too young to have kids for one. and working in retail. i babysit for quite a few hours a day and it cuts into my video games. as does working in retail and my second job. babies: NO JOKE.
Weeping Infant Killed For Disturbing Dad's Gaming
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
That's a fair series of statements. I think when you cross the line, when you shake a baby to death, you lose everything. "That's game over man. Game over."Aprilgold said:
Shaken Baby Syndrome has occurred for various reasons, and this time the issue has landed in the video game community's front yard. Maybe next time it will land on the front yard of the community that watches "The View".
Wow, that's sad to hear that a man could ever do that. Taking a life so young is almost beyond me. I can't even begin to understand how that could ever happen. Its a hard reality we face when this kinda thing happens in the world. This, and much worse things. Some day I hope that a mother would never have to experience this in her life. My sorrow gos out to that mother.
The guilt, in and of itself would be enough punishment for the man. If anything, death would be a escape from that guilt, thus why killing him and locking him in prison is more of a reward then a punishment. I think that the death penalty shouldn't be in place because of things like this. What the hell else are you going to do? Your home is not waiting for you, your family probably doesn't want you, your already in prison so what else can you do once you get out? The only thing coming your way is death and even then it isn't that surprising since your getting it for what you have done.VonBrewskie said:
Killing a man is not going to do anything but prevent them from killing again, but it costs so much more money then just helping the man to learn not to kill again.
I assume you are suggesting requirements here somewhere along the lines of adoption requirements.Therumancer said:
The problem here is that such a solution will drasticly effect the way parenting and the economy works. To start with most schemes are aimed at high income brackets, not the acceptabiliy of the individual. Also if this scheme was passed we'd end up with a lot of full time working parents who would be forced to higher care workers who, with the significant rise in demand, would be more strickly regulated than present. This could result in a nation of children raised on principles set by governmental standard. That's a big cultural step to take and overeaches the initial goal of making children safe.
There's the further issue of convincing people that they should be a part of your society to start with. Imigrants aren't going to want to come work in your country with these laws in place; the reason for their move probably being to give themselves and their family a better life. And who's going to fill the low-to-middle end jobs that are left vacant in their absence? Not the people who hope to have children some day. I can see a large social divide appearing between the low and high end earners if your suggestion was implemented.
I think you need to look into how much it costs to rehabilitate a prisoner, and how often the system of rehabilitation fails. It's not killing the man. It's executing him. I think using the word "killing" implies that the guy is being victimized. He is not a victim. Execution is an appropriate process for removing a person from our population that has fucked up severely enough.Aprilgold said:
I agree with this. I find it fascinating that you need a license to drive a car, but anybody can get together and have a child. People should be screened. I also agree with the doubt that it was intentional.Therumancer said:
Seriously, though...lots of babies have been killed by being shaken. Shouldn't people be past this by now?
That's where we differ, I really doubt that resources will be used up till it's gone because before something is fully gone it will be to expensive to be used in the first place for most people, it's not like say oil stays at $5 per gallon till suddenly it's gone, what would happen is prices would rise exponentially until almost no one could get it and those people will substitute (there will always be a substitution, I can't think of one thing that doesn't have a substitute too (water will never be fully gone, medicine is artificially made)) to something else.gunner1905 said:
So the biggest point problem with your solution is not really the solution itself but that is a solution to a problem that will never happen. Unless of course, as I said, there's some sort of mass extinction event.
What situation in the future do you imagine where a resource can suddenly be fully gone?[/quote]
Actually it will be, wood, metal, and oil to name a few that will cease to exist given time due to overpopulation. You might not like that fact, and a lot of people don't, but it happens to be true. Mostly your just looking for ways to justify me being wrong, and I understand why, what I'm saying is pretty grim. However, people are going to have to learn there is no talking aroumd, or rationalizing aroumd, unpleasant realities they do not want to face.
Actually it will be, wood, metal, and oil to name a few that will cease to exist given time due to overpopulation. You might not like that fact, and a lot of people don't, but it happens to be true. Mostly your just looking for ways to justify me being wrong, and I understand why, what I'm saying is pretty grim. However, people are going to have to learn there is no talking aroumd, or rationalizing aroumd, unpleasant realities they do not want to face.[/quote]Therumancer said:
You might feel that way but there really seems to be no indication that it has or it will reach that level (of everything is running out). Like I asked, what kind of situation (that doesn't include mass extinction events) that could really lead to something going totally gone without anybody not noticing it, the government can't hold a secret with the internet and all that, and if it does go to that level people will change their consumption, not because they want to but because they can't afford it.
Anyway this is really getting off topic, let's make a thread or pm me or something.
Lack of premeditated intent.Use_Imagination_here said:
It somewhat makes sense in theory, but procreation is distinct from driving in that trying to regulate it means toying with ethical, sociological and political issues that make the whole abortion debate look like a kindergarten scuffle.runnernda said:
you want OUR goverment handle a social issue?!*looks at the drug war,prohibition,mcarthyism and shrugs*yeah nothing wrong can come of this....[/quote]Vivid Kazumi said:
You can be critical of any goverment and it's abillity to handle problems, especially social ones. There has never been, and will never will be a utopia.
Truthfully I think a lot of the problems with the US has to do with out brand of morality. In general people are never going to be happy with anything that causes them stress, danger, or discomfort no matter how well justified in the big picture or the long term. When dealing with large problems, involving millions of people who are unwilling to change what they are doing. Those people inevitably resist, and the common person winds up being caught in the crossfire and ceases to care about th ebig picture, so much as what makes life easiest for them right then and there. In the US at least morality interferes due to principles where it's considered to be wrong to force a lot of people to do anything, especially by violence, so basically as long as there is resistance eventually people are going to force down whatever is being done on moral grounds. With the way US Elections work, politicians aren't in power long enough for an unpopular, but nessicary plan to work in the long run, people are going to vote for whomever promises them the most peace and stability right then and there, long term goals or repercussions be damned.
The problem with things like "The War On Drugs" is that something like that takes generations to really work, and when you consider my parents generation (the baby boomers) grew up in a permissive generation where drugs were literally everywhere and socially accepted, it hasn't been all that long. This isn't the kind of issue that gets resolved in a few years. Likewise people object to taking severe action in dealing with the problem, such as annihilating the drug production of countries that import drugs into the US (due to it causing tons of civilian casualties), or doing things like making drug use or dealing capital offense, or heck, even just instituting laws and amendements that make drug cases an exception to the normal rules of evidence, focusing less on the legal game, and more on the bottom line.
The point is that you can't point fingers at the goverment for a lot of this, a lot of it comes down to the people themselves. People who generally realize that no major change is going to come without costs. In the US people want there to be a magic wand waved, and problems to go away, without anyone getting hurt, or having to re-evaluate the morality that was permissive enough to allow these problems to occur to begin with.
I could address the Probition or Mcarthy here as well, but this is long enough, and the drug war is the most current example, and getting into the details of too many seperate things would derail the thread, or the point I'm trying to make: it's not JUST the goverment's fault, the people take as much, or even more blame, especially in a country where the goverment is such a reflection of the people themselves.
Space that is generally incapable of supporting people at a decent standard of living. Sure, technically people COULD live in abject misery in say the middle of the desert, but that doesn't mean they are going to thrive there. Not to mention that just by going there your looking at the cost in wood, metal, oil, and similar things to keep all those people going. Right now with just the people we've got, occupying the space we have, we're literally destroying resources globally, cutting down forests and mining out the earth far faster than it can replentish itself, and even engaging in kinds of resource gathering that greatly reduces the abillity of the planet to recover. Saying we should put people into all of the uninhabited areas (in the US or anywhere) sounds great until you consider that those enviroments require even MORE resources that we're already expending.Grey Day for Elcia said:
See, the issue isn't so much the people, though there are issues connected to that, but the resources USED by the people. While I've mostly been speaking about the US, it's a global issue. Whether we should have one or not, the point is we do not have a global unity at the moment so really the only thing I can talk about is policies the US might pass.
... and to answer the question more Nilistic than anti-social. I recognizing myself as having more than a few sociopathic traits, especially nowadays, but this isn't really based off of any general hatred of humanity as a whole or desire to see people die, it's simply an unpleasant reality.
Djinn8 said:
Let me be painfully blunt, it's a global issue, ideally I feel this should probably be the case everywhere but we don't have a gloabl unity to force the issue... at least not yet.
The idea being to reduce the population, so things like immigrants become irrelevent, as it is I believe one of our big problems already is dealing with the influx of immigrants. Discouraging them to come to the US is not a bad thing to my way of thinking, no matter how you do it (but that's an entirely differant discussion).
You are correct that this is not something that is going to happen without repercussions, if it was ever to happen, it would be a HUGE thing. Those problems would however be dealt with, even if it required a degree of brutality, and over a period of time we would benefit, as would the world as a whole if the policy was implemented globally.
The problems I mentioned are more akin to a social divide. Basically if people have to apply to become parents and have their sterilization reversed, and such permits are not always granted, those most capable of raising children are generally going to be those from the upper echelons of society with the most resources to invest. Perhaps not universally, but it would be an issue. True or not, you'd probably also see people trying to make ethnic issues out of it by saying that it was an attempt to breed out [insert minority here] within the US.
That kind of thing would be a BIG issue, but again one that would be dealt with. Reduce the population drastically for a few generations despite the problems, and then you can work on stabilizing the situation. In the end I think the US would benefit from having it's population reduced by about 50% in the long term. Globally as frightening as it is, I'd say the figure gets to be about 80%, but largely because of how dense the overpopulation is in some places. With say China representing 1/3rd of the global population, and India coming close, cutting those nations down would have a much more extreme impact on the overall global population figure than elsewhere, since according to some figures, everywhere else that isn't China or India is cumulatively only a little over 1/3rd of the population.