- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'm content with the status quo. No need for slippery slope fallacies here. IF new measures are needed, then that can be discussed if/when that occurs.
So basically you are advocating that we base our entire national security apparatus on what the LAST terrorist did, assuming that the next one will have absolutely zero creativity or flexibility in altering his plans. This is absurd. To the extent that we need to worry about terrorism, we should be putting our resources in the places where future attacks are most likely to occur, not where the last guy found a weakness.
Catz Part Deux said:It's not just about being caught on that single plane. I was heavily impacted by 9/11, and I didn't die. We all were. So, your argument is fallacious. You're conspicuously attempting to narrow the argument to one which is more easily defended. Still a fail.
9/11 won't be repeated as has been explained to you before. Any terrorist attacks will be confined to the people aboard the plane. And even if a plane gets blown out of the sky (which hasn't happened since Lockerbie if I'm not mistaken...and has NEVER happened in the United States) it's one plane out of hundreds of millions. If you're going to be "heavily impacted" by that, then I suggest you get over your irrational fear of things that are miniscule dangers. Our government would be a lot more effective and save a lot more lives if it devoted more money to, say, improving the safety of automobiles or researching heart disease. But thanks to irrational people like you, we have nudie booths to fight airport terrorists instead. :roll:
Catz Part Deux said:Much ado about nothing. Don't ever have a mammogram, you'll die of embarrassment.
And this right here is the problem. You think it's a matter of people being embarrassed of being naked. While I'm sure there is some of that and it's perfectly understandable, the real issue here is the infringement on civil liberties. The particular orifice isn't particularly relevant; I don't want government agencies feeling inside my mouth and nostrils anymore than I want them feeling my groin. I don't want them looking at all the papers in my briefcase anymore than I want them looking under my clothes.
Catz Part Deux said:These are all opinions, not facts. Do you know the difference?
Actually, only the first one is an opinion. 2-4 are all facts. It doesn't improve safety, if it did it would shift the risk from the plane to the security line, and terrorist attacks are vanishingly rare.
I shouldn't have to give up MY civil liberties just because YOU are irrational and want to feel secure knowing that the TSA reduced your odds of dying in a plane bombing from 0.0000002% to 0.0000001%.
Catz Part Deux said:Then don't fly. The fewer of you people who fly, the fewer TSA agents we need, and the more we'll all save.
I'll tell you what. Why don't we have federal agents attach a GPS to your car. No one's forcing you to drive. And if you don't, the more we'll all save on GPS trackers. :roll:
Last edited: