Yeah, you might as well search everyone, everywhere constantly. What if that person walking down the sidewalk has a bomb? Search everyone! Forget the constitution; I want to feel safe, and my ability to do so is clearly more important than any silly 'freedom'!
If the destruction of a few buildings can do this, I wonder what would happen if something even worse happened...
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.
I don't know why people here seem to be defending what I believe is mere paranoid nonsense. The chance of an actual terrorist attack is comically small, and I'd rather disband the TSA completely (they're useless anyway) and allow such jokes than cower from an unlikely threat.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable.
They have no right to not be offended/made uncomfortable by a joke.
The asshole is, say, the government for telling Company X they have to stop polluting waterways with dioxin and not Company X.
Well, the government is certainly the one trying to stop them from polluting in that example, but that doesn't mean they're wrong for imposing the restrictions. I don't believe anyone is saying that restrictions are always bad.
Clearly some people here do think MIT is wrong since innocents are being punished as well.
If atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, then why do we have two different words?
I don't think they're the same thing, but the way I see it is that if you claim to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you're saying that you're not completely sure whether a god exists or not.
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.
I sort of disagree, but I don't think that theists are necessarily idiots (depends on the theist). An atheist might think a theist is an idiot because he/she believes it is unreasonable to believe in a god when there is no evidence that one exists, not because he/she is certain that a god does not exist. That could be seen as quite a huge difference from theists who call others idiots for not believing in a god when there is no evidence that one exists.
And by that I'm referring to the set of freedoms which I find important. If you disagree with me that we should not have a certain freedom I believe people should have, then it is not a No True Scotsman for me to say that you probably don't care about or even oppose people having such freedoms. It's all about what I personally support.
A better example of a No True Scotsman would be if I made up a standard that you must meet in order to be able to be an X and tried to say that anyone who doesn't meet the standard couldn't be an X, but normal definitions didn't support my standard. But this is just a disagreement over what should and should not be a fundamental freedom.
Interesting how the first response is to assume that a seller is 'guilty' of making an extra copy before selling it and ban the practice of selling 'used' files altogether.
I merely hope it was a joke. If it wasn't... well, poking holes in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic doesn't exactly seem difficult, so I suppose it wouldn't be too problematic if it turned out he truly believes what he posted.
And even if the TSA had prevented an attack, I believe we should regard this 'My ability to feel safe is more important than your silly little freedoms!' mentality as poisonous.
which is that wealth inequity and the lack of economic security are much bigger issues than privacy.
What if I just said that they're all problems? We can tackle more than one problem at once, and if you're really worried about economic security, maybe you should ask the government to stop wasting so much money spying on its own people.
Take freedom of speech for example. You might speak your mind but the press can portray (all hail our corporate/government overlords) you as a lunatic so it becomes irrelevant what you are saying.
I just take it to mean that you generally won't be thrown in prison because the government doesn't like what you said, not that others won't mock you for what you're saying.
If basic rights can be repealed I think it's pointless to speak about rights at all.
Bad things happen; I don't think a valid response is to completely give up.
The question is, TSA has no way of knowing what a terrorist might use to harm the flyers.
Terrorists are a nearly nonexistent threat anyway.
If you want to fly safely, then don't blame them.
We've secured the cockpit doors and citizens are now more than happy to fight back against any would-be hijacker; that's more than enough, in my opinion.
Every government agency and companies have morons working for them, that does not mean they were specifically and intentionally selected to harass their customers.
The TSA is specifically designed to infringe upon the rights of everyone who tries to get on a plane; that is its purpose, and security theater is its excuse.
People who never lived in Asia, Africa and other 3rd world countries do not know what is harrassment. Go visit and liver there for a year or two, then return to enjoy the US freedom. Most people and their ancestors migrated to USA to avoid supression of their rights, yet once they are in USA start complaining. Stop and grow up.
So your logic is that if a situation could be worse, then that means the current situation isn't bad/is acceptable? I suppose you wouldn't mind if someone punched you in the face, then? After all, he/she could have broken your arm, and many would likely agree that having your arm broken is almost always worse than being punched in the face, so you shouldn't whine if you get punched in the face.
but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.
Sure it is. What else is it when the government arbitrarily decides that the constitution no longer applies simply because you want to get on a plane? I'm not giving them permission to search me; I just want to get on a plane, and they happen to be standing in my way.
There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.
I don't really care what a random court rules. Or rather, I do care, but I believe they're wrong.
It's amazing how easy it is to take advantage of people's fear after a disaster, isn't it? That's exactly what the government did after 9/11, and some of the courts are apparently on their side.
I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason
Until they do something you don't like, that is; then all of a sudden I'm sure you'd have a problem with the government having given itself the power to declare certain areas constitution-free zones.
I can only assume you believe the government to be made up of perfect beings who can do no wrong and can never fall to corruption; I can see no other reason you'd say such things, which I believe are ridiculously naive.
Did you even listen to what I said? This is the government arbitrarily deciding that the constitution does not apply in airports, and searching everyone without a warrant or even a solid reason. All I can figure is that you don't care about the constitution at all.
Furthermore, driving a car, riding a train, and riding a boat are also all optional activities. Hell, travel in general can be an optional activity! The fact that something is an optional activity does not mean the government should be able to blatantly violate your rights in exchange for letting you have the 'privilege' of going about your business. Actually, living in a particular city is also optional; you could live elsewhere, right? So should the government be able to arbitrarily declare certain locations constitution-free zones or not? Do you even understand the implications of this?
You didn't think government was the only threat to privacy did you?
Some corporations seem to gleefully hand over information to the government upon request, and even assist the government in its spying at times. A corporation having tons of information about you probably means that the government could easily get that information as well.
People are stupid. The TSA repeatedly told us to remove EVERYTHING from our pockets. I can't tell you how many people tried to pass through without doing that, then held the fucking line up while they were put through again. I posit that there are individuals who just make trouble for themselves by not following simple directions. Yeah, I know about rebellion. Standing in line at the airport isn't the place to be rebellious.
Actually, it was the TSA that was holding the line up with their nonsense, not the people who kept things in their pockets.
First of all flying is not a right, if you don't want to deal the the TSA, don't fly.
Ah, so the government should be able to arbitrarily declare that the constitution no longer applies in certain areas (airports)? Because that's what's happening: they're searching people without a warrant or even a cause.
It almost sounded like you were defending security theater in that sentence. Need I remind you that the TSA is a government organization? I certain feel I have a right to not be searched and harassed by them simply because I want to get on a plane.
There's a difference between no security, real security and the rape-o-scope security we have now.
Between no security and security that violates any of my rights, I'll take no security. The chance of a terrorist killing me are near zero, anyway.
It really all depends on what you meant by "real security," though. I believe securing the cockpit doors is an example of real security, and that violates no one's rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you might as well search everyone, everywhere constantly. What if that person walking down the sidewalk has a bomb? Search everyone! Forget the constitution; I want to feel safe, and my ability to do so is clearly more important than any silly 'freedom'!
If the destruction of a few buildings can do this, I wonder what would happen if something even worse happened...
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.
I don't know why people here seem to be defending what I believe is mere paranoid nonsense. The chance of an actual terrorist attack is comically small, and I'd rather disband the TSA completely (they're useless anyway) and allow such jokes than cower from an unlikely threat.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable.
They have no right to not be offended/made uncomfortable by a joke.
The asshole is, say, the government for telling Company X they have to stop polluting waterways with dioxin and not Company X.
Well, the government is certainly the one trying to stop them from polluting in that example, but that doesn't mean they're wrong for imposing the restrictions. I don't believe anyone is saying that restrictions are always bad.
Clearly some people here do think MIT is wrong since innocents are being punished as well.
If atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, then why do we have two different words?
I don't think they're the same thing, but the way I see it is that if you claim to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you're saying that you're not completely sure whether a god exists or not.
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.
I sort of disagree, but I don't think that theists are necessarily idiots (depends on the theist). An atheist might think a theist is an idiot because he/she believes it is unreasonable to believe in a god when there is no evidence that one exists, not because he/she is certain that a god does not exist. That could be seen as quite a huge difference from theists who call others idiots for not believing in a god when there is no evidence that one exists.
Drug laws are not there to protect you.
They seem to be there to give people the same sort of security theater that the TSA gives us.
And by that I'm referring to the set of freedoms which I find important. If you disagree with me that we should not have a certain freedom I believe people should have, then it is not a No True Scotsman for me to say that you probably don't care about or even oppose people having such freedoms. It's all about what I personally support.
A better example of a No True Scotsman would be if I made up a standard that you must meet in order to be able to be an X and tried to say that anyone who doesn't meet the standard couldn't be an X, but normal definitions didn't support my standard. But this is just a disagreement over what should and should not be a fundamental freedom.
Aaahh.. the infamous No true Scotsman
Not really. I'm using my own personal definitions there, so I'm not saying any such thing.
Interesting how the first response is to assume that a seller is 'guilty' of making an extra copy before selling it and ban the practice of selling 'used' files altogether.
Even if education didn't do anything (which I don't believe), I think anyone who cares about freedom already opposes prohibition and the drug war.
We are talking about drugs where one bad decisions by a 15 year old will destroy his life.
I've seen adults make bad decisions that 'destroyed' their lives, and I really couldn't care less about how old they are.
I merely hope it was a joke. If it wasn't... well, poking holes in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic doesn't exactly seem difficult, so I suppose it wouldn't be too problematic if it turned out he truly believes what he posted.
having not yet prevented any attack
And even if the TSA had prevented an attack, I believe we should regard this 'My ability to feel safe is more important than your silly little freedoms!' mentality as poisonous.
which is that wealth inequity and the lack of economic security are much bigger issues than privacy.
What if I just said that they're all problems? We can tackle more than one problem at once, and if you're really worried about economic security, maybe you should ask the government to stop wasting so much money spying on its own people.
April Fools! ...Right?
Take freedom of speech for example. You might speak your mind but the press can portray (all hail our corporate/government overlords) you as a lunatic so it becomes irrelevant what you are saying.
I just take it to mean that you generally won't be thrown in prison because the government doesn't like what you said, not that others won't mock you for what you're saying.
If basic rights can be repealed I think it's pointless to speak about rights at all.
Bad things happen; I don't think a valid response is to completely give up.
The question is, TSA has no way of knowing what a terrorist might use to harm the flyers.
Terrorists are a nearly nonexistent threat anyway.
If you want to fly safely, then don't blame them.
We've secured the cockpit doors and citizens are now more than happy to fight back against any would-be hijacker; that's more than enough, in my opinion.
Every government agency and companies have morons working for them, that does not mean they were specifically and intentionally selected to harass their customers.
The TSA is specifically designed to infringe upon the rights of everyone who tries to get on a plane; that is its purpose, and security theater is its excuse.
People who never lived in Asia, Africa and other 3rd world countries do not know what is harrassment. Go visit and liver there for a year or two, then return to enjoy the US freedom. Most people and their ancestors migrated to USA to avoid supression of their rights, yet once they are in USA start complaining. Stop and grow up.
So your logic is that if a situation could be worse, then that means the current situation isn't bad/is acceptable? I suppose you wouldn't mind if someone punched you in the face, then? After all, he/she could have broken your arm, and many would likely agree that having your arm broken is almost always worse than being punched in the face, so you shouldn't whine if you get punched in the face.
but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.
Sure it is. What else is it when the government arbitrarily decides that the constitution no longer applies simply because you want to get on a plane? I'm not giving them permission to search me; I just want to get on a plane, and they happen to be standing in my way.
There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.
I don't really care what a random court rules. Or rather, I do care, but I believe they're wrong.
It's amazing how easy it is to take advantage of people's fear after a disaster, isn't it? That's exactly what the government did after 9/11, and some of the courts are apparently on their side.
I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason
Until they do something you don't like, that is; then all of a sudden I'm sure you'd have a problem with the government having given itself the power to declare certain areas constitution-free zones.
I can only assume you believe the government to be made up of perfect beings who can do no wrong and can never fall to corruption; I can see no other reason you'd say such things, which I believe are ridiculously naive.
Did you even listen to what I said? This is the government arbitrarily deciding that the constitution does not apply in airports, and searching everyone without a warrant or even a solid reason. All I can figure is that you don't care about the constitution at all.
Furthermore, driving a car, riding a train, and riding a boat are also all optional activities. Hell, travel in general can be an optional activity! The fact that something is an optional activity does not mean the government should be able to blatantly violate your rights in exchange for letting you have the 'privilege' of going about your business. Actually, living in a particular city is also optional; you could live elsewhere, right? So should the government be able to arbitrarily declare certain locations constitution-free zones or not? Do you even understand the implications of this?
You didn't think government was the only threat to privacy did you?
Some corporations seem to gleefully hand over information to the government upon request, and even assist the government in its spying at times. A corporation having tons of information about you probably means that the government could easily get that information as well.
People are stupid. The TSA repeatedly told us to remove EVERYTHING from our pockets. I can't tell you how many people tried to pass through without doing that, then held the fucking line up while they were put through again. I posit that there are individuals who just make trouble for themselves by not following simple directions. Yeah, I know about rebellion. Standing in line at the airport isn't the place to be rebellious.
Actually, it was the TSA that was holding the line up with their nonsense, not the people who kept things in their pockets.
First of all flying is not a right, if you don't want to deal the the TSA, don't fly.
Ah, so the government should be able to arbitrarily declare that the constitution no longer applies in certain areas (airports)? Because that's what's happening: they're searching people without a warrant or even a cause.
It almost sounded like you were defending security theater in that sentence. Need I remind you that the TSA is a government organization? I certain feel I have a right to not be searched and harassed by them simply because I want to get on a plane.
Or we could just stop being so afraid of nearly nonexistent threats and just dismantle the TSA completely.
There's a difference between no security, real security and the rape-o-scope security we have now.
Between no security and security that violates any of my rights, I'll take no security. The chance of a terrorist killing me are near zero, anyway.
It really all depends on what you meant by "real security," though. I believe securing the cockpit doors is an example of real security, and that violates no one's rights.
If you start arguing with them about your constitutional rights, you will just hold up yourself and the rest of the line.
How dare you inconvenience me with your 'rights' nonsense!