Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Comming from you that makes it a compliment.BoredShirtless wrote:Don't. It was an insult, dumbass.
With an argument in mind no less. Somehow I don't see you as playing Devils Advocate here.I was asking questions, not making arguments, you fucking moron.
Um, because my car, much as I love it, is just a machine. It isn't ME. I don't have an unalienable, fundamental right to a car, but I do have an analienable fundamental right to life, and that by definition means my body belongs to me in a way that no other piece of property does.BoredShirtless wrote:If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.
Really? So if I called you a petty little shit who let a personal grudge get in the way of his responsibilities, you'd take that as a compliment?Alyeska wrote:Comming from you that makes it a compliment.BoredShirtless wrote:Don't. It was an insult, dumbass.
What's my argument then?Alyeska wrote:With an argument in mind no less. Somehow I don't see you as playing Devils Advocate here.I was asking questions, not making arguments, you fucking moron.
Is your body truly yours? The Government can force you to go fight a war and get your DNA splattered all over a foreign land, the Government can make you take foreign germs into your body (Immunization), You used to have to have blood tests done before getting married. It can make you do many things with your body that you would not normally choose to do, so what's a vial of blood? Hell every baby born from this instant on gets a DNA swab taken and thats that. I don't understand the problem here? Its not like its forced sterlization or surgery (which the Supreme Court said was unconsitutional)RedImperator wrote:Um, because my car, much as I love it, is just a machine. It isn't ME. I don't have an unalienable, fundamental right to a car, but I do have an analienable fundamental right to life, and that by definition means my body belongs to me in a way that no other piece of property does.BoredShirtless wrote:If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.
Looking for ways that the government can abuse DNA is a red herring for the anti-testing side. The fact remains that individuals who have commited no crime should not be compelled to submit their DNA to a national database. Their bodies are NOT the property of the state.SirNitram wrote:I don't really recall any part of that line referring to your body being sacrosanct. Luckily, this is in Briton, where the 'Individual is always greater than society!' crowd is not in control(Honestly, given the arguments I've heard from that subsection of the world, it sounds like something the result of a slippery slope.)Alyeska wrote:"and we find these truths to be self evident"
It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.
As long as that state doesn't have a draft. As they can legally conscript people with the draft, they can certainly legally take some of your spit. But again, this is 'The individual is ALWAYS more important than society', a philosophy thankfully not embraced by all countries.RedImperator wrote:Looking for ways that the government can abuse DNA is a red herring for the anti-testing side. The fact remains that individuals who have commited no crime should not be compelled to submit their DNA to a national database. Their bodies are NOT the property of the state.SirNitram wrote:I don't really recall any part of that line referring to your body being sacrosanct. Luckily, this is in Briton, where the 'Individual is always greater than society!' crowd is not in control(Honestly, given the arguments I've heard from that subsection of the world, it sounds like something the result of a slippery slope.)Alyeska wrote:"and we find these truths to be self evident"
It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.
Well, the definition of liberty is:And by the way, Alyskya perhaps didn't pick the best line. Try, "...certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I have always held that liberty means never having to justify your actions unless they cause direct harm to someone else, including telling the government to go piss up a flagpole when the nurse from the National DNA Database shows up at the front door.
That's part of the social contract. Occasionally, when the survival of the state is at stake, everyone of fighting age has a responsibility to take up arms.Stravo wrote:Is your body truly yours? The Government can force you to go fight a war and get your DNA splattered all over a foreign land,
Both are necessary to prevent the spread of epidemics. The small invasion of privacy that is forced polio innoculations was worth thousands of people not getting polio. Because of the nature of disease, everybody has to get innoculated.the Government can make you take foreign germs into your body (Immunization), You used to have to have blood tests done before getting married.
The issue here is that the government's goal (solving and ultimately preventing crimes) does not justify the methods used, which essentially treat free people like pieces of government property--remember, I don't object to what they're doing, I object to the fact that it's compulsory. Most offenders are repeat offenders--in a few years, Britian will have a database of practically the entire criminal population already. Crime can be prevented in a number of ways that don't involve creating a giant DNA database, and forensic technology is advancing fast enough that there are methods besides DNA testing to solve crimes.It can make you do many things with your body that you would not normally choose to do, so what's a vial of blood? Hell every baby born from this instant on gets a DNA swab taken and thats that. I don't understand the problem here? Its not like its forced sterlization or surgery (which the Supreme Court said was unconsitutional)
Straw man. I said it's compulsary to register cars, not own them.RedImperator wrote:Um, because my car, much as I love it, is just a machine. It isn't ME. I don't have an unalienable, fundamental right to a car, but I do have an analienable fundamental right to life, and that by definition means my body belongs to me in a way that no other piece of property does.BoredShirtless wrote:If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.
I was unaware that the dictionary was the final arbiter of hotly contested philsophical debates on the nature of central concepts of Western society.SirNitram wrote:See my response to Stravo. The draft is a method by which the entire society ensures its survival. It's necessary, or was necessary, to infringe upon the rights of a few citizens to preserve the rights of all of them.RedImperator wrote:As long as that state doesn't have a draft. As they can legally conscript people with the draft, they can certainly legally take some of your spit. But again, this is 'The individual is ALWAYS more important than society', a philosophy thankfully not embraced by all countries.
"The individal is ALWAYS more important than society" is a strawman of my position. Admittedly, it's not a distortion of the positions of some who would take my side in this debate, but it is mine. I've never argued that the individual is always more important--such a situation would not be sustainable.
Well, the definition of liberty is:
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
..And having a copy of your DNA fingerprint does not, in fact, violate any of those. Unless we are now supposed to take anyone's personal definition as legal/moral grounds, in which case we might as well absolve alot of scum who justify via wordplay.
The difference between a car and my body is that my car is not a fundamental part of me, and THAT'S why I don't object to registering it whie I do object to being forced to register my body.BoredShirtless wrote:Straw man. I said it's compulsary to register cars, not own them.
Please answer the question without appealing to emotion or creating straw men; if you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies? Btw, your rights to your body and life aren't really yours, seeing how the State can strip you off them against your will given the right circumstances.
Wha...?RedImperator wrote:That's part of the social contract. Occasionally, when the survival of the state is at stake, everyone of fighting age has a responsibility to take up arms.Stravo wrote:Is your body truly yours? The Government can force you to go fight a war and get your DNA splattered all over a foreign land,
Both are necessary to prevent the spread of epidemics. The small invasion of privacy that is forced polio innoculations was worth thousands of people not getting polio. Because of the nature of disease, everybody has to get innoculated.the Government can make you take foreign germs into your body (Immunization), You used to have to have blood tests done before getting married.
The issue here is that the government's goal (solving and ultimately preventing crimes) does not justify the methods used, which essentially treat free people like pieces of government property--remember, I don't object to what they're doing, I object to the fact that it's compulsory. Most offenders are repeat offenders--in a few years, Britian will have a database of practically the entire criminal population already. Crime can be prevented in a number of ways that don't involve creating a giant DNA database, and forensic technology is advancing fast enough that there are methods besides DNA testing to solve crimes.It can make you do many things with your body that you would not normally choose to do, so what's a vial of blood? Hell every baby born from this instant on gets a DNA swab taken and thats that. I don't understand the problem here? Its not like its forced sterlization or surgery (which the Supreme Court said was unconsitutional)
The distinction that your car is property and your body is you doesn't make sense; you're appealing to emotion. Why do you think it's mandatory to register cars? To catch people who break the law. Same with DNA testing. You have no drama with the indignity of registering your car like you're a criminal in waiting; so why the different attitude to your body? Because...your body is you? Does that really make any sense beyond appealing to emotions?RedImperator wrote:The difference between a car and my body is that my car is not a fundamental part of me, and THAT'S why I don't object to registering it whie I do object to being forced to register my body.BoredShirtless wrote:Straw man. I said it's compulsary to register cars, not own them.
Please answer the question without appealing to emotion or creating straw men; if you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies? Btw, your rights to your body and life aren't really yours, seeing how the State can strip you off them against your will given the right circumstances.
No, but do you acknowledge that your rights to life and your body don't really belong to you? The circumstances, which strip those rights, are basically irrelevant. We live in a civilised society, and as part of living in one we surrendered our rights to life and body to the State. Think of it as a loan: the State loans us these rights. But as soon as it wants it back, it will take it.RedImperator wrote: As for having your right to life stripped, I would have thought that I've attached "unless forefited under due process of law" to the end of "you have a fundamental right to life/liberty/property" so often that I thought it would be understood. Do you honestly think I missed the fact that the government can execute you if you shoot somebody, and that blows a gigantic hole in my entire argument?
And a method to more easily solve murders is not going to preserve society? It's fine to risky bodily harm against an army, but not to give up some fucking spit to stop massive bodily harm against a murderer?RedImperator wrote:See my response to Stravo. The draft is a method by which the entire society ensures its survival. It's necessary, or was necessary, to infringe upon the rights of a few citizens to preserve the rights of all of them.SirNitram wrote:As long as that state doesn't have a draft. As they can legally conscript people with the draft, they can certainly legally take some of your spit. But again, this is 'The individual is ALWAYS more important than society', a philosophy thankfully not embraced by all countries.
I'm glad, but that doesn't change the fact the objections are silly. Your spit is worth more than a quicker, and in some cases, any conviction against a killer? I reiterate that is what this database is proposed for, and I would push for it to be restricted to murder and rape."The individal is ALWAYS more important than society" is a strawman of my position. Admittedly, it's not a distortion of the positions of some who would take my side in this debate, but it is mine. I've never argued that the individual is always more important--such a situation would not be sustainable.
No, but it does happen to be the arbiter of the meanings of words. Why should your definition of liberty be the one everyone uses?I was unaware that the dictionary was the final arbiter of hotly contested philsophical debates on the nature of central concepts of Western society.Well, the definition of liberty is:
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
..And having a copy of your DNA fingerprint does not, in fact, violate any of those. Unless we are now supposed to take anyone's personal definition as legal/moral grounds, in which case we might as well absolve alot of scum who justify via wordplay.
And laws that speed the capture and punishment of these people are not necessary, if they step on what you draw as a little comfort zone around you? What is so precious about your spittle, exactly?And, no, you can't absolve scum who justify via wordplay, because (I'm assuming by "scum" you mean criminals, abusers, and whatnot) your rights stop as soon as you start violating the rights of others. Laws that punish people who assault, rape, murder, steal, vandalize, defraud, and what have you are perfectly justified and in fact necessary if society is to continue to function.
I distrust most people ergo I see more power to the individual as a good thing.As long as that state doesn't have a draft. As they can legally conscript people with the draft, they can certainly legally take some of your spit. But again, this is 'The individual is ALWAYS more important than society', a philosophy thankfully not embraced by all countries.
I can't speak for Britian or Germany, but in America, the opposite is true. The people loan the government rights.BoredShirtless wrote: We live in a civilised society, and as part of living in one we surrendered our rights to life and body to the State. Think of it as a loan: the State loans us these rights. But as soon as it wants it back, it will take it.
So you acknowledge that the government can compel people to sacrifice their very lives for the good of society. Why, then, do you oppose the taking of DNA samples for the good of society?RedImperator wrote:That's part of the social contract. Occasionally, when the survival of the state is at stake, everyone of fighting age has a responsibility to take up arms.Stravo wrote:Is your body truly yours? The Government can force you to go fight a war and get your DNA splattered all over a foreign land,
Again, you acknowledge that it is acceptable for the rights of the individual to be infringed for the sake of the good of many. Again, you don't seem to acknowledge that this is the same principle underlying DNA registration.Both are necessary to prevent the spread of epidemics. The small invasion of privacy that is forced polio innoculations was worth thousands of people not getting polio. Because of the nature of disease, everybody has to get innoculated.the Government can make you take foreign germs into your body (Immunization), You used to have to have blood tests done before getting married.
So preventing murder is an unacceptable justification for DNA identification, but preventing disease is a perfectly acceptable justification for forcing you to take injections which have a small but real chance of injuring or killing you, and maintaining soverignty is a perfectly acceptable justification for forcing you to risk or perhaps sacrifice your life in a war?The issue here is that the government's goal (solving and ultimately preventing crimes) does not justify the methods used, which essentially treat free people like pieces of government property--
Doesn't help in serial killings, where the killer often has no rap sheet at all.remember, I don't object to what they're doing, I object to the fact that it's compulsory. Most offenders are repeat offenders--in a few years, Britian will have a database of practically the entire criminal population already.
I would like to know what these methods are, particularly as they apply to things like serial killings.Crime can be prevented in a number of ways that don't involve creating a giant DNA database, and forensic technology is advancing fast enough that there are methods besides DNA testing to solve crimes.
No. Rights are defined by the society you live in. If you lived outside a society, you would define them yourself.CelesKnight wrote:I can't speak for Britian or Germany, but in America, the opposite is true. The people loan the government rights.BoredShirtless wrote: We live in a civilised society, and as part of living in one we surrendered our rights to life and body to the State. Think of it as a loan: the State loans us these rights. But as soon as it wants it back, it will take it.
You can solve this one with a simple test first you live without your car for a week, and then you live without your body for a week. Can you see the point?boredshirtless wrote: The distinction that your car is property and your body is you doesn't make sense; you're appealing to emotion.
Well, that wouldn't affect scrap, because it is your Genetic Fingerprint on file, and not your genome.MKSheppard wrote:Lets say for example, we institute this national DNA database,
and sometime in the future, scientists isolate a particular gene
sequence that causes/influences homosexuality.
Do you know what a red herring is?MarkIX wrote:You can solve this one with a simple test first you live without your car for a week, and then you live without your body for a week. Can you see the point?boredshirtless wrote: The distinction that your car is property and your body is you doesn't make sense; you're appealing to emotion.
Really I don't (dis)agree with your point about DNA testing but I think this point about bodies compared to cars is foolish.
