TSA Makes The Rules Up As They Go Along.

Would you want your child drinking radiated breast milk?

does it say why she refused? (couldn't access op's link)

Do you want to sit in a glass box for an hour? Let them x-ray it. Toss it out afterwards, give the kid some titty shortly after.

I've never stated a god does or doesn't exist.

As to the tsa part, if you can't follow the thread, don't blame others for you not understanding it.

On your reasoning note, it depends how you define ultimate. According to what other people post, their reasoning is ***and mine is sound, and when somebody shoots a whole through mine (sev did it earlier iirc, I thanked him for it) I concede, however not many people have the capability of doing so, idc if that makes me a conceited jackass.

EXACTLY...or else THIS MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOUR CHILD!!!!

You seem to fail to see the purpose of having it accessible in a container to begin with. Perhaps she was weening her child off breastfeeding and onto bottle drinking while keeping the same level of nutrition. Not sure how you could justify such an arbitrary line of policy.

my opinions aren't very popular, but if you can reason more or less they'll almost always be right.

Another one of your opinions....

Because it's clearly stated in the TSA guidelines that it's exempt.

You still don't get that it's not your opinions that aren't popular?

It's the way you state them that is unpopular.

no, that right there is fact sir.

it's a combination of both, actually.

just because it's not popular sure doesn't mean it's right either.
you can say that BS either way.
Just know that many of your peers here think that you are an ***-face.
i'm not arguing how right or how wrong it is.
just know that people think that.
correctness is irrelevant.
but being correct has never been relevant when you come into play.

peer:
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

yeah, you all fit that description, however I admit that I'm an ***, so why should I care if people think I am one?

But you can't prove he doesn't exist!

I apologize, I mistook the fact that you call people crazy for believing in a supreme being as you "reasoning" that God doesn't exist. Your other posts on the topic also added to that. So do you then believe that there is the possibility of a god exisiting?

And there it is, no reasoning behind it just an insult. That's what I've come to expect from you.

You're right, you do seem to care very little about what others post or think. I just figured it was your way of protecting yourself. Hide yourself in a box, lable it reason, and throw rocks at anyone who tries to tell you somehting different than how you see the world.

I never said the policy was good. I was calling her a dumbass for refusing agents that are known for their douche baggery and that being suck in a glass box for an hour would be a worse situation than throwing away some milk.

These people have a reputation for being *** up, so yes, I call her a dumbass for not complying.

It's like some dictatorship country, for example. Do I agree with their rules? No, but I do think it's moronic if you don't do what they say, which is what happened in this case.

Btw, by I never said, I was posting from Ghaleon's computer, so that was also me.

cya later jet, you are going on the block list now, dunno why i haven't ever done this before.

Yeah, I suppose you can use the "when in rome" argument, which certainly has its merit for situations such as traveling.
However, we're in a country where people have a degree of control, influence and freedom of press to support their case when they feel they've been done wrong by a higher authority; which has the ability to be regulated on a federal level. A few hours of discomfort to discredit something that's clearly *** seems worthwhile to me since this scenario seems to get worse and worse with each passing week. But I can understand how most would just be in the margin of "*** it, just let me on my plane!".

Not really. It seems you're usually on the popular side of arguments (at least it's usually the popular side for these forums).

You drum up a lot of replies because you are an "***," not because you make great points.

because being unreasonable in times of tyranny makes her a dumbass...fail.

Pretty much. Again, it's a bottle of milk...really? Yea, she's a dumbass. If they wanted to take apart her $1000 laptop, ya'll may have a point, but a glass of milk, just not worth the commotion (and I bet she feels the same way after the fact)

I don't see where me saying religion is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, people shouldn't ever hit children, or my entire ps2 running xi better thing as "popular" and those are probably my biggest points.

Like I told Vinvv, I don't care that I'm an ***, I proudly admit it.

Were you referring to the christian woman who was stoned in Israel for speaking blasphemy against their prophet? In that case I agree. When living in a country notorious for tight religious ties to legislation and law, it would certainly be in your best interest to keep your mouth shut as the highest level of authority are the ones running the country to begin with. Although I suppose in her case, that authority wasn't high enough and would only be answered through God. We all know where that got her >_>
But in this case... TSA... I think we have a better chance exposing them for their ***. The only thing stopping us are lawyers and lobbyists.

it doesn't matter what Item it was that they wanted to examine, however in this case what they did was clearly a violation of their own policy. Seriously dude just no.

there is indeed a large difference there, thank you for pointing it out. In a nation where civil liberties > everything, this ***should never be tolerated.

Then you throw the milk away and report them? Again, no reason to set yourself up to be put in a box. She's a moron.

Theories are based off of what we know of the world and everything that sorrounds us. There was a theory once that the world was flat and that was believed until the day it was proven to be false. There are a lot of theories that have been brought up over the many years of human existence and many of them have been proven false. I'm not saying none have remained true. Who's to say the theory of how the universe was created might be debunked again in a hundred years? But I guess what your trying to tell me is that a theory based off of something more tangible, something that we can reason with science or something we can grasp to understand, rather than beliefs that has lasted for thousands of years, is far more believable.

I can't really argue with you on that myself. My parents are fairly religous so it was always around me, I however would like to believe in a higher power but find it hard myself. I also personally don't agree with the way the church handles a lot of things so I distanced myself from it. I still pursue my faith in my own way more like to see if I actually have any. I can tell you this Spicy, if nothing can be proven, nothing can truly be said that it is or isn't. A lot of people choose to believe in something that isn't tanglible. Others choose to belive in scientific measurments and findings. It's man's nature to to seek out his past, to know where we come from. Some just seek that path in different ways than others.

Which one is more likely? Based on what we know and can prove the theories presented to us are the more likely solution. Is it true? Does that make any other theory or belief less true? No. Are their theories that people are less likely to believe because of their own thought/belief on life? Yes.

Anyways lunch break is over see you all later!