Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I was just looking up some info on voter suppression, came across the "liberals do it too!" claim. It looked like they had a smoking gun against the Democrats but I looked up the cited incident and it was actually done by the Republicans, and got misquoted, or deliberately "confused".

Oh, but they do have some actual valid Democrat cases of voter supression. From like the 1870's - against black people. So, I'd say the verdict is voter supression is a wholy right-wing tactic, and there's not a shred of evidence that liberal hippies are all out there trying to block people in suits from voting

[Bauglir]

Oh, but they do have some actual valid Democrat cases of voter supression. From like the 1870's - against black people. So, I'd say the verdict is voter supression is a wholy right-wing tactic, and there's not a shred of evidence that liberal hippies are all out there trying to block people in suits from voting

Yeah, that seems about right, considering that the 1870s was back before the parties reversed polarity (the Democrats at the time were the wealthy upper-class, isolationist, conservative racists of the day, although IIRC the Republicans were still the corporatist ones, those being seen as the more meritocratic institution at the time when compared to the Southern gentry).

[Truean]

CSEA: Child Support Enforcement Agency has powers comparable to the IRS.

Refusal to pay child support will often lead to criminal contempt of court charges that may include jail and if they got past a certain amount of time, felony charges. CSEA may administratively suspend driver's licenses, garnish wages, levy/ seize bank accounts, lien property, intercept tax returns, (basically) issue warrants, and do a whole bunch of other stuff.

It took a major effort from some small group of lawyers to get the state to change the law and allow driving privileges to those with child support suspended licenses (upon motion). That way the guy can get to work and back to make the money the state intends to give to the kid....

Slap on the wrist? It used to be that way, perhaps, but anymore, less so. Now actually collecting it is an issue, but they can make life very difficult if somebody doesn't pay child support according to a court order.

[Reelya]

God it sounds crazy that failure to pay can be punished by sabotaging your ability to pay. That's not productive from anyone's point of view. As for garnishing wages/income. That should always be capped at some percentage of your income lower than 100%. There's not point de-incentivizing people from working at all because they're not paying child support.

[Truean]

Agreed.

This is society refusing to come to grips with the full truth of the real world. We like to imagine that everybody has the same, fair start, and that their effort will benefit them. No. Some people have parents who can't or won't pay to give them the life they deserve and there is absolutely crap we can do about it. While trying to enforce its ideals, society will punish those who can't or won't make its ideals real.

Having a duty to do something does not translate into the ability to fulfill that duty. The punishment not only can't achieve its intended goal, but may make payment even more difficult. The only way money is coming in with most of those situations is from a job. A job needs transportation to get to it and without that, there is no job. No transportation, no job; no job, no money; no money, no child support.... [sigh]. Self defeating, unless you add in work privileges to get too and from work.

This is not a value judgment. This is a mechanical analysis.

But then there's this jerk:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/women-man-least-25-kids-200034450.html

[GrizzlyAdamz]

yeah, when run through a text reverser, I get this:
spoiler
In other words, your post is completely illegible.

Further deciphering:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The mother and almost certainly father become gaurdains immedaiteyl but maybe negligence can be premissable.
Poeple as others. Forcing somoene to endure a violent raeciton to stimuli is oppressive and creul but maybe the altrenaitve is worse.
But maybe they should be permitted. A person's life is perdictable at the point of concideration but maybe some of us are not as. There are no absolutes in this topic. Aboriton is murder but maybe it shuold be premitted. Forced medical procedrues are assualt.

...any nation that practices capital punishment does not beleive in the sanctity of bodily integrity.

...had no social presence
Say that it is fundamentally different is simply untrue. I maen ,much as any nonperson, such as slaves and animals, the victim
is entirely consistent. It can be argued that abortion is a very small murder and shuold be permitted much as alcohol is but to
to the same end then it is funcitonally identical. Makign a few simple predictions abuot a pregnancy and deciding to inhibit it
it seems raesonable that they wuold porsecute it as murder. If yuo instaed use a planet-sized computer to prefectly model Earth. Altrenaitveyl, if you were to go back in time to pervent a ciitzen from being born and the time police record what happened then. Murderers do not cause daeths. Daeth in our world, is as certain as life. Murderers cuase a reduciton of predicted longevity.

I suspect he's making some kinda statement with the weird format & strange content. But I think I'll leave it at that.

[Phmcw]

Timecube guy? Is that you?

[alexandertnt]

Actually, I think he makes something of a point.

Even if the foetus can be considered a person, is it still wrong to kill it? There are several legally and morally OK situations to kill a person in (depending on where you live). Capital punishment, self defence etc. So

As far as I see it, the foetus does not have the intelligence required to experience anything any more than an animal does, and the fact that it could develop into a fully grown person is irrelevant (I hardly feel sorry for people that don't exist). If some animal decided to latch onto you and start doing all sorts of funky things to your body, I don't think anyone but the most hardcore animal rights person is going to have an issue with you killing it. In fact, I don't think many people would have a problem even if the victim consciously decided to attach it to their body in the first place.

[Truean]

https://gma.yahoo.com/parents-ordered-pay-estranged-daughters-college-tuition-202430570--abc-news-topstories.html

Speaking of neglecting kids, I'm glad this ruling happened. You don't make your minor child's life hell until they have to leave and then get away with foisting everything off on the grandparents and her. She's your responsibility, o parents. So guess what, you made her life misery, now you pay. Good.

I love the people calling this kid a spoiled brat; they have no clue and just scream at the top of their lungs because they want something to scream at. They treated her like crap and she had to move in with grandparents WHO AGREED with the kid and happily accepted her....

It's way too easy to scream "spoiled kid" without looking into any of the facts, like the judge did.

[Reelya]

People will complain about anyone in any story getting a break. Like all those babies who cry for their mother's milk. God, they're a bunch entitled little shits. Babies should learn to get their own milk and stop relying on others.

[Truean]

Forgetting the obvious moral problems with that, it's also tactically unsound. Same reason you don't torture, do unto others..... 'Cause they'll do it back to you.... [sigh]

[penguinofhonor]

We're bigger and scarier than them. We'll just torture them to death and piss on the bodies. And then nuke them into glass.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People will complain about anyone in any story getting a break. Like all those babies who cry for their mother's milk. God, they're a bunch entitled little shits. Babies should learn to get their own milk and stop relying on others.

It primarily stems from their own suffering in life. They look at someone not having to go through the same hardships as them thanks to societal improvements and rightfully call it out as unfair, but that's because society isn't operating fairly. I'm not sure there's any way to stop it, because what they want is vindication, and the only way to get it is to try to cut the ones who do get justice down.

[MonkeyHead]

Right. There is a thing going on here in the UK, and I thought this thread would be a good place to bounce around some ideas and see peoples thinking.

Basically, 2 and a half years ago, footballer Ched Evans was convicted of Rape and sentenced to 5 years in Jail. That link will give you the details behind the conviction. He has recently been released, and continues to protest his innocence. His old club have not yet signed him back on a contract, but he has been allowed to train again at the request of the Professional Footballers Association. Rather unsurprisingly this has led to resignations at the club, and much protest amongst fairly high profile individuals, but high up figures in football in the UK have remained suspiciously quiet. Heck, even an Olympian linked to the club and town has weighed in, and been on the end of twitter abuse as a result.

So, yeah, that is the situation. Now, I have a number of things that might be of interest here.

1) Is it acceptable for him to resume a high profile sporting career? I find it hard to decide if he has been punished for his (fairly fucking horrible) crime and should be allowed to carry on with his life, or if someone who has been proven guilty of such acts should not be in a position where they could be seen as a role model to kids. The loss of livelihood as a sportsman- is it a fair outcome of a criminal act in addition to the punishment carried out within a legal framework? It would be for most other professions, right?

2) Is it right for the PFA to act on his behalf like this? Yes, they represent the rights of professional footballers, but does he waive right to representation through his conviction - should they be representing him at all? As such, is his old club right or wrong in allowing him to train, and should he get a new contract (linked to point 1)?

3) The various threats and resignations - are they appropriate and proportionate? I understand totally the motivations of some the resignations and sponsorship threats - nobody wants to associate themselves with a crime of this nature, but is that offset at all by the fact that he was convicted and punished? In addition, why is there silence from within football on this issue? Does the sport not want to be seen to be taking a stand here? Do they not object to the association with rape?

[Sheb]

Well, I think the law specify one sentece: jail. It says nothing about loosing your job.

We can argue if the sentence was though enough, but I don't think anyone should suffer punishment beyond what the laws says.