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

[ElPatron]

After all, is it really so hard to walk away from someone smoking outside? That used to be the norm.

How about when I am standing outside in a line to get tickets to whatever, and I start smoking right there, forcing pregnant ladies to walk away while I rejoice for not having such a long line.

Seriously, I can make smoke grenades and stroll around in the street. I doubt that people have the obligation to step away from my column of smoke.

Really, how many smokers blow smoke in other peoples faces?

Almost nobody, but that doesn't mean the smoke doesn't follow the wind.

Look, I ain't got nothing against smokers. Shit, here comes the "some of my best friends are X" argument. But if I am standing in the smoke, it's because I rarely get second hand smoke and hand-rolled cigarettes don't have enough tarmac to pave an airstrip.

I recognize that there are a lot of Smoke Nazis. But smoking pollutes. And not everyone is able to dodge smoke. If you're alone at a bus stop, be my guest.

 

[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.

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.

No. "I can't help myself" may sound like a good defense but I don't buy it. I am attracted to women but I can do without it if I have to. There is no addiction there. If I were a sex criminal, I imagine it would be the same. The difference between normal people and sex criminals is that what sex criminals prefer is illegal where as what normal people prefer isn't illegal.

You know what's always interested me, that what we call pedophilia today was normal in past civilizations. Now there are reasons why girls got married young in past civilizations, that isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is that men were interested in younger girls then too and it was seen as normal. Think about it. Today we say that pedophiles are mentally sick, does that mean that most men in the past were mentally sick?

 

[Epona]

After all, is it really so hard to walk away from someone smoking outside? That used to be the norm.

How about when I am standing outside in a line to get tickets to whatever, and I start smoking right there, forcing pregnant ladies to walk away while I rejoice for not having such a long line.

Seriously, I can make smoke grenades and stroll around in the street. I doubt that people have the obligation to step away from my column of smoke.

Really, how many smokers blow smoke in other peoples faces?

Almost nobody, but that doesn't mean the smoke doesn't follow the wind.

Look, I ain't got nothing against smokers. Shit, here comes the "some of my best friends are X" argument. But if I am standing in the smoke, it's because I rarely get second hand smoke and hand-rolled cigarettes don't have enough tarmac to pave an airstrip.

I recognize that there are a lot of Smoke Nazis. But smoking pollutes. And not everyone is able to dodge smoke. If you're alone at a bus stop, be my guest.

If you are at a bus stop, cigarette smoke is the least of your concerns because the bus exhaust is the equivalent of many many cigarettes. You can't blame smokers for the wind, no one controls that. If it's the wind and not the smokers, calling the smokers rude and inconsiderate (as many people do, not you) is wrong. Ticket lines are unique, people really can't move, then again, neither can smokers. If you want to camp out at an arena, expect that some people are going to do things you don't like. Smoking, littering, screaming, etc... In short lines, smokers should wait or ask the people around them if they mind. You would be surprised how many people don't mind if you simply ask.

Smoke pollutes but alot of things pollute so unless you are ok with banning everything that pollutes as bad or worse than cigarettes, that argument doesn't work.

 

[zumbledum]

AHH good ol kotarku , who needs journalistic integrity when you can just nerdbate the hits?

 

[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.

No. "I can't help myself" may sound like a good defense but I don't buy it. I am attracted to women but I can do without it if I have to. There is no addiction there. If I were a sex criminal, I imagine it would be the same. The difference between normal people and sex criminals is that what sex criminals prefer is illegal where as what normal people prefer isn't illegal.

You know what's always interested me, that what we call pedophilia today was normal in past civilizations. Now there are reasons why girls got married young in past civilizations, that isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is that men were interested in younger girls then too and it was seen as normal. Think about it.

First para - completely disagree but not really worth arguing.

Second para - I guess it's even more interesting when you consider the fact that there are still plenty of societies around today that are exactly as you described. But i'm guessing you're arguing that because something was a social norm at some point (or is now) that there can't be a legit mental disorder involved in it's proliferation today?

You've got to understand that there is a MASSIVE difference between someone who is simply attracted to loli and one who chases actual physical loli in the face of all obvious and known consequences. Addiction or not - there is something there that can't simply be explained by a rejection of social norms, it's not just that society has changed to not accept that as normal.

 

[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.

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.

No. "I can't help myself" may sound like a good defense but I don't buy it. I am attracted to women but I can do without it if I have to. There is no addiction there. If I were a sex criminal, I imagine it would be the same. The difference between normal people and sex criminals is that what sex criminals prefer is illegal where as what normal people prefer isn't illegal.

You know what's always interested me, that what we call pedophilia today was normal in past civilizations. Now there are reasons why girls got married young in past civilizations, that isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is that men were interested in younger girls then too and it was seen as normal. Think about it.

First para - completely disagree but not really worth arguing.

Second para - I guess it's even more interesting when you consider the fact that there are still plenty of societies around today that are exactly as you described. But i'm guessing you're arguing that because something was a social norm at some point (or is now) that there can't be a legit mental disorder involved in it's proliferation today?

You've got to understand that there is a MASSIVE difference between someone who is simply attracted to loli and one who chases actual physical loli in the face of all obvious and known consequences. Addiction or not - there is something there that can't simply be explained by a rejection of social norms, it's not just that society has changed to not accept that as normal.

I think that society defines what is and is not normal and that changes from society to society. It muddies the water between mentally sick behavior and what is simply unacceptable sexual preferences.

Pedophiles in our society would be normal in another society. I just think that's interesting and I think that calling something an addiction just because it is outside the norm is questionable. People do all kinds of illegal things even though they are aware of the consequences but we don't say that murderers are addicted to killing or that thieves are addicted to stealing. We say that they made a choice and it was an illegal one.

 

[ElPatron]

If you are at a bus stop, cigarette smoke is the least of your concerns because the bus exhaust is the equivalent of many many cigarettes.

Okay I don't know how things work in your country but where I live the bus stops in a way that ensures that the exhaust fumes do not hit the smokers.

You can't blame smokers for the wind, no one controls that. If it's the wind and not the smokers, calling the smokers rude and inconsiderate (as many people do, not you) is wrong.

Okay, I am not sure how your argument holds any water.

If I fart and the scent goes right in your face, I am being inconsiderate. I can't control the wind, but then again I shouldn't be farting in the wind either.

If you piss against the wind and soak your shoes, who's at fault? Not the wind, you can't control it... But you are not considering it.

If smokers are considerate, they take wind into account. Snipers can't exactly put the blame on the wind. They can't be inconsiderate about it.

Smoke pollutes but alot of things pollute so unless you are ok with banning everything that pollutes as bad or worse than cigarettes, that argument doesn't work.

Okay I like that argument because it reminds me of Great Britain. They had to ban everything that hurts people, which leads to hilarious situations like a 14 year old girl not being able to buy a Glee school set.

Never said I wanted smoking banned. The fact is, a day of people smoking outside is responsible for as much pollution as a day of cars passing by.

 

[Epona]

If you are at a bus stop, cigarette smoke is the least of your concerns because the bus exhaust is the equivalent of many many cigarettes.

Okay I don't know how things work in your country but where I live the bus stops in a way that ensures that the exhaust fumes do not hit the smokers.

You can't blame smokers for the wind, no one controls that. If it's the wind and not the smokers, calling the smokers rude and inconsiderate (as many people do, not you) is wrong.

Okay, I am not sure how your argument holds any water.

If I fart and the scent goes right in your face, I am being inconsiderate. I can't control the wind, but then again I shouldn't be farting in the wind either.

If you piss against the wind and soak your shoes, who's at fault? Not the wind, you can't control it... But you are not considering it.

If smokers are considerate, they take wind into account. Snipers can't exactly put the blame on the wind. They can't be inconsiderate about it.

Smoke pollutes but alot of things pollute so unless you are ok with banning everything that pollutes as bad or worse than cigarettes, that argument doesn't work.

Okay I like that argument because it reminds me of Great Britain. They had to ban everything that hurts people, which leads to hilarious situations like a 14 year old girl not being able to buy a Glee school set.

Never said I wanted smoking banned. The fact is, a day of people smoking outside is responsible for as much pollution as a day of cars passing by.

Oh so wind blows cigarette smoke but not exhaust smoke?

You're gonna have to provide proof that smokers are responsible for as much pollution as cars.

 

[ElPatron]

Oh so wind blows cigarette smoke but not exhaust smoke?

We buy buses from Germany. I assume it's because of Glorious German Engineering, the things spit smoke downwards and our bus stops have plexiglass or whatever. Shit is hot during the summer, and doesn't really cover your from rain, but it sure does protect people from exhaust smoke.

Downside is that if you smoke, your smoke gets trapped inside it because it's like smoking indoors.

You're gonna have to provide proof that smokers are responsible for as much pollution as cars.

Trying to find sauce. But NYC banned smoking from so many places I can't track back the study.

Premise was banning smoking in a street and compare pollution levels. Dropped 50%.

 

[Epona]

Ok look, it's Easter Sunday and I am heading out to celebrate. We'll have to pick this up later. Have a great Easter everyone.

I guess you're have to type "Little Ceasers" in all caps.

 

[Zeckt]

On the other hand when it comes to sex crimes, I believe - obviously this meaning what follows is opinion - that you can never be fully rehabilitated. You'll always have the urges to be naughty with people/things you shouldn't be naughty with.

Considering that being drunk and taking a piss in public (i.e., a common youthful indiscretion) is a sex crime in America, I think this is taking it a little too far.

Especially when they make it so damn hard to go to the bathroom. What the hell do they EXPECT you to do after leaving a bar with NO PUBLIC WASHROOMS!?

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Right, in the same way I can swing my fists around, but if I do it in a public place, I'll get the cops called on me.

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.

I do like the precedent that taxpayers can violate others solely because they're taxpayers, though. I'll remember that the next time I'm doing 90 in a 25 MPH zone and the cops DARE stop me.

1) I don't smoke

2) Trying to talk sense into a hater is pointless

3) Don't deny 2, you hate smokers and don't see the hypocrisy of calling smoking assault while not caring what contaminants cars and factories put in the air.

1) "You" can mean one person or a general sense. I was using the latter.

2) Calling me a "hater" is a cop out.

3) See, you're assuming I'm okay with all those things in order to call me a hypocrite.

Additionally, I don't hate smokers. I just don't see them as having their rights stripped away in the histrionic fashion you do. They cannot smoke in public places. that's not a rights violation. It's lovely that you are trying to shift away from that and pretend I am somehow a "hater," but that's just ignorance.

It's also a lot harder to get exposed to car fumes unless you're trying to. It's not that much to ask for smokers not to smoke indoors around people, for example. But I'm pretty sure you'll take that as me being pro-car emissions, which I'm not. Wel, except in your convenient fantasy world.

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."

While, as I said above, I am not pro-car emissions, it is flat out false that exhaust fumes are "just as toxic." It's not even close, really. CO emissions are like a tenth, and can range as low as baseline for the environment. More toxins are involved, as well.

So more toxins at higher concentrations=/=just as bad. This seems to be one of those random things passed along the internet like "Nobody ever died from smoking pot."

It's also a false equivalence. And while I'm sure that the people on this website are so logical as to not believe dismissing a false equivalence is endorsing the other side, I've already had one person replying to this same deal who has decided that not condemning another item never mentioned to me meant acceptance and permissiveness on my end, so I'm just going to reiterate that I am not pro-exhaust.

 

[Scow2]

"Operation: Game Over". Heh got a decent chuckle out of that title.

As for do I agree with it? Ehhhhhhhh. I can see what they're protecting against, I agree with what they're wanting to do. But as a conservative I'm against most forms of governmental regulation. On the other hand when it comes to sex crimes, I believe - obviously this meaning what follows is opinion - that you can never be fully rehabilitated. You'll always have the urges to be naughty with people/things you shouldn't be naughty with. And if I had a young child that played on XBox live, I wouldn't want some jackass coming on the mic and asking my kid if he likes going to the gym and watching guys work out, or if he likes professional wrestling, or if he likes movies about gladiators.

Hey, maybe we should just put all the sex offenders on an island then?

They do, in some communities. Sex offenders can't live with in X miles of things like schools/libraries/etc., so occasionally these laws essentially confine all the sex offenders to an island or something.

That's not the same thing and you know it and you totally missed the point. I really fuckin hate how it's ok to persecute certain groups. Sex offenders, smokers, etc...

It's like people in those groups aren't people at all and can have rights removed without backlash. I would say this ban is a civil rights violation.

Fully agreed here.

 

[targren]

And normally a body. Hence "Habeas corpus"....

I think you mean "corpus delicti" (body of crime). "Habeas Corpus" (you have the body) is a writ that orders a prisoner released when they're held on unlawful grounds.

 

[geK0]

Sucks to be that guy who got a statutory rape charge when he was 18 for diddling his 17 year old girlfriend : \

 

[ph0b0s123]

And normally a body. Hence "Habeas corpus"....

I think you mean "corpus delicti" (body of crime). "Habeas Corpus" (you have the body) is a writ that orders a prisoner released when they're held on unlawful grounds.

Thought it is also used as 'show me the body' i.e the evidence. Which made sense in comment I quoted as without a body / evidence there is no crime.

Anyway probably trying and failing to be clever, spot who has been watching too much of the series 'The Firm' recently....

 

[Strazdas]

Considering how easy it is to get on that list (walk past a woman and accidentaly touch her, thats it your on the list of known sex offenders), i think this is one of the worst things gaming industry can do.

 

[Pat8u]

why can't people focus on rehabilibtating sex offenders rather than ruining their lives and driving them to suicide
heh it is kind of ironic though

 

[Nikolaz72]

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?

Smokers actively harm people around them and damage buildings. They dont pay far enough extra taxes to make up for the treatments they have to get later in life, damage they do to other peoples lungs, damage they to to buildings.

One time sex offenders either pee'd in the wrong place. And got a fine. Or served a sentence for rape/molesting which is 'their' punishment. It should end there.