Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MagmaMcFry]

I don't really care what people get away with. I'm far more concerned with peeps snooping where they shouldn't really be, rather than people doing things that being snooped on would prevent.

[DrPoo]

So solution to remove the need for internet snooping: Remove pedophillia from the human genome and catch pedophiles early and put in life-long captivity regardless of wether they have broken the law yet or not.

that sounded retarded but that was what i could make from it.

[kaijyuu]

Minority Report, ahoy?


If you give someone a freedom, there's always the chance they could abuse it. Let someone speak, and they can say mean things. Let someone drive, they'll be able to run over your puppy. Let them trade files, those files may contain things you don't like. The only place without crime is one without freedom.

[RedWarrior0]

And the only place without freedom is North Korea. Now we know where to send the MAFIAA.

[Leafsnail]

So solution to remove the need for internet snooping: Remove pedophillia from the human genome and catch pedophiles early and put in life-long captivity regardless of wether they have broken the law yet or not.

that sounded retarded but that was what i could make from it.

Surely in order to "catch pedophiles early" you'd need snooping.

[Frumple]

Of course, the much, much worse issue is false positives, for almost anything like that, not just pedophilia. For every pedophile that actually victimizes someone, you've got many dozens of people that don't, despite functionally identical upbringing or environmental elements and close enough to identical it makes no difference genetic code or neurological structure.

Are these people acceptable casualties, or are we dealing with some kind of future where big brother is literally omniscient omnibenevolent, i.e. a god somehow capable of a 100% accuracy rate and possessing 0% corruption? Because that's your choice of present/near future and a future with a vanishingly small chance of ever occurring, and there's not really a third option.

A lot of other things besides pedophilia and its perpetrators fall under a similar category, where it's a case of condemning many dozens of innocents to protect a different (usually much smaller) number of other innocents from a small number of bad seeds within the former group.

I do realize dr.p. probably wasn't being particularly serious, but there's some serious gaping holes in that sort of system. Even false positives aren't nearly the only problem with it.

[Josephus]

For every pedophile that actually victimizes someone, you've got many dozens of people that don't, despite functionally identical upbringing or environmental elements and close enough to identical it makes no difference genetic code or neurological structure.

Quick question for clarification: are those 'dozerns of people that don't' also pedophiles?

[Graknorke]

Does it matter? I really don't care if someone's a paedophile, so long as they don't act on it. The point is, there's not a reason everybody should have to be punished for something only a few people do.

[Frumple]

Quick question for clarification: are those 'dozerns of people that don't' also pedophiles?

If they never commit an act of pedophilia, does it matter? They'd be behaviorally identical to a non-pedophile. Lump hebephilia and ephebophilia in there too, to be fair -- use the broader term instead of the clinical, to fit better with general public understanding of the behavior... though that understanding goes a hell of a lot further than the clinical definition.

We're talking essentially about imprisoning people for life for thought-crime, on the off chance they act on that thought -- and that in the face of the fact that a great deal of those guilty of that thought crime never act on it.

Even without that. You're still going to have a significant fraction of those dozens who aren't. The position we're discussing is saying that it's acceptable that a dozen innocent people be imprisoned in order to prevent the one who isn't from victimizing someone. Or rather, that it's desirable to victimize many to an (arguably) lesser degree to prevent a smaller number of greater victimizations.

Or, being fair, the position in question is talking about magical utopia world with 100% accuracy, no false positives, and no corruption. We don't have that, and can't for many years to come, if ever.

I can appreciate the sentiment -- treat the cause, not the symptom -- but we just don't have the technology and methodology to do that, and won't for a damn long time. Until then, our way of treating the cause is close enough to as bad as the symptom you can't really morally weigh which is the better situation.

[SalmonGod]

All irrelevant if the absurdities in our economic system are ironed out.

[Truean]

.

[Josephus]

I really don't care if someone's a paedophile

Clearly you're an enemy of freedom. It's a well-known fact that paedophiles supplied a good chunk of Al Qaeda's funding.

[kaijyuu]

Personally, I wish people would specify "child rapist" when talking about pedophiles (and maybe something else for those who distribute pictures of rape/molestation victims in the act, children or no). That way I know they're not also condemning people who draw/read dirty Card Captor Sakura doujinshi (disgusting as it may be, not a crime).

[Josephus]

That way I know they're not also condemning people who draw/read dirty Card Captor Sakura doujinshi (disgusting as it may be, not a crime).

That's technically illegal in most parts of North America, as far as I know.

Would be classified as child pornography, given what I know about Card Captor Sakura.

[kaijyuu]

That I know. 'Tis unfortunate; no victim, no crime, in my opinion, but we're still in an age where people think they can control other people's sexual lives merely because it's sexual and "gross."