To add to that - clarify - he claims that homelessness is a choice like ALL homeless are choosing to be homeless, that's how they put it. Sorry, wanted to make it clear.
If you read the thread attached to the link about the homeless shelter there's a guy in there claiming to be homeless and owns a laptop. He claims to be a free-range human so he might fall under the mentally ill category as he also claims homelessness is a choice.
Given their propensity to bombing one another into rubble every few generations I'm not surprised at the desire for quick, simple, ruggedized construction.
That is sadly true and I pretty much agree with your views entirely. I actually had the thought that the police departments around the country and, even, the whole planet have a huge collection of kiddy porn. Checksum those bitches and let the creeps have those pictures. Anything new means they get punished. (We can debate the seriousness if you'd like but I suspect we're on the same page.)
This means that all the harm has, pretty much, already been done. Someone's already been punished for them. There's no need to keep punishing people for the same images and this will provide the perverts with a bulky spank bank to keep them busy. They're not seeking to make more, the harm was already done, the controls are easy enough to accomplish, and it lightens the load on the justice system.
Absolutely no chance in hell of this idea going anywhere, zero chance.
I just thought I'd follow up and see how your progress was coming along Pinky. Man, the internet is the one place you can be perfectly honest and, instead, you opted to tell lies. I'm disappointed.
The thinking is likely that the image is made because there is a market for it. It may not be a market backed financially but one of pride and ability to exchange images. The potential for harm is in the image being available too I guess, never knowing if the image is going to be seen (or was seen) by people you meet, want to date, you kids, and shit like that. I suppose the thinking is that it is protecting them by punishing those who'd make use of child pornography.
The reason I say "suppose" is, simply, I don't really know. All I can do is guess. If I were Ruler of the Universe things would be different. Much different. I haven't actually thought about how these laws would be different but, rest assured, they would be different starting with, at least, images drawn or rendered out of an artist's imagination would not be illegal even if they were pornographic in nature. I haven't really thought about what else I'd change but nobody is going to elect me as Ruler so it is a moot point.
I take part of that back - you're quoting the article. Double check the article, it appears that they're lying. Google "illness caused by hospitals study" and read a few of the links. Sorry for thinking you pulled it out of your ass. The rest applies.
you're more likely to be ill leaving the hospital than entering it
A quick Google suggests you're being dishonest. So, yeah, citation needed.
Why are you lying? If you have to lie to prove your point (which is sad because you were on the right side) then your point isn't worth making. If you have to resort to lies then you shouldn't do it online where people have the capacity to verify your statements simply by highlighting, right clicking, and selecting search Google. You can't browbeat people into cowing online no matter what your wife and kids tolerate.
Here's a fun one. You can have pictures of a nude kid, of any age. Nudity alone doesn't constitute pornography, even in the case of children. Nudity, of the child at least, isn't even technically required for it to be considered actual child pornography according to the law.
You have some strange understanding of reality that I'm not privy to. Literally none of that is happening.
"But if you give him a screwdriver he could make a car and use that car to drive somewhere where he could build a gun. He could then use that gun to rob a store! He could then use that money to buy more screwdrivers so that he could build a bomb and blow up our children!!!"
The line between passionate and zealot is pretty clear and it was clearly crossed long ago. Zealots have no place in our future. Hopefully...
Maybe they don't want you to read, improve, or share it? I don't really know their motivation but, well, perhaps they don't. I don't suppose everyone is as sharing as some of us are. I've released pretty much everything I've written for personal use or to guide others. I see no reason to not do so. I am pretty sure not everyone is as sharing of their bad code as I am nor do they want to be hassled with having to deal with people trying to improve it, respond to it, or share it. They may also not want to deal with any potential legal liability for sharing the code as some may assume that shared code comes with some sort of warranty of merchantability. I know that last one sounds absurd but I wouldn't put it past someone.
I love Greasemonkey. It is amazing what people manage to accomplish with it. I have an online game, Kingdom of Loathing, that I play and it is fine without it until after you have installed Greasemonkey and a bunch of scripts. After you've installed those you'll never want to play the game without them again. The neat thing is that some of the functionality offered by the various scripts finds its way into the game itself. That's kind of awesome.
Another site is Fark. There aren't as many scripts for it now but there used to be quite a few. It turns out that the functionality added by the GM scripts was so good that they've pretty much negated the need for the scripts by simply adding those features to the site either as options or default configurations/use. It is really impressive what people manage to accomplish with JavaScript. I realize that it isn't "free" but if it isn't abused and is well authored it really does a lot to improve the web.
I do, of course, surf with NoScript enabled though. Some people don't get the "well authored" and, similarly, abuse the functionality. For those not running JavaScript I can see the issues. Some sites are non-functioning without it.
They used to have multiple readers but no more. Now they have just one or two with the second one being solely for government benefits I believe. I'm not really sure. Anyhow, I don't know if we could get banks to do it here, cooperation would be seen as not very capitalistic. They're afraid of giving up a slight advantage I'd guess. Hopefully they'll do something similar.
Yeah, I have been watching. It appears as though the rhetoric and fear are starting to lessen but my "finger on the pulse" may not be so fine tuned as I am hoping it is. For a while it was getting scary but then they actually DID find people who were on The List® for drunken pissing in an alley. Then they did find Important People® on The List® and seem to have relaxed a little bit. I could EASILY be mistaken though. Easily... It may be just my area, just my news feeds, just my biases, or just dumb luck and I'm blind to it all. However, from my perspective, it has lessened a smidgen over the last six months or so.
There but for the grace of God go I...
I'm agnostic (I'd not dare to hazard a guess, nor am I presumptuous enough to claim to know but I suspect there isn't a divine being) but that statement still means a great deal to me. I don't think those who advocate death, slavery, islands in the Pacific without food or water, castration, or worse have actually heard that quote. If they have heard it then I'm not entirely sure they have given it thought or actually understand it.
Someone needs to challenge those laws as being "cruel and unusual." ACLU doesn't seem inclined. Given the amount of bad press that they'd get I'm not surprised. Maybe we need a kick-starter type of program? I'm sure that would go over about as well as a fart in church.
Hmm... That's a lot of religious metaphors. Oh well. Anyhow, I'm not sure if a "good" lawyer would even want their name attached to such actions. I am, of course, in no way advocating abuse (nor pictures of abuse) for anyone regardless of the victim's age. If anything I think more sex offenses should be categorically forced to include mandatory mental health and rehabilitation as a priority punishment. I also think that we, as a society, need to reduce some of the attached stigma so that those who are a risk can safely seek mental health as an intervention instead of attempting to curb the behavior on their own.
When I was doing a bunch of reading/studying for a Fark thread I found out that the vast majority respond overwhelmingly well to therapy with group therapy and (oddly enough) polygraph tests. I was quite surprised... I had been told (but really wasn't sure of and certainly didn't believe) that there was no hope at rehabilitation. I was downright shocked when I discovered the link between effectiveness and the polygraph examination as I was under the impression that the polygraph was categorically useless.
Anyhow, I spent a good three days worth of time (probably akin to 12 to 16 hours) researching, reading studies, reading statements from victims and from offenders, as well as researching the punishments. I looked at the statistics and looked for evidence to support my prior beliefs (I had my reasons, I know it was the wrong way to go about it but it was actually a last-step type of thing just to be sure, changing my mind isn't easy) and found out a great deal about them. You know how everyone says that they're not curable and that they'll just go on to commit more sex crimes when they're released? (It's a pretty common assumption, statement, or "fact.") Well, sex offenders have just about the lowest rate of recidivism in all the various criminal classes/types. Just about the only thing, according to DOJ or FBI (I think it was FBI, it was a year or two ago that I did the research) statistics just about the only people less likely to re-offend are those who are convicted of murder. Yeah, murder... I can see people only needing to murder once and getting released, finally, to never feel the need to be a murdering bastard again. I was shocked to learn that they are closely followed by sex offenders who are actually recidivists a miniscule number of times per capita. I was pretty shocked. Feel free to look it up if you're interested, it was pretty amazing.
I guess I have typed enough at this point. Sorry for the novella but the subject was interesting for a time and having the chance to use that information a second time is somehow mentally rewarding. It is as if that time I spent looking the information up, reading it, digesting it, and adjusting my views accordingly wasn't wasted. Imagine that? *chuckles*
The vast majority don't actually classify as pedophiles. There's an actual definition to the word you're using. You can't just assign new meaning to it and consider it good. Well, you can but nobody will take you seriously.
It is brilliant. Do you REALLY want to be the person who opposes this? That would make you an instant supporter of child pornography. Absolutely brilliant on their part. As I age and care less about my reputation I grow more willing to consider fighting for these folks. However, I'm not so sure how my neighbors will take it if I'm known as the guy who thwarted the child porn laws. But, as I mentioned, my age and lessening care about my reputation make it more likely. Now to find a lawyer/liar to take some cases on. Where's the ACLU?
That makes sense and, well, I really don't know which is why I was curious. It seems unlikely that one can be jailed "for the duration" if that duration is going to be a frightfully long time. I'm not entirely sure I would want judges to have that much power for contempt charges. The thought scares the hell out of me.
I assume the punishment represents retribution for the harm done at the time of the image's creation. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the same mentality cannot be applied to images created wholly out of the image creator's mind and yet those images are subject to the same prosecution. That bothers me a great deal.
I was under the impression that there was actually a finite limit to what one could be sentenced to due to contempt charges. I thought it was 30 days here in Maine and similar in other states. Hmm... I don't really know. (I'm okay admitting that.)
Your understanding is horrifically wrong. Your guess at "facts" is laughable. It wouldn't be laughable except you're in the minority and won't actually have any impact. What pedophiles need is mental health care, not prison. Unless, of course, they've actually caused harm (only a small percentage has, you're mistaken with your assumptions that you seem to think are facts) and if they've caused harm they need to see the inside of a correctional facility until they've reached the point where they're able to accept the help from mental health and are able to not harm in the future.
I did a whole bunch of research (I was bored, drinking, and legitimately curious as I don't see the attraction and wanted to understand) for a Fark thread at one point. I, too, thought similarly to how you seem to think. I was wrong, very much so, and have no problem changing my views based on the facts. You're a zealot on a witch hunt and will be seen as one as the tides turn. They're already starting to turn with more people being made aware of the facts and changing their views of registries and extreme punishments.
Actually seek out the facts and respond accordingly if you want. It is not difficult. Follow some links, read some studies, and then make up your mind. Until then you're operating based on myths and hyperbole. If that's what you want to do then all the more power to you but the rest of the world isn't going to join you and will find your credibility lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a porn shovel?
Quick, take my money!
To add to that - clarify - he claims that homelessness is a choice like ALL homeless are choosing to be homeless, that's how they put it. Sorry, wanted to make it clear.
If you read the thread attached to the link about the homeless shelter there's a guy in there claiming to be homeless and owns a laptop. He claims to be a free-range human so he might fall under the mentally ill category as he also claims homelessness is a choice.
Or witches?
Given their propensity to bombing one another into rubble every few generations I'm not surprised at the desire for quick, simple, ruggedized construction.
That is sadly true and I pretty much agree with your views entirely. I actually had the thought that the police departments around the country and, even, the whole planet have a huge collection of kiddy porn. Checksum those bitches and let the creeps have those pictures. Anything new means they get punished. (We can debate the seriousness if you'd like but I suspect we're on the same page.)
This means that all the harm has, pretty much, already been done. Someone's already been punished for them. There's no need to keep punishing people for the same images and this will provide the perverts with a bulky spank bank to keep them busy. They're not seeking to make more, the harm was already done, the controls are easy enough to accomplish, and it lightens the load on the justice system.
Absolutely no chance in hell of this idea going anywhere, zero chance.
Wait - no. I found you:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130529/UPDATE/130529028/Man-threatens-blow-up-state-building-over-misspelled-sign?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|Home&nclick_check=1
I just thought I'd follow up and see how your progress was coming along Pinky. Man, the internet is the one place you can be perfectly honest and, instead, you opted to tell lies. I'm disappointed.
The thinking is likely that the image is made because there is a market for it. It may not be a market backed financially but one of pride and ability to exchange images. The potential for harm is in the image being available too I guess, never knowing if the image is going to be seen (or was seen) by people you meet, want to date, you kids, and shit like that. I suppose the thinking is that it is protecting them by punishing those who'd make use of child pornography.
The reason I say "suppose" is, simply, I don't really know. All I can do is guess. If I were Ruler of the Universe things would be different. Much different. I haven't actually thought about how these laws would be different but, rest assured, they would be different starting with, at least, images drawn or rendered out of an artist's imagination would not be illegal even if they were pornographic in nature. I haven't really thought about what else I'd change but nobody is going to elect me as Ruler so it is a moot point.
I take part of that back - you're quoting the article. Double check the article, it appears that they're lying. Google "illness caused by hospitals study" and read a few of the links. Sorry for thinking you pulled it out of your ass. The rest applies.
you're more likely to be ill leaving the hospital than entering it
A quick Google suggests you're being dishonest. So, yeah, citation needed.
Why are you lying? If you have to lie to prove your point (which is sad because you were on the right side) then your point isn't worth making. If you have to resort to lies then you shouldn't do it online where people have the capacity to verify your statements simply by highlighting, right clicking, and selecting search Google. You can't browbeat people into cowing online no matter what your wife and kids tolerate.
Here's a fun one. You can have pictures of a nude kid, of any age. Nudity alone doesn't constitute pornography, even in the case of children. Nudity, of the child at least, isn't even technically required for it to be considered actual child pornography according to the law.
You have some strange understanding of reality that I'm not privy to. Literally none of that is happening.
"But if you give him a screwdriver he could make a car and use that car to drive somewhere where he could build a gun. He could then use that gun to rob a store! He could then use that money to buy more screwdrivers so that he could build a bomb and blow up our children!!!"
The line between passionate and zealot is pretty clear and it was clearly crossed long ago. Zealots have no place in our future. Hopefully...
Maybe they don't want you to read, improve, or share it? I don't really know their motivation but, well, perhaps they don't. I don't suppose everyone is as sharing as some of us are. I've released pretty much everything I've written for personal use or to guide others. I see no reason to not do so. I am pretty sure not everyone is as sharing of their bad code as I am nor do they want to be hassled with having to deal with people trying to improve it, respond to it, or share it. They may also not want to deal with any potential legal liability for sharing the code as some may assume that shared code comes with some sort of warranty of merchantability. I know that last one sounds absurd but I wouldn't put it past someone.
I love Greasemonkey. It is amazing what people manage to accomplish with it. I have an online game, Kingdom of Loathing, that I play and it is fine without it until after you have installed Greasemonkey and a bunch of scripts. After you've installed those you'll never want to play the game without them again. The neat thing is that some of the functionality offered by the various scripts finds its way into the game itself. That's kind of awesome.
Another site is Fark. There aren't as many scripts for it now but there used to be quite a few. It turns out that the functionality added by the GM scripts was so good that they've pretty much negated the need for the scripts by simply adding those features to the site either as options or default configurations/use. It is really impressive what people manage to accomplish with JavaScript. I realize that it isn't "free" but if it isn't abused and is well authored it really does a lot to improve the web.
I do, of course, surf with NoScript enabled though. Some people don't get the "well authored" and, similarly, abuse the functionality. For those not running JavaScript I can see the issues. Some sites are non-functioning without it.
That is like .1% of the population.
They used to have multiple readers but no more. Now they have just one or two with the second one being solely for government benefits I believe. I'm not really sure. Anyhow, I don't know if we could get banks to do it here, cooperation would be seen as not very capitalistic. They're afraid of giving up a slight advantage I'd guess. Hopefully they'll do something similar.
Yeah, I have been watching. It appears as though the rhetoric and fear are starting to lessen but my "finger on the pulse" may not be so fine tuned as I am hoping it is. For a while it was getting scary but then they actually DID find people who were on The List® for drunken pissing in an alley. Then they did find Important People® on The List® and seem to have relaxed a little bit. I could EASILY be mistaken though. Easily... It may be just my area, just my news feeds, just my biases, or just dumb luck and I'm blind to it all. However, from my perspective, it has lessened a smidgen over the last six months or so.
There but for the grace of God go I...
I'm agnostic (I'd not dare to hazard a guess, nor am I presumptuous enough to claim to know but I suspect there isn't a divine being) but that statement still means a great deal to me. I don't think those who advocate death, slavery, islands in the Pacific without food or water, castration, or worse have actually heard that quote. If they have heard it then I'm not entirely sure they have given it thought or actually understand it.
Someone needs to challenge those laws as being "cruel and unusual." ACLU doesn't seem inclined. Given the amount of bad press that they'd get I'm not surprised. Maybe we need a kick-starter type of program? I'm sure that would go over about as well as a fart in church.
Hmm... That's a lot of religious metaphors. Oh well. Anyhow, I'm not sure if a "good" lawyer would even want their name attached to such actions. I am, of course, in no way advocating abuse (nor pictures of abuse) for anyone regardless of the victim's age. If anything I think more sex offenses should be categorically forced to include mandatory mental health and rehabilitation as a priority punishment. I also think that we, as a society, need to reduce some of the attached stigma so that those who are a risk can safely seek mental health as an intervention instead of attempting to curb the behavior on their own.
When I was doing a bunch of reading/studying for a Fark thread I found out that the vast majority respond overwhelmingly well to therapy with group therapy and (oddly enough) polygraph tests. I was quite surprised... I had been told (but really wasn't sure of and certainly didn't believe) that there was no hope at rehabilitation. I was downright shocked when I discovered the link between effectiveness and the polygraph examination as I was under the impression that the polygraph was categorically useless.
Anyhow, I spent a good three days worth of time (probably akin to 12 to 16 hours) researching, reading studies, reading statements from victims and from offenders, as well as researching the punishments. I looked at the statistics and looked for evidence to support my prior beliefs (I had my reasons, I know it was the wrong way to go about it but it was actually a last-step type of thing just to be sure, changing my mind isn't easy) and found out a great deal about them. You know how everyone says that they're not curable and that they'll just go on to commit more sex crimes when they're released? (It's a pretty common assumption, statement, or "fact.") Well, sex offenders have just about the lowest rate of recidivism in all the various criminal classes/types. Just about the only thing, according to DOJ or FBI (I think it was FBI, it was a year or two ago that I did the research) statistics just about the only people less likely to re-offend are those who are convicted of murder. Yeah, murder... I can see people only needing to murder once and getting released, finally, to never feel the need to be a murdering bastard again. I was shocked to learn that they are closely followed by sex offenders who are actually recidivists a miniscule number of times per capita. I was pretty shocked. Feel free to look it up if you're interested, it was pretty amazing.
I guess I have typed enough at this point. Sorry for the novella but the subject was interesting for a time and having the chance to use that information a second time is somehow mentally rewarding. It is as if that time I spent looking the information up, reading it, digesting it, and adjusting my views accordingly wasn't wasted. Imagine that? *chuckles*
The vast majority don't actually classify as pedophiles. There's an actual definition to the word you're using. You can't just assign new meaning to it and consider it good. Well, you can but nobody will take you seriously.
It is brilliant. Do you REALLY want to be the person who opposes this? That would make you an instant supporter of child pornography. Absolutely brilliant on their part. As I age and care less about my reputation I grow more willing to consider fighting for these folks. However, I'm not so sure how my neighbors will take it if I'm known as the guy who thwarted the child porn laws. But, as I mentioned, my age and lessening care about my reputation make it more likely. Now to find a lawyer/liar to take some cases on. Where's the ACLU?
I have no mod points and commented in this thread so all I can reward you with is the knowledge that you earned a chuckle from me. Thanks. ;)
That makes sense and, well, I really don't know which is why I was curious. It seems unlikely that one can be jailed "for the duration" if that duration is going to be a frightfully long time. I'm not entirely sure I would want judges to have that much power for contempt charges. The thought scares the hell out of me.
I assume the punishment represents retribution for the harm done at the time of the image's creation. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the same mentality cannot be applied to images created wholly out of the image creator's mind and yet those images are subject to the same prosecution. That bothers me a great deal.
I was under the impression that there was actually a finite limit to what one could be sentenced to due to contempt charges. I thought it was 30 days here in Maine and similar in other states. Hmm... I don't really know. (I'm okay admitting that.)
Your understanding is horrifically wrong. Your guess at "facts" is laughable. It wouldn't be laughable except you're in the minority and won't actually have any impact. What pedophiles need is mental health care, not prison. Unless, of course, they've actually caused harm (only a small percentage has, you're mistaken with your assumptions that you seem to think are facts) and if they've caused harm they need to see the inside of a correctional facility until they've reached the point where they're able to accept the help from mental health and are able to not harm in the future.
I did a whole bunch of research (I was bored, drinking, and legitimately curious as I don't see the attraction and wanted to understand) for a Fark thread at one point. I, too, thought similarly to how you seem to think. I was wrong, very much so, and have no problem changing my views based on the facts. You're a zealot on a witch hunt and will be seen as one as the tides turn. They're already starting to turn with more people being made aware of the facts and changing their views of registries and extreme punishments.
Actually seek out the facts and respond accordingly if you want. It is not difficult. Follow some links, read some studies, and then make up your mind. Until then you're operating based on myths and hyperbole. If that's what you want to do then all the more power to you but the rest of the world isn't going to join you and will find your credibility lacking.