More and more the people who create a scene at the checkpoints are pissing off the people behind them for holding up the line. Here in Tampa we have several WWF entertainers who travel from here. One of these rasslers told a unhappy passenger to get to the back of the line if he had a problem. I can see a trend developing day by day that the people who hold up the line will be taken care of by the other travelers.

No one here is saying that they won't obey the law. It's actually not the law that is of the most concern, it is how the law is being carried out. No where in the law is there a list of prohibited items so we have been able to change that list by pointing out the idiocy of including some that have already been removed. No where in the law does it say that people should be randomly searched at the gates so that is gradually going away because people have spoke out against it. The law does not have to be changed in order to make changes in how it is carried out. So please, don't tell me there is nothing that can be done. Don't tell me I am not a patriot because I choose to speak out when I see the government wasting my money.

My opinion is that they have spent way too much time and money trying to find pointy objects and have left bigger security threats go unchecked even though the law also states that those areas need to be secured as well. As such, the whole passenger screening process is more a smoke screen than anything else. I feel no safer because of it. None, nada, zilch.

Edited to add a link I just saw concerning exactly what I am talking about when I say bigger risks have been left unchecked:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005667.html


[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 01-16-2003).]

Surely you don't advocate vigilantism!

Bruce

LOL. I think it would be more along the lines of civil disobedience.

Who me? It's between you passengers to work it out. We just want a copy of the video for "Real TV". If any of my screeners start it that is a different story. I will deal with that behavior harshly.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Many of us pax are vets, too, tsadude. Perhaps you should consider that.

I will assume then you know how much CS gas stings. My experience with pepper spray was that I would rather have the CS.

Whoa! Hold on there, Hoss! Surely you don't mean to say that the absence of objection automatically implies assent? The people of Iraq aren't taking to the streets to protest their government, but I wonder how many of them actually agree with Mr. Hussein? Couldn't we reasonably say that the "overwhelming majority" of the Iraqi people are "acting in a way indicating satisfaction" with their government? Do bear in mind the recent Iraqi elections -- Hussein's poll numbers put President Bush's to shame. I'm not saying that I actually put any stock in Hussein's poll numbers, but taking your statement at face value, I fear it lends a certain legitimacy to a government that IMO, doesn't deserve it.

I'm not saying this to attack your position, Brian, but the way I'm reading your comments, I do believe there's an inconsistency present. Would you kindly elaborate further in this area? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

There is a vast difference between civil disobedience and protesting laws we don't agree with and presenting a threat of harm to a TSA person. For many of us, it isn't just the intrusion of privacy as much as the incompetent way SOME TSA screeners go about "just doing their jobs".

I suggest you tone your threats down; don't start harping on what you'll do with pepper spray or suggesting that pax will take care of the problem while in line themselves because, not only are you mistaken, you'll find yourself looking for another job and the victim of a civil lawsuit...along with your "rassler" buddies.

Yes, happily. It isn't automatic, it is just very accurate in this particular circumstance. Let's evaluate your comparison, and then the specifics of our present situation.

Iraq is a dictatorship known for opression and stifling of any public debate, which is subject to the punishment of being buried face down. To the extent they portray themselves as having elections, the results are, shall we say, highly suspect.

The U.S. is, as is blindingly obvious but clearly it bears repreating, a country where public debate is not only without consequence, but actually encouraged. When we have elections, we actually have the opportunity to avail ourselves of the right by voting in them. Small difference.

Making a comparison between Iraq and the U.S. in public debate would be rather entertaining if I didn't have a sinking feeling that some could possibly be serious.

Incidentally, in logic studies, the argument made here is referred to as "slothful induction," which is the action of ignoring overwhelming evidence to deny a strong inductive argument. Perhaps even more accurately, this would be considered a false analogy, since the systems being compared aren't even remotely similar.

At the bottom line however, the argument disintegrates because it does not refute the substance of what I said. There have been multiple "tests" of the public's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with security, in the form of hundreds of national elections, an ongoing opportunity to recall candidates, the American freedom to protest at any time, et al. None of these have come to pass.

It is wish fulfillment to offer up a massive silent majority of people who hate security but remain unspoken. The only logical conclusion is that the majority are satisfied, and a very, very angry but small minority disagrees... at high volume.

Without a doubt.

Mmmmmm . . . I'm not sure I can go along with that. I might be more inclined to agree if I knew who or what you felt was encouraging the public debate. As a matter of theory, public debate is permitted in the US, but I'd be hard-pressed to find an example wherein it was actually encouraged. Perhaps you would favor us with an example or two?

No, not a serious comparison, but a method to engage you. I felt quite certain that you would respond to that particular analogy. Thanks for picking up on that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I know well the concept of slothful induction, but I disagree with your claim to having a "strong inductive argument." I also do not believe there is "overwhelming evidence." IMO, your argument appears to be built on the absence of evidence to the contrary, not on the presence of affirmative evidence.

Yes, that's another item on which we can agree. However, it would be fallacious to characterize both my posits as such. My central point is that absence of objection does not constitute assent. You appear to be making that point in regards to the TSA, and I do not believe it is a supportable position.

Not at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There have been no national elections dealing exclusively with the matter of security. Dissatisfaction with national security need not take the shape of a recall election. And American protests, while small (and in some cases individual in nature), are posted on this board on a daily basis. I'm not sure how you can see these as supporting your position.

You miss my point. I don't posit such a silent majority. You are. I'm saying that I can't accept an undefined majority either way -- supportive or unsupportive.

Respectfully, Brian, I find the first portion of that sentence to be logically unsupportable. I will certainly concede that there are a small number of vocal protesters, but I cannot credit a silent, satisfied majority as easily as you seem to. Nor can I so easily presume that those who disagree (whether they are vocal or not) constitute a majority.

Just, you and I will have to disagree on this one. But our points have been made clearly, so readers can decide for themselves.

Put the crack pipe down and read what I wrote. I never implied that I would use pepper spray on anyone. I said that pepper spray would possibly be more effective to disarm ANYONE, good/bad guys. Second of all why would I lose my job if you guys get into a fight because one of you are taking up someones time behind you? Like I stated before, there are other things that I could be doing for a living other than this, so your thinly veiled threats of me losing my job are meaningless.I felt compelled to do something for our nation, how about you?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif