Proactive Human Population Reduction

Stormkhan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
3,894
Likes
57
Points
79
And what about all those who have the potential for rape, murder etc. but never - in their entire lifetime - act on it, or even be aware of it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Stormkhan said:
And what about all those who have the potential for rape, murder etc. but never - in their entire lifetime - act on it, or even be aware of it?

Yes, that was one of the flaws that Lizard pointed out.

Hmmm.

Remove the potential before they do anything.
 

misterwibble

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
321
Likes
4
Points
34
Remove the potential before they do anything
You are Judge Death and I claim my £5.

Alternatively if we can use RNAi to control genes, and genes control all behaviour then we can have 100% guaranteed rehabilitation of these people and they can become useful productive members of society.

Or governments can use RNAi to turn us all into pacified mindless drones who are happy to follow their every bidding.
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,814
Likes
51
Points
64
Why rely on a virus. Humans could eradicate scum the oldfashioned way. Lets say the whole population of Britain would be put into "Tribes or Clans". Clusters of groups, with their own rituals and bits to create a sense of belonging. Smaller groups would all know each other for starters [so even the "outsider" would be known.
The most basic need in any living creature must be safety. People just want to feel safe and get on with life. So if suddenly one in their midst should turn out to be a nasty, he will get beaten up, killed, whatever sooner or later by relatives of his/her victims. As it is a close community, everyone would know why this nasty was targeted.

Of course on the way there will be false killings, mistakes etc but those are unavoidable until a true social equilibrium has been reached in which the norm is peaceful living and extremes to either side can be avoided by less drastic means.
 

lemonpie3

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
558
Likes
13
Points
34
I truly can't believe what I am reading here.

You're actually suggesting that - instead of a complicated system of law, honed over centuries with built-in systems of checks and balances, making decisions over the future of an individual accused of a crime - you're suggesting that the local heavies should beat up or killsomeone because they turn out to be nasty????????

And that mistakes would be just a temporary blip? Until tribal humankind achieves a nirvana on earth?

Are you a human?

And you, Cold Elephant, you profess to know who is guilty and who is innocent? Who is deserving of death, and who should be allowed to live?

How dare you? How dare either of you take the life and death of anyone into your warped, clammy hands.
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,814
Likes
51
Points
64
Lemonpie, your honed way of justice as you call our system is not quite working though isn't it?

I don't take any right to kill anyone. If you read my post again, I said that human nature will take over and may result in retaliation from the victims side, which I have nothing to do with personaly now do I?

If you lived in a society as described by me, which is a far more natural environment than our society at the moment, what would you do to someone that has been known to molest the children of your clan and eventually he killed one of yours after raping it?

Maybe you'd try to rehabilitate this person, or try some clay therapy, I never cease to be amazed by the righteousness of people. :roll:
 

misterwibble

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
321
Likes
4
Points
34
good old fashioned mob rule, you can't beat it.

As for 'the righteousness of people', how sanguine would you be if the baying mob was beating/burning/hanging you in error.

No doubt you'd just shrug and say "Oh well I guess this is the price we pay as we move towards a better society. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."

More natural? Define 'natural'. Don't forget it includes bubonic plague, anthrax, typhoid, dysentery, polio and smallpox. And excludes painkillers, contraception, vaccines and computers.
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,601
Likes
11
Points
69
Vigilanteism and revenge killings are not justice. For all the faults of the justice system it is fairer than mob rule surely?

I don't buy the nostalgia for a nonexistant past that says if we just lived in mud huts in a circle and were nice to trees the problems of the world would just fall away for one minute.

I also don't approve of eugenic slaughter.

I too am amazed that some of you clearly do.
 

lemonpie3

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
558
Likes
13
Points
34
I'd rather take my chances with our society's system of justice than with your baying mob.

You exactly 'take the right to kill' when you advocate that people you disapprove of be killed without recourse to court of law. You're saying that by not doing actually cutting the throat - with the same hands you're typing your twisted thoughts into your keyboard - you wouldn't have blood on your hands?

I did read your post. Several times. In disbelief.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,480
Likes
456
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
_Lizard23_ said:
"Yes officer, that's the man who raped me at knifepoint"
"I know you're upset Ma'am, but I'm telling you it isn't. That guy there is a genetically pure, fine and upstanding gentleman without a hairsbredth of harm in his helix"
"..... But ....."
There was an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent in which a doctor with such crackpot theories of abberrant human behaviour deliberately tried to get a convicted serial killer released because he didn't conveniently match his theory.

I can't really add anything to this debate that Lizard23, Lemonpie, MisterWibble, et al haven't already said much more eloquently than I could.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,297
Likes
3,891
Points
234
Dingo667 said:
...I never cease to be amazed by the righteousness of people. :roll:
Righteous in the sense of sympathy and accordance with basic virtue and morality? Yes, there is a lot of that on this thread. More amazing still is that there are those that seem to take issue with it.

Again, I can't add to what Lizard et al have stated, beyond my full agreement. We can judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners. And our verdict on those that go in for wholesale slaughter would be...?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
34,783
Likes
20,359
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
If executing evil murderers, rapists etc is morally wrong, what alternatives are left to us?
Rehabilitation doesn't work (it might work with some petty criminals such as burglars, shoplifters etc) - serial murderers, rapists and paedophiles have a psychopathology that just can't be improved with pills, therapy and soothing words.
Clearly, the only choice available to us with the way things are is to imprison them for life. However, this system isn't working - we are releasing these violent people back into the community early, or releasing them on parole (reward for 'good behaviour'). Such people will work the system to their own advantage and gain the sympathy of overly-liberal people in order to get increasingly lighter sentences.
What I'm saying is that if guilt is established 100%, and we are not allowed to execute these criminals, then we must at the very least be able to remove them from being a danger to the general public.
A 'life' sentence must really mean life.
 

Mister_Awesome

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
264
Likes
5
Points
34
The problem I really see with Dingo667's thought is that I would expect the worst sort of people to be the real winners in such a situation. If 'tribes' of happy shiny people went up against criminal sorts, I have no doubt the criminals would be in charge in no time.

And I don't want to be a pain in the butt, but isn't this starting to get a tad off topic?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,297
Likes
3,891
Points
234
Mythopoeika said:
What I'm saying is that if guilt is established 100%, and we are not allowed to execute these criminals, then we must at the very least be able to remove them from being a danger to the general public.
A 'life' sentence must really mean life.
Agree 100% with you there, in the case of premeditated and/or repeated serious crime. Rest of their life with no possibility of parole, as opposed to five or six years of segregated basket weaving before being released back into society.
Mister_Awesome said:
And I don't want to be a pain in the butt, but isn't this starting to get a tad off topic?
I think it's bordering on it, yes, but as a discussion on the ethics of culling existent people it's within the remit of the thread. That said, perhaps we can move back onto the wider picture, rather than focussing merely on the rights and wrongs of capital punishment?
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,601
Likes
11
Points
69
Agree 100% with you there, in the case of premeditated and/or repeated serious crime. Rest of their life with no possibility of parole
absolutely no problem with that at all, and it is what currently happens with serial killers etc - perhaps it should be the case for more people than currently, again, no problem there.
It costs a lot of money, but the authorities get the opportunity to study these people, which surely helps with things like profiling and so hopefully is beneficial ultimately in preventing serious crime to some extent by catching future offenders. Plus people with long term prison sentences are, I believe, still required to perform work (I don't think this is true in secure hospitals, however) and the more socially useful this is the better in my opinion (Harold Shipman, for example, was translating books into braille before he topped himself). Thus I believe the benefits of indefinite incarceration can be made to outweigh the costs.
I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to decide who lives and who dies, which is why murder is considered wrong in the first place - that goes for capital punishment and (yes I'm sorry, I did contribute to the thread going a bit off topic there - my apologies) for culling the population for the supposed greater good of the human race/planet/whatever.
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
I’d like to thank all those who have tried to inject some sanity into this thread and restored my faith in humanity. It’s a serious one and involves the way that we think as a species rather than individually. It’s interesting to me that the hang and flog brigade represent about 50% and this IMHO is normal and healthy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
lemonpie3 said:
I truly can't believe what I am reading here.

You're actually suggesting that - instead of a complicated system of law, honed over centuries with built-in systems of checks and balances, making decisions over the future of an individual accused of a crime - you're suggesting that the local heavies should beat up or killsomeone because they turn out to be nasty????????

And that mistakes would be just a temporary blip? Until tribal humankind achieves a nirvana on earth?

Are you a human?

And you, Cold Elephant, you profess to know who is guilty and who is innocent? Who is deserving of death, and who should be allowed to live?

How dare you? How dare either of you take the life and death of anyone into your warped, clammy hands.

I would use my cold clammy hands to pull the trigger, to shoot dead all peadophiles, rapists and violent scum who abuse people throughout their lives, every day.

I would us my cold clammy hands to kill every one of those vermin because they deserve it, they do.

There is no use in saying they are innocient or misguided, they are scum and they deserve to die.

I want them dead.

I would love to be the one pulling the trigger - but there are millions of them integrated into our sociey, ignored or rehabilitated, given a chance.

If I could be the one to empy a test tube of tailored virus or whatever into the troposphere and eradicate this evil from our planet, I would.

I would drink champagne and smoke cigars after.

I would love it.

Those bastards have to die, either by natural selection or by artificial means such as execution.

I will pray for their demise.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
34,783
Likes
20,359
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
almond13 said:
It’s interesting to me that the hang and flog brigade represent about 50% and this IMHO is normal and healthy.
Among the general public, the figure is more like 80%, if BBC news online polls are representative of what the public feel (I'm just going on what I've seen in online polls).
I'm sure that if the UK had a referendum to bring back hanging, then bring it back we would.
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
Among the general public, the figure is more like 80%, if BBC news online polls are representative of what the public feel (I'm just going on what I've seen in online polls).
I'm sure that if the UK had a referendum to bring back hanging, then bring it back we would.
I’m sure that you’re right, but people who write on message boards are not really the general public. – that’s probably a new thread - As for BBC poles, I complained about the one thy did on evolution because of the most blatant bias I’ve ever seen and what do you know, it aint there any more.

I once read a book called “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”. It makes the point (in 1881 I think?) that consensus opinion is invariably wrong. But you see, scientific opinion is all consensus opinion and that is where all this came from in the first place – the madness of a crowd of scientists in a hall. ;)
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
6,435
Likes
3,536
Points
259
coldelephant said:
I would use my cold clammy hands to pull the trigger, to shoot dead all peadophiles, rapists and violent scum who abuse people throughout their lives, every day.

I would us my cold clammy hands to kill every one of those vermin because they deserve it, they do.
...
Bloody 'Ell
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,707
Likes
1,063
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
coldelephant said:
I would use my cold clammy hands to pull the trigger, to shoot dead all peadophiles, rapists and violent scum who abuse people throughout their lives, every day....etc, etc
You're obviously a sad little troll...at least you confine your sadistic little fantasies to the internet.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
34,783
Likes
20,359
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
almond13 said:
I once read a book called “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”. It makes the point (in 1881 I think?) that consensus opinion is invariably wrong. But you see, scientific opinion is all consensus opinion and that is where all this came from in the first place – the madness of a crowd of scientists in a hall. ;)
Isn't that the whole basis of democracy? Rule of the majority opinion?
I think a referendum would be true democracy in action, but it's amazing how many politicians are opposed to the idea (probably because it would make them redundant). To say that a majority opinion is invariably wrong is to deny people of their right to have an opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Timble2 said:
coldelephant said:
I would use my cold clammy hands to pull the trigger, to shoot dead all peadophiles, rapists and violent scum who abuse people throughout their lives, every day....etc, etc
You're obviously a sad little troll...at least you confine your sadistic little fantasies to the internet.
I think that is uncalled for.

What would you do anyway? Stick with the current system? Or do you have a better one?

I think your answer will be that you don't know, but you object to my saying I would kill them all.

It's funny, you don't think they are sadistic but that I am.

Maybe I am a little sadistic, but I am not as sadistic as they are.
 

lupinwick

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,645
Likes
2
Points
54
Hmmm, deriving pleasure from cruely. Hardly something you can measure accurately on a scale. You're either sadistic or not.

Not too sure how the "professional" executioner would cope.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,031
Likes
142
Points
114
coldelephant said:
...

I think your answer will be that you don't know, but you object to my saying I would kill them all.

It's funny, you don't think they are sadistic but that I am.

Maybe I am a little sadistic, but I am not as sadistic as they are.
Wow! A mind reader too! :shock:
 

TheQuixote

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,297
Likes
27
Points
69
This applies to everyone now, you can either take it to pm between yourselves or take it elsewhere. Let's get back to the OP and wider discussion and drop this conversation about killing perverts, paedophiles and any other 'bogeymen' you can think of.
 

rev_dino

Administrator
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
292
Likes
92
Points
44
Location
Arlington VA, USA
Personally I think we should track the evildoers down and forcibly feed them CAKE UNTIL THEY BURST!

Then I'll take the CAKE BURSTINGS and with my warm doughy hands, bake it into more pervert slaying confectionary and shove it down some more paedo's throats!

I'm going to take BATTENBURG in my WARM DOUGHY hands and bake all the nonces and rapists in it and feed it to anyone who might be a bit EVIL, for they indeed deserve my DOUGHY wrath!

I've never liked Battenburg and I hate all those FREAKS... so this makes perfect sense to me!

I only wish I could write this in CRAYON!

Then I take those crayons and shove them up the etc etc etc.

;^)

Play nice kids - nice to see the Daily Mail readers are out on day release these days, though...
 
Top