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

[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

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.

I only raise legality because it does influence behaviour, the majority of people will happily remain as law abiding citizens, but in certain circumstances will break the law for their own means, if we know they will do that, we should look for alternatives, the lesser of two evils.

 

[Charli]

Huh that seems... redundant, won't these offenders just abuse other means and still do what they do. Why just cut off their daily distractions to make them more desperate?
Seems... counter productive.

Oh and if Kids are misusing their services I think a world wide ban on anyone under 12 using the damn internet without parental supervision is fine with me. These offenders aren't going to be put off by this. I dunno, it just... feels wrong. It's one of those 'good intentions'. By which it is something underhanded being done in the name of 'what is right'. And that never tastes good to me.

 

[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?

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.

Things being illegal give people pause. I also don't buy this addiction nonsense, are you addicted to adult on adult hetero sex or do you simply enjoy it?

 

[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.

I only raise legality because it does influence behaviour, the majority of people will happily remain as law abiding citizens, but in certain circumstances will break the law for their own means, if we know they will do that, we should look for alternatives, the lesser of two evils.

I'd actually argue that laws make people more likely to break them, but that's a whole different kettle of fish not really related to this discussion at all. You're right in that it definitely influences behavior though.

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?

You would have a point but for the most part flowers are avoidable, i only ever see them on valentines day if im honest.

From someone who catches a lot of public transport, they're not always avoidable - but that's sort of besides the point, as the same could be said about smokers. I'd also assume that there are a lot more flowers in the world than smokers

 

[Epona]

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?

You would have a point but for the most part flowers are avoidable, i only ever see them on valentines day if im honest.

So, then it is possible that people who bring flowers into public places could one day be banned. The current avoid-ability isn't really important. I mean you could avoid cigarette smoke too, just walk away from it. You know it's easier to avoid cigarette smoke than it is to avoid car exhaust.

 

[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?

i never said i hate smokers (i hate selfish smokers, but thats not all smokers, thats the blow in your face assholes which we can all agree is a minority) i just think that its a logical law to have quite simply because you dont NEED to smoke all the time.

I would say that anti-smokers are far more selfish wanting to impose their will on everyone instead of just walking away from where someone is smoking.

 

[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.

Things being illegal give people pause. I also don't buy this addiction nonsense, are you addicted to adult on adult hetero sex or do you simply enjoy it?

You don't think addiction exists?

Laws CAN give people pause - but I think it's a stretch to say that they work universally as a thought provoker. Laws are constantly being broken every day without thought.

captcha - shoulder of Orion. Awesome.

 

[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?

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.

Things being illegal give people pause. I also don't buy this addiction nonsense, are you addicted to adult on adult hetero sex or do you simply enjoy it?

You don't think addiction exists?

Laws CAN give people pause - but I think it's a stretch to say that they work universally as a thought provoker. Laws are constantly being broken every day without thought.

captcha - shoulder of Orion. Awesome.

I don't believe that pedophiles or rapists are addicted to sex.

 

[distortedreality]

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?

i never said i hate smokers (i hate selfish smokers, but thats not all smokers, thats the blow in your face assholes which we can all agree is a minority) i just think that its a logical law to have quite simply because you dont NEED to smoke all the time.

I would say that anti-smokers are far more selfish wanting to impose their will on everyone instead of just walking away from where someone is smoking.

I would say a bit of common sense should prevail when it comes to smokers and non-smokers. But these days that seems like too much to ask. I'm a smoker btw.

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.

Things being illegal give people pause. I also don't buy this addiction nonsense, are you addicted to adult on adult hetero sex or do you simply enjoy it?

You don't think addiction exists?

Laws CAN give people pause - but I think it's a stretch to say that they work universally as a thought provoker. Laws are constantly being broken every day without thought.

captcha - shoulder of Orion. Awesome.

I don't believe that pedophiles or rapists are addicted to sex.

But would you say that paedos and rapists are addicted to their respective vices?

edit - multiquote sigh.

 

[Epona]

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?

You would have a point but for the most part flowers are avoidable, i only ever see them on valentines day if im honest.

So, then it is possible that people who bring flowers into public places could one day be banned. The current avoid-ability isn't really important. I mean you could avoid cigarette smoke too, just walk away from it. You know it's easier to avoid cigarette smoke than it is to avoid car exhaust.

While it is possible for that to be case due to their nature as special occasion items they will never have the everywhere effect that smokers have.

As for your car exhaust thing, maybe in big cities thats the case but in smaller towns the centres are pedestrianised and as such its easy to avoid for me at least, and i think pedestrianising (im surprised these words are working with spellcheck) certain foot travel areas of cities is in the publics best interests.

But that would be my solution to the car problem.

1) There are far more flowers around than there are smokers smoking outside.

2) There are far more cars, even in small towns than there are smokers smoking outside. Car exhaust is far more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Many people commit suicide via car exhaust.

 

[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?

i never said i hate smokers (i hate selfish smokers, but thats not all smokers, thats the blow in your face assholes which we can all agree is a minority) i just think that its a logical law to have quite simply because you dont NEED to smoke all the time.

I would say that anti-smokers are far more selfish wanting to impose their will on everyone instead of just walking away from where someone is smoking.

I would say a bit of common sense should prevail when it comes to smokers and non-smokers. But these days that seems like too much to ask. I'm a smoker btw.

Really, how many smokers blow smoke in other peoples faces? I have NEVER seen a smoker do that to a stranger and when it's done to a friend, it isn't to be mean and usually that friend is also a smoker standing in the smoking area.

This whole "smokers are rude" argument has always struck me as a strawman because in my 25 years of smoking, I never saw it. That battle isn't worth fighting though, let them have their strawman because all I have is anecdotal evidence.

 

[distortedreality]

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?

i never said i hate smokers (i hate selfish smokers, but thats not all smokers, thats the blow in your face assholes which we can all agree is a minority) i just think that its a logical law to have quite simply because you dont NEED to smoke all the time.

I would say that anti-smokers are far more selfish wanting to impose their will on everyone instead of just walking away from where someone is smoking.

I would say a bit of common sense should prevail when it comes to smokers and non-smokers. But these days that seems like too much to ask. I'm a smoker btw.

Really, how many smokers blow smoke in other peoples faces? I have NEVER seen a smoker do that to a stranger and when it's done to a friend, it isn't to be mean and usually that friend is also a smoker standing in the smoking area.

This whole "smokers are rude" argument has always struck me as a strawman because in my 25 years of smoking, I never saw it. That battle isn't worth fighting though, let them have their strawman because all I have is anecdotal evidence.

Agree with the first example - I don't think i've ever seen it (other than rebellious kids maybe).

I guess it would depend on what you say a rude smoker would be though, under my definition i've seen plenty. As a smoker though, I always have to laugh at the person that walks past me while i'm having a smoke who has to have a little cough as they walk past to show their disgust, even though the smoke is blowing in the opposite direction to where they are.

 

[razer17]

Well, what sorts of sex criminals do they mean? I mean, what does a rapist have to do with online gaming? Possibly a paedophile who has previously used the internet to groom kids, I can see why that would be relevant, but do they count someone who once pissed in public, or drunkenly slapped someones ass? Those people are technically sec offenders. but getting them off Xbox Live isn't going to have an effect on their re-offending.

Anyway, this is wrong. Once someone has been to prison, attended their sexual harrasment seminar or whatever, then there punishment is spent. You shouldn't continue to punish them.

 

[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?

i never said i hate smokers (i hate selfish smokers, but thats not all smokers, thats the blow in your face assholes which we can all agree is a minority) i just think that its a logical law to have quite simply because you dont NEED to smoke all the time.

I would say that anti-smokers are far more selfish wanting to impose their will on everyone instead of just walking away from where someone is smoking.

do you know how to read.
You seem to have missed a massive point?
Are you really not even going to acknowledge the reality there are some selfish smokers who act in anti-social ways.

And as much as we can just "walk away" i think the opus of not ruining things should be on the person doing the ruining.

Say i started playing guitar outside your house at 3 in the morning, that would piss you off right. Id be the one doing the ruining and you'd be right to get someone to get rid of me. In your situation you wouldn't have that right.

Stop acting victimised because theres all manner of things people can't do in public places. It sounds like your addiction controls you more than it should if you can't go without out in public spaces.

Apparently you can't read. I have stated more than once that I do not smoke any longer, haven't for three years, I do not have a smoking addiction anymore. I just think that walking away should be the best choice, not banning smokers. After all, is it really so hard to walk away from someone smoking outside? That used to be the norm.

You come to my house and play the guitar at 3 AM (outside) and I will call the cops. However, you come to my house and smoke a cigarette outside at 3 AM, I won't even notice. See how your example fails?

I actually didn't say that there are no anti-social smokers, I haven't seen any myself but I have no doubt that there are things that I have not seen. However, I have seen many selfish anti-smokers who give you the fake cough as they walk by or give you dirty looks or make rude remarks because the air outside belongs exclusively to them or so they believe.