BF2S Forums Way to go Florida! Banning access to the internet

seeing as i don't want to read a 22 page draft for some legislation pertaining to a niche leisure-time activity in a state i am likely never going to visit again... can you please add some more substance to your OP? i don't imagine many people are going to read that PDF, especially seeing as it is clearly still an early draft stage and hasn't been finalized yet.

how has an illegal slot machine ban ended up "banning access to the internet"? obviously the legal documents have to have an open-ended definition of what a 'slot machine' is, otherwise wily people will start devising slightly-different devices or systems that allows the activity to go on, unpunished. the wording of legal documents is normally quite abstract and formally vague. are you aware of the different methods of judicial interpretation? there are several 'laws' a legal official can use when appealing to legislation or statute. no interpretations of this document, or whatever clause you are talking about, is going to 'literally' ban all computers that can connect to the internet. in fact very few areas of law or statutory governance ever involve a strictly-legal interpretation of documents, normally it is the judges discretion, except in the extreme cases of child-porn or murder or some such offence where the application of law and tariffs for punishment are very rigorously set.

i hope you're not being this stupid?

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 11:30:36)

hmm, yeah, huffington post. bit of a non-story to me. loads of legal documents are worded in an open-ended way. sometimes it may be poor legalese writing on the parts of the legislators, but more often its purposefully left open to interpretation, to stop people taking advantage of 'strict' definitions. if you define a slot machine in a very specific way, all that's going to happen is all the people with vested/monied interests in slot machines are going to find some way to side-step it. then the legal process of revision/updating the law trundles along, taking months and years. that's no good. sometimes they'll write a wide-ended definition of something so that the document has lots of future-proofing.

the article seems to dramatize a non-story. unless huffpost really think law-enforcers are going to be so stupid as to apply a literal interpretation to that document (which, as i said, the law has several models of interpretation, see here)

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-10 11:52:10)

it's context dependent. sometimes there are whole cafes for online gambling and illegal slots. sometimes you see pc's or similar devices in clubs or things like that running a slot operation. it's not inconceivable that there are actual 'cafes' just for this sort of gambling activity. it's not like they're going to send police to every single internet cafe to shut it down, with no warrant or proof (who even uses net-cafes anymore).

that's more like GG america. you're cool bombing innocent 'insurgents' all over the world and you're cool locking up someone for 20+ years for possessing a bag of weed, but then it's outrageous that someone tries to gamble, or have an abortion. that's 'GG america'. that's what happens when you let crazy christian fundies set the moral agenda on capitol hill.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

that's more like GG america. you're cool bombing innocent 'insurgents' all over the world and you're cool locking up someone for 20+ years for possessing a bag of weed, but then it's outrageous that someone tries to gamble, or have an abortion. that's 'GG america'. that's what happens when you let crazy christian fundies set the moral agenda on capitol hill.

The District of Columbia and the following 18 U.S. states currently do not have an enforceable death penalty statute (the year it was abolished is in parentheses):
Alaska (1957)
Connecticut (2012)1
Hawaii (1957)
Illinois (2011)
Iowa (1965)
Maine (1887)
Maryland (2013)1
Massachusetts (1984)2
Michigan (1846)
Minnesota (1911)
New Jersey (2007)
New Mexico (2009)1
New York (2007)2
North Dakota (1973)
Rhode Island (1984)
Vermont (1964)
West Virginia (1965)
Wisconsin (1853)

Notes:
1. In these states, the death penalty is enforceable for offenses committed before the repeal; that is, abolition was not retroactive.
2. Death penalty statute struck down by court ruling.

i wanna go to utah again

Steve-0 wrote:

fuck yeah. we shot gary gilmore, and we shouldnt've stopped there.

i like how topics go from banning the internet to the death penalty in 10 posts.

Shut your mouth slut

Because God says so. An oh btw, separation of church and state is sacred.

Here's what these guys have to say about it:

[...]God does not want manufacturers producing shoddy materials in order to take advantage of their customers.

A wise principle to follow in selecting either a pure or mixed garment is to purchase the best quality one can afford—it will last longer and fit better than inferior, less expensive clothes. The primary reason to do this is to honor and glorify God in what we wear, especially if the clothing is to be worn primarily for church services. However, it is not wise to go into debt buying better quality than one can afford.

...yeah.

Expensive doesn't have to be flashy. Just says well made.

"The best quality you can afford to glorify god," because supreme beings care about the thread-count of your silk tie collection. No, they do it to glorify themselves before other worshipers.

While bragging about how humble they are in front of a microphone.

It's one of the many contradictory views seen in the political views of citizenry, like wanting the state to ban all abortion but accelerate death row, and control gays but not guns. And now Florida's temper tantrum about online/computerized gambling (??) but hearty support of execution.

What the hell?

yes... don't most of those communities make their own clothes? most stuff i have read/watched about the amish show cloth-making as one of the main roles of the women.