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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Kotaku:
As of today, thousands of sex offenders will no longer be able to log onto online gaming platforms, thanks to a joint operation between New York State and some of the world's biggest video game companies. In a statement issued this morning, it's been revealed that the New York Attorney General's office has been working with Microsoft, Sony, Apple and other video game companies to ban registered sex offenders off of the those entities' network platforms.

New York law requires that convicted sex offenders surrender all e-mail addresses and internet screennames to the state, which then provides the information to websites. Those sites can sweep the matching usernames off their rolls, with the aim of creating a safer web environment for underage users. "Operation: Game Over" marks the first time that the law has been implemented with video games. From the press release:

As a result of Operation: Game Over, 3,580 accounts of New York state sex offenders have been purged - or their communication privileges suspended - from the gaming platforms owned by Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros. and Disney Interactive Media Group.

http://kotaku.com/5899463/new-york-state-just-banned-3500-online-gamers-who-are-all-sex-offenders

So this is pretty interesting. Can't say I'm surprised, though, I didn't see it coming certainly. Perhaps other states should follow? What do you think?

This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Because hating on sex offenders is good for politics. Don't see how these types of things are constitutional. We, as a society, see sex offenders as more dangerous than murderers.

Edit: Getting rid of this post since I'm tired of getting quoted with pretty much the same response over and over.

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Becuase in America anything sexual is 100000000X worse then the harshest most brutal murder one can commit.

Edit: I'm just backing out of this topic all together. Don't wanna turn off my quote notifications but I'm tired of getting the same response every single time. Keep reading towards the bottom of the page to see how this was resolved.

RJ 17:
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.

RJ 17:
"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?

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

Are you really saying that murder is better than talking about a penis? Man, that's pretty fucked up but it explains why politicians get away with persecuting sex offenders.

Crono1973:

RJ 17:
"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.

Kahunaburger:

Crono1973:

RJ 17:
"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.

RJ 17:
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.

Well then don't let your kids online ever, or send them to school, because that actually sounds incredibly tame.

Crono1973:

Kahunaburger:

Crono1973:

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.

It's really, really important to remember that many sex offenders actually raped or molested little children and that those offenses are nothing like smoking a cigarette.

What is wrong with all of you?

Crono1973:

Kahunaburger:

Crono1973:

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.

I agree with you. It's amazingly stupid that we slap, for instance, people who get drunk and take a leak in public, 15-year-olds who have sex with other 15-year-olds, and so on with stupid arbitrary restrictions for the rest of their life. Now, child molesters, I'm pretty okay with telling them they can't live near schools.

fookolt:

Crono1973:

Kahunaburger:

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.

It's really, really important to remember that many sex offenders actually raped or molested little children and that those offenses are nothing like smoking a cigarette.

What is wrong with all of you?

Just like it's real important to remember that many murderers killed someone, sometimes even children and sometime more than one person. Yet, you don't call for them to be cut off from society every time a politician or some hate group can find a new way to do it.

People don't realize that by letting government get away with shit like this, it sets a precedent that may one day come back to get them.

Surely you have heard the whole "First they came for the Jews..." thing?

Crono1973:

fookolt:

Crono1973:

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.

It's really, really important to remember that many sex offenders actually raped or molested little children and that those offenses are nothing like smoking a cigarette.

What is wrong with all of you?

Just like it's real important to remember that many murderers killed someone, sometimes even children and sometime more than one person. Yet, you don't call for them to be cut off from society every time a politician or some hate group can find a new way to do it.

People don't realize that by letting government get away with shit like this, it sets a precedent that may one day come back to get them.

Surely you have heard the whole "First they came for the Jews..." thing?

Murderers rarely go back into the general population like sex offenders do. We already cut them off from society.

And it's really, really insulting to compare the Holocaust to making sure sex offenders don't rape children.

This isn't the slippery slope some of you are trying to make it out to be.

Should the list be better maintained? Absolutely.

Should it go away or should we let sex offenders near schools? Nope.

fookolt:

Crono1973:

fookolt:

It's really, really important to remember that many sex offenders actually raped or molested little children and that those offenses are nothing like smoking a cigarette.

What is wrong with all of you?

Just like it's real important to remember that many murderers killed someone, sometimes even children and sometime more than one person. Yet, you don't call for them to be cut off from society every time a politician or some hate group can find a new way to do it.

People don't realize that by letting government get away with shit like this, it sets a precedent that may one day come back to get them.

Surely you have heard the whole "First they came for the Jews..." thing?

Murderers rarely go back into the general population like sex offenders do. We already cut them off from society.

And it's really, really insulting to compare the Holocaust to making sure sex offenders don't rape children.

This isn't the slippery slope some of you are trying to make it out to be.

Should the list be better maintained? Absolutely.

Should it go away or should we let sex offenders near schools? Nope.

First of all, I am not talking about the holocaust but you knew that. The point is to let you know that it never stops with the first target group.

Secondly, are you saying it's ok to prevent murders from playing games online because they may come into contact with their next victim? Did you know that many murders are crimes of passion? Not really that different from the conditions where child molesters/rapist commit their crime is it?

This has got to be the silliest things law makers have done (in a while at least...there have been some doosies).

As our friend Kahunaburger has already pointed out, sex offenders are not always considered that because of molestation/rape. Things like public urination and streaking can be considered sex crimes and you can get put on this list if they really feel like pressing it.

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Lastly, I'm not sure how many sex offenders are going online to Xbox Live with the hopes that they run into someone they feel like raping tonight AND has a Mic so the can convince them AND lives in the area AND is someone dumb enough to get tricked into going into his windowless van/"pet & candy shop".

tippy2k2:

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Absolutely and why do we ONLY do this to sex offenders? I sometimes wonder why we treat sex crimes worse than murder.

Hello Mr Godwin, nice to see such a familiar face in here

Anyway, contrary to popular belief most sexual abuse offenders are people close to the victim, often being either a relative or a friend of the family. Banning known sex offenders from using online communities with their known e-mail addresses seems in this light, next to a bit excessive, quite pointless.

Crono1973:

First of all, I am not talking about the holocaust but you knew that. The point is to let you know that it never stops with the first target group.

Uh, that's a Slippery Slope down to its definition.

ASIDE: FIVE TIMES NOW. FIVE. The same fucking Captcha Ad!
For two posts, and two revisions since my net keeps chonking on me.

The sex offender registry is a terrible source of injustice, it should be abolished.

Crono1973:

tippy2k2:

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Absolutely and why do we ONLY do this to sex offenders? I sometimes wonder why we treat sex crimes worse than murder.

I agree with you, although non-violent drug offenders are another group that face never ending punishments, for example murderers and sex offenders can still get financial aid to go to college, but drug offenders can't.

Atmos Duality:

Crono1973:

First of all, I am not talking about the holocaust but you knew that. The point is to let you know that it never stops with the first target group.

Uh, that's a Slippery Slope down to its definition.

ASIDE: FIVE TIMES NOW. FIVE. The same fucking Captcha Ad!
For two posts, and two revisions since my net keeps chonking on me.

Oh right, all slippery slopes are fallacies, right? It's not like we have Day 1, on disc DLC like all those people with their slippery slope fallacies said we would.

On the captcha thing, don't you feel like a corporate whore typing slogans? I know I do.

Crono1973:

tippy2k2:

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Absolutely and why do we ONLY do this to sex offenders? I sometimes wonder why we treat sex crimes worse than murder.

I'm going to preface my statement with this; I have never had any kind of "sex crime" committed on me, however, I do know two people who have (both at young ages). Also, I will not continue with this line of discussion since it's somewhat off-topic and honestly, will make a lot of people uncomfortable.

This statement is going to sound really strange but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say:

From what I've seen, sex crime against someone almost does seem worse. With murder, it's kind of "one and done"; you're dead, it's over. With rape/molestation, it sticks with you and can seriously fuck up your life. I have a friend who completely flips out whenever any guy touches them (I patted them on the back during a video game...you'd have thought that I just murdered his dog right in front of him). Some victims recover right away (person #2 in my life is just fine after what happened to them) but for a lot of people, it completely demolishes their life. Sure, they're still alive but it ruins their relationships, their trust, their friendships, everything.

isometry:
The sex offender registry is a terrible source of injustice, it should be abolished.

Crono1973:

tippy2k2:

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Absolutely and why do we ONLY do this to sex offenders? I sometimes wonder why we treat sex crimes worse than murder.

I agree with you, although non-violent drug offenders are another group that face never ending punishments, for example murderers and sex offenders can still get financial aid to go to college, but drug offenders can't.

I didn't know that about drug offenders. That's pretty messed up too "You were involved with drugs so you can't go to college unless you sell some drugs to get the money yourself. Had you murdered or raped someone though, we could help you."

tippy2k2:

Crono1973:

tippy2k2:

Not to mention that you are now punishing the criminal AFTER their punishment has already been served (a reason I think the registry should just go away but that's a different argument).

Absolutely and why do we ONLY do this to sex offenders? I sometimes wonder why we treat sex crimes worse than murder.

I'm going to preface my statement with this; I have never had any kind of "sex crime" committed on me, however, I do know two people who have (both at young ages). Also, I will not continue with this line of discussion since it's somewhat off-topic and honestly, will make a lot of people uncomfortable.

This statement is going to sound really strange but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say:

From what I've seen, sex crime against someone almost does seem worse. With murder, it's kind of "one and done"; you're dead, it's over. With rape/molestation, it sticks with you and can seriously fuck up your life. I have a friend who completely flips out whenever any guy touches them (I patted them on the back during a video game...you'd have thought that I just murdered his dog right in front of him). Some victims recover right away (person #2 in my life is just fine after what happened to them) but for a lot of people, it completely demolishes their life. Sure, they're still alive but it ruins their relationships, their trust, their friendships, everything.

Well, I was a victim of a sex crime when I was a child and I can tell you that I would rather be here today than having been dead for the last XX years because I was murdered instead. I only ask that my attacker serve his/her time. I wouldn't want someone punished for the rest of their lives. There's a name for that, vengeance.

People flip out for all kinds of reasons, veterans come back from war all messed up sometimes, maybe we should be punishing the government non stop because of the damage they cause?

My opinion is that this applies to all "sex offenders" as I read this, as opposed to simply specific ones, and "sex offender" can mean a lot of things. What's more with games requiring online connectivity, and everything going increasingly multi-player, this is basically banning anyone who is a sex offender from gaming... and that's pushing it.

Yes, we should be keeping known pedophilles out of games like Disney's "Pirates Of the Carribean" or that "Hello Kitty Online" game, but some guy who did a year in jail after an ambigious date rape conviction (like how people can be convicted of say getting their date drunk and taking advantage of them in some places), public masterbation, or some other thing that is could be considered bad but not "OMG" bad, probably shouldn't be facing this.

Once someone has done their time, that should be it, and I have an issue with discriminating against former convicts based on their records, and feel that this has always been one of the big issues with keeping those kinds of records and making them availible... on a lot of subjects, not just sex offense.

That said, I believe that for many crimes the penelties should be higher. The problem is when a convicted pedophille is simply put into jail and released, without more strict penelties like legally mandated chemical castration. Really we cause a lot of these problems by giving people slaps on the wrist, and running the prisons on a sort of revolving door system. The way we currently interpet "protection against cruel and unusual punishment" which is far differant than the original intent, means that people who committ crimes are more afraid of the other inmates than the prisons and sentences themselves.

Of course at the same time, I think people misunderstand how pedophilles work, they can spend a long time grooming their victims. Generally speaking pedos do not just login to a game, chat mode, or other location and immediatly try and convince victims to go places with them. They can spend weeks, months, or sometimes even years planning thesee things. It's not an accident that a lot of missing persons are never found.

See, the pedo or general sex offender people are afraid of is the one who is going to say talk to some kid for a period of time, earn their confidence, perhaps by allying (covertly) against the parents (all kinds have problems with their parents) and then eventually working things to try ans get the kid to come meet them after a fight. Your teenage or tween runaway going about it with a plan to go meet their friend or whatever and hide out there. Done correctly an abductor might just work by sending a kid a plane (or bus) ticket, and a few bucks, and then picking them up at the desination... with the victim never being seen again (since if done right the abductor might not even live in the area the pick up is made in).

Basically it's not the initially creepy guy people are worried about, and most serious sex offenders, especially repete offenders, tend to be pretty charismatic in their own way, especially those who actually stalk prey as opposed to performing sudden street rapes or whatever (that isn't usually the concern when it comes to electronic devices). That dude in your teenage daughter's guild that she hangs out with might be the sex offender.

In short, I understand the reasons, and they are better than most people who agree with me in not liking what's being done here give them credit for. I just think that there are better ways of handling the situation, this kind of policing is wrong, rather I think we need more strict penelties, and to give the goverment the abillity to castrate sex offenders without needing any permission other than a conviction.

Aren't there laws or something about punishing criminals beyond their sentences? I mean, granted I can't honestly say I feel particularly sorry for them, but still, is it even legal to do that?

captcha: know the ropes. Yeah, I certainly don't in this case.

Crono1973:

fookolt:

Crono1973:

Just like it's real important to remember that many murderers killed someone, sometimes even children and sometime more than one person. Yet, you don't call for them to be cut off from society every time a politician or some hate group can find a new way to do it.

People don't realize that by letting government get away with shit like this, it sets a precedent that may one day come back to get them.

Surely you have heard the whole "First they came for the Jews..." thing?

Murderers rarely go back into the general population like sex offenders do. We already cut them off from society.

And it's really, really insulting to compare the Holocaust to making sure sex offenders don't rape children.

This isn't the slippery slope some of you are trying to make it out to be.

Should the list be better maintained? Absolutely.

Should it go away or should we let sex offenders near schools? Nope.

First of all, I am not talking about the holocaust but you knew that. The point is to let you know that it never stops with the first target group.

You do realize that the quote you're incorrectly referencing (the Jews weren't the first ones they came after) is about the Holocaust, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Secondly, are you saying it's ok to prevent murders from playing games online because they may come into contact with their next victim? Did you know that many murders are crimes of passion? Not really that different from the conditions where child molesters/rapist commit their crime is it?

Murderers and child rapists aren't at all the same.

Child rape is not a crime of passion; it is a complete violation of trust and abuse of power over a child.

Fr]anc[is:

RJ 17:
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.

Well then don't let your kids online ever, or send them to school, because that actually sounds incredibly tame.

I can only assume that you're too young to get the reference I was making to a movie called Airplane. In short: it was a joke.

Kahunaburger:

RJ 17:
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.

I fully agree that's a bunch of BS. That's public intoxication combined with indecent exposure at the most, certainly not worthy of being considered a sex crime.

Crono1973:

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

Are you really saying that murder is better than talking about a penis? Man, that's pretty fucked up but it explains why politicians get away with persecuting sex offenders.

Don't think I ever came close to saying that murder is better than talking about penises. But last time I checked, you can't stab someone through your mic.

Crono1973:

RJ 17:
"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?

If by "island" you mean "prison", then yeah, toss'em on that "island" and let them pay for their crimes.

To all of the above: Look guys, let me be clear by stating that I agree that the punishment should fit the crime. You shouldn't hassel sex offenders that have been released and reintegrated back into society until they commit a crime again. The keyword in my post was "I don't believe you can be fully rehabilitated. You'll always have urges yadda yadda yadda." That doesn't mean I believe people are incapable of fighting their own urges. They should still be watched, however.

All this said, though, while my first post suggested I was kinda on the fence, I am willing to say now that I do think an all-out ban on sex offenders would be wrong. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" notion goes hand in hand with "don't punish until there's a crime". And before you say anything, I don't believe surveillance is a punishment, it's a precautionary measure.

Crono1973:

Oh right, all slippery slopes are fallacies, right?

By definition: Yes they are still fallacies. Even in hindsight.

Forward thinking is fine. Guesses are fine, and hindsight can prove trends.
Assumptions without evidence? Not fine.

No, the topic itself isn't evidence of that. One action in itself is not a trend. If more companies start expanding this program of theirs, then I'll consider it as a point (but not as proof, Correlation is not the same as Causality). But until then, it's definitely a Slippery Slope, sorry.

It's not like we have Day 1, on disc DLC like all those people with their slippery slope fallacies said we would.

Sigh...Strawman Argument. But I'll use this to make a point:
Hindsight alone does not disprove a fallacy, even if the argument turned out to be correct, since that's a recursive argument made under new context.

When that happens, the topic needs a new argument, no matter how similar that new argument might be to the old fallacious one, since the conditions have changed.
(In court, this is part of what New Evidence and Cross-Examination attempts to achieve; to force the opposition to either refine a good argument, and/or to drop a poor argument based on changing context. Not to be confused with intent, such as proving someone innocent/guilty. Arguments are all points towards that intent, and not the intent themselves.)

Sorry if I come across as hostile here, but just approach the topic more logically and with a tad less aggression. Logos before Pathos, and all.

On the captcha thing, don't you feel like a corporate whore typing slogans? I know I do.

Yup. Still sucks. :/
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).

fookolt:

Crono1973:

fookolt:

Murderers rarely go back into the general population like sex offenders do. We already cut them off from society.

And it's really, really insulting to compare the Holocaust to making sure sex offenders don't rape children.

This isn't the slippery slope some of you are trying to make it out to be.

Should the list be better maintained? Absolutely.

Should it go away or should we let sex offenders near schools? Nope.

First of all, I am not talking about the holocaust but you knew that. The point is to let you know that it never stops with the first target group.

You do realize that the quote you're incorrectly referencing (the Jews weren't the first ones they came after) is about the Holocaust, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Secondly, are you saying it's ok to prevent murders from playing games online because they may come into contact with their next victim? Did you know that many murders are crimes of passion? Not really that different from the conditions where child molesters/rapist commit their crime is it?

Murderers and child rapists aren't at all the same.

Child rape is not a crime of passion; it is a complete violation of trust and abuse of power over a child.

Look, I told you I wasn't talking about the holocaust, so you can either believe me or not. I really don't care. I told you what point I was making I think you are just refusing to acknowledge that point.

I never said murderers and child rapists are all the same, murderers aren't even all the same. Look, you hate on sex offenders all you like and you wish lifelong vengeance on them. I don't really have much else to say about this.

For the record though, no one cares about why people molest children, they just want to punish them so don't take any half ass studies seriously.

Crono1973:
Look, I told you I wasn't talking about the holocaust, so you can either believe me or not. I really don't care. I told you what point I was making I think you are just refusing to acknowledge that point.

Here's the thing though: child rapists are not a political group nor are they an ethnic group. Being Jewish or a communist is not at all the same thing as being a child rapist.

If you actually looked up the point you were making, you'd realize that

I never said murderers and child rapists are all the same, murderers aren't even all the same. Look, you hate on sex offenders all you like and you wish lifelong vengeance on them. I don't really have much else to say about this.

For the record though, no one cares about why people molest children, they just want to punish them so don't take any half ass studies seriously.

I don't hate child rapists.

I just have this apparently very unique idea that they need help and shouldn't be allowed to interact with children either in real life or online.

And there are plenty of public health researchers who care about why people molest children. Why would you say something so ignorant?

RJ 17:
"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.

Have you ever been in a cockpit before, or ever been in a Turkish prison? Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Yeah, I have to agree that I'm pretty much 100% sure that this will never actually save anyone or stop a sex offender who is determined to reoffend. Pointless politically motivated laws, to make the Attourney General look good.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked