MS, Apple, Blizzard, EA, WB and Disney ban all NY sex offenders

[Don Savik]

Non-smokers aren't assaulting you, they are defending themselves. Their right to not breathe in nasty shit trumps your right to breathe nasty shit because you have NO right to inflict it upon others. Seriously, that actually falls under assault.

Slightly off topic. I don't smoke, but to that I always say "Why don't we crack down on car owners too? I don't want to have to breathe in their exhaust fumes when I walk to work. They're just as toxic and they have just as much right to pollute my lungs as smokers do."

Except people don't leave their cars running inside office buildings and public restaurants.

 

[Epona]

Apparently the rights of the anti-smokers to swing their fist doesn't end at the smokers nose.

You're really reaching to try and find a counter argument. It's kind of ridiculous.

You don't see it? Smokers can't invade the space of anti-smokers but anti-smokers can have smokers kicked from every public place. Even though public places are paid for by tax payers, which smokers are. Smokers even pay more taxes than anti-smokers. See there's a word for that, discrimination. No worries though, it's ok to discriminate against certain groups. Isn't that right?

It not discrimination, your allowed there, just not to smoke there, similarly your not allowed to be loud in a library or drink in certain areas, most areas also require you to be clothed.

Thats not recrimination because you are still allowed to be there, just not while smoking. And before you question it, no you don't have the right to smoke everywhere, just like mr nudist doesn't have the right to wave his wang in your face.

You list things that aren't discriminatory BECAUSE they apply to everyone. Everyone drinks, wears clothes and is capable of being loud. Smoking is something that applies only to a specific group. How do you feel about smokers getting charged extra taxes while not getting representation in public places?

 

[Vegosiux]

Well because unless your intent to walk on highways (good luck with that) it is possible to avoid a great deal of that pollution, and whats causing that pollution is something more worthwhile than somebody needing their fix.

Really? In a city? You know, just keeping 100 meters distance to the nearest street won't do much because gases have this way of spreading rather quickly. And yes, I'm sure it's worthwole to be lazy fuck and drive around in a city centre instead of parking a ways out and using something less toxic as transportation.

But we're getting off topic here. I'm not against smoke-free restaurants etc., just saying that there's an elephant in the room everybody ignores because it's more convenient to.

I am also really off topic, so my apologies, I will shut up now.

 

[Don Savik]

Well because unless your intent to walk on highways (good luck with that) it is possible to avoid a great deal of that pollution, and whats causing that pollution is something more worthwhile than somebody needing their fix.

Really? In a city? You know, just keeping 100 meters distance to the nearest street won't do much because gases have this way of spreading rather quickly. And yes, I'm sure it's worthwole to be lazy fuck and drive around in a city centre instead of parking a ways out and using something less toxic as transportation.

But we're getting off topic here. I'm not against smoke-free restaurants etc., just saying that there's an elephant in the room everybody ignores because it's more convenient to.

I am also really off topic, so my apologies, I will shut up now.

Yea I don't have many experiences in big cities with pollution so I can't speak from that angle.

Also, I didn't say that. Bahamut did, so please be careful next time quoting someone so you don't accidently put words in other people's mouths.

 

[distortedreality]

There are already more than enough downsides to a Sex Offender Register - this is just another of those (albeit a smaller one than others).

Think it's pretty ridiculous personally, and I find it ridiculous that it's allowed to happen. So much for the land of the free I guess.

 

[Epona]

There are already more than enough downsides to a Sex Offender Register - this is just another of those (albeit a smaller one than others).

Think it's pretty ridiculous personally, and I find it ridiculous that it's allowed to happen. So much for the land of the free I guess.

In the Land of the Free we have more people imprisoned than other first world country and we are quickly becoming a police state.

 

[Storm Dragon]

I get that Ads pay the bills for the site, and that I can eliminate them by buying into their exclusive little club...but I'll be damned if I'm spending 20 bucks on a website that's already exceedingly difficult for me to access on high-traffic days, or when my own internet decides it's going to be squiffy (as it is now).

As a deterrent for bots: I don't see how these fucking things are supposed to work when they're this consistent. Randomization is why they work; otherwise you just write a little parser program for your spambot and off you go (until the inevitable ban anyway).

Just in case you're wondering, I am done with this for now, I gotta cool off. That's why I am not answering the rest of your post.

However, to the quoted part. The Captchas were supposed to be to weed out bots and spammers, not to pay the bills. I have always held out hope that they would eventually take the advice of me and other posters and remove the captchas for accounts in good standing. After all, how many times must we prove we are straight shooters? With the advertising dollars added in now, I know that will never happen.

You gotta admit, though, it's a clever way to make people pay attention to the ads.

 

[Epona]

I get that Ads pay the bills for the site, and that I can eliminate them by buying into their exclusive little club...but I'll be damned if I'm spending 20 bucks on a website that's already exceedingly difficult for me to access on high-traffic days, or when my own internet decides it's going to be squiffy (as it is now).

As a deterrent for bots: I don't see how these fucking things are supposed to work when they're this consistent. Randomization is why they work; otherwise you just write a little parser program for your spambot and off you go (until the inevitable ban anyway).

Just in case you're wondering, I am done with this for now, I gotta cool off. That's why I am not answering the rest of your post.

However, to the quoted part. The Captchas were supposed to be to weed out bots and spammers, not to pay the bills. I have always held out hope that they would eventually take the advice of me and other posters and remove the captchas for accounts in good standing. After all, how many times must we prove we are straight shooters? With the advertising dollars added in now, I know that will never happen.

You gotta admit, though, it's a clever way to make people pay attention to the ads.

I don't think clever is the word I would use for it. Manipulative maybe? Really, what other forum requires you to type slogans to post?

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Contraversial view: If sex offenders could more easily access stuff on the web, wouldn't they be less likely to offend in real life?

 

[Epona]

Apparently the rights of the anti-smokers to swing their fist doesn't end at the smokers nose.

You're really reaching to try and find a counter argument. It's kind of ridiculous.

You don't see it? Smokers can't invade the space of anti-smokers but anti-smokers can have smokers kicked from every public place. Even though public places are paid for by tax payers, which smokers are. Smokers even pay more taxes than anti-smokers. See there's a word for that, discrimination. No worries though, it's ok to discriminate against certain groups. Isn't that right?

It not discrimination, your allowed there, just not to smoke there, similarly your not allowed to be loud in a library or drink in certain areas, most areas also require you to be clothed.

Thats not recrimination because you are still allowed to be there, just not while smoking. And before you question it, no you don't have the right to smoke everywhere, just like mr nudist doesn't have the right to wave his wang in your face.

You list things that aren't discriminatory BECAUSE they apply to everyone. Everyone drinks, wears clothes and is capable of being loud. Smoking is something that applies only to a specific group. How do you feel about smokers getting charged extra taxes while not getting representation in public places?

but you do get representation in public places, just not whilst smoking?
personal rights extend to the point where they harm other people. If i make too much noise at a house party my neighbours fully have the right to call the cops to get us to shut the f up.

But maybe thats getting to close to socialism xD

I give up. What other groups do you hate?

 

[distortedreality]

Contraversial view: If sex offenders could more easily access stuff on the web, wouldn't they be less likely to offend in real life?

Fapping doesn't stop me fucking my girlfriend.

Don't think your plan would work dude.

 

[Epona]

Contraversial view: If sex offenders could more easily access stuff on the web, wouldn't they be less likely to offend in real life?

I don't know, probably. Thing is, preventing sex offenders from gaming (or atleast multiplayer gaming) just gives them more time to go out on the prowl if they get bored.

This is all just politicians trying to get political points, it isn't about helping the kids. I find it disgusting the way politicians do business, wish we could keep them away from kids.

 

[Storm Dragon]

I get that Ads pay the bills for the site, and that I can eliminate them by buying into their exclusive little club...but I'll be damned if I'm spending 20 bucks on a website that's already exceedingly difficult for me to access on high-traffic days, or when my own internet decides it's going to be squiffy (as it is now).

As a deterrent for bots: I don't see how these fucking things are supposed to work when they're this consistent. Randomization is why they work; otherwise you just write a little parser program for your spambot and off you go (until the inevitable ban anyway).

Just in case you're wondering, I am done with this for now, I gotta cool off. That's why I am not answering the rest of your post.

However, to the quoted part. The Captchas were supposed to be to weed out bots and spammers, not to pay the bills. I have always held out hope that they would eventually take the advice of me and other posters and remove the captchas for accounts in good standing. After all, how many times must we prove we are straight shooters? With the advertising dollars added in now, I know that will never happen.

You gotta admit, though, it's a clever way to make people pay attention to the ads.

I don't think clever is the word I would use for it. Manipulative maybe? Really, what other forum requires you to type slogans to post?

Never said I liked it, I'm sick of typing "The all-new Chevy Sonic". But this certainly makes sure that you can't ignore the ads.

 

[distortedreality]

personal rights extend to the point where they harm other people.

What about allergies (which are becoming more serious and prevalent)?

Someone carrying a bouquet of flowers around can do a lot more damage than a person smoking a cigarette. Should we have flower free zones where people with flowers aren't allowed to go?

 

[Epona]

I get that Ads pay the bills for the site, and that I can eliminate them by buying into their exclusive little club...but I'll be damned if I'm spending 20 bucks on a website that's already exceedingly difficult for me to access on high-traffic days, or when my own internet decides it's going to be squiffy (as it is now).

As a deterrent for bots: I don't see how these fucking things are supposed to work when they're this consistent. Randomization is why they work; otherwise you just write a little parser program for your spambot and off you go (until the inevitable ban anyway).

Just in case you're wondering, I am done with this for now, I gotta cool off. That's why I am not answering the rest of your post.

However, to the quoted part. The Captchas were supposed to be to weed out bots and spammers, not to pay the bills. I have always held out hope that they would eventually take the advice of me and other posters and remove the captchas for accounts in good standing. After all, how many times must we prove we are straight shooters? With the advertising dollars added in now, I know that will never happen.

You gotta admit, though, it's a clever way to make people pay attention to the ads.

I don't think clever is the word I would use for it. Manipulative maybe? Really, what other forum requires you to type slogans to post?

Never said I liked it, I'm sick of typing "The all-new Chevy Sonic". But this certainly makes sure that you can't ignore the ads.

Eventually it may make sure that you spend more time posting on NeoGaf instead.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Contraversial view: If sex offenders could more easily access stuff on the web, wouldn't they be less likely to offend in real life?

Fapping doesn't stop me fucking my girlfriend.

Don't think your plan would work dude.

The difference being that fucking your girlfriend isn't illegal, we should work on the basis that most people are good people, and thus don't to break the law.
If we are talking about pedophiles here then it is not something that they can control, they didn't decide to become a pedophile, and are probably a good person. Thus they don't want to break the law.

Providing an avenue to allow them to release could help society as a whole. the red light district of amsterdam has an area with prostitutes who look like underage girls, this is, in my opinion, a service to society.

 

[jpoon]

This is more than likely unconstitutional, and pointless. Politics are such a waste of time and money, here's yet another example.

personal rights extend to the point where they harm other people.

What about allergies (which are becoming more serious and prevalent)?

Someone carrying a bouquet of flowers around can do a lot more damage than a person smoking a cigarette. Should we have flower free zones where people with flowers aren't allowed to go?

This is exactly where I see america going in the future, watch out your neighborhood could be filled with dangerous flower-potters! Call the authorities they're probably allied with Al-CIAda!

 

[distortedreality]

Contraversial view: If sex offenders could more easily access stuff on the web, wouldn't they be less likely to offend in real life?

Fapping doesn't stop me fucking my girlfriend.

Don't think your plan would work dude.

The difference being that fucking your girlfriend isn't illegal

I honestly don't see what legality has to do with the question initially raised and my answer to it. We're talking about a sexual disorder/addiction/whatever your definition may be. It's not defined by it's illegality, it's defined by what it is specifically (i.e paedophilia, beastiality, rape etc).

When speaking in those terms, you're talking about a specific act that can be compared to a similar act. The fact that it's illegal is besides the point, at least in regards to the question asked.

Regarding the rest of your post, it's definitely an avenue worth discussing and looking at. Just don't expect to see it in mainstream western society in our lifetime lol. I don't necessarily think it's an answer (but I don't think it's something that can be stopped either), but is definitely worth discussion.