251–260 of 969 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except many, many more deaths in the case of Covid, and we don't have, thankfully, a federal Covid Corps to enforce any of the related policies...
Many deaths in a certain age group above 65 y.o.. Most age groups had very few deaths.
Things like this are why I'm so cynical about COVID stuff. We have an unconditional commitment to stupid reactive policies that elevate symbolism far above sensibility, and boy does it have a lot of inertia. The parallels between COVID and our post-9/11 reaction are eerie.
There is a mountain worth of difference. The policies enacted for COVID have a very specific target, has been shown to work repeatedly, and deviating from them caused decline in the KPI its trying to maintain. Its nothing like TSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Correct, but I think the general escalation of security in airports which caught the Richard Reid Eh? But he wasn't caught due to airport security. He got onto the plane and tried to set off the bomb during the flight. He would have been caught if someone had looked at his shoes.
But if he knew they were checking shoes at airport security, then he probably would have put it somewhere else.
So much security that not sense. I attend college football games. Everyone goes through security. Outside security we pack up in masses of humanity outside the gates waiting to get through the inevitably slow security. It would be far more effective to do something at the gates dude to the density of humanity there where there is no security ... than in the stadium where people are actually more spread out. If someon…
That security isn’t necessarily to stop terrorism. It’s also to stop people from bringing in weapons and then using them in drunken brawls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The parallels between COVID and our post-9/11 reaction are eerie. I don't see the same parallels. After 9/11 the US was extraordinarily united and committed to vengeance. Thousands joined the military. After COVID we're more divided than ever and people are not even willing put a piece of cloth on their faces. Widespread denial and resistance to anything inconveniencing them. Whereas after 9/11 people were willing…
Mass loss of life. Novel way in which people died. People dying randomly (hard to avoid). General hysteria. Paranoia over a minority group. Moral outrage against anyone not falling inline politically. Overreaching government plans to keep people safe. Petty symbolism (freedom fries/masks) to sort the moral from the immoral. Should I go on?
But why don't you have to take them off before entering a high speed train?
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/SP0520-Terrorist-Attacks-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that people who disagree on masking children are radicals comparable to jihadi terrorists?
I initially thought he was claiming the inverse, that mask proponents were extremists. From the perspective of 2019, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption, but here we are. Today people are advocating using the force of the state, in other words violence against those who do not share their views on mask mandates.
In this same fantasy universe jack-booted government thugs are beating up people who don’t wear seat belts or who mislabel the nutritional contents on a package of cheese, except that’s just not what ever actually happens in the real world. These kinds of laws can be appropriate when they make society better for us all.
To that point, anti-maskers have almost certainly killed more Americans at this point than terrorists could ever have hoped to. You might consider that when attempting to understand why people are seemingly so hard-pressed to get laws requiring their countrymen (and women) to do the literal bare minimum to protect the lives of their neighbors.
The US is the only place I think I've had to remove shoes for flight security in years. But in Europe taking off a belt is often required while in the US it is not. In Budapest they stopped having us remove laptops from bags a bit ago. My biggest challenge over the years was remembering what to do in each place as the security people at the airports had a tendency to get upset if you didn't do it their preferred way.
London Heathrow doesn’t. They re-screen all incoming international passengers, so that 500mL bottle of contact lens solution that the ultra-paranoid Americans allow me to carry-on gets seized by Heathrow when transiting there.
I’d think if the UK disagrees with another country’s rules, they should just ban flights from there.
If it’s safe enough for me to fly in with, it should be safe enough for me to fly out with.
WE should all be grateful they still allow us to wear our underwear while going through these security check points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab Most of this screening is to avoid profiling. It would be considered politically not correct if we were to just screen Muslims so Grand Pa who received the Medal of Honor in WWII, has to be stripped searched after they get him out of the wheel cha…
Firstly, we already profile Muslims extensively. Secondly, a non Muslim person with guns, usually motivated by GOP/church/nation regularly commits atrocities, there is a news article like every other week.
Apologists like you like to look the other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't feel comfortable even linking to this stuff Why not? "eww this is propaganda" or "talking about terrorist makes me one?"
> Why not? "eww this is propaganda" or "talking about terrorist makes me one?"' The actual answer is that the page, due to it's dynamic nature, at times consisted of specific details that were probably not relevant to the overall subject. It's not unreasonable in this day and age to be concerned about what you are linking to. In this case it's Wikipedia, so, "sue me".