stimpy

I think we are talking at different ends, but I would say that trying to differentiate yourself from your fellow human beings is morally reprehensible. Yes you have different ideas, thoughts and deeds, but you are still the same as everyone else. When you start saying to yourself that you are better or different than "them", you are lost.

And if you consider that you are "innocent" of responsibility for the foolish "security" at airports, does it matter? You are still punished if you choose to fly.

essxjay

But, I *am* different from those who willingly and witlessly go along with the escalation of harassment.



You're insinuating either that the act of identifying conceptual distinctions is immoral and/or that because "we're all people" distinctions don't matter.

Facts are not ethical truths, statements of identity, with differentiation being a more complex statement of identity. Whether distinctions are true is a logical, and thus epistemological, matter. Evaulation is the process of moral differentiation about actions, not identifying differentia as such.

That said, I will go on the record and make a *moral* evaluation about the stand I've taken w/r/t airport security. I do judge myself as taking a morally just position on the matter: I will not comply with the new security rules in toto and will actively resist those that I deem injust. I will speak out if a fellow pax is harassed for simply wearing a T-shirt with Arabic script, for example.

For example, I'm not going to toss out a bottle of water purchased airside. If caught, I accept the responsibility for all consequences. What I don't accept is the right of the sanctioners to punish me. I may well end up being punished, but it won't be a just punishment. A bottle of water is not a safety threat in and of itself. And as long as I don't turn it into one, I'm justified in my liberties to possess it.

Yes, I'm a human being *and* I am unique among all humans. Those are facts, not a propositions.

However, I made no such claim about being "better" than anyone. That's *not* a fact, but rather a proposition. And furthermore, it's false. Belief and fact, in this case, do not overlap.

You're entitled to your opinion me, but you're not entitled to deal me "lost."

Of course it matters. Innocence and guilt, non-consent and complicity are distinct conceptual notions, not interchangable ones, as are their ethical implications.

We're all "still punished if [we] fly" might be a true statement, it isn't connected with your other statements in a way that makes it necessary in your argument.

My guess about the underlying supposition in this exchange is that anti-egalitarianism = moral reprehensibility? I fail to see how pointing out one's resistance (and denial of sanction) to outrageous demands is in any way deserving of rebuke or false accusations about conceit.

GUWonder

Differentiation by itself is not morally reprehensible; differentiation in such a way that empathy (i.e., "fellow-feeling") is limited to exclude other individuals or groups and dehumanize them is what becomes morally reprehensible. I'm not a philosopher, but this discussion is a philosophical one.

essxjay

Yes. Distinguishing oneself among a group of individuals by common characteristcs, behaviors and patterns of value-seeking is what humans do by nature. Marginalizing others in order to cause harm is another matter.

No one belongs to me, so I have to doubt that you really meant to use the possessive case of "your" -- but then why use it all? It's obfuscatory and unnecessary. Unless of course you were implying a sense of possessiveness ....

I'll happily continue the philosophical dialogue off-thread. But at this point I should return to the original topic.

Okay. Here's what I want to know: Does the amount of 150ml strike anyone else as nothing but an arbitrary demarcation between safe and unsafe? Unfortunately, answers to "Sez who?" and "How was it determined?" is probably SSI ...

stimpy

OK, I'll take one last stab at the philosophical side and get back to the 150ml. First of all, this type of communication is difficult online. We'd do much better face to face. As I said before, we are maybe talking at different ends.

Speaking for myself, I do not think that I completely different from a bad or foolish person. They are myself, although to a lesser degree than my friends or people I respect. The sin and shame of the world are my sin and shame, because I am part of the same world.

And as for the 150ml, I'm guessing that the people involved in debating this issue for the EU have already talked quite a bit with the cosmetic product manufacturers as well as the chemical explosive experts to help them decide on an optimal size.

MSY-MSP

Looking at the 150mL volume they are proposing, it actually seems like a reasonable response to the actual risk.

First of all I went through a vast majority of the items that I would normally carry and would not have a problem with this limit, (as long as it excludes prescription liquids and creams). These are the items that I normally carry. Toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, contact lens drops, contact lens cleaner and nasal spray. Assuming the 150mL~5oz my volumes come out like this.
Toothpaste -1/3 oz
Shampoo - 1oz
Conditioner - 1oz
Lens drops - 1/6oz
lens cleaner - 2oz
nasal spray - 1/3oz

So in total I have 4 and 5/6 oz of liquids in my normal bag. Now if you consider that my lens drops, lens cleaner and nasal spray are all prescription, now, I am only using 2.33 oz of liquid that is non-prescription. So if they exclude prescription medications from the 150mL I have 2.67oz left over for other things, such as moisterizer(which I don't use) or purel. both of which are availabe in small sizes of less than 1oz.

So in the end 150mL is reasonable, but not perfect.

exerda

The last time I went in for an eye exam, the complimentary box of supplies the office gave me came with a 2oz bottle of solution (which I have refilled several times now--I know that makes it potentially less sterile, though). That 2oz bottle has come in quite handy under the current idiocy.

exerda

There are several threads here on just that, including one Superguy posted that includes a link to an article in which the feasibility of creating something like TATP (often cited by government and media types as the "binary" explosive of choice by the would-be bombers). The explosives expert they cited said just what you did: it would be nearly impossible to combine the OTC ingredients, maintain the proper temperature, and do so over the time it takes (several hours!) without being detected and/or causing themselves to pass out, cause premature detonation that kills them but does no other real damage, etc.

There are other truly binary explosives that could be made (like nitromethane liquid mixed with some sort of plastic beads and shaken together), but these are not so simple to make nor so easy to sneak onboard a plane even without the water ban in place.

exerda

Here's one that comes to mind, which was posted in this forum back when this mess started. I believe some others have been posted, but the thread Superguy started is the one I remember offhand.