Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 97399	2009-02-14 03:58:00	The debate Sweep vs Deane F.	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
747853	2009-02-20 01:01:00	I thought Roddies comments were very on target,what part do you want changed. I was under the impression that this was going to be a debate between Deane F and myself. Roddy Boy has his opinion but I was not planning on him becoming Deane F. I do not need any of his post changed but I am not being drawn into a debate with him unless he wants to give me a challenge to do so. I also do not think your comments on this thread are actually helpful. I can speak for myself and I do not need others to speak for Deane F or for me for that matter. Could we let Deane F just reply in due time? And Cicero, why do you use words like "Roddies" and "Deano"? I hope this helps you to assume where I am coming from.	Sweep (90)
747854	2009-02-20 01:12:00	I take the attitude that people should give a sample because if they have done nothing wrong then they should have nothing to fear. This amounts to saying that the civil right to privacy is trivial in comparison with the right of the Crown to obtain supporting evidence in court cases in which there is DNA evidence. The right to privacy is not a trivial right - it is a fundamental right. Most people consider that they have a right not to be under surveillance when they use a public toilet or take a shower in the changing room at a swimming pool - yet what could be more private than one's own unique genome? I assert that my genome is the most private thing that I own and that a government should have the right to harvest and sequence it only under the most stringent and necessary of conditions. The ability to lawfully harvest DNA from suspected criminals already exists. There is no compelling need to form a database of every citizen's DNA - therefore there should not be any such database compiled.	Deane F (8204)
747855	2009-02-20 01:15:00	Thank you sweepo,and forgive me for I know not what I do. It it easy to forget I am in the presence of greatness.	Cicero (40)
747856	2009-02-20 01:45:00	Wow apparently you just completely missed my post earlier where I said 7 days was gonna be the penalty? Think I was joking? Trying to call my bluff or something? Dude seriously there's no need for such snide remarks, sarcastic or not, I really dont care. Ive had multiple PM's and reported posts of people who've had a gutsfull and to be honest I have to. Nothing personal, but time to take a bit of a break... Apologies for the disruptions ladies and gentlemen, as you were :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
747857	2009-02-20 02:25:00	This amounts to saying that the civil right to privacy is trivial in comparison with the right of the Crown to obtain supporting evidence in court cases in which there is DNA evidence. The right to privacy is not a trivial right - it is a fundamental right. Most people consider that they have a right not to be under surveillance when they use a public toilet or take a shower in the changing room at a swimming pool - yet what could be more private than one's own unique genome? I assert that my genome is the most private thing that I own and that a government should have the right to harvest and sequence it only under the most stringent and necessary of conditions. The ability to lawfully harvest DNA from suspected criminals already exists. There is no compelling need to form a database of every citizen's DNA - therefore there should not be any such database compiled. I agree that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. I do not want to be under surveillence whilst in my own home either. In the event I used a public toilet or take a shower in a changing room I could maybe not notice a hole drilled in a wall for example. Your DNA (genome) is not unique to you. It can be shared by identical twins or triplets for example. I am not only talking about evidence collected at a crime scene as DNA samples collected may give a probabilty factor that you may have been at a scene at some time in the past. The sample collected does not have a date and time as to when you were there. Then we come to the benefit for the People. Do you really know who your Father or Mother was for example? Do not the people in general have a right to know? This for medical reasons in my opinion. The State, in my opinion, should have the right to harvest samples from all citizens or residents in New Zealand. There is no compelling need? There is a need but whether it compells any particular person in any way I do not know. Compelling includes force among other definitions.	Sweep (90)
747858	2009-02-20 08:30:00	I agree that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. I do not want to be under surveillence whilst in my own home either. In the event I used a public toilet or take a shower in a changing room I could maybe not notice a hole drilled in a wall for example. Your DNA (genome) is not unique to you. It can be shared by identical twins or triplets for example. I am not only talking about evidence collected at a crime scene as DNA samples collected may give a probabilty factor that you may have been at a scene at some time in the past. The sample collected does not have a date and time as to when you were there. Then we come to the benefit for the People. Do you really know who your Father or Mother was for example? Do not the people in general have a right to know? This for medical reasons in my opinion. The State, in my opinion, should have the right to harvest samples from all citizens or residents in New Zealand. There is no compelling need? There is a need but whether it compells any particular person in any way I do not know. Compelling includes force among other definitions. So we agree that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. For the sake of convenience I will infer that we both also agree that the State ought to show that there is good reason before a fundamental right is disregarded. My argument is that in most cases, when the State does lawfully disregard a fundamental right it is through following due process and in response to just cause. You said - " Then we come to the benefit for the People. Do you really know who your Father or Mother was for example? Do not the people in general have a right to know? This for medical reasons in my opinion. " I do not think this counts as a just cause. I am not aware of a clamour for a national DNA database so that we can all be sure of our parentage.	Deane F (8204)
747859	2009-02-20 10:12:00	Please excuse me Sweep and Deane F. I would just like to add my two cents to this interesting topic.:2cents::thanks 1. I can guarantee that Medical Insurance Company's would love to get or Demand a DNA sample of you before insuring you because of "Known DNA Heath Risks" and so would either deny you for certain things because of your DNA or put up the price alot for medical insurance. 2. Also the Cops because they could say your DNA predisposes you to be a criminal because of your DNA.So naturaly you are one,you just have not been cought YET!!! 3. Work/applying for a job need a DNA sample to see what your like...intelligence,drug user,health risk etc. 4. Sport teams - to get the best people for teams. 5. Schools selecting on DNA for intelligence,sporting abilities to give the school a high profile of being the best school...like get fame ie. Harvard etc. 6. Babies - Mum and Dad want perfect kid go and get their DNA spliced to have a perfect baby free from genetic disease from the parents DNA.....oh and while were at it make it real brainy,strong,tall,blond,blue eyed and this and that etc. as well and their Test Tube baby is now ......THE MASTER RACE!!!! -(Nazi's) (Mom's and Dads love it of course)!!!	memphis (2869)
747860	2009-02-21 02:47:00	So we agree that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. For the sake of convenience I will infer that we both also agree that the State ought to show that there is good reason before a fundamental right is disregarded. My argument is that in most cases, when the State does lawfully disregard a fundamental right it is through following due process and in response to just cause. You said - "Then we come to the benefit for the People. Do you really know who your Father or Mother was for example? Do not the people in general have a right to know? This for medical reasons in my opinion." I do not think this counts as a just cause. I am not aware of a clamour for a national DNA database so that we can all be sure of our parentage. As far as I am aware there is no clamour for a DNA database for parentage. Not a clamour as such a database is not available to the general public much like when I donated blood as a donor. I believe that some people received a benefit as a result but personally I had no access to the name of the person whom received the blood. Nor did I need to know for that matter. Presumably part of my DNA is is still circulating or maybe not. By "just cause" do you mean Justice? Just cause in my opinion means any valid reason why a person needs to know. The State passes laws and the people elect the State by voting. The State can pass any laws it likes while in power You may infer anything you like but I have not yet agreed totally and certainly not for convenience. I will say that if such a National DNA database is established as I propose, then it would hopefully follow that the Database would be only accessable to parties that use it according to the law. Due process includes what?	Sweep (90)
747861	2009-02-21 03:08:00	Ok this has raised a question for me.............:rolleyes: when would this DNA be collected? at birth? what about existing peoples? how would you get the whole of the nz public to front up and give a bit of DNA? and is this collection idea currently only for justice? to catch the baddies mostly? one thing that worries me about what memphis said, about test tube babies...... Do we really have the right to tell someone there DNA sucks and dont have kids? we have a whole lot of special needs babies in NZ so far, and someone gets pregnant, and they dither about, making decisions, and what happens if for any reason it gets past the safe time zone for terminating the pregnancy and the DNA check then crys out and says its terrible sick, and bring into the world a possible DNA crisis sick babe? and the pressure to not go through with it is enormous..... do we have that right? to say that? i spose Dr's already do this? but this is like germany? Hitler? creating the perfect race? :eek: sorry to hijack thread guys. interesting reading so far guys......... beetle :)	beetle (243)
747862	2009-02-21 03:28:00	I am proposing a National New Zealand DNA database should be available for various reasons. If, Beetle, you read earlier posts, you would notice that I would elect to take samples from birth and furthermore all people residing in New Zealand and also visitors etc. Samples fron Birth I left some DNA presumably at your place last time I visited. Pleased you are still alive. Samples from Birth would indicate the child is alive and has been born.	Sweep (90)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10