5 ms·

EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want st

EDIT: I am not defending the policy. I would like to address the specific argument you've used to attack it. (I don't agree with the laptop ban, and I want strong arguments being made against it, not weak arguments.) --- >At some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it. I would like you to please pay attention for a moment (try to follow my train of thought), maybe I can convince you of something. So, I think that what you've just written is a particularly/incredibly weak argument and regardless of your or my position on the issue I really would like to take a minute to try to convince you not to make this argument again. Make a better argument! So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms. Or you can apply it to anything really. Suppose you said "violent rapes will always happen", so we should just learn to live with it instead of having infrastructure to deal with it. I don't know - make a list of heinous things people can do to each other, employers to employees, everyday people, whatever. Think of things there are laws and policies against - and imagine someone suggesting that instead, people just learn to live with the problem. I think there is a large chance people will misunderstand the point of my comment: the point of my comment is that as an argument, "terrorists are always going to want to..." so "just live with it" is a very weak argument. Instead of this argument, a different argument needs to be made. It simply shouldn't be made on this, or any other subject, I feel. I would like to expand the topic in question to show how problematic the argument is: I think, conservatively, a sum total of $1 trillion (current dollars) will have been spent on researching/curing/innoculuating against/preventing AIDS. Suppose someone suggested that instead of spending $1 trillion on curing it, we simply "learned to deal with it." (Or imagine the same attitude toward cancer research.) I hope at least this example will show why the argument itself ("we should just accept that there will always be AIDS") is particularly weak. It's simply not true! I hope I've convinced you to avoid using this argument again. This does not mean other arguments can't be made - just this particular specific variation. Use a stronger argument against bullshit policies! ---- EDIT: as expected people have misunderstood my point. I will give your argument a name: "argument from helplessness." We can't solve it, so we should just accept that it will open happen. Why would it be a given that explosives can always be brought on planes? I am not defending this particular policy, but the argument from helplessness should not be one of the arguments made against it! It's a bad, weak argument, period. It won't convince anyone. Make a better argument!

rplst8 10y ago
> So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms. No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is either lying or delusional. The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters we'll have to deal with.
- logicallee 10y ago
  The part that you say "nobody says" is what I took the GP to be saying, roughly... Obviously we can expand your "an attack that is known" to preventing other kinds of attack - for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes. That's all I mean -- other arguments are fine, just not the argument from helplessness. It's a weak argument and won't convince anybody.
  - rplst8 10y ago
    > for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes. Of course. Passive detection of illegal substances is fine by me. But making me partially disrobe, manual searches of by bags, and prevention from travel if I do not submit to the coercion is wrong and a violation of everyone's rights. A "bomb" detector is no different from a smoke detector. It's not a search (as long as it isn't also used to identify people by smell and track their movements).

rplst8 10y ago

> So, suppose that someone said, "At some point we should just accept that ransoms will happen" and so simply stop supporting the FBI and let bad guys kidnap any family of billionaires whenever they want, and to have these billionaires start paying ransoms. No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to stop an attack that is known, or that we shouldn't investigate who carried out and authorized an attack and seek justice. The primary role that government serves to the people with respect to crime is the serving of justice. Protection from all things harmful and crime prevention are not guaranteed. Anyone trying to sell you such guarantee is either lying or delusional. The more we realize we are responsible for our own well being, take responsibility, and keep a watchful eye, the safer and better off everyone will be. When it's finally understood that people will protect themselves and deny a terrorists ability to carry out a plot, the less of these monsters we'll have to deal with.

logicallee 10y ago
The part that you say "nobody says" is what I took the GP to be saying, roughly... Obviously we can expand your "an attack that is known" to preventing other kinds of attack - for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes. That's all I mean -- other arguments are fine, just not the argument from helplessness. It's a weak argument and won't convince anybody.
- rplst8 10y ago
  > for example if a $50 device beeps whenever there's an explosive (it sniffs the air as passengers walk past it) then it can prevent unknown attacks and I'm sure you would agree that it should be installed rather than "accept" that passengers will always bring explosives on planes. Of course. Passive detection of illegal substances is fine by me. But making me partially disrobe, manual searches of by bags, and prevention from travel if I do not submit to the coercion is wrong and a violation of everyone's rights. A "bomb" detector is no different from a smoke detector. It's not a search (as long as it isn't also used to identify people by smell and track their movements).