> Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance?
No, but you went to a straw man very quickly. In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics.
First, DNA is often far from definitive. So, if the error rate is 1 in 30,000, you're very likely to get quite a few hits of innocent people when the perpetrator isn't in the database.
Second, people who use "women and children" or "pedophiles" as justifications can generally be considered to be engaging in dishonest behavior. Something that has a logical justification doesn't have to hide behind emotional appeals.
Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender).
Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.
Please explain to me how I don't "understand statistics." In no way was I addressing or defending the wholesale scanning or mining of data; I was simply addressing uhtred's statement.
Politics is largely the use of emotional appeal in a democracy -- you don't get elected on a stance of "well, if we understand the data."
>Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender).
Please, link me to a case in which a person giving a lost child a hug led to charges. I would earnestly like to read it because I think you're being clumsily dishonest.
>Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.
And now you're just using a truism as frosting to your argument. You're framing this in a "either you care about paedophiles or you don't care about OUR rights."
>Please, link me to a case in which a person giving a lost child a hug led to charges. I would earnestly like to read it because I think you're being clumsily dishonest.
Pedophile isn't a legal term. Men get "straddled with the term pedophile" for simply being in a playground.
No one gets charged with being a pedophile because being a pedophile is not illegal.
You're replying to someone who replied to statements that I didn't make and hoped to argue using both using emotional appeals ("our rights as people) and against emotional appeals -- "those statistics I read on wikipedia 'win the conversation' because I brought them up first (even though they're not related to your point), which means it follows that I can state my opinions as fact."
No, but you went to a straw man very quickly. In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics.
First, DNA is often far from definitive. So, if the error rate is 1 in 30,000, you're very likely to get quite a few hits of innocent people when the perpetrator isn't in the database.
Second, people who use "women and children" or "pedophiles" as justifications can generally be considered to be engaging in dishonest behavior. Something that has a logical justification doesn't have to hide behind emotional appeals.
Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender).
Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.