Wouldn't be surprising - Hoover used to do that with drugs during the early days of the FBI.
Buy a shitload of heroin, take a picture of you and your buddies looking all gangbusters in front of it, and slap that bitch on the front page - instant public support!
So when I reach the checkpoint, I say, "I'd like to opt out of the scanner, please." About 75% of the time, they nod and say, "Okay, we'll have to do an inspection over here, sir." The (small) number of times that they've questioned my decision, I simply say, "I fly frequently, and I'm not convinced of the safety or dosing of the radiation from these machines, so I prefer the old school pat-down."
I've yet to be hassled, and I fly 3-4 times a month, year round, and have been doing so for years. I see tough guys and funny guys get hassled frequently enough because they make jokes about weapons and bombs, or opt out by being abusive and rude. Opt out politely, and you'll be waved over to the side and patted down and sent on your way. Opt out like a douche-mouth, and you'll hold up the line for 20 minutes.
People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.
Oh, who's a good boy? You are! That's right! Does the good boy wanna biscuit? Such a good, good doggy...
They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.
Absolutely. A lot of burglars brag at barrooms where anyone can overhear.
But do they brag in the checkout line of the store they plan on robbing?
You should really check into your possible ADA benefits for that unfortunate birth defect that makes you constructed of 99% asshole (cells).
That's a virtue, not a flaw, lardass. You know, like physical fitness, or giving a shit about my own appearances, or not being a self-centered fuck with an overinflated ego and sense of entitlement.
Due to the fact that there are Christians who are perfectly capable of understanding personal responsibility and consequences, I wholeheartedly disagree; Plus, AC made a generalization, and as we should all know, most generalizations are false, including this one.
Not to mention, "Nosy douche-bag" and "Christian" are not mutually inclusive, no matter how much some people like to think it.
Actually, the whole not believing some one because you never saw it yourself is incredibly scientifically minded at least in the sense of using inductive reasoning.
I'm not saying that I expect people to take my word for it - much the opposite: What I'm saying is, if you're going to dismiss something as "bunk" or nonsense, you better have the evidence to back it up, same as would be expected if you were making a dubious claim.
You're welcome to not believe in anomalous phenomena that causes inanimate objects to move through space without obvious assistance, without being called names. I only ask that the same courtesy be extended to those of us who have seen such things with our own eyes, and think there's something of scientific value in researching such events..
Except the TV ghost hunter people. Feel free to tear those simpletons a new one.
I don't disagree with that; in fact, I would love to see some serious research (actual research, not some stupid fucking TV show where a bunch of morons run around abandoned buildings with night-vision cameras, jumping out of their skin every time a mouse farts) done in what are typically considered "paranormal" areas, namely because I don't believe in ghosts n' such and thus, there must be a perfectly reasonable, scientifically verifiable cause for these types of strange phenomena.
I'm going to call you stupid for believing something extraordinary without any evidence to back that up, because magical thinking is stupid.
Well, then, I will probably respond that it's too bad you're such a narcissistic asshat that you'd rather attack someone personally for positing a notion you can't fathom, instead of taking the scientific route of so much as attempting to prove your own contention with experimentation and research.
Read: I don't believe you saw what you saw, and even though I wasn't there and have no reasonable, alternate explanation, I'm going to call you stupid for believing you saw something that I don't believe you saw, based entirely on my own blind faith.
How... unscientific of you.
Although Occam's Razor is not a hard-wired feature of the universe, it is always worth considering in cases like these. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, you ignore the impossible explanation and go for the merely improbable one instead.
It IS more likely that someone played a trick on an impressionable 15 year old, rather than accepting the "haunted house" explanation.
Perhaps so, but how do you find out, definitively? The answer, of course, is 'experimentation and research,' not 'dismiss the idea out-of-hand, because I have personal hangups about the topic.'
What "azav" and "CanHasDIY" posted was anecdotal evidence, but it's not their fault we would prefer scientific evidence, and - especially from their own reference frame - there is no onus on them to provide it. Since they experienced something directly, they assign that something a higher confidence value; since we have only the word of two pseudonymous posters on the internet, we assign it a lower confidence value (potentially even zero or negative).
Hell yea, that's what I'm going for - I want people with scientific minds to look into this stuff, so we can get a definitive answer, instead of having to choose between* the decidedly un-scientific opinions of "it were a ghostesses!" or "der's no such thing as ghostesses!"
Answers, dammit! I want 'em!
* Yea, yea, I know it's not a binary choice, but I think you get my point.
If I was living through an extended "haunted house" series of events, I'd make damned sure I recorded them as far as possible, got in neutral witnesses, and so on.
If I hadn't been about 10 years old at the time, I totally would have done that.
So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
... or an illusionist. Like "The Amazing Randi." Difference is, I don't have to put flattering adjectives before my name to feel good about myself (although, "The Spectacularly Well-Hung CanHasDIY does have a nice ring to it...)
And the reason these phenomenon are frequently discounted is because they almost inevitably do not stand up to scrutiny.
... and by "scrutiny," you mean, "immediate dismissal without even a hint of informed thought or research."
Otherwise, you know, you'd be able to offer some evidence that such scientific scrutiny has occurred.
I'll be blunt, the paranormal "field of research" is populated by a long list of quacks and frauds
Yes, there have.
Of course, there are many fields of research that are populated by 'quacks and frauds,' as you put it - climate science is a big one. Are you saying that you don't think we should "waste time" with climate science, because there are frauds who manipulate data for their own personal gain? What about pharmaceutical research, is there no value there thanks to the rampant fraud that occurs?
I think your bias is showing.
How many times do researchers have to waste their time
And therein lies the reality of your argument - you "don't believe" that there could be anything not explainable by science in it's current iteration, and therefore, any research into such subjects is, "a waste of time.' Pretty unscientific way of thinking, if you ask me.
There have been no lack of studies
OK, cite them then. I mean, we are discussing the difference between science and nonsense, right? Well, if that's the case, and your position is one that passes scientific scrutiny, you should have no issue presenting the studies you reference.
Atheists aren't the ones making an assertion about anything.
Atheism is non-dogmatic. Thus, to claim a generalization about atheism is wildly inaccurate, and belies a fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.
Obviously your reading comprehension skills aren't the best, so I'll try and boil my point down to terms you can understand: An atheist who claims, "you're an idiot for believing in a divine creator" is no different than a fundamental Christian/Muslim/whathaveyou that says, "you're an idiot for not believing in a divine creator," and for the exact same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't be surprising - Hoover used to do that with drugs during the early days of the FBI.
Buy a shitload of heroin, take a picture of you and your buddies looking all gangbusters in front of it, and slap that bitch on the front page - instant public support!
So when I reach the checkpoint, I say, "I'd like to opt out of the scanner, please." About 75% of the time, they nod and say, "Okay, we'll have to do an inspection over here, sir." The (small) number of times that they've questioned my decision, I simply say, "I fly frequently, and I'm not convinced of the safety or dosing of the radiation from these machines, so I prefer the old school pat-down."
I've yet to be hassled, and I fly 3-4 times a month, year round, and have been doing so for years. I see tough guys and funny guys get hassled frequently enough because they make jokes about weapons and bombs, or opt out by being abusive and rude. Opt out politely, and you'll be waved over to the side and patted down and sent on your way. Opt out like a douche-mouth, and you'll hold up the line for 20 minutes.
People who travel frequently hate the guys like you because you disrupt the line, distract security, and waste our time - we wish you'd get ball cancer and die.
Oh, who's a good boy? You are! That's right! Does the good boy wanna biscuit? Such a good, good doggy...
Don't be obtuse; this isn't Yahoo or Huffpo.
There's a third option: You don't have to fly.
Actually, a fourth as well: Only fly domestically, in private planes, to/from private airports.
They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.
Absolutely. A lot of burglars brag at barrooms where anyone can overhear.
But do they brag in the checkout line of the store they plan on robbing?
would you trust your $10,000 more on a server somewhere or in an FDIC-covered bank?
Depends... which one, when withdrawn, throws a flag in a government database, and puts my name on some clandestine list?
The {New York] Police Department says it is scrupulous....
Sure it is.
And I'm the Queen of England.
Helllllloooooooooo!
You should really check into your possible ADA benefits for that unfortunate birth defect that makes you constructed of 99% asshole (cells).
That's a virtue, not a flaw, lardass. You know, like physical fitness, or giving a shit about my own appearances, or not being a self-centered fuck with an overinflated ego and sense of entitlement.
Due to the fact that there are Christians who are perfectly capable of understanding personal responsibility and consequences, I wholeheartedly disagree; Plus, AC made a generalization, and as we should all know, most generalizations are false, including this one.
Not to mention, "Nosy douche-bag" and "Christian" are not mutually inclusive, no matter how much some people like to think it.
1997 called. They want their "(Now - X years) called" joke back.
^ :P
Just mad cuz you didn't think of it first
Whoosh... or douche?
I'll let the reader be the judge.
That... or my original contention is correct, and fundamental atheists are just as unreasonable and childish as fundamental theists.
Let's face it, nobody likes having their blind faith questioned. The current -1 mod on my original post serves as evidence enough.
Actually, the whole not believing some one because you never saw it yourself is incredibly scientifically minded at least in the sense of using inductive reasoning.
I'm not saying that I expect people to take my word for it - much the opposite: What I'm saying is, if you're going to dismiss something as "bunk" or nonsense, you better have the evidence to back it up, same as would be expected if you were making a dubious claim.
You're welcome to not believe in anomalous phenomena that causes inanimate objects to move through space without obvious assistance, without being called names. I only ask that the same courtesy be extended to those of us who have seen such things with our own eyes, and think there's something of scientific value in researching such events..
Except the TV ghost hunter people. Feel free to tear those simpletons a new one.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don't disagree with that; in fact, I would love to see some serious research (actual research, not some stupid fucking TV show where a bunch of morons run around abandoned buildings with night-vision cameras, jumping out of their skin every time a mouse farts) done in what are typically considered "paranormal" areas, namely because I don't believe in ghosts n' such and thus, there must be a perfectly reasonable, scientifically verifiable cause for these types of strange phenomena.
I'm going to call you stupid for believing something extraordinary without any evidence to back that up, because magical thinking is stupid.
Well, then, I will probably respond that it's too bad you're such a narcissistic asshat that you'd rather attack someone personally for positing a notion you can't fathom, instead of taking the scientific route of so much as attempting to prove your own contention with experimentation and research.
You were had.
Read: I don't believe you saw what you saw, and even though I wasn't there and have no reasonable, alternate explanation, I'm going to call you stupid for believing you saw something that I don't believe you saw, based entirely on my own blind faith.
How... unscientific of you.
Although Occam's Razor is not a hard-wired feature of the universe, it is always worth considering in cases like these. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, you ignore the impossible explanation and go for the merely improbable one instead.
It IS more likely that someone played a trick on an impressionable 15 year old, rather than accepting the "haunted house" explanation.
Perhaps so, but how do you find out, definitively? The answer, of course, is 'experimentation and research,' not 'dismiss the idea out-of-hand, because I have personal hangups about the topic.'
Without any evidence one way or the other, yes, that would be quite unscientific.
Accepting wild ass claims just because someone insists "me and my buddies saw it, do we look like liars to you" is not science.
Neither is rejecting them offhand without doing any research whatsoever.
Which was my point... didn't think it was that obfuscated...
2000 called, they want their crappy hardware back.
The second one.
Thank you for your input, we will add it to our list of "considerations."
Sincerely,
The Owners (AKA Dice Holdings, Inc.)
What "azav" and "CanHasDIY" posted was anecdotal evidence, but it's not their fault we would prefer scientific evidence, and - especially from their own reference frame - there is no onus on them to provide it. Since they experienced something directly, they assign that something a higher confidence value; since we have only the word of two pseudonymous posters on the internet, we assign it a lower confidence value (potentially even zero or negative).
Hell yea, that's what I'm going for - I want people with scientific minds to look into this stuff, so we can get a definitive answer, instead of having to choose between* the decidedly un-scientific opinions of "it were a ghostesses!" or "der's no such thing as ghostesses!"
Answers, dammit! I want 'em!
* Yea, yea, I know it's not a binary choice, but I think you get my point.
If I was living through an extended "haunted house" series of events, I'd make damned sure I recorded them as far as possible, got in neutral witnesses, and so on.
If I hadn't been about 10 years old at the time, I totally would have done that.
Sadly, the house has since been torn down :(
So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
... or an illusionist. Like "The Amazing Randi." Difference is, I don't have to put flattering adjectives before my name to feel good about myself (although, "The Spectacularly Well-Hung CanHasDIY does have a nice ring to it...)
And the reason these phenomenon are frequently discounted is because they almost inevitably do not stand up to scrutiny.
... and by "scrutiny," you mean, "immediate dismissal without even a hint of informed thought or research."
Otherwise, you know, you'd be able to offer some evidence that such scientific scrutiny has occurred.
I'll be blunt, the paranormal "field of research" is populated by a long list of quacks and frauds
Yes, there have.
Of course, there are many fields of research that are populated by 'quacks and frauds,' as you put it - climate science is a big one. Are you saying that you don't think we should "waste time" with climate science, because there are frauds who manipulate data for their own personal gain? What about pharmaceutical research, is there no value there thanks to the rampant fraud that occurs?
I think your bias is showing.
How many times do researchers have to waste their time
And therein lies the reality of your argument - you "don't believe" that there could be anything not explainable by science in it's current iteration, and therefore, any research into such subjects is, "a waste of time.' Pretty unscientific way of thinking, if you ask me.
There have been no lack of studies
OK, cite them then. I mean, we are discussing the difference between science and nonsense, right? Well, if that's the case, and your position is one that passes scientific scrutiny, you should have no issue presenting the studies you reference.
You guys do realize, that by downvoting my post, you're only serving to prove me right, right?
That guy's questioning our faith! Quick, destroy his karma!
Irony - it cracks me up!
You are an idiot, then.
Great way to open the dialog, dickface.
Atheists aren't the ones making an assertion about anything.
Atheism is non-dogmatic. Thus, to claim a generalization about atheism is wildly inaccurate, and belies a fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.
Obviously your reading comprehension skills aren't the best, so I'll try and boil my point down to terms you can understand: An atheist who claims, "you're an idiot for believing in a divine creator" is no different than a fundamental Christian/Muslim/whathaveyou that says, "you're an idiot for not believing in a divine creator," and for the exact same reason.