Then why are you acting like you don't believe the government is the answer to anything?
Spoiler alert: The government is the best solution to getting everybody health care.
Because most of you seem to believe that it is the solution to everything. "Oh hey let's tell everybody they gotta provide healthcare to their full-time employees." "Yeah now they're just making all employees part-time." "Tell them they can't have part time employees!" "They're moving overseas now." "High tarrifs!" "Businesses are being disbanded." "Tell them they HAVE to stay in business!"
I just don't believe that government is the answer to everything.
Who has ever suggested that the government is the answer to *everything?* No shit, the government isn't gonna solve anything, but you are fucking delusional if you think that everybody can get by without the help of the government. You realize that the majority of people who need help from the government actually do need it, right? They're not the 47% of freeloaders that Romney (and you) seem to think they are.
I just don't believe that government is the answer to everything.
Who has ever suggested that the government is the answer to *everything?* No shit, the government isn't gonna solve anything, but you are fucking delusional if you think that everybody can get by without the help of the government. You realize that the majority of people who need help from the government actually do need it, right? They're not the 47% of freeloaders that Romney (and you) seem to think they are.
I completely understand if someone needs some temporary help, like unemployment, but when we got people who are saying they've all got "Obamaphones" and their only justification for not voting for Romney is "He sucks!" then I wonder how we as Americans got this way. I know they're not the majority, not even the majority of the 47%, but damn if it makes me rage when I see something like that.
- Gawker's Adrian Chen has taken to Reddit, attempting to Defend himself. It's not really working, since basically the only place on reddit that's terribly fond of him right now is SRS.
- Another Gawker employee has also taken to reddit, defending Gawker's habit of posting images taken of people(particularly women) while they're unaware, plenty of upskirt shots, as well as posting nude shots, sex tapes and the like which people have obtained through less than legal means, from unaware subjects. So, basically, Gawker being worse than /r/creepshots.
-SRS has confirmed (for what that's worth, considering their reputation) that Doxxing VA was their doing, and is openly bragging about it, despite reddit's usually strictly enforced no-personal-information rule. Admins are being questioned about why SRS hasn't been warned or punished, despite having done this multiple times.
- It was also "confirmed" by some SRS users that the people behind some of the worst of /r/jailbait and /r/creepshots was... SRS. They'd post the worst they could find, log out, log into their regular accounts, take screenshots and then report it to the Admins and mods.
And that's your complete drama update.
And they also have a history of governmental interference. We were founded on the principle that we didn't want the government telling us what to do. I DON'T want a government that gives me everything, I WANT to do it ON MY OWN. I WANT to be like Romney, who's family came from nothing and became rich off their own hard work and sweat. I want to be independent, not dependent.
That's the great thing about our system. YOU CAN! If you want private healthcare...you can go get private healthcare, and you're covered by that instead of Medicare. And if you can't afford private healthcare, the government has you covered till you can buy the private healthcare you want.
So, basically, it not only gives you what you proclaim you want, but also covers those who cannot afford private healthcare. Oh, and the system is pretty stable, and works reasonably well - so no destroying the country, no mass bankruptcy, no welfare state as the statist parasites drain the working man of the sweat from his brow, etc, etc.
I just don't believe that government is the answer to everything.
Who has ever suggested that the government is the answer to *everything?* No shit, the government isn't gonna solve anything, but you are fucking delusional if you think that everybody can get by without the help of the government. You realize that the majority of people who need help from the government actually do need it, right? They're not the 47% of freeloaders that Romney (and you) seem to think they are.
I completely understand if someone needs some temporary help, like unemployment, but when we got people who are saying they've all got "Obamaphones" and their only justification for not voting for Romney is "He sucks!" then I wonder how we as Americans got this way. I know they're not the majority, not even the majority of the 47%, but damn if it makes me rage when I see something like that.
If you know it's not even the majority of people who vote for him then why do you even let it bother you. There are going to be stupid people regardless if they vote either way, period.
I just don't believe that government is the answer to everything.
Who has ever suggested that the government is the answer to *everything?* No shit, the government isn't gonna solve anything, but you are fucking delusional if you think that everybody can get by without the help of the government. You realize that the majority of people who need help from the government actually do need it, right? They're not the 47% of freeloaders that Romney (and you) seem to think they are.
I completely understand if someone needs some temporary help, like unemployment, but when we got people who are saying they've all got "Obamaphones" and their only justification for not voting for Romney is "He sucks!" then I wonder how we as Americans got this way. I know they're not the majority, not even the majority of the 47%, but damn if it makes me rage when I see something like that.
What about the people whose justification for voting for Romney is that they think Obama is a Muslim?
Uninformed people have a right to vote, and they should have that right, because the alternative is far, far worse.
The appropriate response to such is to keep your own discussion informed and intelligent. This includes not painting anyone who disagrees with you as someone who believes that "the government is the answer to everything".
Then why are you acting like you don't believe the government is the answer to anything?
Spoiler alert: The government is the best solution to getting everybody health care.
Because most of you seem to believe that it is the solution to everything. "Oh hey let's tell everybody they gotta provide healthcare to their full-time employees." "Yeah now they're just making all employees part-time." "Tell them they can't have part time employees!" "They're moving overseas now." "High tarrifs!" "Businesses are being disbanded." "Tell them they HAVE to stay in business!"
Yeah what was most remarkable about pretty much every other first world country with universal healthcare is how their industry completely folded up and vanished and the countries collapsed so shortly after instituting it.
You know it was the Republicans that made the Obama-care to be "force businesses to provide coverage" rather than a single payer system. I don't understand why people think the government doesn't help them out. They use government infrastructure all the time! Not only that, people are able to succeed more readily in a stable democracy than they would be, in, say, Somalia. I'd like to see these anarchists get dropped somewhere where there was no government oversight and suddenly the realize how much the government actually did for them. Also, you are not "doing it on your own." Seriously, I don't get these low income tea party people who are like "I'm going to pull myself up by my bootstraps and be rich as Romney!" If they are poor, they are probably going to have to rely on public school, grants for college, grants for starting up their business. It's not like the average anti-taxes guy who makes 12K a year is rolling in money to invest in the stock market. Raising the capital gains tax, for example, does not affect them in the least.
Holy crap, you guys are still going at it? Holy crap, Jack's voting for Romney and is against socialized health care? HOLY CRAP, JACK'S VOTING FOR ROMNEY AND MAKES 12K PER ANNUM?
I do notice that something like 98% of the Romney/Ryan signs in my town (what few there are) are ALWAYS outside of the most dilapidated, run down houses with the oldest, run down cars in the driveway. The only place you see Republican campaign signs that make any sense are in Litchfield County, Avon...
Raising the capital gains tax, for example, does not affect them in the least.
It's about selflessness and having empathy for the poor millionaires and billionaires, don't you get it?
I am also sketchy about the government "boxing in" private companies and telling them what to do and what not to do. Kinda goes hand-in-hand with me not wanting the government to tell me what to do and what not to do.
What if the government says "No glass in the yogurt, no sludge in the river, no antifreeze in the cough syrup?" Because I'm pretty sure the FDA and EPA don't just sit around to bother people for no reason. Go to China some time. Many of my friends studied in Beijing. You can hardly breath some days because of the smog.
Seriously, pre-EPA America is not something anybody wants to go back to. It's bad enough that the regulations are too lax and inspections too few right now.
Remember Deepwater Horizon? Wasn't it one of something like 35,000 wells that fell under the responsibility of like, 50 inspectors? I think the most recent inspection had been by a dude who had never inspected a well outside of training in his life. Why start him on an unusually deep and risky well? There are tons of WTFs in that story.
Man this election stuff is really getting to me, I can't wait for it to be over. I'm so angry about all of the stupid that I've been barraged with this year, that whenever someone says something totally mean/stupid/fucked up on any subject, instead of going "meh, they're just mean/stupid/a terrible person" and moving on with life, I feel the need to get angry about it and say something. Thus my more active participation in the forums lately. So I apologize to the people inconvenienced by the large number of posts to scroll through.
Anyway, I have a serious question stemming from the flamewar before the current healthcare one... What do you guys think about the sex offender registry? You know, whenever someone commits a sex crime, they have to be a registered sex offender, mainly to alert communities when they move there so parents can be aware, etc. etc. I am really curious what muppet thinks of this.
Man this election stuff is really getting to me, I can't wait for it to be over. I'm so angry about all of the stupid that I've been barraged with this year, that whenever someone says something totally mean/stupid/fucked up on any subject, instead of going "meh, they're just mean/stupid/a terrible person" and moving on with life, I feel the need to get angry about it and say something. Thus my more active participation in the forums lately. So I apologize to the people inconvenienced by the large number of posts to scroll through.
Anyway, I have a serious question stemming from the flamewar before the current healthcare one... What do you guys think about the sex offender registry? You know, whenever someone commits a sex crime, they have to be a registered sex offender, mainly to alert communities when they move there so parents can be aware, etc. etc. I am really curious what muppet thinks of this.
I think that it needs better gatekeepers and that the definition of sex offender needs some serious review so that public urinators aren't on the list, but altogether I think it's an unfortunate but necessary and useful tool.
Part of the reason it's different than doxxing is the presentation. It's out there to be used if you need it. I've looked at my local registry, because I have two daughters, and I know that there are quite a few registrants living right nearby. I take this into account in my parenting decisions, but honestly I'd likely be just as diligent about supervising my kids even if I had no prior knowledge of those people. What the registry does NOT do is make a media sensation of each offender and incite vigilante action against them in the way that doxxing does.
Man this election stuff is really getting to me, I can't wait for it to be over. I'm so angry about all of the stupid that I've been barraged with this year, that whenever someone says something totally mean/stupid/fucked up on any subject, instead of going "meh, they're just mean/stupid/a terrible person" and moving on with life, I feel the need to get angry about it and say something. Thus my more active participation in the forums lately. So I apologize to the people inconvenienced by the large number of posts to scroll through.
Anyway, I have a serious question stemming from the flamewar before the current healthcare one... What do you guys think about the sex offender registry? You know, whenever someone commits a sex crime, they have to be a registered sex offender, mainly to alert communities when they move there so parents can be aware, etc. etc. I am really curious what muppet thinks of this.
I think that it needs better gatekeepers and that the definition of sex offender needs some serious review so that public urinators aren't on the list, but altogether I think it's an unfortunate but necessary and useful tool.
I completely agree. I think statutory rape is total BS (unless the age gap is truly significant enough or that the girl was too young to be competant). I feel sorry for the 18 yr old guys that are now sex offenders for sleeping with their 16 yr old girlfriends.
Anyway, I brought this up because the violenacruz(sp?) situation reminded me of it. Whats happening to him is that he's been identified similarly as one would be on the sex offender registry. Those people are targeted by angry parents, fired from their jobs/can't ever get a good job again, and harassed (even violently) as well. Violentacruz is just experiencing the temporary internet backlash, so its unique in that respect. So for the people that think its wrong that violentacruz was identified, is it also not okay that sex offenders are being identified? (Which is something that is the law.) Would you seriously not want to know that a pedophile was living next door?
I'm asking this because this is what Emily was talking about in her posts. That its okay that a person like violentacruz was outed, that people need to know about his creeper ways to protect themselves. Violence is not okay, but identifying is a necessary thing. (Going to lunch, sorry if I don't respond in awhile)
but altogether I think it's an unfortunate but necessary and useful tool.
Does it actually work, though? Where's the evidence?
For one thing, there are a couple of studies that cast doubt on the effectiveness of such registries.
Nonetheless, I do agree that specifically bringing down media attention onto someone is very different to (and much more harmful than) simply making that information available.
I somewhat wonder about both the broadness and specificity of the whole sex offender registry. I would want to know if I live near a meth lab, violent criminals, bike thieves, or whatever just as much. And at the same time, I wouldn't paint a rapist, a pedophile, "statutory rape", and public urination as a single related category.
So for the people that think its wrong that violentacruz was identified, is it also not okay that sex offenders are being identified? (Which is something that is the law.) Would you seriously not want to know that a pedophile was living next door?)
For the however-many-th time, I'm not saying that was or was not wrong. I'm saying that it was unethical, specifically going by the ethical codes of journalism, for Adrian Chen to act as he did, and to put the article out in the form it was published. If someone else dished the info, that's a different story - if they're not acting in the capacity of a Professional Journalist, then I've not got much to say about it. Kind of a dick move, sure, but it would be in that case just a private citizen exercising their first amendment rights, which is a different case ethically and legally from a Journalist acting in a professional capacity.
However, there is one other thing: that the law to which you refer only refers to convicted sex offenders, as far as I'm aware, meaning it's not relevant at best, and a red herring at worst - since at this time, regardless of one's personal opinion on his actions, he's not been convicted of any crime, sexual or otherwise, by any court but the court of public opinion, which thankfully is not actually a court of law.
The reason that sex offenders are different than bike thieves and armed robbers is that the recidivism of sex offenders is generally much higher than for most other types of offenders.
The reason that sex offenders are different than bike thieves and armed robbers is that the recidivism of sex offenders is generally much higher than for most other types of offenders.
False (see p8 in particular). The reason that sex offenders are different is that they evoke much greater emotional reactions, and consequently there is significant legislative pressure for harsher and harsher legislation without sufficient consideration of how effective such legislation actually is.
The reason that sex offenders are different than bike thieves and armed robbers is that the recidivism of sex offenders is generally much higher than for most other types of offenders.
So there are no crimes with equal or higher rates of recidivism?
The reason that sex offenders are different than bike thieves and armed robbers is that the recidivism of sex offenders is generally much higher than for most other types of offenders.
False. The reason that sex offenders are different is that they evoke much greater emotional reactions, and consequently there is significant legislative pressure for harsher and harsher legislation without sufficient consideration of how effective such legislation actually is.
Huh, so sort of like the drug laws in response to the "crack epidemic" of the late 80's and early 90's, then?
Sex offenders 4 times as likely to be rearrested for similar crimes as non sex offenders.
I'm not sure about your PDF. Maybe one issue is the definition of sex offender, but I haven't read the whole thing yet.
The issue this raises for me, regardless of the relative recidivism for other offenses, is that a convicted child molester is far more likely to molest a child after his release from prison than his neighbor who is not a convicted child molester. That's something worth knowing since children are not generally equipped to defend themselves and prone to trust the authority of an adult regardless of coaching by their parents, at least to a certain age. While emotion is certainly a factor, there is some value, I think, in not being kept in the dark about an increased risk of molestation in your neighborhood based on the prior history of some of the neighbors.
I disagree with an awful lot of "For the children!!" legislation like NCLB, lock down drills in schools, illogical statutory rape limits (18 year old with 16 year old gf), but registering child molesters is something I can get behind.
Sex offender registries are mostly a bullshit extension of tough on crime policies, and they usually don't help anyone. If a person is such a danger that you have to keep them on a registry, they should probably still be in prison. Of course you'd need to have a prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than stacking ever-greater punishment on people to get votes by being "tough on crime"...
Comments
"Oh hey let's tell everybody they gotta provide healthcare to their full-time employees."
"Yeah now they're just making all employees part-time."
"Tell them they can't have part time employees!"
"They're moving overseas now."
"High tarrifs!"
"Businesses are being disbanded."
"Tell them they HAVE to stay in business!"
VA(Under the new reddit handle Mbrutsch) has apparently:
- Lost his job and health insurance.
- Is being threatened pretty much 24/7, not including people who are openly threatening him on Reddit.
- His house has apparently been attacked repeatedly.
- In response to a question of Andrew's, he gives a comprehensive list of what Chen/Gawker got wrong or exaggerated. (Including - he never posted any photos to /r/creepshots, and was there to remove illegal content, keep the community in line, and carry out any takedown requests)
- Gawker's Adrian Chen has taken to Reddit, attempting to Defend himself. It's not really working, since basically the only place on reddit that's terribly fond of him right now is SRS.
- He points out that chen allegedly said that destroying his life was his intention, and that he will be attempting to retreive those chat logs.
- Another Gawker employee has also taken to reddit, defending Gawker's habit of posting images taken of people(particularly women) while they're unaware, plenty of upskirt shots, as well as posting nude shots, sex tapes and the like which people have obtained through less than legal means, from unaware subjects. So, basically, Gawker being worse than /r/creepshots.
-SRS has confirmed (for what that's worth, considering their reputation) that Doxxing VA was their doing, and is openly bragging about it, despite reddit's usually strictly enforced no-personal-information rule. Admins are being questioned about why SRS hasn't been warned or punished, despite having done this multiple times.
- It was also "confirmed" by some SRS users that the people behind some of the worst of /r/jailbait and /r/creepshots was... SRS. They'd post the worst they could find, log out, log into their regular accounts, take screenshots and then report it to the Admins and mods.
And that's your complete drama update. That's the great thing about our system. YOU CAN! If you want private healthcare...you can go get private healthcare, and you're covered by that instead of Medicare. And if you can't afford private healthcare, the government has you covered till you can buy the private healthcare you want.
So, basically, it not only gives you what you proclaim you want, but also covers those who cannot afford private healthcare. Oh, and the system is pretty stable, and works reasonably well - so no destroying the country, no mass bankruptcy, no welfare state as the statist parasites drain the working man of the sweat from his brow, etc, etc.
Uninformed people have a right to vote, and they should have that right, because the alternative is far, far worse.
The appropriate response to such is to keep your own discussion informed and intelligent. This includes not painting anyone who disagrees with you as someone who believes that "the government is the answer to everything".
Oh wait that never happened.
I don't understand why people think the government doesn't help them out. They use government infrastructure all the time! Not only that, people are able to succeed more readily in a stable democracy than they would be, in, say, Somalia. I'd like to see these anarchists get dropped somewhere where there was no government oversight and suddenly the realize how much the government actually did for them.
Also, you are not "doing it on your own." Seriously, I don't get these low income tea party people who are like "I'm going to pull myself up by my bootstraps and be rich as Romney!" If they are poor, they are probably going to have to rely on public school, grants for college, grants for starting up their business. It's not like the average anti-taxes guy who makes 12K a year is rolling in money to invest in the stock market. Raising the capital gains tax, for example, does not affect them in the least.
Remember Deepwater Horizon? Wasn't it one of something like 35,000 wells that fell under the responsibility of like, 50 inspectors? I think the most recent inspection had been by a dude who had never inspected a well outside of training in his life. Why start him on an unusually deep and risky well? There are tons of WTFs in that story.
By the way a huge amount of oil is still there.
Anyway, I have a serious question stemming from the flamewar before the current healthcare one... What do you guys think about the sex offender registry? You know, whenever someone commits a sex crime, they have to be a registered sex offender, mainly to alert communities when they move there so parents can be aware, etc. etc. I am really curious what muppet thinks of this.
The importance of anonymity in a free society.
Part of the reason it's different than doxxing is the presentation. It's out there to be used if you need it. I've looked at my local registry, because I have two daughters, and I know that there are quite a few registrants living right nearby. I take this into account in my parenting decisions, but honestly I'd likely be just as diligent about supervising my kids even if I had no prior knowledge of those people. What the registry does NOT do is make a media sensation of each offender and incite vigilante action against them in the way that doxxing does.
Anyway, I brought this up because the violenacruz(sp?) situation reminded me of it. Whats happening to him is that he's been identified similarly as one would be on the sex offender registry. Those people are targeted by angry parents, fired from their jobs/can't ever get a good job again, and harassed (even violently) as well. Violentacruz is just experiencing the temporary internet backlash, so its unique in that respect. So for the people that think its wrong that violentacruz was identified, is it also not okay that sex offenders are being identified? (Which is something that is the law.) Would you seriously not want to know that a pedophile was living next door?
I'm asking this because this is what Emily was talking about in her posts. That its okay that a person like violentacruz was outed, that people need to know about his creeper ways to protect themselves. Violence is not okay, but identifying is a necessary thing. (Going to lunch, sorry if I don't respond in awhile)
For one thing, there are a couple of studies that cast doubt on the effectiveness of such registries.
Nonetheless, I do agree that specifically bringing down media attention onto someone is very different to (and much more harmful than) simply making that information available.
However, there is one other thing: that the law to which you refer only refers to convicted sex offenders, as far as I'm aware, meaning it's not relevant at best, and a red herring at worst - since at this time, regardless of one's personal opinion on his actions, he's not been convicted of any crime, sexual or otherwise, by any court but the court of public opinion, which thankfully is not actually a court of law.
Also, what Churba said.
Sex offenders 4 times as likely to be rearrested for similar crimes as non sex offenders.
I'm not sure about your PDF. Maybe one issue is the definition of sex offender, but I haven't read the whole thing yet.
The issue this raises for me, regardless of the relative recidivism for other offenses, is that a convicted child molester is far more likely to molest a child after his release from prison than his neighbor who is not a convicted child molester. That's something worth knowing since children are not generally equipped to defend themselves and prone to trust the authority of an adult regardless of coaching by their parents, at least to a certain age. While emotion is certainly a factor, there is some value, I think, in not being kept in the dark about an increased risk of molestation in your neighborhood based on the prior history of some of the neighbors.
I disagree with an awful lot of "For the children!!" legislation like NCLB, lock down drills in schools, illogical statutory rape limits (18 year old with 16 year old gf), but registering child molesters is something I can get behind.