|
On October 15 2009 11:37 alphafuzard wrote:Every time I see something like this, I get feelings of 1984. Governments using fear to convince people to give up their rights... 
If you're drawing comparisons between being seen nude and 1984, you are vastly misunderstanding one of the two.
On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:
edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia.
I bet those terrorists are sleeping well every night knowing that they've managed to create minor inconveniences for every airplane traveller in the world~!
|
On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of Show nested quote +Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/ being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take. edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia.
I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.
Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.
I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact.
|
I'd honestly rather be scanned by that thing i think. It beats being frisked and have some dude patting around my sack. I think its pretty clear the imagins are not pornograpic like the artical says unless u know find a ghost sexy. Its also got to be a time saver. As long as they give people the option on what they like to go with it should not be a problem.
|
|
|
Osaka27174 Posts
I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact.
Really? I believe that every dollar spent, and every hour consumed, by these issues is indeed a tangible victory. It is something you can put a price tag on, and I don't think it can be dismissed.
|
I wouldn't personally have a problem with it, but I can understand and empathize with people that do have a problem with it, and think it unfair to force it upon them. Then again I think it is unfair to let the safety of some be potentially jeopardized by others' desire for privacy. I'm torn on this issue.
|
I made a thread about these scanners a while back (as randombum mentioned already): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80880
I am definitely not okay with these scanners as I don't see the added benefit or value of it versus current methods. What exactly are supposed terrorists to be able to bring aboard a plane that will not be detected by current methods?
edit: by the way, if they put dangerous items inside their bodies, then this is ineffective, is it not?
|
On October 15 2009 16:32 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact. Really? I believe that every dollar spent, and every hour consumed, by these issues is indeed a tangible victory. It is something you can put a price tag on, and I don't think it can be dismissed.
The reason I believe the claim can be dismissed is because it somehow insinuates that a goal of 'terrorists' is inconvenience of general population when doing something, or for governments to have to spend money on security. This, to me, shows a complete lack of understanding to why terrorist organisations exist, or why individual terrorists operate.
I also believe that framing any view on terrorism in general as 'taking our liberties is what they want' is very counter-productive to any long term resolution and a complete mischaracterisation of the complex causes of world-wide terrorism. It's a very convenient way to completely dismiss why such situations may arise.
The thought process "hmm, why are there people willing to commit intinuitively horrendous acts such as blow up planes - ahh they must see our 'freedoms' and want to take them away" just seems to be so obviously flawed that it boggles me that otherwise intelligent people can come to such a sound-bite conclusion.
|
On October 15 2009 16:06 RoyW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/ being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take. edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia. I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.
Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact.
That's exactly the point. You may have no problem with seeing her face or hair, and you may think that no one should have a problem with nudity, but, to her, it is your lack of honor for the intimacy of nakedness that is the 'shame'. To her, the picture of her naked body is sacred and private. To Manifesto, the privilege of seeing under his wife's clothes is precious and to be enjoyed by him alone. That doesn't mean that they are "averse" to nakedness, in fact, you might say they are more into the idea of nakedness than you are. Just because you don't feel the same way about nakedness doesn't mean that everyone else's values are a 'shame'. You are being incredibly ethnocentric here, my friend.
edit: fixed html
|
goddamn what's wrong with people, there's real privacy issues. Someone seeing you naked on an airport scanner is not really one of them.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 17:44 nttea wrote:
goddamn what's wrong with people, there's real privacy issues. Someone seeing you naked on an airport scanner is not really one of them.
No but it could become an issue if implemented. Hence the discussion. Thx for keeping us on track though.
|
On October 15 2009 17:42 uNcontroLable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 16:06 RoyW wrote:On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/ being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take. edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia. I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.
Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact. That's exactly the point. You may have no problem with seeing her face or hair, and you may think that no one should have a problem with nudity, but, to her, it is your lack of honor for the intimacy of nakedness that is the 'shame'. To her, the picture of her naked body is sacred and private. To Manifesto, the privilege of seeing under his wife's clothes is precious and to be enjoyed by him alone. That doesn't mean that they are "averse" to nakedness, in fact, you might say they are more into the idea of nakedness than you are. Just because you don't feel the same way about nakedness doesn't mean that everyone else's values are a 'shame'. You are being incredibly ethnocentric here, my friend. edit: fixed html
Ah, yes, because you could definitely expect the same wave of empathy had this thread been a news piece about a muslim woman not wanting to remove a head gear for an airport security check!
I understand your point, and I was being somewhat ethnocentric when I originally said that it is a shame that people view nakedness as such an offensive thing.
However, I think that it's a fair equivalency to say that someone saying '"I don't want anyone to see under my wife's clothes, because it's precious to me, is the same as "I don't want anyone to see my wife's face, because it's precious to me"
I am aware of the ultimate subjectiveity of this, but I believe both opinions stem from a possessiveness and a history of cutural shaming of nakedness, and you cannot dismiss one without dismissing the other.
edit: don't have time to proof-read in work 
|
traveling by airplane sucks anyway. its uncomfortable, it takes like forever to get into that shit vehicle. you have absolutly ridiculous security bullshit you need to go through. not funny at all. it is way easier to blow up a train and you have the same ammount of dead ppl.
|
As long as it remains a choice I am alright. I wouldn't mind faster queues for this, but some people might.
|
On October 15 2009 18:02 RoyW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 17:42 uNcontroLable wrote:On October 15 2009 16:06 RoyW wrote:On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/ being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take. edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia. I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.
Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact. That's exactly the point. You may have no problem with seeing her face or hair, and you may think that no one should have a problem with nudity, but, to her, it is your lack of honor for the intimacy of nakedness that is the 'shame'. To her, the picture of her naked body is sacred and private. To Manifesto, the privilege of seeing under his wife's clothes is precious and to be enjoyed by him alone. That doesn't mean that they are "averse" to nakedness, in fact, you might say they are more into the idea of nakedness than you are. Just because you don't feel the same way about nakedness doesn't mean that everyone else's values are a 'shame'. You are being incredibly ethnocentric here, my friend. edit: fixed html Ah, yes, because you could definitely expect the same wave of empathy had this thread been a news piece about a muslim woman not wanting to remove a head gear for an airport security check! I understand your point, and I was being somewhat ethnocentric when I originally said that it is a shame that people view nakedness as such an offensive thing. However, I think that it's a fair equivalency to say that someone saying '"I don't want anyone to see under my wife's clothes, because it's precious to me, is the same as "I don't want anyone to see my wife's face, because it's precious to me"I am aware of the ultimate subjectiveity of this, but I believe both opinions stem from a possessiveness and a history of cutural shaming of nakedness, and you cannot dismiss one without dismissing the other. edit: don't have time to proof-read in work
So, you apologize for being ethnocentric, and then go on to explain how nakedness should not be considered precious because it's a slippery slope that leads to us being okay with the Muslim religion? ...and then go on to repeat this idea that all body privacy values stem from a baseless cultural trend of shame?
I think I know what you're trying to say, and I actually kind of empathize with your idea that you personally wish that everyone was not ashamed to be naked. The problem is that you continue to say that everyone should live by rules that align with your cultural viewpoint. If you are really trying to critique all cultures and religions that don't agree with you, be my guest, and gl hf. But the issue here is maintenance of the rights of people to go about their everyday lives without the sacrifice of their own values. You don't have to agree with the way they choose to utilize their human rights in order to protect them.
|
On October 15 2009 18:45 uNcontroLable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 18:02 RoyW wrote:On October 15 2009 17:42 uNcontroLable wrote:On October 15 2009 16:06 RoyW wrote:On October 15 2009 13:30 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't think being viewed without my clothes is a reasonable prerequisite for flying on an aircraft. Someone viewing my wife without her clothes is also not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a man, woman, or robot looking at the pictures, it is just not acceptable for me. It doesn't matter if it is a "rough outline" or "non-pornographic", and it isn't a case of Yeah, the aversion our society nowadays has towards nudity is at best hilarious and at worst downright sad. :/ being averse to nudity. It is simply not a liberty I think airports and airlines should be able to take. edit- And I will take it a step further, although this argument is gasoline for the flames. As long as measures like this and others (no toothpaste, no liquids, no FINGERNAIL CUTTERS) are continually being implemented, terrorists never need to hijack another plane. They are winning every day as society immerses itself in this bullshit paranoia. I think it's the fact that to see 'nakedness' is considered such a 'liberty'.
Ultimately, how would you feel about, for example, a devout muslim woman refusing to remove headgear because of invasion of privacy?You may say, 'but this is different, that is only her face, but the aversion you would both share comes from a culturally implanted shaming of the body. Which is the pity.I completely share the aversion to putting a flame to a fire, but the idea that 'terrorists want to take our liberties', or that hey are 'winning' due to security measures being in place, excessive or otherwise, has absolutely no basis in fact. That's exactly the point. You may have no problem with seeing her face or hair, and you may think that no one should have a problem with nudity, but, to her, it is your lack of honor for the intimacy of nakedness that is the 'shame'. To her, the picture of her naked body is sacred and private. To Manifesto, the privilege of seeing under his wife's clothes is precious and to be enjoyed by him alone. That doesn't mean that they are "averse" to nakedness, in fact, you might say they are more into the idea of nakedness than you are. Just because you don't feel the same way about nakedness doesn't mean that everyone else's values are a 'shame'. You are being incredibly ethnocentric here, my friend. edit: fixed html Ah, yes, because you could definitely expect the same wave of empathy had this thread been a news piece about a muslim woman not wanting to remove a head gear for an airport security check! I understand your point, and I was being somewhat ethnocentric when I originally said that it is a shame that people view nakedness as such an offensive thing. However, I think that it's a fair equivalency to say that someone saying '"I don't want anyone to see under my wife's clothes, because it's precious to me, is the same as "I don't want anyone to see my wife's face, because it's precious to me"I am aware of the ultimate subjectiveity of this, but I believe both opinions stem from a possessiveness and a history of cutural shaming of nakedness, and you cannot dismiss one without dismissing the other. edit: don't have time to proof-read in work So, you apologize for being ethnocentric, and then go on to explain how nakedness should not be considered precious because it's a slippery slope that leads to us being okay with the Muslim religion? ...and then go on to repeat this idea that all body privacy values stem from a baseless cultural trend of shame? I think I know what you're trying to say, and I actually kind of empathize with your idea that you personally wish that everyone was not ashamed to be naked. The problem is that you continue to say that everyone should live by rules that align with your cultural viewpoint. If you are really trying to critique all cultures and religions that don't agree with you, be my guest, and gl hf. But the issue here is maintenance of the rights of people to go about their everyday lives without the sacrifice of their own values. You don't have to agree with the way they choose to utilize their human rights in order to protect them.
I didn't apologise for the ethnocentrism, I didn't mention any slippery slope or demonize the Islam religion specifically, however I did equivicate the two viewpoints as different levels of the same condition - a conditioned-from-childhood shame linked to nakedness.
I also didn't say at all that everyone should live by rules that align with my cultural viewpoint. It seems as though you are continuously misinterpreting what I am saying, or even putting words in my mouth.
I brought up the muslim thing as it's an extreme-relative-to-the-discussion that people are familiar with, and I presumed that those with the mildly negative view to nakedness that is acceptable to their culture may not empathise and even may disregard the stronger negative view shown in Muslim culture. I hope that on this basis they can overcome cognitive dissonance and remove the shame they associate with nakedness.
I never once said that people should be forced to do this, and completely support a choice being in place. I started by saying that I feel it's a shame, because I see the issue as something that is conditioned into us. Children don't have any issue at all with nakedness, and it's only when they have 'it's wrong/disgusting/private' drilled into them that these problems arise.
Incidentally, under what scenarios would you feel that someone's values are being ridiculous. For instance, if a guy had an aversion to being touched or being viewed due to his conditioned values, would you then say 'tough luck, you can't fly'?
edit-grammar
|
On October 15 2009 13:20 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 12:12 IdrA wrote:On October 15 2009 08:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On October 15 2009 07:50 Japakazol wrote:On October 15 2009 04:19 uNcontroLable wrote:
Ew... I really would not be ok with that at all. Yeah, security is very important, but this is not necessary. Not to the point that I am okay with someone basically seeing me naked. That's a privilege I get to bestow! But you're okay with someone sneaking nonmetal explosives onto the plane and killing you. I dunno you ok with someone surgically implanting a bomb in themselves made from non metals? At a certain point we draw the line in favor of privacy, integrity and respect over "worst possible case scenario." We have other methods of detection that pick up the same/nearly the same amount of risk without exposing the person. and that line quite obviously needs to be drawn before exploratory surgery, but someone sees a rough outline of you naked in order to make sure you arent carrying some kind of explosive? god forbid. Says you. I say we draw the line before people are getting exposed. We have a bunch of planes blowing up from non metal explosives? No? Ok then. Why sacrifice the privacy of EVERYONE who rides a plane so we can use a lazier version of protection?
well then how about we draw the line before having our privacy invaded at all and not let them scan our luggage? some rights have to be given up in the interest of public safety.
maybe you're fine with gambling that they pat down the first guy trying to bring non metal explosives on board. that doesnt mean you can force other people to take the risk because it makes you queasy to think that some random guard gets to see a rough outline of your body for 5 seconds.
though, i wouldnt be suprised if this gets implemented but they allow you to refuse it and opt for a pat down instead, which would seem like the best solution available.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I'm fine with new technology as long as government doesn't mandate a uniform security policy.
It would be nice to have different airlines with different security policies. Maybe then airport security will be more intelligent about wasting their customer's time instead of all these bullshit policies that do nothing but provide the illusion of safety.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:09 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 13:20 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On October 15 2009 12:12 IdrA wrote:On October 15 2009 08:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On October 15 2009 07:50 Japakazol wrote:On October 15 2009 04:19 uNcontroLable wrote:
Ew... I really would not be ok with that at all. Yeah, security is very important, but this is not necessary. Not to the point that I am okay with someone basically seeing me naked. That's a privilege I get to bestow! But you're okay with someone sneaking nonmetal explosives onto the plane and killing you. I dunno you ok with someone surgically implanting a bomb in themselves made from non metals? At a certain point we draw the line in favor of privacy, integrity and respect over "worst possible case scenario." We have other methods of detection that pick up the same/nearly the same amount of risk without exposing the person. and that line quite obviously needs to be drawn before exploratory surgery, but someone sees a rough outline of you naked in order to make sure you arent carrying some kind of explosive? god forbid. Says you. I say we draw the line before people are getting exposed. We have a bunch of planes blowing up from non metal explosives? No? Ok then. Why sacrifice the privacy of EVERYONE who rides a plane so we can use a lazier version of protection? well then how about we draw the line before having our privacy invaded at all and not let them scan our luggage? some rights have to be given up in the interest of public safety. maybe you're fine with gambling that they pat down the first guy trying to bring non metal explosives on board. that doesnt mean you can force other people to take the risk because it makes you queasy to think that some random guard gets to see a rough outline of your body for 5 seconds. though, i wouldnt be suprised if this gets implemented but they allow you to refuse it and opt for a pat down instead, which would seem like the best solution available.
Comparing having your bag xrayed to your body being exposed naked is .. a stretch greg.
|
Wow, this is a tough one. we're getting closer and closer to 1984-type stuff here. obviously this in itself isn't too big a deal, but it seems to be a slippery slope type situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
