Airport Body Scans Reveal All

[DiveCon]

Doesn't leave much to hide does it? Which is the damn point. I would rather have this then exploding planes.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

uh, Ben Franklin never actually said that
a publisher put in in the inside cover of a book he wrote
and thats not even the correct quote

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Doesn't leave much to hide does it? Which is the damn point. I would rather have this then exploding planes.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

uh, Ben Franklin never actually said that
a publisher put in in the inside cover of a book he wrote
and thats not even the correct quote

Yeah, you are partially correct. I paraphrased. The actual wording was this-

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

It was in fact penned by Franklin in his notes in 1775 for a propsition before the Pennsylvania Assembly. The story in which you base your statement is that this was the motto of the book An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania and was printed on its title page. This book was penned by Richard Jackson in 1759, but was published by Franklin who took credit for the quote and many other parts of the book. The earliest form of this quote was penned in 1738 in a book called Poor Richard's Almanac, which I promise you belonged to Franklin and it's exact wording was this- "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Anything else?

 

[Amanda]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Taking a ride on an airplane is completely optional, if you don't like the procedure, don't fly. Pretty easy. Your body is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about unless you haven't been taking care of the one you've got.

 

[DiveCon]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

uh, Ben Franklin never actually said that
a publisher put in in the inside cover of a book he wrote
and thats not even the correct quote

Yeah, you are partially correct. I paraphrased. The actual wording was this-

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

It was in fact penned by Franklin in his notes in 1775 for a propsition before the Pennsylvania Assembly. The story in which you base your statement is that this was the motto of the book An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania and was printed on its title page. This book was penned by Richard Jackson in 1759, but was published by Franklin who took credit for the quote and many other parts of the book. The earliest form of this quote was penned in 1738 in a book called Poor Richard's Almanac, which I promise you belonged to Franklin and it's exact wording was this- "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Anything else?

nope
i got the publisher thing messed up

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Who cares? Oh noes someone might see that you don't take care of your body.... um, guess what... everyone already knows.

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Taking a ride on an airplane is completely optional, if you don't like the procedure, don't fly. Pretty easy. Your body is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about unless you haven't been taking care of the one you've got.

The portion that I bolded has little consequence as it is an opinion and not one that is shared by all. However the rest of your statement holds merit. The only problem is that the procedure restricts a citizens right to interstate travel. Also, since when can free enterprise usurp the rights of citizens in order to operate. Don't we have some laws against that?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

uh, Ben Franklin never actually said that
a publisher put in in the inside cover of a book he wrote
and thats not even the correct quote

Yeah, you are partially correct. I paraphrased. The actual wording was this-

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

It was in fact penned by Franklin in his notes in 1775 for a propsition before the Pennsylvania Assembly. The story in which you base your statement is that this was the motto of the book An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania and was printed on its title page. This book was penned by Richard Jackson in 1759, but was published by Franklin who took credit for the quote and many other parts of the book. The earliest form of this quote was penned in 1738 in a book called Poor Richard's Almanac, which I promise you belonged to Franklin and it's exact wording was this- "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Anything else?

nope
i got the publisher thing messed up

You would have been okay had Franklin not been the publisher that put it there. lol

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah, you are partially correct. I paraphrased. The actual wording was this-

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

It was in fact penned by Franklin in his notes in 1775 for a propsition before the Pennsylvania Assembly. The story in which you base your statement is that this was the motto of the book An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania and was printed on its title page. This book was penned by Richard Jackson in 1759, but was published by Franklin who took credit for the quote and many other parts of the book. The earliest form of this quote was penned in 1738 in a book called Poor Richard's Almanac, which I promise you belonged to Franklin and it's exact wording was this- "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Anything else?

nope
i got the publisher thing messed up

You would have been okay had Franklin not been the publisher that put it there. lol

its a disputed quote
thats what my research found quite a ways back
some claim what you said
others say he only published the book
i had not found the claim about the other writing you spoke of

 

[Amanda]

Wrong direction in thought. The idea is the Consititutionally protected right of privacy(bonus points if you which parts protect privacy, many people don't). This is obviously an invasion of privacy. Some may not care who sees their goodies, but fact is that most do. Therefore these machines pose the question, do they invade on the person's privacy in the name of security? If so, how is it different than echelon? It isn't an I refer back to Franklin.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin

Taking a ride on an airplane is completely optional, if you don't like the procedure, don't fly. Pretty easy. Your body is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about unless you haven't been taking care of the one you've got.

The portion that I bolded has little consequence as it is an opinion and not one that is shared by all. However the rest of your statement holds merit. The only problem is that the procedure restricts a citizens right to interstate travel. Also, since when can free enterprise usurp the rights of citizens in order to operate. Don't we have some laws against that?

Ok whatever, if you're modest I guess air travel is out then. I have a friend that freaks out about cars because only tiny patches of rubber connect them to the ground and they can go 100 MPH so he hates to go anywhere by car. Some peoples personal hangups shouldn't jeopardize others safety. And, no I don't think it restricts interstate travel. It might make you squidgy about air travel but there's nothing stopping you from walking, driving, or taking a boat if that's more to your liking. I would ALWAYS chose the airline that made me more safe, whether from nutcase hijackers or mechanical failure if I ever had a reason to fly anywhere. I really don't get the reasoning that it's better to risk lives than risk someone being embarrassed, maybe you can explain that to me.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

nope
i got the publisher thing messed up

You would have been okay had Franklin not been the publisher that put it there. lol

its a disputed quote
thats what my research found quite a ways back
some claim what you said
others say he only published the book
i had not found the claim about the other writing you spoke of

The other writing is Poor Richard's Alamanac, Franklin's most prolific work. The quote from it obviously shows orignal thought, especially when it shows up in quotations in a book he published and in his notes for proposal of law in 1775. Whether it is disputed or not, the only three times the idea shows up, is three works that Franklin was heavily involved in, two by his own pen. It is his quote and I paraphrased it. Doesn't matter if a quote is correct when you use it, as long as the meaning doesn't change. This is called paraphrasing.

Now, is there anymore trivial shit you want to hijack the thread with? Or can we return to original point of the thread?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Taking a ride on an airplane is completely optional, if you don't like the procedure, don't fly. Pretty easy. Your body is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about unless you haven't been taking care of the one you've got.

The portion that I bolded has little consequence as it is an opinion and not one that is shared by all. However the rest of your statement holds merit. The only problem is that the procedure restricts a citizens right to interstate travel. Also, since when can free enterprise usurp the rights of citizens in order to operate. Don't we have some laws against that?

Ok whatever, if you're modest I guess air travel is out then. I have a friend that freaks out about cars because only tiny patches of rubber connect them to the ground and they can go 100 MPH so he hates to go anywhere by car. Some peoples personal hangups shouldn't jeopardize others safety. And, no I don't think it restricts interstate travel. It might make you squidgy about air travel but there's nothing stopping you from walking, driving, or taking a boat if that's more to your liking. I would ALWAYS chose the airline that made me more safe, whether from nutcase hijackers or mechanical failure if I ever had a reason to fly anywhere. I really don't get the reasoning that it's better to risk lives than risk someone being embarrassed, maybe you can explain that to me.

Go back to Franklin quote. The idea that anyone willing to give up soem form of liberty, here it is privacy, for security will eventually lose aboth. Meaning of course that a government taking a few rights today will take a few more tomorrow. Today it is privacy. Tomorrow will it be security?

 

[sitarro]

The portion that I bolded has little consequence as it is an opinion and not one that is shared by all. However the rest of your statement holds merit. The only problem is that the procedure restricts a citizens right to interstate travel. Also, since when can free enterprise usurp the rights of citizens in order to operate. Don't we have some laws against that?

Ok whatever, if you're modest I guess air travel is out then. I have a friend that freaks out about cars because only tiny patches of rubber connect them to the ground and they can go 100 MPH so he hates to go anywhere by car. Some peoples personal hangups shouldn't jeopardize others safety. And, no I don't think it restricts interstate travel. It might make you squidgy about air travel but there's nothing stopping you from walking, driving, or taking a boat if that's more to your liking. I would ALWAYS chose the airline that made me more safe, whether from nutcase hijackers or mechanical failure if I ever had a reason to fly anywhere. I really don't get the reasoning that it's better to risk lives than risk someone being embarrassed, maybe you can explain that to me.

Go back to Franklin quote. The idea that anyone willing to give up soem form of liberty, here it is privacy, for security will eventually lose aboth. Meaning of course that a government taking a few rights today will take a few more tomorrow. Today it is privacy. Tomorrow will it be security?

Amanda is correct. The airlines are liable for the lives on board, the cost of a 100 million dollar plane and the lawsuits that come after it is brought down, this is a perfectly reasonable way to make sure some asshole isn't trying to bring a nonmetallic weapon on board........ it is for our safety. You aren't allowed to talk on a phone or smoke cigarettes either on a plane, I guess you could try to pretend those are your rights also. The American public are a bunch of spoiled pussies that whine constantly about the few seconds it takes to go through a little security checkpoint, leave a few minutes early, wear new socks, hide your dildo in your checked bag and shut the fuck up ....... or....... take a train.

As for the lame ass quote, don't elect assholes that want to take your rights away(Osamabama). Somehow, I just don't believe Franklin was talking about trying to prevent the hijacking of aircraft by imbeciles that want to die by flying them into skyscrapers.

 

[DiveCon]

You would have been okay had Franklin not been the publisher that put it there. lol

its a disputed quote
thats what my research found quite a ways back
some claim what you said
others say he only published the book
i had not found the claim about the other writing you spoke of

The other writing is Poor Richard's Alamanac, Franklin's most prolific work. The quote from it obviously shows orignal thought, especially when it shows up in quotations in a book he published and in his notes for proposal of law in 1775. Whether it is disputed or not, the only three times the idea shows up, is three works that Franklin was heavily involved in, two by his own pen. It is his quote and I paraphrased it. Doesn't matter if a quote is correct when you use it, as long as the meaning doesn't change. This is called paraphrasing.

Now, is there anymore trivial shit you want to hijack the thread with? Or can we return to original point of the thread?

i wasnt deflecting or trying to hyjack anything
you got the quote wrong, and when you do that you DO change the meaning of it
he didnt say "any liberty" he said "an esential liberty"
of which, you are NOT giving one up in this case
if you think being accurate is a hyjack, then maybe you need to understand the importance of getting quotes correct

ps, your posts of the other sources i had not found in my research and that was what i was telling you
everything else i had previously found said it WASNT his writing

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Ok whatever, if you're modest I guess air travel is out then. I have a friend that freaks out about cars because only tiny patches of rubber connect them to the ground and they can go 100 MPH so he hates to go anywhere by car. Some peoples personal hangups shouldn't jeopardize others safety. And, no I don't think it restricts interstate travel. It might make you squidgy about air travel but there's nothing stopping you from walking, driving, or taking a boat if that's more to your liking. I would ALWAYS chose the airline that made me more safe, whether from nutcase hijackers or mechanical failure if I ever had a reason to fly anywhere. I really don't get the reasoning that it's better to risk lives than risk someone being embarrassed, maybe you can explain that to me.

Go back to Franklin quote. The idea that anyone willing to give up soem form of liberty, here it is privacy, for security will eventually lose aboth. Meaning of course that a government taking a few rights today will take a few more tomorrow. Today it is privacy. Tomorrow will it be security?

Amanda is correct. The airlines are liable for the lives on board, the cost of a 100 million dollar plane and the lawsuits that come after it is brought down, this is a perfectly reasonable way to make sure some asshole isn't trying to bring a nonmetallic weapon on board........ it is for our safety. You aren't allowed to talk on a phone or smoke cigarettes either on a plane, I guess you could try to pretend those are your rights also. The American public are a bunch of spoiled pussies that whine constantly about the few seconds it takes to go through a little security checkpoint, leave a few minutes early, wear new socks, hide your dildo in your checked bag and shut the fuck up ....... or....... take a train.

As for the lame ass quote, don't elect assholes that want to take your rights away(Osamabama). Somehow, I just don't believe Franklin was talking about trying to prevent the hijacking of aircraft by imbeciles that want to die by flying them into skyscrapers.

I know Franklin wasn't talking about preventing terrorist from hijacking airplanes, but he was talking about basic liberites. Liberties that are Constitutionally protected. Smoking and talking on the phone are not Constitutionally protected rights, but privacy is. Personally, i don't mind the extra few minutes it takes to get on an airplane. I also don't really give a shit if the imbecile in the TSA uniform wants to check out my what nots with X-Ray specs, but what I do care about using security as an excuse to chip away at rights that are constitutionally protected, ie. privacy(echelon, these scanners), right to bear arms(confiscation of weapons after Katrina), due process(patriot act), and the list goes on. So the quote from Franklin is not lame, it is relevant in more ways that your short sightedness could possibly realize.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

its a disputed quote
thats what my research found quite a ways back
some claim what you said
others say he only published the book
i had not found the claim about the other writing you spoke of

The other writing is Poor Richard's Alamanac, Franklin's most prolific work. The quote from it obviously shows orignal thought, especially when it shows up in quotations in a book he published and in his notes for proposal of law in 1775. Whether it is disputed or not, the only three times the idea shows up, is three works that Franklin was heavily involved in, two by his own pen. It is his quote and I paraphrased it. Doesn't matter if a quote is correct when you use it, as long as the meaning doesn't change. This is called paraphrasing.

Now, is there anymore trivial shit you want to hijack the thread with? Or can we return to original point of the thread?

i wasnt deflecting or trying to hyjack anything

Then why argue something so trivial?

you got the quote wrong, and when you do that you DO change the meaning of it

Not quite there junior. I did not change the quote, I put up one of the many accepted paraphrases used in academia today.

he didnt say "any liberty" he said "an esential liberty"
of which, you are NOT giving one up in this case

So you don't consider privacy to be essential? After it is Constitutionally protected, same as religion, arms, speech, press, due process, etc.

if you think being accurate is a hyjack, then maybe you need to understand the importance of getting quotes correct

ps, your posts of the other sources i had not found in my research and that was what i was telling you
everything else i had previously found said it WASNT his writing

Then it is obvious that your research is wrong. As I have already proven. So here is a link to help you . Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote

So basically we down to one word that you have a problem with. The difference between "any" and "essential" is trivial here. The two words mean very little considering the liberty we are discussing is privacy and that qualifies as both "any" and "essential," as it is Constitutionally granted. Also, the simple fact that we are still debating shows that this is a hijack.

 

[DiveCon]

oh sheeesh CW, you are having a rough time understanding
i said my reseach didnt find it, and if you are using a wiki source then you are using a source even the founder of Wiki says is not reliable
its good for some things, but its not perfect

 

[CrimsonWhite]

oh sheeesh CW, you are having a rough time understanding
i said my reseach didnt find it, and if you are using a wiki source then you are using a source even the founder of Wiki says is not reliable
its good for some things, but its not perfect

Then stop telling people that they are wrong based on faulty research. The wiki link is just for your benefit, I assure you I am not basing anything on it. I understand perfectly. You hijacked the thread based on tow things. One being my use of th eword "any" in place of "essential." And your assumption that I was wrong based your "research," which i suspect was somebody's opinion on a website.

My overall point is this, your original post was fucking ignorant because you tried to correct something that was correct in the first place. It is not the first time you have done it and I usually let it slide. However, I have plenty of time on my hands tonight and felt froggy. But hey, if you want to correct something, then why don't you check my spelling.

 

[DiveCon]

oh sheeesh CW, you are having a rough time understanding
i said my reseach didnt find it, and if you are using a wiki source then you are using a source even the founder of Wiki says is not reliable
its good for some things, but its not perfect

Then stop telling people that they are wrong based on faulty research. The wiki link is just for your benefit, I assure you I am not basing anything on it. I understand perfectly. You hijacked the thread based on tow things. One being my use of th eword "any" in place of "essential." And your assumption that I was wrong based your "research," which i suspect was somebody's opinion on a website.

My overall point is this, your original post was fucking ignorant because you tried to correct something that was correct in the first place. It is not the first time you have done it and I usually let it slide. However, I have plenty of time on my hands tonight and felt froggy. But hey, if you want to correct something, then why don't you check my spelling.

no, you did not have it correct
you even admitted it later

 

[CrimsonWhite]

oh sheeesh CW, you are having a rough time understanding
i said my reseach didnt find it, and if you are using a wiki source then you are using a source even the founder of Wiki says is not reliable
its good for some things, but its not perfect

Then stop telling people that they are wrong based on faulty research. The wiki link is just for your benefit, I assure you I am not basing anything on it. I understand perfectly. You hijacked the thread based on tow things. One being my use of th eword "any" in place of "essential." And your assumption that I was wrong based your "research," which i suspect was somebody's opinion on a website.

My overall point is this, your original post was fucking ignorant because you tried to correct something that was correct in the first place. It is not the first time you have done it and I usually let it slide. However, I have plenty of time on my hands tonight and felt
froggy. But hey, if you want to correct something, then why don't you check my spelling.

no, you did not have it correct
you even admitted it later

No, no, no, junior. I admitted to paraphrasing. Huge difference.

 

[Ravi]

I think CW has it correct, and so did Ben Franklin.

Also, this only gives the illusion that we are safe...there is hardly any checking of luggage that goes into the belly of the plane. I'd rather take my chances with exploding planes and not have to bother with taking off my shoes, spending an extra hour with security because I had a bottle of asprin in my computer bag, or watching my kids get wanded because TSA was so inept they forgot to stamp MY ticket in the security lane.

Not to mention that this doesn't even alleviate the need for taking off my damn shoes.