Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News Insider)   Not News: A new bill would prevent sex offenders from working in schools. Fark: Teachers Unions have a problem with that   (foxnewsinsider.com) divider line 127
    More: Fail, education trade unions, sex offenders, rapists, unions  
•       •       •

4102 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 10:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 10:57:24 PM  

fusillade762: anwserman: Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life

But ZOMG UNIONS WANT TO RAPE YOUR CHILDREN!!!

I feel dirty that I clicked on a Fox link by accident.


This.
 
2013-10-25 10:59:18 PM  

Captain Dan: Why can't both parties just reform the sex offender list?  Give it three tiers, and ban Tier 3 offenders from teaching.

Tier 1 - 16 year old has sex with 16 year old
Tier 2 - flasher
Tier 3 - legitimate rapist


Tier one shouldn't be on any list as you have presented it.  That's a grounding from Facebook.  Tier two shouldn't be on any list as you have presented it, are you describing women and their milk bearing functions or some dude in a trench coat with those faux pant legs?  And then rape... sometimes a "he said/she said" type of situation.  Oh wait, you only want the legitimate ones as Tier 3.  But you haven't made good arguments for 1 or 2 existing.  fark the registry.  Time served is time served.  End these shenanigans or do what we used to do by sending 'sexual deviants' to the mental institutions.
 
2013-10-25 10:59:23 PM  

Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.


No, no, they're ALL rapists, essentially.
 
2013-10-25 11:00:44 PM  

Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.


Well, the thing is there is a wide range of perception as to what gets you on a sex offender registry.

On one extreme there are those who think being on it means you raped 5 year old kids and on the other there are those who think it could mean you just pissed in a dark alley and got surprised by the cops.

If someone rapes a child, I don't think we should let them out of prison ever and I've tried to find examples of people who have to register as a sex offender for drunken pissing in an alley but I can't find any.

There are plenty of cases in between those extremes like an 18 year old who has a 16 year old girlfriend who aren't a threat to anyone though that have to register as sex offenders.  Thankfully most states have so-called Romeo and Juliet clauses which let those cases slide.

What's interesting - and sad - is that when I looked up sex offenders in my area a few years ago I found out there was one living in my apartment complex.  It didn't say if he raped a 5 year old kid or just pissed in an alleyway and either way he wasn't a threat to me.but just telling the landlord I knew that and hinting that I might let everyone else who lived there know about him got me out of my lease with no penalties whatsoever.  I told her to give it to me in writing and she did.  So, I gave absolutely no notice and broke the lease at my leisure.

See, sex offender registries are good for something.....not if you're on the registry of course, but whatever.

/when I lived at that apt. complex, one day a girl probably about 9 years old knocked on my door.  I opened it and it took her a couple of seconds to realize she had the wrong apartment.  She was expecting her grandmother or something.   What if she had knocked on the sex offender's door instead of mine?  Just the possibility would send shivers up and down her parent's spine.
 
2013-10-25 11:01:06 PM  
Since Megyn Kelly works at the same company as Mr Loofah, I wonder what her opinion is of working with him? He paid his way out of any court case.
 
2013-10-25 11:01:39 PM  

Rhino_man: You know, Drew has ways to try and shut your whole account down.


From what I understand from moderators, that's really rare.
 
2013-10-25 11:03:09 PM  
All you libs and union apologists should cool your tits on blaming foxnews; the below quote is from an abcnews article...http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20650235&ref=https%3A%2F%2F www.google.com%2F

"The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes."
 
2013-10-25 11:04:36 PM  

MrHappyRotter: I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault. He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.


I winced when I saw they said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MO) was against it. He's the one Muslim in Congress.


/except for the secret ones!!!
 
2013-10-25 11:07:28 PM  
america is farking ridiculous
 
2013-10-25 11:10:09 PM  

WhyKnot: All you libs and union apologists should cool your tits on blaming foxnews; the below quote is from an abcnews article...http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20650235&ref=https%3A%2F%2F www.google.com%2F

"The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes."


That's a nice objective analysis of the story. Now compare it with this.

Megyn Kelly asked on her show tonight, "What is the real endgame by the unions? Because you can't imagine that the unions want convicted rapists to be working next to their children in these schools. So what is the motivation"


and later

"Who wants a convicted sex offender working next to their children?!" Megyn Kelly reacted. "There are certain rights you give up if you rape somebody and get convicted."

See the difference? Of course you do, you're just being an ass.
 
2013-10-25 11:11:49 PM  

Anne.Uumellmahaye: Captain Dan: Why can't both parties just reform the sex offender list?  Give it three tiers, and ban Tier 3 offenders from teaching.

Tier 1 - 16 year old has sex with 16 year old
Tier 2 - flasher
Tier 3 - legitimate rapist

I don't want to get all "Think of the Children" on you, but I don't wa t a flasher teaching my kids. Some perv beast of a woman wearing skirts and no underoos to my kindergartener's circle time? No thank you.


And then there's that guy who was walking around naked in his own home at three in the morning and some woman happened to look INTO HIS HOME, saw him, and pressed charges.

Of coarse, if the genders were reversed guess what the outcome would have been.
 
2013-10-25 11:14:47 PM  

gfid: /when I lived at that apt. complex, one day a girl probably about 9 years old knocked on my door. I opened it and it took her a couple of seconds to realize she had the wrong apartment. She was expecting her grandmother or something. What if she had knocked on the sex offender's door instead of mine? Just the possibility would send shivers up and down her parent's spine.


...and what if you weren't that sex offender, but some other, unrecognized offender, who molested that girl at your leisure, tossed her back into the bushes, and then blamed the "known" molester when she turned up raped and/or dead? Which happens too, and more often than one might wish to think. As you say, you had no idea if the "offender" in your complex was some poor fool who ran afoul of the Romeo & Juliet laws, or a genuine predator, or a John Wayne Gacy wannabe with zero interest in young girls.

There are other reasons for disliking these offender registers; one is that they focus attention on guys who may or may not be trying to get on with their lives while new predators are operating in the background while everyone's back is turned. Remember that something like 90% of molestations are done by family members; which means that chances are the people picketing the home of the "child predator" are the very ones who are diddling their own offspring.
 
2013-10-25 11:15:15 PM  

gfid: Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.

Well, the thing is there is a wide range of perception as to what gets you on a sex offender registry.

On one extreme there are those who think being on it means you raped 5 year old kids and on the other there are those who think it could mean you just pissed in a dark alley and got surprised by the cops.

If someone rapes a child, I don't think we should let them out of prison ever and I've tried to find examples of people who have to register as a sex offender for drunken pissing in an alley but I can't find any.


As commented above by several, the pissing outdoors thing happens way too often.  The best part is if you try to be decent and obscure yourself in the bushes on private property, you can pick up a prowling charge as well.

/selling depends on a bar crawl is still not a sex offense
//unless it's to astronauts
 
2013-10-25 11:15:24 PM  
[ABC News] The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping.

So a bitter soon-to-be ex lies, and you're farked. Or you take the blame for defending yourself when he/she goes psycho, therefore you're certain to rape and kill teh snowflakes!
 
2013-10-25 11:18:05 PM  

Snapper Carr: WhyKnot: All you libs and union apologists should cool your tits on blaming foxnews; the below quote is from an abcnews article...http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20650235&ref=https%3A%2F%2F www.google.com%2F

"The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes."

That's a nice objective analysis of the story. Now compare it with this.

Megyn Kelly asked on her show tonight, "What is the real endgame by the unions? Because you can't imagine that the unions want convicted rapists to be working next to their children in these schools. So what is the motivation"


and later

"Who wants a convicted sex offender working next to their children?!" Megyn Kelly reacted. "There are certain rights you give up if you rape somebody and get convicted."

See the difference? Of course you do, you're just being an ass.


Yup, the difference between a talk show and a news article.

Let's flip over and see what ole' CNN has to say?

The fact of the matter is that the union is looking out for its members and not the best interest of the segment of society that is ill prepared to protect themselves from said union members.
 
2013-10-25 11:19:46 PM  
Simple statement: All pedophiles are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are pedophiles. I think that they should be subject to an evaluation/investigate process before being approved by the state board, but otherwise, outright banning someone on a list is a little overkill.
 
2013-10-25 11:19:48 PM  
As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.
 
2013-10-25 11:20:32 PM  

NewWorldDan: How about we just let people who have fully completed their sentences, including probation, get on with their lives and contribute to society.  Do a background check and handle things on a case by case basis.


This.  I don't mean to say that employers shouldn't be able to consider your criminal record, but get rid of the sex offender registry altogether and get rid of laws which prevent felons who have completed their sentences from voting or owning guns.

If they're too dangerous to vote or own a weapon or they need to be put on a list and restricted from living too close to a school or a playground, then maybe they should still be in prison.  If they've served their time, let them re-integrate back into society with all of the rights that everyone else has.

This shiat is getting ridiculous.  Cities are building parks not meant for children, but meant to keep sex offenders out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-sex - offenders-away.html?_r=0
 
2013-10-25 11:20:54 PM  

gerbilpox: [ABC News] The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping.

So a bitter soon-to-be ex lies, and you're farked. Or you take the blame for defending yourself when he/she goes psycho, therefore you're certain to rape and kill teh snowflakes!


Darn it all! My response was in reply to this.
 
2013-10-25 11:23:07 PM  

WhyKnot: All you libs and union apologists should cool your tits on blaming foxnews; the below quote is from an abcnews article...http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20650235&ref=https%3A%2F%2F www.google.com%2F

"The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes."


This is Fark, which has a higher percentage of Democrat fanboys than DemocraticUnderground.com. You should always expect FAUX NEWS!!!1!11111!111!!1!!
 
2013-10-25 11:26:13 PM  

Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.


Nope, someone up thread said a 'bitter soon to be ex' could easily do it...sorry, you should have commented sooner.

/ just being a dick, sorry you have to witness what you did
 
2013-10-25 11:26:15 PM  

Captain Dan: Why can't both parties just reform the sex offender list?  Give it three tiers, and ban Tier 3 offenders from teaching.

Tier 1 - 16 year old has sex with 16 year old
Tier 2 - flasher
Tier 3 - legitimate rapist


I do believe that's why we have differing degrees to committed felonies.

So if we follow your template for changes:

First Degree Sexual Assault- Molestation (all kinds), Rape (all kinds).
Second Degree Sexual Assault- 19-year-old has sex with a 16 or 17-year-old.
Third Degree Sexual Assault- Flasher, Indecent exposure, Pissing in the bushes.

Makes sense to me.
 
2013-10-25 11:29:58 PM  

gfid: Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.

Well, the thing is there is a wide range of perception as to what gets you on a sex offender registry.

On one extreme there are those who think being on it means you raped 5 year old kids and on the other there are those who think it could mean you just pissed in a dark alley and got surprised by the cops.

If someone rapes a child, I don't think we should let them out of prison ever and I've tried to find examples of people who have to register as a sex offender for drunken pissing in an alley but I can't find any.

There are plenty of cases in between those extremes like an 18 year old who has a 16 year old girlfriend who aren't a threat to anyone though that have to register as sex offenders.  Thankfully most states have so-called Romeo and Juliet clauses which let those cases slide.

What's interesting - and sad - is that when I looked up sex offenders in my area a few years ago I found out there was one living in my apartment complex.  It didn't say if he raped a 5 year old kid or just pissed in an alleyway and either way he wasn't a threat to me.but just telling the landlord I knew that and hinting that I might let everyone else who lived there know about him got me out of my lease with no penalties whatsoever.  I told her to give it to me in writing and she did.  So, I gave absolutely no notice and broke the lease at my leisure.

See, sex offender registries are good for something.....not if you're on the registry of course, but whatever.

/when I lived at that apt. complex, one day a girl probably about 9 years old knocked on my door.  I opened it and it took her a couple of seconds to realize she had the wrong apartment.  She was expecting her grandmother or something.   What if she had knocked on the sex offender's door instead of mine?  Just the possibility would send shivers up and down her parent's spine.


A lot of states have removed public urination from the list or have separated it from indecent exposure so drunk college kids don't get charged. Back in 2003 I searched the list for 62903 (zip code for the campus of SIU Carbondale) and had about 300 people listed in the dorms today i did the same search and only 2 people came up
 
2013-10-25 11:31:13 PM  

Sugarbombs: As commented above by several, the pissing outdoors thing happens way too often.  The best part is if you try to be decent and obscure yourself in the bushes on private property, you can pick up a prowling charge as well.


I've heard anecdotes on the internet.  I haven't found any documented news stories about specific cases.

I did read an article once where a police spokesman said such an offense would not put you on a registry.  Sorry, no cite, but I know I read that and it would only apply to that one city anyway (IIRC, it was OKC).

I was busted for pissing in a park once.  I wasn't drunk, I was just about 6 years old, but the cops lectured me.  They didn't issue a citation or anything, but those may have been more sensible times.

And quite frankly, while pissing in public even if you think you are out of sight is stupid and wrong, if it happened to me and they put me on a sex offender registry I'd fight that as far as I could.  I would proclaim far and wide that I was wrong to piss in public and was willing to accept whatever reasonable penalties may apply, but I would not accept being thrown onto a list with child molesters.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:18 PM  
Actual teacher here, and I've had to pass multiple fingerprint & background checks from the DOJ & FBI both...BEFORE employment.
 
2013-10-25 11:35:35 PM  

WhyKnot: Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.

Nope, someone up thread said a 'bitter soon to be ex' could easily do it...sorry, you should have commented sooner.

/ just being a dick, sorry you have to witness what you did


I was responding to that comment but it didn't quote for whatever reason and I'm too busy being an insomniac to preview my comments.

Can't sleep, sex offender teacher clown will eat me.
 
2013-10-25 11:36:17 PM  
I think we need to go full-court-press in a slightly different direction and make it so that anyone with a felony conviction can not run for public office or get appointed/hired/contracted by someone in elected office.

/personally I'd rather not live near an arsonist
//another 10 years and half the population will be on that silly list
///I'm fully nekkid under my clothes!
 
2013-10-25 11:41:51 PM  

gfid: NewWorldDan: How about we just let people who have fully completed their sentences, including probation, get on with their lives and contribute to society.  Do a background check and handle things on a case by case basis.

This.  I don't mean to say that employers shouldn't be able to consider your criminal record, but get rid of the sex offender registry altogether and get rid of laws which prevent felons who have completed their sentences from voting or owning guns.

If they're too dangerous to vote or own a weapon or they need to be put on a list and restricted from living too close to a school or a playground, then maybe they should still be in prison.  If they've served their time, let them re-integrate back into society with all of the rights that everyone else has.

This shiat is getting ridiculous.  Cities are building parks not meant for children, but meant to keep sex offenders out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-sex - offenders-away.html?_r=0


Felons can earn back their rights to vote.

If you convicted of a violent crime, I have no problem taking your guns for life...hell, people want to take all guns because they are scared of them.

As for registries, I think it should be done by board approval, but f you touch kids or are intentionally inappropriate to them, have no problem branding you for life.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Remember that something like 90% of molestations are done by family members;


So it's probably a good thing that little girl knocked on my door instead of her grandmother's.

But on a more serious note, you're right.  I don't now the percentages, but it is usually a family member who molests children.  We hear about the horror stories of abductions on the news more often, but usually the threat lies within.  And if it's not a family member, it's likely to be someone the family trusts. Kids may be a bit naive, but they're not likely to fall into the trap of some creep who pulls up along side them and offers them candy.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:39 PM  

Over_Zealously_Apathetic: CivicMindedFive: The sex-offender label needs a serious overhaul to exclude things like peeing in a bush and some statutory rape where the age differences are very close together.  That said, I have little doubt unions would still fight this no matter what because it's what government unions do.

Yeah, and your heroes, "the authority", would keep people from teaching if they pee on a wall outside.

Maybe, just maybe, they meet somewhere in the middle.

Huh.

/tiring.


I'm amazed some folks can even comprehend a two sentence post.
 
2013-10-25 11:51:47 PM  
Well, let's read this article...

Interviewee 1: "I hate unions"
Interviewee 2: "I hate unions, too, but more."
{no actual content}

Me: Well, this was flagrantly fabricated. Who wrote this garbage [scrolls up] oh. Fox. Of course. (It's a trap)
 
2013-10-26 12:04:14 AM  
How is being a sex offender in general relevant to interaction with children, particularly?

99% of sex crimes don't involve underaged people in any way.
 
2013-10-26 12:05:30 AM  

WhyKnot: Felons can earn back their rights to vote.


It varies by state but in some places it isn't easy.  At least one state allows prisoners to vote.  In some other states, it takes special attention from the governor to have your voting rights reinstated and fat chance the governor is going to want to deal with some felon unless he contributes a shiat-ton of cash to his campaign.

If you convicted of a violent crime, I have no problem taking your guns for life...hell, people want to take all guns because they are scared of them.

And like I said if you're still scared of the criminal, maybe they should still be in prison.  And gun rights aren't taken away just for violent offenders.  They're taken away from felons.  For example, if you give a joint to someone in Alabama you could be convicted of a felony.  Yup, that's right.  That's not really a violent crime, is it?  I don't think we have to lock up the guy who shared a joint for life either.

There are plenty of felonies that aren't exactly violent.

As for registries, I think it should be done by board approval, but f you touch kids or are intentionally inappropriate to them, have no problem branding you for life.

Why not just keep them in prison?  There is a lot of conflicting data on recidivism rates of sex offenders and even if people aren't put on registries just for pissing in public or streaking should we really do what we do?  (i.e. build parks just so they can't live in certain neighborhoods, force them to live under bridges, etc...)

If their crime was so heinous, why are we letting them out of prison?  If it wasn't that bad and they have served their sentence (including parole or probation), why not let them live their life?
 
2013-10-26 12:09:48 AM  

Sugarbombs: anwserman: Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life

The only sex offender I've ever known earned his scarlet letter for that.  Outside of that, though, I thought it was beyond difficult to get a teaching position if you had a conviction of any sort, including that time you received a misdemeanor for drinking underage in college and still managed to use proper restroom facilities with a closed and locked door.


Not to mention getting fired if they ever find out you took your clothes off in front of a camera.
 
2013-10-26 12:12:14 AM  
WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY......

ww3.hdnux.com

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR

DERP DERP DERP DERPA DERPITY DURR
 
2013-10-26 12:18:02 AM  
While I don't believe anyone convicted of any crime involving a minor (aside from under 20 banging a 16+) should be working with kids, nor many violent offenders, this bears repeating:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also opposes the bill because he says the language would ignore the ability of people to overcome their criminal backgrounds by imposing lifetime bans.

Support ban the box legislation - at some point people should be able to move on with their lives. When you commit a nonviolent act and it's still causing you problems years, even decades down the line due to mandatory legislation like this, the law is wrong. Once you've done the time, you should not be able to be continually punished by outside entities, and private companies can get farked.
 
2013-10-26 12:20:18 AM  

hardinparamedic: Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.

But but union wants SEX OFFENDERS working with YOUR CHILDREN!

We report, YOU Decide....FOX NEWS! FAIR AND BALANCED!!!!!


It's remarkable how widespread Fox Derangement Syndrome is on Fark. It appears that the mere existence of a non-leftist news outlet is enough to trigger psychosis in those who are susceptible. Let's hope Obamacare can change that.
 
2013-10-26 12:24:31 AM  

WhyKnot: The fact of the matter is that the union is looking out for its members and not the best interest of the segment of society that is ill prepared to protect themselves from said union members.


Sorry, but the function of a union is to protect the members of the union. Considering how different background checks are between districts and states, how different the criteria are for certain offenses, and whether or not those offenses stop the obtaining of a certificate or employment, this creates a significant issue with providing legal support to once employed teachers who are members of a national or state educator union. Further, simply because a group suggests there are issues with this legislation does not mean a group is to general opposite end, wanting to place a sex offender in every classroom, but rather a vital role in assuring legal protections is upheld; remember, this is a piece of legislation which may be crafted in shortsighted, overreaching, too narrow, etc., ways.

To not be critical of this because of the children is to not provide the needed protection for teachers due to some nebulous moral bludgeon. For instance, are there numbers about how many teachers might be affected by this legislation? Are there estimates then about potential predators or similar working in schools now? Do we have any indication this legislation is needed? Do we have any indication this legislation is well-crafted for the purpose proposed? Sorry, but in education, people use 'because of the children' far too much and yet what comes is not in the best interest of children, which legal protections for teachers are, frankly.

This from an educator who has not joined any local or national union because none represents me.
 
2013-10-26 12:26:15 AM  

jjorsett: It's remarkable how widespread Fox Derangement Syndrome is on Fark. It appears that the mere existence of a non-leftist news outlet is enough to trigger psychosis in those who are susceptible. Let's hope Obamacare can change that.


There are plenty of non-left news outlets. Many of whom actually give news, rather than opinions and editorial disguised as news.

But thanks for playing.
 
2013-10-26 12:26:21 AM  
I would agree to this so long as what is considered a sex offender is adjusted:

not a sex offender:

teens having consensual sex
streakers
teens sexting each other.
Flashers so long as they do not flash kids .
teachers who have sex with student who are 16 and older so long as both are consenting.
peeing out of doors and getting caught.

Sex offenders level 1:
molestors ( non child)
date rapists ( non violent )
Flashers who flash kid on purpose bit do nothing else.

Sex offender level 2:

Molestors ( child)
full on rapists. ( no child rape and minimum of volience )
kiddie porn collectors
adults who have sex with kids under 15
Sex with an unconscious victim

Sex offender 3

those who rape kids
producers of child porn
violent rapists
kidnapping someone for use as a sex slave.
 
2013-10-26 12:27:22 AM  
adjustment to my last post sexting so long as one party does not share the pics is not a sex offense.
 
2013-10-26 12:27:32 AM  

Anne.Uumellmahaye: gerbilpox: [ABC News] The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping.

So a bitter soon-to-be ex lies, and you're farked. Or you take the blame for defending yourself when he/she goes psycho, therefore you're certain to rape and kill teh snowflakes!

Darn it all! My response was in reply to this.


Hah! Too late! Yours was a non sequitur, and mine is uncontested! The intellectual high ground is mine!
 
2013-10-26 12:37:06 AM  
This is a solution to a problem no one has. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're not getting hired by any school district anyway. Not for any position from assistant janitor to principal. I'm here to tell you, as a former classroom teacher, they fingerprint you and run your criminal background before a final offer is made, so even before Day One the school district is sure you have no record. This is pure Fox fear pandering.
 
2013-10-26 12:41:39 AM  

gerbilpox: Anne.Uumellmahaye: gerbilpox: [ABC News] The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping.

So a bitter soon-to-be ex lies, and you're farked. Or you take the blame for defending yourself when he/she goes psycho, therefore you're certain to rape and kill teh snowflakes!

Darn it all! My response was in reply to this.

Hah! Too late! Yours was a non sequitur, and mine is uncontested! The intellectual high ground is mine!


Verily, you have triumphed. Next time contain your nerdgasm, you're staining the rug.
 
2013-10-26 12:43:21 AM  

highwayrun: This is a solution to a problem no one has. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're not getting hired by any school district anyway. Not for any position from assistant janitor to principal. I'm here to tell you, as a former classroom teacher, they fingerprint you and run your criminal background before a final offer is made, so even before Day One the school district is sure you have no record. This is pure Fox fear pandering.


Because fox wrote the law....that is pure derp on your part to blame foxnews.
 
2013-10-26 12:45:28 AM  

MrHappyRotter: I was planning to visit this thread and make a comment or two.  But then I reviewed the handful of comments in here and anything and everything I was going to say has already been said.  I wasn't going to go all snark, I wasn't going to dial up the mockery.  In light of this, I probably could go one of those two routes, and I could do it quite successfully.  I might even get a few people to click the smart or funny buttons.  Likely, at some point, I might even get a reply or two.

One of them might be from some poor schmuck whose sarcasmometer is on the fritz.  There's always a few of them in every thread.  No matter how obvious I make my comments, they latch on to the imaginary boogey man they want to believe is behind the comment and simply cannot resist the temptation to reply.

The other(s) are in on the joke.  They know the deal, they play along.  Either they congratulate me on my post or expound upon it.  Maybe they'll be funnier, kudos to you Farker who can take a comment and reply to it with outstanding wit and humor.  You deserve all the attention you get and more.  Maybe it'll be a half hearted reply, acknowledging that you see what I did there or some variation on one of the other half thousand popular memes rolling around on Fark these days.

Regardless of it all, I'll be sure to hit the smart and funny link on your post.  People don't use those enough, so hopefully if you even bother to check, you'd see your name, your post, in the funny and smart lists for having spent the time to reply to me.  Even if your response was due to your inability to read between the lines, or your joke fell flat, I still love you.

In closing, I want to return to the subject matter at hand, rather than my psuedo intellectual meta spiel.  I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault.  He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.  The net effect is that kids will no longer be smart enough to figure out ...


You forgot to mention that the kid grew up to be a transgenered cop. Otherwise, I think you've got all the bases covered.
 
2013-10-26 12:51:09 AM  

grimlock1972: I would agree to this so long as what is considered a sex offender is adjusted:

not a sex offender:

teens having consensual sex
streakers
teens sexting each other.
Flashers so long as they do not flash kids .
teachers who have sex with student who are 16 and older so long as both are consenting.
peeing out of doors and getting caught.

Sex offenders level 1:
molestors ( non child)
date rapists ( non violent )
Flashers who flash kid on purpose bit do nothing else.

Sex offender level 2:

Molestors ( child)
full on rapists. ( no child rape and minimum of volience )
kiddie porn collectors
adults who have sex with kids under 15
Sex with an unconscious victim

Sex offender 3

those who rape kids
producers of child porn
violent rapists
kidnapping someone for use as a sex slave.


I think flashers of all sorts should be under level one, as unlike streaking, it's a deliberate act against an individual or group. Also, what's a non-violent date rapist? You've got the passed-out-drunk rapist on there, and the rapey rapists, so what sort of rapist counts as non-violent?

Otherwise I agree, that's a pretty fair and comprehensive list. No one level 1 and above should be working with kids or vulnerable populations (which is pretty much already covered as an exception to federal labor laws and discriminating against those with convictions).
 
2013-10-26 01:07:55 AM  

Vector R: grimlock1972: I would agree to this so long as what is considered a sex offender is adjusted:

not a sex offender:

teens having consensual sex
streakers
teens sexting each other.
Flashers so long as they do not flash kids .
teachers who have sex with student who are 16 and older so long as both are consenting.
peeing out of doors and getting caught.

Sex offenders level 1:
molestors ( non child)
date rapists ( non violent )
Flashers who flash kid on purpose bit do nothing else.

Sex offender level 2:

Molestors ( child)
full on rapists. ( no child rape and minimum of volience )
kiddie porn collectors
adults who have sex with kids under 15
Sex with an unconscious victim

Sex offender 3

those who rape kids
producers of child porn
violent rapists
kidnapping someone for use as a sex slave.

I think flashers of all sorts should be under level one, as unlike streaking, it's a deliberate act against an individual or group. Also, what's a non-violent date rapist? You've got the passed-out-drunk rapist on there, and the rapey rapists, so what sort of rapist counts as non-violent?

Otherwise I agree, that's a pretty fair and comprehensive list. No one level 1 and above should be working with kids or vulnerable populations (which is pretty much already covered as an exception to federal labor laws and discriminating against those with convictions).


non violent date rapist would be they fark their date while he or she is drugged with out beating the crap out of them.

you have a point on flashers.
 
2013-10-26 01:12:01 AM  

grimlock1972: I would agree to this so long as what is considered a sex offender is adjusted:

not a sex offender:

teens having consensual sex
streakers
teens sexting each other.
Flashers so long as they do not flash kids .
teachers who have sex with student who are 16 and older so long as both are consenting.
peeing out of doors and getting caught.

Sex offenders level 1:
molestors ( non child)
date rapists ( non violent )
Flashers who flash kid on purpose bit do nothing else.

Sex offender level 2:

Molestors ( child)
full on rapists. ( no child rape and minimum of volience )
kiddie porn collectors
adults who have sex with kids under 15
Sex with an unconscious victim

Sex offender 3

those who rape kids
producers of child porn
violent rapists
kidnapping someone for use as a sex slave.


The entire point of statutory rape is that, even though the kids say they consent, they are legally unable to provide consent.  They're kids and can't comprehend the full level of what they are consenting with.  If you think they can, change statutory laws.

/ I do think kids close in age shouldn't be charged when they think they consented, if for no reason than that neither of them can consent, so really, neither of them can have 'raped' the other.
// Adults know better.
 
2013-10-26 01:13:34 AM  
I think we can easily cull out sex offenders from the list of potential school employees.  The process of getting listed as a sex offender is not perfect, but we are not talking about a large group of unjustly criticized individuals.  Peeing in the bushes?  WTF?  For sure this is strange to equate with indecent exposure, but are people so terrified of the number of port-o-potties at a Phish concert that they think they might get arrested for this?  The sex offender list for people undeserving is really small compared to our population.  The number of that small number that are seeking educational employment is even smaller.  This is a low, low bar.  If you don't like the conditions under which people are put on the sex offender list, that's fine.  Attack that angle.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report