Listening to your overseas phone calls?- WRONG! Fondling your balls?- OKAY!

[Damocles]

Only Dix can so consistently find "enemy" from a poster who largely agrees, but points out something that may make his "plans" go awry a bit.

Dix can take a post where I say, "Please, study the cost. If I'm wrong I'd love to see this!" to mean, "Never do it! We must strip naked for them!"

Dix can pretend that a post that says, "I just don't think it is likely we'll be able to afford that, I think we should do it differently because of the different nature of the nations but base it on some of the parts we can implement." to mean, "I think we should continue to let our children be felt up or go through the TNA machines!"

Dix, every part of what you seem to believe that I say is fabricated in your own head. We largely agree, and simply disagree on the costs. While I say, "study them and find out," you say it means "boy you just want them to strip search your wife!"

You attempt to lose what I say into absurd fallacies and minutiae and attempt to find discord where there is largely agreement. You have a habit of this that perplexes me. It's like you can't even speak with another person unless you think they are "against" you.

 

[Jarod]

Only Dix can so consistently find "enemy" from a poster who largely agrees, but points out something that may make his "plans" go awry a bit.

Dix can take a post where I say, "Please, study the cost. If I'm wrong I'd love to see this!" to mean, "Never do it! We must strip naked for them!"

Dix can pretend that a post that says, "I just don't think it is likely we'll be able to afford that, I think we should do it differently because of the different nature of the nations but base it on some of the parts we can implement." to mean, "I think we should continue to let our children be felt up or go through the TNA machines!"

Dix, every part of what you seem to believe that I say is fabricated in your own head. We largely agree, and simply disagree on the costs. While I say, "study them and find out," you say it means "boy you just want them to strip search your wife!"

You attempt to lose what I say into absurd fallacies and minutiae and attempt to find discord where there is largely agreement. You have a habit of this that perplexes me. It's like you can't even speak with another person unless you think they are "against" you.

Well put, but I'd say look back several years to the Serin Gas thread to see that this has always been the case with Dixie.

 

[Jarod]

So if a rapist is only attacking a woman because they need to feel power and control, the rape is not a sexual assault? If a child molester is only fondling children because they have deep-seated psychological issues which cause them to do that, it's not sexual assault? If I just go up and grab some woman's tits because I want to see if they are soft or hard, that's not sexual assault? ...Nice to know that, Jarhead!

No, you are pretending not to understand.

A rapist uses sex to abuse the victim and to demonstrate to the victim his power over that victim.

That is not what the TSA is doing, they are patting people down, and part of that pat down happens to inculde genitals. The fact that the pat down includes organs that are also used for sex is incidental to the purpose. The purpose has nothing do do with sex, it has to do with security.

A rapist's purpose may be to demonstrate power, but that demonstration is not incidental to sex, in USES sex as a vehicle to illistrate the power.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, you are pretending not to understand.

A rapist uses sex to abuse the victim and to demonstrate to the victim his power over that victim.

That is not what the TSA is doing, they are patting people down, and part of that pat down happens to inculde genitals. The fact that the pat down includes organs that are also used for sex is incidental to the purpose. The purpose has nothing do do with sex, it has to do with security.

A rapist's purpose may be to demonstrate power, but that demonstration is not incidental to sex, in USES sex as a vehicle to illistrate the power.

so INTENT is the key for you?

 

[Jarod]

so INTENT is the key for you?

I dont think thats what I said.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I dont think thats what I said.

sure it is. you said that since a rapist touches the genitals in a sexual act designed to control the victim, that would be assault. But, since the TSA agent is touching the genitals merely to support a search for explosives, this is not assault.

so yes, you are saying that it's about intent.

 

[Jarod]

sure it is. you said that since a rapist touches the genitals in a sexual act designed to control the victim, that would be assault. But, since the TSA agent is touching the genitals merely to support a search for explosives, this is not assault.

so yes, you are saying that it's about intent.

No, I am saying that a rapist uses sexuality to accomplish a goal and thus the rape is sexual.

The TSA is touching people's bodies and part of that touching includes genetals but nothing sexual.

When the Doctor tells you to turn your head and cough, is that sexual?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I am saying that a rapist uses sexuality to accomplish a goal and thus the rape is sexual.

The TSA is touching people's bodies and part of that touching includes genetals but nothing sexual.

When the Doctor tells you to turn your head and cough, is that sexual?

therefore INTENT is the key in your thinking. hello??????????????

 

[Damocles]

therefore INTENT is the key in your thinking. hello??????????????

Sex is inherently sexual, it can be no other thing. Even when forced. The goal of it doesn't change that it is sexual. That's like saying that smoking a cigarette isn't smoking if you are doing it for the increased cognitive abilities.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL... Damo, you're a regular Bill O'Reilly on this... looking at both sides objectively, and coming up with your own uniquely blended opinion that virtually no one agrees with. It is encouraging that you have shifted a bit from yesterday on your "solutions" to this problem. By next month, you might be saying the exact same thing as me and ID, and running around claiming it was your idea first.

Straightening you out on a few misconceptions, I never said we should defund the TSA and not replace it with anything, and the airports wouldn't shut down in any event. There is no law which mandates the TSA must perform security screenings in airports, in fact, several airports don't even use TSA. I think you'll find in almost every post I've made on this topic, the call for privatizing this, allowing the airports and airlines to hire private security companies to handle this task... technically speaking, they could do that now, if they wanted to do it. The reason more of them don't, is because of cost.

Oh... there's that word "cost" again... the 'magical' word that has you perplexed as to how we can possibly imagine a security system which actually works to provide safety! Between the "cost" and getting Congress to pass a law.... wow, we just have our heads in the clouds expecting an effective and real security system! We should just give up and accept the porn scans and pat downs! No way we could ever get Congress to pass another law! That's just crazy talk! Especially when we're talking about a law that would make something legal that is currently illegal... but wait... isn't that kinda what they did already? Didn't they pass a law to form TSA, and then pass a law to enable the porn scans and pat downs? Come to think of it.... didn't they also manage to hire (at great cost) security screeners for every airport, to check every passenger? I guess if government does it, the "magic" can work, huh? But... far be it for us proles to lobby Congress to make serious changes to the system and get rid of TSA and let private companies handle security, which is patterned after Israel... OMG, 'specially not Israel... I must be out of my mind! We can't afford that... (even though, taxpayers wouldn't be paying for private security at airports like they currently pay for the TSA)

Bottom line, you have given me a great many laughs over this, as you've morphed your opinion... keep talking to your TSA friend, I think it might be helping you understand. By the way, I also have a friend in the TSA... actually, not really a 'friend' so much as an ex-coworker who thinks we are friends. He was a royal fuckup.. actually got fired from his job as our courier because he had too many wrecks in the company truck. Now he makes about twice what I make, working for TSA. This is the quality of people we are employing to handle our security.... do you feel safe? ....I don't!

 

[apple0154]

By the way, I also have a friend in the TSA... actually, not really a 'friend' so much as an ex-coworker who thinks we are friends. He was a royal fuckup.. actually got fired from his job as our courier because he had too many wrecks in the company truck. Now he makes about twice what I make, working for TSA. This is the quality of people we are employing to handle our security.... do you feel safe? ....I don't!

Hmmm. He's thriving at his new job of doing pat-downs and he's made it clear he wants to befriend you? I can understand you not feeling safe. :eek3:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LOL... Damo, you're a regular Bill O'Reilly on this... looking at both sides objectively, and coming up with your own uniquely blended opinion that virtually no one agrees with. It is encouraging that you have shifted a bit from yesterday on your "solutions" to this problem. By next month, you might be saying the exact same thing as me and ID, and running around claiming it was your idea first.

Straightening you out on a few misconceptions, I never said we should defund the TSA and not replace it with anything, and the airports wouldn't shut down in any event. There is no law which mandates the TSA must perform security screenings in airports, in fact, several airports don't even use TSA. I think you'll find in almost every post I've made on this topic, the call for privatizing this, allowing the airports and airlines to hire private security companies to handle this task... technically speaking, they could do that now, if they wanted to do it. The reason more of them don't, is because of cost.

Oh... there's that word "cost" again... the 'magical' word that has you perplexed as to how we can possibly imagine a security system which actually works to provide safety! Between the "cost" and getting Congress to pass a law.... wow, we just have our heads in the clouds expecting an effective and real security system! We should just give up and accept the porn scans and pat downs! No way we could ever get Congress to pass another law! That's just crazy talk! Especially when we're talking about a law that would make something legal that is currently illegal... but wait... isn't that kinda what they did already? Didn't they pass a law to form TSA, and then pass a law to enable the porn scans and pat downs? Come to think of it.... didn't they also manage to hire (at great cost) security screeners for every airport, to check every passenger? I guess if government does it, the "magic" can work, huh? But... far be it for us proles to lobby Congress to make serious changes to the system and get rid of TSA and let private companies handle security, which is patterned after Israel... OMG, 'specially not Israel... I must be out of my mind! We can't afford that... (even though, taxpayers wouldn't be paying for private security at airports like they currently pay for the TSA)

Bottom line, you have given me a great many laughs over this, as you've morphed your opinion... keep talking to your TSA friend, I think it might be helping you understand. By the way, I also have a friend in the TSA... actually, not really a 'friend' so much as an ex-coworker who thinks we are friends. He was a royal fuckup.. actually got fired from his job as our courier because he had too many wrecks in the company truck. Now he makes about twice what I make, working for TSA. This is the quality of people we are employing to handle our security.... do you feel safe? ....I don't!

 

[Jarod]

therefore INTENT is the key in your thinking. hello??????????????

I often dont find your comments worthy of responce... I have already told you its not about intent.... You belive it is.. Okay we will have to disageree on that one.

Your argument was not compelling to me and I assume to any neutral observer.... Not worthy of responce.