if somebody googled 'how to end someone's life' do you think that should be noted by anyone?
I don't think it should, not any more than somebody looking up "where to buy shoes" should be noted. Simply by looking at the phrase somebody typed into a search engine we can't ascribe any kind of motivation. Are they looking for particular song lyrics, doing research for a novel they're writing, looking up something they are talking about with some friends, actually thinking of killing someone? We don't know.
Even if they have taken leave of their senses and are looking such a thing up with intention of acting on the information they find, that doesn't mean that they are actually going to act on it when the fit of irrationality blows over. How often do people think to themselves "I'm going to buy a motorcycle," or "I will start eating healthier," or some such without ever acting on it?
And how many murders happen unpremeditated? Simply by throwing everyone who looks up "murder" online we won't prevent all homicide, and we would simply set a bad precedent: "look up information we don't want you to look up and we'll toss you in the clink."
> worthy of being allowed to grow up into the person they would have become .... prematurely ending the life of a human being
This assumes that the zygote or fetus — if it were sentient and capable of choice — would want the particular future into which it would be born.
It also assumes that legislators and, ultimately, voters should peremptorily impose a Procrustean-bed rule [0] even before viability.
The "least bad" option (pre-viability) is for the pregnancy-continuation decision to be made by the mother and her doctor, with the father being consulted.
I can't stop you from describing it that way, of course. But
that description presupposes that, always and everywhere, the potential person, i.e., the zygote/fetus, must be valued more highly than the actual, currently-living person in whose uterus the zygote/fetus is gestating.
You're free to believe that if you want — just as you're likewise free to believe (as an extreme example) that the human race would be better off if all important decisions were made by the British monarch, or white Christian males, or a council of imams, or the emperor of Russia, or the Chinese Communist Party, etc.
But you should expect major pushback if you insist that everyone else must defer to your belief — especially if, in their judgment, doing so would drastically degrade their lives.
Again: The least-bad option is: 1) to recognize that the pregnancy-continuation decision is often best made on a case by case basis and not with a one-size-fits-all rule; and 2) in most cases — certainly pre-viability, and in some cases, even post-viability — to entrust that decision to the mother and her doctor.
>If only a zygote could hold up a sign saying "my body my choice", maybe then they'd be considered worthy of being allowed to grow up into the person they would have become.
Well, as you said, it is a not person they would theoretically become had the pregnancy continued. It is zygote.
> if somebody googled 'how to end someone's life' do you think that should be noted by anyone? E
In fact, you can google that and no one will be notified. Pregnant women and girls should have same rights as everyone else.
You can split hairs about what a zygote is to make yourself not feel like it's murder but the procedure results in the net loss of one or more human lives.
>if somebody googled 'how to end someone's life' do you think that should be noted by anyone?
The bottleneck is investigative manpower, not low quality leads. Assuming the goal is to enforce the law (which is farcical but useful for the purposes of this discussion) there is no reason for any law enforcement agency from a town police department up to the NSA to be building a dragnet. Building a haystack is not an efficient way to find needles.
Ah, yes ... fear-mongering over what the "red" team might do, while pretending the "blue" team haven't been committing this kind of abuse unchecked for years now.
Yeah let's go to a riot with our google location service devices!
Regardless of what they were doing, these people obviously weren't the brightest to be there in the first place. Not surprised they would think airplane mode could protect them.
Yes, they are the stupid ones worthy of ridicule and scorn for taking a device specifically designed to hoover and exfiltrate as much data as possible for monetization and value extraction purposes.
The people who made these systems, trading off people's right to privacy, and implementing them in a way where you can't actually find out how shit works without months of digging through convoluted, constantly changing API's/toolchains of course are beyond reproach.
The tech industry's detachment from any semblance of normalcy or humanity never ceases to amaze.
20 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 65.6 ms ] threadI don't think it should, not any more than somebody looking up "where to buy shoes" should be noted. Simply by looking at the phrase somebody typed into a search engine we can't ascribe any kind of motivation. Are they looking for particular song lyrics, doing research for a novel they're writing, looking up something they are talking about with some friends, actually thinking of killing someone? We don't know.
Even if they have taken leave of their senses and are looking such a thing up with intention of acting on the information they find, that doesn't mean that they are actually going to act on it when the fit of irrationality blows over. How often do people think to themselves "I'm going to buy a motorcycle," or "I will start eating healthier," or some such without ever acting on it?
And how many murders happen unpremeditated? Simply by throwing everyone who looks up "murder" online we won't prevent all homicide, and we would simply set a bad precedent: "look up information we don't want you to look up and we'll toss you in the clink."
This assumes that the zygote or fetus — if it were sentient and capable of choice — would want the particular future into which it would be born.
It also assumes that legislators and, ultimately, voters should peremptorily impose a Procrustean-bed rule [0] even before viability.
The "least bad" option (pre-viability) is for the pregnancy-continuation decision to be made by the mother and her doctor, with the father being consulted.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes
Ahh I see, so its a unilateral mercy killing?
I can't stop you from describing it that way, of course. But that description presupposes that, always and everywhere, the potential person, i.e., the zygote/fetus, must be valued more highly than the actual, currently-living person in whose uterus the zygote/fetus is gestating.
You're free to believe that if you want — just as you're likewise free to believe (as an extreme example) that the human race would be better off if all important decisions were made by the British monarch, or white Christian males, or a council of imams, or the emperor of Russia, or the Chinese Communist Party, etc.
But you should expect major pushback if you insist that everyone else must defer to your belief — especially if, in their judgment, doing so would drastically degrade their lives.
Again: The least-bad option is: 1) to recognize that the pregnancy-continuation decision is often best made on a case by case basis and not with a one-size-fits-all rule; and 2) in most cases — certainly pre-viability, and in some cases, even post-viability — to entrust that decision to the mother and her doctor.
Well, as you said, it is a not person they would theoretically become had the pregnancy continued. It is zygote.
> if somebody googled 'how to end someone's life' do you think that should be noted by anyone? E
In fact, you can google that and no one will be notified. Pregnant women and girls should have same rights as everyone else.
Plus, unless of course it is saving life of an actual human. Or just preventing destruction of it and harm.
The bottleneck is investigative manpower, not low quality leads. Assuming the goal is to enforce the law (which is farcical but useful for the purposes of this discussion) there is no reason for any law enforcement agency from a town police department up to the NSA to be building a dragnet. Building a haystack is not an efficient way to find needles.
Those abuses are ignored, or worse, reported as a good thing: https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-google-geofence-warrant-janu...
Regardless of what they were doing, these people obviously weren't the brightest to be there in the first place. Not surprised they would think airplane mode could protect them.
The people who made these systems, trading off people's right to privacy, and implementing them in a way where you can't actually find out how shit works without months of digging through convoluted, constantly changing API's/toolchains of course are beyond reproach.
The tech industry's detachment from any semblance of normalcy or humanity never ceases to amaze.
As private companies, big tech can legally suppress speech and censor anything the Dems dont like.
And in return the Dems allow them to retain their monopolies and massively unethical business practices.
I dont see this ending well.
At least for now anyway.