5 ms·

"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests" I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease woul

by corin_ 16y ago

"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests" I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.

electromagnetic 16y ago
I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to find drugs concealed on a persons body. Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google. http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more harmful. A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade. Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
      - Tamerlin 16y ago
        It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy. Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)
cabalamat 16y ago
> I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.
- corin_ 16y ago
  You can chose a different TSA agent. Going to another doctor won't change the fact that, to diagnose certain problems, he/she may need to touch your testicals.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    However many people, especially men, do not allow embarrassing and painful tests done to them unless they're scared. They literally choose increased chance of death over those invasive exams. I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)
Tamerlin 16y ago
* If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.* Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.

by corin_ 16y ago

electromagnetic 16y ago

I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to find drugs concealed on a persons body. Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google. http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more harmful. A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade. Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
    - Tamerlin 16y ago
      It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy. Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)

cabalamat 16y ago

> I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.

corin_ 16y ago
You can chose a different TSA agent. Going to another doctor won't change the fact that, to diagnose certain problems, he/she may need to touch your testicals.
- gte910h 16y ago
  However many people, especially men, do not allow embarrassing and painful tests done to them unless they're scared. They literally choose increased chance of death over those invasive exams. I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)

Tamerlin 16y ago

* If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.* Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.