• 0 Posts
  • 100 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 20th, 2024

help-circle


  • Additional sentencing was added

    How is that additional sentencing? In essence, they proved themselves to be unfit parents (because, you know, the whole grooming for crime thing), and had their kids removed due to that. It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions

    Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.

    Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising. It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.





  • Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected. I agree and understand that a govt program does not mean this is the case. In the absence of any countervailing evidence however, that would be the default assumption.

    The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.

    I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?


  • There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody.

    Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge. Not even those opposing the program are claiming it’s against the law, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea.

    If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.

    Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed. It might not work out, that’s true, but I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.



  • “Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”

    The full quote is “UNLIKE self-serving warnings from Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”. In other words, they’re actively denigrating Musk and Altman, and you’ve taken the quote entirely out of context, in direct opposite to the original meaning.



  • It astounding that you can’t think of why government kidnapping is a bad thing. They have no right to take kids from homes because they want to “tame the savages”.

    Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.

    In the case under discussion, the parents are convicted major criminals, there’s a big difference from targeting a certain race. I do agree it’s a potential slippery slope.

    It’s not morality to teach kids about all the options they can choose to earn a living.

    You can teach the kids their options, but the home environment obviously exerts a greater influence, especially if they are brought up to glorify it.

    I have a serious, non-rhetorical question that I’m honestly interested in an answer to. Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence? This question is specific to this situation, not about the potential for abuse of the law in other situations. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I appreciate hypothetical discussions.


  • Another option is to imprison mafia members, it’s much more difficult to influence children from prison.

    The mafia have been managing it for generations, so that option obviously doesn’t work.

    Education is probably the best, showing kids they have better options will do wonders.

    We’ve had this discussion many times, though from the opposite side. School and education is for teaching kids facts and about the world, but they do not (nor should they) have the capacity to be substitute parents. And that’s for neglectful parents, much less parents who are actively teaching the kids negative values.

    All in all, excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent, I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing. The parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?