🚀 go-pugleaf

"Frank E. Spencer" wrote:

> "Calgary Rob" <calgaryrobnospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:hpqT9.9929$H7.358578@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > "Sensei Brent" <senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3E1DD5B6.68285F00@shaw.ca...
> > > DNA information is potentially far too dangerous to just let out of the
> > bag at
> > > this time.  People will absolutely misuse the information whether for
> > > nefarious purposes, commercial purposes or because they believe they are
> > doing
> > > good (but are wrong).
> >
> > Now you start this thread claiming my argument is weak, yet you end it
> > stating exactly what I was stating.  I am not afraid of DNA databases, and
> > would like to see research done on the subject.  As it stands, I have seen
> > nothing to say they are bad, except for some week accusations against the
> > government, and myself.
>
> I've been staying out of this DNA thing since I said my piece about the gun
> registry. However, this message made me want to answer.
> You say weak accusations. While I don't think that they are weak, we are
> talking about the government. You don't need strong accusations with them.
> If there is some way they can benefit from it, either financially, or by
> exerting more control, they will use it.
> This is the same institution that has been insinuating itself into your
> home, your work place, and your way of life for over 50 years. They are only
> getting better at it.
> If you assume for a moment that the gun registry is anything but either a
> piss poor mistake, or the first step toward banning and confiscation than
> you are as deluded as the majority of people.
> A DNA database suggests whole new possibilities for control, regulation, and
> discrimination all under the guise of the public good. Hey, you don't want
> to insure people who are susceptible to a genetic illness, they drive up
> costs for everyone else.
> Look, this guy has genetic tendencies that suggest he may be prone to
> violence, we better keep tabs on him in case he does something.
> Sweet jesus, this guy's DNA is similar to the DNA of a known pedophile, go
> pick him up right away.
>
> Allow the government to take a few nibbles at your rights and freedoms, and
> you set the stage for them to continue doing it.
> You can't ride a bicycle without a helmet, you can't own a gun without
> locking it, then locking it away, and then locking up the bullets somewhere
> else. Then there are handguns, and that's even worse. A criminal doesn't
> give a fuck about the laws, he'll be in your house and perhaps raping your
> daughter in front of you all at the end of a gun. Since you can't have a gun
> at the ready, you run a greater risk if you choose to defend your home and
> family. All in the name of the public good.
> A gun registry reduces crime? It allows the identification of a weapon?
> Since when? What idiotic moron would believe this? The majority of guns used
> in crimes are stolen, or never registered in the first place.
> The registry won't tell an officer if there is a weapon present, it won't
> lead to the killer. It will just lead to a poor bastard who becomes a
> suspect because he lost a gun. Add DNA, and now all of a sudden, you have a
> smoking gun, found at the scene of a crime and it has DNA that shows the
> "owner" had the gun. In the minds of the great unwashed that's enough to
> make a conviction.
> You damn near can't smoke anywhere now. You might think that is fine because
> you are a non-smoker, but that still infringes MY rights. Yes, I have a
> right to smoke around you, get freaking used to it. See, even the laws that
> the new anti smoking bill were enacted under are only meant to prevent
> IMMEDIATE dangers to health and safety. I don't give a care what you think,
> but some guy in a restaurant smoking isn't an immediate danger to your
> health or safety. Further, even 30 people isn't an immediate danger.
> We are living in an age of political correctness, and mis-information. Spin
> doctoring, and law suits. Companies print silly warnings on boxes and
> packages because if some dumb asshole irons his clothes while he is wearing
> them, he's likely to sue. Pardon me, but this brain dead fuck shouldn't get
> one red cent if he is that fucking stupid.
> Then onto the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled her HOT coffee
> into her crotch. What the hell was that about? It's coffee, you were maybe
> expecting it to be COLD? More to the point, what were you doing sitting it
> between your thighs? You're pussy a little cold lady?
>
> So, now we have laws to protect us from ourselves. Made up by people who
> can't even make up their mind. Case in point, the Nova Scotia MLA who said
> one day he wouldn't register his gun as a form of protest, and then the next
> day says he has to do his duty as a public servant and follow the laws
> whether he likes them or not. Ah yes, the old party two step.
> Idiots like to scream that Trudeau is the anti-christ because he legalized
> abortion. They're full of crap, and Trudeau was right. The state has no damn
> business in the bedrooms of the nation. He decriminalized birth control and
> abortion so that proper family planning could be done, and women would be
> allowed to have control over their bodies. A right which no man ever
> questioned.
> Now, all of a sudden the government doesn't want back into your bedroom, it
> wants into the most private parts of your body. The very code that makes up
> your cellular structure. The basis of everything that makes you who you are.
>
> You think for a moment that you can trust them to not abuse this information
> in one form or another? You think that they won't find a way to profit from
> it, or to discriminate services from you based on this or that in your
> genetic code? You're dreaming.
> The reason for this? You already let them take small nibbles at your rights.
> You're let them tell you how to live, and behave, and made you your
> brother's keeper. Now, they are getting ready to take bites, and not
> nibbles.
>
> When that time comes, you better hope that there are enough people out there
> who didn't believe the lies to come to your rescue. Although, come to think
> of it, if you thought you needed it, maybe you do after all.
> Be careful, in a few months, you won't be able to eat a steak, because red
> meat is bad for your health. Your poor health could cause you to have a
> heart attack while driving your car, and you could kill someone. We wouldn't
> want that now would we. So, put down that knife and fork. Better yet, give
> me the knife, because you could use that as a weapon, and hurt someone. We
> wouldn't want that now would we?
>
> Frank E. Spencer

These were closely related to the points I made in the post that Rob edited and
responded to it, once again I refer everyone to Gattica to think about DNA
databases.

Sensei Brent