness we can still opt-out in North America.
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
#19
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
In your situation, I respect the decision. I have gone through the MMW once, although I was intending to opt out. This was before it was primary, so I just kinda found myself in there and went with it. However, I consider you an informed passenger and I have no problem is someone is informed and chooses to still take the risk. My problem is my dad's comment that "everyone else is doing it". Seems a bit ignorant, no?
#23
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
#24
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,731
Trying not to veer too far into OMNI territory, I will just say that the cost of those machines in the long run will be a lot more than just civil liberties lost.
*based on the reports of a number of concerned, qualified scientists and doctors about untrained staff using machines not evaluated by independent agencies for safety and reliability
#25
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
Sorry, I must disagree that anyone who is uncomfortable with choosing a path that will cause their body to be invaded is an "idiot." Allowing someone to grope you is not something that I can fit into any construct of refusing to give "proper obesiance." I choose to allow it, and I respect the right of others who choose to (try to) avoid it as best they can.
Last edited by TheGolfWidow; Sep 8, 2012 at 4:12 pm
#26
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 172
Even for people who don't take the 'anything for safety!!' line, the harm of radiation is invisible, speculative, and in the future, whereas the harm of the humiliating patdown is palpable, certain, and immediate. There's a lot of research on cognitive biases that suggests that people tend to prefer to expose themselves to objectively unreasonable risks (that is, risks of greater harm, even discounted for the low probability of occurrence) in preference to the choosing of certain, smaller harms.
I respect whatever choices people make, as long as they are actively making a choice. That's why I talk to my friends and colleagues about why I opt out. I believe that knowing more about the facts makes for more informed decidion-making; and it's definitely persuaded some of my friends and co-workers to opt out.
I respect whatever choices people make, as long as they are actively making a choice. That's why I talk to my friends and colleagues about why I opt out. I believe that knowing more about the facts makes for more informed decidion-making; and it's definitely persuaded some of my friends and co-workers to opt out.
Last edited by flitcraft; Sep 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm Reason: fat finger typo
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Sorry, I must disagree that anyone who is uncomfortable with choosing a path that will cause their body to be invaded is an "idiot." Allowing someone to grope you is not something that I can fit into any construct of refusing to give "proper obesiance." I choose to allow it, and I respect the right of others who choose to (try to) avoid it as best they can.
These people kowtow to the TSA in the hopes they won't be groped, and they're groped anyway.
The only way to avoid being groped by the TSA is simply to avoid any place the TSA is.
#28
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Okay, let me power down a bit. But just a bit.
Not everyone agrees with me all the time. That doesn't make them idiots, and it doesn't make me an idiot. It means one, or both, of us is mistaken. Honestly mistaken, to be sure, but still mistaken. I need to have the good sense to recognize that my firmly-held, well-reasoned convictions might be wrong, even as I try to persuade them that their convictions are wrong. And, above all else, I shouldn't call them names.
Because, after all, they think I'm the idiot, and I'd want them to treat me with the same courtesy --- even if I don't deserve it.
There's a disturbing number of comments in this thread that are automatically dismissive of those (like the OP's dad) who don't agree with them. Let's discuss, persuade, even argue ... but let's do it with some respect.
Oh, wait ... I forgot ... we're about to enter the "silly season" of politics for the next two months, where everyone who disagrees with me must be called names. Never mind. [sigh]
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
That isn't what I said.
At this late stage of the TSA's idiocy and games, if one cannot tolerate being groped by one of the TSA's blue-gloved thugs, one will be barred by those self-same thugs from boarding the aircraft.
But you are correct. I should turn it down a notch. They're not idiots.
They're simply inexcusably and deliberately ignorant.
At this late stage of the TSA's idiocy and games, if one cannot tolerate being groped by one of the TSA's blue-gloved thugs, one will be barred by those self-same thugs from boarding the aircraft.
But you are correct. I should turn it down a notch. They're not idiots.
They're simply inexcusably and deliberately ignorant.