Curious, why should conviction history not be a factor? I could see the argument that previous convictions could indicate a lack of commitment to no longer committing crimes.
I couldn't parse the intended meaning from "lack of commitment to no longer commiting crimes"), so here's a response that just answers the question raised.
Do you regard the justice system as a method of rehabilitating offenders and returning them to try to be productive members of society, or do you consider it to be a system for punishment? If the latter, is it Just for society to punish somebody for the rest of their life for a crime, even if the criminal justice considers them safe to release into society?
Is there anything but a negative consequence for allowing a spent conviction to limit people's ability to work, or to own/rent a home? We have carve-outs for sensitive positions (e.g. working with children/vulnerable adults)
Consider what you would do in that position if you had genuinely turned a corner but were denied access to jobs you're qualified for?
The short answer is that it's up to a judge to decide that, up to the law what it's based on and up to the people what the law is.
Sure there is still some leeway between only letting a judge decide the punishment and full on mob rule, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy when the slope is actually slippy.
It's fairly easy to abuse the leeway to discriminate to exclude political dissidents for instance.
Because we as a society decided it creates externalities we don't want to deal with. With a list of exceptions where it actually is important because risk-reward balance is too much.
Is there a way their question could have been phrased that would have not drawn you to make that assumption, which seems to be an ethos attack, or are you predisposed to reply in such a way about any philosophical evolution question?
When people say /I'm not (.*?), but (.*)/, they invariably are what they're claiming they aren't. That's what that phrase means. For example, we've all heard it a million times from people defending their vote for Donald Trump. There's even a wikipedia page about it:
If you really mean $2, then just say $2, you don't have to preface it with "I'm not $1, but". That's a waste of words, beating around the bush, a rhetorical shield, that reveals that you really are $1 and you feel the need to be defensive about it.
The word "but" in that context means the thing before it is false, just air escaping from the folds of your fat, and you can ignore everything before the "but".
"But" is a contrastive conjunction, signaling the clause before "but" is expected, socially required, or reputationally protective, and the clause after "but" is the actual communicative payload. It means to discount or ignore $1 and evaluate the speaker by $2. Saying “I’m not $1, but $2” does not strengthen $2, it does't make $2 safer or clearer, it just signals defensiveness, and undermines credibility.
Again, this is a discussion about psychedelic mushrooms, fairytale-like hallucinations, and machine elves, so woo away all you want!
It's actually pretty incredible for how well it runs and how good it looks on Switch. Focusing on a few FPS drops like this is really missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, it's amazing. The story is better, the dungeons are better, and the weapon durability is further reduced in impact due to continually finding new weapon attachments on enemies.
And you are listing pretty much the lower priority parts of the game - the exploration, density of content, core mechanics, innovation, insane freedom, variety of content, is absolute magic. It definitely plays like BOTW so you may not like it if you didn't like BOTW, but to say it doesn't have a lot of meaningful improvements is simply inaccurate.
I keep seeing this comment that companies are making their millions 'off of open source libraries' and it's a catchy phrase but let's be real the big companies that are using faker JS are making an insignificant amount extra by using that library, there are alternatives to mock data, etc. A key feature of MIT style licenses is that you can do whatever the hell you want with it for free, use a more restrictive license if you don't want people making a bunch of money off your code. I feel bad for this maintainer but a good takeaway is probably to not do a bunch of work for free unless you see a path to income down the road from it.
It is actively anti open source argument. It makes limited sense in subculture where contributing to open source is expected, but that subculture is absurdly small and answer to it is "this absolutely should not be mandatory".
In any other context, it is argument against open source existing.
So by your logic are you saying it'd be immoral for someone to provide an app or program that a user _specifically wants_ that tracks their device activity and shares it with a designated recipient? No one is forcing anybody to install this app, many apps like this exist on a variety of ecosystems and there are many many many testimonies of these types of apps helping people accomplish their accountability goals. How can something you explicitly agree to and want be considered 'invasive malware'?
There's nothing immoral about it if the parent is up front with the child, the child knows the device is monitored. If they don't want to be monitored, then they don't get the device. I know for a fact once my kids are older not a packet will leave my house without getting snooped at least by a parent controls filter. I'm sure they'll find ways around it (as I did as a technical child) but kids need to be protected from devices and the internet just as much as they need to have access. There is a great deal of harmful and damaging content - social media being the least of it in many ways. If a kid feels they need to hide something as meaningful as issues about sexuality (which I do understand is common) from their parents, the issue is not the filters, it's the relationship, and the solution isn't to give the minor free reign to choose to use the internet unabated according to their own wisdom. Once they're an adult, fine. I guess there are just extremely different views on parental authority today.
The position being put forth here is frankly rather horrific and abusive, and on multiple levels. Normally I'd aim to provide a more substantive response, but I'm not even sure where to begin.
I find the idea of snooping horrific and yet strangely find myself agreeing with the parent, because it may be the lesser of two evils at this point. So much of what's online and what can happen to a kid online is even more horrific. FWIW, I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what I'd do. But I know I had my first sex chat on IRC when I was 12, in the dialup days, and it could have gone pretty badly if I hadn't been paranoid enough not to give out my phone number or address to the "14 year old girl" I was chatting with. Things are much, much, much worse now.
I think you're probably just not in the circles that do this. Christian men do this all the time, either with their wives as the 'accountability partner' or a male Christian friend. It might be your opinion that there's nothing wrong with looking at porn occasionally but there are large groups that don't believe it is (eg most Christians) and if a married couple with that belief agree to set up an accountability system like this, whose right is it go deny that. Seems a bit like discrimination.
reply