Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's a variant on the perfect solution fallacy, although it is not truly a fallacious argument. Preemptive defenses are an "economic" issue. A sufficiently determined attacker can subvert any system, so it's a question of how severe of a defense cost you think is worth paying, which is subjective to a person's individual risk aversion.

[EnigmaticHat]

Not a logical fallacy per se, but I would call that defeatism.

I'm kinda ok with that ban. I think that is ultimately the kind of sacrifice that is worth accepting to prevent terrorism. Its true that there is a point where we have to draw the line, but it sounds like the intel here is real.

[Bralbaard]

Give it a few more years, and in order to board a plane you'll need to get all your teeth pulled because you could potentially use them as a weapon.

All this will achieve nothing but make things uncomfortable. Attacks will just target the lines at, or outside the airport instead if the plane iself is too difficult to target. (like we've seen in Brussels).

[Greiger]

We are not going to be 100% protected from everything.  Ban nail clippers on airplanes and terrorists will use concealed explosives in shoes, search everyone's shoes while coming on board and they'll just conceal explosives in laptops, ban laptops as carry on luggage, and they'll just use basic explosive medium in their luggage without obvious wiring or metal and obtain the materials to quickly detonate it it in flight, mcguyvering thing's is a lot easier if you have time to test and practice with the makeshift materials beforehand. ban carry on luggage altogether and we'll get people with lumps of C4 in their pocket that can mcguyver together a detonator using things that are known to be on a plane.  Ban clothes on flights and we'll just get a person who jammed explosives in his or her rectum, point their ass at the plane's hull, and create the loudest fart ever.

Is there a name for the fallacy of "A sufficiently determined and skill attacker can win, so we might as well not bother to protect"? It comes up again and again, when discussing stuff like gun right for exemple ("Why regulate gun? People will build them in their garage!")

Yes we should indeed protect planes, but at what cost?  Would you be willing to be stripped naked for the duration of every plane ride, and then after that last example still take a plane when the next step is a thorough hand examination every orifice of every passenger before boarding?  I don't think you would.

At what point does all the extra security hoops someone has to jump through to enjoy the convenience of a service. Outweigh the convenience of said service?  Planes sure will be secure when nobody wants to deal with security to board them anymore.

[Playergamer]

I'm kinda ok with that ban. I think that is ultimately the kind of sacrifice that is worth accepting to prevent terrorism. Its true that there is a point where we have to draw the line, but it sounds like the intel here is real.

This argument assumes that it will actually help defeat terrorism on flights.

Does the TSA stop terrorists?

I understand the logic that airport security prevents terrorists from attempting attacks in the first place. I don't agree with it. If 95% of test bombs make it through, it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint for the terrorists to go "nope, TSA will stop us" and not try to sneak a bomb through.

Realistically, these security measures (banning certain items, searches, scans, etc.) are so much less efficient than, y'know, intelligence services locking up terrorists beforehand. Air Marshals on flights. Passengers being told to constantly be aware, and do something if the guy next to them puts a lighter to his shoe. And the best part about those methods? They don't require you to consent to the TSA taking your privacy, your convenience, and putting its metaphorical head under a 737 wheel. Honestly, I figure the TSA and related "security theater" isn't even about making people safe; it's seeing how much they can get away with in the name of "safety".

[Baffler]

The true vulnerability is our power grid and telecommunications infrastructure. We've gotten pretty good at fixing incidental damage from storms and stuff to them, but there are parts that'd be extremely slow to replace and do a lot of damage to the grid as a whole if they were to suddenly be destroyed, and the plan to keep telecom systems (which is even more vulnerable since it's really finicky and can be subtly sabotaged as well as just knocked over or blown up) secure is essentially "hope nobody realizes how fragile and difficult to replace it all is."

Attacks on planes are really small potatoes as far as actual damage goes when you consider what a sufficiently motivated attacker is capable of, and unlike airport terminals utilities can only be given even minimal protection at absurd cost. Thankfully nobody's decided to start knocking down cell towers or electrical transformers instead of taking the risk of sneaking a bomb past airport security, but there isn't really anything stopping them either.

[smjjames]

Anyway, plenty of planes have been brought down by bombs in cargo holds....

Lockerby bombing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

and: Air India Flight 182 bombing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

to name just 2.

Or even cases where it wasn't a bomb in the terrorist sense, but still a bomb in the 'something violently exploding' sense like TWA flight 800. Theres still conspiracy theories going around how it was a bomb or a missile rather than an exploding fuel tank. The point is still made, anything exploding in the wrong place can bring the plane down.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm aghast about people actually defending this retarded laptop ban. Seriously.

[smjjames]

So, this one Republican Party county chairperson thinks that Republicans oughta be using far right-militia types as security for public events.

I find it incredibly ironic that a government official (as low level as he is) wants to use a group that is anti-government. Obviously it's just one guy and may not represent an actual thing that is happening. Also, it was prompted by a question given by a The Guardian reporter, so, whether or not one might accuse liberal media of baiting with the question, you still have to ask yourself 'why is he answering it that way?'

Having private security stuff and groups like the ones mentioned in there (or Hells Angels even) for the Republicans is going to go nowhere good.

[scriver]

Wasn't there a big hula hoop some time back about American gov leaking that the British intelligence sources had warned them about laptops? Isn't that what the the laptop security is directly in response to?

[hector13]

Hey, that's heading into proper fascist territory now.

Perhaps he's just a Republican that doesn't hide from what they are /Poe's Law

* hector13 actually reads the article

Asked if he was considering such groups as security providers, Buchal said: “Yeah. We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”

lol

[sluissa]

I'm aghast about people actually defending this retarded laptop ban. Seriously.

I'm for it if only because it'll likely piss more people off while they're flying, lead to more hilarious confrontations on planes, bloody faces, law suits, lost money, and hopefully result in a everybody sitting down, taking a look at the current state of things and going, "Maybe we can do this better."

Then we can get down to the real solution, knock everyone unconscious for the flight except the flight crew (at least until planes are 100% automated) and treat everyone like what they already are, cargo to be wedged into every available cubic inch on a plane.

So, this one Republican Party county chairperson thinks that Republicans oughta be using far right-militia types as security for public events.

I find it incredibly ironic that a government official (as low level as he is) wants to use a group that is anti-government. Obviously it's just one guy and may not represent an actual thing that is happening. Also, it was prompted by a question given by a The Guardian reporter, so, whether or not one might accuse liberal media of baiting with the question, you still have to ask yourself 'why is he answering it that way?'

Having private security stuff and groups like the ones mentioned in there (or Hells Angels even) for the Republicans is going to go nowhere good.

Once you start getting to the county level you get all sorts of nutty things happening and being said. I wouldn't pay TOO much attention to it. It's all cute and adorable when a town votes a cat as mayor. Suddenly it becomes a major issue when you vote in someone who's watched Red Dawn one too many times. The area of effect from that person is going to be relatively small and the people directly responsible for voting him in or out or dealing with him are a tight enough group that if he gets too crazy and out of what they "want" then he'll be removed easily enough.

[redwallzyl]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/29/530623562/texas-lawmakers-trade-assault-allegations-after-one-calls-ice-on-protesters

Texas.

[smjjames]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/29/530623562/texas-lawmakers-trade-assault-allegations-after-one-calls-ice-on-protesters

Texas.

This article on the same thing says that nobody called ICE. The whole thing with wanting to shoot the other guy and claiming it as self defense is also pretty dumb. The Republican is coming off as a complete jerkwad there.

[muldrake]

Asked if he was considering such groups as security providers, Buchal said: “Yeah. We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”

lol

"Call me a Nazi again and I'll stomp you with my jackboots!"