You made a good point.

I’ve though about this quite some time. And the core problem of all of this, is the intent.
Or rather that we can’t find out your intent.

If we knew the intent, we could put someone who is trying your scheme, into jail. But not someone who really accidentally landed on such a site. (E.g. a Goatse-like CP link going trough a URL shortener.)
This is a giant problem. Which results in the self-contradiction of:
1. Innocent until proven guilty. (= In case of unknown intention, you are not guilty.)
2. Ignorance is no protection against punishment. (= In case of unknown intention, you are guilty.)

I think (2) is morally wrong, because in the cane that the intention really is not known, one should never assume evil intentions. Ever.
That’s what proof is for! Proof of intention.
For example:
A) Someone downloads CP. He jacks off to it, and gets caught in mid-action. -> Guilty!
B) Someone downloads CP. He tries to analyze the images to see if he can find clues on how to catch the guy. Later, someone finds the images on his computer. -> NOT guilty! Even if the intention was not known. Even if his intention was bad, but not known.

A fair society demands the rules to be like this. Or else everybody can just shove CP on your computer when you don’t look, and then throw you in jail for it.

But does evolution look any better?

I don't see it as cultural genocide because it's not really forced - nor is there any reason to artificially maintain a culture that is falling apart on its own. If less people are blind, there may be less blind culture, but it's not being attacked, really.


It's certainly unfortunate for the people who can't be helped by advances such as this and then have less of a culture to work within, but that's no reason to stand in the way of new technologies. Eventually - hopefully - something like this will be available to everyone who is blind or deaf no matter the original cause. Even then there will be some that refuse the treatment, but that's their choice.


Cultures change, and sometimes they go away. It happens.

Keanu Reeves approves of this idea.

...Wait, you're serious? Why would you prevent people from having the choice to hear or see just to keep your "culture" intact?

I guess we should be upset with cars because they destroyed the horse-and-buggy culture.

I know you're just a dumb AC, but if you have a degree in CS and you're employed somewhere that isn't using at least some of the things i listed then i can tell you something about you're programming shop, or the code you produce:

one of them is utter garbage.

It's an awesome flight, but you only get one shot and in the end you still mess things up?

Flip that argument - who's up for preventing blacks from purchasing skin lightening or radical plastic surgery?

See, kids, that's called a false dichotomy.