cannoli-reader

[cannoli-reader]

This is why I hate centrists and extremists. People are such idiots for listening to either group. I am firmly against both, and prefer my superior, more intelligent position. You can tell I'm in the right, because you can never find someone I supported going down in flames or betraying his base.

Do you think centrists are spineless

No. Most centrists are just people who have varied opinions and don't easily fall within the modern left/right divide in a big way.

But I do think there are a group of people who call themselves centrists, or who are lumped in with centrists, who only want to be against everything. The "pox on both houses" people who only ever seem to be against things, never for anything. Except being smug online about how everyone else is stupid for believing in anything. And I think those people are worthless.

[cannoli-reader]

Another thing to keep in mind is that WoT is about the importance of communication, and one of the ways it highlights that importance is by showing how easy it is to refrain from communicating, to tempting it is to keep secrets, or how your attitude can frighten off people you want to help from communicating your problems. Like telling them "I will destroy you before I let the Dark One have you." All well and good, but when the Dark One invades their dreams and says "You are mine!" they are going to be really reluctant to share that detail with someone who has basically threatened to kill them if he's telling the truth.

When you appreciate all the reasons, motivations, and allure of suspicion, mistrust and secret-keeping, then you can recognize the moments of trust, honesty and willingness to ask for, or give, help, as the triumphs they really are.

Was a bit bothered at first by how suspicious everyone in the Wheel of Time books are of each other, but then I realised it's actually a lot more psychologically realistic that way. In the real world you would have no clue who's a friend and who's a foe, and even less so in a world where secret allegiances and evil conspiracies abound.

[cannoli-reader]

yaolin could also be how they make baby Andalites.

<I am Samilin-Corrath-Gahar, captain of this ship,> the oldest of them said. <My tactical officer Hareli-Frodlin-Sirinial, and our ship's physician, Doctor Coaldwin-Ashul-Tahaylik. Now what in yaolin are you doing drifting around in Zero-space with five aliens?> p. 66

More named Andalites.

Also, what is yaolin? I feel like the sentence would still work fine if I replaced it with 'God's name' so, is that something to do with Andalite religion? Just the vibes it gives me.

[cannoli-reader]

First of all, Tam screwed that up by divulging her role in bringing him there, even though she warned him against that.

Secondly, there is the point that everything suggesting Cadsuane was trying to control him came from tGS. She specifically eschewed multiple attempts or opportunities to control or contain him in the prior five books, which means it was only an error she fell into out of desperation at the extremes of the situation, namely, the really bad choices Rand was making. Yes, there were reasons why he was making them, but reasons are not excuses, and the champion against the Dark One is supposed to be better. If the Aes Sedai and others are responsible for driving Rand to his emotional state, you can just as easily contend that Rand's own behavior and nihilism were responsible for Sanderson writing her out of character her own desperation in trying to coach Tam for their meetup, just as he also drove Min & Nynaeve to turn to Cadsuane to deal with his state.

Cadsuane takes Rand back to the Palace, after he is stabbed by Fain, rather than her current residence, where she'd have control, simply because it would be better for him. Min's dire warnings notwithstanding, with her ter'angreal, and the strength & number of her retinue, she could have restrained him and prevented him doing harm, had he panicked waking up among strange sisters.

She knew damn well Rand was not going to stay in bed after he awoke and kept quiet.

She promised him, on multiple occasions, her help without control, and offered reassurances against getting power over him

She allowed Alanna to retain the bind instead of passing it, because Alanna could not control Rand with it

She offered unsolicited and free warnings about the dangers of Callandor without making him work for it, or adding strings or using her knowledge to any advantage over him

She worked with Verin to prep the rulers of the city where Rand was, to hopefully make them fearful of interfering with, or opposing, Rand.

She agreed to keep Rand's followers away from him in Far Madding for an indefinite time, simply because he asked her (semi-) politely

She rescued him from captivity, doing things she otherwise would not have done except for his sake, and demanded nothing in return

She did nothing to oppose or prevent Rand from trying to cleanse saidin, despite the concerns of the other sisters, and, in fact, did a lot to facilitate the security of the operation, addressing concerns Rand had voiced to Min at the beginning of the quest

She kept him hidden while he recuperated, and in her stream of consciousness, was glad to see him behaving with her needing to make him or punish him. As we see elsewhere in the series, you establish control by seeking excuses to reprimand, correct or order the subject, so accustom them to taking your direction, and fearing your displeasure. We see that in examples from Niall's 'lion in the street' speech, to Elayne suborning Vanin and the Redarms en route to Ebou Dar, to the training regimen Bethamin prescribes for Teslyn. Cadsuane being happy she does not have to correct Rand is like Niall being happy that someone killed his lion before he could give any orders - it only makes sense for some who prioritizes solving the problem over exerting control.

And then all of a sudden, she's stomping around Arad Domon, talking about herself in the third person and botching things with Rand. Like Rand himself, the only Watsonian explanation is that she's cracking under the strain, after a long track record of good behavior. It's like the personality flip phenomenon described in Michael Crichton's "Congo".

Everyone was always wondering what Rand is doing but only now, halfway through The Gathering Storm, does it occur to anyone to ask how Rand is doing, and it turns out the answer is: extremely bad!

Like God damn Cadsuane you fucked this kid up so bad and you're never gonna accept that, are you?

[cannoli-reader]

Literally, no.

Cadsuane has been concerned about how Rand has been doing since the moment she showed up on the scene. She explicitly stated, while bound by the First Oath, that Rand could do whatever he wanted. She made him promises that she would not harm him or control him, that she would prioritize his well-being over absolutely anything, and she regretfully destroys the political career of a woman she respects, stating (again, bound by the Oath), that she is sorry to do it, but her reason is keeping her promise to Rand.

The problem vis a vis Rand & Cadsuane is that everyone else, especially the Aes Sedai, from Moiraine, to Siuan, to Alanna and the respective embassies, plus most of the political establishment and the Aiel (and Perrin & Egwene didn't help much either), all had him so twisted around that Caduane's efforts to help him honestly didn't have anything like a reasonably expected effect.

Everyone was always wondering what Rand is doing but only now, halfway through The Gathering Storm, does it occur to anyone to ask how Rand is doing, and it turns out the answer is: extremely bad!

Like God damn Cadsuane you fucked this kid up so bad and you're never gonna accept that, are you?

[cannoli-reader]

Well, Lysenko was a Marxist, so it's not like it's a reach to associate Marx with junk science.

My favorite reference to phrenology was in Discworld, where they had a profession which I believe was called "retrophrenology", where the practitioner, equipped with a hammer & blunt chisel/stake, would imbue the patient with personality traits and skills by creating dents and lumps in the skull. It follows pretty good, on the original logic, IMO.

I am curious to hear out why you liken Marxism to phrenoogy? I am aware Marx himself had pro-phrenological views, but I don’t think I’ve read anything that connects his political theory to his personal biases

So when I say phrenology, I'm talking about a movement that was popular in the 19th century that posited that the brain was not a singular organ, rather it was made up of modules with focused abilities. By measuring the skull, you could theoretically determine talent, as the muscles that were used in those modules would be bigger (the way muscles gain mass with use). There's racism involved, so I'm going to throw this under a cut.

Phrenology was highly non-credible even when it was published, with doctors disproving the physical science while it was still in the public sphere. But phrenology was wildly popular across social strata because it created a method by which Europeans could rationalize their own superiority though a racial lens. Phrenology was published in accessible jargon and printed for middle-class individuals, it was not an esoteric medical knowledge for the elite.

This is what I think makes me think of Marx. The actual science doesn't pan out, but that's not the gain. The virtue is creating a pseudo-academic framework to rationalize and articulate the inferiority of a subgroup with a veneer of objective, empirical thought that falls apart the second it is examined. This is a desirable end-state, so people will latch on to it regardless of whether it stands up to scrutiny.

That's just a theory though.

-SLAL

[cannoli-reader]

Yeah, I think there would have been situations where they flew over probably hostile locals, and he wasn't allowed to open fire until they saw a SAM launched.

I remember reading a novel set in Vietnam, where the PoV character was a Soviet advisor to the NVA, and he's amused that they can travel in perfect safety in an automobile, because the US rules of engagement forbid firing on a vehicle that might be civilian instead of military or government "...in a country where a bicycle was a status symbol!"

As far as the sergeants' anecdote goes (FWIW, I worked with a former Air Force noncom who had that exact same duty), that seems like a criminally irresponsible policy. Either it connotes a paternalistic view that the local "sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child" could not be expected to understand and comply with responsible firearms behavior (absolutely never, ever point a gun at someone you don't mean to kill, for any reason), or someone up the chain of command made the calculation that it was less hassle to bury a guard than to deal with the fallout of (rightfully) shooting a person who pointed a firearm at on-duty service personnel.

I'd be interested in an expert's opinion on Egwene's conduct against the Seanchan in tGS, especially since I am absolutely sure Sanderson's comprehension of military stuff is 100% fiction, video games, and layman's historical knowledge.

I don't really dispute the ostensible intent of the Second Oath, just the effectiveness and the assertion in the glossaries, that there are believed to be no loopholes, unlike the First. It's not just that they have warders to do their killing, it's that anyone who fights back to any effect suddenly becomes a legit target under the Oath. Also, the bullshit lawyering we see in play with the sisters accompanying Mat & Perrin in KoD should not be possible, much less the travesty of Dumai's Wells. If you are entering the conflict of your own volition, and can easily retreat, it's not "the last extreme." Kurina should have been executed on the spot when she expressed that nonsense rationalization to Perrin after Dumai's Wells, as a suspected Black sister who proved it by lying to him, or a criminally stupid moron if she actually believed what she was saying, who got soldiers under her authority killed by violating the plan for no good reason.

I love these new thoughts. They help stimulate more or new mental rotations on my part.

When I was in the Air Force, we learned the Law of Armed Conflict. What I remember of the lessons was that if I ever happened to be on guard duty with a firearm, I was not allowed to shoot at anyone until they opened fire. The sergeants who had done such work in the Middle East told us stories of the enemy taunting them by periodically pointing their rifles at the guards. It sounded extremely stressful and I'm glad that it's nothing I ever experienced. My views on what warrants lethal force were heavily influenced by these lessons, though. Lethal force is only appropriate in response to a legitimate threat to your own life, to someone else's life whom you are protecting, and as a last-ditch effort to prevent disaster (as in, the guy trying to break the airplane window gets knocked unconscious for good fucking reason, although I guess that technically qualifies under the first two as well).

Thinking on this recontextualized the Aes Sedai oath to not kill with the One Power. They are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict. Which makes me wonder what restrictions James Rigney Jr. was operating under in Vietnam. Did he receive the same lessons in basic training? Were they relevant in the jungles of Vietnam?

[cannoli-reader]

I think he was part of the flight crew of a helicopter. IDK what his service involved wrt his personal weapons.

That said, I would be careful about extrapolating anything from the Three Oaths, because that one in particular is sheer bullshit, and utterly worthless as a principle or a restraint on Aes Sedai power or capacity for harm.

I would be extremely disappointed in RJ if he actually believed it was a good practice, or that Siuan was in any way right in her lecture on the Oaths to Egwene in tPoD.

When I was in the Air Force, we learned the Law of Armed Conflict. What I remember of the lessons was that if I ever happened to be on guard duty with a firearm, I was not allowed to shoot at anyone until they opened fire. The sergeants who had done such work in the Middle East told us stories of the enemy taunting them by periodically pointing their rifles at the guards. It sounded extremely stressful and I'm glad that it's nothing I ever experienced. My views on what warrants lethal force were heavily influenced by these lessons, though. Lethal force is only appropriate in response to a legitimate threat to your own life, to someone else's life whom you are protecting, and as a last-ditch effort to prevent disaster (as in, the guy trying to break the airplane window gets knocked unconscious for good fucking reason, although I guess that technically qualifies under the first two as well).

Thinking on this recontextualized the Aes Sedai oath to not kill with the One Power. They are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict. Which makes me wonder what restrictions James Rigney Jr. was operating under in Vietnam. Did he receive the same lessons in basic training? Were they relevant in the jungles of Vietnam?

[cannoli-reader]

Yeah, okay, the other conversation was something I got a glimmer of in one of your later posts. I was pretty sure I wasn't calling you names. Sorry about the mixup.

As regards the original mixup, remember, it started with a post that was just playing with words and analogies. I was not condemning anyone for their actions wrt immigration, or commenting on the situation. I do believe it's wrong, but also, as you point out, the tacit policy being carried out by default makes it easier to do the wrong thing than the right. And I think whatever actions taken to rectify things are going to involve ripping off some very painful band-aids. However, my point about the rights is just that because of the principles of sovereignty and collective property rights and so forth, it should the national interests that gets priority, not the needs of the people unfortunately caught between. I'm saying "fuck all the immigrants" just that some people, are going to have to get fucked, because that's the unfortunate reality, and we can't let that deter making the reforms. I give points to the people whom Trump listens to for at least having an idea that the problem needs to be fixed and the reality that some necessities are going to be hard in doing so, but none of the rhetoric I am hearing suggests this administration is the one to fix it. On the other hand, I REALLY side-eye the economic arguments, just because so many of them amount to a modern version of "but who will make our shoes" from 15th century Spain (or "who will pick the cotton?" if you want a more proximate, and probably closer in spirit, precursor), and a lot more tacitly imply that it's okay to do to Indians or Mexicans what you can't to Americans.

That said, we're not going to solve it here (and people trying to do so in similarly limited fora has contributed to the situation), and it's not a major issue for me in the big scope.

So. People exist who believe:

Immigration carries moral weight, and "illegal" immigration is evil. (They also fail to engage with how our laws are actually written and enforced, so there you have it.)

-AND-

Theft is reasonably punishable by lethal force.

What a fucking moral base.

This is why I stopped engaging with conservatives for so long. They always ALWAYS show their entire ass eventually.

[cannoli-reader]

Yeah, in that regard, we've lost something across the board it seems like.

Old Pencil Sharpener in Action

[cannoli-reader]

I'm not sure we have? Most of these look like bigger, clunkier versions of the grinders that were in most classrooms when I went to school. The 1904 one with the razor blade is basically the same as the little individual sharpeners you'd keep at your own desk, except it has a mechanism to move the razor against the pencil, as opposed to sticking the pencil into a hole, next to a razor blade, and twisting the pencil to get the same effect.

They're all neat to watch, but they more or less do the same thing as more modern mechanical sharpeners, and in some cases with more mess, and less idiot-proof aspects to their operation. I think the average class of modern children would get at least four bloody fingers a month with one of the devices in this video in the classroom.

Old Pencil Sharpener in Action

[cannoli-reader]

It doesn't seem to alter the shortening of a channeler's life depending on how many Oaths they take, although the physical feeling of taking the Oaths or being released from them, increases with the number. It isn't clear how the lifespan issue would work for a normal person, but it would bind the normal person to keep the Oaths. For the lifespan, it simply imposes an approximate cap, which suggests a normal person (or a very weak channeler*) would die before they hit the cap age. The primary effect strength has is on how soon you get the ageless look. The stronger you are, the faster it takes effect. Also, there seems to be a correlation between strength and the age you are promoted, so Elin Warrel not only didn't take the Oaths until into her late forties, she would take a lot longer than the average sister to look ageless. Her actual lifespan, assuming she's not much above the minimum strength allowed to test for the shawl, would probably be about 400 years, so she's aging at a rate of around 6:1. In the 27 years since she slowed, she has aged about 4.5 years, and get her gray hair naturally around 180 or so. The Oath Rod would kick in well before that, and she'd go gray faster and she'd lose about a century of life to it. Verin, for instance, is 150 and just starting to go gray, even though she's near the top of the strength hierarchy (level 5 of 32), and could probably expect to live into the 500s without the Oath Rod.

*Morgase, for example, does not look extremely young, maybe about ten or so years younger than she actually is. Niall says she does not look old enough to have an 18 year old child, and yet no one comments on the youth of that same 18 year old in terms of her pregnancy, so Morgase probably appears to be in her early 30s, since no one thinks there is a preternatural or excessive quality to her youth. If she started slowing around 20, when everyone does, it seems to mean that she's aging at about half the normal rate, which suggests she would die of old age around 150-160 (if she were to live to the physical age of 90, that's seventy years of aging after the slowing point. So double that and add it to 20 to figure her lifespan). If she swore on the Oath Rod, it would probably not affect her lifespan, but she would, eventually, after quite a few years, due to how weak she is, gain the ageless look. If she would normally start to get wrinkles in her 50s, that would translate to her chronological 80s thanks to channeling, but the ageless look might emerge before that, and then her hair would only go gray and then white.

The oath rod has always bugged me.

Does it only shorten the lifespan of channelers or would it work on anyone? If it works on anyone does that mean criminals who swore on it could die as part of their punishment?

Is there one of the three oaths that shorten lifespan? Is it a result of swearing multiple oaths? The Black Ajah swear their own oaths, in an effort to maintain the ageless effect.

But do they have to also swear 3 or would 1 oath technically do the trick? We can’t use Galina as an example because she has her three dark oaths AND her obedience oath.

[cannoli-reader]

I'm going to have some white people spaghetti, and chase it with a white people crepe for desert, after my white people bratwurst lunch.

I saw a Davy Crockett movie on Disney, courageously forging past the warning of depictions of tobacco, and I saw a supposed Creek fighter in what the movie says is Florida, wearing a buffalo headdress with a Zia sun painted on his shoulder.

It drives me bonkers when people say stuff like "totem poles made by Native American craftsmen." THE PEOPLE GROUP IS KNOWN AND HAS A NAME. Like fuck. Would it kill people to learn the most basic facts about the people they're trying to use to sell something?

(This particular reference could be to Tlingit, Haida, or Tsimshian, but I don't know enough details to say which they are interacting with on this tour.)

Native American is a useful catch-all for when you want to make sweeping statements about the native people groups of the continent. But most of the time? You're going to be talking about a certain group. So take the bother to name them.

[cannoli-reader]

"You cannot claim that ILLEGAL immigration is a purely moral construct, when the laws of the nation are what determine what is legal and what is not."

I am not claiming that. I am claiming that violation of the social construct in this case is immoral. Disobeying laws is bad. What matters is whether or not they are just, that is, protecting natural rights, or in accordance with the higher law that they are based on. The natural right of property, collectively expressed as national boundaries covers the former, and the Constitution grants Congress the authority to make immigration laws, and the executive branch the power to enforce them, covering the latter.

"Whether you like it or not, the default immigration classification in the US is legal immigrant. "

Source? By which I mean, the actual law saying that. Not enforcement strategies or practices. Otherwise, your claims read like "my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees is ignorant."

"You do not get to call yourself a moral absolutist and then claim that there are acceptable circumstances in which to kill another person."

That's your own, extreme, opinion. Killing people is not inherently immoral.

"I don't, however, think that you have made one iota of effort towards understanding me."

Understanding what? You jumped in on something I posted expanding on another person's analogy, talking simply about words and comparisons, for the purpose of judging me regarding your immigration issues, asking me a lot of loaded questions and twisting my responses to specific questions into some sort of thesis statement. I was not interrogating you, I had no particular desire to investigate or pick into your immigration positions or beliefs, I didn't need any understanding here, I'm just trying to explain myself.

"You prefer to swim in your assumptions and move the goalposts as it suits you, to read extra stuff into the words I use. It's not a good look, and I've tolerated it in general because of the particular ethos I adopted upon starting my Tumblr account, but it grates on my nerves. I use words purposefully to communicate specific things, and the least you can do is engage with what I actually said, instead of some boogeyman you've constructed out of previous conversations with other people."

It's funny, because this is exactly what I am getting from you. Making up stuff you're attributing to me about rape, twisting my words on separate questions to extrapolate strawman positions... all apparently because you've got an issue with immigration, and couldn't stand to see a post possibly indicating beliefs you don't like. I'm not going around preaching on the topic or making immigration policy papers. You just started demanding answers in the reply feature, which you admitted is not conducive to proper discussions, and when I asked to make a proper post for that purpose if you wanted a discussion, you came up with the backhanded, misrepresenting, judgmental OP.

This is literally what you said, implicitly attributing it to me: "Immigration carries moral weight, and 'illegal' immigration is evil." I never called it evil, I called it immoral.

"Theft is reasonably punishable by lethal force." Again, I never said that.

Once more, you claim "I use words purposefully to communicate specific things, and the least you can do is engage with what I actually said." You are failing to engage with what I actually said, and creating strawman arguments to misrepresent me, and yet you say you "use words purposefully to communicate specific things". So do I! When I mean evil, I say "evil", I don't say "immoral" by mistake. When I say lethal force is justified in stopping the commission of action, I am not talking about punishment.

If you want to know, I just think borders are real, no one has a right to come into a country except on the terms of the country, there needs to be an overhaul of the laws and enforcement practices and laws should be enforced or repealed, not left on the books and enforced or not at discretion, as a means of making policy. There especially needs to be better screen of criminals. Better some good people get left out than criminals be given more chances to prey on the people already here, and the burden of proof should be on the people who want to come in, to demonstrate a clean record and productive capability. If people want to let immigrants come in, they should undertake a measure of personal responsibility, instead of the NIMBY attitude the sanctimonious take, and if it seems like my views incline more toward the MAGA side, it's because I tend to be hostile to anyone who proposes a policy that affects other citizens before themselves. We also need to rework things so people with legitimately bad situations get helped, instead of the majority of opportunities and services going to the people who don't like it in Mexico, just because they happen to be right next door.

But this entire time, I have been talking about theoretical actions based on abstract principles, just as I was when I reposted the first thing, and why I kept saying it does not matter what the policies of a particular government are, and you're trying to twist this whole thing into evidence of my position on a specific political issue and my personal politics, and condemning me without any sort of real discussion (or legit explanation of yourself, if you're so concerned about being understood).

So. People exist who believe:

Immigration carries moral weight, and "illegal" immigration is evil. (They also fail to engage with how our laws are actually written and enforced, so there you have it.)

-AND-

Theft is reasonably punishable by lethal force.

What a fucking moral base.

This is why I stopped engaging with conservatives for so long. They always ALWAYS show their entire ass eventually.

[cannoli-reader]

Also, it does nothing to advance the story and adds nothing that is necessary to the character or setting. The show is constantly doing things like this, adding in scenes or backstories or customs & practices that they think are cool, right there and then, without considering whether or not this is a good use of screen time in the eight-episode season, or a good use of the budget to set and costume and cast and enhance with effects. They had to cast a whole other actor to play her, and take into account whatever labor limitations there are for underage performers.

And none of that was necessary, because it did nothing to inform her arc, and there was very little indication that being back in her home city had any effect on her choices and actions for the rest of the season. Most of what she did was motivated by orders and threats from her bosses, and her desire to advance, none of which needed the baby flashback to explain or understand (actually, it's a good question how the baby flashback relates to any of that present day stuff). How does it influence her decision to kill Nikabrik when told there is a traitor among them? How did it affect her choice of execution for Nynaeve? Are we still in the phase of claiming she has some sort of feeling for, or empathy toward, Nynaeve, as in season 2? How does the baby story relate to or explain that?

On top of being bad, it does not even serve a purpose for their own intentions.

Liandrin's flashback is perfect example of a useless filler.

I don't give a fuck.

She was an overprivileged, spoiled, power-hungry bitch in the books, and that was all I needed to know about her. All this Handmaid's Tale is so over the top, it makes my eyes roll.

All this screen time wasted on a character, that you can't even really call secondary in the books.

[cannoli-reader]

Those two things are not contradictory.

The failure to understand the difference between "appropriate response" and "punishment" or "immoral" and "evil" is why I generally am undeterred by hyperbolic hysterics of people who disagree with my beliefs, or go hunting for fights to pick outside the areas in which we normally interact.

So. People exist who believe:

Immigration carries moral weight, and "illegal" immigration is evil. (They also fail to engage with how our laws are actually written and enforced, so there you have it.)

-AND-

Theft is reasonably punishable by lethal force.

What a fucking moral base.

This is why I stopped engaging with conservatives for so long. They always ALWAYS show their entire ass eventually.

[cannoli-reader]

Freedom of movement within the democracy. Otherwise, there is no democracy, or rather it's the base, illegitimate type of democracy you get in a lynch mob. Real democratic government draws its legitimate authority from the consent of the governed, which in turn requires acceptance of the authority of that government, or you're a hypocrite who's only willing to play by the rules when they favor you. The whole point of the consent of the governed is that they are "governed." Entering into a nation-state to reside in defiance of the government is a fundamental transgression of the social contract, and us a mockery of the concept of consent of the governed.

Borders are no more imaginary than civil rights or laws. They might be abstract concepts that do not materially exist in nature, but a border is defined by the exact same body of laws that recognize property and every other kind of contract. If borders have no force, neither do property lines or warranties or insurance policies or awards in civil judgment or restraining orders.

Parolees are convicted criminals under sentence. They forfeit their freedom of movement because they have proven to be untrustworthy. They have no right to freedom, they are being permitted a degree of it as a special, conditional, privilege. That they do not have to live in a prison is a massive gain, and they have no right to expect more. However, convicts who have completed their sentence are a whole other thing. If they've served their time, they have served their time, and should be able to live wherever they want, exercise their full slate of civil and natural rights and not be on any lists, regardless of their transgression. If you don't like convicted child molesters running around, send them back to jail, make the sentence more appropriate, or accept that their slate is clean, and keep an eye on your kids.

Like, not to be a libertarian on main or whatever, but I think the right of individuals to choose where they live is more important than the right of governments to decide who lives there. I consider it oppressive that (legal) immigration is damn near impossible outside of a few federalized clusters. Moving house across an imaginary line on the ground shouldn't be illegal.

Shit, I'm a hair's breadth away from saying that even parolees should be able to choose their place of residence.

Democracy demands freedom of movement.