4 ms·
87% is a huge number. If person X has that genetic predisposition then what's wrong with that rule? If as a society you allow the government to impose 'weekly
by memefrog 3y ago
87% is a huge number. If person X has that genetic predisposition then what's wrong with that rule? If as a society you allow the government to impose 'weekly counselling' on people for some reasons, then you open it up to being imposed on people for other reasons too.
I don't think the government should be imposing anger management counselling on people in the first place. That has nothing to do with concern about DNA, and everything to do with concern about the government being able to tell me what to do when I've not been convicted of a crime.
- donmcronald 3y ago> If person X has that genetic predisposition then what's wrong with that rule? A lot of it would be based on junk science and the low rate of offenders, because the diagnosis is bullshit, would be touted as evidence of the value the program is providing.
- memefrog 3y agoSo the problem is basing policy on junk science. Is basing policy on junk science okay in some fields, but suddenly bad when it applied to genetics? Of course not. What if it's not based on junk science, but on good science?