soseussme: zabadu: soseussme: zabadu: soseussme: zabadu: soseussme: zabadu: Doc Daneeka: zabadu: No offense to rape victims, but a pat down is not a sexual assault.

If I went out and touched a stranger in that way, I would be arrested for sexual assault, and rightfully so. And somehow I doubt the judge would be receptive to the argument that "my boss told me to do it" or "in my own personal morality it's not wrong."

The actions that TSA agents perform would be considered sexual assault in any other context, and the only reason that you are not considering it sexual assault in this context is because the TSA has chosen to give it the euphemism "enhanced patdown" instead.

However, as the saying goes, a rose by any other name, is still felony sexual assault.

Farkers, who on a daily basic, make bottom barrel comments about boobs, and various other body parts, actually say they would "hit it with the fist of God...many times" and generally yelling "put it in her pooper" are now bastions of what defines rape.

LO F'ing L.

So now your argument is "SOME Farkers have said X, so NO Farkers have anything relevant to contribute to the topic?"

That's the stupidest thing you've put out there so far. I'm not putting you on ignore yet, because I think you'll top it in no time.

It's okay to belittle women as long as it's in the context of humor, but not when you don't like it.

That's a farker!

I made no such claims. I said, and I'll rephrase it so that maybe you'll understand, that other people saying things on Fark has no impact on the legitimacy of anything anyone else says.

care to address that point, rather than claim I said something completely different?

There have been, in all these TSA threads, Farkers that have posted "You gonna get raped" "hit it with fist of angry god" that have also posted "don't touch my junk" or "pat down is sexual abuse". So which is it? You gonna get raped or all genital touches are bad?

Falso dichotomy. And again, what the other Farkers have said doesn't affect the legitimacy of what I say.

If you can find any post that I've ever made in any thread that would appear to glorify rape or sexual assault, cite it, but don't waste too much time searching because I haven't made any posts like that.

Also, quit pretending that other peoples' posts with those kinds of statements are a reflection on MY thoughts and attitudes.

I'm not trying to make you argue points you didn't make.

Bullshiat. I'm not saying YOU made the comments. I'm saying Farkers that have posted "You gonna get raped" "hit it with fist of angry god" that have also posted "don't touch my junk" or "pat down is sexual abuse".

That's what I said. Period.

So what was that bolded part supposed to mean then? How does it relate to anything that I said?

Or are you just randomy typing responses that have nothing to do with the person you're replying to?

That statement, taken in context with what I posted BEFORE, makes perfect sense.soseussme: zabadu: soseussme: Just to revisit the "slang" argument:

Note that some words will trigger the Fark filter. I'm assuming against all evidence that everyone will be able to figure this out.

If I say "I farked that girl," the fact that "fark" is a slang term is not evidence that my statement is untrue.

Whether that use of "grope" is slang or not is completely irrelevant.

I'm sure that makes sense to most people in this thread, but the one too stupid to understand analogies and who insists on attributing statements of some Farkers to ALL Farkers probably misses that as well.

Your reading comprehension sucks. It really does.

Once again, I said I'm saying there are Farkers that have posted "You gonna get raped" "hit it with fist of angry god" that have also posted "don't touch my junk" or "pat down is sexual abuse".

Hope you understand it this time.

And I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I made no such comments. Therefore your comment is irrelevant to any post I've made.

So it seems to be that you are countering my argument with things that are utterly irrelevant to my point and then claiming that I'm the one who lacks comprehension.

Great, you've never made those comments. And?

Headso: The TSA wants you to cheer for the football player who raped you.

The TSA wants to force you to eat your own beard.

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Yes, I am aware that when I come into an airport, I am also subject to a random security check, so I am prepared for the moment.

Understood, now lets walk with this a bit. If, in any other environment, a man asks me if he can touch my 3 year old daughter where her swimsuit goes, he's a child molester. If I consent, I'm an accessory to a crime. We both end up on a sex offender's registry.

What makes TSA agents different? Why am I not an accessory in that environment?

I have NEVER once said that it was okay. Everyone has inferred that. I HAVE said

"But you can film a child without the parents knowledge, put it on the internet and sell it to media outlets because "you're in a public place".

Because that's what I was told when I objected to the random person filming the child getting patted down after his father removed his shirt.

Yes you can. There's no presumption of privacy in such a situation. Tactless, but legal.

So to recap, the TSA is molesting children, making their parents accessories to said molestation AND groping/molesting adults with no possible recourse.

...on top of looking at picks of nekid kids all day.

Why do you even attempt to defend these folks?

zabadu
And I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I made no such comments. Therefore your comment is irrelevant to any post I've made.

So it seems to be that you are countering my argument with things that are utterly irrelevant to my point and then claiming that I'm the one who lacks comprehension.

Great, you've never made those comments. And?

well, for one it means you haven't in any way addressed the actual point I made in the post you replied to with that nonsense.

But you know what? I'm going to leave it at that, because I'm getting the creepy feeling that I'm picking on a retarded kid.

Nocens:
Just 2, but I beat and release. Am I supposed to get a permit for more than that?

I don't know why, but I'm laughing hard at the thought of that.

soseussme: zabadu
And I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I made no such comments. Therefore your comment is irrelevant to any post I've made.

So it seems to be that you are countering my argument with things that are utterly irrelevant to my point and then claiming that I'm the one who lacks comprehension.

Great, you've never made those comments. And?

well, for one it means you haven't in any way addressed the actual point I made in the post you replied to with that nonsense.

But you know what? I'm going to leave it at that, because I'm getting the creepy feeling that I'm picking on a retarded kid.

Well, I'm sorry I can't debate on your level. Obviously you're referencing something I can't seem to pick up. I'm more than happy to ask you to 'splain it to me.

//not retarded, just not a decent debater.

zabadu: soseussme: zabadu
And I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I made no such comments. Therefore your comment is irrelevant to any post I've made.

So it seems to be that you are countering my argument with things that are utterly irrelevant to my point and then claiming that I'm the one who lacks comprehension.

Great, you've never made those comments. And?

well, for one it means you haven't in any way addressed the actual point I made in the post you replied to with that nonsense.

But you know what? I'm going to leave it at that, because I'm getting the creepy feeling that I'm picking on a retarded kid.

Well, I'm sorry I can't debate on your level. Obviously you're referencing something I can't seem to pick up. I'm more than happy to ask you to 'splain it to me.

//not retarded, just not a decent debater.

Obviously, you've already argued against your own point 3 times.

You should stop before you prove the remaining open question of your intelligence.

zabadu: zabadu: If someone, who is doing a pat down, touches your privates and sets of all sorts of flashbacks, you have not dealt with your rape accordingly.


I love how no matter how when you argue that you don't get the outrage of the TSA haters, you're a troll.

No, I'm not saying you should have done A or B. I'm saying if you are still having flashbacks, you need more therapy so you can move on.

But since anyone with an opposite opinion of yours is a troll, I can see I'm pissing up a rope.

When you blame rape victims, you have only yourself to blame for the hot smelly mess on your hands.

You actually expect a person to simply not fly until they're declared finished with some kind of therapy for a horrific crime they were victim to? Flying is rather nerve-wracking to begin with. When some TSA smurf comes long and pulls you out of line, you're going to be a little apprehensive, even if you are Clint farking Eastwood. A rape victim getting grabbed by a stranger and pulled away from the safety of family members to do whatever whatever they say or else is all part of normal life, in your view, therapy is supposed to help with or they shouldn't fly. Right. Got it.

Sadly, some people never recover from incidents like that in their lives. Some people are weaker than you and I. Yet I still support their rights to fly and not have their privacy invaded. There are better ways of securing travel without such invasive means. Yet the US still insists on hiring rent-a-cops and letting them use fancy machines with blinking lights and take away scary liquids like shampoo. Now the government has given the mall-cops a free pass to run their hands all over people's privates and scan people without disclosure of radiation levels. The country SHOULD be upset.

RanDomino: EponymousE
What right does a TSA rentacop have to make such an inflated patriotic claim as "duty to my country?" Coming from a military family, you have no right to make that statement.

People, people, no reason to argue... you can both pretend to protect the country.

Not me. I haven't done a thing. I can admit that. : )

rohar: zabadu: soseussme: zabadu
And I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I made no such comments. Therefore your comment is irrelevant to any post I've made.

So it seems to be that you are countering my argument with things that are utterly irrelevant to my point and then claiming that I'm the one who lacks comprehension.

Great, you've never made those comments. And?

well, for one it means you haven't in any way addressed the actual point I made in the post you replied to with that nonsense.

But you know what? I'm going to leave it at that, because I'm getting the creepy feeling that I'm picking on a retarded kid.

Well, I'm sorry I can't debate on your level. Obviously you're referencing something I can't seem to pick up. I'm more than happy to ask you to 'splain it to me.

//not retarded, just not a decent debater.

Obviously, you've already argued against your own point 3 times.

You should stop before you prove the remaining open question of your intelligence.

Personally, I don't care if you think I'm intelligent or not.

EponymousE: Yet the US still insists on hiring rent-a-cops and letting them use fancy machines with blinking lights and take away scary liquids like shampoo. Now the government has given the mall-cops a free pass to run their hands all over people's privates and scan people without disclosure of radiation levels. The country SHOULD be upset.

I keep having visions of George and Martha Washington sitting in rockers in front of the fireplace. George tells Martha "You know Martha, the British are a real threat. I think I'm gonna hire a bunch of agents to grab random tits and scrotums at the ports." Then Martha kills him by hitting him over the head with a cast iron skillet.

Good thing he had more sense than that or we'd all be talking with a British accent.

IrateShadow: "Instead of making this Wednesday National Opt-Out Day in which a bunch of self-appointed guardians of liberty slow down the line for everyone by asking for pat-downs," said Baker, "maybe what we need is a day when everyone who goes through the line says, 'Thanks for what you do.' "

Really? Who gives a shiat about the mental health of TSOs?

Not a TSA fanboy... but who gives a shiat about you?

zabadu: Okay, under your definition TSA agents are now child molesters and sexual predators. Okay, you win.

Again, if I ask to touch your 3 year old daughter's private areas, am I a child molester?

EponymousE: zabadu: zabadu: If someone, who is doing a pat down, touches your privates and sets of all sorts of flashbacks, you have not dealt with your rape accordingly.


I love how no matter how when you argue that you don't get the outrage of the TSA haters, you're a troll.

No, I'm not saying you should have done A or B. I'm saying if you are still having flashbacks, you need more therapy so you can move on.

But since anyone with an opposite opinion of yours is a troll, I can see I'm pissing up a rope.

When you blame rape victims, you have only yourself to blame for the hot smelly mess on your hands.

You actually expect a person to simply not fly until they're declared finished with some kind of therapy for a horrific crime they were victim to? Flying is rather nerve-wracking to begin with. When some TSA smurf comes long and pulls you out of line, you're going to be a little apprehensive, even if you are Clint farking Eastwood. A rape victim getting grabbed by a stranger and pulled away from the safety of family members to do whatever whatever they say or else is all part of normal life, in your view, therapy is supposed to help with or they shouldn't fly. Right. Got it.

Sadly, some people never recover from incidents like that in their lives. Some people are weaker than you and I. Yet I still support their rights to fly and not have their privacy invaded. There are better ways of securing travel without such invasive means. Yet the US still insists on hiring rent-a-cops and letting them use fancy machines with blinking lights and take away scary liquids like shampoo. Now the government has given the mall-cops a free pass to run their hands all over people's privates and scan people without disclosure of radiation levels. The country SHOULD be upset.

As I said, I'm for metal detectors and dogs.

I'm sorry that some people who CHOOSE to fly can't handle what comes with it these days. Until it changes, I do suggest they don't fly.

I'm sure before this is over, someone will tell me I deserved to be raped. Because gee, I can't argue my point well, so I must be so stupid that I deserved it.

Just a note on the whole "sexual assault" aspect: Whether it's sexual assault or not depends solely on consent. When two people agree to have sex, it's not sexual assault. However, if there's threat or duress, then it can be deemed nonconsensual. For example, if the guy says, "Put out or I'll smash you," and the girl let's him have his way, it's still sexual assault.

Some people have no issues with allowing the TSA to touch their privates, so for those people, it's consensual and not sexual assault.

For other people, though, they are completely against it, and the only reason they go along with it is duress -- they know they won't be allowed to get on the plane to visit their family/make the business deal/whatever. For those people, it's fair enough to say they are experiencing unwanted sexual contact, and that's sexual assault, by most peoples' definition.

So if you don't consider it sexual assault, it's not, but if someone else does, it is.

rohar: zabadu: Okay, under your definition TSA agents are now child molesters and sexual predators. Okay, you win.

Again, if I ask to touch your 3 year old daughter's private areas, am I a child molester?

Is your doctor?

rohar: EponymousE: Yet the US still insists on hiring rent-a-cops and letting them use fancy machines with blinking lights and take away scary liquids like shampoo. Now the government has given the mall-cops a free pass to run their hands all over people's privates and scan people without disclosure of radiation levels. The country SHOULD be upset.

I keep having visions of George and Martha Washington sitting in rockers in front of the fireplace. George tells Martha "You know Martha, the British are a real threat. I think I'm gonna hire a bunch of agents to grab random tits and scrotums at the ports." Then Martha kills him by hitting him over the head with a cast iron skillet.

Good thing he had more sense than that or we'd all be talking with a British accent.


Good thing he had more sense than that or we'd all be talking with a British accent.

That's some imagination you have there.

To follow that up, I'll point out that one previous poster pointed out (I think it may have even been zabadu, in which case I'll point out that she did have one absolutely correct point in this thread) -- rape is about power, not sex. The TSA is absolutely about a display of power, so it doesn't matter if the touching doesn't seem "sexual" in nature. People are being forced, against their will, to submit to touching of sexual areas to satisfy someone else's desire to exert power. If the person being touched would not otherwise consent, that's sexual assault.

feel free to disagree, but i think that's just more a statement that you don't mind strangers groping you. It doesn't detract one bit from the fact that other people find it overly intrusive...

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Okay, under your definition TSA agents are now child molesters and sexual predators. Okay, you win.

Again, if I ask to touch your 3 year old daughter's private areas, am I a child molester?

Is your doctor?

If my doctor touches my daughter's private areas, I'm gonna kick his ass. He's not a pediatrician.

See the problem?

Therion: (TSA sucks, but you can thank unions for the eight hour work day, the forty hour work week, paid holidays, vacations, the anti child-labor laws, etc.)

Is that why Americans have less vacation time then almost any other industrialized country in the entire world?

soseussme: To follow that up, I'll point out that one previous poster pointed out (I think it may have even been zabadu, in which case I'll point out that she did have one absolutely correct point in this thread) -- rape is about power, not sex. The TSA is absolutely about a display of power, so it doesn't matter if the touching doesn't seem "sexual" in nature. People are being forced, against their will, to submit to touching of sexual areas to satisfy someone else's desire to exert power. If the person being touched would not otherwise consent, that's sexual assault.

feel free to disagree, but i think that's just more a statement that you don't mind strangers groping you. It doesn't detract one bit from the fact that other people find it overly intrusive...

I did say that, and I wholly agree.

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Okay, under your definition TSA agents are now child molesters and sexual predators. Okay, you win.

Again, if I ask to touch your 3 year old daughter's private areas, am I a child molester?

Is your doctor?

If my doctor touches my daughter's private areas, I'm gonna kick his ass. He's not a pediatrician.

See the problem?

So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

fluffy2097: Therion: (TSA sucks, but you can thank unions for the eight hour work day, the forty hour work week, paid holidays, vacations, the anti child-labor laws, etc.)

Is that why Americans have less vacation time then almost any other industrialized country in the entire world?

Yes, you're right. It's all due to the anti child-labor laws. If those whiny ingrates were put back to work in sweat shops and workhouses we could get back to the days of 45 day vacations being the norm.

rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

zabadu: Why don't you email tbyte? He posted (and I had removed) where I work, right down to the address.

WTF makes you think I give a shiat? You are one deluded little grannie groping troll.

Spoonfed'sBuddy: zabadu: Why don't you email tbyte? He posted (and I had removed) where I work, right down to the address.

WTF makes you think I give a shiat? You are one deluded little grannie groping troll.

You may not, but Fark It was very interested.

Nice to meet you too.

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

tuffsnake: If they don't like there jobs then they should go take a train instead, working as a TSA agent is not a right

Pretty much this. The private sector takes crap on their jobs all day long. Just ask anyone in a customer facing position.

Being a Federal employee doesn't put you in a special position (other than life long benefits and early retirement).

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

zabadu: And maybe you should read the Fark FAQ, because your insinuations are now bordering on harassment, and as you Farkers know, you can't harass rape victims because they might think about their rape.

Not gonna lie. You're kind of an asshole.

Also, you're wrong.

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

Well, that's the situation that just happened (see thread 5776236). That kid wasn't made of metal either, yet he got the full pat down. The "reason" was that the child set off the detectors three times. So setting off the detector is not a valid reason to be searched?

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: zabadu: And maybe you should read the Fark FAQ, because your insinuations are now bordering on harassment, and as you Farkers know, you can't harass rape victims because they might think about their rape.

Not gonna lie. You're kind of an asshole.

Also, you're wrong.

No shiat Sherlock, I know that's not a Fark rule. You're a genius and okay, I'm kind of an asshole.

zabadu: I know that's not a Fark rule. You're a genius and okay, I'm kind of an asshole.

This is the only correct thing you've said all thread.

BTW, I'd be very interested in getting the name of your therapist so I can call him/her up and ask just what kind of therapy you got that was so super effective that it'll work on everyone, so that all those poor rape victims can pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like you did.

Azlefty: FYI Everyone: This is not any sort of "rights" violation, you are giving implied consent to the search/scan by attempting to enter a secure area

If you think this is such a gross violation then show the world by not flying and denying the airlines the revenue!

FYI Everyone: This is not any sort of "rights" violation, you are giving implied consent to phone tapping by attempting to have a conversation over the phone.

If you think this is such a gross violation then show the world by not using the phone and denying telecommunications companies the revenue!

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

Well, that's the situation that just happened (see thread 5776236). That kid wasn't made of metal either, yet he got the full pat down. The "reason" was that the child set off the detectors three times. So setting off the detector is not a valid reason to be searched?

You missed the reason. No shock, logic isn't your strong suit. The "reason" the TSA is molesting kids is to stop a terrorist incident. In the entire history of the TSA, they've not stopped a terrorist. They actually let one known terrorist through screening. No children have ever been involved in a terrorist incident on an aircraft leaving from an American air port. Given all that, the likelihood that child was involved in a terrorist plot was 0%.

That's not reason. Without logic, reason cannot exist. There's no logic here. There is no reason to be groping these kids, and quite likely no reason to be groping the adults.

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

Well, that's the situation that just happened (see thread 5776236). That kid wasn't made of metal either, yet he got the full pat down. The "reason" was that the child set off the detectors three times. So setting off the detector is not a valid reason to be searched?

You missed the reason. No shock, logic isn't your strong suit. The "reason" the TSA is molesting kids is to stop a terrorist incident. In the entire history of the TSA, they've not stopped a terrorist. They actually let one known terrorist through screening. No children have ever been involved in a terrorist incident on an aircraft leaving from an American air port. Given all that, the likelihood that child was involved in a terrorist plot was 0%.

That's not reason. Without logic, reason cannot exist. There's no logic here. There is no reason to be groping these kids, and quite likely no reason to be groping the adults.

Okay, I see your point.

No terrorists caught, no searches. Got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

Well, that's the situation that just happened (see thread 5776236). That kid wasn't made of metal either, yet he got the full pat down. The "reason" was that the child set off the detectors three times. So setting off the detector is not a valid reason to be searched?

You missed the reason. No shock, logic isn't your strong suit. The "reason" the TSA is molesting kids is to stop a terrorist incident. In the entire history of the TSA, they've not stopped a terrorist. They actually let one known terrorist through screening. No children have ever been involved in a terrorist incident on an aircraft leaving from an American air port. Given all that, the likelihood that child was involved in a terrorist plot was 0%.

That's not reason. Without logic, reason cannot exist. There's no logic here. There is no reason to be groping these kids, and quite likely no reason to be groping the adults.

Okay, I see your point.

No terrorists caught, no searches. Got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.

No you don't, now you're being glib. Given that no children have ever been used in a terrorist attempt in the U.S. AND that the same metal detector policies we've used for years have caught 0 terrorists, I'd suggest that searching that child was unreasonable. If the family wants to take this to court as a rights violation issue, it'll be pretty damned interesting.

Meanwhile, we create any amount of collateral damage. You're aware that victims of sexual assault are much more likely to commit sexual crimes right? How many sexual predators are we creating?

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: So it's okay for your pediatrician though, right? Because he has a reason?

My argument has NEVER been about the kids. It's been about the adults.

If my daughter's doctor touched my junk I'd kick his ass too. Probably report him to the police because he'd have committed a crime.

How is it different with a TSA agent?

I'm saying "your daughters doctor touching your daughter". It's okay because he has a reason, right? Or is it not okay?

Only if her mother or I are there, she's comfortable with it and ONLY if there is a reason. Is a TSA agent gonna help out with a rash or something? Where the hell you going with this?

So, you and your wife are with your child at the airport and she sets off the detectors. Three times (like the kid that got the pat down on the news story). Is it okay then? There's a reason. Is the "she set off the detector three times" not a good enough reason? You and your wife are there.

No, there's no "reason". My child is not made of metal and we dress for travel. Even if it did occur, what would that reason possibly be?

Well, that's the situation that just happened (see thread 5776236). That kid wasn't made of metal either, yet he got the full pat down. The "reason" was that the child set off the detectors three times. So setting off the detector is not a valid reason to be searched?

You missed the reason. No shock, logic isn't your strong suit. The "reason" the TSA is molesting kids is to stop a terrorist incident. In the entire history of the TSA, they've not stopped a terrorist. They actually let one known terrorist through screening. No children have ever been involved in a terrorist incident on an aircraft leaving from an American air port. Given all that, the likelihood that child was involved in a terrorist plot was 0%.

That's not reason. Without logic, reason cannot exist. There's no logic here. There is no reason to be groping these kids, and quite likely no reason to be groping the adults.

Okay, I see your point.

No terrorists caught, no searches. Got it. Thanks for explaining it to me.

No you don't, now you're being glib. Given that no children have ever been used in a terrorist attempt in the U.S. AND that the same metal detector policies we've used for years have caught 0 terrorists, I'd suggest that searching that child was unreasonable. If the family wants to take this to court as a rights violation issue, it'll be pretty damned interesting.

Meanwhile, we create any amount of collateral damage. You're aware that victims of sexual assault are much more likely to commit sexual crimes right? How many sexual predators are we creating?

Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

jaimejaim: FitzShivering: jaimejaim: FitzShivering: jaimejaim: So if I understand the consensus; you would all rather get on a plane with someone that has a bomb, than be searched...makes sense.

Let me rephrase that for you:

I would rather run an incredibly tiny chance of getting on a plane with a bomb than have people sexually assaulted and/or have nude pictures taken of them by under-trained, poorly paid workers of an agency that has repeatedly lied to the public.

Yes, that is accurate.

jaimejaim: If there is a tiny chance then that must mean they are beefing up security to boost employment numbers.

FitzShivering: That's really your best response, throwing out a bizarre conspiracy theory in some sardonic attempt to make it seem what you are saying is remotely reasonable, either from an emotional or Bayesian perspective?

I assume you're too subtle to just say you feel there is actually a large chance, in which case, the onus is on you to explain why you believe that. Even if we assume that terrorists will try to take down a plane in the next week, the chances of any individual flier being harmed are pretty darned tiny compared to most other means of travel.

I don't want to attribute such an idiotic argument as, "Well the government is doing things, therefore there must be a threat!!!" but it certainly seems to be the logic underlying your responses.

So I take it there is no threat, that the majority of the world does not hate Americans and that no one has any reason to attack Americans on US soil. You're right we should pull all security now, it's pointless. Apparently the only reason being that the agency that is charged with the protection of airline passengers are pathological liars (I'm assuming this is some crazy tactic to get more people to travel)and are relying on bad intel. If you have good intel you should share. I am certain that the asshat in this story would have preferred to saunter to his plane without the inconvenience of removing his clothing for security.

I love these threads as they have the potential to be the biggest irony threads of them all.

/ especially with the frequency
// also, the best part about conspiracy theories is you can fit every new development into it somehow

zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

rohar: zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

And your comparison of children getting patted down will become predators may be reasonable, but not rational.

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

And your comparison of children getting patted down will become predators may be reasonable, but not rational.

Government policies that increase the risk of sexual predation is neither rational nor reasonable. Your continued support of said policies puts you in a difficult to defend position, logically.

/you got them backwards again
//a dictionary, you may need one

rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

And your comparison of children getting patted down will become predators may be reasonable, but not rational.

Government policies that increase the risk of sexual predation is neither rational nor reasonable. Your continued support of said policies puts you in a difficult to defend position, logically.

/you got them backwards again
//a dictionary, you may need one

Again, I do not support them, but I don't find them the HORROR that you all do.

I'm very sorry that I am not smart enough for you to debate.

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

And your comparison of children getting patted down will become predators may be reasonable, but not rational.

Government policies that increase the risk of sexual predation is neither rational nor reasonable. Your continued support of said policies puts you in a difficult to defend position, logically.

/you got them backwards again
//a dictionary, you may need one

Again, I do not support them, but I don't find them the HORROR that you all do.

So you agree that searching that child was unreasonable?

I'm very sorry that I am not smart enough for you to debate.

Did you really pull the whole "I'm sure I've got a point but I'm too dumb to figure it out so I'm gonna show you all anyway." card?

zabadu: rohar: zabadu: rohar: zabadu: Because you can't understand my words, I'm going to quote from some other thread.

Um, I can understand your words perfectly, you seem to be confusing them. Rational != reasonable. That's the core of my previous response. That said, the quote you posted is meaningless. I'm likely getting on a plane with that terrorist no matter what the TSA does. In it's entire history, it's done nothing to stop terrorism. They're a show only.

Because of that, their enhanced pat downs may be rational, but distinctly not reasonable.

And your comparison of children getting patted down will become predators may be reasonable, but not rational.

Government policies that increase the risk of sexual predation is neither rational nor reasonable. Your continued support of said policies puts you in a difficult to defend position, logically.

/you got them backwards again
//a dictionary, you may need one

Again, I do not support them, but I don't find them the HORROR that you all do.

I'm very sorry that I am not smart enough for you to debate.


Dude, don't fall for this guilt trip she's trying to maneuver here.

Beat her down and make her cry.

Link (new window)

zabadu:

I thought you were an idiot before.

But, after claiming to be a rape survivor, and THEN blaming the victim?

Now I see you're just an arsehole.

Whoever said you'd top yourself and plunge headlong into the pool of troll-dom was so right, I feel like I owe them money.