Weeping Infant Killed For Disturbing Dad's Gaming

Nantucket_v1legacy

acting on my best behaviour
Mar 6, 2012
1,064
0
0
I'm sure Keith Vaz will try to stir things up in parliament again now.
It used to be rock music created evil people, now it's video games.

Poor child...
 

Viral_Lola

New member
Jul 13, 2009
544
0
0
Das Boot said:
blackrave said:
Xbox killed yet another :(
That's why I have PC with earplug headphones
You can stand near me and yell- I won't hear a thing :D
(although I have developing paranoia in progress- I occasionally check what's happening behind)

So save babies, support anti-console movement.
Well not really. You see while xbox gamers might shake their babies to death PC gamers just ignore the baby until it starves to death. So support the ps3 movement since we dont kill our kids.
It?s not hard to shake a baby to death. In my local area, if you are under a certain age, they make you take parenting classes. They even give you an instructional DVD on how not to kill your baby. (I was exempt due to years of working with kids but my friend had to take the class.)

My 3 year old loves the ps3. We play Little Big Planet together.
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
Why are his eyebrows groomed but not his neck?

Seriously, facial hair can be attracted but neck beards are gross as shit.

OT: INB4 Fox news blames the xbox rather than the demented asshole.
 
Jun 7, 2010
1,257
0
0
Earnest Cavalli said:
On Thursday, the boy's mother, Amber Newton, said Hartley was fucking crazy non-stop

During his being fucking crazy session Hartley held his son for about 30 minutes. At one point Hartley used both hands to pick up the boy and shake him while saying, "Damn you Colton, please go to [expletive] sleep."

That's when Newton took the child from Hartley, according to a Hartley's arrest affidavit.

After being fucking crazy for several hours Hartley went to work at Sam's Club, where he stocked produce, according to Sheriff's records. When he returned to his Lakeland home after work, Hartley again fucking crazy'd until 4 a.m Friday.
It had an air of fear-mongering bullshit to it, so i made some improvements.

EDIT: inB4 overpopulation/natural selectio- oh, nevermind.
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Therumancer said:
gunner1905 said:
Therumancer said:
To be honest with overpopulation I've been a big fan of mandatory, reversible sterlization on all people in the USA or anyone living here, and requiring people to get permission from the goverment to have kids, which would be granted only after being able to prove the abillity to support them, and an appropriate amount of parenting knowlege before the birth.
I know this is off topic, but people like you who wants that kinds of laws should really do some reading about population and productivity. I agree that overpopulation is a problem if productivity of the people is not increased, through technology or education, but your idea of decreasing the younger population is dumb because old people are living longer, less young productive people are born (no matter what you think of someone, they produces something through participation in the economy), over time it increases the number of people that needs to be supported (old people) over the number of productive people (young people). See the Europe (especially GB) and Japan for real life examples.
Also do you really want someone else violating your body without your consent.

OT: The guy's dumb.
I see it as being nessicary, simply because if the population does not decrease drastically we're all dead. It's easy to make arguements about why we shouldn't do something extreme like this, but in the final equasion we're running out of resources, it's not a matter of production and producing enough stuff, but that things like wood, oil, metal and similar materials are being depleted faster than the planet can recover, and in the effort to sustain the current usage we're crippling the planet's abillity to replentish them at all through things like strip mining.

You are correct, what I propose would absolutly suck for a while, and would cause a number of problems that would have to be dealt with, quite probably with extreme brutality, in ways that would be offensive to current morality. It is however the right move in the long run. At least for a generation or four we need a massive decrease in the global population and then to stabilize it at that level.

As far as not wanting the goverment (or anyone else) modifying your body like that? In my opinion that's tough cookies. People knew that we needed ZPG (Zero Population Growth) generations ago and instead the population continued to expand. Like it or not, people have generally proven to be incapable of holding back their reproductive urges, so thus society as a whole needs to step in if the problem is going to be dealt with.

A lot of what I say is VERY nasty, and to many (on this subject and others) I seem like the devil. The thing is that it's all about the big picture, not simply the immediate effects over the next few years or even decades, but about what needs to be done when you look at things in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.

Sure it sucks to see a small young generation, and a huge old generation, and then to have to realize your going to have to basically leave those old people un-supported or dispose of them for a generation or two until society adapts to the much lower birth rate, but that's a comparitively small price to pay in the overall scheme of things, if we wind up depleting the world's resources we're going to wind up destroying ourselves. I could go into it point by point, but really it's not the time or place. It's something that has come up for discussion in the past.

In general this, and a lot of my personal politics and idealogy comes down to reality sucking, and trying to pretend that it doesn't just makes things worse.
And I see it as neccesary to switch to alternative energy sources for the sake of our survival. People have simply proven that they are not able to be responsible with their use for coal and oil. And as such soceity should step in and regulate it in order to save our resources. Screw the friggin oil companies. If we have to survive as a species we 'need' to switch to alternative energysources.

*Insert statement with proof that global warming isnt manmade*

Well then, guess what. Population in the west is -falling- as a country becomes richer people start having fewer kids and the population of western countries is falling, we actually have a problem with there soon not being enough working people to support the elderly. A valid theory is that once countries (Like India, China and Africa) becomes richer (Saying theory but its already been proven) they will start having fewer kids. As they get richer over time its estimated that world population will balance out in around 2100-2200. As such, if that theory stands. We dont need to control overpopulation we merely need to accept that the Third-world (And second-world) Countries are getting richer. And support that progress, if we do that then overpopulation wont be an issue as lots of kids comes from high fatality-rates amongst children and (Being flippin poor) which falls drastically in technologically advanced area's with a stable economy.

OT: Reminds me of the baby that starved due to a world-of-warcraft marathon.. Its deppressing.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Noise-cancelling ear muffs, Mr Hartley, you should have invested in those noise-cancelling ear muffs. Just because you have to feed, change, bath and watch over a baby doesn't mean you can't use Science! to cope with the fact that they're noisy little blighters.

Better yet get a set take you can plug into an MP3 player. I bet holding a baby that won't stop crying is a lot easier when all you can hear is something relaxing like Enya.
 

ssgt splatter

New member
Oct 8, 2008
3,276
0
0
The guy looks like Chumlee's 'dumber' cousin.

As I read the title, I was hoping this was outside the country but sadly it wasn't.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
gunner1905 said:
Therumancer said:
gunner1905 said:
Therumancer said:
To be honest with overpopulation I've been a big fan of mandatory, reversible sterlization on all people in the USA or anyone living here, and requiring people to get permission from the goverment to have kids, which would be granted only after being able to prove the abillity to support them, and an appropriate amount of parenting knowlege before the birth.
I know this is off topic, but people like you who wants that kinds of laws should really do some reading about population and productivity. I agree that overpopulation is a problem if productivity of the people is not increased, through technology or education, but your idea of decreasing the younger population is dumb because old people are living longer, less young productive people are born (no matter what you think of someone, they produces something through participation in the economy), over time it increases the number of people that needs to be supported (old people) over the number of productive people (young people). See the Europe (especially GB) and Japan for real life examples.
Also do you really want someone else violating your body without your consent.

OT: The guy's dumb.
I see it as being nessicary, simply because if the population does not decrease drastically we're all dead. It's easy to make arguements about why we shouldn't do something extreme like this, but in the final equasion we're running out of resources, it's not a matter of production and producing enough stuff, but that things like wood, oil, metal and similar materials are being depleted faster than the planet can recover, and in the effort to sustain the current usage we're crippling the planet's abillity to replentish them at all through things like strip mining.

You are correct, what I propose would absolutly suck for a while, and would cause a number of problems that would have to be dealt with, quite probably with extreme brutality, in ways that would be offensive to current morality. It is however the right move in the long run. At least for a generation or four we need a massive decrease in the global population and then to stabilize it at that level.

As far as not wanting the goverment (or anyone else) modifying your body like that? In my opinion that's tough cookies. People knew that we needed ZPG (Zero Population Growth) generations ago and instead the population continued to expand. Like it or not, people have generally proven to be incapable of holding back their reproductive urges, so thus society as a whole needs to step in if the problem is going to be dealt with.

A lot of what I say is VERY nasty, and to many (on this subject and others) I seem like the devil. The thing is that it's all about the big picture, not simply the immediate effects over the next few years or even decades, but about what needs to be done when you look at things in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.

Sure it sucks to see a small young generation, and a huge old generation, and then to have to realize your going to have to basically leave those old people un-supported or dispose of them for a generation or two until society adapts to the much lower birth rate, but that's a comparitively small price to pay in the overall scheme of things, if we wind up depleting the world's resources we're going to wind up destroying ourselves. I could go into it point by point, but really it's not the time or place. It's something that has come up for discussion in the past.

In general this, and a lot of my personal politics and idealogy comes down to reality sucking, and trying to pretend that it doesn't just makes things worse.
If we don't want to think about the morality of it, it's a better policy to kill of the old people then killing of the young people and destroy our environment to get all the resources.

Anyway I don't really buy that we're running out of resources, oil (and other vital resources) prices are rising not because it's running out but because it takes a lot of other resources to get to those oil, better technology will get us to those resources at lower prices, probably at the cost of the environment but we don't seem to care anyway.

Also if the production of something is reduced the market will (some say sadly) assign those resources to the ones who are willing (and able) to pay for it (even for vital resources, so yes if it does go that far some will die but not all) and in the end producers will enter that market to increase production again (having advantage through better technology or techniques). It has to be said that better technology and techniques will always be invented because it's in the producer's incentive to do so. Even if there's no way to get some resources there will always be substitution, probably shittier substitution but it's a substitution.

In the end it's impossible for us to all die without some kind of mass extinction event because no matter how much we destroy, there's always a system to allocate the resources available and most will always get the resources available to survive, some will get more than needed, and the rest will get nothing (FYI those people die). So we don't really need to preemptively kill people the free market will :)
Well, the thing is to control population growth which has to happen by preventing new people from entering the population in greater numbers to avoid using resources to begin with, when old people have already lived and consumed resources through their entire life. Preventing births is the way to go for this.

The Free Market won't sort things out, it will sell what is availible until there is nothing left, irregardless of who winds up receiving it. The point is to prevent those resources from being used to begin with, in order to allow the planet to gradually replentish itself.
 

Ashadowpie

New member
Feb 3, 2012
315
0
0
i personally dont understand why that commercial was even banned. its completely true XD it brings a good point. lmao
 

jedizero

New member
Feb 26, 2009
221
0
0
Therumancer said:
To be honest with overpopulation I've been a big fan of mandatory, reversible sterlization on all people in the USA or anyone living here, and requiring people to get permission from the goverment to have kids, which would be granted only after being able to prove the abillity to support them, and an appropriate amount of parenting knowlege before the birth.
People like you terrify me. Forced surgery on the entire populace? Really? I mean *REALLY*? "Don't worry Timmy, the government mandated sterilization surgery is just how your body says its growing up! Its not a massive invasion of your rights as a US citizen at all! Now hold still while we get to work cutting open your body against your will and snipping those balls off!"

It wouldn't even work! You know how people can just buy their way out of trouble? Can just ignore the rules if they have enough money? Yeah do you really think that this would even slow them down? Soon the only people who could have children would be the people who can simply pay to get around the problem. After all, if you're trying to cut down on the birthing population, you can only have so many people capable of giving birth, and if there are already all the rich people spitting out babies as they please, obviously the people who can't 'take care of them as well' (Ie: The poor) shouldn't be given the rights, correct?

You say all this, most likely thinking "Of course *I'd* pass, there's no way that they could ever try and stop me." So what would happen if you were judged unworthy of having children? You'd be outraged, incensed. How dare they take away your right?

Even if you managed to have a child, you realize that they're going to do the exact same thing to him/her, right? You'll have to watch them haul your child away to mutilate them on the surgery table, a dangerous surgery which could lead to complications such as massive infections, scarring, and death.

Also, what if s/he doesn't pass for some reason? What if s/he has always wanted to be a mother, or a father, all their lives. And the government, for some reason or another, just says 'Nope' because they don't fit the perfect cookie cutter that they use to approve child birthing rights?
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
This is ultimately a happy story.

What? Don't agree? Let me explain.

Dead baby aside, would you prefer that this guy's genome carried on into the next generation?

Subtracting a negative is the same as adding. It's basic math.
Now if only there was a way to determine how fucked up people were before they had a chance to breed so we could castrate them then and there.

The world might actually be a decent place to live in a hundred or so years.



LOL my captcha says "Politically correct"
I'm glad it agrees with me.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
WTF? Yeah, that's what I wanted to read to start my day. Now get this horror story out of my face! Why are they even reporting crap like this?