should we send teenagers to jail for breaking the lockdown? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 03:08:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  should we send teenagers to jail for breaking the lockdown? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: should we send teenagers to jail for breaking the lockdown?
#1
yes, of course
 
#2
yes, of course, hopefully they'll get the Corona in jail, that'll learn 'em
 
#3
the kids should be told that they will be, but we shouldn't actually do it, that's insane
 
#4
no, of course not, they might get sick
 
#5
no, of course not, we live in a free country
 
#6
weaksauce, moderate hero, meh, dead0 doesn't get it, I'm stupid
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 41

Author Topic: should we send teenagers to jail for breaking the lockdown?  (Read 1717 times)
It’s so Joever
Forumlurker161
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,057


« on: May 04, 2020, 11:23:49 AM »
« edited: May 04, 2020, 11:41:34 AM by Forumlurker »

Ideally, we record them and deny them hospital treatment if they catch the virus. Also putting it on permanent record just so that all future employers and colleges can know. Hopefully social pressure and the trauma of the virus among the American public hurts them for years to come. I would gladly support colleges taking away scholarships/refusing to admit these people. Maybe we could also deny any possible future unemployment benefits/welfare for these criminals.
Normally I would be in favor of imprisonment, but prisons are still a hotbed for the virus and we don’t need to add that risk.
 I know several people from my school who have broken social distancing, and I will shed no tears for them. They are selfish, entitled, and demonstrate a shocking disdain for human life.
That being said, Lightfoot herself should be imprisoned after this.
This is for repeat offenders: First-time breaches of stay-at-home orders and other viral control orders should be given a warning.
Logged
It’s so Joever
Forumlurker161
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,057


« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2020, 02:24:23 PM »

Ideally, we record them and deny them hospital treatment if they catch the virus. Also putting it on permanent record just so that all future employers and colleges can know. Hopefully social pressure and the trauma of the virus among the American public hurts them for years to come. I would gladly support colleges taking away scholarships/refusing to admit these people. Maybe we could also deny any possible future unemployment benefits/welfare for these criminals.
wow, that's WAY worse than temporarily locking them up.  Are you always this creative with your punishments?

Punishment implies due process and conviction in court. Chicken Little is just straight up proposing arbitrary nonsense that would violate the 8th amendment and ex post facto clause if it came from a court but he doesn't even demand a trial. Honestly any bureaucrat trying to do what Chicken Little keeps derping about on this forum should at minimum go to jail and I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if something worse happened to them. Tyrants should not be suffered, and inventing cruel punishments after the fact and then imposing them absent due process is tyranny. My state flag is very clear about how we should react to bureaucrats trying to carry out Chicken Little's evil, deplorable proposal.

Being told I should be put in jail by a virus-truther who has to put me on ignore is a compliment.
You can argue about the feasibility of my ideas, but you don’t have the moral high ground. For all your talk about tyranny, thousands of people are dying each day from gross incompetence.
Maybe had you listened to Chicken Little back in early March, we could have been able to safely reopen by now.
Once again, time proves your virus-truthing wrong.
Logged
It’s so Joever
Forumlurker161
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,057


« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2020, 07:00:27 PM »

Ideally, we record them and deny them hospital treatment if they catch the virus.

...........

a shocking disdain for human life.

Hmm...
Fair enough, it is seemingly inconsistent.
The way I see it, more lives would be lost by not strictly enforcing orders than if we deny treatment to those who repeatedly break the order, so we should consider these measures.  (I am a utilitarian at heart)
The shock value of not being given treatment is meant as a deterrent more than anything, and also has a second function in that we would free up hospital space and resources for those who actually did follow the orders as they were supposed to.

Logged
It’s so Joever
Forumlurker161
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,057


« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2020, 09:08:47 PM »

Ideally, we record them and deny them hospital treatment if they catch the virus. Also putting it on permanent record just so that all future employers and colleges can know. Hopefully social pressure and the trauma of the virus among the American public hurts them for years to come. I would gladly support colleges taking away scholarships/refusing to admit these people. Maybe we could also deny any possible future unemployment benefits/welfare for these criminals.

Do you support Proposition 187?
To an extent.
I support the idea for non-working illegals.
In general I do think we need to take a number of steps to reduce illegal immigration. Proposition 187 could be a part of that framework.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.