Karen Matthews sentenced

Memento Mori wrote:

MCN wrote:Then there's the question of where this policy goes next. Refusing breeding licenses to people who earn too little money? ... Northerners?

3. Being a northerner on it's own is fine unless they fail one of the other categories.

It appears MCN is one of those 'intellectuals' ( ) with a superiority complex, and as such has some mental issues best kept to himself.

Cal wrote:

jambot wrote:Cal once had the idea of free sniper rifles for the over 40's. With a little adjustment to the idea - an IQ based upfront assessment of eligibility - it's my favourite idea he's ever had. I already live in SE London, so ammo will be no problem. Nor a shortage of targets. *insert winky*

Sounds good to me. From up here on my third-floor balcony overlooking the main road, I can only imagine the fun I could have on a Friday/Saturday evening once all the pubs and clubs have chucked out their drunken yobs. High scores and head-shots FTW! You know it makes sense.

You'd have to turn KillCam (/excessive CCTV) off so as not to reveal your whereabouts. That would only end in disaster.

Jambot, you fool. If you kill off all the thick people, who'll serve you in a McDonalds, or work in a factory? Also, don't forget that many of the people you would exterminate without prejudice wouldn't have done anything wrong in their lives anyway (or at least, it would be on a par with middle-class kids, who are responsible for a good bit of youth crime anyway), and would have lived happy, meaningful lives. You seem to be so stuck in your middle-class values you seem to have forgotten that most people on these sink estates aren't criminals, they just live in shitty places due to circumstances beyond their control, that not everyone who drinks fizzy drinks are the scum of the earth and that the middle classes make up a good percentage of McDonalds custom (hence the refurbishments to make it more acceptable to these people).

You seem to assume that every thick person is unhappy, and is going to smash in the rear lights on your Vespa as soon as they hit 13, when that's simply not the case. Bringing in breeding licences is wrong because you'd be discriminating against the poor (if the requirements to have kids are the same as to foster, then they will be geared towards the middle classes), and not only do the poor keep this country running (they are, after all, called the working class) by operating factories and performing other menial jobs (and surely your policy would be worldwide in your ideal world, so no immigrants would fill that gap), but you'd be discriminating against good, honest people. It's a nazi policy.

It is extremely difficult to avoid Godwin's Law when discussing this.

MCN wrote:

jambot wrote:

MCN wrote:How does one measure tendency to abuse without previous history?

I used that as one example, the most extreme. I like that you've moved from questioning the theory to questioning the practicalities though. So we can take as a given that you agree that convicted child abusers should not have the 'inalienable right' to breed?

And there is no way of stopping the licensing law being abused for a government's own desires.

And this is different to all government powers because...?

Every aspect of your so-called "plan" is questionable. And just because other things are abused by the government, it doesn't mean we should let this through anyway in the full knowledge that it will be.

'So called plan'? I so haven't called it a plan. Questionable? by all means, let us have debate - although so far your 'questions' seem to have just been unjustified and exaggerated extrapolations. And your point about not allowing the government more powers is well taken - I don't trust this government to tell me the weather forecast; but that shouldn't stop any debate about the merits of a policy in itself. Presumably you think that the state should continue to fund the armed forces, despite the fact that the procurement function at the MoD makes Paris Hilton look like Warren Buffett?

Madness wrote:Jambot, you fool. If you kill off all the thick people, who'll serve you in a McDonalds

No thick people, no need for McDonalds.

or work in a factory?

The world in no sense has a shortage of unskilled manual labour. In fact with a bit of automation, my factories run with virtually no unskilled staff.

Also, don't forget that many of the people you would exterminate without prejudice wouldn't have done anything wrong in their lives anyway (or at least, it would be on a par with middle-class kids, who are responsible for a good bit of youth crime anyway), and would have lived happy, meaningful lives. You seem to be so stuck in your middle-class values you seem to have forgotten that most people on these sink estates aren't criminals, they just live in shitty places due to circumstances beyond their control, that not everyone who drinks fizzy drinks are the scum of the earth and that the middle classes make up a good percentage of McDonalds custom (hence the refurbishments to make it more acceptable to these people).

You seem unduly fixated with the outmoded concept of 'class'. Class these days is more a cultural marker and an attitude of mind that an indicator of economic status. However the choices are made - and once more for emphasis, the choices ARE ALREADY BEING MADE by Social Services - all I am suggesting is that some people are unsuitable to be parents.

You seem to assume that every thick person is unhappy, and is going to smash in the rear lights on your Vespa as soon as they hit 13

No I don't. I'm just saying that it's far more likely that kids brought up by bad parents are more likely to be bad citizens. Not the case all the time, just statistically more likely. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the unhappiness thing.

Bringing in breeding licences is wrong because you'd be discriminating against the poor (if the requirements to have kids are the same as to foster, then they will be geared towards the middle classes), and not only do the poor keep this country running (they are, after all, called the working class) by operating factories and performing other menial jobs (and surely your policy would be worldwide in your ideal world, so no immigrants would fill that gap), but you'd be discriminating against good, honest people.

I wouldn't necessarily discriminate against the poor. Where have I mentioned anything about an economic test? I do think, fwiw, that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them - I don't think the State should be encouraging large unemployed families. I'm not saying all large families on income support are Lizzie Bardsley, but I do object to paying for her to bring more of her genetic material into the world. The problem with a lot of people who identify themselves as 'working class' is that they're not actually working.

It's a nazi policy.