Dick Bombs

[tongodeon]

A while ago Anwar al-Awlaki made some guy put a bomb on his dick. al-Awlaki is also connected to guys like the Fort Hood shooter and the recent toner bomb, and it looks like he's not going to stop any time soon

Comments

[unwoman]

I don't think being sexually loose or fond of nudity limits one's right to choose who sees them naked. At all.

[tongodeon]

I already said that, explicitly, in the same sentence where I called that point "admittedly irrelevant". "My previous viewing of their dicks does not entitle TSA employees to view their dicks".

It is, however, surprising. I'd expect that the protest about the TSA looking at dicks wouldn't come from the people most comfortable showing their dicks to people. It would be less surprising to hear this from, for example, my uptight Mormon friends in Arizona rather than my freaky poly nudist friends in San Francisco.

[michiexile]

Do you think it's possibly that the Choice Of Venue For Dick Watching plays a role in this? Even freaky poly nudists are likely to have domains of their lives when their nudism is fine, and domains where it isn't. The TSA forces the issue, in an authoritarian manner, leaving no personal control over to whom and where your genitals are on display, and doesn't limit this to the freaky exhibitionist section of the populace.

[tongodeon]

Do you think it's possibly that the Choice Of Venue For Dick Watching plays a role in this?

I'm not talking about the absolute amount of objection coming from nudists. I'm talking about the *relative* objection coming from my poly nudist friends vs. uptight Mormon friends.

And in that case, choice of venue still seems like an independent variable. However much my poly nudist friends object to the government's control of their genitals, I'd expect my uptight religious friends to be even more uncomfortable with an equal measure of government genital control. I'm not saying I expect either of them to like it, I'm just expecting the uptight religious folks to be less OK with it than the easygoing body-image-secure liberals.

!!!

[ext_317075]

"I'm just saying the hubbub seems way too much over way too little."

Ouch!

[crisper]

>I'm surprised that today's dick-conscious have been in the past generally dick-liberal and vice-versa

There's probably a dick-seen-by version of the "Republicans are just Democrats who have never been arrested yet" gag to be made.

[redstapler]

I think the concerns of people who are survivors of sexual assault are pretty valid.

I think it's also worth noting that there seems to be a likelihood of the guards doing the "dick checks" being of the opposite sex of the check-ee. That's not cool, for some, having to choose between PTSD and exposure to radiation (understanding the amount of radiation we're exposed to on the day-to-day), is offensive.

[tongodeon]

I think the concerns of people who are survivors of sexual assault are pretty valid.

Or the concerns of people who are afraid of snakes toward the cables that connect the machines to wall power. Or the concerns of plane crash survivors toward flying on the actual planes. Or the concerns of bomb survivors toward flying on planes with dick bombs on them.

I recognize that people are afraid of stuff, but a lot of people are afraid of a lot of stuff. If there's a sensible way out of this problem I don't think we're going to find it by saying that one person's fears are more important than other people's fears.

having to choose between PTSD and exposure to radiation (understanding the amount of radiation we're exposed to on the day-to-day), is offensive

That's the false dilemma I was talking about. It's really a choice between PTSD, exposure to radiation, exposure to dick-bombs on planes, and not flying. And unfortunately that seems to be the choice regardless what policies the TSA enacts, unless you've got an idea that I haven't heard

[redstapler]

Or the concerns of people who are afraid of snakes toward the cables that connect the machines to wall power. Or the concerns of plane crash survivors toward flying on the actual planes. Or the concerns of bomb survivors toward flying on planes with dick bombs on them.Except for the part where, statistically, there are a whole hell of a lot more survivors of sexual assault than there are any of those other groups combined. I'd even go so far as to say your argument could be a straw man. You're very good about showing your work and citing sources, so I'm not keen to accuse you of that in the majority of your posts. (Or, honestly, pretty much any post of yours I've read before

[tongodeon]

there are a whole hell of a lot more survivors of sexual assault than there are any of those other groups combined.You're missing the point. People who are afraid of snakes might be concerned by cables that look like snakes, but it's unlikely that they actually *are* snakes. It's far more likely that ordinary cables are performing an essential function. If a snake gets into an airport that's fine, it's not the end of the world. The odds of a real airport snake biting a person in line is actually quite low. We should check cables to see if they're snakes, but we shouldn't ban cables because someone might get freaked out

[mister_borogove]

I don't personally care if the TSA guys see my dick, but I'm irritated by my perception that the people most interested in getting these scanners adopted are the people selling the scanners

[tongodeon]

After the scanners go in, the bad guys will think of something new

That's true, but the claim was never that "screening for dick bombs will prevent them from thinking of something new". They've already thought of and used dick bombs, which seems to be a valid reason to check for it. When they think of something new, we'll also have to take reasonable measures to check for that new thing. We can also debate what "reaonable" means if we can stop getting hung up on our dicks for a minute.

If it meant we could go back to pre-9/11 airport security, I'd accept one plane a year getting blowed up,This is actually the sort of conversation I'm looking to have, because it puts things in perspective on both sides. The world is full of risks which we can mitigate but not avoid, and we need to have both reasonable concerns and reasonable precautions

[flwyd]

They've already thought of and used dick bombs, which seems to be a valid reason to check for it.

They got a dick bomb through security and still didn't cause any planes to blow up. If anything, the underpants bomber was a success of airport security, not a failure. They let through a bomb, yes, but one that was so janky that it didn't work.

[mister_borogove]

Interesting proposal. Here's a counterproposal: at the beginning of 2011, set "probability of doing full security today", P, equal to 0.5. Each airport randomly chooses, each day, whether or not to use full security for that day only. This immediately cuts the TSA Annoyance Factor in half, while making it a little harder for terrorists to schedule ops than either of our first proposals. Each month, if no plane was blown up, reduce P by 0.025, and if a plane was blown up, increase P by 0.25.