4 ms·

What you call "nanny" others think of as civilization. But if you want to experience complete freedom, you can always go out there in the boondocks, dance with

• dymk 8y ago
  Fill me in on what value you see on having taxpayer money go towards making sure novelty DNA tests are "regulated" (and what could you even meaningfully regulate?)
  • torstenvl 8y ago
    This is what's known as a compound question, and it's almost like a way of straw-manning someone. GP didn't say he wants to regulate "novelty" DNA tests. That's the spin you're putting on his position, and you've asked your question in a way that he can't answer it without tacitly approving of your spin. It's like the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" Are these tests just novelty tests? Are they intended to be? Is it clearly communicated to consumers that they are just novelty tests? If they are just novelty tests, but they're not being upfront about that when they take consumers' money, is that acceptable public behavior? If that's not acceptable behavior, what is the right social response? That's the point in the discussion where GP appears to be. If these are novelty tests, and are being marketed as such, would you mind linking to a page on, say, 23andMe's website that describes them as such? If not - if, in your own words, these are "novelty" tests but the companies involved aren't being forthright about that - do you think a government response is so inappropriate as to dismiss it out of hand?
  • drb91 8y ago
    Well, you could mandate that they be called novelty tests.