4 ms·

To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we shoul

To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.

fragsworth 10y ago
And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
- thotpoizn 10y ago
  Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?" I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    “Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1] See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2] [1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-science-says-yes-sexologists-say-not-so-fast http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci... [2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
    - thotpoizn 10y ago
      The hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result. Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die. I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you. I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
  - klenwell 10y ago
    The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
    - thotpoizn 10y ago
      See my other question below. If there were a 10% chance that children who were exposed to your presence might sicken and die from a toxic reaction to your sweat, would you take steps to avoid any such contact? Would it be wrong to prevent you from working in schools?
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        A 10% incidence rate is different from a 10% increase in incidence rate.
canadian_voter 10y ago
You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible. Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism. Why not just make the data free and open to all? Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
noir_lord 10y ago
Because it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent). I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully. I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
cylinder 10y ago
When did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  That's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
  - thotpoizn 10y ago
    I dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less. This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily. ... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.

To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.

fragsworth 10y ago

And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit

thotpoizn 10y ago
Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?" I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  “Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1] See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2] [1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-science-says-yes-sexologists-say-not-so-fast http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci... [2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
  - thotpoizn 10y ago
    The hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result. Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die. I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you. I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
- klenwell 10y ago
  The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
  - thotpoizn 10y ago
    See my other question below. If there were a 10% chance that children who were exposed to your presence might sicken and die from a toxic reaction to your sweat, would you take steps to avoid any such contact? Would it be wrong to prevent you from working in schools?
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      A 10% incidence rate is different from a 10% increase in incidence rate.

canadian_voter 10y ago

You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible. Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism. Why not just make the data free and open to all? Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition

noir_lord 10y ago

Because it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent). I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully. I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

cylinder 10y ago

When did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.

dsr_ 10y ago
That's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
- thotpoizn 10y ago
  I dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less. This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily. ... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.