Sergeant Cid Posted:

Honestly, a lot of **** needs to be illegal while driving. I have very little confidence in the average human’s ability to multi-task, and when one of those tasks is maneuvering a 1000 lb piece of metal and fuel at 65 mph in heavy traffic, most people need to devote more attention to that task than they normally do.

“The Average Human” being the operative term. I personally believe all those with an IQ below 120 should be forced into indentured servitude or legal prostitution after sterilization.

Sergeant Cid Posted:

Honestly, a lot of **** needs to be illegal while driving. I have very little confidence in the average human’s ability to multi-task, and when one of those tasks is maneuvering a 1000 lb piece of metal and fuel at 65 mph in heavy traffic, most people need to devote more attention to that task than they normally do.

Driving is less complex than throwing a ball at a target.

Big Brother Posted:

...

...

...

But what about all the sexy women who DON’T have an IQ below 120?

Can you annoy them while they’re taking the test so they get a bad result?

Those are the ones we allow to breed.

I’m curious about what actually constitutes a sex offender in various places. In Florida it looks like you have to do something really nasty to get called a sex offender, so I can’t say I have much sympathy for their bridge plight. In days past in Oklahoma (where I live), however, if you were caught peeing in public you could get slapped with indecent exposure, which would then tag you as a sex offender, and being stuck under a bridge for peeing in public would seem like a really harsh punishment.

What do you all know about this?

MasterHaxxor Posted:

I just checked the Florida sex offender registry’s FAQ and it seems like downloading certain pornography is enough to get you labeled as a sex offender and sent to live under a bridge, meaning many of those people may not have “Touched a Child” like some others ITT have said. Just for anyone curious, the offense is listed as “Computer pornography, excluding subsection 847.0135(4)” and the link to the page is http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/FAQ.jsp (it’s in chart 1 under the first question)

If you go a little further, though (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/titl0847.htm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=-%3E2008-%3EChapter%20847), that statute seems to suggest that the computer pornography includes intent to travel to meet a minor for illegal purposes. Of course, it’s 2am, and all the legal mumbo jumbo makes my brain hurt a bit, so I could be reading that wrong.

StirFryKitty Posted:

Of course, Florida still has statutes on the books about unmarried people living together and it being a misdemeanor, etc. So I’m not suggesting that Florida is doing it any better than anywhere else.

Anyway, both “Transmission of child pornography by electronic device/equipment” and “Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device/equipment” are there, so it’s very possible for someone who has never touched a child to be a registered sex offender in Florida. About the one I posted before, I never looked into it too far, so I admit I could be wrong about that one.

Yeah, the real mess doesn’t start until drawings of children are considered CP.