Moderator: Community Team
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.
So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.
And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.
-TG
How does a DNA databank solve that problem?
If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.
CreepersWiener wrote:kentington wrote:CreepersWiener wrote:Really? If a dog craps in my yard, big effin deal. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!
Depends on where you live. I live in an apartment and there are tons of apartments right here. People walk their dog just to crap on the lawn of others. Since there are a lot of people and only a little bit of grass there are times when it is really not pleasant. Sometimes I sit by the window in the morning and yell, "Pick up your CRAP!"
I hope they don't have a gun, but they usually walk back and pick it up.
Well, there you go. As I said in my post. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!
You deal with it in your way. Yours happens to be confrontation of strangers. So now a DNA bank of everyone's dog is going to stop dogs from pooping? What if I poop in your friggin' yard? Hurry up and rush my shite to the human genome project?
I don't see why the majority of posters here are so quick to willingly let their DNA go to a DNA bank? If the DNA is being used for solving crimes, then call a judge, obtain a search warrant, and get your DNA sample. Oh yeah. The right to privacy doesn't exist anymore. Carry on.
Bruceswar Ā» Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:But you give me an idea. Do you think if I poop in my own yard this will help me assume a role of dominance and scare the dogs away?
2dimes wrote:So having a genetically inferior liver picked up by a DNA test equals driving like a maniac*?
* By that we're talking 30 over the speed limit with a rum and coke in one hand and a cel phone in the other, right?
Lootifer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.
Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.
So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.
And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.
-TG
How does a DNA databank solve that problem?
If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.
So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?
-TG
thegreekdog wrote: Hmm... let me ask the question a different way.
On the abortion v. DNA issue, the right to an abortion is not a right to an abortion. Instead, the government is not permitted to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with a fetus. It is a right to privacy. Similarly, the right to DNA would not be a right to DNA. Instead it would be that the government is not permitted to collect and/or use your DNA information. It is a right to privacy.
I was talking the law, not sense!thegreekdog wrote:Make sense?
thegreekdog wrote:There are numerous pieces of information that are private, even from the government. Sexual orientation, for example, is a piece of information. Do you have the right to keep your sexual orientation private from the government?
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote: Hmm... let me ask the question a different way.
On the abortion v. DNA issue, the right to an abortion is not a right to an abortion. Instead, the government is not permitted to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with a fetus. It is a right to privacy. Similarly, the right to DNA would not be a right to DNA. Instead it would be that the government is not permitted to collect and/or use your DNA information. It is a right to privacy.
There is no absolute right to privacy under the law. Many people think there is (frankly surprised that you might be among them). Instead, there is a patchwork of laws about various aspects of privacy. The internet is currently voiding any protection from many of those things... aka the streisand bit.I was talking the law, not sense!thegreekdog wrote:Make sense?Ok, could not resist.. I so rarely get the chance to make a quip
thegreekdog wrote:There are numerous pieces of information that are private, even from the government. Sexual orientation, for example, is a piece of information. Do you have the right to keep your sexual orientation private from the government?
It actually depends on the circumstances. Up until a couple of years ago, for example, soldiers had absolutely no right to keep that private.. or even to act upon that. In many areas, admitting to being homosexual would place your teaching job in jeopardy, though the places where that is true is shrinking.
I actually think we need a constitutional amendment about privacy... protecting our body images, in particular, and certain other normally private settings (inside one's house, for example) from use by others without our permission. However, that right doesn't exist... at least yet.
I am definitely not arguing what I think should be the case with DNA, I am just saying what is, now.
thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.
So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.
And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.
-TG
How does a DNA databank solve that problem?
If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.
So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?
-TG
Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.
/ wrote:DNA is largely considered to be the most consistently accurate form of evidence currently used. As such, it holds considerable value to law enforcement agencies throughout the modern world.
Previously focusing on convicted serious felony offenders such as rapists and murderers, in many places its use has spread to include anyone placed under arrest for any reason, a standard procedure similar to fingerprinting.
The United Kingdom National DNA Database was estimated as having 5,950,612 individuals registered by March 2012, nearly 10% of their population and growing by 30,000 each month since.
DNA evidence has not only been used to confirm guilt, but has also helped exonerate many wrongly accused inmates.
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/ ... th-penalty
On the other hand, critics bring up how DNA can potentially be used for discriminatory purposes, markers can indicate behavioral traits and disease risks.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court is holding a hearing on the constitutionality of DNA swabs; millions of entries could be destroyed, and thousands of cases could potentially be overturned.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172886713 ... nstitution
thegreekdog wrote:
Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.
nietzsche wrote: Except that it's the government who has access to this information and no matter how many cost-benefit arguments, how many wacko conspiracy-theory-believer looks i get, the powerful will always abuse their power.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Something along the lines of what rds posted. Probably the logistics are beyond my understanding, and it may or may not be feasible. That's not to say I'm in favor of databanks (at least mandatory, as I'm pretty much always against any form of coercion), as I'm sure the information can be used for nefarious means, as you've said.
But anytime forensics stuff is kept it's a functional database, if inefficient. And like I said, I'm not sure you 'own' your DNA. Equating the fetus analogy with DNA is imo irrelevant. DNA may define you as an organism, but it's the vehicle for species propagation. Therefore, does DNA belong to H. sapiens as a whole or to the individual?
-TG
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:I don't know if it matters to anyone's opinion, but, fwiw, the sections of DNA used for matching are generally non-coding.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.
So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.
And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.
-TG
How does a DNA databank solve that problem?
If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.
So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?
-TG
Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.
Something along the lines of what rds posted. Probably the logistics are beyond my understanding, and it may or may not be feasible. That's not to say I'm in favor of databanks (at least mandatory, as I'm pretty much always against any form of coercion), as I'm sure the information can be used for nefarious means, as you've said.
But anytime forensics stuff is kept it's a functional database, if inefficient. And like I said, I'm not sure you 'own' your DNA. Equating the fetus analogy with DNA is imo irrelevant. DNA may define you as an organism, but it's the vehicle for species propagation. Therefore, does DNA belong to H. sapiens as a whole or to the individual?
-TG
Neoteny wrote:Assuming that not much has changed since I learned about it, DNA matching uses regions of DNA called short tandem repeats. These are segments of short repeating sequences of nucleotides (for example, gagagaga) that everyone has, but there are variations in the number of repeats. Say, a quarter of the population has four 'ga' clusters in a row, another quarter has five, and another quarter six, etc. The more of these you use from different locations in the genome, the more you narrow the odds that two samples were obtained from two separate people.
Since they are often nonsensical genetically, their usefulness in actual genes is limited (I guess they could be filler in some cases), so they are generally found in the "junk DNA." For a database purely for identification purposes, you would only need the commonly used sequences for the most part, so people worried about genetic profiling may or may not be mollified by that knowledge. The hard part, of course, is trusting the government or other companies to limit themselves to only the relevant information.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:I agree. But I'm sort of hoping they'll use my DNA to create mutant super-soldiers. Or sex slaves. Either way.
EDIT: I now have a new sexual fixation. I want to watch videos of myself having sex with strangers, but without personally doing the deed. We need to get to work on this cloning thing.
Neoteny wrote:I agree. But I'm sort of hoping they'll use my DNA to create mutant super-soldiers. Or sex slaves. Either way.
EDIT: I now have a new sexual fixation. I want to watch videos of myself having sex with strangers, but without personally doing the deed. We need to get to work on this cloning thing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users