3 ms·

This man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, bu

This man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. All this case does is point out how stupid polygraph tests are. Nothing more. If, as the government claims, Chad Dixon taught methods that allow subjects of polygraphs to effectively cheat them, then polygraphs can easily be cheated. If polygraphs can be easily cheated then why is anyone relying on polygraphs for anything. Polygraphs are part operational security theatre and part invasive intrusion on someone's personal life. As this sad story proves they offer little more.

roryokane 13y ago
The difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving them a false negative). Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad if these government jobs help people.
avalaunch 13y ago
Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. Unless the students being taught told the instructors in advance that they were going to use the education to kill people and commit crimes, which is exactly what happened here. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.

roryokane 13y ago

The difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving them a false negative). Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad if these government jobs help people.

avalaunch 13y ago

Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. Unless the students being taught told the instructors in advance that they were going to use the education to kill people and commit crimes, which is exactly what happened here. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.