# I like the new TSA pat downs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 24, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788 "2010-11-24T16:57:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/201 "2010-11-29T19:46:58Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > @ Yog… > Metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs plus agents trained like customs agents are trained might be the less expensive, more effective answer. I like this solution. The only problem, as I understand it, is that there is a shortage of dogs and it’s expensive and time consuming to train them. At least that’s what I’ve heard. I have no idea how true it is. At a minimum, what I’d like to see is that _anyone_ can discreetly opt for an exam by a medical professional in a private room, and can bring a traveling companion with them if they desire. TSA “muscle” can be present in a hands off capacity if it’s felt that it’s necessary. I’d still think it’s a violation but it would be more acceptable than the current situation. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/202 "2010-11-29T19:52:45Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > After the Oklahoma bombing and the first Trade Center bombings, which were done with a rent a truck, how come we didn’t have to get our nads squished if you wanted to rent a truck. Those were real terrorist acts, that actually occurred. It was not speculation about bombs that might happen. We should have had TSA at every rent a truck in America. Then we could be safe. TSA should be on every street corner squishing genitals in the name of freedom. The line is drawn somewhere and that is where it is drawn. Obviously we haven’t crossed it with the TSA pat downs and peeping machines: if so, they wouldn’t be in use. It would be too expensive and impractical to have guards at every rental place, besides the fact that you could just buy a truck instead of renting one. Thus reality inserts itself and tells the government that the line cannot be drawn where they wish. Reality hasn’t yet reached that point for air travel yet > [@Candyman74](#): > > Not at all. Like all political speech, it’s rhetoric designed to have an effect. And it’s starting to have that effect. > > If people want a change to be made, comparing it to molestation is _exactly_ the way to go about it. > > Why on earth \*shouldn’t \*people employ rhetoric in order to achieve their goals - which, in this case, is a change to the way things are currently being done? Just to know where you stand, are you contending that using such hyperbole is done as an effort to undermine the security guidelines or that most people using it believe what they are saying? I have no problems with the former, but wish to educate the latter. > [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](#): > > This is the thing that creams my corn. > > These are not different times. **They became different for US because it happened in our backyard – not just that, in two of our signature cities and to some of our signature landmarks.** Everyone says things were different, but honest to goodness bombings were commonplace in other countries before this. Not just Israel, either: terrorists blew shit up all the damn time in London. I was unaware that my statement contradicts that assessment. These are different times precisely because those things happened to us. It was unthinkable before even when it was happening a lot in other parts of the globe. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, but for whatever reason, we are more of a target now than 10 or 20 years ago. So times change and you change with it > [@davidm](#): > > How can you not find them invasive? They do a full body scan and if they see anything out of the ordinary, the stick their hand down your pants and feel. How is that not invasive? People have different standards. It’s not invasive if you allow it. Sure, if a guy did that to me on the streets I’d be pissed. But as part of a security screening? Go for it but don’t mind if I moan 😉 > [@Morgenstern](#): > > The answer **davidm** , is that is that some people believe the new procedures will stop airborne terrorism. The rest of us know the terrorist will simply switch from the “frontal” attack to a flank maneuver. When that happens, the TSA will knee jerk another response, and we’ll all be back here in the pit attempting to run the government better than those we’ve elected do. To me, it’s better that we cut off one avenue of attack rather than say we cannot slide down a slippery slope of strip searches and passengers locked in cages. They did a front attack, you stop it. Try to plug up the holes. If and when they switch tactics, you plug up that hole too, and you keep doing it until you either plug up all the holes or get sick of the plugs and take your chances. **atomic** and I obviously aren’t sick of it yet. Why should we acquiesce to your standards? (and by the way, in response to your next question: you should acquiesce to our standards because it’s the law currently and the majority of people do not disagree with it. It is incumbent upon you to change until either everything thinks like you or you stop participating in the thing that makes you angry) > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > How, exactly, does the system work? I flew through two airports and never got scanned or patted down? Sure, I’m not a terrorist, but who would know that? It works in the same way as extrapolating data from a smaller sample works. Scan and pat down enough people and there’s a higher chance that either a terrorist would be caught or they would be deterred > [@tumbleddown](#): > > If someone runs their hands up my inner legs until their hand touches my labia, and perhaps parts them so that they’re touching my vulva, even though my pants, if I have not specifically consented to that touch, what has just occurred if I _haven’t_ been molested or sexually assaulted? Did that really happen? If so, perhaps you were assaulted or fondled by somebody clueless or malicious. However, don’t assume your experience is the standard. In your case, if that happened, you should lodge a complaint and hire a lawyer. But for the rest of us who don’t get such close scrutiny, no, it’s not a molestation ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/203 "2010-11-29T19:54:21Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Knives are hardly something to be concerned about. The reason the 9/11 hijackers succeeded with box cutters was because everyone assumed it was a routine hijack, that if they played along the crew and passengers would get out of the situation safely. That’s no longer a guarantee, and some idiot waving a knife around in the cabin would get his ass kicked hard. A knife injury is preferable to letting the plane crash. > > If you’re going to look for anything, look for things that have the capacity to take the entire plane down. Like, you know, explosives. I think most of us would agree that, while it may work a few times, it’s impractical and dangerous to just assume that passengers are to police themselves. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/204 "2010-11-29T19:56:22Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > …People have different standards. It’s not invasive if you allow it… Many people aren’t given a choice. If the TSA doesn’t like what they see on your scan then you don’t have the choice not to allow it. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/205 "2010-11-29T20:03:41Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think most of us would agree that, while it may work a few times, it’s impractical and dangerous to just assume that passengers are to police themselves. What can someone with a knife do? If the cockpit doors are properly locked, they can’t threaten the crew. They can threaten the crew with passengers, but the passengers have an interest in self-preservation too. Anyway, I’m not advocating letting someone with a knife onto the plane. X-rays and metal detectors have done a pretty good job of catching that stuff, so far as I know. But pointing out that an anti-explosive measure won’t stop knives is pretty fucking weak. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/206 "2010-11-29T20:43:32Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Dogs can’t catch the scent of a knife, though I’m more than willing to use them to search for drugs or explosives. Given that 9/11 was perpetrated by guys with boxcutters, I don’t harbor resentment at the TSA for trying to implement something that would have prevented that scenario. For fuck’s sake, are you really this bereft of critical thinking skills? As has been stated many times and in many ways previously the reason that the 11 September 2001 attacks were able to do so much damage was because the flight deck was unsecured, an issue that has sense been addressed. Even if a would-be terrorist were to somehow jam a knife or boxcutter up his rectum and threaten to use it on passengers during a flight, he could do no more harm than he could by walking into a coffeeshop or retail store and doing the same thing. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > As for trained agents, i think it has already been proposed akin to Israel’s security. But someone mentioned that the volume alone would be overwhelming. If that is true, then I don’t see your solution, as good as it is, as practical. So, if TSA can’t provide well-trained agents performing effective security measures, they should implement poorly-trained agents performing ineffectual security pantomime in the hopes that by going to through the ceremonial gestures will ward off the evil sprits of the shadowy terrorists which haunt every nook and cranny? Why not just start using telepathy and astrology to detect and predict terrorist attacks? It’ll be every bit as effective, will satisfy the majority of Americans who are disinclined to criticize such methods on factual “science-y” basis, and best of all, will be cheaper and less intrusive than the legions of blue-shirted former convenience store workers. The only downside is the unemployment resulting from the elimination of a government jobs program, but no problem there; we’ll just detail them to roadside cleanup of interstate highways. They can even keep their blue shirts. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/207 "2010-11-29T21:31:47Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Many people aren’t given a choice. If the TSA doesn’t like what they see on your scan then you don’t have the choice not to allow it. On the other hand, if they allow anyone to leave the more invasive scan after they’ve tried to get through the less invasive one, doesn’t that just encourage potential terrorists to keep trying? I think you err on the side of caution in this case: they’ve already tried to get through the scan so they’ve consented as a condition of flight knowing they might be required to do a more invasive pat down. However, I don’t currently have a good recourse for people like Una who needs to fly and objects to the heightened security > [@Bosstone](#): > > What can someone with a knife do? If the cockpit doors are properly locked, they can’t threaten the crew. They can threaten the crew with passengers, but the passengers have an interest in self-preservation too. > > Anyway, I’m not advocating letting someone with a knife onto the plane. X-rays and metal detectors have done a pretty good job of catching that stuff, so far as I know. But pointing out that an anti-explosive measure won’t stop knives is pretty fucking weak. It’s only weak if you ignore history. They could have 5 dogs for every passenger on 9/11 and it wouldn’t have sniffed out the knives > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > For fuck’s sake, are you really this bereft of critical thinking skills? As has been stated many times and in many ways previously the reason that the 11 September 2001 attacks were able to do so much damage was because the flight deck was unsecured, an issue that has sense been addressed. Even if a would-be terrorist were to somehow jam a knife or boxcutter up his rectum and threaten to use it on passengers during a flight, he could do no more harm than he could by walking into a coffeeshop or retail store and doing the same thing. And seriously, you can’t imagine that a group of determined hijackers being able to somehow get a door open? I’d need to see what kind of secured cockpit door the airlines build before I can totally trust them with my safety. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > So, if TSA can’t provide well-trained agents performing effective security measures, they should implement poorly-trained agents performing ineffectual security pantomime in the hopes that by going to through the ceremonial gestures will ward off the evil sprits of the shadowy terrorists which haunt every nook and cranny? With current security, they could have caught the 9/11 hijackers with their boxcutters. It may be fighting the last war, but at least it cuts off an avenue of attack. And I don’t know how much it would cost the airlines to have secured doors but since it’s been mentioned that they declined to put it in once before due to cost, you’d have to talk to them and not the TSA about putting up the cash for new doors on all their planes. That’s not a TSA issue, that’s an airline issue ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/208 "2010-11-29T21:38:50Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > It’s only weak if you ignore history. They could have 5 dogs for every passenger on 9/11 and it wouldn’t have sniffed out the knives It doesn’t help to remember history if you take the wrong lessons from it. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/209 "2010-11-29T22:19:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > > [@davidm](#): > > > > Many people aren’t given a choice. If the TSA doesn’t like what they see on your scan then you don’t have the choice not to allow it. > > On the other hand, if they allow anyone to leave the more invasive scan after they’ve tried to get through the less invasive one, doesn’t that just encourage potential terrorists to keep trying? I think you err on the side of caution in this case: they’ve already tried to get through the scan so they’ve consented as a condition of flight knowing they might be required to do a more invasive pat down. My response was to your statement that “it’s not invasive if you allow it”. My point was that people don’t have a choice about allowing it, therefore it’s invasive. So you can’t argue that it’s not invasive, only that you believe that the invasion is justified; that the large trade off of our fundamental freedoms is worth it for the small increase in physical security. I disagree. I’m not even convinced that this really gives us any increase in physical security. I have to wonder how many people will choose driving over flying due to these procedures. I have to further wonder how many extra highway deaths will occur due to that extra driving. I also have to wonder about the number of increased cancers from the scanning machines since there _are_ legitimate scientific concerns about the safety of those machines. Claims that the exposure from them is a fraction of what you’re exposed to inflight are disingenuous at best, since they ignore factors like the type of radiation and the delivery method and timing. This isn’t about preventing deaths. It’s about preventing high-profile-all-at-once deaths that will blanket the TV news cycle for weeks. Increased highway or cancer deaths won’t be on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/210 "2010-11-29T22:50:06Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > It doesn’t help to remember history if you take the wrong lessons from it. Weren’t you the one who said it’s a good thing when collective selfishness works in our favor for a change? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/211 "2010-11-29T23:16:45Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > On the other hand, if they allow anyone to leave the more invasive scan after they’ve tried to get through the less invasive one, doesn’t that just encourage potential terrorists to keep trying? I think you err on the side of caution in this case: they’ve already tried to get through the scan so they’ve consented as a condition of flight knowing they might be required to do a more invasive pat down. However, I don’t currently have a good recourse for people like Una who needs to fly and objects to the heightened security… I assume that everyone that’s left to date instead of allowing the pat down was not a terrorist. In fact, I haven’t heard of a terrorist trying to get on a plane in quite a while now. I agree that they are probably watching and scheming to though. The terrorist tried smuggling flammable liquids, now we have 3-1-1- rule. They tried a shoe bomb, now the TSA demand to search our shoes. They tried an underwear bomb, so now our underwear and more is “examined.” As the terrorist continue to find new places to hide explosives, are we going to allow more invasive searches? Where are you willing to draw the line here? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/212 "2010-11-29T23:42:12Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > And seriously, you can’t imagine that a group of determined hijackers being able to somehow get a door open? I’d need to see what kind of secured cockpit door the airlines build before I can totally trust them with my safety…With current security, they could have caught the 9/11 hijackers with their boxcutters. It may be fighting the last war, but at least it cuts off an avenue of attack. And I don’t know how much it would cost the airlines to have secured doors but since it’s been mentioned that they declined to put it in once before due to cost, you’d have to talk to them and not the TSA about putting up the cash for new doors on all their planes. That’s not a TSA issue, that’s an airline issue Jesus, you are one seriously ignorant son of a bitch. First of all, all commercial airlines are required to install and maintain doors that can only be opened from within the cockpit during flight. Second, the 11 September 2001 hijackers didn’t need boxcutters to force open the flight deck; they used them to attempt to subdue passengers. This is an example of reflexively targeting objects rather than looking for actors or proactively eliminating avenues of attack. Third, no amount of security would have “caught the 9/11 hijackers with their boxcutters” because _it wasn’t fucking illegal to bring boxcutters on board an aircraft at that time!_ However, had the flight decks of those aircraft been secured, the attackers could have done no more than injure a few dozen passengers; they would not have been able to take control of the aircraft and fly them into buildings. Fourth, I don’t believe there is a single incidence of someone trying to sneak a boxcutter, knife, gun, or other melee or projectile weapon in his or her genitalia has occurred. Any metallic weapon should be detected by functioning metal detectors. Even if an attacker were to get inside the security perimeter and on board a plane with a weapon, he could do no more than attack other passengers, which he could do in any other venue as well. It has already been acknowledged that the current methods would very likely not have detected Abdulmutallab, and of course, as passengers are allowed to walk on with a quart-sized bag full of liquids and gels, there is a giant hole in this supposed foolproof screening right there. You’re apparently willing to uncritically accept security measures that are ineffectual and easily bypassed, but are untrusting of measures that actually secure the primary point of attack because you can’t “totally trust them.” Your whole argument is based on nothing more than a bunch of duck-n-weave maneuvers to justify your irrational fear of being attacked by the hordes of nebulous expert airplane hijacking terrorists that have totally failed to emerge from the woodwork while minimizing the significant privacy, health, and emotional issues resulting from search protocols that are both invasive and intentionally ambiguous. For the record, [14 CFR 25.795](http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-1.0.1.3.11.4.177.55.html) sets out the requirements for locking cockpit doors. Before a door design can be accepted it is physically tested by the FAA, which unlike the TSA has an actual history of competence and professionalism in the scope of its regulatory duties. You may “like the new TSA pat downs.” You may feel comfortable, or indeed, as it appears, even jubilant about the prospect of having your genitals examined by someone who is not only a medical professional or trained law enforcement agent and without any justification whatsoever. You may be perfectly satisfied that a government agency can wield regulations and guidelines that they refuse to publish or publicize. You may regard all this as a free choice undertaken by people who are flying on a personal whim. But it is clear that the majority of the public has a serious problem with these measures and what the represent in terms of both personal decency and humiliation and overarching abeyance of liberties which has been ongoing under the guise of “Now is not the time to question your government” ever since the attacks that the same government, which had plenty of evidence and warning, totally failed to recognize or take any significant measures to prevent. This isn’t just closing the barn door after the cows have fled, but then turning around and setting the barn on fire. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/213 "2010-11-29T23:44:20Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > This isn’t about preventing deaths. It’s about preventing high-profile-all-at-once deaths that will blanket the TV news cycle for weeks. Increased highway or cancer deaths won’t be on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. From your post, I gather you’re against the overreaction to such high profile deaths? Would you have ignored 9/11? After all, that was only 3000 deaths, insignificant compared to the amount killed every year by regular driving, smoking, or heart disease. If you are willing to concede that sometimes high profile deaths are more significant even if smaller in number, I can concede that maybe the more stringent security measures do not save as many lives as people hope Would I have liked a 9/11 response that ignores Afghanistan and passed a law simply to have secured doors on airplanes? Maybe. Taken to its conclusion, that seems to be the kind of world that some people want to live in. After all, it was the doors’ fault, so beef those up. More security wouldn’t have caught the terrorists anyway, so don’t change that. And Osama only killed 3000 people, we should end heart disease before we think about attacking Afghanistan > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I assume that everyone that’s left to date instead of allowing the pat down was not a terrorist. In fact, I haven’t heard of a terrorist trying to get on a plane in quite a while now. I agree that they are probably watching and scheming to though. > > The terrorist tried smuggling flammable liquids, now we have 3-1-1- rule. They tried a shoe bomb, now the TSA demand to search our shoes. They tried an underwear bomb, so now our underwear and more is “examined.” As the terrorist continue to find new places to hide explosives, are we going to allow more invasive searches? Where are you willing to draw the line here? Not sure what a 3-1-1 rule is. I’ve said that to me, these pat downs don’t cross the line. When it does, I’ll stand up with the rest of you and protest, but for now, I don’t see how outcries of any increase in security, no matter how small, is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/214 "2010-11-29T23:47:55Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Not sure what a 3-1-1 rule is. [TSA’s webpage on the “3-1-1” rule](http://www.tsa.gov/311/). If you are not acquainted with the basic procedures involved in air travel, you are clearly not well-informed enough to even have a credible opinion on this issue. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/215 "2010-11-30T00:57:37Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Weren’t you the one who said it’s a good thing when collective selfishness works in our favor for a change? You’re going to have to explain how that’s relevant, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/216 "2010-11-30T02:01:54Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > You’re going to have to explain how that’s relevant, I’m afraid. Well you guys are kind of going in circles with the whole knife thing, but that’s not why I quoted you. Feel free to fill in any gaps here, but it seems like one position holds that the end-result is what is ultimately important, while the other (“It doesn’t help to remember history if you take the wrong lessons from it”) holds it isn’t if nobody learned anything. Am I hijacking yet? Ugh, no pun intended. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/217 "2010-11-30T02:10:16Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think most of us would agree that, while it may work a few times, it’s impractical and dangerous to just assume that passengers are to police themselves. On the contrary – passengers have a track record of actually foiling the terrorists’ goals; government doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/218 "2010-11-30T02:29:47Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Well you guys are kind of going in circles with the whole knife thing, but that’s not why I quoted you. Feel free to fill in any gaps here, but it seems like one position holds that the end-result is what is ultimately important, while the other (“It doesn’t help to remember history if you take the wrong lessons from it”) holds it isn’t if nobody learned anything. > > Am I hijacking yet? Ugh, no pun intended. Aha, gotcha. Collective selfishness going the right way for once = right choice for the wrong reasons. I’m okay with this, although of course making the right choice for the right reasons is better. Doesn’t help to remember history if you take the wrong lessons = wrong choice for the right reasons (sort of). Not really okay with this. Ignoring history entirely would be the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/219 "2010-11-30T02:45:31Z")
Ehh, fair enough for now. Not going to derail this bitch-fight we have going on here, because it’s pretty fucking funny. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/220 "2010-11-30T02:55:45Z")
Now, if we could train metal-sniffing dogs, that would be awesome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788.md?page=12)