AwesomeLowlander @ awesome_lowlander @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

361

Joined

1 yr. ago

No, you're the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.

Jeez, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.

So what you're saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

Edit: Just to note that parent comment has been ninja edited, multiple hours after my comment was made and a whole conversation was carried out. The original comment was something to the effect of 'Two people accused him, it MUST be true!'

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.

If it helps, I agreed with your 1st 2 points. You may die with your dignity half intact.

“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's not open source, AFAIK.

No no, I mean, I get your point about how most corps do try to keep up with regulations. But some bad apples certainly spoil the batch. Even within corps I'm sure there are differences from one dept to another.

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?

Cue the tankies to show up soon explaining how China had everybody's best interests at heart, and all previous examples were taken out of context.

The obvious difference I'm seeing (at least based on the article) is that the US and Canadian systems were woefully underfunded and overwhelmed. Whereas this program has a small number of participants and seems fairly well supported. Time will tell I suppose.

Like I said, it's a tough question. I agree it's very much a grey area, but I do think it's better than leaving things to continue the way they have been up to now.

Just because they’re mafioso doesn’t mean they mistreat their children.

It's not about child abuse, it's about ending the intergenerational crime cycle. Though depending on your viewpoint it could be argued that raising kids by grooming them to be crime lords is a form of child abuse in itself.

I would think that the doing something would be breaking that bond by arresting the parents

From the article:

Now, almost every member of the girls' immediate family is in prison: both of their parents and three of their four brothers.

Yes

It's a tough question. Doing nothing obviously just leaves the cycle to perpetuate itself, and there really aren't that many ways to break the cycle. From the article, it seems like the govt is at least putting resources into making sure the kids are cared for.

Ah. Probably the difference between the length of the thing entire and the length of the blade alone.

Or, we could stick to our system of presuming innocence until guilt is proven.

The only open source mentioned in the post is their encryption. Not the document editing software. OP please remove your change to the article title, it's extremely misleading.