Weeping Infant Killed For Disturbing Dad's Gaming

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

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.

True, but once we pass the forced euthanasia law on undesirables and the unproductive the problem will just fix itself :)
It really does seem like people forget what Nazi Germany was really about.
The effects of population control are absolutely wide in scope, China's one-child policy fixed one problem and caused so many others.

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

*forever alone*

Lower your standards.

Ladies, would anyone here even consider having kids with him? Really...

It flumoxes me...

Kill him.
Kill him with FIRE!

CrossLOPER:

Lower your standards.

I'd rather be forever alone than with some girl who is ugly/hasabadpersonality...

pff. If babies don't want to get shaken, why are they so fucking obnoxious?

Grey Day for Elcia:

Therumancer:
... 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.

Armchair psychology is pretty cool. I like to pretend some times too. Only, instead of playing really aloof and intelligent, I pretend I'm Batman.

Reminds me of all those try-hard teens sitting behind the school and talking about how 'messed up they are,' lol.

.

Lol, yeah. I just have a big dent in my head and brain damage. It's not like I've ever seen any doctors, or did any research into my condition. Us damn kids who were forced to basically retire and collect social security in our 30s. What the fuck do we know about anything.

Also for the record not only did I work 10 years in Casino Security (between two casinos) but was also a Criminal Justice: Forensics major, before I ran into financial problems (Casino Security wasn't my planned goal). I'm not a psycologist or psychiatrist but I did have to take a few classes on that (intro to psych, abnormal psych, criminal psych, etc...) which overlapped with classes like "criminal investigation", and even some of the law
related classes and surprisingly a little with the sciences given the orientation.

See, I was born with my "problem" due to my head closing up when I was a baby (no I was not dropped) and having a plate put in there (and later removed). I spent a lot of my childhood in residential facilities with some serious issues, as I got older they reduced, I went to school, got a job, and then things got worse when I was older but I knew what to expect. I don't see a "shrink" because there is nothing they can really do for me, my problems are physical.

I've mentioned this stuff before, but I can see how you missed it, but really you should be careful who you mouth off at. I actually had to delete and re-write a massive flame I was about to send your way... since I pride myself on not doing that.

... and yes, when it comes to certain topics that recur on these forums, I do know more than most people on these forums will ever know, not because of school specifically, but because of actual experience. You'd be bloody surprised at what I've run into and had to deal with (to put it bluntly).

As far as my comments about "recognizing sociopathic traits", it comes from having been mis-diagnosed as things like "Borderline Personality" (look it up), especially when I was a kid. As I learned more I came to understand why some people could have reached that conclusion, and might have similar thoughts (as I was accused of in this discussion) given my current mindset. Not that they would be right, it's simply that I have some thought processes and reach certain conclusions that tend to be associated with sociopaths, while not actually being one myself. I could get into it in detail, but it's kind of pointless and you know, us "Armchair psychologists" who try and learn about their own problems can't possibly know anything.

Djinn8:

Therumancer:

I'm not to sure whether implementing this globally it would be a benefit (I'll adress why shortly). Besides I don't think it could be implemented anyway. A state of global acceptance would be required and that would be is extremely hard, perhaps even impossible to achieve. Not all countries are going to be accepting of state controlled birth rates and those countries are going to become havens for people who are being denied children. You then have a problem with imigration as I stated before. People will not want to be a part of your country, they will simply move elsewhere and this will result in the hit to resource consumption being negligable at best. (remember that imigrtation works both ways).

You also suggest that it would be good for the US to decrese its population to around 50%, but you don't seem to be taking into account that this would also mean a 50% decrease in its economic assets. You could raise the average earnings of the individual to offset this (and as we've already stated the favorability of high end earners for parenting would do this) but it would be nowhere near enough to cover the loss. Those who leave, or choose not to come in the first place, are going to take their assents and industry to another country; while those who are unable to move, but still wish to have children, are going to become anacronistic to society.

In the end you will be making a world where you have super rich countries dependent on the industry of the poorer countries who have a surplus of cheap product due to over population. That's already the way the world works, which is a good thing as it allows for strong global trading and wealth distribution. Targeted birth control could only promote this aspect and at current it is unnecesarry to do so. Refering back to my initial point about how a global agenda would not be benificial: it would destroy this balance and kill the global market.

Therumancer:

I don't have anything really to add here except that I agree with pretty much everything you said. Take a look at India and the tragedy they had with the floods not to long ago. A hundred years ago people would have avoided living on the flood plains, but thanks to the massive population problem they had no where else to go. It does make a case that the planet can only support a set amount of people. Also that nature has its own ways of addressing over population.

Well, I'd argue that warfare and our inherant aggression is part of how nature intended humanity to solve it's own population problems, but that's another entire discussion.

On the overall issue I will say that your right about global acceptance, but also understand that I'm an extreme militant. Issues don't exist in a vacuum and branch out into other things. I've been trying to keep this limited in it's focus for a reason, but that is difficult to do. Let's just say that there is a lot behind why in other posts I don't bat an eye when talking about the extermination of millions, or even billions of people in the pursuit of US interests. The big arguements being made about my comments about bringing Armageddon to The Middle East generally coming down to me being "insane" for being willing to casually kill so many civilians for example. The bottom line is that there are too many people anyway, so virtually wiping out entire civilizations is actually a good thing. Once you accept overpopulation as an issue (which I do) and that we need to get rid of people, having an justification you can use is better than just simply saying "well hey, we need to cut down on the population, and we've decided you all get to die because we're stronger, we don't have any other reason". I'm not a huge fan in slaughter for no reason, but when someone does cause a reason, even if it's a matter of point of view, I don't think "total eradication" should bee off the table when you look at the big picture.

In the big picture I believe that the world pretty much needs a global unity, that is one goverment, one standed culture everyone else gets melted down into. Who does it in the big picture really doesn't matter, though of course I prefer my own people and culture to be the driving force that will set the foundations even if it would itself wind up disappearing in the process. Such a unity can largely happen through the exchange of ideas, and people growing to accept the same basic conclusions. I see signs of this already happening, slowly but surely, though I believe time is of the essence. In the end there are entire people and civilizations who will not choose to give up self-governing for no other reason than personal freedom, while sympathetic in the end those people who don't join will need to be wiped out. You will see a global war, billions upon billions will die, and that will be a good thing as long as what is left standing is generally unified and can then carefulyl regulate it's reproduction to prevent the resulting "baby boom" from overpopulating the planet. With a global unity space travel then becomes a bit more viable, and if we can colonize planets (even ones in the solar system, by building habs) and do things like mine the astroid field we can lighten up on things like resources and birth control as we obtain more, and more living space and secure our own expansion.

I've intentionally been limiting this to a discussion of the US, because when the issue turns to the overall problems, I wind up being diametrically opposed to the morality of like 97% of the people on this forum, who would rather die than see what I suggest transpire or even be worked towards. Truthfully though since it comes down to the species as a whole I think this goes beyodn their objections, or even any code of morality that can be conceived. Discussion of things get derailed due to all the excuses by those not wantint to face reality like "everyone dying" or various reasons why it couldn't be made to happen, etc... all of which represent topics that could be fought for weeks in their own threads (and have been, if not presented in this overall context, over the years I've been talking about politics and such on The Escapist).

When it comes to the US-centric point, I will say that having an easily supported population due to less people trumps a lot of the needs of having a powerhouse economy to begin with. In general we want that economy to try and provide for our people (in the big picture) but our expanding population means we'll never be able to do that, since as soon as we become economically stronger, we expand to the point of needing even more economic force.

The US is one of the few nations that can be almost entirely self sufficient if we reduce our population. In the short term I sort of support the idea of the US focusing mostly on spreading ideas, so we can expand the seeds of a global unity, while more or less withdrawing from the global economic rat race. Let them all deplete each other and bicker without us playing global peace keepers, using our military entirely for our own purposes and benefit for a time. Then when the time comes we simply gather those who are thinking similarly to us when there are enough of them, start the final war, and either we win and create a unity and humanity survives, or we all die out with a roar instead of a tiny whimper as we deplete the planet and all revert to barbarism on a mudball unable to support the great civilizations we had once created.

That's a very simplistic version (no real need to point out problems, I'm aware of the, but I could probably write small books on the subject that would make this post look tiny in comparison).

Therumancer:
-snip-

Feeling a bit burned out on this topic at the moment, so may be I'll address this better later on. It certainly seems like you unlocked those renegade options though.

Mother should have taken the child and reported him after the first shaking incident.

This isn't about video games, this is about this fat fucking loser being irresponsible, abusive and insane.

Enjoy prison, you animal.

That's why gamer parents should only have a nintendo wii; either you play in the company of your stoner friends, or you play for, like, 15 minutes and get tired of it.

Nintendo!

Sensationalistic headline. Infants don't "weep".

Also, I've been waiting for a time to use this .gif. This seems to sum up things nicely...
image

MASTACHIEFPWN:

I'd rather be forever alone than with some girl who is ugly/hasabadpersonality...

Buddy, unless you are an Adonis with a tongue of silk, you can't make this statement. Everyone has faults. Even you.

Again. Lower your standards or better yourself.

How is it that asshats like these can produce offspring, yet...

Sam Kinison, Bill Hicks and Mitch Hedburg couldn't produce a kid???

DAFUQ?!?!?!?!?

I can't fashion a response to this 'news' article that won't get me banned... I just... How? How can someone take a little person, a baby, and shake them? I have a 6 month old daughter. She can be frustrating at times... but... Wow. I honestly can't see shaking her to make her be quiet as a response that even remotely makes sense. The baby was crying because it was probably tired. My daughter does that plenty. I thrive on like 3 hours of sleep a day. Babies change things. Granted , the guy who did it was barely out of his teens, and still somewhat a child himself. But... Wow. I'm sorry... This just.... whoa... So much... Evil is committed against children and people in general nowadays. Babies are stressful... i get it. I raised my nephews for a while and i was holding down 2 jobs at the time. Did i get mad? Yeah. I'm human. Did i shake them to make them be quiet? NO. I made sure they had clean diapers on and weren't hungry and got so used to rocking them side to side that it made my hips and knees do so out of habit. I sway in grocery stores now lol. Wow. Um... This shouldn't happen. Its just... Yeah, i can't talk anymore...

He doesn't exactly look of proper functioning in that mugshot up there. Hope he's banned from ever touching a child again.

...That is NOT a flattering picture. Of course, they had to go with the WORST kind of photo for this guy, to make him look like an even MORE terrible person for what he did.

This just has nothing to do with the video games. I can't escape the feeling that the news coverage has added this to add a new dynamic so a very sad and simple story, a stressed father made a fatal mistake - whether or not he was a gamer is neither here nor there. This kind of news coverage really gets on my nerves.

I smell a picturememe! :D

Captcha: with bells on
clearly it is enthusiastic about attending the trial

Earnest Cavalli:
Please deposit all vitriol and existential worry for the human species as a whole in the comments below.

It's quite depressing when a game news site has to report on shit like this solely because the lingering stigma of gaming is inevitably going to be linked to it, and us.

We engage in verbally lynching that awful person not just because he's an awful wretch deserving of far worse than he's going to get, but because we need to distance him from gaming to protect our public image at large.

The whole story makes me wretch, and not just because an innocent baby died for the stupidest reason.

It's a small comfort for the rest of us that no matter how low in life we sink, no matter what terrible things we do there's always someone who's done worse. I'm pretty sure I've said this before on here but infanticide is the one situation where I'd support the death penalty. No matter how remorseful the guy is you can't get away from the fact he killed a child, some things in life you can never make up for.

Wow. *sigh* Here we go again. This is WHY we can't have nice things!

His face just yells "Look at me, I'm a terrible parent."

vxicepickxv:

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?

Florida, that's where the really weird shit happens. I mean really weird ones. Some of the stories down here are so weird, it makes me sometimes think there's an Elder God living under the state.

Meanwhile, in Berlin, Germany:
Basically the same happens. The also 6 week old boy doesn't die, but on top of the violent shaking suffers a skull fracture, a broken arm and leg due to the father banging him against "a hard object".

Meanwhile, in Aalborg, Denmark:
Woman, and I could have easily known her, if my girlfriend had joined a different mother's group, finds out that she can put her baby to "sleep" by poking hard on (into?) the fontanel.

Y'know. Just sayin'.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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