Re: Man up!

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, pcg wrote:

>> Well, again, as I pointed out, you *do* have certain rights.  Even the 
>> laws that deny you those rights may be trumped by higher laws.
>
> Well, when it comes to the fairness of those being checked, I suppose.
> But flying is a voluntary thing. Therefore, any "right" I have is
> subordinate to my decision to get on an airplane.

No, not so.  Not *any* right.  Not, for example, the right to life.

> What if I have deformed feet and I'm embarrassed about taking off my 
> shoes? What if I have shrapnel in my body and walking through the metal 
> detector stirs up painful memories and causes psychological trauma? Too 
> bad, right? I'm choosing to get on an airplane, and I know what that 
> entails.

Bad analogies, as you are talking about objective pre-existing conditions 
there and *not* the sort of personal intrusions that the state makes.

>> No, certain measures are in place to *pretend* to reduce that risk.
>
> Huh? How can we know that? The whole point of "security theater" is to 
> prevent people from *trying* to get bombs on planes, right?

No, that is the whole point of *security*.  Security *theatre* is about 
something else.  It's like the difference between real trials and show 
trials.  One is about justice, the other is not.

>> *Actual* risk-reduction would require profiling, etc.  But apparently 
>> the right of certain minorities or whatever to not be asked extra 
>> questions trumps *everyone's* right to privacy and a modicum of 
>> dignity.
>
> I don't understand what you're saying, here. How would profiling reduce 
> risk?

I'm not necessarily saying it would, apart from the fact that it wouldn't 
waste so many resources.  But the system as a whole would obviously 
benefit from having more *actual* security and less security theatre, the 
same way the justice system benefits from having more *real* trials and 
less show trials.

>>> If we don't like it, we don't have to fly.
>>
>> That's easy for *you* to say, as your livelihood -- your contribution 
>> to the economy, etc. -- doesn't depend on flying.
>
> Weren't you calling for TSA agents to quit *their* jobs the other day?
> With a shrug of, "Hey, I know it's a tough economy, but..."

When the job is fundamentally immoral, offensive to human dignity and 
harmful to society, yes, I think the job should be quit.  Don't you?

> I don't like the new situation any more than anyone else, I just feel 
> like the objections are a bit overstated.

I don't think it's *possible* to overstate an objection to total strangers 
strip-searching prepubescent boys in public places.

> *Nobody* likes this new rigamarole, it's just a fact of life in these 
> dangerous times, so why don't we just get on with it, y'know?

Crime is a fact of life too.

And hey, weren't you the guy who once complained about the way people 
sometimes say "Deal with it" when arguing about something?  :)

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot