Karen Matthews sentenced

MCN wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

MCN wrote:I live in a sinkbox estate. My cousin isn't the smartest girl in the world, and neither is her boyfriend. However, their son is so far ahead of his age, it is unbelievable.

There are fortunate exceptions.

However, by introducing breeding licenses, you are effectively denying these exceptions the chance of even living.

And that's the problem. The obvious solution is allowing everyone to live... until they reach an age where they can be tested as to their "worth". Those who fail are executed.


Stop... Nazitime!

You see the problem, I'm sure!

Trouble is, there's no solution that's currently particularly palatable. Properly educating everyone remedially once the damage has been done is waaaaaaay too expensive (and, for many, simply won't work as they're actually too thick). Taking kids away from bad parents is an infringement of their rights. But something needs to be done, as the bad, thick parents have equally terrible kids, and those kids breed, and each subsequent generation becomes worse and more numerous. In the old days, we'd have had a nice conscription-tastic war in which they would have become arrow fodder. Not anymore.

I'm up for some kind of obligatory parental worthyness test if it stops a few little Jeremy Kyle-baiters being born, I have to say. The needs of the many, etc.

The thing about restricting reproduction is that it has consequences far and wide beyond what you might even intend. For example, if you belong to an ethnic minority you are much more likely to have a family with a poor income or criminal record of some sort, so logically if you applied restrictions on those sorts of things you would end up with a system that supresses the reproduction of ethnic minorities and promotes the birth of whites. Not to mention the credibility of any body that might be set up to set criteria, which would be influenced by government agenda and politics. One day they are blocking criminals from having children, the next they start blocking immigrants, non-Christians and political activists (after all, getting arrested at an anit-government protest technically gives you a criminal record).

MCN wrote:I mist say, jambot, I love your idea that people with high IQs are inherently more worthy of survival. Almost sounds like you're an intellectual with a superiority complex. If this is the case, then it is pointless continuing with the discussion. Your mental issues are your own.

OK, forget the IQ test thing, that was a lazy piece of short hand. It isn't just about intelligence, certainly not the kind that's measured by an IQ test. But measures of parental suitability already exist - they are used by Social Services to make decisions that have an impact on the lives of the individuals concerned, and indeed eventually on all of us. I'm just advocating prevention over half-assed cure.

Oh, and bringing the army thing into it? Low blow, man. Low blow.

In what sense? I have made no moral judgement about the army. You seem to be sensing guilt where none is implied - certainly not by me. I was only using that as a live example of where what you seem to regard as a secure moral absolute is in fact not the way we all, as society, actually behave. Sincerely, no offense intended. I was merely trying to use a germane example. Apologies if you felt personally victimised.

funny how the only plan GRcade can come up with to sort out this sort of thing is to discriminate based on location and to kill people.

MCN wrote:However, by introducing breeding licenses, you are effectively denying these exceptions the chance of even living.

Agreed. And I'd be one of those unborn under my own rules. Society will contain millions of individual misfortunes - the only sensible policy is to try to limit the overall quantity of human suffering, not to avoid exceptions.

And if that sounds harsh, let me say, one more time - we are already making these decisions. Sometimes through policy, but often through cowardly omission of thought.

Extralife wrote:Not to mention the credibility of any body that might be set up to set criteria, which would be influenced by government agenda and politics

Absolutely. Massive flaw in my argument. There's no government that have ever served anywhere that could be trusted with such a policy. Unfortunately, these same governments that can't be trusted are already making decisions about life and death everyday. So we'd be no worse off, and potentially better.

Jaxley wrote:funny how the only plan GRcade can come up with to sort out this sort of thing is to discriminate based on location and to kill people.

GoW2>Eccothedolphin

jambot wrote:And if that sounds harsh, let me say, one more time - we are already making these decisions. Sometimes through policy, but often through cowardly omission of thought.

Surely we should be trying to reduce those problems, not take them to their ultimate destination.

jambot wrote:

Extralife wrote:Not to mention the credibility of any body that might be set up to set criteria, which would be influenced by government agenda and politics

Absolutely. Massive flaw in my argument. There's no government that have ever served anywhere that could be trusted with such a policy. Unfortunately, these same governments that can't be trusted are already making decisions about life and death everyday. So we'd be no worse off, and potentially better.

There's only one person who can have this ultimate power.

Denster wrote:At least she didn't actually kill her own kid though and then milk the sympathy!

Madeline McCann?

Then there's the question of where this policy goes next. Refusing breeding licenses to people who earn too little money? People who don't like the same music as you? Northerners?

MCN wrote:Then there's the question of where this policy goes next. Refusing breeding licenses to people who earn too little money? People who don't like the same music as you? Northerners?

1. In an ideal world people wouldn't have children if they can't financially support them.
2. Anyone who bought the x factor winner's massacre of Hallelujah.
3. Being a northerner on it's own is fine unless they fail one of the other categories.

MCN wrote:

Cal wrote:

Eighthours wrote:Contemptible. Is there any place you won't peddle out your tired agenda, Cal?

...No....Nope. I believe I'll speak out whenever, wherever. Next!

You really are an unpleasant human being at times, Cal.

Denster wrote: Hope she gets a severe dyke savaging every day she is in there.

MCN, of Denster (in another thread wrote:Legend.

I really don't know quite what to say.

Drawlight wrote:

MCN wrote:

Cal wrote:

Eighthours wrote:Contemptible. Is there any place you won't peddle out your tired agenda, Cal?

...No....Nope. I believe I'll speak out whenever, wherever. Next!

You really are an unpleasant human being at times, Cal.

Denster wrote: Hope she gets a severe dyke savaging every day she is in there.

MCN, of Denster (in another thread wrote:Legend.

I really don't know quite what to say.

Wow, taking what I said completely out of context, and even chronological order! Nice one!

MCN wrote:

jambot wrote:And if that sounds harsh, let me say, one more time - we are already making these decisions. Sometimes through policy, but often through cowardly omission of thought.

Surely we should be trying to reduce those problems, not take them to their ultimate destination.

How do we reduce the problem of over-population? And how would you stop indiagnosed psychopaths breeding? And how would we find the funds to give everybody in the world the maximum amount of money-no-object healthcare? These are all real questions that are i) an inevitable consequence of human society ii) questions that we are currently answering with the default position of 'let's not think about it'.

MCN wrote:Then there's the question of where this policy goes next. Refusing breeding licenses to people who earn too little money? People who don't like the same music as you? Northerners?

Yeah, obviously. An arbitrary dystopia is what we all want.

Or, as is currently the case (after the event when the damage is already done) base it on something sensible? Like tendency to abuse?

jambot wrote:

MCN wrote:Then there's the question of where this policy goes next. Refusing breeding licenses to people who earn too little money? People who don't like the same music as you? Northerners?

Yeah, obviously. An arbitrary dystopia is what we all want.

Or, as is currently the case (after the event when the damage is already done) base it on something sensible? Like tendency to abuse?

How does one measure tendency to abuse without previous history? And there is no way of stopping the licensing law being abused for a government's own desires.

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...?

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.

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.