I was on another forum, the official Star Wars: The Old Republic forum of all places, where someone made a thread make a ridiculous claim that at birth all people should be forced to have a GPS tracking chip inserted into their brain. His argument was that it would help stop abductions and kidnappings. He also said it would help stop teen sex, drug & alcohol abuse, breaking curfew, and other acts of civil disobedience. The entire community, save for Geshalt (another user) and the OP, then told him how horrible of an idea it was. People cited references to totalitarian government, human rights violations, how such a thing could be abused by the government/abusive parents/pedophiles who figure out how to track kids and teenagers.
People also said how it's like treating human beings like cattle. Some users said that it should be allowed up until they turn 13 and then it should be removed, and other users said that if you need a GPS locator to keep your children safe, then you shouldn't have kids. Personally I'm against such a thing, it's a very slippery slope after all, and I while I'm not a minor, I probably would have killed myself as a teenager if my parents and/or the government could figure out my exact location at any given time. I sarcastically told the OP that he might as well have thought police while he was at it. So, what do you think of this?
Most teenagers carry mobile phones these days which is not so dissimilar.
Sounds a bit draconian and dystopian to be honest. Smacks of the sort of scare-mongering that the Daily Mail specialises in. That being said, you are under more surveillance than you realise. The average Briton is spotted on CCTV 70 times a day according to the Telegraph and that's just the bog-standard town centre surveillance stuff.
As with all things, this is mostly a question of how the technology will be used. If it is just for kidnapping cases and similar things, then it isn't problematic; though such limitations are unlikely.
That said, there is safety in numbers, and if everyone is "chipped" it is unlikely that you, individually, will suffer any consequences.
I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
...really? this is even an idea worth considering?
c'mon! when i was a kid if i was inclined to make trouble or get into trouble, chip or no chip it was happening.
do you really want your child to have this line of thinking?:
"okay so im grounded and my mom wont let me go to that concert/party/gangbang and ive got a chip in me. Where the hell is that powerdrill?"
but seriously folks you can only prevent so much. If you try to prevent anything from happening to your kids then nothing will happen to your kids. think about it.
Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Something straight off the top of my head: Let's say that the use of such a thing becomes widespread. There will be standardisation. There'll have to be, for there to be any use out of the thing. Given this, technological countermeasures will be viable, if only in locating the chip. And once you've done that, it's a simple thing to cut it out of any nubile young body that you've abducted. This would only be useful where it was unexpected, which means if we start implanting everyone, it's only good for spying on people when they haven't been abducted, which means police state, which means...
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
I take it from that response that you have kids then? No? Didn't think so. Again, when/if you do, then you will understand that it provokes a reaction to want to protect and nuture, sometimes to the point of irrationality.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
If your kids live in fear of you then there are bigger issues here than the chipping.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
I take it from that response that you have kids then? No? Didn't think so. Again, when/if you do, then you will understand that it provokes a reaction to want to protect and nuture, sometimes to the point of irrationality.
Why not have 24/7 surveillance in every human beings home and in all outdoors areas? Why not have thought police to prevent "crime" or why not ban guns while you're at it? Let's implement school uniforms and a curfew for all adults, teenagers, and children (excluding government officials and thought police of course)? It's a slippery slope. Plus it's morally (and legally) wrong in every way.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
I take it from that response that you have kids then? No? Didn't think so. Again, when/if you do, then you will understand that it provokes a reaction to want to protect and nuture, sometimes to the point of irrationality.
Why not have 24/7 surveillance in every human beings home and in all outdoors areas? Why not have thought police to prevent "crime" or why not ban guns while you're at it? Let's implement school uniforms and a curfew for all adults, teenagers, and children (excluding government officials and thought police of course)? It's a slippery slope. Plus it's morally (and legally) wrong in every way.
This is exactly the reaction that the thread OP you refer to was seeking to provoke. I hesitate to say it but I think you fell for the troll.
Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.
Monster Rain wrote:I know that if one of my kids went missing I'd rather have a
GPS chip in them than not.
I think the same thing every time there's an Amber Alert or something like that. I say go for it. If you want it removed when you're 18 knock yourself out.
How is that by any means okay?
If/when you have kids, you will understand....
If I want my kids to live in fear, never know what the real world is like, and commit suicide, then I might agree with you. But otherwise no.
Bit of a leap to go from not wanting one's children to be irretrievably lost for whatever reason to living in fear, sheltering and suicide, don't you think?
samusaran253 wrote:
Why not have 24/7 surveillance in every human beings home and in all outdoors areas? Why not have thought police to prevent "crime" or why not ban guns while you're at it? Let's implement school uniforms and a curfew for all adults, teenagers, and children (excluding government officials and thought police of course)? It's a slippery slope.
Why not have a reductio ad absurdum fallacy?
samusaran253 wrote:Plus it's morally (and legally) wrong in every way.
I think an argument could be reasonably made that it's not morally wrong, and it certainly isn't legally wrong in "every way."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent.
Yeah, that makes sense to some random dude on the internet.
Ask someone like John Walsh if he wishes he'd had one of these in his kid.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables. While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse. And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.
umm Cannerus when youre a parent theres this HUGE instinct to throw logic away from the equation. so yes, if im a parent id fully expect myself to TRY to get my kid away from that firey ball of death.
this is not a life or death situation we're talking about here though. its about taking away someons right to privacy to "protect" them
The only difficulty from a chip is that its easily removed. Grant you most bad guys are dumber than a box of rocks, but many aren't and cwould remove it from a kidnapped child.
The teenagers on the thread get antsy about being tracked are misperceiving though. Its an interesting concept for the purposes of rescuing kidnapped children.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables. While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse. And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Imagine all of the teenagers who would commit suicide if they're mom walked in on them having sex with their girlfriend. Or if my parents saw all of the hardcore sexual stuff I'm into, I'd probably an hero. Of course they would probably disown me completely if they knew what I was into.
Like I said, you would be hard pressed to find a teenager these days who doesn't carry a phone. It's not much of a leap from a mobile phone to a chip implant.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables. While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse. And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Imagine all of the teenagers who would commit suicide if they're mom walked in on them having sex with their girlfriend. Or if my parents saw all of the hardcore sexual stuff I'm into, I'd probably an hero. Of course they would probably disown me completely if they knew what I was into.
They know more than you think, after all this aint their first rodeo. It is, however, yours.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables. While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse. And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Imagine all of the teenagers who would commit suicide if they're mom walked in on them having sex with their girlfriend. Or if my parents saw all of the hardcore sexual stuff I'm into, I'd probably an hero. Of course they would probably disown me completely if they knew what I was into.
Actually studies show that most people with sexual fetishes that involve harming other people are actually of an above average intelligence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
samusaran253 wrote:
samusaran253 wrote:
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables. While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse. And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Imagine all of the teenagers who would commit suicide if they're mom walked in on them having sex with their girlfriend. Or if my parents saw all of the hardcore sexual stuff I'm into, I'd probably an hero. Of course they would probably disown me completely if they knew what I was into.
Actually studies show that most people with sexual fetishes that involve harming other people are actually of an above average intelligence.
My sexuality isn't any of my parents business. Same goes for everyone else.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though it may not have come across very strongly here, much of my political and philosophical thought is based on the idea that we should have ultimate authority over our own body, even if we have it over nothing else. Suffice it to say that this is, at the very least, an astoundingly horrendous idea from my perspective.
Who has ultimate authority over a child's body?
As much as my daughter wants to eat candy and drink pop for 3 meals a day, it's my responsibility to tell her "no" and make her eat her vegetables.
Okay, let's stop right there. There's a difference between being able to control what doesn't happen to your body and controlling what does. Do you have the right to force her to get an abortion? Do you have the right to forbid it?
biccat wrote:While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse.
...Sure, because there aren't any questions about what constitutes child abuse. For example, is male genital mutilation, or as it's better known, circumscision, child abuse?
But leaving that aside, children aren't property. You're a caretaker, not a slaveowner. Why should you have the authority to do "whatever you want" to your kids?
biccat wrote:And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Is the only measure by which we determine what is and what isn't child abuse a high risk of permanent injury or death?
samusaran253 wrote:Imagine all of the teenagers who would commit suicide if they're mom walked in on them having sex with their girlfriend. Or if my parents saw all of the hardcore sexual stuff I'm into, I'd probably an hero. Of course they would probably disown me completely if they knew what I was into.
Um, probably very few. I'm sure you could make a statistical correlation, but would it be much different from the statistical year-to-year noise of teen suicides? I doubt it. Besides, I wouldn't grant you, my kids, or kids at large carte blanche to do whatever you want on the "I'll hold my breath until I die" argument.
First, if kids grow up knowing that they are trackable and can be found at any time, then they probably wouldn't engage in acts that are likely to get them in such trouble. Believe it or not, I (and probably your parents generation) grew up without hardcore porn, having tons of premarital sex, 24/7 internet access, and all other kinds of crap that kids today have. You'd be fine, seriously.
Second, do you have a router? Because I'll guarantee your parents could find out what you're looking at on the internet. I do it at my house, and I don't think it's an invasion of privacy at all.
biccat wrote:First, if kids grow up knowing that they are trackable and can be found at any time, then they probably wouldn't engage in acts that are likely to get them in such trouble. Believe it or not, I (and probably your parents generation) grew up without hardcore porn, having tons of premarital sex, 24/7 internet access, and all other kinds of crap that kids today have. You'd be fine, seriously.
bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Second, do you have a router? Because I'll guarantee your parents could find out what you're looking at on the internet. I do it at my house, and I don't think it's an invasion of privacy at all.
How could they find out what you're looking at using a router? And besides, that's why you hard delete any mention of anything you do on your computer every 15 minutes like I do.
biccat wrote:First, if kids grow up knowing that they are trackable and can be found at any time, then they probably wouldn't engage in acts that are likely to get them in such trouble. Believe it or not, I (and probably your parents generation) grew up without hardcore porn, having tons of premarital sex, 24/7 internet access, and all other kinds of crap that kids today have. You'd be fine, seriously.
bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.
umm Cannerus when youre a parent theres this HUGE instinct to throw logic away from the equation. so yes, if im a parent id fully expect myself to TRY to get my kid away from that firey ball of death.
this is not a life or death situation we're talking about here though. its about taking away someons right to privacy to "protect" them
Hence "you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive." I think many parents would, but I don't think that makes it the smartest move just because they would. Cognitive dissonance is also a natural instinct for humans but it's not always healthy. I wasn't drawing a parallel, merely making the argument that a parents urge to protect causes stupidity at times. For a lesser example, I wanted blond streaks in my hair growing up. My parents were opposed as I might be looked at "differently." I turned 18 and got blond streaks. They both commented how great they looked. What was the point in that again?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Okay, let's stop right there. There's a difference between being able to control what doesn't happen to your body and controlling what does. Do you have the right to force her to get an abortion? Do you have the right to forbid it?
Well, yes. In fact I do. We can have a discussion about line drawing, but if my daughter is pregnant under age 14, she has to get parental consent to have an abortion.
But how about this:
Can I consent to have her operated on? Yes.
Can I consent for her to receive a blood transfusion? Yes.
Can I consent for life-changing plastic surgery? Yes.
Abortion is a special case and this thread shouldn't devolve into an abortion vs. not-abortion debate. Every other medical decision related to her health I (ok, the wife, but parental responsibility) am the one who makes the decision (until she's old enough, again, line-drawing).
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse.
...Sure, because there aren't any questions about what constitutes child abuse. For example, is male genital mutilation, or as it's better known, circumscision, child abuse?
But leaving that aside, children aren't property. You're a caretaker, not a slaveowner. Why should you have the authority to do "whatever you want" to your kids?
You're right, I'm a caretaker. It's my job to decide what is best for my kids.
Your proposition that everyone is their own boss falls apart when it comes to kids, because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can. So who is left to make the decisions for them? Adults. And hopefully that means their parents.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Is the only measure by which we determine what is and what isn't child abuse a high risk of permanent injury or death?
Do you have another definition? I suppose the standard is "physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child," but then what does "mistreatment" mean?
And by "permanent injury" I would include emotional harm.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.
umm Cannerus when youre a parent theres this HUGE instinct to throw logic away from the equation. so yes, if im a parent id fully expect myself to TRY to get my kid away from that firey ball of death.
this is not a life or death situation we're talking about here though. its about taking away someons right to privacy to "protect" them
Hence "you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive." I think many parents would, but I don't think that makes it the smartest move just because they would. Cognitive dissonance is also a natural instinct for humans but it's not always healthy. I wasn't drawing a parallel, merely making the argument that a parents urge to protect causes stupidity at times. For a lesser example, I wanted blond streaks in my hair growing up. My parents were opposed as I might be looked at "differently." I turned 18 and got blond streaks. They both commented how great they looked. What was the point in that again?
so you think there wasnt any logic behind them not wanting you to have blonde streaks? like what age did you want em? 11? 8? do you think you wouldve been able to defend yourself if some guys in your school decided to give you a haircut? I know its temporary but theyre just screening you from some potential grief you didnt consider
for one i wanted to and couldve gotten a tattoo when i was 16...mom said no. glad she did. I wanted a skull with worms on my shoulder. i wouldnt mind having it now but my tastes have changed since then
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
samusaran253 wrote:How could they find out what you're looking at using a router? And besides, that's why you hard delete any mention of anything you do on your computer every 15 minutes like I do.
My router keeps a 30 day record of all traffic. It's even nice enough to do a reverse-DNS lookup for me.
You can clear the cookies & cache all you want, but can still see which websites were being accessed.
Mr. Burning wrote:GPS chips would not prevent anything.
a GPS chip would not stop a kid missing the bus or even rocking up to P. A. Dophile and getting in his car to see mummy in hospital.
No, I would not want my tax money spent on something so useless for my bairns.
+1 here. If you're already working on recovery then you already messed up somewhere.
Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.
Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.
a chip prevents this from happening how?
or maybe youre talking about recovery and not prevention?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Okay, let's stop right there. There's a difference between being able to control what doesn't happen to your body and controlling what does. Do you have the right to force her to get an abortion? Do you have the right to forbid it?
Well, yes. In fact I do. We can have a discussion about line drawing, but if my daughter is pregnant under age 14, she has to get parental consent to have an abortion.
But how about this:
Can I consent to have her operated on? Yes.
Can I consent for her to receive a blood transfusion? Yes.
Can I consent for life-changing plastic surgery? Yes.
Abortion is a special case and this thread shouldn't devolve into an abortion vs. not-abortion debate. Every other medical decision related to her health I (ok, the wife, but parental responsibility) am the one who makes the decision (until she's old enough, again, line-drawing).
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse.
...Sure, because there aren't any questions about what constitutes child abuse. For example, is male genital mutilation, or as it's better known, circumscision, child abuse?
But leaving that aside, children aren't property. You're a caretaker, not a slaveowner. Why should you have the authority to do "whatever you want" to your kids?
You're right, I'm a caretaker. It's my job to decide what is best for my kids.
Your proposition that everyone is their own boss falls apart when it comes to kids, because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can. So who is left to make the decisions for them? Adults. And hopefully that means their parents.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Is the only measure by which we determine what is and what isn't child abuse a high risk of permanent injury or death?
Do you have another definition? I suppose the standard is "physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child," but then what does "mistreatment" mean?
And by "permanent injury" I would include emotional harm.
Are you implying that teens can't make rational decisions. In fact, teens are often better at making rational decisions than adults. Adults are, for the most part, stubborn bigots and closed-minded.
Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.
a chip prevents this from happening how?
or maybe youre talking about recovery and not prevention?
The only thing I want to know is what teenager is at a playground (other than pedophiles) and what high school has a playground?
Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.
a chip prevents this from happening how?
or maybe youre talking about recovery and not prevention?
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
samusaran253 wrote:How could they find out what you're looking at using a router? And besides, that's why you hard delete any mention of anything you do on your computer every 15 minutes like I do.
My router keeps a 30 day record of all traffic. It's even nice enough to do a reverse-DNS lookup for me.
You can clear the cookies & cache all you want, but can still see which websites were being accessed.
There's not a higher teen pregnancy rate now than before. It's just now that we have the internet and social media, we know more about it than we did in say, the middle ages or even the 70s and 80s.
Maybe you can, but I guarantee you that if you did, you would probably throw up and/or cringe and never be able to think clearly again.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Okay, let's stop right there. There's a difference between being able to control what doesn't happen to your body and controlling what does. Do you have the right to force her to get an abortion? Do you have the right to forbid it?
Well, yes. In fact I do. We can have a discussion about line drawing, but if my daughter is pregnant under age 14, she has to get parental consent to have an abortion.
But how about this:
Can I consent to have her operated on? Yes.
Can I consent for her to receive a blood transfusion? Yes.
Can I consent for life-changing plastic surgery? Yes.
Abortion is a special case and this thread shouldn't devolve into an abortion vs. not-abortion debate. Every other medical decision related to her health I (ok, the wife, but parental responsibility) am the one who makes the decision (until she's old enough, again, line-drawing).
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse.
...Sure, because there aren't any questions about what constitutes child abuse. For example, is male genital mutilation, or as it's better known, circumscision, child abuse?
But leaving that aside, children aren't property. You're a caretaker, not a slaveowner. Why should you have the authority to do "whatever you want" to your kids?
You're right, I'm a caretaker. It's my job to decide what is best for my kids.
Your proposition that everyone is their own boss falls apart when it comes to kids, because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can. So who is left to make the decisions for them? Adults. And hopefully that means their parents.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Is the only measure by which we determine what is and what isn't child abuse a high risk of permanent injury or death?
Do you have another definition? I suppose the standard is "physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child," but then what does "mistreatment" mean?
And by "permanent injury" I would include emotional harm.
Are you implying that teens can't make rational decisions. In fact, teens are often better at making rational decisions than adults. Adults are, for the most part, stubborn bigots and closed-minded.
Not legally, unless of course they are near majority, and can be tried as an adult.
Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.
a chip prevents this from happening how?
or maybe youre talking about recovery and not prevention?
The only thing I want to know is what teenager is at a playground (other than pedophiles) and what high school has a playground?
Elementary and Jr high's have grounds. High schools have athletic areas around the school. Are you even awake?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Okay, let's stop right there. There's a difference between being able to control what doesn't happen to your body and controlling what does. Do you have the right to force her to get an abortion? Do you have the right to forbid it?
Well, yes. In fact I do. We can have a discussion about line drawing, but if my daughter is pregnant under age 14, she has to get parental consent to have an abortion.
But how about this:
Can I consent to have her operated on? Yes.
Can I consent for her to receive a blood transfusion? Yes.
Can I consent for life-changing plastic surgery? Yes.
Abortion is a special case and this thread shouldn't devolve into an abortion vs. not-abortion debate. Every other medical decision related to her health I (ok, the wife, but parental responsibility) am the one who makes the decision (until she's old enough, again, line-drawing).
First, I worded that badly. Why should you have the right to control her body? That you are her father is simply an accident of birth. You didn't have to pass any test beyond the physical.
Second, what's special about abortion?
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:While there may be some question about line drawing, I think it's unquestionable that parents have the authority to do whatever they want to their kids, so long as it doesn't rise to the level of child abuse.
...Sure, because there aren't any questions about what constitutes child abuse. For example, is male genital mutilation, or as it's better known, circumscision, child abuse?
But leaving that aside, children aren't property. You're a caretaker, not a slaveowner. Why should you have the authority to do "whatever you want" to your kids?
You're right, I'm a caretaker. It's my job to decide what is best for my kids.
Your proposition that everyone is their own boss falls apart when it comes to kids, because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can. So who is left to make the decisions for them? Adults. And hopefully that means their parents.
1. Adults are also pretty terrible at making rational decisions. What children lack is a knowledge base, not the ability to reason.
2. You learn to make decisions by making decisions. You aren't exactly preparing a child for the world of adult life by making all their decisions for them and then chucking them into the deep end.
3. Why should it be the parents who have authority? Please don't say that it's because they do, because the reason that they do is that traditionally you owned your children (and wife). I'd hope that we'd have gotten past that.
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
biccat wrote:And I don't think that this child abuse by any stretch of the imagination. The risk of permenant injury or death would be very small, I'd wager as low or lower than the risk of acquiring a disease from a vaccine, or hepatitis from a blood transfusion (basically the range of human-caused cross-contamination).
Is the only measure by which we determine what is and what isn't child abuse a high risk of permanent injury or death?
Do you have another definition? I suppose the standard is "physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child," but then what does "mistreatment" mean?
And by "permanent injury" I would include emotional harm.
I would consider raising your child to believe wholeheartedly that blacks and muslims are evil people to be child abuse. I would consider homeschooling your child and raising them to only look to the bible for answers about anything in life to be child abuse. I would consider tattooing your child to be child abuse. I don't think that those would fit under physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment. Therefore that definition is inadequate.
Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.
the mere fact that bobbie gets kidnapped in the first place means that something already went wrong and wont stop whoever did it to do what they want to do in the first place.
not all crimes take time
sometimes its just five minutes or less
how often do you check the tracker?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?
it doesnt go in the brain
chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.
Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.
the mere fact that bobbie gets kidnapped in the first place means that something already went wrong and wont stop whoever did it to do what they want to do in the first place.
not all crimes take time
sometimes its just five minutes or less
how often do you check the tracker?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?
it doesnt go in the brain
chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.
original post wrote:someone made a thread make a ridiculous claim that at birth all people should be forced to have a GPS tracking chip inserted into their brain. His argument was that it would help stop abductions and kidnappings. He also said it would help stop teen sex, drug & alcohol abuse, breaking curfew, and other acts of civil disobedience.
Frazzled wrote:
Not legally, unless of course they are near majority, and can be tried as an adult.
The law is as much designed to screw the young as protect them.
Who ever said the law was there to protect someone? The law IS.
As the immortal bard once said:
“That Law has been broken!” said Moreau. 62
“None escape,” from the faceless creature with the silvery hair. “None escape,” repeated the kneeling circle of Beast People. 63
“Who is he?” cried Moreau, and looked round at their faces, cracking his whip. I fancied the Hyena-swine looked dejected, so too did the Leopard-man. Moreau stopped, facing this creature, who cringed towards him with the memory and dread of infinite torment. 64
“Who is he?” repeated Moreau, in a voice of thunder. 65
“Evil is he who breaks the Law,” chanted the Sayer of the Law. 66
Moreau looked into the eyes of the Leopard-man, and seemed to be dragging the very soul out of the creature. 67
“Who breaks the Law—” said Moreau, taking his eyes off his victim, and turning towards us (it seemed to me there was a touch of exultation in his voice). 68
“Goes back to the House of Pain,” they all clamoured,—“goes back to the House of Pain, O Master!” 69
“Back to the House of Pain,—back to the House of Pain,” gabbled the Ape-man, as though the idea was sweet to him.
What hasn't been discussed in this thread is that we are already well down the road to this technology. The professor of robotics at Reading Uni has several chips implanted by way of experiment that allow him to enter through security doors simply by reading the chip.
Newly issued UK passports use biometrics I believe. I don't think the day is far away whereby passports, driving licenses, ID cards etc are implanted chips rather than conventional items as they are now. The tech certainly exists.
Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.
the mere fact that bobbie gets kidnapped in the first place means that something already went wrong and wont stop whoever did it to do what they want to do in the first place.
not all crimes take time
sometimes its just five minutes or less
how often do you check the tracker?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?
it doesnt go in the brain
chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.
So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:What hasn't been discussed in this thread is that we are already well down the road to this technology. The professor of robotics at Reading Uni has several chips implanted by way of experiment that allow him to enter through security doors simply by reading the chip.
Newly issued UK passports use biometrics I believe. I don't think the day is far away whereby passports, driving licenses, ID cards etc are implanted chips rather than conventional items as they are now. The tech certainly exists.
Team Weinie is fully chippetized in case Dachshundskrieg starts up without proper command and control.
Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?
it doesnt go in the brain
chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.
Well, that's just stupid. I have a hacksaw that says that these are no problem.
As far as "in the brain" goes, between infant mortality, the effect of that kind of RF emmission IN THE BRAIN (FFS) at such a young developmental state, I'm not even going to beat my standard issue "OMG privacy concern" drum.
Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.
and the chewbacca defense begins
try again sir.
Ancient Budha ask what would Chewie look like with a mohawk?
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.
daedalus wrote:
Well, that's just stupid. I have a hacksaw that says that these are no problem.
As far as "in the brain" goes, between infant mortality, the effect of that kind of RF emmission IN THE BRAIN (FFS) at such a young developmental state, I'm not even going to beat my standard issue "OMG privacy concern" drum.
yeah the hacksaw solution is one the reasons this isnt any more popular
Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.
and the chewbacca defense begins
try again sir.
Ancient Budha ask what would Chewie look like with a mohawk?
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.
Frazzled wrote:
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.
yeah i agree
could
or just force folks to act quicker. and again, how often does one check the tracker?
like i said it doesnt always have to take much time.
and you yourself talked about how easy it is to circumvent.
dont put words in my mouth to make your argument prettier this is not a contest.
I'm going to come right out front and say that in all of my examples (unless otherwise noted), I'm talking about a 6 year old child. If you want to argue that teenagers can make good decisions, then we're in the realm of line drawing, and there's just too much variation in opinions and development to draw a blanket bright line.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:First, I worded that badly. Why should you have the right to control her body? That you are her father is simply an accident of birth. You didn't have to pass any test beyond the physical.
Because someone has to, and it's either me or the collective 'us.' And I don't think the collective 'us' has her best interests at heart.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Second, what's special about abortion?
The fact that it's a medical procedure that doesn't require parental consent. Every major surgery does, but abortion escapes this logic. I'm not exactly sure why.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:1. Adults are also pretty terrible at making rational decisions. What children lack is a knowledge base, not the ability to reason.
I must not have been clear. I agree that kids make rational decisions. They also tend to make bad decisions, that in some cases may be life threatening. I like to think that I'm better at those major decisions than my inexperienced children.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:2. You learn to make decisions by making decisions. You aren't exactly preparing a child for the world of adult life by making all their decisions for them and then chucking them into the deep end.
I don't make all of my child's decisions, but I make the big ones. Going to a friend's house to shoot cocaine? I don't think so sweetie. How about an apple and you finish your homework.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:3. Why should it be the parents who have authority? Please don't say that it's because they do, because the reason that they do is that traditionally you owned your children (and wife). I'd hope that we'd have gotten past that.
I don't know if I should take this seriously or not.
But just for playing along: it's because someone has to have the authority to make decisions for children. Decisions like "should I drive the car to the grocery store," "should I go to school" or "should I eat that piece of dog poop."
Taking our prime example of a 6 year old child, I think that: 1) no, he shouldn't drive the car; 2) yes, he should go to school; and 3) no, you should not eat the dog poop. What he thinks about these things is immaterial.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would consider raising your child to believe wholeheartedly that blacks and muslims are evil people to be child abuse. I would consider homeschooling your child and raising them to only look to the bible for answers about anything in life to be child abuse. I would consider tattooing your child to be child abuse. I don't think that those would fit under physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment. Therefore that definition is inadequate.
Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
There's a reason this was in a concurrance, and not the majority opinion in the case you're referring to.
Frazzled wrote:
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.
yeah i agree
could
or just force folks to act quicker. and again, how often does one check the tracker?
like i said it doesnt always have to take much time.
and you yourself talked about how easy it is to circumvent.
dont put words in my mouth to make your argument prettier this is not a contest.
everything's a contest Jr. Its a zero sum game world and if you win 15 intranetz you get a free cookie.
biccat wrote:
Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.
They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.
samusaran253 wrote:There's not a higher teen pregnancy rate now than before. It's just now that we have the internet and social media, we know more about it than we did in say, the middle ages or even the 70s and 80s.
Maybe you can, but I guarantee you that if you did, you would probably throw up and/or cringe and never be able to think clearly again.
Look kid, I know it's cool to think so, but as a great philosopher once said: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."
Sorry, but for every kid like you, there are a few thousand more. And most of them are going to grow up and have dead end jobs. A few will an hero out early, a few may even put their stupid teen years behind them and make something of themselves. But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.
I've gazed long into the abyss of the internet. It's got nothing on real life.
dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.
Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.
Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:2. You learn to make decisions by making decisions. You aren't exactly preparing a child for the world of adult life by making all their decisions for them and then chucking them into the deep end.
I don't make all of my child's decisions, but I make the big ones. Going to a friend's house to shoot cocaine? I don't think so sweetie. How about an apple and you finish your homework.
Okay.
If your daughter isn't hungry, should you be allowed to force food down her throat and make her swallow?
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:3. Why should it be the parents who have authority? Please don't say that it's because they do, because the reason that they do is that traditionally you owned your children (and wife). I'd hope that we'd have gotten past that.
I don't know if I should take this seriously or not.
But just for playing along: it's because someone has to have the authority to make decisions for children. Decisions like "should I drive the car to the grocery store," "should I go to school" or "should I eat that piece of dog poop."
Taking our prime example of a 6 year old child, I think that: 1) no, he shouldn't drive the car; 2) yes, he should go to school; and 3) no, you should not eat the dog poop. What he thinks about these things is immaterial.
You weren't playing along at all! You just said that someone has to make the decisions and assumed that i would then say "Well yes of course it should be you", when what I was asking was why it should be you instead of somebody else. IIRC, you said above that it's either you or the collective. I say nay to that false dilemma.
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would consider raising your child to believe wholeheartedly that blacks and muslims are evil people to be child abuse. I would consider homeschooling your child and raising them to only look to the bible for answers about anything in life to be child abuse. I would consider tattooing your child to be child abuse. I don't think that those would fit under physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment. Therefore that definition is inadequate.
Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.
...That isn't a definition at all. Those are examples of things that I would classify as child abuse that you would, presumably, not, because they are not "physical, mental, or emotional harm". I am saying there that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't cover enough ground to be useful.
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
There's a reason this was in a concurrance, and not the majority opinion in the case you're referring to.
I'm sure there was.
Nevertheless, the same logic applies. It is extremely difficult to come up with a loophole free definition of porn, as it is to come up with one for child abuse.
biccat wrote: But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.
Right, let's turn all the high school tropes into a litany; it makes explanation so much easier.
dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.
Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.
Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.
Exactly, porn is different to other people. What I consider pornography most people would consider extreme violence.
I wonder how religious people would take it if someone decided to require chips implanted into newborns? The whole "According to the Scriptures, the "mark of the beast" is received on the right hand or forehead" would surely come up wouldn't it?
dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.
Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.
Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.
If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.
No, its not concrete definition, as was stated. There is a massive difference between a consistent theme, and a consistent definition. Themes are written by causal forces, and are generally difficult to discern, but definitions are literal (hah) and always written with specificity (though that specificity is generally limited argumentatively). Formally, stating that all things are related to X is not the same thing as stating that all things are X.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that you failed to recognize this.
samusaran253 wrote:There's not a higher teen pregnancy rate now than before. It's just now that we have the internet and social media, we know more about it than we did in say, the middle ages or even the 70s and 80s.
Maybe you can, but I guarantee you that if you did, you would probably throw up and/or cringe and never be able to think clearly again.
Look kid, I know it's cool to think so, but as a great philosopher once said: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."
Sorry, but for every kid like you, there are a few thousand more. And most of them are going to grow up and have dead end jobs. A few will an hero out early, a few may even put their stupid teen years behind them and make something of themselves. But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.
I've gazed long into the abyss of the internet. It's got nothing on real life.
Ho your CynicismFu is great! You must work for a living.
Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
If your daughter isn't hungry, should you be allowed to force food down her throat and make her swallow?
We do it all the time to infants. We also do the same for medication.
But I think this falls under the 'permanent harm' guideline.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You weren't playing along at all! You just said that someone has to make the decisions and assumed that i would then say "Well yes of course it should be you", when what I was asking was why it should be you instead of somebody else. IIRC, you said above that it's either you or the collective. I say nay to that false dilemma.
OK, so who should be able to make the decision whether I should let my 6 year old son eat dog poop. Or, better yet, play unsupervised with daddy's welding torch.
He says yes, I say no. Who gets to decide? Someone has to, right?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:...That isn't a definition at all. Those are examples of things that I would classify as child abuse that you would, presumably, not, because they are not "physical, mental, or emotional harm". I am saying there that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't cover enough ground to be useful.
Well, I don't have a problem with people being racist, religious zealots, or any other sort of bigots. I simply don't associate with those people.
You apparently believe that people don't have the right to be bigots. I have a problem with that.
I would agree that in cases of abductions and kidnappings, or in recent news, natural disasters. But, there would be such a chance it would be abused that there would be no way that it could be used in any humane way.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:...That isn't a definition at all. Those are examples of things that I would classify as child abuse that you would, presumably, not, because they are not "physical, mental, or emotional harm". I am saying there that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't cover enough ground to be useful.
Well, I don't have a problem with people being racist, religious zealots, or any other sort of bigots. I simply don't associate with those people.
You apparently believe that people don't have the right to be bigots. I have a problem with that.
I don't think that people don't have the right to be bigoted. I do, however, think that people shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children into same.
dogma wrote:No, its not concrete definition, as was stated. There is a massive difference between a consistent theme, and a consistent definition. Themes are written by causal forces, and are generally difficult to discern, but definitions are literal (hah) and always written with specificity (though that specificity is generally limited argumentatively). Formally, stating that all things are related to X is not the same thing as stating that all things are X.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that you failed to recognize this.
"I know it when I see it" works for pornography because most people who make pornographic material do so knowingly, with the specific intent to appeal to that interest.
"I know it when I see it" doesn't work for child abuse, especially when the standard is anything more than physical/emotional harm. Parents know berating your kid is bad, so is spanking them. But they don't know that teaching them the scripture or that asians aren't good drivers is bad.
It's the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Malum prohibitum laws should be few and far between.
I don`t see why we would need these chips. Yes, kids get kidnapped. But numbers are extremely low. For every "Carl the Kidnapped Kid", there`s thousands of "Harry the Happy Kid".
I certainly would not enjoy being watched 24/7, just to fulfill my parents`overprotective needs. If you want your kids to be as safe as they can get, move to Japan
Tubby
Edit: Okay, bad formulations, but bear with me here please. English is hard!
samusaran253 wrote:Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
samusaran253 wrote:Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
What if he has a gun to their head?
He won't shoot. Remember, he wants her for sex, he can't do that if she's dead.
samusaran253 wrote:Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
What if he has a gun to their head?
He won't shoot. Remember, he wants her for sex, he can't do that if she's dead.
samusaran253 wrote:Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
What if he has a gun to their head?
He won't shoot. Remember, he wants her for sex, he can't do that if she's dead.
...Yes he can. It's not like her body fades away if she dies.
samusaran253 wrote:Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.
What if he has a gun to their head?
He won't shoot. Remember, he wants her for sex, he can't do that if she's dead.
...Yes he can. It's not like her body fades away if she dies.
biccat wrote:"I know it when I see it" doesn't work for child abuse, especially when the standard is anything more than physical/emotional harm. Parents know berating your kid is bad, so is spanking them. But they don't know that teaching them the scripture or that asians aren't good drivers is bad.
If a parent doesn't know that beating their child is bad, are they not committing child abuse?
biccat wrote:
"I know it when I see it" doesn't work for child abuse, especially when the standard is anything more than physical/emotional harm. Parents know berating your kid is bad, so is spanking them. But they don't know that teaching them the scripture or that asians aren't good drivers is bad.
I know parents that know all of those things. I also know parents that know none of those things. You're substituting your values for the knowledge of others.
biccat wrote:
It's the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Malum prohibitum laws should be few and far between.
I don't consider that distinction to be useful, or valid.
Dreadwinter wrote:I would agree that in cases of abductions and kidnappings, or in recent news, natural disasters. But, there would be such a chance it would be abused that there would be no way that it could be used in any humane way.
No chance.
I'd give the weight to that argument right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
samusaran253 wrote:I could derail this thread so quickly...
And get banned as quickly. Walk careful young Skywalker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Terje-Tubby wrote:I don`t see why we would need these chips. Yes, kids get kidnapped. But numbers are extremely low. For every "Carl the Kidnapped Kid", there`s thousands of "Harry the Happy Kid".
I certainly would not enjoy being watched 24/7, just to fulfill my parents`overprotective needs. If you want your kids to be as safe as they can get, move to Japan
Tubby
Edit: Okay, bad formulations, but bear with me here please. English is hard!
Dreadwinter wrote:I would agree that in cases of abductions and kidnappings, or in recent news, natural disasters. But, there would be such a chance it would be abused that there would be no way that it could be used in any humane way.
No chance.
I'd give the weight to that argument right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
samusaran253 wrote:I could derail this thread so quickly...
And get banned as quickly. Walk careful young Skywalker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Terje-Tubby wrote:I don`t see why we would need these chips. Yes, kids get kidnapped. But numbers are extremely low. For every "Carl the Kidnapped Kid", there`s thousands of "Harry the Happy Kid".
I certainly would not enjoy being watched 24/7, just to fulfill my parents`overprotective needs. If you want your kids to be as safe as they can get, move to Japan
Tubby
Edit: Okay, bad formulations, but bear with me here please. English is hard!
Again, agreed.
I would still like to know which particular posts were reported.
Modquisition on. Unless we're reacting to the specific post, we don't normal say who was reported, and who reported them. I can say though it wasn't about me (for once) nor by me.
I'm totally against the chipping of anyone under any pretenses. It's a scam to control you further. Think of the cost then transfer that cash into helping homeless or starving people.
Your all just anti-transhumanists. A bunch of luddites unwilling to see the glorious truth of our future as biomechanical hybrids that will make us stronger, faster, better - more like Kanye West. It is our destinty!
Ahtman wrote:Your all just anti-transhumanists. A bunch of luddites unwilling to see the glorious truth of our future as biomechanical hybrids that will make us stronger, faster, better - more like Kanye West. It is our destinty!
Spoiler:
I'm not! Heck I just changed my avatar right before you typed that. I am all for transhumanism!
Dreadwinter wrote:I would agree that in cases of abductions and kidnappings, or in recent news, natural disasters. But, there would be such a chance it would be abused that there would be no way that it could be used in any humane way.
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Second, what's special about abortion?
The fact that it's a medical procedure that doesn't require parental consent. Every major surgery does, but abortion escapes this logic. I'm not exactly sure why.
To preserve the freedom of sexual expression for the individual involved, to preserve confidentiality, and to ensure that the needs of the individual recieving the operation are put before the principles of the parents (which may conflict with the choice of the individual).
samusaran253 wrote:I was on another forum, the official Star Wars: The Old Republic forum of all places, where someone made a thread make a ridiculous claim that at birth all people should be forced to have a GPS tracking chip inserted into their brain. His argument was that it would help stop abductions and kidnappings. He also said it would help stop teen sex, drug & alcohol abuse, breaking curfew, and other acts of civil disobedience. The entire community, save for Geshalt (another user) and the OP, then told him how horrible of an idea it was. People cited references to totalitarian government, human rights violations, how such a thing could be abused by the government/abusive parents/pedophiles who figure out how to track kids and teenagers.
People also said how it's like treating human beings like cattle. Some users said that it should be allowed up until they turn 13 and then it should be removed, and other users said that if you need a GPS locator to keep your children safe, then you shouldn't have kids. Personally I'm against such a thing, it's a very slippery slope after all, and I while I'm not a minor, I probably would have killed myself as a teenager if my parents and/or the government could figure out my exact location at any given time. I sarcastically told the OP that he might as well have thought police while he was at it. So, what do you think of this?
This is how I feel about the whole thing:
Spoiler:
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
samusaran253 wrote:Right now I'm kind of pissed off, I spent all day doing school work, watching 28 Days Later, and posting on forums. I didn't even get to fap. DAMNIT!
See, now I will never take anything you say on this forum seriously.
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
A more reasonable proposal would be removing the chip at the age of criminal responsibility (14 here). Few children younger than that are going to have such qualms/awareness of the chips, and at that young age chips will help a lot.
It would have helped if my brother had had a GPS chip in him when he stole my car and ran away.
I had a library book in there man 0.o
Emperors Faithful wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote:
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
A more reasonable proposal would be removing the chip at the age of criminal responsibility (14 here). Few children younger than that are going to have such qualms/awareness of the chips, and at that young age chips will help a lot.
Just put it in a place that no teenager would cut into.
Or better yet don't tell them where its implanted, if they are young enough they won't remember.
Emperors Faithful wrote:This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
I'd imagine that if teenagers were half as concerned as they think that they are about privacy and not being tracked they wouldn't carry cell phones.
They're already being tracked. I'm more concerned about the little 'uns.
The only difficulty from a chip is that its easily removed. Grant you most bad guys are dumber than a box of rocks, but many aren't and cwould remove it from a kidnapped child.
The teenagers on the thread get antsy about being tracked are misperceiving though. Its an interesting concept for the purposes of rescuing kidnapped children.
Not necessarily. Imagine how much damage this could do in the hands of an abusive parent as opposed to kind, loving one. They'd be even more scared to run away because they could be so easily tracked down.
This idea is technically flawed as well as ethically.
The chips in dogs are RSS. You need to get your scanner within a few metres to activate the chip and get a signal out of it.
This means you need to build scanners everywhere and connect them to some massive database so the signals can be authenticated. The IDs in the child database will have to be re-authenticated every six months because children change so quickly.
You have to arrange access for everyone who wants to snoop on childrens' movements. You have to authenticate all of the snoopers, which requires another database and an authentication layer.
Every time a new entry is made in these databases, it can go wrong by accident or by deliberate attack.
Chips break. They can be read remotely and the data cloned to a new chip. The existing chip can be spoofed, shielded or replaced.
I would imagine that such a chip could easily be disabled by electrical shocks, EMP, perhaps even strong magnets (I've ruined a phone before by leaving it on top of some speakers).
Personally I am against chipping people (unless it means we can get something cool like Logan's Run in real life).
Aside from the moral impications of such a technology, you have issues with hardware and software development rendering earlier implants either incompatible or outdated (including leaving them at increased risk of being corrupted/hacked/etc).
Not to mention device failure, etc.
You also have problems with encapsulation, rejection, etc of the physical device itself, as well as possible problems with the implantation process (in terms of the usual risks of surgery), cost of implantation, etc.
Then there are problems with data security, access restrictions, etc.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:KK raises a good point.
However there are those tracking devises zoologists stick on Humpback Whales, Impalas and sundry beasts of the wild.
They could be adapted for parents to remote control the kids. Especilly when they start behaving worse than sundry beasts of the wild.
They are large, external devices with limited power supply.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:KK raises a good point.
However there are those tracking devises zoologists stick on Humpback Whales, Impalas and sundry beasts of the wild.
They could be adapted for parents to remote control the kids. Especilly when they start behaving worse than sundry beasts of the wild.
Those are powered and they are significantly larger than a simple encapsulated chip you could inject into a baby. They are expensive too.
Kilkrazy wrote:Those are powered and they are significantly larger than a simple encapsulated chip you could inject into a baby. They are expensive too.
Although some of the expense is taken up with the dataloggers, sensors etc that go along with the locator, as well as proofing it against the environments it will be operating in.
I think its a brilliant idea to put tracking devices in children, makes them easier to find and once found all you gotta do is cut the chip out and you got yourself a "plaything" forever...or until you get bored of it, while a chip lays beeping in a bin
SilverMK2 wrote:Although some of the expense is taken up with the dataloggers, sensors etc that go along with the locator, as well as proofing it against the environments it will be operating in.
Is there a more hostile environment for technology than at the hands of a toddler?
I dislike the idea of implanting a tracking chip as a means to control your child.
1) Putting a chip in the kid is potentially dangerous. If you put the chip somewhere like an extremity where it's less likely to cause issues with mental development it's a simple matter to remove the chip defeating it's purpose. Put it somewhere hard to get out and you now have an active RF source within centimeters of developing brain tissue. If you think cellphones are bad for kid's brains this is that turned up to 11. Heck, put it in an arm and just wait for some amateur surgeon try and take it out.
2) It won't make them safer. It was stated in here earlier, a GPS tracking device is purely reactive. Until you think something is wrong what good is it doing? If a guy snatches your kid up as they walk home from school how long before you notice? If you're a total spaz and check the locator constantly you might notice pretty quick, but is the kid just goofing with their friends or in the back of a van being violated? Avoiding teen pregnancy? The misses will kill me if she reads this but when we were dating both my parents and hers knew exactly where we were, we just weren't doing what they thought we were. So... useless.
3) Jammable. Nothing small enough to implant in your body is going to have the broadcasting horsepower to overcome someone actively jamming it. It would be a fairly simple task to put a jammer in a van and pick up a kid. Even if they had a chip in their brain you won't find it. Sure, if the kid's signal winks out there might be an alarm. But it would have to have a delay to avoid false positives. Police could look for a jammer but... just a Faraday cage in the back of my van could do it, no active broadcasting source.
4) The biggest danger to kids isn't strangers, it's their own family. Most kidnappings? Parents. Most sexual assaults? Relatives. If your GPS tracker shows your kid is with Uncle Buck they're safe right? No need to worry. The actual number of kids kidnapped or sexually assaulted by strangers is very low.
5) The ability to be abused. What, you mean there's a way to find out where kids are at any given time? No way that could ever end badly. Like fething amazon.com for pedophiles.
All a tracking chip would do is make a few over-protective spazzes feel their kids are safer without actually you know, making them safer. Meanwhile the person hocking them gets rich and some kid develops a brain tumor when they're 30, thanks Mom!
This is another case of people wanting technology to take the place of common sense and personal responsibility. Instead of taking the time to educate your kid about dangers, "Yeah, the guy in the white panel van offering free candy isn't legit," "If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs." We just figure we'll jam a microchip in their heads when they're born and we'll be good to go. Sorry, parenting doesn't work that way.
Tyyr wrote:This is another case of people wanting technology to take the place of common sense and personal responsibility. Instead of taking the time to educate your kid about dangers, "Yeah, the guy in the white panel van offering free candy isn't legit," "If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs." We just figure we'll jam a microchip in their heads when they're born and we'll be good to go. Sorry, parenting doesn't work that way.
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.
What's that? biccat was factually incorrect about something? Perhaps we should subject him to the standard set by that other poster, biccat, for what to do when you made a claim that was factually incorrect...
I knew a fundie evangelical Christian who similarly thought RFID tags would be in people's foreheads (since you can loose an arm and survive) and said it could be 'the mark of the beast'
"If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs."
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.
What's that? biccat was factually incorrect about something? Perhaps we should subject him to the standard set by that other poster, biccat, for what to do when you made a claim that was factually incorrect...
"It starts with "I" and rhymes with "was wrong".
Give it a try."
If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
Phototoxin wrote:I knew a fundie evangelical Christian who similarly thought RFID tags would be in people's foreheads (since you can loose an arm and survive) and said it could be 'the mark of the beast'
I know a large number of people who believe this. It kinda baffles the mind.
biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?
biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?
biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
So what time frame are we looking at when you say that teen pregnancy is on the rise?
biccat wrote:
If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
The highest rate of teen pregnancy for all recorded years was 1967, 2009 was the lowest.
biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
You stated that rates of teen pregnancy were higher than 'before'. You've conceded that if 'before' is measured over centuries the claim is wrong, and dogma has provided evidence that it is wrong from a shorter term view as well. Unless you have some other definition of before that makes some kind of sense, and actually shows a point at which teen pregnancies were lower than they are now, then you need to admit you were wrong.
biccat wrote:If you would care to explain how I was wrong, I'd be happy to admit as such. ALthough really, the question is what time frame you're looking at. If you compare 1800 vs. today, teen pregnancy rates have likely decreased, simply due to people waiting to have kids.
You stated that rates of teen pregnancy were higher than 'before'. You've conceded that if 'before' is measured over centuries the claim is wrong, and dogma has provided evidence that it is wrong from a shorter term view as well. Unless you have some other definition of before that makes some kind of sense, and actually shows a point at which teen pregnancies were lower than they are now, then you need to admit you were wrong.
Presumably you'll turn this into a discussion about what "increasing" means, throw in a few well-placed and subtle personal attacks, and then giggle to yourself for the rest of the night.
Presumably you'll turn this into a discussion about what "increasing" means, throw in a few well-placed and subtle personal attacks, and then giggle to yourself for the rest of the night.
Uh huh. Really. So when you responded to samusaran253 to ask him "So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?" you were thinking "before" meant "2006".
So you intended the conversation to go like this... "There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire." "So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than 2006?"
Own up. You thought there was a long term trend showing an increase in teen pregnancies, and you were wrong. We will think more of you for it, than if you try to continue this stupid little game.
this is not a contest.
