• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  • Total voters
    59
Guy Incognito said:
If the government mandated an ISP disclose all its files, that is between the ISP and the goverment, precisely analogous to the situation here between the airlines and the government. The user of the ISP and the airline passenger have no standing. Anything else I can clear up for you?
Click to expand...

This is just wrong, at least as relates to the telecoms.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is just wrong, at least as relates to the telecoms.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Obviously you didn't understand the point of the analogy. It may be a violation of the telecom companies' fourth amendment rights, but the point is that it is not a violation of the user's rights. The telecom company is the one with standing, and they are analogous to the airline companies here. The user and the passenger are analogous in that they have no standing to claim a fourth amendment violation. Let me know if you need a more painstaking explanation, I will happily provide one.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Irrelevant. Obviously you didn't understand the point of the analogy. It may be a violation of the telecom companies' fourth amendment rights, but the point is that it is not a violation of the user's rights. The telecom company is the one with standing, and they are analogous to the airline companies here. The user and the passenger are analogous in that they have no standing to claim a fourth amendment violation. Let me know if you need a more painstaking explanation, I will happily provide one.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying.
I'm saying that you're wrong.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, it's not an opinion question, it's a matter of law. You're the wrong one. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Even though I knew it was pointless to waste the typing, I told you above exactly how to prove you're right. You, of course, ignored it, as usual.
 
RightinNYC said:
The board's legal expert has spoken, so I guess that's that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to take my word for it, I think Kal'Stang was explaining it much better than I was.

I think it's hilarious when people who are much smarter and more eloquent than me make my exact same point better than I ever could, and then people who disagree with them try to prove me wrong like I'm some great exponent. I may not be explaining the correct point of view particularly well, but that doesn't make you right.

The fact that you cannot argue on the merits and resort to ad hominems whenever you are demonstrably wrong show the weakness of your position.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You don't have to take my word for it, I think Kal'Stang was explaining it much better than I was.

I think it's hilarious when people who are much smarter and more eloquent than me make my exact same point better than I ever could, and then people who disagree with them try to prove me wrong like I'm some great exponent. I may not be explaining the correct point of view particularly well, but that doesn't make you right.

The fact that you cannot argue on the merits and resort to ad hominems whenever you are demonstrably wrong show the weakness of your position.
Click to expand...

Take a crack:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ted-order-fly-airplane-28.html#post1059113844

Don't hide behind someone else. Do it yourself.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You don't have to take my word for it, I think Kal'Stang was explaining it much better than I was.

I think it's hilarious when people who are much smarter and more eloquent than me make my exact same point better than I ever could, and then people who disagree with them try to prove me wrong like I'm some great exponent. I may not be explaining the correct point of view particularly well, but that doesn't make you right.

The fact that you cannot argue on the merits and resort to ad hominems whenever you are demonstrably wrong show the weakness of your position.
Click to expand...


I don't care who said it. If someone is arguing that the government can seek third-party records from whoever it wants and the person whose records are being targeted has no legal recourse, then that person is wrong. Period.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't care who said it. If someone is arguing that the government can seek third-party records from whoever it wants and the person whose records are being targeted has no legal recourse, then that person is wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. Nobody is arguing that. Like I said before, you obviously didn't understand the analogy.

The government can't just take information from an ISP, but if they try to, the claim is between the government and the ISP, not the government and the user. If the government does do it, and the ISP doesn't object, the user has no claim to a fourth amendment protection. So long as the user consented to whatever the ISP/airline search policies are beforehand, consent is given, thus there is no illegal search of the user being performed. This is very basic stuff.

Let me know if I need to give you any further painstaking explanations, I am only too happy to help educate you, my friend.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
That's where you're wrong. Nobody is arguing that. Like I said before, you obviously didn't understand the analogy.

The government can't just take information from an ISP
Click to expand...

Oh, Guy. If you're right, why do you have to change your story?


Guy Incognito said:
That analogy makes no sense. The government does have the ability to regulate internet service providers and e-mail companies, even mandating disclosure of all their files.
Click to expand...



Let me know if I need to give you any further painstaking explanations, I am only too happy to help educate you, my friend.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ted-order-fly-airplane-28.html#post1059113844

Been waiting, but you've been playing your "pretend he didn't post" game. And it's not because you have me on ignore, because you've already responded to me directly.
 
Kandahar said:
:lol:
I'm not sure what you think that word means, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...


ORLY?

Paradigm paralysis: Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking [6]. This is similar to what psychologists term Confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Your Weltanschauung seems fairly limiting.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's definitely an area where Al Qaeda has demonstrated a willingness to go, more than once. Did you miss the stories about the dry runs in airplane lavatories reported by airline personnel?
Click to expand...

No, what I missed were the stories showing that but for this program, this would be a huge problem.

Is this an area of personal insecurity? I certainly don't have a perfect body, but I tend to believe that airport screeners are like gynecologists and proctologists, they get over being titillated by your junk pretty fast.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with it as I have a monster dong. Like I said, I've already gone through one before and didn't really care. The fact that I personally don't mind something doesn't mean that I can't recognize that it might be problematic for others.

And, there are reasons for these full body scans: Terrorists Could Use Explosives in Breast Implants to Crash Planes, Experts Warn - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

So lets say someone with explosives in their breast implants declines to go through the scanner. How will the patdown detect the explosives?

Moreover, will the scanner even be able to tell the difference?

I know you like Fox. Perhaps you'll actually read this link.
Click to expand...

I don't actually like Fox (or any other television news site). But hey, it's much easier to debate a caricature than an actual person, isn't it?

Did you feel dirty and exposed?
Click to expand...

No, but as stated above, that's entirely irrelevant.

There are reasons for these screening methods...they are a response to verified intel. When was the last time that liquids/gels were used on a plane? How about a shoe bomb?
Click to expand...

When was the last time that any of these screening procedures prevented any of those things?

Putting these screening methods in place has eliminated these as possible tactics for Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

And unless they've run out of possible tactics, you can't just say "it's eliminated that one tactic so the benefits must outweigh the costs."
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do you always go straight to ad hominems without making an argument? Have you actually got any reason to think I'm wrong? Do you know what the fourth amendment says?

If the government mandated an ISP disclose all its files, that is between the ISP and the goverment, precisely analogous to the situation here between the airlines and the government. The user of the ISP and the airline passenger have no standing. Anything else I can clear up for you?
Click to expand...

Do you always derail a thread without controlling yourself?
 
American said:
Guess what folks, strip searches are actually happening......on children.

YouTube - Young Boy strip searched by TSA
Click to expand...

Yeah I just saw that. I don't even know if I want to fly anymore ever again unless I absolutely have to. You know what we need to invest into? Rails. I wouldn't mind taking a train somewhere. I mean it's ridiculious. Hey, you are paying $400+ for this flight we are going to come 2 steps below raping you LITERALLY as well.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Profile passengers.
Click to expand...

Do like they do in Israel. Have information before hand about the person before the flight. I heard a good example. If a lady takes a yearly trip to Florida to visit her grandkids for Christmas, she's probably not carrying explosives this Christmas. Then....
Have trained personel talk to people in line." Hi, where are going? Where are staying? Who are you visiting? Are you going to return? When? Questions like that. If the trained personel deems the person suspicious, they will go further with questioning and searches. They are trained to spot behaviors, body language etc. So it's not exactly profiling as we know it by race, religion, age, gender.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What it does for me is of no consequence. What you take from it or don't take from it is what matters.
Click to expand...

:doh

What do YOU think should be "taken from" this which is informative? As in, how does this help your argument(s)?
 
Kal'Stang said:
He has not derailed this thread. He was responding to, (I think it was Kandahar) a scenario that was proposed.
Click to expand...

No, he was responding to my challenge of his brazen assertions of fact and law and has yet show he has any idea what's yapping about, despite repeated requests . . .
 
Kandahar said:
Why should I be treated like a criminal just because you're worried about the 0.0000002% (or less) chance that your plane will be bombed? Of all the things that could possibly kill you, this shouldn't be anywhere CLOSE to the top of the list of things to worry about.
Click to expand...

tell you what, Sparky.. you worry about your life... I'l worry about mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom