Weeping Infant Killed For Disturbing Dad's Gaming

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Nikolaz72 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.
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.

The thing is that less people mean less of a demand for resources, period. All of the problems with social security, rising numbers of the elderly, and everything else are all man made issues that will be unpleasant to deal with, but that's the result of a sucky world where things have to get worse, before they get better.

For example, a big part of the arguement here (made by several people) revolves around the US social security system, and the obligation of the younger generation to support the older one. My point is that if society can't support that obligation, then you let it drop. This means that for the greater good of the species as a whole, you let the elderly fend for themselves at least for a few generations, as cruel as that might be.

The problem is that most people are thinking inside of a box, and in terms of "revolutions" and such which are exactly the reason why you'd need society as a whole to adapt as opposed to a few iron men trying to institute the policy.

I'll also be honest in saying that my own conclusions suck on a profound level for me, because I by definition am not a productive member of society anymore. I don't want to die or anything, but at the same time I'm disabled with brain damage and live off of social security. I just accept that even if I have no choice, I'm arguably part of the problem. It kind of sucks when intellectual realizations don't match your own personal needs.

Internationally, there are problems, and I've intentionally not been getting into that because it raises other questions, and would derail the entire conversation. To be blunt I've gone on about the needs for a world unity in the past, and that killing any number of people in order to achieve it would be worth it, while at the same time solving a lot of the overpopulation problem globally. I'm mostly just talking about domestic policy, in an intentionally limited way to try to avoid offending anyone without going into issues of time, place, and when to implement it.

The bottom line is however that no matter how people want to argue the point, more people = more resource consumption. Once the population reduces to the point where everyone can have a decent standard of living, and the planet can support it, we're pretty much set. All other arguements on social security, human nature to want more, and similar things are all able to be addressed, but again I haven't been focusing on it because it generally comes down to arguements of people saying "OMG, people will do this" and me pretty much saying "well, then we'll force them not to", followed by "but to do that you'd probably have to engage in mass murder!" and me going "so be it". Then everyone gets pissed off.

I've received a lot of similar messags, and this should answer just about all of them. Hopefully it won't lead to this going totally out of control.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
jedizero 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.
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?
Yes I understand all of this. I also understand that according to my own principles I ultimatly would probably wind up not surviving. There has even been speculative fiction on the subject, I believe Kurt Vonnegut went here at least once.

I just tend to feel that the survival of the species comes first, once we stabalize things can be dialed back. Like it or not we're at a crisis point, and I'd rather not get to the point where nothing can be done.
 

pointless vandalism

New member
Mar 27, 2012
63
0
0
RaikuFA said:
mattttherman3 said:
antipunt said:
Soo...this guy can reproduce, but I can't find a date.

*forever alone*
Plentyoffish.com, eventually, someone will go out with you man, I thought the same thing, I have been on dates with 5 diffrent people in 4 months, one went for over a month, but yeah, it works, be wary of those with multiple profiles though(they are crazy)
I've always had a problem with that site. Only one date after two years on there.
The majority of my dates come from that site. My advise? Get a better profile. Depending on your age, weight, pictures, description etc. 1 date in 2 years...sounds like an issue with your profile, and not the people viewing you.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
pointless vandalism said:
RaikuFA said:
mattttherman3 said:
antipunt said:
Soo...this guy can reproduce, but I can't find a date.

*forever alone*
Plentyoffish.com, eventually, someone will go out with you man, I thought the same thing, I have been on dates with 5 diffrent people in 4 months, one went for over a month, but yeah, it works, be wary of those with multiple profiles though(they are crazy)
I've always had a problem with that site. Only one date after two years on there.
The majority of my dates come from that site. My advise? Get a better profile. Depending on your age, weight, pictures, description etc. 1 date in 2 years...sounds like an issue with your profile, and not the people viewing you.
I'm in the same boat. I have no idea how you guys are hitting dates, it's amazing. I'm using OKCupid because I heard it's better, but it's ridiculous, the (normal) girls are SOOO selective, you'd be lucky to get a reply back, because they get flooded with hundreds of messages a week...

The thing is an absolute fail for me so far. Replies are scarce, and the ones I do get don't go anywhere (they disappear after a couple, or aren't interested in meeting me to begin with; just getting attention/killing time). And then one girl said she would go out (even gave me her number), but flaked out on me last minute. I don't even consider myself unattractive, dafaq? Is it because I'm only part-time employed?.. Mebbe my profile isn't spicy enuff

-so freaking frustrating- this online dating thing..
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Kevlar Eater said:
Gee, only in Florida...

Look at that neckbeard. That's the kind of shit that grosses me out. And that somehow produced offspring?
I agree, I mean control your facial hair it looks disgusting.

Also child murder. Just... yeah. Just knowing I'm the same genus as this people makes me ashamed to call myself Homo...
 

cswurt

New member
Oct 26, 2011
176
0
0
Trashy father would've raised a trashy child.
Now the father is going to be put away where he can't birth another, and the child is removed from the gene pool.

Earth is that much cleaner from this whole incident.
 

zyzzyx

New member
Apr 7, 2011
19
0
0
"Please deposit all vitriol and existential worry for the human species as a whole in the comments below."

hahahahahahahahahahaha
 

thespyisdead

New member
Jan 25, 2010
756
0
0
by the looks of it, this guy's IQ is very low... or then he just looks like a stoner... why AMERICA, why???
 

portal_cat

New member
Jun 25, 2009
62
0
0
thespyisdead said:
by the looks of it, this guy's IQ is very low... or then he just looks like a stoner... why AMERICA, why???
Agreed. Reading this article makes me want to run off to the UK or at least to Canada.
 

JPArbiter

New member
Oct 14, 2010
337
0
0
I am a gamer, and I am a father. I took night shifts often so that my wife could sleep soundly, allowing her to be at the top of her game during the day. during those times I often held him in my lap while playing games.

Never once when my son, who is now three, was crying did it dawn on me to shake him. I paused the fucking game and took care of his needs.

this is the sort of shit that should not be difficult to figure out. as a Gamer I am disgusted by this man being claimed as one of my ilk. as a father, I pray for the mother of that lost child.
 

Piecewise

New member
Apr 18, 2008
706
0
0
What do games have to do with this at all? He happened to be playing one while in the course of being a terrible person?
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Wow. Just WOW. I hate kids and never want one but why the FUCK would you shake a baby?!? I hope this guy never gets out of jail and never plays another video game ever again.
 

Simonoly

New member
Oct 17, 2011
353
0
0
Meh. Unfortunate as it is, this sort of thing happens very often. Babies are very fragile and like to cry constantly. Parents get stressed and on rare occasions in the spur of the moment do something they live to regret. It's just an unfortunate situation and I bet the guy feels bloody awful. It's not like he threw the baby in a river or meant to harm it. I can't imagine how it feels to accidentally kill your own child. Also, the fact that he was playing video games is completely irrelevant. Unless he had been playing a kinect-enabled Baby Shaking simulator of course