Karen Matthews sentenced

MCN wrote:You're talking about restricting the right to reproduce.

Yes, I am. I don't believe it's a 'right'. No lion ever respected the right of a zebra to breed first before it ate it. Rights are an artificial construct. We make them what we like. e.g. the right to a fair trial. Mother nature and complex social constructs have a patchy history.

Seeing as reproduction is pretty much the only reason we exist in the first place

There is no 'reason' for our existence, unless you're 'spiritual'? In which case this discussion will go nowhere.

you may as well just kill anyone you don't like the look of.

Not sure one is a logical consequence of the other, but my point remains the same - we, as a society, are ALREADY collectively making such subjective judgements. We just prefer to use the cover of some other pretext e.g. it's too expensive for everyone to have all the IVF they need. I agree, it is too expensive, but suddenly that 'reason for our existence' and 'inalienable right' stuff is looking a lot less watertight.

And you're right, not every has offspring, but it IS an inalienable right to at least have the chance.

The army never shot anyone who might have wanted to breed but hadn't had the chance?

Not to mention the issues of severely reducing the gene pool, which always ends in tears. Effectively, you're talking about selective breeding, which is about as inhumane an activity as I can imagine, as it allows certain genetic flaws to go by unchecked, leaving the door wide open for certain diseases and conditions to manifest themselves. Many diseases and conditions which have not even been discovered yet.

Again, there's no logical consequence there. 6 billion of us all came from a tiny genepool apparently. And what we're currently doing is encouraging the survival of flawed genetic material by, e.g. allowing the infertle to reproduce

You might as well just go out with a gun and shoot anyone you don't like. Tell the police you were doing it so the human race becomes a little more how you'd like it to be.

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*

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.

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

Society may be seen as brain over brawn, but when it comes to it you can't have just one of those.

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.

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

Since when did that become a bad thing?

MCN wrote:I mist say, jambot, I love your idea that people with high IQs are inherently more worthy of survival.

I'd take Mr Brainbox over Karen Matthews. Wouldn't you?

MCN wrote:That would be assuming that children of stupid parents would grow up to be stupid themselves. I can tell you this is not the case.

The likelihood of it is far greater than that for a child with two intelligent parents, yes. Been to a sink estate recently, and compared the average offspring with that in Middleclassville? WRECKAGE.

Anyone who's ever watched the Jeremy Kyle show will know that some people shouldn't have children.

Eighthours wrote:

MCN wrote:I mist say, jambot, I love your idea that people with high IQs are inherently more worthy of survival.

I'd take Mr Brainbox over Karen Matthews. Wouldn't you?

MCN wrote:That would be assuming that children of stupid parents would grow up to be stupid themselves. I can tell you this is not the case.

The likelihood of it is far greater than that for a child with two intelligent parents, yes. Been to a sink estate recently, and compared the average offspring with that in Middleclassville? WRECKAGE.

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.

MCN wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

MCN wrote:I mist say, jambot, I love your idea that people with high IQs are inherently more worthy of survival.

I'd take Mr Brainbox over Karen Matthews. Wouldn't you?

MCN wrote:That would be assuming that children of stupid parents would grow up to be stupid themselves. I can tell you this is not the case.

The likelihood of it is far greater than that for a child with two intelligent parents, yes. Been to a sink estate recently, and compared the average offspring with that in Middleclassville? WRECKAGE.

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.

She cheated on her boyfriend?

Rex Kramer wrote:

The judge said it was doubtful Matthews and Donovan could have planned and carried out the kidnap without other people.

He said: "Having regard to their low intellect... it must be doubtful whether they could have conceived or continued these offences without the assistance or connivance of others.

"The pre-sentence report in Matthews' case comments that neither defendant seems to have the cognitive ability to devise and orchestrate such an elaborate offence with any degree of likelihood of success."

OK, so am i misunderstanding this or is the judge saying here that an unknown, more intelligent party planned this kidnap, and therefore the real person behind this is still at large?

I was lucky to be adopted at the age of two. My birthparents were not very bright and I wouldn't have had the opportunities I've had in my life if it wasn't for my adoptive mum and dad.

My birthparents sent me a letter a few years ago and it was so poorly written and confused that it made me glad I hadn't been educated by them. The letter even had the word 'sertan' for 'certain' and rambled incoherently about their memories of me as a baby.

If I had stayed in that awful, working-class (no offence) upbringing, I'd never have gone to Sicily and Barcelona with my school, all over the world with my parents and put through university with their wallets.

Memento Mori wrote:She cheated on her boyfriend?

She may not be the smartest tool in the box, but she is a decent, honest person.

mcjihge2 wrote:

Rex Kramer wrote:

The judge said it was doubtful Matthews and Donovan could have planned and carried out the kidnap without other people.

He said: "Having regard to their low intellect... it must be doubtful whether they could have conceived or continued these offences without the assistance or connivance of others.

"The pre-sentence report in Matthews' case comments that neither defendant seems to have the cognitive ability to devise and orchestrate such an elaborate offence with any degree of likelihood of success."

OK, so am i misunderstanding this or is the judge saying here that an unknown, more intelligent party planned this kidnap, and therefore the real person behind this is still at large?

Exactly. The police say there wasn't anyone else however.

MCN wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:She cheated on her boyfriend?

She may not be the smartest tool in the box, but she is a decent, honest person.

She can be decent and make a mistake. It's human nature to not be perfect.

Memento Mori wrote:

MCN wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:She cheated on her boyfriend?

She may not be the smartest tool in the box, but she is a decent, honest person.

She can be decent and make a mistake. It's human nature to not be perfect.

Trust me, she wouldn't cheat. Unless she found Alvin. She's hardly the slimmest woman in the world.

Memento Mori wrote:

mcjihge2 wrote:

Rex Kramer wrote:

The judge said it was doubtful Matthews and Donovan could have planned and carried out the kidnap without other people.

He said: "Having regard to their low intellect... it must be doubtful whether they could have conceived or continued these offences without the assistance or connivance of others.

"The pre-sentence report in Matthews' case comments that neither defendant seems to have the cognitive ability to devise and orchestrate such an elaborate offence with any degree of likelihood of success."

OK, so am i misunderstanding this or is the judge saying here that an unknown, more intelligent party planned this kidnap, and therefore the real person behind this is still at large?

Exactly. The police say there wasn't anyone else however.

It makes you wonder why they would even bother. Just how many ways were they planning to split that 50K reward?

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.

[youtubeuk]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_HQtj2xlJj4[/youtubeuk]

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.

Gario wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

mcjihge2 wrote:

Rex Kramer wrote:

The judge said it was doubtful Matthews and Donovan could have planned and carried out the kidnap without other people.

He said: "Having regard to their low intellect... it must be doubtful whether they could have conceived or continued these offences without the assistance or connivance of others.

"The pre-sentence report in Matthews' case comments that neither defendant seems to have the cognitive ability to devise and orchestrate such an elaborate offence with any degree of likelihood of success."

OK, so am i misunderstanding this or is the judge saying here that an unknown, more intelligent party planned this kidnap, and therefore the real person behind this is still at large?

Exactly. The police say there wasn't anyone else however.

It makes you wonder why they would even bother. Just how many ways were they planning to split that 50K reward?

So who's right the judge or the police? or should we even care?

It was hardly a good well thought out plan. A child could've thought it up. Hide the kid... Under the bed, at their... Uncle's house. It stinks of soap operas and cartoons. Then the plan to release her was to let her walk down a busy market street? Foolproof, no way. Please. This judge is giving this plan too much credit.