• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should parents use a GPS tracking device to monitor their children?

Should parents use GPS tracking to monitor their children?

  • Yes! An implanted chip would be even safer!

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Yes, I think this is a practical way to keep track of kids

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • It would be warranted in some cases

    Votes: 12 35.3%

  • I'm not comfortable with this idea, I don't think so

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Brave New World here we come. They've gotta start them young. :rolleyes:

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Total voters
    34
Agnapostate said:
Of course there is. Simply refer to the Lacey Dixon case.
Click to expand...

After reviewing the case the situation posed in this thread and the case does not match. The courts in the Lacy Dixon case were concerned about the privacy of Christensen...not her own daughter. Christensen was not her kid therefore he does have a right to privacy from her. My statement was in refrence to a parent's own kids. Not someone else's.
 
Agnapostate said:
Considering the aforementioned fact of the far higher probability of parental aggression against children and youths than stranger aggression, it seems as though the "little bit of perceived discomfort" would be that of the parents, as opposed to the legitimate discomfort of the spychip compartments...and a discomfort colored by propagandistic misinformation from the mass media. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Just because there is a higher probability of parental aggression against thier kids does not cancel out the fact that a stranger cannot also kidnap and hurt the kids. And the odds are that anyone that got this type of technology would not be the type of person to harm their kids.
 
Elena said:
Don't care!

A few weeks ago I saw a 50-something years old dude in shorts and "Jesus" sandals with black socks sitting by a play area, stareing at the kids! Suspicious or what? :D
Click to expand...

You should have shot him...you know, to be safe. Since you're in such constant danger and all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
After reviewing the case the situation posed in this thread and the case does not match. The courts in the Lacy Dixon case were concerned about the privacy of Christensen...not her own daughter. Christensen was not her kid therefore he does have a right to privacy from her. My statement was in refrence to a parent's own kids. Not someone else's.
Click to expand...

Uh...the conclusion was that Carmen Dixon violated the privacy rights of her daughter Lacey by eavesdropping on her private phone conversation. But even if it was the case that minors had no legal right to privacy (which it isn't), that wouldn't be a basis for determining that they lack an ethical right to privacy and to assert otherwise would constitute an is/ought fallacy, just as the statement that "juveniles don't have the same rights in our society as adults do, so it isn't an invasion of their rights" is. From "juveniles don't have the same rights in our society as adults do" (descriptive), it is inferred that "it isn't an invasion of their rights" (prescriptive).

Kal'Stang said:
Just because there is a higher probability of parental aggression against thier kids does not cancel out the fact that a stranger cannot also kidnap and hurt the kids.
Click to expand...

Certainly, and with one to two hundred kidnapped every year in a nation of many millions under the age of 18, your reference is to an extreme statistical improbability.

Kal'Stang said:
And the odds are that anyone that got this type of technology would not be the type of person to harm their kids.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. Attachment of a tracking device to someone for no sound reason is indicative of a perception of near-absolute physical sovereignty over that person's body, as would be recognized in the case of a jealous husband or lover.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Paranoia and the need to be 'safe' is what will lead to us surrending all of our individual freedoms. Once we are all chipped and barcoded, that opens the door to a society that I would hate to live in.
Click to expand...

The only alternative to that would be a bullet in a head for all convicted pedophiles.

Long ago (really long ago :() when I was working for our local police we received a call: some pervert molested and attempted to rape two girls, they managed to escape and raised the alarm; the father with the neighbours caught the guy.

The unit that was supposed to arrest him was given unofficial advice to take their time... When they arrived on a scene, the pervert was SOOOOO HAPPY to be arrested!..

And you know what? Instances of child molestation, and especially abduction were VERY, VERY rare!
 
Agnapostate said:
There's no such thing as a "convicted pedophile," because pedophilia is a paraphilia and mental illness rather than a legal offense.
Click to expand...

A rabid dog must be shot. So must a pedophile.
 
Ikari said:
You should have shot him...you know, to be safe. Since you're in such constant danger and all.
Click to expand...

Firearms are illegal in Britain as is sense of humour in Colorado.
 
Elena said:
The only alternative to that would be a bullet in a head for all convicted pedophiles.
Click to expand...

I think maybe that's a stretch. We've flown off the handle with this crap enough already. With automatic sentencing, lists, etc. It's sickening how much of a police state we're allowing things to become so that someone could please think of the children. I hate making sweeping policy, increasing the size and scope of government off of low probability events. There should never be automatic sentencing, the sex offender list should probably on whole be done away with but if not well more restrictions about who gets on it, and it shouldn't be impossible for convicted sex offenders to find a place to live after their release. Some place other than the underneath of an overpass.

Elena said:
Long ago (really long ago :() when I was working for our local police we received a call: some pervert molested and attempted to rape two girls, they managed to escape and raised the alarm; the father with the neighbours caught the guy.

The unit that was supposed to arrest him was given unofficial advice to take their time... When they arrived on a scene, the pervert was SOOOOO HAPPY to be arrested!..
Click to expand...

There's no justice like angry mob justice eh? Nice, real nice.

Elena said:
And you know what? Instances of child molestation, and especially abduction were VERY, VERY rare!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why people should use their brains and not their emotions when trying to conceive of policy in these matters.
 
Agnapostate said:
Hmmm, no, I can't really get behind shooting people regardless of their criminal history...I feel like I'm explaining America to Borat. :doh
Click to expand...

If someone was caught sexually abusing a child, YOUR child would you be as liberal-thinking and politically correct as you appear to be now?
 
Elena said:
Firearms are illegal in Britain as is sense of humour in Colorado.
Click to expand...

That's it then, you're done? No more to offer to the debate? Noted.
 
Elena said:
If someone was caught sexually abusing a child, YOUR child would you be as liberal-thinking and politically correct as you appear to be now?
Click to expand...

You didn't refer to sexual abuse of children. You referred to pedophilia, which does not necessarily entail sexual abuse of children, as many pedophiles have committed no actual criminal offenses, and many CSA'ers are situational offenders that do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.
 
Ikari said:
There's no justice like angry mob justice eh? Nice, real nice.
Click to expand...

Yes! Pedophiles should be getting all that they deserve. That might stop some from pursuing their hobby.

As it is now, the liberal, politically correct society is so concerned with protecting "human" rights of pedophiles, that the only people left unprotected and betrayed are the most vulnerable -- the children! OUR children.
 
Agnapostate said:
Uh...the conclusion was that Carmen Dixon violated the privacy rights of her daughter Lacey by eavesdropping on her private phone conversation. But even if it was the case that minors had no legal right to privacy (which it isn't), that wouldn't be a basis for determining that they lack an ethical right to privacy and to assert otherwise would constitute an is/ought fallacy, just as the statement that "juveniles don't have the same rights in our society as adults do, so it isn't an invasion of their rights" is. From "juveniles don't have the same rights in our society as adults do" (descriptive), it is inferred that "it isn't an invasion of their rights" (prescriptive).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I read the wrong case. Could you link it for me?

Agnapostate said:
Certainly, and with one to two hundred kidnapped every year in a nation of many millions under the age of 18, your reference is to an extreme statistical improbability.
Click to expand...

One or two hundred? Try around 58,200 non-family kidnappings per year. While that may be insignificant compared to 300+ million people living in the US it is still no small number. And I don't know about you but if even one kid gets kidnapped and is later found dead that is one too many. No matter the statistical probability.

missingkids.com

Agnapostate said:
I doubt that. Attachment of a tracking device to someone for no sound reason is indicative of a perception of near-absolute physical sovereignty over that person's body, as would be recognized in the case of a jealous husband or lover.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't doubt it. It shows to me that the parent is far more likely to be concerned with their kids health and welfare than they are about wanting to hurt them. A person that wants to hurt their kid wouldn't spend that kind of money on them.

As for the jealous husband bit that is an extreme example. Same with the lover.
 
Elena said:
Yes! Pedophiles should be getting all that they deserve. That might stop some from pursuing their hobby.

As it is now, the liberal, politically correct society is so concerned with protecting "human" rights of pedophiles, that the only people left unprotected and betrayed are the most vulnerable -- the children! OUR children.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that emotional outburst Mrs. Lovejoy.

Last I checked, we threw rapists and the likes in jail. That's what a civilized society does. People may rightfully be pissed off, but we can't devolve into anarchic vigilantism. Nothing is served by doing that. Logic, not emotion must reign supreme here. Losing your cooling and jumping off the deep end will behoove no one.
 
Agnapostate said:
Hmmm, no, I can't really get behind shooting people regardless of their criminal history...I feel like I'm explaining America to Borat. :doh
Click to expand...

I'm an American and I would happily pull the trigger towards any pedophile.
 
Agnapostate said:
You didn't refer to sexual abuse of children. You referred to pedophilia, which does not necessarily entail sexual abuse of children, as many pedophiles have committed no actual criminal offenses, and many CSA'ers are situational offenders that do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.
Click to expand...

Those who, in your words, "committed no actual criminal offenses", spend their time watching kiddy porn. Do you know how many children are subjected to horrific ordeals to satisfy that industry?!

You can split hairs all you want, just tell me: if your child was abducted and used in kiddy porn, and you had the chance to meet with the person/people who were doing it to your child would you be thinking of their "diagnoses" or how many "criminal offences" did they commit, or would you simply kill them?
 
Elena said:
If someone was caught sexually abusing a child, YOUR child would you be as liberal-thinking and politically correct as you appear to be now?
Click to expand...

My nieces were molested. The guy is damn lucky that the police got to him before me.
 
Ikari said:
Thanks for that emotional outburst Mrs. Lovejoy.

Last I checked, we threw rapists and the likes in jail. That's what a civilized society does. People may rightfully be pissed off, but we can't devolve into anarchic vigilantism. Nothing is served by doing that. Logic, not emotion must reign supreme here. Losing your cooling and jumping off the deep end will behoove no one.
Click to expand...

Tell that to my nieces.

And pedophiles do get out of jail. Why do you think we have laws that require sexual devients to register in the area that they live in? And that more often than not such registries are open to the public?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom