Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

samusaran253 wrote:

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.

Word.

Bakerofish wrote:

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:

Bakerofish wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:...because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can.

That's questionable, from both ends.

biccat wrote:

And by "permanent injury" I would include emotional harm.

What's harm? Is the kid that wants to be a drag queen emotionally damaged?

Bakerofish wrote:

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.

What is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

Frazzled wrote:

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?

biccat wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:...because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can.

That's questionable, from both ends.

Legally, its not.

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

samusaran253 wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:...because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can.

That's questionable, from both ends.

Legally, its not.

Sure, but the law has never been a measure of reality amongst those particularly concerned with it.

samusaran253 wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

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.

This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

Kilkrazy wrote:What is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

This alone should deter people.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:...because they can't make rational decisions the way adults can.

That's questionable, from both ends.

Legally, its not.

Sure, but the law has never been a measure of reality amongst those particularly concerned with it.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

biccat wrote:

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:
What? That doesn't even make sense.

A statement meaning something close to "the law doesn't determine reality" doesn't make sense?

I guess if you're a lawyer that might be confusing, but the rest of us will soldier on.

Bakerofish wrote:
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.

The OP mentioned it was to be inserted into the brain, for reasons not made clear. In fact, a GPS chip inserted into the brain probably wouldn't work.

Bakerofish wrote:

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.

filbert wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:
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.

The OP mentioned it was to be inserted into the brain, for reasons not made clear. In fact, a GPS chip inserted into the brain probably wouldn't work.

ah my bad then. but thatd be stupid alright

these chips exist already and theyre like rice grain that go under the skin. like what dogs have now

dogma wrote:

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.