ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's an argument that I disagree with.Unnecessarily so and recklessly expensive some may argue.
It's an argument that I disagree with.Unnecessarily so and recklessly expensive some may argue.
In your opinion. I disagree. Oh well, but thanks for trying to pretend that your opinion is fact.The Fourth Amendment sets the standard for invasive searches of a person's property, papers, or person. The TSA's actions do not meet this standard.
A stop sign costs a bit of personal freedom as well. I'm unmoved.At the cost of personal freedom.
No one in this country is above the law. Being a Congress critter doesn't give someone the authority to throw his clout around and exempt himself from a lawful procedure. The guy was a jerk. And continues to be a jerk. I just heard an interview with him on the radio where he said something like this:
How absolutely ridiculous.
As far as the political correctness in searching, the terrorist want to fit the profile, they are doing these attacks for a reason and they want you to know it was them. How many 80 year old ladies in wheel chairs have been caught in a terrorist attack?
Most people in this country are dedicated to keeping freedom. They're just not dedicated to keeping your definition of freedom so your argument that people who don't agree aren't dedicated to freedom is unfounded and quite arrogant.No, that was hyperbole of course. Those not dedicated to the never ending fight to keep freedom and liberty should go elsewhere. Not because the US will become elsewhere, but rather just to get rid of them. And of course that can't actually be done. But when enough people seek to give up their rights for safety, they have negatively impacted me.
You have said they are different, but your argument that people should look at Cuba to see the 'other side' is what I take issue with. As I said, people are quite aware of the other side and many citizens consistently act to ensure that we don't get there. However, because you disagree with their definition of freedom, you assume that they do not know about the 'other side'. That's an unfounded and arrogant claim. You need to accept that other citizens can have broader definitions of freedom than you do and still understand the 'other side'.I think, in fact, that I have said at least once if not more at this point that US and Cuba are different. Yet the yielding of rights for safety is dangerous and one which has negative impact upon myself. Terrorism will affect us only randomly, government affects us daily.
This is a slippery slope argument:It's actually not a slippery slope argument at all. There is an absolute, those being the rights and liberties of the individual. I do fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. I do think that we've become so complacent with our daily lives that we'll allow government to do anything it wants so long as it does not disrupt the normalcy of our lives. TSA goes too far on a lot of the regulation and searches. That is not a slippery slope and I don't see how one could logically conclude that it was.
Perchance, but there is still an absolute. And I fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. Rather so long as our tomorrow can be the same as today, we'll allow government to do anything; including its gross expansion and exercised force against us. TSA goes too far on a lot of the regulation and searches.
Mmmm, yes. You stated an opinion as fact when you said, "TSA is unnecessary". How do you know that? You don't. Hence my reply. This is the same trap you always fall into: stating opinions as absolutes and then trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who've made no absolutes.Mmmm, yes. But we are talking government force here. You don't get to apply government force and say "prove it wrong", it's in fact the opposite. Until someone proves that 0 record since 9/11 had everything to do with the TSA, I'll remain unconvinced that the expansion of power to the degree it was taken was necessary.
Are you that dumb?
The terrrorists aren't that dumb.
They'll hide a bomb in an old lady's wheelchair, or disguise themselves as an old lady. Duh.
Profiling is stupid, not PC.
Cool.
When did I say it wasn't causing any problems? Strike one for putting words in my mouth.
You asked me how TSA actions would be different from having random searches in the inner city.
Fine by me. I'm already pretty certain how it will turn out.
No, I argued that the scale of problems that such searching would make it impractical. Those are two completely different arguments.No, but you argued that searching people on the street would cause problems so it's impracticle. The TSA causes problems.
...yes? Everything I listed would presumably be legal and checkpoints are a part of it, so what's the problem again? How am I supposed to answer your question without stating what I think such searches would entail?Legally.
No, random searches are easily defended in court by simply pointing to the fact that profiling people by specific standards of who looks 'suspicious' enables aggressors to defy the standard and work the system. Moreover, random searches are pretty prevalent in the country - in schools, at the border and so on. I don't think that there is much of an argument there.If they are randomly searching people with no reasonable suspicion that the person has done anything wrong, so am I. We have plenty of precedent there.
How did he do any of that? He just got searched. Big deal.
...yes? Everything I listed would presumably be legal and checkpoints are a part of it, so what's the problem again? How am I supposed to answer your question without stating what I think such searches would entail?
No, random searches are easily defended in court by simply pointing to the fact that profiling people by specific standards of who looks 'suspicious' enables aggressors to defy the standard and work the system. Moreover, random searches are pretty prevalent in the country - in schools, at the border and so on. I don't think that there is much of an argument there.
I wish the media had given this more coverage.
It's an argument that I disagree with.
Most people in this country are dedicated to keeping freedom. They're just not dedicated to keeping your definition of freedom so your argument that people who don't agree aren't dedicated to freedom is unfounded and quite arrogant.
You have said they are different, but your argument that people should look at Cuba to see the 'other side' is what I take issue with. As I said, people are quite aware of the other side and many citizens consistently act to ensure that we don't get there. However, because you disagree with their definition of freedom, you assume that they do not know about the 'other side'. That's an unfounded and arrogant claim. You need to accept that other citizens can have broader definitions of freedom than you do and still understand the 'other side'.
This is a slippery slope argument:
You've argued several times now that people's approval of the TSA may/will lead us to let the government do anything. That is the definition of a slippery slope argument.
Mmmm, yes. You stated an opinion as fact when you said, "TSA is unnecessary". How do you know that? You don't. Hence my reply. This is the same trap you always fall into: stating opinions as absolutes and then trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who've made no absolutes.
Whatever.....
No, I argued that the scale of problems that such searching would make it impractical. Those are two completely different arguments.
No, I'm arguing that one is reasonable and the other is not for several reasons. Whether or not an action is reasonable is the foundation of the topic being discussed so in the context of this argument that base is not the same since the base of the two sides is either reasonable or unreasonable.The base is the same, however. All you're arguing is efficiency.
I agree that a passive method of scanning would be best, but I don't mind a quarrel, because at the end of the day, I think the TSA's actions are reasonable.If there were instead a method which can passively scan everyone, you'd have no quarrel with that (at least by your arguments presented).
How does being okay with expansion of government mean that people aren't dedicated to freedom? All you've shown is that people aren't dedicated to your definition of freedom. However, people not guarding freedom as you see it does not mean that they are dedicated to the fight nor does it mean that they will let the United States go to the 'other side'.Disagree. There are many whom are currently ok with the gross expansion of government power as is. We rather ensure that our daily lives are undisrupted, and so long as that occurs then any action of the government is deemed ok.
Unfortunately, our Constitution is not black and white. It requires interpretation. So again, your making unfounded assumptions about people simply because they disagree with your definition of freedom and in turn, your interpretation of rights in the Constitution.Other people have varying concepts of comfort. Rights, however, are rights.
I fear that you don't quite understand the meaning of "slippery slope"
Your argument fits that definition, but I don't fear anything about you or it since I know that you're in the minority.A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, you argued exactly what I said you argued - that we'll let the government do anything:No, the argument is that the approval of these gross expansions of government power against our rights and liberties is currently a demonstration of that lack of will; not that it will lead to it.
And I fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. Rather so long as our tomorrow can be the same as today, we'll allow government to do anything; including its gross expansion and exercised force against us.
Unless you have proof that the TSA has not increased the safety of Americans, then your 'statistics' are irrelevant to your absolute, "the TSA is unnecessary". Good luck stating your opinions as facts.My relative safety has not been affected by TSA. My probability of death due to terrorism is no different now than it was before TSA. It's called statistics.
What do you mean "just" impractical? I don't recall using the word "just" so I would like you to clarify what you mean by using it and what you inferred from my argument that makes you think I meant to use it.Legally you think the government could search random people on the streets, it would just be impractical?
No there doesn't (not in all cases).To search a person there still has to be "reasonable suspicion". A random alarm is never going to be ruled a "reasonable suspicion".
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation (9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion before searching laptopshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold#Reasonable_search
What do you mean "just" impractical? I don't recall using the word "just" so I would like you to clarify what you mean by using it and what you inferred from my argument that makes you think I meant to use it.
No there doesn't (not in all cases).
I suspect that the same thing would be ruled for domestic flights and people going through metal detectors.
How does being okay with expansion of government mean that people aren't dedicated to freedom? All you've shown is that people aren't dedicated to your definition of freedom. However, people not guarding freedom as you see it does not mean that they are dedicated to the fight nor does it mean that they will let the United States go to the 'other side'.
Unfortunately, our Constitution is not black and white. It requires interpretation. So again, your making unfounded assumptions about people simply because they disagree with your definition of freedom and in turn, your interpretation of rights in the Constitution.
Your argument fits that definition, but I don't fear anything about you or it since I know that you're in the minority.
No, you argued exactly what I said you argued - that we'll let the government do anything:
Unless you have proof that the TSA has not increased the safety of Americans, then your 'statistics' are irrelevant to your absolute, "the TSA is unnecessary". Good luck stating your opinions as facts.
How did he do any of that? He just got searched. Big deal.