--- Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
> "Maureen L. Thomas" wrote:
> > Profiling is not perfect. But, it does have a
> place in our society. They
> > have gathered (they being the FBI, CIA, etc etc)
> information on child
> > molesters, serial killers, murderers, and
> terrorists over the years.
>
> And right now we are starting to keep DNA profiles
> on children and
> analyze it for behavioral issues. I personally
> can't wait until my
> car insurance rates go up because my DNA says I am
> more likely to
> have road rage. Or, better yet, be arrested after
> my wife was
> killed because my DNA says I'm likely to kill the
> perpetrator.
>
> DNA isn't you, it's part of you. Your mind can
> overcome anything,
> including your DNA's programming.
>
You know, though you site some rather good examples of
the possibilities of the gathering of DNA, I believe
your use of the "sliperry slope" argument technique is
alarmist at best (out-right paranoid, at worst). The
truth of the matter is that - as of now - that
information gathered is classified (ie. NOT covered
under the freedom of information act). The _studies_
are being done for the sake of knowledge. Mind you,
the idea of genetically altering DNA in order to "fix"
some one of their, say, possible alcohol addiction, is
not something that I care for, the truth is that in
the long run, this type of knowledge is likely to have
a possitive impact on things we don't yet forsee.
Provided that there is no use of the genetic matter
for anything else other than research, then there is
no basis for your argument. Of course, we can get into
to the very merrits of such research, and you can
cover the variable that is chemical reaction in the
brain when combined with the chemical reactions
dicatated by DNA, but frankly, I don't fashion myself
either a geneticist nor a bio-ethisist, so I would be
at a disadvantage of knowlegde as opposed to
principles.
> > They have certain things in common. For
> instances, serial killers usually
> > start out by torturing small animals and work
> there way up to humans. That
> > is a known fact. It is also part of the profile
> they have for serial
> > killers.
>
> But this is the long-term study of behavior. Not
> "profiling".
>
You're right. However, the results used for this are
what allow us to do profiling. Profiling without
studied proof to back the reason for the profiling
falls under the realm of stereotyping. Profling with
studied proof probably has saved more lives than you
can count.
Then again, profiling itself is a form of thought
policing. Not a pretty picture when you give a people
the right to free speech but you try to limit what
they think.
> > For terrorists, its being taught to hate and do
> anything, (kill
> > others, commit suicide while killing others) to
> preserve their
> > beliefs. These people are taught this from birth.
> Just look at our own
> > society and how they prey on each other. The
> neo-Nazi's, skin heads, white
> > supremists. They are all taught the same thing.
> To hate anything and
> > anybody that does not fit their belief system.
>
> Many of us believe the US media does the same thing
> with
> minorities. So is the media a "mass terrorist
> training network"???
>
According to those, yes. However, you are siting a
miniscule example - a tiny portion of the overall
population. Her example, on the other hand, has been
both proven AND is a solid example BECAUSE it takes
into account the majority of that population. Your
example, however, is the same as me saying "Americans
rob people. Americans are thieves." HUH?! Not quite
what you expected, huh? Yes, a small number of
Americans engage in theft. But by this example - as in
yours - the numbers don't much matter, do they? In
hers, the numbers ARE the arguments. In yours, they're
just details.
> > Many innocent people have been murdered because of
> it. Can we stop it?
> > Can we form a profile that would only pinpoint
> these cowards? Probably
> > not, but it would be pretty damn close, and for me
> that's enough.
>
> When they live among us, maybe. But at what point
> do we start
> arresting people _before_ they commit the crime?
Unfortunatelly at the point we begin to allow
profiling. That is, of course, unless you allow for
thought policing. Now, if there's evidence that a
crime is about to occur, then that's another matter.
Nevertheless, what about this:
Criminals have guns.
The NRA's members have guns.
The NRA's members are criminals.
That logic doesn't work.
The truth in the end is this: America's greatest
strength is its freedom. That is also its greatest
weakness. "It is the worst system there is, but it's
the best we've got."
What price are you willing to give up for security? If
you are willing to pay that price, do you honestly
deserve to be secure?
(just some random thoughts).
Norb
=====
~ Good evening, Mr. Gates
. . I'll be your server this evening.
/V\
// \\
/( )\
^`~'^
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:36 EDT