Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

the Parenting Test...

30 replies to this topic
El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#1

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:55 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 29 April 2013 - 08:06 AM.

let's face it.
the world isn't getting any bigger. the amount of room on Earth for all of us to spread out and live is finite. we're not suddenly going to colonize the Moon.

and the human population continues to excel virtually unabated by global trends in education and female empowerment.
in fact, the human population seems to excel despite the difficulty of providing food and [CLEAN] water to all of the available hungry/thirsty mouths that require it RIGHT NOW; let alone 100 years from now.

it's time to sterilize.
yes. mandatory sterilization. population control for beginners.

we have the technology to sterilize human beings on a temporary basis.
sterile when you want, fertile when you don't. we have the technology to make a person sterile and then reverse it if/when they're ready to have children. but most importantly, we have the power to DECIDE who needs to be sterilized.

this isn't some Orwellian/1984/evil dictatorship nonsense either.
I'm talking standardized, safe, routine, and nominal sterilization AT BIRTH. it's painless and (because it can be reversed) worry-free. as soon as a person believes that he or she is ready for children, all they have to do is pass a simple IQ/competency test and their sterilization can be reversed. think of it like a Driver's License test. you wouldn't want someone to be sharing the road with you @ 90 MPH if they were unable to operate a vehicle or understand basic driving laws.

so why do we let people have children without any proof that they're ready for it?
show me that you're smart enough to NOT shake or strike a baby when it's crying uncontrollably.
show me that you're smart enough to NOT influence a child with your racism/sexism or other bigotry.
show me that you're competent enough to baby-proof your house when bringing home an infant.
show me that you're competent enough to take your baby to a physician when they're sick instead of just praying for a miracle.

we make people take a test to drive.
we make people take a test to join the military and handle weapons.
we make people take a test to become teachers and firefighters and paramedics.

we don't make people take a test to be parents?? to raise children? to directly affect the future of this world??

give me one good reason why we shouldn't be testing people before they're allowed to have children.
actually if you can find one good reason you would probably have to admit that it's a religious obligation tied to a religious version of morality. I cannot think of a single logical/secular reason to be against this proposal.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#2

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:37 AM

You can't think of a single logical or secular reason why people would oppose mandatory sterilisation? As in: forcing people to have a medical procedure done because they are deemed to be less? How about the fact that would immeasurably exacerbate the already huge societal strain on the underclass, the thing that leads to crime and lack of societal cohesion while trampling under foot any hope of social mobility?

You need to realise that such policies don't target individuals so much as they target groups within society, groups who already feel alienated and subjugated.

That said, I see nothing wrong with encouraging young people from all walks of life to undergo temporary sterilisation until they actually intend to have kids, if the technology is indeed available, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable about it. No more condoms or pills or abortion; it seems unambiguously positive. But rounding up the underclass and telling them they are far too chavy to be trusted with mobile sperm is not the way to go.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#3

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Apr 29 2013, 02:37)
forcing people to have a medical procedure done because they are deemed to be less?

whoah whoah whoah.
you're putting words in my mouth.

let's back up.
forcing? well yes. it's not like we don't already force people to do all sorts of things in order to perform certain tasks in society
but most of those things just don't carry the same emotional attachment as the subject of fertility so you don't question it.

medical procedure?
we're not talking about surgery like a vasectomy or getting tubes tied. sterilization can be an outpatient procedure. we have the technology to implant very simple devices very shallow in the skin (sort of like a hormone inhibitor) that results in temporary infertility. it can be removed as easily as it is implanted.

deemed less?
uh no. deemed not ready or qualified is what I was going for. you're not "less" of a human if you're a bad parent. you just don't deserve to raise kids and we shouldn't let you because that would be akin to tolerating child abuse.

I never said it makes you less of a person.
I wouldn't consider these people less of a person. just unfit to be parents.

QUOTE
How about the fact that would immeasurably exacerbate the already huge societal strain on the underclass, the thing that leads to crime and lack of societal cohesion while trampling under foot any hope of social mobility?


well for starters that's not a "fact."
that's a theory.

and anyway I don't see how it applies. maybe you could elaborate.
there's no reason why the "underclass" would be disproportionately affected by this.

the parenting test IS NOT an IQ test.
socioeconomic status has nothing to do with whether or not someone would pass or fail the parenting test.

perhaps the dumber you are, the greater the likelihood that you'll fail.
but there's extremely dumb people who shouldn't be parents at all levels of society. rich. poor. inbetween.

QUOTE
rounding up the underclass and telling them they are far too chavy to be trusted with mobile sperm is not the way to go.


what the hell man?
I never said anything like that.

did you even read my post or did you stop the moment you got to "population control"?
the idea I am presenting would apply to ALL people. no one would be rounded up. social class and the amount of money in your bank account would have nothing to do with it.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#4

Posted 01 May 2013 - 11:17 AM Edited by Melchior, 01 May 2013 - 11:20 AM.

If I'm honest, I didn't really understand any of that response. You're claiming that we should make everyone take a parenting test and sterilise anyone who doesn't pass? Sounds like it certainly will disproportionately affect the underclass.

And I'm not sure why you're so offended by the emotional arguments against it. Bearing children is hardly a societal function. It's difficult to imagine a world where people decide, ecstatic that they're going to try and get pregnant but have to hope they pass a test at the RTA before getting too excited. I don't think it's irrational at all to find the idea of adding beurocracy to the conception process to be asinine.

Also it is indeed a fact that the underclass is under societal strain, since the basic definition of the underclass is a marginalised and excluded social group.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#5

Posted 02 May 2013 - 12:39 AM

my apologies then.
let me explain it as clearly as I can.

what I'm proposing is universal sterilization upon the age of fertility/puberty.
social class does not matter.
education level does not matter.
there is no discrimination. everyone gets it.

in this experiment all people would be temporarily sterilized upon reaching the age to make babies.
and then the parenting test itself only applies to people who want to become parents in order to have their sterilization procedure reversed.

make sense?

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#6

Posted 02 May 2013 - 06:25 AM

Universal sterilization...?


No.. just no.




"give me one good reason why we shouldn't be testing people before they're allowed to have children."


For one simple reason, you can not regulate reproduction and what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom, no one has the right to dictate these kind of decisions over one another.

Mandatory sterilization at birth is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard proposed..



Like, wouldn't it be simpler and much easier to focus on just teaching children common sense rather than forcing everyone to become sterile? Think of the potential to abuse a system like this..

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#7

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, May 2 2013, 00:25)
you can not regulate reproduction

says who?

China does it... as a frame of reference.

QUOTE
and what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom

my proposition does not regulate what goes on in the bedroom.

you can do whatever you want in the bedroom. with whoever you want. as much as you want.
but if you're unfit to raise children or unwilling to meet the responsibility, then you don't deserve to raise children.

simple as that.

QUOTE
Think of the potential to abuse a system like this..


there's potential abuse for EVERYTHING the government does.
the point is that we trust our government when it comes to certain aspects of society and regulation. you already trust the government to regulate many things that you take for granted.

I don't see why this is so different.
it seems that you're viewing the issue through an emotional prism instead of a rational prism.

this is a good idea in the long run AND for everyone involved.
less unwanted pregnancy. less shotgun weddings. less broken homes. less orphans. more strong parental role models.

need I continue?

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None

#8

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:40 AM

Take it easy there Spock, you can't just disregard things that most human beings consider a basic life right as being "emotional". Do you know how many atrocities have been committed and defended as a part of the "better good"? You might not feel that child rearing is a right to life, but I think you'd be in direct conflict with an overwhelming percent of the population, and I really don't believe that religion has as much to do with it as you think. People want to have families, it's every bit as much a society indoctrination as much a biological urge and force, there's frankly not going to be any way to regulate such a thing without violating simple human freedom. I really think it's unfortunate that you would point toward China's framework as some kind of example to follow, are you familiar with the types of terrible events that have faced young girls from China because of their system?

Past that, I think you're speaking more in terms of hypothetical proposing a system of sterilization that's 100% effective and 100% reversible and with no side-effects, because as far as I know no such form of contraception exists. I believe you're talking about the IUD implants, and those are not without their side-effects and only work for women. Meanwhile, what about people who already have trouble reproducing as it is? Such a device may place unfair complications on them.

You can't just look at this through the cold and logical scope of a microscope and say, "Well, this will be far better for the greater good." If I wanted to adhere to that type of logic, then I would suggest we not teach children to read unless they have a basic aptitude for it, do away with special education classes and just use those children for labor, and meanwhile anyone with a chronic or terminal illness shouldn't be afforded the same type of health care since they'll just be a burden on the system... Why not? It's only emotion that will lead a person to saying any of these ideas is wrong... Right?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#9

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:35 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 03 May 2013 - 07:53 AM.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, May 2 2013, 23:40)
you can't just disregard things that most human beings consider a basic life right as being "emotional".

too late.
I just did tounge2.gif

QUOTE
Do you know how many atrocities have been committed and defended as a part of the "better good"?

do you know how useless hypothetical questions are to a debate?

QUOTE
You might not feel that child rearing is a right to life

to be fair, that's not exactly what I said.

QUOTE
but I think you'd be in direct conflict with an overwhelming percent of the population

so?
if majority opinions never changed on any issue, then the world we live in today would be a very disturbing place.

slavery and all manner of barbarism would still be common if these majority opinions had not progressed.
basically I don't care that most people don't agree with me right now. I already knew they wouldn't. the point isn't what percentage agree. the point is to explore the issue of relaxed population control and overall harm-reduction within society.

QUOTE
People want to have families

and I want them to have families too.
I just want them to be stable/productive/healthy families.

I want parents who understand and can commit to the responsibility.
I want to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies, broken homes, shotgun weddings, and grossly over-crowded orphanages which invariably lead to grossly over-crowded prisons and overburdened criminal justice systems.

you seem to be more concerned with the mother and father - whether or not they can be good parents - than the child whose life will likely be ruined for having been raised by weak parents (or a lack of parents as an orphan, etc). is their right to have sex more legitimate than the child's right to be raised in a healthy household?

because being a parent is not some special skill. it doesn't take any talent.
anyone who has reached the age of puberty can become a parent. mixing your jizz with some eggs is not a challenge.

the consequences of that action go far beyond the parents.
if you bring another life into the world you better be ready to drop what you're doing and take good care of it. the cost of NOT doing so becomes exponentially worse for society with every passing generation that fails to acknowledge the issue.

QUOTE
China's framework as some kind of example to follow

that's not what I said.

China's example is not a framework that I wish to follow.
I only pointed it out because GrandMaster Smith said "you can not regulate reproduction."

so my response was "yeah? well tell that to China because they're doing it."
get it?

QUOTE
hypothetical proposing a system of sterilization that's 100% effective and 100% reversible and with no side-effects, because as far as I know no such form of contraception exists.

the system is not perfect. I'm not claiming that it is.
but the technology is already there and it will be perfected as time goes on.

that's beside the point.
the system I'm proposing would not be perfect... true... but neither is the system we have currently. currently we have to rely on non-standardized education about birth control methods that are already inefficient at best. some parts of the world preach against condom use. other parts of the world frown on the pill. parents and educators still routinely lie to children about sex and spread the bullsh*t message of "abstinence."

this system is already far from perfect.
I don't see how my proposition could possibly make it any worse.

QUOTE
You can't just look at this through the cold and logical scope of a microscope and say, "Well, this will be far better for the greater good."

actually yes I can.

progress is about making tough - often unpopular - decisions.
history will be the judge. but we have to be willing to discuss these things. we can't waste time worrying about whether or not we sound politically correct.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, May 2 2013, 23:40)
If I wanted to adhere to that type of logic, then I would suggest we not teach children to read unless they have a basic aptitude for it, do away with special education classes and just use those children for labor, and meanwhile anyone with a chronic or terminal illness shouldn't be afforded the same type of health care since they'll just be a burden on the system...

LOL! what??
and you're making fun of me for being cold and emotionless? wow.

that is NOT the "logical" progression of my idea.
you have totally missed the point if you think that anything you just proposed is in ANY WAY analogous to my idea.

my theory has rational implications which do not harm anyone. in fact, my theory would avoid the harm that is currently being done to countless unwanted children.
that's completely different than denying children the ability to read, making them do labor, or denying people health care. that's ridiculous.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#10

Posted 03 May 2013 - 10:09 PM

Diablo, wouldn't it be much simpler to just teach children common sense than to go through such an ordeal that only Stalin would approve of?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#11

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:56 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Friday, May 3 2013, 16:09)
wouldn't it be much simpler to just teach children common sense

but we're already trying to do that... and it's not really working.

QUOTE
only Stalin would approve

but that's not true.

if you think that the only people on Earth who have had this idea are myself and Joseph Stalin, then you're just not ready to have this discussion.
that's extremely immature. I am not the first person to talk about this theory. I won't be the last.

it's a fairly popular topic in academic and government circles alike. NGO's and think-tanks were discussing this idea long before people like myself caught on.
it's not a scary Orwellian science-fiction idea that is only talked about in whispers in top-secret meetings. it's a normal concept that's going to need real consideration in the not-too-distant-future. but we need adults to talk about it, not these childish Joseph Stalin jokes rolleyes.gif

come back when you're ready to discuss like an adult.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#12

Posted 05 May 2013 - 06:30 PM Edited by Otter, 05 May 2013 - 06:46 PM.

Well, if we're going to play around in magical hypothetical land, we may as well do it right.

Perhaps it's worth discussing that many projected population studies see a leveling off, if not a fall, of global population. Especially in the first world. So if we could define why, exactly, such a drastic action would ever be necessary, that'd be a good start. It's rather ignorant to look around us, out here in the good ol' western world, and think "Jeez, we've got it pretty bad."

You say you want to reduce:
- unwanted pregnancies. (Why? Some of my best friends, and my sister, were "mistakes")
- broken homes (Why? I was from a broken home and I pay more in income taxes than a lot of my friends from highschool make a year, net. Where's the benefit?)
- shotgun weddings (Again, why? Your intentions seem, really, anti-religious... why suddenly a moral imperative to "protect the sanctity"?
- grossly over-crowded orphanages (statistically negligible, even accounting for the fostercare and adoption systems, which is probably what you were referring to.)

It's not population growth that causes our problems. Population growth is a side effect of the "American Dream," buying, expanding, growing. So I think there's a basic failure to comprehend the problem here.

Secondly, lets depart from reality again and assume that this plan works perfectly. What are the agreed upon minimum acceptable limits for one to legally procreate? You mentioned IQ - what about people who have suffered from brain damage? You bring up bigotry - how nobly ironic - how much of our gut reactions are we looking to breed out of our system? Your religious example probably offers the best glimpse to your intentions, but who exactly is going to decide what's absolutely best for a child? Why is a cold smart parent better than an absolutely loving simpleton? Where does this program leave surrogacy? What happens to home births? Are they rounded up and "tagged," or drowned in puddles by government officials?

To assume that this would work at all, however, is the silliest thing, because if there's one thing we can't account for, it's our ability to end up pregnant. And if there's another thing we can't control, it's the human capacity for lying. And in the end, we're applying impossible technology to people who are pretty good at filling out government forms within limits (and in turn...breeding better liars, really) administered by a system entirely prone to corruption and lobbying for the private interests that you're essentially trying to protect us from.

I think there are better, cheaper, more human, and actually achievable methods to help... whatever the situation is.

Finally, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and severely limits your biological functions like a duck - well you, sir, are a scary fascist.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#13

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:24 PM

I think he's referring less to unplanned pregnancies in a broad sense and more to young drug addicts bringing kids into a chaotic home, which is admittedly a huge concern. We shouldn't put clamps on their nuts, though.

Tyler
  • Tyler

    tempora labuntur

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#14

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:29 PM

I'm going to take it the opposite of Otter's argument just to be that guy: your hypothetical situation [El_Diablo] is both impractical and fraught with more issues than benefits. If we look at administration from a historical standpoint, governments are kind of sh*tty at ethically containing people in a civil manner like what you propose. We will inevitably cut corners; someone will mess up the sterilization too many times; people will begin to see things as too fascist even if that isn't your intent; no one will go for something this experimental and unfounded in research. Like seriously, what kind of campaigning do you think will make this work? Caution today, intelligent population with minimal backlash tomorrow?

Secondly, freedom is, in my and many others opinion, more important than utopian ideals about an intelligent generation of newcomers. I'd rather have the freedom to make my own choices in this occasion, especially if the other side of this coin is letting a cold, inefficient government like the U.S. one decide if I'm fit to procreate. No, sorry, I think I can do better in terms of the context of deciding that.

How about instead of something so brash as pro-sterilization, you work on something more feasible with the model at hand? Maybe work on breaking the class barriers that cause ignorance to be so prevalent, among other things. You're claiming that your idea is better than the current system and that sterilizing the masses will lead to a better tomorrow. We're already on a global downshift in population and as information, contraception and acceptance come into more ready supply, that trend will only continue. How about instead of offering a solution that is riddled with practical issues, you work on making the things you do see a little more efficient?

Myself, I'd work on decriminalizing drugs while also putting more emphasis on education. To add to that, I'd try to work on the current crumbling infrastructure in inner-cities where the problems you cited are most polarizing. There is a serious issue and children are being treated unfairly, yes, but to stop all would-be parents from freely choosing to have kids without the consent of this proposed- yet non-existent, benevolent government... Well that's just asinine, dude. If the governments of the world could let social order fall to this supposed low that necessitates the need for a sterilized world, then why wouldn't those same governments be capable of abusing that system for their own ends, and lead to an even more unfair system for the next generation?

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#15

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:29 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 13:24)
I think he's referring less to unplanned pregnancies in a broad sense and more to young drug addicts bringing kids into a chaotic home, which is admittedly a huge concern. We shouldn't put clamps on their nuts, though.

I guess I'm just having trouble understanding any of his motivations here... the opening paragraphs read like they were ripped from a doomsday website, and only in later posts does he reference anything remotely close to child abuse being a factor.

And I understand I'm a bit of an outlier here, but again, I'm from one of those "chaotic homes" that people love to rant against. I'd still argue it's far, far better than a loveless home. And let's face it - if we had to rely on sterilization to prevent child abuse, we'd be a sorry lot indeed.

Agreed, however, it's a stupid idea.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#16

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 12:30)
Perhaps it's worth discussing that many projected population studies see a leveling off, if not a fall, of global population.

ah, I see the problem.
you're getting hung up on the phrase "population control." that was just tongue-in-cheek.

when I said that the world isn't getting any smaller, I wasn't literally referring to overpopulation or that population was going to be an issue within our lifetime.
sorry if the tone of the OP is throwing people off. I was aiming for a conversational / informal presentation instead of a dry / academic explanation.

ignore that sh*t from here on out.

QUOTE
You say you want to reduce:
- unwanted pregnancies. (Why? Some of my best friends, and my sister, were "mistakes")
- broken homes (Why? I was from a broken home and I pay more in income taxes than a lot of my friends from highschool make a year, net. Where's the benefit?)
- shotgun weddings (Again, why? Your intentions seem, really, anti-religious... why suddenly a moral imperative to "protect the sanctity"?
- grossly over-crowded orphanages (statistically negligible, even accounting for the fostercare and adoption systems, which is probably what you were referring to.)


I never said that "mistakes" couldn't turn out to be good people.
and I never said that broken homes couldn't also produce successful families.
but most violent killers are "mistakes." that's usually where they come from. most of the prostitutes and hardcore drug addicts are a direct product of broken homes/families. when you reduce mistakes and broken homes you reduce the instance of these types of criminal offenses.

my opposition to shotgun marriage has nothing to do with religion or the "sanctity" of marriage (which I don't believe in).
it's the same principle as the above; to protect the potential child from having to be raised in such a negative environment with so many disadvantages.

the foster care system in the US is terrible. most kids are eaten up by it.
maybe you don't believe it, but that doesn't change the fact that less children stuck in this system = the better for everyone.

QUOTE
What are the agreed upon minimum acceptable limits for one to legally procreate?

I don't think it's difficult to decide upon certain standards about what makes a good parent.
if you think otherwise, then I'm afraid you don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm not saying there is one absolute best way to raise kids that everyone would have to follow.
but surely we can establish a bare minimum that would protect against many of the damaged and unwanted youth we currently produce in this world.

being a good person is universal. it is blind to socioeconomic status or education or language or culture.
we can recognize the basic qualities of maturity, common sense, and stability that make for a good parent. we don't have to pretend that political correctness prevents us from making these distinctions. there are right and wrong ways to raise a child. I don't see how this can be argued against.

QUOTE
Why is a cold smart parent better than an absolutely loving simpleton?

I NEVER said that.
don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

QUOTE
Where does this program leave surrogacy?

not my problem.

although it's not like surrogacy would disappear.
if a couple wants to have children, passes the test, but is unable to have children due to another medical issue than the option of surrogacy will still be available to them.

QUOTE
What happens to home births?

handled on a case-by-case basis, I assume.

QUOTE
Are they rounded up and "tagged," or drowned in puddles by government officials?

oh my god.
no.

why would you even begin to assume that?
obviously there would be some kind of procedure and options available to people who fell through the cracks, so to speak. we wouldn't simply round up the children or purge them... that's absurd.

QUOTE
To assume that this would work at all, however, is the silliest thing, because if there's one thing we can't account for, it's our ability to end up pregnant. And if there's another thing we can't control, it's the human capacity for lying.

no system is perfect.
but you're missing the point; there's no room for accidental pregnancy as long as 1 of the 2 sexual partners is sterile. lying has nothing to do with it, either.

in theory, the system functions by having all people sterilized at birth (the tiny device implanted shallow in the skin). you can't lie about it. or work around it. the device is laparoscopic, painless, and free of side effects. the device can easily removed once a person decides they want to have children and are basically qualified.

after you've had children then you can voluntarily have the device reinstalled (worry-free birth control) or you can let nature run its course (menopause, etc).
it's really very simple.

QUOTE
you, sir, are a scary fascist.

wrong.
you're just applying ridiculous assumptions to my simple idea.

I never said anything about rounding people up.
I never said anything about drowning kids in a puddle.
I never said anything about tagging people.

those words came straight outta' your mind, not from mine...

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#17

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Tyler @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 16:29)
governments are kind of sh*tty at ethically containing people in a civil manner like what you propose.

yeah yeah... you're preaching to the choir.

I never claimed that this was the most realistic idea ever proposed.
I just wanted to discuss it.

QUOTE
How about instead of something so brash as pro-sterilization, you work on something more feasible with the model at hand? Maybe work on breaking the class barriers that cause ignorance to be so prevalent, among other things.

LOL.
I'm sorry.

you think that "breaking class barriers" is "more feasible" than simply sterilizing people?
oh lord. I don't want to call you naive, but that's some wishful thinking if I've ever heard it.

'breaking class barriers' he says lol.gif
you lemme know where to begin, and I'll be right behind you on that one...

QUOTE
I'd work on decriminalizing drugs while also putting more emphasis on education.

agreed.

QUOTE
I'd try to work on the current crumbling infrastructure in inner-cities where the problems you cited are most polarizing.

yes. agreed.
another great idea that we can start doing... just as soon as we get Congress to stop spending all of our money on unnecessary (and illegal) wars tounge2.gif

QUOTE
There is a serious issue and children are being treated unfairly, yes, but to stop all would-be parents from freely choosing to have kids...


well technically... no one would be stopping them.
the only thing stopping them would be themselves. if you're unfit to be a parent then make changes in your life to rectify that. then you can have all the kids you want.

QUOTE
If the governments of the world could let social order fall to this supposed low that necessitates the need for a sterilized world, then why wouldn't those same governments be capable of abusing that system for their own ends, and lead to an even more unfair system for the next generation?

dude rolleyes.gif

if we never gave government the power to do anything on the RISK that it might become corrupt, then government would never do anything.
and yet they perform countless regulatory tasks on a daily basis that you take for granted; regulations and restrictions that benefit the greater good and operate largely without any serious corruption.

if you can trust government to do one thing, then technically there's no reason you can't trust them to do anything else.
when government sucks it's usually the CITIZENS who are to blame, not the system of government. there's a famous saying that goes "every nation has the government it deserves."

we have the power to keep our government in check.
most of us don't use it.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#18

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:47 PM

So, let's just try to wrap our heads around the problem.

You want less children raised by unfit parents. That's it in a nutshell, then? That's what we should be discussing?

Zizo008
  • Zizo008

    Back... not.

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2012
  • Tunisia
  • Best DYOM Mission 2012 [Resident Evil 4]

#19

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:50 PM Edited by sivispacem, 07 May 2013 - 12:25 PM.

This would be a very bad idea if something like a zombie apocalypse happens.

-In future, keep posts within D&D guidelines-

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#20

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:12 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Monday, May 6 2013, 09:47)
You want less children raised by unfit parents. That's it in a nutshell, then? That's what we should be discussing?

yeah basically.

but so far I haven't heard a better idea than the one I've presented. not in theory anyway...
once people get past the whole 'Orwellian' stereotype that has been implanted in their imagination by pop culture, I've found that a surprising number of people actually agree with me on this idea. there's nothing scary about it. I mean, I personally would have LOVED to have been sterilized in this manner while growing up. I wouldn't have had to worry about getting a girl pregnant while screwing around and experimenting when I was younger. neither of us would have had to worry. I could have saved money on condoms and she could have saved money on birth control pills.

and it depends on the audience of course.
in my college sociology classes we could discuss this idea all day long without a single person going "EWWWW JOSEPH STALIN WOULD LOVE THAT" or some bullsh*t. and given the fact that any 13 year old schmuck can join GTAF I wasn't necessarily expecting a very robust level of disagreement. and I was right tounge2.gif most of the disagreement so far has been pretty shallow.

but yes.
at the end of the day it's about addressing the lowest-common-denominator in society; the emotionally or mentally unstable who most often result from broken homes and who most often contribute to the worst criminal offenses. obviously there are exceptions to every rule but the vast majority of our most dangerous criminals are the direct byproduct of broken family relationships and a childhood of feeling unloved or unwanted.

how do we begin reducing such instances?
reducing the physical number of these situations (temporary sterilization) is a great place to start, as far as I can tell.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#21

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:20 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 16:12)
obviously there are exceptions to every rule but the vast majority of our most dangerous criminals are the direct byproduct of broken family relationships and a childhood of feeling unloved or unwanted.

I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken if you think your plan addresses this. It's not that demonstrably unfit parents are allowed to have kids. Most of the households producing career criminals might be pretty normal emotionally, it's just that being poor is f*cking hard and the strain tends to wear them down by the time the kids are teenagers, and the kids grow up feeling alienated from society.

Yes, this plan might stop junkies from having kids and making them sleep on pee stained mattresses, but those don't account for the bulk of families where the kids wind up as criminals.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#22

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:26 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 04:20)
this plan might stop junkies from having kids and making them sleep on pee stained mattresses, but those don't account for the bulk of families where the kids wind up as criminals.

the data I've studied while taking psychology and criminal justice would suggest otherwise.

most crime is the result of disadvantage.
most disadvantage is the result of broken home / family life.
most broken home / family life is the result of unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy.

in that regard, it comes down to fairly simple statistics.
there's not a lot of room for debate.

that's why I'm interested in theorizing how we can address it.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#23

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:25 PM

I think you're looking at the causality from the wrong end there, unfortunately. And that little logical sequence you've strung together is taking some major leaps of fancy.

However, I don't think the idea of a "parenting license" is too much too extreme or outlandish, in and of itself. We don't surgically bind the trigger fingers of people who have no gun license or somehow prevent people from driving with no license. It just carries penalties and punishment.

The idea that one should have to take a parenting course before, say, being assisted with welfare (obviously while remaining sensitive to the schedule of a single mother) is intriguing.

One just has to wonder how effective it would be, in the end. Cost/benefit wise.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#24

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 11:25)
I think you're looking at the causality from the wrong end there, unfortunately. And that little logical sequence you've strung together is taking some major leaps of fancy.

please feel free to correct me where you see fit.

I'm open to any criticism as long as it's somewhat more intelligent than "omg this is tyranny!"

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#25

Posted 09 May 2013 - 07:45 PM Edited by Otter, 09 May 2013 - 09:45 PM.

I guess I'd love to know where you're getting the info for:

QUOTE
most crime is the result of disadvantage.
most disadvantage is the result of broken home / family life.
most broken home / family life is the result of unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy.


I can see the argument for the first point, although it sort of sidesteps genetic tendencies altogether and we'd have to really figure out what "crime" means and how far we're willing to go to prevent it. Are we talking all crime? How about relatively benign stuff like shoplifting and drug use versus rape and murder?

The second point is incredibly contentious, although perhaps I'm misreading your point as I did the first time around when melch corrected me. But I don't see it. First of all, that ignores factors such as poverty, racism, and sexism. Which are all huge. Secondly, when it comes to sexual abuse, I think you'll find that these "broken homes" don't account for enough to say "most" by any measure.

Finally, that last point is extremely presumptuous and I'd argue - wrong.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#26

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:24 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 23:26)
most crime is the result of disadvantage.
most disadvantage is the result of broken home / family life.
most broken home / family life is the result of unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy.

So there is no underclass, just random people having kids at the wrong time?

orbitalraindrops
  • orbitalraindrops

    Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012
  • None

#27

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:12 PM

Yeah but when China tried to control the birth rate infant girls were killed, abandoned or given away and two thirds of the population was male. I don't think that is a good example of a successful sterilisation policy.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#28

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:09 PM

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, May 9 2013, 13:45)
I can see the argument for the first point, although it sort of sidesteps genetic tendencies altogether

when it comes to poverty and/or disadvantage, I feel that genetics has significantly less to do with the equation than environment.

QUOTE
we'd have to really figure out what "crime" means and how far we're willing to go to prevent it. Are we talking all crime? How about relatively benign stuff like shoplifting and drug use versus rape and murder?

I'm talking about the rapes and the murder.

anyone can shoplift.
but for someone to commit rape and murder it takes a special kind of f*cking up.

granted that many murders are crimes of passion and certainly most people are capable given the right circumstances.
but most people are not capable of rape.
and most people are not capable of serial murder.

serious rapists and the homicidal are most often the product of severe mental trauma resulting from dysfunctional and/or nonexistent childhood/family life.
of course there are a variety of factors but even most of these variables can somehow be linked back into the cyclical history of broken homes and unwanted children.

there's exceptions to every rule. obviously some people are just born mental and sociopathic.
but most of the literature I've come across as would suggest that the majority of cases could be greatly alleviated by focusing on stronger familial ties in the childhood household; the critical developmental years.

QUOTE
Finally, that last point is extremely presumptuous and I'd argue - wrong.


well you're going to have to explain why exactly you disagree.
simply telling me so does nothing for the discussion.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 03:24)
So there is no underclass, just random people having kids at the wrong time?

of course not.

but poverty is a cycle.
and at the ends of the chain is usually a destructive family environment... or complete lack thereof.

more often than not these chains of repetitive behavior (in and out of prison, on and off of food stamps) are the direct result of continually weak parenting and generations of "lost" children. no role models. unwanted. ignored. unloved. etc, etc. poverty begets poverty and most of the time poverty is literally passed on from parent to child like so many genes.

QUOTE (orbitalraindrops @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 13:12)
Yeah but when China tried to control the birth rate infant girls were killed, abandoned or given away and two thirds of the population was male. I don't think that is a good example of a successful sterilisation policy.

I never said that China was a good example.
you're totally misunderstanding.

I only cited China as an example of where on Earth government is actively regulating birth.
that's because Grand Master Smith (I think) said "you can't do that." so I showed him that - actually - yes you can.

Natalia18
  • Natalia18

    Player Hater

  • New Members
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2014
  • United-States

#29

Posted 16 September 2014 - 02:09 AM

For the most part, I would not be against a parenting test. A multitude of problems such as abortion and child abuse would decline. As far as I can tell, the benefits outweigh the negatives. Notice that I said as far as I can tell. My opinion might be premature and based on lack of information.


Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#30

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:06 PM

Who tests the testers though? 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users