Weeping Infant Killed For Disturbing Dad's Gaming

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Therumancer:

gunner1905:

Therumancer:
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 :)

mattttherman3:

antipunt:
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.

The7Sins:
Honestly I'm ok with this. The dad helped bring the kid into the world. He should have every right to take him out of it whenever and however he wants.
Also I hate kids so stories like this give me warm fuzzies inside.

Oh man, you're so edgy and cool. I wish I could be like you.

thats it. am making a plan to make a big robot arm and going to shake that 20 year old to death. while that is working am going to play games

I wish you wouldn't have established a link between "disturbing dad's gaming" and "infant shaken to death". It's a sad fact, but children are shaken every day. It's absolutely appalling, but there it is. It doesn't matter if you're a gamer or not, if you're rich or poor, whatever, you are at risk of shaking your child. Newborns cry a lot, that's a fact of life, it's their only means of communicating their needs, their anxiety, their pain, you name it. Add sleep deprived parents in the mix, and everyone's at risk. The important thing is to be aware of the risk, and to prevent it. It's got nothing to do with video games.
That being said, he really shouldn't have been gaming until 4am, that's just ludicrous. When my little one was born, I took what sleep I could get!

Huh. Little buggers are really fragile. Gotta remember this if I ever have one of my own. Note to self: babies break faster than raw eggs.

Good thing it was only an infant. The world has enough of those already.

DVS BSTrD:
Don't ban videogames!
BAN FLORIDA!

In the last few weeks... yeah... I've heard of nothing but bad coming from Florida...

----------------------------------

Well this is one broken individual who hates his existence... he's a shelf stacker... I'd hate that job too. Video games are his coping method with... life and he is not the sort of person who is responsible enough to look after a child... well dur, he just killed his baby...

Video games are not to blame. If not for video games it would be drugs or alcohol that drove him to ruin his child's life...

... shame our societies breed people who are just totally unfit to have kids.

Therumancer:
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.

Oh I am so there with you.

We would of course need an effective method of reversable sterlization but that really sounds like the thing to solve many of our problems.

You could do something opposite to the pill. Have a pill which allows you to become pregnant via being the antidote to the chemicals in the water supply... hmm this is an interesting area to look into...

However it would do significant damage to the war on STD's...

I know a lot of people are thinking that this man is some kind of crazy psychopath right now, but he isn't. Death by shaking is actually quite a common cause of infanticide, because the little tykes won't shutup.

I have nothing but sympathy from the man. Seriously, I know it's hard to understand, but babies really can just keep on crying for almost a day straight, and sometimes nothing a parent can do will quiet them.

After 15 hours of non-stop screaming, parents get stressed.

They are also tired.

They are VERY frustrated, and they make really bad, spur of the moment actions.

So please don't judge this man, he's probably already punishing himself enough. And what he did was, though totally wrong, an understandable action in his situation.

"The infant woke up and began crying around the time Hartley went to bed."

So, his gaming wasn't disturbed? This sounds like desperately trying to dig up old controversies that only brain damaged parents ever bought into in the first place.

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...

Therumancer:

Abandon4093:

Therumancer:
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.

We DON'T have an overpopulation problem and we never will. To say that we have or are going to have is to completely misunderstand how population demographics work.

What we have is a population distribution problem and in the western world, an ageing population.

Neither of which could be solved by a sterilisation program. And it would actually make the latter worse.

That's not to say I'm completely against the idea, I think there should certainly be some sort of standards test that has to be taken before being legally allowed to have a child. Taking into account mental health and monetary situation aswell as testing basic parental knowledge.

But that's not to solve some mythical population problem, it's purely for the well being of the child. Because far too many children are born into abusive, neglectful and incapable homes. And in all truth, some sort of agency could probably have predicted it in most cases.

Not quite sure how such an agency would operate. But one can but dream.

Your in denial, one of the few things enviromentalists are right about is dwindling resources. They really aren't kidding about the rate at which rain forests (and forests in general) are disappearing, or how The Middle East is inevitably going to run out of oil at the rate of current consumption, never mind if it raises production to meet increasing international demand from nations like China. Then you have things like metals, and the sheer number of mines that are getting tapped out to meet demands for ore, leading to people trying to find more mines, and when that isn't possible literally tearing into the planet for trace elements that can be extracted, which also hurts the abilliy of the planet to produce new veins of ore and replentish what was tapped out to begin with.

You're getting overpopulation confused with dwindling resources, I mean I can see where you're drawing the overlap. But our dwindling resources aren't a result of overpopulation. Because we aren't overpopulated and we never will be. And infact, the parts of the world that consume the most resources such as food, fuel and ore have already got a stemmed population. In 90% of developed countries the death rate is very close to the birth rate, and in some the death rate is higher. Hence why we've all got ageing populations.

The countries where population explodes are the less economically developed. Because of a mix of poor education on contraceptives, the need to have very large families so that atleast some will survive and lack of medical care. When a country hits a certain point of the demographic scale their birth to death rates begin to level out and eventually switch places.

That's just the way population/social growth works in relation to each other.

So in a round about point, what is killing our resources isn't overpopulation. It's consumerism. It's the throw away culture. It's the 'I want it now' culture. It's a whole lot of things but it isn't overpopulation.

The bottom line is more people, means more resources needed to support those people at a decent standard of living. Those resources don't just appear magically, they all have to come from somewhere.

Yes, but the parts of the world that are burning through those resources aren't overpopulated. Not even close.

It's that we've all become expectant. We expect that we can just throw our appliances away and be able to get a new one, we expect that there is always going to be fuel in the pump for that 100 mile trip on the weekend to visit the parents, we expect that we're going to be able to buy 50 peoples worth of food for those 10 friends that are coming round on the weekend to watch that fight.

It's not that there are too many people consuming resources, it's that were' consuming far more resources than we actually need to live a comfortable life.

Good luck changing that though.

I understand your points, and they would be valid if it wasn't for greater concerns. Rather the fallout of reducing the population as I suggest is one of the problems we are going to have to deal with to solve even bigger problems. Economics and the relative ages of people and their abillity to produce are big deals, until you consider that you need to have societies in existance for that to matter. The point I'm making is that we're heading for a collapse caused by too many people for the planet to support, a catastrophe far bigger than the one your talking about.

The problem is that cutting down the population won't solve anything and would actually make matters worse in most cases.

The society we live in cannot be run by a skeleton crew. We already have an ageing population in the west and that is a massssssive problem. People are living much longer and therefore consuming more resources over their lives and there aren't enough people being born to fill out the required workforce.

We are heading for a collapse, we're heading for many different ones. And if we don't find proper solutions to each, then our standard of living is pretty much gone within the next 50 years. But each of these issues requires a specific solution. And trimming the population simply isn't one of those solutions.

We need alternative fuel. We have already found many good candidates for a replacement to fossil fuels. The problem is that it costs money to switch over and too many companies are tooooo far invested in fossil fuels. A switch would lead to market crashes and social standard changes. It's something that needs to happen, but the powers that be are putting it off for as long as possible because of the knock on effects it would have. And in truth, they would be devastating.

We need to address our wasteful society. There is no arguing against this, we consume far more than we need. We have become decadent and lazy to such a degree that it's affecting our health and the planets health. But changing something like our attitude towards... well everything isn't something that I can see being done. As a rule, societies attitudes change when they have no choice but to. The sad truth is 99% of the west doesn't really see the problem. It might know that we need to change but most people think that putting a plastic bag in the recycle bin is their part over with. Until we're actually faced with the prospect of complete collapse and we end up bringing back the rationing and cap resource management. Well that 99% isn't going to do anything about it.

Basically, in a worst case scenario along with the birth control we might have to impose a policy where anyone above a certain age who isn't productive is to be executed, and keep that going for a few generations. You might be going "OMG, that's evil" and according to current morality you'd be right. It brings to mind all kinds of facist dark future fiction, "Logan's Run" being just the tip of that ice berg. However when your talking about the survival of the species you have to prioritize.

That said, I think the problem while a big one, is not something that would have to be handled by anti-geriatric death squads, that's just a worse case scenario. In short, your correct on things getting bad, but one sad truth of this sucky world is that things generally have to get worse, before they can get better.

That's just stupid. And I don't mean that in 'OMG ur eval' kind of way, just in a 'That's full on retard' kind of way.

That wouldn't solve anything. The way our society works at the minute is that we consume more than we need, if we killed off the ones that aren't 'productive' enough. Which is a ridiculously arbitrary standard to be begin with. Then the fewer people left would just consume more anyway.

Honestly, you're looking at the problems we're facing through the eyes of a child. I don't mean that in an insulting way, atleast you recognise that things need to change. It's just that you don't really understand what would actually make a society change.

What you're proposing would just lead to civil unrest and probably a revolution at some point. Then we'd get right on back to what we were doing.

The only way to make people change is to show them unequivocal evidence that they need to. That's it. There is no other way.

People need to understand a change to accept it. The problem is that we're in such a knowledge saturated society that we look at everything anyone tells us with scepticism. Usually I'd say that's our biggest strength, but it means we don't believe things until there is no choice but to believe them. And even then there are a lot of people who'd rather believe conspiracy theories.

Honestly I don't see humanity doing anything about the impending problems until we have no choice but to address them.

I do however think we likely will manage it.

antipunt:
Soo...this guy can reproduce, but I can't find a date.

*forever alone*

and that is how the sick twisted game of love works apparently

*forever alone*

blackrave:
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.

Das Boot:

blackrave:
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.

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.

Earnest Cavalli:
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.

Therumancer:

gunner1905:

Therumancer:
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.

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.

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.

Idiots gonna fuck up. It's a tragic story, tangentially connected to gaming but tragic and dumb. Nothing was gained today.

he doesn't really look like a good father in the first place...

gunner1905:

Therumancer:

gunner1905:

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.

Kevlar Eater:
Gee, only in Florida...

Look at that neckbeard. That's the kind of shit that grosses me out. And that somehow produced offspring?

Alcohol can do surprising things to people - like make them overlook the hideous neck beard. It apparently also makes it impossible to successfully stick a condom on... so explains the offspring.

OP: Guys just an idiot, terrible parent and well... an Idiot. Fairly certain that 'Don't shake the baby, regardless of situation' is Parenting 101, so... yeah.

Faith in Humanity ain't gettin' destroyed by a single idiot... this time.

i personally dont understand why that commercial was even banned. its completely true XD it brings a good point. lmao

Therumancer:

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?

What game was he playing?

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.

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?

Sober Thal:

>.> why was the commercial banned exactly? seems like an excellent warning to me

Nikolaz72:

Therumancer:

gunner1905:

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.

jedizero:

Therumancer:

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.

I hear other planets are good this time of year.

RaikuFA:

mattttherman3:

antipunt:
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.

pointless vandalism:

RaikuFA:

mattttherman3:
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..

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here