http://www.science20.com/inside_science/will_brain_images_and_thoughts_be_protected_under_the_4th_and_5th_amendments-153485
Science has made leaps and bounds in the field of brain science. By studying brain scans and live images of people's brains through MRIs and other machines, scientists can tell to a degree what people are feeling or thinking about. This has been done many times with volunteers in studies, but now people are wondering if something like this could be used in a criminal investigation. Would brain scans be admissible in court, or would that violate one's 5th amendment rights that protect against self incrimination? Some say that in the future brain scans may be treated the same way DNA swabs or urine tests are when collecting evidence in a criminal investigation. Right now, however, the science likely isn't strong enough to be used in court, but in the future it could be.
I think brain scans would probably be treated like lie detector tests in court since both look at brain waves and physical responses to questions. I don't think they would violate the 5th amendment since lie detector tests don't. Of course, looking at the way your brain reacts to certain things in a more sophisticated way than was previously possible is a bit more "invasive" than a lie detector test, but if you think about it there aren't many other differences. If unreliable lie detectors can be used in court, why not brain scans administered by professionals?
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Naked Bicyclists: Ruining things for everyone since 2014
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/montana-lawmaker-moves-ban-yoga-pants-article-1.2111137
David Moore, a Montana law maker, is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure laws. The new law would consider ANY nipple exposure indecent (yes, guys, you have to put a shirt on) and it would outlaw clothing that "gives the appearance or simulates a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area, or female nipple." This means tight fitting clothes could be considered indecent exposure, which includes yoga pants. To this Moore said "Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway." And all of this was started by a bunch of nude bicyclers who participated in an even called Bare As You Dare in Missoula in August. Nice work, guys.
It seems to me that this whole debate about how much clothing people should be wearing stems from the perception that bodies are inherently sexual and should be hidden (this is especially prevalent when talking about women's bodies, but that's a debate for another day.) Say it with me everyone: bodies are not inherently sexual. Why are we so ashamed of something literally everyone has? Why do we see the forms God gave us as disgusting? Human bodies are beautiful. Have you ever watched a dancer? Or stopped to watch someone's hands while they work? Or watched athletes showing off their fitness? People are just as amazing as anything else in nature, and we are a part of nature. Our bodies are no different from the bodies of cheetahs or bears or fish or birds. We're all just built for different things. People need to stop freaking out about tight clothes and worry more about the nude bicyclers, because anyone who puts their bare flesh against a metal contraption moving at high speeds during the hottest month of the year has GOT to be crazy.
David Moore, a Montana law maker, is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure laws. The new law would consider ANY nipple exposure indecent (yes, guys, you have to put a shirt on) and it would outlaw clothing that "gives the appearance or simulates a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area, or female nipple." This means tight fitting clothes could be considered indecent exposure, which includes yoga pants. To this Moore said "Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway." And all of this was started by a bunch of nude bicyclers who participated in an even called Bare As You Dare in Missoula in August. Nice work, guys.
It seems to me that this whole debate about how much clothing people should be wearing stems from the perception that bodies are inherently sexual and should be hidden (this is especially prevalent when talking about women's bodies, but that's a debate for another day.) Say it with me everyone: bodies are not inherently sexual. Why are we so ashamed of something literally everyone has? Why do we see the forms God gave us as disgusting? Human bodies are beautiful. Have you ever watched a dancer? Or stopped to watch someone's hands while they work? Or watched athletes showing off their fitness? People are just as amazing as anything else in nature, and we are a part of nature. Our bodies are no different from the bodies of cheetahs or bears or fish or birds. We're all just built for different things. People need to stop freaking out about tight clothes and worry more about the nude bicyclers, because anyone who puts their bare flesh against a metal contraption moving at high speeds during the hottest month of the year has GOT to be crazy.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
How many times do we have to say it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-politics-for-2016/
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)