For fuck's sake. The point was that general warrants are unconstitutional,
No, the point I joined the discussion to make was that YOUR claim that there was some implicit waiving of rights was incorrect. YOU want to talk about warrants, as if warrants had something to do with this to begin with, and they don't. There are no warrants involved in any part of a TSA security process. Not a single one.
so why the hell would it be okay to search everyone *without even so much as having a warrant*?
Because the constitution says it is. There isn't a blanket prohibition against ALL searches, only UNREASONABLE ones. That word has come up more than once in just our discussion so I know you know it's there. It's a subjective term, just like "innocuous" that you want to think applies somehow. You do NOT need a warrant for a reasonable search, even if that reasonable search means you search everyone who wants "to do something". End of story. Every prospective juror going in the door (who "wanted to keep from going to jail for contempt of court") got searched -- no warrant required. Every visitor to the local jail inmates gets searched. No warrant required.
Warrants are not the issue because no warrants are involved. And before you try another bit of nonsense, the fourth amendment does not define "reasonable" to mean "a warrant has been issued", nor have the courts defined it that way.
I'm arguing that the idea that the government has the power to force you to surrender rights if you try to do something (in this case, travel on a plane) that isn't illegal (merely because some people could do something illegal) is absurd.
That's patently false. I've already given examples of where waiving the fourth amendment right is quite reasonable for certain values of "something". It isn't illegal to visit a prisoner in jail, but you have to waive your rights to do it. If you want to drive about on a military installation, you waive your rights. And if you obey the summons to jury duty, the government not only compels you to appear, they search you when you do. So no, just flapping your gums and saying they can't force you to waive your rights just to "do something" is absurd itself, and contradicted by many trivial examples.
But I see where this is going. Rather than focusing on my fundamental points, you're just being pedantic and nitpicking at my usage of the English language.
From the very beginning I have been explicit in saying that I'm talking about your claims of implicit waivers of rights. The fact that you are just catching on to that fact now tells me you didn't bother trying to comprehend the words I posted.
The implicit part is supposedly your acceptance of being searched,
No, it is not. Your act of passing the point where you have been told that you are subject to search is an EXPLICIT act, and it is an explicit acceptance of the terms. You didn't wander past the checkpoint entrance on a whim, you made a deliberate choice to enter.
Dude, you're pedantic as fuck. I don't know if you've ever heard of exaggerations or how normal people use language (which is rarely 100% precise), but you should get acquainted with those things, and fast.
You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then jumping down the throats of those who tell you they are absurd. Maybe read what you're replying to before doing so, to keep yourself from finding out five levels down into the discussion that the person you are trying to convince how bad it is that there are searches ISN'T ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT THEM BEING BAD, only about your incorrect representation of what is going on.