Print

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

[TD1]

Hey, my 14 year old self was killed by a 15 year old.

Who also happened to be me.

[Loud Whispers]

What happens if they've no parents

[martinuzz]

Two random people on unemployment benefits will have their benefits cancelled, ofcourse.

[Kagus]

What happens if they've no parents

Well, obviously, they get put into juvie until they can find an appropriate foster family to assign them to.

And then they take them away from the foster family, because Child Services is also public assistance.


This is some hilarious bullshit right after the other hilarious bullshit, and I only heard about it when my granddad commented on the article saying how much he agreed with the measure, because "They have no business being outside at that time anyways".

[scourge728]

While the punishment is absurd, I don't really know how much say a 12 year old has to do after 11 pm anyways

[Loud Whispers]

At least in this day and age kids can console themselves with late night vidya

[bloop_bleep]

Why are they even considering this at all? Are all the stabbers always 14-year-olds?

[thompson]

I could understand if the intention was to protect children from negligent parents by coercing parents into providing proper supervision.

[Kagus]

Why are they even considering this at all? Are all the stabbers always 14-year-olds?

A few actually are. There have been small numbers of 14-year-olds being "involved" in stabbings one way or another over the past year or two. Considerably more involve the 17-20 range.

I've actually seen "12-year-old outside at night" in action. GF's mom is currently a single mother for two kids aged 15 and 13, and she tends to send them out on errands because it's already pretty chaotic trying to keep things together as-is without back-problems mom being the only one running around doing stuff. Things like grabbing some last-minute bag of flour from the gas station or picking up dinner from the pizzeria down the street (generally just on the weekends when bedtimes are less strictly enforced, but they're all night owls the rest of the time anyways).

And they're not even one of the low-income families who are really struggling. But yeah, if this actually becomes law, that late-night grocery run could slap the mom with some hefty fines and snip any social programs she's using like communal child support.

I could understand if the intention was to protect children from negligent parents by coercing parents into providing proper supervision.

This is part of the argument, yeah. It's sitting next to the unmentioned part called "these damn Muslim immigrants are flooding the streets with their criminality because they're horrible monsters and the kids are emulating them", which comes from the usual cultural split that tends to lead to the kind of ostracism that isolates kids and makes them lash out in the first place. It's also been a problem longer than we've had a significant immigrant population ("significant" in the sense of "Now we're going to pay attention to the fact that you're an immigrant").


But yeah, the most disagreeable part of this thing is definitely the punishment being inordinate and loaded with the potential to make things a lot worse. Or, at least, it's the worst part if you don't put as much importance on whether or not the government dictates when you can and cannot be outside.

[thompson]

I find it bizarre that there should be a link between immigrants and delinquency, unless of course the delinquents are predominantly immigrants. But there would have to be some deeper cause underlying it, as no sane person chooses to have their children commit crimes at night. A large part of this is probably caused by the breakdown of the nuclear family, leading to the rise of time-poor single parents who simply don't have the capacity to provide adequate supervision/support as they are always bogged down with pressing matters such as earning money to pay rent and whatnot. Then you have a generation who view all of this as normal, and the cycle continues. I can't see much the government can do here (unless you're ok with China's methods of dealing with this sort of thing), and punitive measures obviously won't address the fundamental problem of lack of time.

Time for a 30-hour work week, or am I crazy?

[Loud Whispers]

Nuclear family is just a breakdown of the extended family tqbh and is not a working model to begin with

[Reelya]

A curfew for younger kids isn't necessarily a bad idea, but research is needed to see the effects.

Maybe the 14 year olds aren't "stabbers" but 14 is the typical age at which these kids are inducted into a youth gang, when they're impressionable and can be influenced by the older 16-18 year old members. Putting a curfew in place could be more like long-term thinking, because you've disrupted the cycle of recruitment: the decisions one makes at 14 are going to be very different to the decisions one makes at 16.

[Kagus]

The punishment is still completely ridiculous, even if a state-mandated curfew of its citizens is a good idea.


Anyways, there've been a couple updates regarding those new copper mines up in northern Norway. See, all the filthy youths have banded together to stop the bad man, and so the case is getting a bit more public recognition. Random bystanders and other experts are being asked their opinions.

Frederic Hauge, who is a large man with bad hair and also head/co-founder of environmentalist NGO "The Bellona Foundation" says "Yes, I may have chained myself to a dump truck several years ago to prevent a mine from offloading waste into our beautiful fjords, but this time is different".

"If the mine doesn't get to dump directly into the water, then that means there's simply not going to be a mine at all. There are no other alternatives. And we need this mine."

The main arguments seem to be that green things like electric cars and wind turbines all require a great big load of copper in order to make. So, in order for Norway to properly go green, we need a lot more copper. But we can't buy it from other countries, because Norway has really good environmental protection laws and standards in place, which means that if we buy it from somewhere else we're actually making things even worse by supporting someone with lower standards than ours. We need to get the copper ourselves, to make sure that nothing environmentally untoward happens. Like, say, dumping a fuckload of heavy metals into a protected fish habitat.

"But why not dump it somewhere on land?"

Well, we can't do that, because that'd probably piss off the native Samis. And we don't want anyone to think that we're not listening to the native populations. Especially not after that little ordeal with them getting pissed off about us not listening to them when they said they didn't want the mine to dump shit in their fishing grounds.


Hope that clears things up a bit. You see, we actually really need to damage the environment and walk over the natives; so that we can avoid damaging the environment and walking over the natives. It's the lesser of two evils, you understand.

Asked for comment, the PM said "I understand that there's been an official complaint filed, therefore I can't say anything because I'm part of the complaint board."

This is only technically incorrect, as the permission for dumping has already had an official complaint filed and processed, and since that got denied then the case cannot have another complaint filed against it at all.


"Nature and Youth"-leader Gaute Eiterfjord (it's a weird name in Norwegian too) was asked to provide a counterargument to Hauge's statement about there being no alternatives. Mr. Eiterfjord replied with "u focking wot".

He provided no further details as to how he looks like he's simultaneously 14 and 40 years old.

[redwallzyl]

There was something like that in Michigan, they avoided pollution by just mining from the bottom up so all the waste rock just got used as filler and they did not need to dump it anywhere.

[smjjames]

Including the sludge? Which seems to be the point of contention here.