Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA

Let's not get carried away. If that boy was "strip searched", then in gym class we used to play "shirts vs strip searched".
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Let's not get carried away. If that boy was "strip searched", then in gym class we used to play "shirts vs strip searched".
-harry
Click to expand...

That is beside the point, Harry. I would like to know how they justified that.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That is beside the point, Harry.
Click to expand...
I think accurately stating the point is never beside the point.

If what happened was "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why", then this should be billed as "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why" and not as "Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA", which clearly means something more than "took off his shirt".

We don't know why they had the kid take off his shirt, but somehow we still know to be outraged by it. How is that?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
I think accurately stating the point is never beside the point.

If what happened was "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why", then this should be billed as "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why" and not as "Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA", which clearly means something more than "took off his shirt".

We don't know why they had the kid take off his shirt, but somehow we still know to be outraged by it. How is that?
-harry
Click to expand...

No. That's like saying, "well she wasn't really raped, because she never said no."
 
All I know is that I finally get to kill someone.
bill_murray-stripes1981-1340.jpg
 
mantakos said:
I think accurately stating the point is never beside the point.

If what happened was "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why", then this should be billed as "TSA had a kid take off his shirt, we're not sure why" and not as "Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA", which clearly means something more than "took off his shirt".

We don't know why they had the kid take off his shirt, but somehow we still know to be outraged by it. How is that?
-harry
Click to expand...

cavitysearch.JPG
 
mantakos said:
We don't know why they had the kid take off his shirt, but somehow we still know to be outraged by it. How is that?
-harry
Click to expand...

Because it IS OUTRAGEOUS for TSA to require a child to take off ANY piece of clothing. And, IMO, it does not require stripping ALL clothing off to be called a strip search.

For what it's worth, I don't particularly trust anything I see on You Tube. It is POSSIBLE, I suppose, that there was something going on OTHER than a search. BUT, if it gets people outraged enough to demand this nonsense go away, then maybe it is worthwhile.
 
EdFred said:
No. That's like saying, "well she wasn't really raped, because she never said no."
Click to expand...
Um, no, it's more like saying "she wasn't really raped, because what happened doesn't come anywhere near the generally understood definition of rape".
-harry
 
"Strip search" means, and implies, "buck naked, I look everywhere, but not quite a cavity search."

There's plenty to rant about here, especially if you're inclined to the policy of "certain people, along with apple pie and '56-57 Chevys, are just off-limits for searches and are above suspicion as security concerns." Don't torpedo your credibility at the start by calling this a strip search.
 
Last edited:
mantakos said:
Um, no, it's more like saying "she wasn't really raped, because what happened doesn't come anywhere near the generally understood definition of rape".
-harry
Click to expand...

Fail. A strip search to me does not require all pieces of clothing to be removed. By your retarded definition, they could take off all the kids clothes, but so long as he had his baseball cap still on, you would be ok with it. "Well it wasn't a strip search, he had a hat on."
 
EdFred said:
Fail. A strip search does not require all pieces of clothing to be removed. By your retarded definition, they could take off all the kids clothes, but so long as he had his baseball cap still on, you would be ok with it. "Well it wasn't a strip search, he had a hat on."
Click to expand...

 
EdFred said:
Fail. A strip search to me does not require all pieces of clothing to be removed. By your retarded definition, they could take off all the kids clothes, but so long as he had his baseball cap still on, you would be ok with it. "Well it wasn't a strip search, he had a hat on."
Click to expand...
Uh, no. In our society, we have a generally consistent idea of what constitutes nudity. Again, we used to use "no shirts" to denote teams in gym class. If a gym teacher said "okay, boys, it's gonna be shirts vs everything off but your hats", then we would know that this is not a person who should be left unmonitored around children. This distinction is pretty easy to make.
-harry
 
I can't believe that anyone on this board is condoning this bull****. I am at a total loss of how to explain this to my young children.


F the TSA. F the Government that is allowing it to happen. F the populace that is too frightened to not rise up in resistance.


Eggman
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Because it IS OUTRAGEOUS for TSA to require a child to take off ANY piece of clothing.
Click to expand...
Is that what happened? Was the child _required_ to take off his shirt by TSA? Or is this an assumption?
And, IMO, it does not require stripping ALL clothing off to be called a strip search.
Click to expand...
Well, you're welcome to use terms in whatever fashion you like, but by your definition I was repeatedly strip-searched in gym class as a child, particularly when playing team sports in warm weather. Now, if I go on Oprah and say "Oprah, as a child I was strip-searched on a nearly daily basis by my gym teacher", what do you think she'll be assuming took place?

Thus the problem with choosing to use phrases in a manner that differ dramatically from the most commonly understood meanings.
-harry
 
James_Dean said:
I can't believe that anyone on this board is condoning this bull****...
Click to expand...
I don't see anybody here condoning anything.

I'll never understand why "you're not wearing your drama queen tiara like the rest of us" gets interpreted as "you approve of this". It's a ridiculous form of "yer fer us or agin us".
-harry
 
James_Dean said:
I can't believe that anyone on this board is condoning this bull****. I am at a total loss of how to explain this to my young children.


F the TSA. F the Government that is allowing it to happen. F the populace that is too frightened to not rise up in resistance.


Eggman
Click to expand...

Who's condoning it?
 
mantakos said:
Is that what happened? Was the child _required_ to take off his shirt by TSA? Or is this an assumption?

Well, you're welcome to use terms in whatever fashion you like, but by your definition I was repeatedly strip-searched in gym class as a child, particularly when playing team sports in warm weather. Now, if I go on Oprah and say "Oprah, as a child I was strip-searched on a nearly daily basis by my gym teacher", what do you think she'll be assuming took place?

Thus the problem with choosing to use phrases in a manner that differ dramatically from the most commonly understood meanings.
-harry
Click to expand...

That you rode the short school bus to school? The case being made with this line of reasoning seems quite ridiculous and implausible.
 
I don't like this anymore than anyone else, but after nearly 10 years of security theater it's not going to change overnight. You want it to stop? Every single time some nitwit utters "soft on terror", "wants the terrorists to win", et al. then you donate to their opponent or volunteer (if in your state) against them. Don't forget to vote against them too.

I know that might make some "independents" heads asplode, because you'll be voting for a group you hate for other reasons.
 
JesseD said:
I don't like this anymore than anyone else, but after nearly 10 years of security theater it's not going to change overnight. You want it to stop? Every single time some nitwit utters "soft on terror", "wants the terrorists to win", et al. then you donate to their opponent or volunteer (if in your state) against them. Don't forget to vote against them too.

I know that might make some "independents" heads asplode, because you'll be voting for a group you hate for other reasons.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the problem with being a single-issue voter! Almost every politician has the wrong take on at least one issue that's important to each of us. Most of us care about more than one issue; hence the problem!
 
The TSA has ALWAYS required travelers to remove outerwear. The kid was wearing a sweatshirt as a shirt. They had him remove it. They do the same thing to everyone except when a woman wears a sweater as a top. The parent should of had the kid in a regular shirt.
Not right, but consider what the reaction would have been if the guy just pulled the top out a little bit for a peek down.
Travel light or don't travel.
 
silver-eagle said:
The TSA has ALWAYS required travelers to remove outerwear. The kid was wearing a sweatshirt as a shirt. They had him remove it. They do the same thing to everyone except when a woman wears a sweater as a top. The parent should of had the kid in a regular shirt.
Not right, but consider what the reaction would have been if the guy just pulled the top out a little bit for a peek down.
Travel light or don't travel.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Next time I go through TSA will be in either bikini underwear or commando. You don't really want to see either! :no:
 
bbchien said:
The citizenry is eventually going to rise up......it won't be pretty.
Click to expand...
Nope, they will roll over and take it. Having to actually fight for something will take them away from seeing who is winning on Dancing with the stars. Don't get me wrong, there will be some well intentioned blowhardery, but in the end a few special groups will gets an exemption, there will continue to be a vocal minority but the majority will laud themselves and sleep safely in their cocoon of keeping terrorists at bay by letting people who could not other qualify for gainful employment fondle their junk.
 
ScottM said:
... but in the end a few special groups will gets an exemption...
Click to expand...

Such as members of a certain large political-religious group that started the whole mess?

:rolleyes2:

Anyway, how about this? Don't like the TSA procedure? Go back to the ticket counter and demand a refund.

Legislators that don't like the TSA nonsense? Pass legislation that permits any passenger at any time prior to boarding to receive an immediate refund in full, no fees, no nonsense.

------------------------

Widespread concealed carry hasn't resulted in "the wild west" (which is yet another myth. Murder and gunplay in the West was far less than it is in any major metropolitan area. There is only one, 1, uno, un, single documented 'high noon' gunfight recorded in the west. The body count is a figment of Hollywood's vivid imagination).

Why would it suddenly become such in the air?
 
dmccormack said:
Such as members of a certain large political-religious group that started the whole mess?
Click to expand...
A political-religious group?? Who are you thinking of?

Congress is already mostly exempt and I just read the pilot unions have gotten their people exempt. Next up with will be the FAs and maybe one or two others. Then there will be no one fighting for the regular people and that will be that.

dmccormack said:
Anyway, how about this? Don't like the TSA procedure? Go back to the ticket counter and demand a refund.
Click to expand...
You can't even do that. AS you may not have read the law as it is currently written and upheld is that once you start the procedure you are not allowed to stop it. Even if you decide you wish to leave and not fly you are subjected to a search. Failure to comply will result in a civil suit and fine up to $10,000. Walking into an airport is no equivalent to a waiver of your rights as a citizen.

dmccormack said:
Widespread concealed carry hasn't resulted in "the wild west" (which is yet another myth. Murder and gunplay in the West was far less than it is in any major metropolitan area. There is only one, 1, uno, un, single documented 'high noon' gunfight recorded in the west. The body count is a figment of Hollywood's vivid imagination).

Why would it suddenly become such in the air?
Click to expand...
Not following your logic here. Are yous saying we should start shooting TSA agents when we don't like the policy?
 
ScottM said:
Not following your logic here. Are yous saying we should start shooting TSA agents when we don't like the policy?
Click to expand...
No. He is saying that a decrease in security won't equate to an increase in risk.
 
ScottM said:
A political-religious group?? Who are you thinking of?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. Care to name some?


ScottM said:
You can't even do that. AS you may not have read the law as it is currently written and upheld is that once you start the procedure you are not allowed to stop it. Even if you decide you wish to leave and not fly you are subjected to a search. Failure to comply will result in a civil suit and fine up to $10,000. Walking into an airport is no equivalent to a waiver of your rights as a citizen.
Click to expand...

Read the entire post instead of quoting out of context. Then reply.
 
jesse said:
No. He is saying that a decrease in security won't equate to an increase in risk.
Click to expand...
Sure sounds more like he wants people to be able to carry guns on airplanes and take the law into their own hands. You are too young to remember but that used to be allowed and hijacking and gun crime on board aircraft were very rampant. That was the reason for the metal detectors to be installed in the first place. That level of security actually worked and the number of hijacking fell dramatically to almost zero. I am not seeing any threat to security now that would require the solution Dan may be talking about. Even on 911 the failure was not the metal detectors. It was a policy failure. At the time knives with blades less than 3" were allowed through security. Changing that policy alone would have stopped 911. Yet that is forgotten.
 
silver-eagle said:
The TSA has ALWAYS required travelers to remove outerwear. The kid was wearing a sweatshirt as a shirt. They had him remove it. They do the same thing to everyone except when a woman wears a sweater as a top. The parent should of had the kid in a regular shirt.
Not right, but consider what the reaction would have been if the guy just pulled the top out a little bit for a peek down.
Travel light or don't travel.
Click to expand...
I keep reading this and cannot resolve your point. Sweatshirts are worn as "regular" shirts every day all across this great land of ours...to make this some fault or failure on the part of the parent is lame.
 
silver-eagle said:
The TSA has ALWAYS required travelers to remove outerwear. The kid was wearing a sweatshirt as a shirt. They had him remove it...
Click to expand...
I think this sort of exemplifies "we don't know the details, and sometimes the details matter". Some people in this thread are saying "we don't need to know the details", but the reason they don't need to know them is because they're allowing themselves to _choose_ the details, to fill in the blanks themselves.

So let's say the kid and his Dad walk into security, the TSA guy says "the boy's gonna have to take his sweatshirt off", and the kid tries to take it off, but the t-shirt comes off with the sweatshirt (you can see the TSA guy handling a t-shirt stuck inside a sweat-shirt, everything turned inside out), now the kid's standing there with his shirt off. Somebody with a cell phone decides that TSA is "harassing" the boy (that's what they say on the video), then they post the video on Youtube with the title "Young Boy Strip Searched by TSA". Then somebody sees the video and posts it here as "Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA".

Nobody here cares about the details, they decide that TSA is undressing children. They decide that "strip search", which most people understand to involve nudity (and which, in practice, involves "turn-around, bend over, spread your butt cheeks, I'm gonna shine a flashlight up there"), is an appropriate description of "he has his shirt off".

This is "chosen reality". It doesn't matter what really happened, what matters is what we _want_ to have happened, and that's whatever supports the story-line of our political preferences. And it doesn't matter whether we're wrong or not, because we're strong enough in our convictions that we view it as "the end justifies the means"; so long as we're on the side of "right", then we're allowed to be wrong.
-harry
 
Kelvin said:
I keep reading this and cannot resolve your point. Sweatshirts are worn as "regular" shirts every day all across this great land of ours...to make this some fault or failure on the part of the parent is lame.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have also seen TSA agents ask people if they are wearing something under those sweatshirts. When someone says no I have never seen the TSA make them take it off. If they say yes then the TSA asks them to remove it. That seems reasonable. The situation in the video is outside of the norm. Maybe it is the new norm and that would indeed be disturbing.
 
silver-eagle said:
The TSA has ALWAYS required travelers to remove outerwear. The kid was wearing a sweatshirt as a shirt. They had him remove it. They do the same thing to everyone except when a woman wears a sweater as a top.
Click to expand...

Not true. Not always.

I went through security wearing a heavy sweater over a shirt. The TSA agent carefully (and gently) did a pat down of my upper body.

To be fair, I was sitting in a wheelchair since I was travelling home following surgery and removing my sweater would have been quite uncomfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top