The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
But think of the children! 7 men arrested for playing chess in a deserted playground.
Drez
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Okay, so, I just saw this:
http://www.news.com.au/world/cops-bust-seven-men-playing-chess-in-upper-manhattan-park/story-e6frfkyi-1225956380377
And I think it is ludicrous.
In a nutshell, seven men were arrested for playing chess in a public playground completely devoid of any children or adults because signs posted at the playground stated that adults must be accompanied by a child in order to be in the playground.
I'm amazed this is even enforceable.
When I was alerted to this story (by someone who thought the arrests were daft), one person responding to her said that her mind would change "when she has children." Which is also silly. How does arresting seven men playing chess in a deserted playground in any way, shape, or form protect children from sex predators? And how insulting is it to suggest, in one breath, that:
a) People who have children suddenly abandon reason in favor of overprotective "think of the children" legislation.
b) People who don't have children are somehow indifferent or ignorant to the very real issues of child abuse and predation.
I don't think either of those statements are true, but I think people who suggest other people will understand "when they have children" do believe the above statements are true.
So I guess I'd like to discuss two totally different things here:
First, do you think the arrests described above are ridiculous, or what?
Second, do you feel that it is impossible to sympathize with a law like this unless you have children?
http://www.news.com.au/world/cops-bust-seven-men-playing-chess-in-upper-manhattan-park/story-e6frfkyi-1225956380377
And I think it is ludicrous.
In a nutshell, seven men were arrested for playing chess in a public playground completely devoid of any children or adults because signs posted at the playground stated that adults must be accompanied by a child in order to be in the playground.
I'm amazed this is even enforceable.
When I was alerted to this story (by someone who thought the arrests were daft), one person responding to her said that her mind would change "when she has children." Which is also silly. How does arresting seven men playing chess in a deserted playground in any way, shape, or form protect children from sex predators? And how insulting is it to suggest, in one breath, that:
a) People who have children suddenly abandon reason in favor of overprotective "think of the children" legislation.
b) People who don't have children are somehow indifferent or ignorant to the very real issues of child abuse and predation.
I don't think either of those statements are true, but I think people who suggest other people will understand "when they have children" do believe the above statements are true.
So I guess I'd like to discuss two totally different things here:
First, do you think the arrests described above are ridiculous, or what?
Second, do you feel that it is impossible to sympathize with a law like this unless you have children?
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
Drez on
0
Posts
I am put in mind an episode of south park several years ago with mongolians in it.
I really think there is a spirit of the law, here. When there are no children present, I don't see the harm in adults being in "their" spaces. It happens all the time here; an hour or so after school is done for the day, particularly in May/June and September/October, you can find people moving in to the fields to play soccer/football/whatever.
It just so happens that schools and playgrounds are more than just areas for kids - they are one of few public spaces amenable to something like an impromptu chess meeting or friends going to go throw a disc.
The "laws" that are being made up in this country these days are just fucking stupid.
It's absurd, really. And it's not like old dudes playing chess in parks in New York isn't one of the most iconic images associated with the city in pop culture and media in the last 25 years or so, either. Sheesh.
But that's only a right if it's a peaceful assembly, clearly playing chess is a wargame and preparing them for an act of terrorism.
Rights aren't being violated, just common sense.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This needs to be stressed in general.
The vast majority of child abductions (and child molestation, for that matter) are perpetrated by somebody the child already knows - a parent, a relative, a family friend.
A law like this is based in irrational fear of strangers and is ineffective. Not only is it ineffective, but it perpetuates the very myth that spawned it. It promotes a culture of paranoia.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The first, which everyone has discussed, is is this sign stupid? And the vote is pretty much unanimously yes.
But the second issue, which tends to get drowned in the first, is do we let the police choose to selectively enforce the law?
Therein lies the rub. Is this stupid? Sure. But they may have done it so that when they have to enforce the posted laws at a future time, that person can't turn around and point to this and raise an equal protection argument. And then, there's the whole issue of do you really want the cops choosing what they enforce and what they dont?
We already do that.
And we should, because no law can be written so as to cover all possible situations and circumstances. At some point, someone has to step in and apply discretion because the law simply cannot function otherwise.
If you want to insist on wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars to force that discretion to occur in court, then I guess you can. But you are wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I've been ticketed for jaywalking, actually. And considering this is NYC, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an equal protection suit over these signs in the past.
Actually, it WAS a ticket.
For instance, streets are for driving (not for standing), camps are for camping (not for raves), bus stations are for waiting for the bus (not for sleeping), etc.
The problem here is that the state interest is completely bogus. The risk of a stranger kidnapping a child on a playground is vanishingly small. This isn't analogous to chasing ravers off of public campgrounds because of noise, this is analogous to chasing ravers off of public campgrounds because they might be animal-sacrificing goat-fucking Satanic cultists.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree, and most likely these horrible horrible childless adults payed taxes that keep that park running, but fuck them if they want to enjoy the outdoors and play with their friends, these childless heathen bastards.
Stupid law is stupid.
As for enforcement, though-while I'd agree you don't want the police ignoring lawbreaking, couldn't they have just run the guys off? The classic "Sorry, fellas, you can't be here. Yeah, I know, but don't blame me for enforcing laws you don't like. Move along, now." seems appropriate.
Ah, but then that would deny that cop filling his ticket quota (seven for the price of one!) and the City of New York its revenue from questionable draconian ticket enforcements (you know, because all the bureaucrats and politicians there pissed it all away on hookers and graft, but mostly hookers).
I'm from New York and shit like this makes me facepalm, though I haven't lived in NYC in the past 7 years (thank god I changed my state of residence too.... NY was raping me on state taxes). My cousin got ticketed once for walking in between subway cars. I can understand if the train was in motion for safety reasons but it was stopped and sitting at the terminal station, and so wasn't even moving. I suppose a person could still slip and fall between cars and down onto the tracks but letting him off with a warning seems more appropriate to me than, "Gotcha! This is a stick up, now give your money to NYC! IT HUNGERS!"
I just read the article more closely. They weren't in a playground, they were at the chess tables at a park?
Okay, fuck da police.
I have no apologies for this.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ticket quota? is that a real thing?
Worth a listen.
Yeah, I look at this exactly like someone getting a ticket for running a red light at 3AM when there isn't another car anywhere in sight. Is it dumb? Yeah—but you had notice that what you did was illegal, so you don't really have much of a complaint.
There was a sign, the guys were on notice, and they got burned. While the arrest is pretty silly, police can arrest for almost anything and maybe the cop just asked them to leave at first and they made a scene.
I had to read the OP three times because I could not wrap my head around just how stupid this is.
And maybe rodent ninjas set the entire thing up as part of the global squirrel conspiracy?
Alternatively: olol baseless speculation.
Wow.
Old men playing chess at a chess tables is a pretty iconic thing. I wish instead of seven hapless old men, the asshole cops (F the police) had tried this on Xavier and Magneto. That would have gone very well for them.
And authority figures wonder why they are consistently losing the respect of the general populace.