NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

That's so rational and realistic. Ha, ha. Here, have a trollysnack.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Are you for real or are you just stupid by nature?

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Congratulations.

That's so rational and realistic. Ha, ha. Here, have a trollysnack.


-Eats- thanks :)

Are you for real or are you just stupid by nature?

No need to call me stupid. And yes I am for real. Why wouldn't I be?

*feeds troll*
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.
>.>
I'm going commando
<.<

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones.
No, I doubt it is. Got anything to back this "fact" up?
So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off.
Sorry, poor people have rights too.
This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
If you start cutting away rights from people because they don't have enough money then there won't be a nation to defend. And what about all the recruits the army gets from poor areas?
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
I'd rather a world with poor people than a world where you only get rights if you can afford them.
3) Our prisons would viritually emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
But your cemeteries would be overflowing.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.
Resources for the rich, death for the poor.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Only for those who are already rich.

You're just making up lies. And we all know a lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face. Now, remember, Pinocchio, be a good boy. And always let your conscience be your guide.

This is quite funny. Probably one of the funniest things I'll hear all day.

You're just making up lies. And we all know a lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face. Now, remember, Pinocchio, be a good boy. And always let your conscience be your guide.

He's Geppeto, not Pinocchio.

Make the process quicker: stop handing out welfare to the lazy sods and use the money saved to fund guns to kill them :mp5:

EDIT: haha sily me i didnt notice that bit :P

Poor people are people too...

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Yeah, but what's stopping them from spreading it to the rich and wealthy areas?

Think about it - nice idea, but without a specific area (i'm not talking about wrestling/staged deathmatch) where the bums and hobos are in their greatest numbers, they could take their killing into the rich and wealthy society. For example, I don't think the owner of a mansion would like it if his/her front yard were to be subject to an all out deathmatch and not clean it up.

And after a while, you'll probably have to start all over again, since nothing ever can stop crime altogether.

A ritual killing of the poor every few decades isn't a great idea, since I, for one, am poor, even though I would never resort to crime myself.

Geppeto: Were you speaking of the economically poor or the culturally poor because my friend your lack of taste adds you to the latter group.

This is quite funny. Probably one of the funniest things I'll hear all day.



He's Geppeto, not Pinocchio.

You try and find quotes that relate directly to Geppetto.

You're just making up lies. And we all know a lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face. Now, remember, Pinocchio, be a good boy. And always let your conscience be your guide.


What lies? Poor people commit more violent crimes, are over populating the prison system, and overtaking the cities. What if we let them kill each other off? What harm comes to middle and upper class people? Nothing, I can think of.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

In translation from my first statement, YOU sir, should belong in the looney bin.

It's really stupid. Really stupid your idea is.

*puts Geppeto on hopelessly clueless and stupid list*

Most poor people are born into poverty, and are usually not provided with decient education or opportunities. It's the effect, not the cause, of a fucked up culture and system.

What lies? Poor people commit more violent crimes, are over populating the prison system, and overtaking the cities. What if we let them kill each other off? What harm comes to middle and upper class people? Nothing, I can think of.

Where will you get your scrumptious Big Mac if all the poor people who construct it for you are dead? Answer me this!!

most people want to live in a nice place where everyone is treated with at least a minimum of dignity.

its so pootinky to be stepping over the dead bodies of the poor on ones way to work in the morning

Geppeto: Were you speaking of the economically poor or the culturally poor because my friend your lack of taste adds you to the latter group.


Economically poor.

Where will you get your scrumptious Big Mac if all the poor people who construct it for you are dead? Answer me this!!


Robots

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Definetly one of the most stupid post ive ever read. I would be careful how you say things cuz i came from the inner city and a lot of my friends do too. while im not overly poor i do come from those areas in which you are refering to. The death of all the "poor people" would be if anything unbeneficial to society. as somebody previously mentioned, all the "poor people" who join the military won't be there anymore. think about it, it not the rich or their sons or daughters who are actively trying to join our nations military. also if you got rid of all the poory people, then you'd just make a group of poor people. those who were once rich before would find themselves now the poor people with only those with considerably more money the new middle and upper classes. There will always be crime and there will always be rich and poor

Robots

But robots can't spit in our food!

Robots

Poor robots. The wealthy robots will look down on these economically challenged robots and judge that they should all just kill themselves and each other.

Definetly one of the most stupid post ive ever read. I would be careful how you say things cuz i came from the inner city and a lot of my friends do too. while im not overly poor i do come from those areas in which you are refering to. The death of all the "poor people" would be if anything unbeneficial to society. as somebody previously mentioned, all the "poor people" who join the military won't be there anymore. think about it, it not the rich or their sons or daughters who are actively trying to join our nations military. also if you got rid of all the poory people, then you'd just make a group of poor people. those who were once rich before would find themselves now the poor people with only those with considerably more money the new middle and upper classes. There will always be crime and there will always be rich and poor


So you are saying poor people are worth anything only because they are in the military? That's just terrible. How can you exploit people like that?

Poor robots. The wealthy robots will look down on these economically challenged robots and judge that they should all just kill themselves and each other.

Fine, I'll just radio the Space Czar, and he will send the mole people to help, because they have no sense of rich or poor. Damn communist molemen

But robots can't spit in our food!

they can leak oil into your food.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

Source? I might agree to a certain point considering the fact that poor people get stuck with public defenders paid for by the state in which is also prosecuting them compared to the wealthy who can afford the best lawyers money can by.

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.

I wouldn't eliminate it completely, I'd rather see it completely overhauled and reformed to make sure that only the people who need it get it with giving them a time limit to straighten themselves out like 2 or 3 years to offer them help in finding reasonable employment and housing. If they don't make an effort or are determined to be parasites feeding off the system then cut them off from it, Absolutely.

2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.

Are you insinuating that the rich aren't committing crimes?

3) Our prisons would viritually emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.

like I said, their is a lot of rich that commit crimes who get off completely due to the fact they can afford top dollar attornies

4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Selfish way to think. They poor didn't ask to be born poor or from society challenged individuals.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Like I said, very selfish thinking.

By all means I am for ending welfare and other such programs but killing them now thats extreme even by my own standards.

What he said about the poor commiting more crime than the rich I am sure it is true. Mainly because there are FAR more poor people and on average they would be more likely to commit crime.

What lies? Poor people commit more violent crimes, are over populating the prison system, and overtaking the cities. What if we let them kill each other off? What harm comes to middle and upper class people? Nothing, I can think of.

Kill off the poor people and the formerly middle class people become the new poor. Kill them off and the upper class people become the new poor, etc., etc.

Robots

Yes. Because robotics is definitely at the stage where it can replace human labor. Also, this is a marvelous idea, and Bush is a great president. Finally, Plan Nine from Outer Space was the best movie ever.

Like I said, very selfish thinking.

And thus is the Human way. Being selfish is what we are good at. Look at our system of capitalism. Hello? Thats based on being selfish and greedy, and it feels so good.

they can leak oil into your food.
That's just not the same. Oil doesn't have that indescribable flavour that human saliva does.
And thus is the Human way. Being selfish is what we are good at. Look at our system of capitalism. Hello? Thats based on being selfish and greedy, and it feels so good.

Now I feel icky for having quoted you.

And thus is the Human way. Being selfish is what we are good at. Look at our system of capitalism. Hello? Thats based on being selfish and greedy, and it feels so good.

Sez you.

Kill off the poor people and the formerly middle class people become the new poor. Kill them off and the upper class people become the new poor, etc., etc.


And then we are left with only the superwealthy, the way in which King Buddha would have wanted it.

Robots

Who builds the robots?

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Oh look, a Marxist! Only instead of one of those "save the Poor Class" Marxists, you take the opposite approach. Big whoop. You're still burdened with this infantile and idiotic belief in hiearchical, structured Class Society.

Furthermore your posts show you've never heard of the concept of upward- or downward-mobility, since you seem to believe that killing all people of one economic class means that class will no longer exist.

You're either a rather brain-dead spoiled little brat, or a troll looking to get some negative attention. Or both.

And then we are left with only the superwealthy, the way in which King Buddha would have wanted it.

1. The superwealthy are no longer superwealthy, as wealth is a relative, not an absolute value. In the class of formerly superwealthy there will still be disparities of wealth, and so the poorer 'superwealthy' must also be destroyed.
2. Repeat step one with the remaining class of formerly superwealthy.
3. Congrats, there is now one dude left on the planet.

Who builds the robots?

The Chinese, duh.

Fine, I'll just radio the Space Czar, and he will send the mole people to help, because they have no sense of rich or poor. Damn communist molemen

We'd be lost without the molemen. And their mysterious tunnels which lead to a hollow Earth filled with wonders and treasures never dreamed of by mortal men. Aye. Communist Moleman, keeper of the light in places dark.

Finally, Plan Nine from Outer Space was the best movie ever.

watch your mouth!

Who builds the robots?

more robots of course!

I wonder what the OP think of Muslims...

1. The superwealthy are no longer superwealthy, as wealth is a relative, not an absolute value. In the class of formerly superwealthy there will still be disparities of wealth, and so the poorer 'superwealthy' must also be destroyed.
2. Repeat step one with the remaining class of formerly superwealthy.
3. Congrats, there is now one dude left on the planet.

The poorest man on earth, who's laws recuire that the robot slaves kill him. Oh well.

I wonder what the OP think of Muslims...

Muslim robots are said to be strictly observant.

watch your mouth!

Okay, maybe that was going a little overboard, but...

more robots of course!

I wonder what the OP think of Muslims...

Rich ones or poor ones?

Muslim robots are said to be strictly observant.

Muslimbots are not worth it. They blow up too often...


/bad joke
:headbang:

The poorest man on earth, who's laws recuire that the robot slaves kill him. Oh well.

That all depends whether the extermotrons are programmed to kill off all those who are in the band of the 50% poorest or to kill all but those who are in the band of the 50% richest.

Cool if the last dude was a pregnant woman who gave birth to twins, one boy and one girl, who abolish all notions of the concept of property and go on to incestuously repopulate the underpopulated planet.

I thought police was meant to protect the rich people from the poor, and you´re thinking of taking they out?

Smart guy.

Muslimbots are not worth it. They blow up too often...


/bad joke
:headbang:

Say that you are sorry.

Muslim robots are said to be strictly observant.

And you don't even wanna try getting a muslimbot through security at the airport. I swear, them make those metal detectors go off on purpose when they see them muslimbots coming.

The best way to fight poverty in a country other than having a free market is to increase welfare programs so all people can have a proper education, proper healthcare, a social security net if they get unemployed and somewere to live. A requirement to recieve social security should be that you activelly search for a job.

Say that you are sorry.

http://www.tbcoc.org.nz/im%20sorry%20copy.JPG

What else is so funny, is how everyones taking this so seriously. :rolleyes:

So you are saying poor people are worth anything only because they are in the military? That's just terrible. How can you exploit people like that?

First of all, i did not say that that is the only thing that they are worth and even if i did, it would be far better then you who says that they should just all die. I was simply addressing one part of the issue at hand. This country could not function without the "poor people". They take charge of our entire infrastructure and help run the whole country. These are the people that are keeping us all alive, even dim witted people like yourself. You should be grateful towards all these "poor people", these ones of which you wish to dispose of.

And you don't even wanna try getting a muslimbot through security at the airport. I swear, them make those metal detectors go off on purpose when they see them muslimbots coming.

Why would you even try? Sure, you might hang out with a muslimbot and be planning a trip together but they are easy to ditch. "Is that a picture of Mohammed?" Run. Meet up with them a couple days later at the airport food buffet. Robots love buffets regardless of religion.

http://www.tbcoc.org.nz/im%20sorry%20copy.JPG

There. Now, don't we all feel better?

What else is so funny, is how everyones taking this so seriously. :rolleyes:

But ain't it?;)

There. Now, don't we all feel better?

Yes, mother. :p

What else is so funny, is how everyones taking this so seriously. :rolleyes:

I'm not seeing what the alternative to mockery is in this situation.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

The non-criminal majority of poor people have the same right to security as everyone else.

Why would you even try? Sure, you might hang out with a muslimbot and be planning a trip together but they are easy to ditch. "Is that a picture of Mohammed?" Run. Meet up with them a couple days later at the airport food buffet. Robots love buffets regardless of religion.

lol!

What is funny is that most people dont even understand why we need the "poor people".

Its not their work. Its not the fact that they can fight in the army.

The deal is that they buy.

Ok, they dont buy Ferrari´s, they dont buy 5 million houses, they dont buy airplanes and helicopters.

But every poor people buy clothing, food, electronics and a whole shitload of stuff. Every house has a TV. Every house has a refrigerator. A stove. And a lot of other stuff.

Just look at iPods. There are some models who are $69,00. Anyone can buy one. And that is why they have sold millions of those, and apple now cant stop smiling.

Not to mention they buy and eat food everyday. If there were not a LOT of poor people buying stuff, capitalism wouldnt work.

What was one of the main reasons why slavery was punished and ended? Because slaves dont have income. And if they dont have income, they cant buy things. And if they cant buy things, products wont be bought. And if products arent bought, the rich people who control the factories wont get richer.

That is it. The poor are there to make the rich richer.

Geppeto,you are a nasty man.
"Poor people don't have money,they can't afford rights!"
Arse.

I think killing off the poor is a splendid idea but why not have some fun rather than just letting them whack one another willy nilly. Just think we could have proper gladiatorial games on a mass scale. All we need to do is build a big fence around some country say Oman then fill it with TV cameras and weapons then ship the poor in from around the globe and let them at each other. It would be great TV plus the rich would be able to richer by selling TV rights.

What else is so funny, is how everyones taking this so seriously. :rolleyes:

If you think it's just nonsensical trolling, by all means report this thread to the mods rather than trying to come across as superior to "everyone."

+|-|1$ +|-||23@[) 1$ $0 [)1$6|_|$+1|\|6 1 |-|0|*3 63|*|*3+0 63+$ |}@|\||\|3[) $0 |-|3 \x/0|\|'+ |*01$0|\| +|-|3 |=0|2|_||\/|$ \x/1+|-| +|-|1$ +|21|*3!

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Why stop there?
lets also organise hunting trips. Heavily armed ritch people would be taken into poor areas, and alowed to shoot poor people. Every kill would be charged to them.
Or a step more. Let poor people be able to sell themselves to ritch people as salves. Ok so no one can sell another person, but let them be able to sell themselves. Money goes to their family. If enough family members sell themselves, then family can even move from poor area!

Why stop there?
lets also organise hunting trips. Heavily armed ritch people would be taken into poor areas, and alowed to shoot poor people. Every kill would be charged to them.
Or a step more. Let poor people be able to sell themselves to ritch people as salves. Ok so no one can sell another person, but let them be able to sell themselves. Money goes to their family. If enough family members sell themselves, then family can even move from poor area!

My sarcasm detector is off.
Seriously, what the hell?

Geppeto,you are a nasty man.
"Poor people don't have money,they can't afford rights!"
Arse.

I agree, he is a sick, demented a$$.:upyours:

Why stop there?
lets also organise hunting trips. Heavily armed ritch people would be taken into poor areas, and alowed to shoot poor people. Every kill would be charged to them.
Or a step more. Let poor people be able to sell themselves to ritch people as salves. Ok so no one can sell another person, but let them be able to sell themselves. Money goes to their family. If enough family members sell themselves, then family can even move from poor area!
Somebody delete this thread!

Or God Almighty will smite us all!
Then again, we can blame it all on Geppeto, so we have nothing to worry about! Ha ha!

You try and find quotes that relate directly to Geppetto.

Geppetto was caged a lot into the belly of a big fish... (Maybe a whale, but as far as I can recall Collodi didn't specified it...) Maybe he forgot something about how the world work...

HOWEVER:

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones.

True, now let's begin to think about WHY poor peoples are more likely to b found guilt:

1; Poor peoples tend to life in conditions that require them to commit crimes...
2; Poor peoples usually can't afford expensive defences at tribunal, so no Lawyer tend to work too hard for them...
3; Poor peoples crimes seem to get noticed more than rich peoples ones...

So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off.

Also allowing steal, rape, etc etc?

This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

If you are sure...

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.

I prefer consider this point as "Transfer founds from Welfare to Corpse Disposing", because you WANT to remove the corpses yes? Or should I remind about how much is problematic for peoples health to let them unburied?

2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.

There are also no poor people working, there are also always RICH peoples committing crimes... And a rich people crime tend to be more vile than a poor one...

3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.

If I sa "Mafia" or "Yakuza" you'll thing that their affiliates are poor?

4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

YEAH... Less people, no more nuclear plants, no more Pollution and Natural Resources will replenish themselves as a sign of thanking...

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Then WHY removing police and allowing peoples to kill each other? We have to ENCOURAGE them, so to have also a new form of entertainement... Look to history, look to Roman Circus...

Why stop there?
lets also organise hunting trips. Heavily armed ritch people would be taken into poor areas, and alowed to shoot poor people. Every kill would be charged to them.
Or a step more. Let poor people be able to sell themselves to ritch people as salves. Ok so no one can sell another person, but let them be able to sell themselves. Money goes to their family. If enough family members sell themselves, then family can even move from poor area!
I like it. We can even televise the hunts and major battles. Its a damn shame I know enough about economics to know that the poor are needed as consumers and sometimes workers.

That's what would happen when corporations take over America, 100%.

I think killing off the poor is a splendid idea but why not have some fun rather than just letting them whack one another willy nilly. Just think we could have proper gladiatorial games on a mass scale. All we need to do is build a big fence around some country say Oman then fill it with TV cameras and weapons then ship the poor in from around the globe and let them at each other. It would be great TV plus the rich would be able to richer by selling TV rights.

Sounds like my kind of TV.

Then WHY removing police and allowing peoples to kill each other? We have to ENCOURAGE them, so to have also a new form of entertainement... Look to history, look to Roman Circus...

You lot are fucking sick. I'm considered poor. I'm one of three children in a single parent family-my mum only earns about £20k p.a.,if slightly less-and we have trouble paying bills and the like.I get benefits from the government to help me pay for my school supplies and education.
I can't believe you lot want people like me to die so you can have a "nice,clean earth." Free of scum like us,apparently. Why don't I deserve a clean earth? Why don't I deserve a chance to live and be happy?
But no,according to you lot, we should be public entertainment.
Listen. When human rights are a commodity to be bought and sold, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. You disgust me.

That's what would happen when corporations take over America, 100%.

corporations live of the poor, who will do the low wage work when there are no poor, who will buy the low quality goods they produce?

You lot are fucking sick. I'm considered poor. I'm one of three children in a single parent family-my mum only earns about £20k p.a.,if slightly less-and we have trouble paying bills and the like.I get benefits from the government to help me pay for my school supplies and education.
I can't believe you lot want people like me to die so you can have a "nice,clean earth." Free of scum like us,apparently. Why don't I deserve a clean earth? Why don't I deserve a chance to live and be happy?
But no,according to you lot, we should be public entertainment.
Listen. When human rights are a commodity to be bought and sold, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. You disgust me.

I agree 9000%.

I agree 9000%.

Thankyou.

You lot are fucking sick. I'm considered poor. I'm one of three children in a single parent family-my mum only earns about £20k p.a.,if slightly less-and we have trouble paying bills and the like.I get benefits from the government to help me pay for my school supplies and education.
I can't believe you lot want people like me to die so you can have a "nice,clean earth." Free of scum like us,apparently. Why don't I deserve a clean earth? Why don't I deserve a chance to live and be happy?
But no,according to you lot, we should be public entertainment.
Listen. When human rights are a commodity to be bought and sold, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. You disgust me.

Arinola, my post was considered to b SARCASTIC... Maybe I should added some lines to explain it, but I tuought that really wasn't necessary...

If you had readed my entire post, I said that, in my opinion, Geppeto idea was the more idiotic of the ones I readed in the forum, and EVER killing poor peoples, Earth will not become a clean place again...

Hoping that the misunderstood was cleared...

Thankyou.

You are welcome!

You lot are fucking sick. I'm considered poor. I'm one of three children in a single parent family-my mum only earns about £20k p.a.,if slightly less-and we have trouble paying bills and the like.I get benefits from the government to help me pay for my school supplies and education.
I can't believe you lot want people like me to die so you can have a "nice,clean earth." Free of scum like us,apparently. Why don't I deserve a clean earth? Why don't I deserve a chance to live and be happy?
But no,according to you lot, we should be public entertainment.
Listen. When human rights are a commodity to be bought and sold, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. You disgust me.
Its not really about the income, its about what typifies each social class in terms of steriotypes. The lower and working classes are given media coverage in the form of vandals, criminals, pregnant teenagers and the like (all living of the state, naturally). When you say the poor, people from other social groups think of this. I'm for wiping them out, but not the average person trying to makes ends meet. Many of my good friends are numbered among 'the poor' and many are better people than I. Sorry.

This threat doesn't sounds serious, but i give it a try, just for the sake of it.

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.

More than 60 % of the work force come from middle class people, and the so called "poor" people has a lot of jobs they fill out too. so if you just say the poor, you must meen people struggling for their lives? In that case, we would miss people to do the service jobs. That means gas-stations every shop you can mention from 7-eleven to clothing shops. The poor people is what make all your daily life possible, allowing you to buy what you need.


2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.

It is more a coming perception rather than a fact that poor people are violent, but let't pretend. Poor people are already killing poor people, so there is no reason in changing much, maybe you should give them more guns (I am from Denmark, and in Denmark we hardly have any guns anyway)


3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.

The prisons are not full of poor people making violence. They are full of people that has grown up in a bad enviroment. The richer youth (in Denmark that is) the rich youngsters have their very big part of the crime. So just to blame the poor is a very narrow minded way of thinking crime.


4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

IF you really think of the enviroment, and wants the human to be less spreading, we could just wipe all of Africa? They are poor and to many! but of course we dont do that. Every man alive is an action of the evolution. I believe in Darwins theory of evolution, and then you can not just kill people, we are as many because we are the best survivors. (I know that Darwin said that we shouldn't take of ill and weak people, but he also said that we should follow our instincts and that is what i am doing, when not killing every poor guy I meet).

So you see, this thread is a prank it simply must be. Not much reason to give it any responds, but now i tried it, hope to get some feedback.

That part of the post was SARCASTIC, I didn't understand why but it seem that I'm not allowed to make other quote replyes... This forum is weird...

However, if you readed all of my post, you should have understood that my opinion about Geppeto's idea wasn't one of the best... Also that IMHO EVEN removing poor, or rich, peoples Earth will not be a clean place again...

I hope the misunderstood is now clear and that this forum will make me answer one time or another...

That part of the post was SARCASTIC, I didn't understand why but it seem that I'm not allowed to make other quote replyes... This forum is weird...

However, if you readed all of my post, you should have understood that my opinion about Geppeto's idea wasn't one of the best... Also that IMHO EVEN removing poor, or rich, peoples Earth will not be a clean place again...

I hope the misunderstood is now clear and that this forum will make me answer one time or another...

Very well. Sorry. You can understand my anger though.

Its not really about the income, its about what typifies each social class in terms of steriotypes. The lower and working classes are given media coverage in the form of vandals, criminals, pregnant teenagers and the like (all living of the state, naturally). When you say the poor, people from other social groups think of this. I'm for wiping them out, but not the average person trying to makes ends meet. Many of my good friends are numbered among 'the poor' and many are better people than I. Sorry.

What the hell would wiping out the poor achieve? According to you, human rights are only for the people who can afford them, or your friends. Like I said, when humanity sinks so low that human rights become a commodity to be bought and sold, then we'll talk.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

I hope you realize you're a horrible human being, not to mention a blatant collectivist/statist. You're advocating using the government to wipe out an arbitrary defined group of people who have done no wrong in order to "benefit" another arbitrarily defined group of people. Nowhere is it apparent that you realize that you are speaking of many individuals who have traits that defy your characterizations; there are hard-working, law-abiding people with low incomes/wealth, and shiftless criminal people with high incomes/wealth. But instead of recognizing individuality, you instead strip it away in order to conjure up ultimately non-existent collectives of poor and rich, collectives that you believe have a life of their own apart from the individuals that comprise them and must be treated as such. Because of this attitude, any concept of liberty is inherently alien to you.

Its not really about the income, its about what typifies each social class in terms of steriotypes. The lower and working classes are given media coverage in the form of vandals, criminals, pregnant teenagers and the like (all living of the state, naturally). When you say the poor, people from other social groups think of this. I'm for wiping them out, but not the average person trying to makes ends meet. Many of my good friends are numbered among 'the poor' and many are better people than I. Sorry.

What the hell would wiping out the poor achieve? According to you, human rights are only for the people who can afford them, or your friends. Like I said, when humanity sinks so low that human rights become a commodity to be bought and sold, then we'll talk.

What the hell would wiping out the poor achieve? According to you, human rights are only for the people who can afford them, or your friends. Like I said, when humanity sinks so low that human rights become a commodity to be bought and sold, then we'll talk.

Human rights are not for sale. They are given by those in power, and those with money hold power. Human rights are not bought and sold becasue they can be removed virtually free of charge. As I have said, the poor are necessary as consumers, I just dislike the criminal and less tasteful elements within them.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

You Geppeto are worse than Hitler! WTF is wrong with your sick, bourgeois mind. You need to get out of your fucking gated community and see reality because proposing genocide on the internet is not healthy, nor something a person with class would ever do. The hobo drunk on a street corner has more class than you ever will! YOU ARE HUMAN GARBAGE

What lies? Poor people commit more violent crimes, are over populating the prison system, and overtaking the cities. What if we let them kill each other off? What harm comes to middle and upper class people? Nothing, I can think of.

Ok, just in case your earnest, allow me to introduce you to economics 101.

Resources are limited. No two ways about it.

Unprocessed/unharvested resources are pretty much worthless to your average urbanite.

It almost goes without saying that at the start of most resource harvesting/refining processes, the poor can be found there. America has their illegal immigrants, China has their sweatshops, etc, etc.

Killing off all your poor would result in a complete shutdown of all your basic resource production systems. Not everyone can be a CEO or engineer.

And in case you're stupid enough to suggest replacing that with robotic labour, robots generally cost a great deal more to do what a human can do and often require expensive maintenance. They are only more economical when you have a limited population base and highly educated workforce. A difficult to achieve situation in most countries unless you're an island nation.

Another point I'd like to raise is that poor or not, these people represent a huge proportion of a nations populace, and thus as a group, represent a massive economic stimulus to keep the market flowing. Kill them off, and you run out of buyers quick. A rich guy isn't going to buy some extra 20,000 cartons of milk a day to make up for the sudden shortage of poor that used to do so.

Overall, your idea is about as idiotic as jumping off a tall cliff with the idea that if you flap your hands hard enough, you won't go splat.

Human rights are not for sale. They are given by those in power, and those with money hold power. Human rights are not bought and sold becasue they can be removed virtually free of charge. As I have said, the poor are necessary as consumers, I just dislike the criminal and less tasteful elements within them.

Human rights are not given out by anyone. Or at least they shouldn't be. Human beings are entitled to human rights-whether their rich or poor, tall or small, thin or fat, black or white, religious or atheist. We all get human rights because we're all human. Human rights are not dispensed wanton by those with fat chequebooks and big bank accounts.
Also, since when was the upper class squeaky clean? Are you insinuating that rich people are not criminals as well?

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

May you go bankrupt. :)

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.
Just when I was starting to think that maybe human beings had learned something from the Holocaust...
May you go bankrupt. :)
'nuff said. We can close the thread now. :cool:

Human rights are not for sale. They are given by those in power, and those with money hold power. Human rights are not bought and sold becasue they can be removed virtually free of charge. As I have said, the poor are necessary as consumers, I just dislike the criminal and less tasteful elements within them.

Human rights are inalienable. Not so much in reality but it is what most decent people strive to achieve. I wouldn't quite be my normal pacifistic self if any type of judgement like the OP describes came to be. I'm not poor but I'm lower middleclass (at best).

Human rights are not given out by anyone. Or at least they shouldn't be. Human beings are entitled to human rights-whether their rich or poor, tall or small, thin or fat, black or white, religious or atheist. We all get human rights because we're all human. Human rights are not dispensed wanton by those with fat chequebooks and big bank accounts.
Also, since when was the upper class squeaky clean? Are you insinuating that rich people are not criminals as well?
Human rights are given by the government or body or even person that controls you at the time and that same body can strip you of them at any time they choose. I too would say that, by default, in the beginning, all people are equal (its what they do and what happens to them that changes that).
I do not think the upper class are much better, they just have a tendancy to commit different sorts of crimes (on the whole) which I think are less detestable, if having greater impact on the world. And they are better equipped to conceal those crimes.

Originally Posted by Arinola
You lot are fucking sick. I'm considered poor. I'm one of three children in a single parent family-my mum only earns about £20k p.a.,if slightly less-and we have trouble paying bills and the like.I get benefits from the government to help me pay for my school supplies and education.
I can't believe you lot want people like me to die so you can have a "nice,clean earth." Free of scum like us,apparently. Why don't I deserve a clean earth? Why don't I deserve a chance to live and be happy?
But no,according to you lot, we should be public entertainment.
Listen. When human rights are a commodity to be bought and sold, we'll talk. Until then, fuck off. You disgust me.

I agree whole heartedly with you. All you people who say that ya'll are just joking are still pretty sick. You say sorry when you make a muslim joke but when you talk about the mass genocide of an entire group of people, you don't say anything. All you sick f*cks who actually agree with Geppeto really need some kind of consuling because ya'll are seriously f*cked up in the head. And those who make light of this issue shouldn't because even toying with an idea like this is almost just as bad as somebody making light of the Holocaust.

Human rights are not for sale. They are given by those in power, and those with money hold power. Human rights are not bought and sold becasue they can be removed virtually free of charge. As I have said, the poor are necessary as consumers, I just dislike the criminal and less tasteful elements within them.

This reminds me of the qoute, "Don't act like your sh*t dosen't smell." The "poor" are not the only ones who commit crimes. some of the worst crimes in history are committed by those in power and with money. Look at Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Taylor, and Robert Durst. As you can see some of the worst crimes in history are committed by those with money. and the "poor" aren't just here to buy things, with out them, there would be no rich people and no nation.

Human rights are not for sale. They are given by those in power, and those with money hold power. Human rights are not bought and sold becasue they can be removed virtually free of charge. As I have said, the poor are necessary as consumers, I just dislike the criminal and less tasteful elements within them.

Human rights are not given out by anyone. Or at least they shouldn't be. Human beings are entitled to human rights-whether their rich or poor, tall or small, thin or fat, black or white, religious or atheist. We all get human rights because we're all human. Human rights are not dispensed wanton by those with fat chequebooks and big bank accounts.
Also, since when was the upper class squeaky clean? Are you insinuating that rich people are not criminals as well?

As well as I ay that I didn't like it, I also have to say that he is correct...

Is sad, but true...

Police didn't do the job "gratis-et-amore-dei" (From Latin: For Free and for the love of God...) so didn't do all the peoples that are charged to protect Human Rights... Is nice to think about how Human Rights should be granted to everyone, but still is depressing to see how reality goes...

There is also to think about WHAT is intended for Human Rights and wich authority can enforce them...

Think about Death Sentences... While some countries talk about the fact that NO ONE has the right to kill another person, and everyone should have the right to redeem himself (Or herself...) there are people that however commine that... Isn't the right to the Life one of Human Rights? Is better to kill one for the sake of the many or not?

As well as I ay that I didn't like it, I also have to say that he is correct...

Is sad, but true...

Police didn't do the job "gratis-et-amore-dei" (From Latin: For Free and for the love of God...) so didn't do all the peoples that are charged to protect Human Rights... Is nice to think about how Human Rights should be granted to everyone, but still is depressing to see how reality goes...

There is also to think about WHAT is intended for Human Rights and wich authority can enforce them...

Think about Death Sentences... While some countries talk about the fact that NO ONE has the right to kill another person, and everyone should have the right to redeem himself (Or herself...) there are people that however commine that... Isn't the right to the Life one of Human Rights? Is better to kill one for the sake of the many or not?

And someone know why I have to wait for a mod check after I reply quoting someone?

I do not think the upper class are much better, they just have a tendancy to commit different sorts of crimes (on the whole) which I think are less detestable, if having greater impact on the world. And they are better equipped to conceal those crimes.

So different sorts of crimes makes it a better sort of crime? How so? Is fraud a better crime? Sure, it involves no loss of human life, but can destroy someone's life financially. They're just as detestable.
And concealing crimes makes it all go away? Just like sweeping it all under the rug? You're almost as bad as the OP.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

HOBO THUNDERDOME! 2 Hobos go in, 1 Hobo comes out.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

You sir, are fucked up. See in the real world we have these mystical creations called "Morality" or "ethics" or "not being a complete psycopath" which means we dont do that kind of thing.

So different sorts of crimes makes it a better sort of crime? How so? Is fraud a better crime? Sure, it involves no loss of human life, but can destroy someone's life financially. They're just as detestable.
And concealing crimes makes it all go away? Just like sweeping it all under the rug? You're almost as bad as the OP.

But once their lives are ruined financially, they are put to death. So, who cares?

But once their lives are ruined financially, they are put to death. So, who cares?

The robots who have to kill them and deal with their corpse.

Alright I'm going to pretend I'm a soulless prick who thinks he's better than everone else and that a person's worth is determined by their bank account and credit score for a second:

We should kill the people that can't afford all the luxuries in life, because even though most of the rich people come from ancestors who were in poverty most of their lives and took decades to try and give their children just a little bit more than what they themselves had as a child, the poor are scum! Yes they should just do the menial and embarassing tasks and maybe even wipe my ass with their bare hands because they don't have much money. Sure without them no country could survive and yes those bastards are the people that are the building blocks of every civilization they don't deserve to live. all people aren't equals and we should all reinstate slavery so that the rich don't have to even get up or brush their own teeth. Afterwards we can have them slaughter each other for our own enjoyment. Sure every society that ever began to think that way quickly fell but I don't care!

Back to person with soul: :upyours: you Geppeto.

The robots who have to kill them and deal with their corpse.

Only the religious robots really care... maybe the robots with a sensitive sense of smell as well, what with the rotting corpses.

But once their lives are ruined financially, they are put to death. So, who cares?

Now why didn't I think of that? Honestly. :rolleyes:

So different sorts of crimes makes it a better sort of crime? How so?
Well, one petty theft will, in general, hurt fewer people less than multiple murder.

Is fraud a better crime? Sure, it involves no loss of human life, but can destroy someone's life financially. They're just as detestable.
Its not about human life, I am always saying that raw human life is of little worth on its own. Financial destruction is a problem, a very serious problem, but if the person is capable of working their way back then it is probably less fatal, if not, our liberal socialist state will be there to support them. *sighs*

And concealing crimes makes it all go away? Just like sweeping it all under the rug?
In reality, yes, you can only be punished if you are caught. Those not hurt can only be harmed by further revelation and those already hurt are unlikely to be healed.

You're almost as bad as the OP.
Or possibly worse, or better than you, its all relative to the position one adopts. And ones beliefs beyond this topic.

Ah, a little consideration...

Letting people kill each other free will teach to those peoples that Human Life has no value...

Poor lives and RICH lives...

And if Life has no value, only posses has one...

Then WHY Poors shouldn't group themselves to kill riches and take their possessions? Dying doing that isn't different to dying without doing that...

Dying always implies dying...

Now before Arinola get mad at me again I will say that mine was simply a speculation based on historical events... (French Revolution mainly...)

Well, one petty theft will, in general, hurt fewer people less than multiple murder.

Yet you're suggesting the extermination of an entire class? Contradict yourself much?

Its not about human life, I am always saying that raw human life is of little worth on its own. Financial destruction is a problem, a very serious problem, but if the person is capable of working their way back then it is probably less fatal, if not, our liberal socialist state will be there to support them. *sighs*

Aww. Poor Prekkendoria. Tell me. If you were to become redundant, or be a victim of fraud, which society would you rather be in-one that exterminates the weak of society, or one that helps them back on their feet?

In reality, yes, you can only be punished if you are caught. Those not hurt can only be harmed by further revelation and those already hurt are unlikely to be healed.

So not being caught makes the crime morally right? Oh, no, wait, you're devoid of any morality, how would you possibly know?

Or possibly worse, or better than you, its all relative to the position one adopts. And ones beliefs beyond this topic.

According to this thread only, I'd say you were on the same level of Hitler. I think it's pretty safe to say you are devoid of any morality.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

If you are truely dumb enough to post this, care to move into a poor area?

According to this thread only, I'd say you were on the same level of Hitler. I think it's pretty safe to say you are devoid of any morality.

I second that notion.

I second that notion.

Everyone's agreeing with me today :)

Everyone's agreeing with me today :)

It may just be because you're right. :)

It may just be because you're right. :)

That's always a nice thought.

I'm trying to figure why My posts needs to be approved by a moderator before being visible...

Yet you're suggesting the extermination of an entire class? Contradict yourself much?
Read the OP. If these groups can function independantly then they do not kill each other and no extermination takes place. I'm just saying we let them operate by themselves (under the main government) and see what happens.

Aww. Poor Prekkendoria. Tell me. If you were to become redundant, or be a victim of fraud, which society would you rather be in-one that exterminates the weak of society, or one that helps them back on their feet?
If I was made redundant or the victim of major fraud (really both would have to happen simultaniously though), I would want to live in the liberal socialist country obviously. Circumstances are what influence views.

So not being caught makes the crime morally right? Oh, no, wait, you're devoid of any morality, how would you possibly know? According to this thread only, I'd say you were on the same level of Hitler. I think it's pretty safe to say you are devoid of any morality.
I'm not devoid of morality, I have a flexable moral system combined with a natural capability for dehumanising people when it serves me. A differently structured morality, but still morality. As for saying that my morality is of the same quality as Hitler's, it may be, i this case. What Hitler got wrong was that he put his beliefs into action and left the remains to be found. As long as I do not do that, I doubt I would be as hated as him. Believing and acting are different things.

If I was made redundant or the victim of major fraud (really both would have to happen simultaniously though), I would want to live in the liberal socialist country obviously. Circumstances are what influence views.

Ah. So it's ok when it best suits you then? Right. Nice to know you're hypocritical.

I'm not devoid of morality, I have a flexable moral system combined with a natural capability for dehumanising people when it serves me. A differently structured morality, but still morality. As for saying that my morality is of the same quality as Hitler's, it may be, i this case. What Hitler got wrong was that he put his beliefs into action and left the remains to be found. As long as I do not do that, I doubt I would be as hated as him. Believing and acting are different things.

The bold bit-you're sick. You quite happily take advantage of people and dehumanise them for your own personal gain? Nice.
Ah, you're one of those "Hitler had the right idea, but got it wrong" kinda people, eh? No, I think I was right, you're pretty much devoid of any morals or ethics.

I'm not devoid of morality, I have a flexable moral system combined with a natural capability for dehumanising people when it serves me. A differently structured morality, but still morality. As for saying that my morality is of the same quality as Hitler's, it may be, i this case. What Hitler got wrong was that he put his beliefs into action and left the remains to be found. As long as I do not do that, I doubt I would be as hated as him. Believing and acting are different things.

If you have no desire to act why believe? You believe to act. If you don't act it makes no difference. It's a sad statement but no one really cares what you think it's just what you do with what you think, and if you're egomaniacal enough to think we care what you think without proof or actions is just plain stupid.

Verdict: If you want to kill poor people, do so, but don't expect anyone else to think it's a good idea. It's a really degrading and bad idea.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.
I'm a boxers man, myself.
Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off.
Aren't you a charmer? Anyway - I'm about to knock this theory down. See below.
1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
Since about 35% of Americans live below the poverty line (and I'd assume you live there), you're getting rid of about 110 million people - nice one. That's where your army and police come from, too.

"Hurrah" says the middle class "now I can get blown up in Iraq too - nice one, that's exactly what I wanted".

"Fantasmic" say the plutocrats - "I always wanted to work as a traffic policeman, instead of my upper-level management job!"
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
Not really, because people would be impoverished as their workers would be dead or dying, and their companies would collapse. Poverty is what leads to most crime, so it'd just start again with a new working class of the previous petit-bourgeoisie, and the whole thing'd just begin again.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
See my previous point - you'll just get a new working class.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.
Surprising as this may sound to you, new resources don't just magically appear. The world would be just as buggered as previously, it's just that the rate of decline would slow down for about a week, before the previously rich because the working class again.
Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.
Who's your new working class, then?

I don't think that the plutocrats are going to be very happy in the factories where the working class are currently used. And without consumer goods, people aren't going to have much of a happy time.

http://www.stageleft.info/blog-images/do-not-feed-the-trolls.jpg

The bold it-you're sick. You quite happily take advantage of people and dehumanise them for your own personal gain? Nice.
Ah, you're one of those "Hitler had the right idea, but got it wrong" kinda people, eh? No, I think I was right, you're pretty much devoid of any morals or ethics.

I second that notion a second time.

http://www.stageleft.info/blog-images/do-not-feed-the-trolls.jpg

Way way way too late for that.

I second that notion a second time.

Cookie for you. *gives cookie*

Cookie for you. *gives cookie*

lawlamanjaro. You make good points congrats. You're reasonable.

that is so stupid! and, how could the poor be comiting crimes when they don't have money, a home, or any kind of weapons.This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Congratulations.

that is so stupid! and, how could the poor be comiting crimes when they don't have money, a home, or any kind of weapons.

I think by poor he means the lower class in general-not just the homeless. I'm sure SOME lower class commit crimes, just like the upper class, but that's not an excuse to brutally murder them.

I'm trying to figure why My posts needs to be approved by a moderator before being visible...

Check the moderation forum, it'll tell you why.

What a vile, disgusting little troll you are. I much prefer the ones with cute pudgy bellies and rainbow hair and big, glossy eyes.

What's all this about the poor people being the most wretched among us? Do you have any idea how many great, public figures there are today that started out living in the slums? It's very true that many poor people take advantage of the welfare system. They leech off of it and don't put any effort into climbing up the economic ladder. There are, however, an innumerable amount of people in the lower class who are far more deserving of life and its opportunities than any rich little son of a bitch who has his ass wiped with a silk cloth by his butler, Jeeves.

But, if we are just going to let the lower class kill each other, there has to be something that will get them to start fighting. Why don't we drop your sorry little ass right in the middle of "da hood" after dressing you in an Armani suit and strapping a nice Rolex to your wrist, then they'll have to duke it out to see who gets to mug you first.

What a vile, disgusting little troll you are. I much prefer the ones with cute pudgy bellies and rainbow hair and big, glossy eyes.

What's all this about the poor people being the most wretched among us? Do you have any idea how many great, public figures there are today that started out living in the slums? It's very true that many poor people take advantage of the welfare system. They leech off of it and don't put any effort into climbing up the economic ladder. There are, however, an innumerable amount of people in the lower class who are far more deserving of life and its opportunities than any rich little son of a bitch who has his ass wiped with a silk cloth by his butler, Jeeves.

But, if we are just going to let the lower class kill each other, there has to be something that will get them to start fighting. Why don't we drop your sorry little ass right in the middle of "da hood" after dressing you in an Armani suit and strapping a nice Rolex to your wrist, then they'll have to duke it out to see who gets to mug you first.

Zinged, quite well.

Ah. So it's ok when it best suits you then? Right. Nice to know you're hypocritical.
I set different standards for myself and others, yes. I would expect someone who is reliant on the state to support socialism, just as I would expect someone who has to pay for that socialism not to be socialist. Your views would likely change if you were placed in another situation that forced you to think from a perspective that you never had to.

The bold it-you're sick. You quite happily take advantage of people and dehumanise them for your own personal gain? Nice.
Ah, you're one of those "Hitler had the right idea, but got it wrong" kinda people, eh? No, I think I was right, you're pretty much devoid of any morals or ethics.
First of all, Hitler did not have the right idea. Killing based on race makes less sense than seeing if a social class has the capability to manage itself without government law enforcement. I just think that he should have been able to hold that belief, but never enact it. As for the devoid of morals part, yes I would manipulate others for personal gain if I thought it was worth the harm it would do. And the dehumanisation bit, I do it partially reflexively, thats not a justification however, just the truth. I find it very easy, and I often seem to do it accidentally, it causes my views to turn out like this.

I set different standards for myself and others, yes. I would expect someone who is reliant on the state to support socialism, just as I would expect someone who has to pay for that socialism not to be socialist. Your views would likely change if you were placed in another situation that forced you to think from a perspective that you never had to.

No, I'm quite socialist through and through. If placed in a position of power, I'd adopt socialist policies-not just change my mind as soon as I come into money.

If you have no desire to act why believe? You believe to act. If you don't act it makes no difference. It's a sad statement but no one really cares what you think it's just what you do with what you think, and if you're egomaniacal enough to think we care what you think without proof or actions is just plain stupid.

Verdict: If you want to kill poor people, do so, but don't expect anyone else to think it's a good idea. It's a really degrading and bad idea.

I couldn't get away with it, for one. And I think think that the poor are necessary, if the concept is unpleasant. And there are better ways to eliminate the problems that I percieve in my twisted view.

Very well, you speak of proof, what is your proof that I am wrong and that you are right.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

Funny, but named for the wrong end of the strings.

No, I'm quite socialist through and through. If placed in a position of power, I'd adopt socialist policies-not just change my mind as soon as I come into money.
Perhaps, but power has a tendancy to corrupt and that is only one circumstance and view. If I found something you cared less about and changed your perspective of that it may well be different, just as my view might remain constant with an issue that I cared very deeply about.

Perhaps, but power has a tendancy to corrupt and that is only one circumstance and view. If I found something you cared less about and changed your perspective of that it may well be different, just as my view might remain constant with an issue that I cared very deeply about.

I like to think of myself as someone who doesn't bend to power that way.
I know that's quite arrogant, but that's just the way I am.

I like to think of myself as someone who doesn't bend to power that way.
I know that's quite arrogant, but that's just the way I am.
If it is true, and you were to become powerful, it might be for the best.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.

You sir, fail at life. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I strongly hope that someday you lose all your money and become "poor." Will you still want to exterminate them? No. Probably not. If theres anyone we should exterminate, it should be you and anyone that shares a similar phycotic, corrupt, and biased ideology. How does it feel to play god? Thinking you should chose who lives and who dies? I'd seriously suggest rethinking your perspective and life (or lack thereof, for that matter) before you say something that really peeves someone off.

Not only would your "plan" undermine society as we know it, it wouldn't even happen. Why would poor people kill each other, anyway? We have nothing to steal from each other. If we were actually like you said we were, we would steal and murder you. Do you think you're a human? I don't. I can't classify you as a mammel. Most mammels coexist with their enviornment. You only seek to destroy. But there is still luck for you. There is another type of organism that seeks only to destroy. That, my friend, is a virus. It is also what you are. You are a plague unto humanity and I certainly wish there was a vaccine.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain myself here.

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones. So, I propose that we pull police protection from those areas and let them kill each other off. This would help the rest of society out in four major ways

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.
2) It would rid our society of the most vile of people. Imagine a world where there are no poor people committing crimes. Sounds fantastic.
3) Our prisons would viritually be emptied after a while, as after all the poor people are dead,there will be hardly anyone left to commit crimes.
4) The Human population would decrease rapidly, allowing for the revival of earth and its resources.

Think about it. A few years of inner city death and destruction can lead to a future of riches, peace, and a cleaner, healthy earth.
:rolleyes:

The poor commit crimes because they don't have any more resources. the rich do commit crimes, because they are greedy. The poor are poor because of certain disadvantages, and the rich managed to get ahead, and often screw the poor over to get even further ahead.

1) We'd eliminate the need if we gave the poor more advantages.
2) Poor people are vile? Are you saying that the idiots currently in the US government aren't vile?
3) The prisons would not be emptied, because the middle-class people would still commit crimes and go to jail, and some rich people wouldn't be able to buy their way out of prison.
4) Yes the population would decrease rapidly, and then the middle class would become the poor and would get screwed over, etc etc etc....

Are you naturally this stupid?

This reminds me of the qoute, "Don't act like your sh*t dosen't smell." The "poor" are not the only ones who commit crimes. some of the worst crimes in history are committed by those in power and with money. Look at Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Taylor, and Robert Durst. As you can see some of the worst crimes in history are committed by those with money. and the "poor" aren't just here to buy things, with out them, there would be no rich people and no nation.

Money is the root of all evil.

Money is the root of all evil.

No, humanity is the root of all evil. Humans created money, for one thing. And are the only species that has shown any evidence of any kind of morality.

And are the only species that has shown any evidence of any kind of morality.

Biologists have noted instances of altruism in plenty of other species.

I think genitals are the root of all evil. Sexy, wet genitals.

Biologists have noted instances of altruism in plenty of other species.

And yet there is no sort of consistency in them. Supporting another creature for, potencially, some benefit that we do not percieve is different from having a developed system of morality as well as concepts of right and wrong.

This whole idea of trying to have contained anarchy within a civilized society is so proposterous....it's almost not worth laughing at.

Money is the root of all evil.

Love of money, not money.

This whole idea of trying to have contained anarchy within a civilized society is so proposterous....it's almost not worth laughing at.

Exactly. What would stop it from spreading to the rest of civilization?

Exactly. What would stop it from spreading to the rest of civilization?
Well, depending on the measures taken, it could be anything from nothing at all to a 10m high, 4m thick concrete wall patrolled around the clock by military personnel fully armed and with orders to fire on any human seen to be within a certain distance from the wall, and of course many more defensive measures that I do not have the patience to list. Containment need not be a problem as long as it is managed well.

Well, depending on the measures taken, it could be anything from nothing at all to a 10m high, 4m thick concrete wall patrolled around the clock by military personnel fully armed and with orders to fire on any human seen to be within a certain distance from the wall, and of course many more defensive measures that I do not have the patience to list. Containment need not be a problem as long as it is managed well.

Like the Berlin Wall? Which many people successfully escaped over?

A world without poor people! Poor people could be called hobos!
No!
I enjoy hobos! I pass by one every day on the way home from school!
He lives in my bus shelter. He always has a big bag of meat with him.
He calls me Jill. His name is Patrick. He is the best.

A world without Patrick, would be like...*thinks*..
A world without the colour green....

It would be weird and wrong...
Weird and Wrong.

And yet there is no sort of consistency in them.

Human beings do not behave morally all the time either. We just have altruism embedded into us naturally. So, as I've said, do lots of other animals.

What's the difference?

Supporting another creature for, potencially, some benefit that we do not percieve

No, supporting another creature for the sake of supporting another creature. That's what "altruism" means.

is different from having a developed system of morality as well as concepts of right and wrong.

We are also the only animals who would ever need a "developed system of morality," because we have formed complex societies.

Like the Berlin Wall? Which many people successfully escaped over?
Somewhat like that yes, but the real threat comes from a full scale assault. Society is not going to crumble just because one anarchist escapes, besides they will be moving into hostile terratory rather than friendly. The real risk to society is from massive numbers, not like the Berlin Wall, in which case if the wrong person got across they could do serious damage to one side. Also, I believe the Berlin Wall did not quite meet those specifications (although a minefield would be interesting).

Human beings do not behave morally all the time either. We just have altruism embedded into us naturally. So, as I've said, do lots of other animals.


What's the difference?
Are you sure that we do? Have you ever met someone who grew up with absolutely no external influences whatsoever, and if you have, have they displayed a natural altruism, without any prior interaction? Morality is supplied by society, which has developed them because it helps society operate without intolerable human misery that would cause unrest.



No, supporting another creature for the sake of supporting another creature. That's what "altruism" means.
The point I am making is that our biologists may not percieve the benefit, and call it altruism when it is in fact not. I reckon you knew that though, and are just dodging the point. Besides consideration for another with which you are concerned is not a display of morality.



We are also the only animals who would ever need a "developed system of morality," because we have formed complex societies.
Precisely, society requires complex morality to continue to run smoothly and that which harms others or otherwise damages society will be declared bad, or even evil. Humans are the only creatures with a real concept of evil and are as such the only beings who can inflict it.

I couldn't get away with it, for one. And I think think that the poor are necessary, if the concept is unpleasant. And there are better ways to eliminate the problems that I percieve in my twisted view.

Very well, you speak of proof, what is your proof that I am wrong and that you are right.

Of course poor people are nessicary. Without them what are middle class? The new poor. So the Upper classes kill each other off until no humanity is left. Congrats you just doomed the Human Race.

I'm pretty sure that is also Justifyable proof that i'm right and you're an inhuman idiot.

If the poor are committing crimes, if they are that poor, then it's because the government is not working for them and helping them, instead they are catering to the rich. The fact is the poorer classes should be killing off the rich if necessary. If they are being ruled with an iron fist by the pompous swine of the Earth, they should rise up and start a revolution. A peaceful one is preferrable, but less realistic.

I like it. We can even televise the hunts and major battles. Its a damn shame I know enough about economics to know that the poor are needed as consumers and sometimes workers.

but thats even better, if we filter a percentage of the profits from the shows and killings back to starting sweatshops and similar places, poor people can get jobs and buy things. keep economy running.

Are you sure that we do? Have you ever met someone who grew up with absolutely no external influences whatsoever, and if you have, have they displayed a natural altruism, without any prior interaction? Morality is supplied by society, which has developed them because it helps society operate without intolerable human misery that would cause unrest.

It's a not a question of Societies pressures and influences, it's a matter of human decency. It's not decent to condemn people for their race, social status, income ect. People just scapegoat the problem on society so they have someone to bitch at. If you're smart enough to function without Society then they'd have their own idea's. True, Society influences people but it dosn't have to.




Besides consideration for another with which you are concerned is not a display of morality.

In which case, would you prefer to define Morality?

Considering others that you arn't concerned with is yet another matter of human decency. I could find you and kill you, but taking you into consideration that is not a decent thing to do, nor would it appease you. So i wont do it.




Precisely, society requires complex morality to continue to run smoothly and that which harms others or otherwise damages society will be declared bad, or even evil. Humans are the only creatures with a real concept of evil and are as such the only beings who can inflict it.

So animals are incapable of regestering Right and Wrong? Why then do we put dogs down for killing people? If they arn't to blame who is? The owner? In that case incarcerate the owner for being faulty. And as stated above Society requires Morality but Society does not require you to be a part of it. Think for yourself and quit Palming off guilt.

My sarcasm detector is off.
Seriously, what the hell?

if you think I'm serious you need help.

but thats even better, if we filter a percentage of the profits from the shows and killings back to starting sweatshops and similar places, poor people can get jobs and buy things. keep economy running.

Right so now we have Poor people killing each other and the Middle and Buisness classes... watching? And as stated above what happens when we run out of Poor people. Poor people will certainly teach their children to get out of the system while they can. In which case what do you suggest? A caste system? Looking at past Civilizations People never fare well when they take advantage of the majority of the population. Usually ends in Revolutions. Besides what makes you think the rest of the Upper Classes are like-minded? I have a feeling that if this idea was conveyed to the rest of our Upper class You would be laughed out of existence, or imprisoned.

if you think I'm serious you need help.

In that case, ignore above post.

Of course poor people are nessicary. Without them what are middle class? The new poor. So the Upper classes kill each other off until no humanity is left. Congrats you just doomed the Human Race.

I'm pretty sure that is also Justifyable proof that i'm right and you're an inhuman idiot.
I think you are missing the point. There is a level above which when one is no longer generating the same problems as they were. As circumstances change so do, well, circumstances. If we have just walled undesirable areas off then it is only those inside who need die. This is not necessarily a 'constant revolution' in which the rule is renewed and new enemies selected. It happens and then stops. Besides, I am not saying we wipe them out, just let them engage in a little contained self-government for a time.


It's a not a question of Societies pressures and influences, it's a matter of human decency. It's not decent to condemn people for their race, social status, income ect. People just scapegoat the problem on society so they have someone to bitch at. If you're smart enough to function without Society then they'd have their own idea's. True, Society influences people but it dosn't have to.
Society and our upbringing in it are what gave us these values, and society has little choice if it is to continue without collapse. Not that it takes much effort. If you raise a person in an environment they will learn the lessons of that environment. How do you think humans have been supplied with natural morality? All we have is the capacity for development in one direction and/or another.


In which case, would you prefer to define Morality?

Considering others that you arn't concerned with is yet another matter of human decency. I could find you and kill you, but taking you into consideration that is not a decent thing to do, nor would it appease you. So i wont do it.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

I think the reason that you have not found and killed me is that the difficulty and cost that doing so would incur, and you may believe that human life has some inherent value, even mine. And again you have learned that it is the decent thing to, you are not just naturally compelled to do it. If you want to protect someone important to you, you are surely doing it for you rather than them. You value them, and so defend them.

So animals are incapable of regestering Right and Wrong? Why then do we put dogs down for killing people? If they arn't to blame who is? The owner? In that case incarcerate the owner for being faulty. And as stated above Society requires Morality but Society does not require you to be a part of it. Think for yourself and quit Palming off guilt.
No, animals cannot register right and wrong, they are amoral. We put them down because they may be a danger to others while they still live (and a natural desire for revenge). They commited the action, but it was not evil, they do not understand evil and were just responding to natural complusion. Personally I think the owner can be to blame in certain circumstances, yes. I am not palming off guilt, and I do think for myself (to the same degree anyone does). Who do you think taught me these views (I had little choice but to develop them alone). But I should not be persecuted for having a belief (I say this on the basis that you most likely like to consider yourself 'liberal', for what it is worth). Society does not need any one person within it, but I would like to think that there are those who are of less value to society than me (feel no need to respond to that statement as you have no more right than me to be judge).

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps the reason poor people are convicted of so many crimes is because they don't have the money to pay for a decent lawyer, and poor people are much easier to convict of a crime than rich people?

Hmm... I'm very poor and grew up in a semi-dangerous neighborhood in Brooklyn. I guess I'm a young black man living on wealthfare who regularly commits violent crime, and I guess that means I'm not worthy of being a real person like the OP.





Ugh. My streak of not feeding trolls is gone....Ah well.

I think you are missing the point. There is a level above which when one is no longer generating the same problems as they were. As circumstances change so do, well, circumstances. If we have just walled undesirable areas off then it is only those inside who need die. This is not necessarily a 'constant revolution' in which the rule is renewed and new enemies selected. It happens and then stops. Besides, I am not saying we wipe them out, just let them engage in a little contained self-government for a time.

I think you are missing the point. My point is that when all "poor" people are dead or walled off, What will happen to the Middle Class? They will no longer be Middle due to the lack of a Poorer class. What makes you think that the egomaniacal maniacs who designed the first Culling wont organize another? If said "revolution" happened it would have to be constant due to the idea of Superiority. The reason we got rid of the last batch is because they were inferior what makes the next step up any less inferior? What you are proposing is that Low class governs Low class, ect.? If so then we no longer have a structered government and all people are not equal, which in your eyes is not an issue, but is the true heart of the problem. All people are equal and just because some people do commit crimes does not make them any less than a person.



Society and our upbringing in it are what gave us these values, and society has little choice if it is to continue without collapse. Not that it takes much effort. If you raise a person in an environment they will learn the lessons of that environment. How do you think humans have been supplied with natural morality? All we have is the capacity for development in one direction and/or another.

Not nessicarily. If you have the capability to think for yourself, which would throw off societies chains, you do not have to buy into Heirarchies specific brand of bullshit. Of course there will be people who choose not to think for themselves and they will countinue Society without us. You individually do not have to take part in Society. Human's have the option to think for themselves and Human Nature would point them in that direction. Natural Morality is nonexistent. You yourself justify what's right and wrong and any two peoples view can and will be different. Doing certain things, ie Murder, triggers natural guilt because you know it's wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong Guilt would be non-existant. We all have the capacity to develop yes, but we do not need Society to do so.



Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

I think the reason that you have not found and killed me is that the difficulty and cost that doing so would incur, and you may believe that human life has some inherent value, even mine. And again you have learned that it is the decent thing to, you are not just naturally compelled to do it. If you want to protect someone important to you, you are surely doing it for you rather than them. You value them, and so defend them.

I agree with the first paragraph to an extent. But as stated above, Society is not nessicary nor does it Set in stone peoples idea's and morals. People have the ability to think for themselves, but unfortunatly not many people exersize the ability.

True, Human life has value and this is why i am having this arguement with you. I know that people with your idea's must exist otherwise what am i? Every action/ idea has an equal and counter re-action. Therefore just because people are poor does not mean that we have to right to condemn them. Right but due to my ideaology you wouldn't be compelled to hurt anyone dear to me. You would take said person into consideration and decide it's no Ethical to hurt them.


No, animals cannot register right and wrong, they are amoral. We put them down because they may be a danger to others while they still live (and a natural desire for revenge). They commited the action, but it was not evil, they do not understand evil and were just responding to natural complusion. Personally I think the owner can be to blame in certain circumstances, yes. I am not palming off guilt, and I do think for myself (to the same degree anyone does). Who do you think taught me these views (I had little choice but to develop them alone). But I should not be persecuted for having a belief (I say this on the basis that you most likely like to consider yourself 'liberal', for what it is worth). Society does not need any one person within it, but I would like to think that there are those who are of less value to society than me (feel no need to respond to that statement as you have no more right than me to be judge).

Due to our inability to provide any proof for said situation i wont argue it anymore. You are right in which that Owners can be to blame but so can the animal. I believe they must register right and wrong otherwise evolution is impossible.

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps the reason poor people are convicted of so many crimes is because they don't have the money to pay for a decent lawyer, and poor people are much easier to convict of a crime than rich people?


That brings us to the Heirarchy that is the justice system.

That brings us to the Heirarchy that is the justice system.

Hierachy? I'd use a word more like "sham"

Oh, just great!

Only 9 pages away from what will probably be the most wretched shitspam-fest since the great battle of I'm A CHEERLEADER, So I MUST Be A WHORE!
Yes, I read it and participated.

Hierachy? I'd use a word more like "sham"

A hierarchial sham? True. Unfortunatly there is not much that can be done without proper intervention which wont happen as long as like-minded idiots countinue to exist.

Oh, just great!

Only 9 pages away from what will probably be the most wretched shitspam-fest since the great battle of I'm A CHEERLEADER, So I MUST Be A WHORE!
Yes, I read it and participated.

Can we, by any chance, get a linky to the "I'm a cheerleader, so I must be a whore!" thread?

Oh, just great!

Only 9 pages away from what will probably be the most wretched shitspam-fest since the great battle of I'm A CHEERLEADER, So I MUST Be A WHORE!
Yes, I read it and participated.

Must've missed that one... and this isn't entierly pointless.

I think you are missing the point. My point is that when all "poor" people are dead or walled off, What will happen to the Middle Class? They will no longer be Middle due to the lack of a Poorer class. What makes you think that the egomaniacal maniacs who designed the first Culling wont organize another? If said "revolution" happened it would have to be constant due to the idea of Superiority. The reason we got rid of the last batch is because they were inferior what makes the next step up any less inferior? What you are proposing is that Low class governs Low class, ect.? If so then we no longer have a structered government and all people are not equal, which in your eyes is not an issue, but is the true heart of the problem. All people are equal and just because some people do commit crimes does not make them any less than a person.

Well, I'm middle class, and I control this hypothetical reality, so it stops. But assuming this is in a real world that operates independently, then you have more of a point. The problem (in my mind) is not that they are inferior inherently, the problem is how that class functions. There is an economic point above which one no longer requires support from the state, which means that desperation is no longer an motive for crime. The point of this was that outside law enforcement is removed and you see what happens, if they can reform their society on their own, then they may be better off, or allowed to rejoin the rest, if not,the problem takes care of itself. People are not equal in my eyes, no, I believe that being alive is only worth so much on its own. Some are worth less than others, due to their own actions (and not necessarily their economic status).

Not nessicarily. If you have the capability to think for yourself, which would throw off societies chains, you do not have to buy into Heirarchies specific brand of bullshit. Of course there will be people who choose not to think for themselves and they will countinue Society without us. You individually do not have to take part in Society. Human's have the option to think for themselves and Human Nature would point them in that direction. Natural Morality is nonexistent. You yourself justify what's right and wrong and any two peoples view can and will be different. Doing certain things, ie Murder, triggers natural guilt because you know it's wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong Guilt would be non-existant. We all have the capacity to develop yes, but we do not need Society to do so.
You cannot throw off societies chains, as it is what teaches you what and how to think. And obviously you need not by into hierarchical 'bullshit', you can buy into leftwing 'liberal bullshit' to. You would have a hell of a time disconnecting yourself from society, you carry its trappings with you. As for guilt, you only feel guilt if you are remorseful (which you need not be) and it is society that began teaching you to feel that guilt from the first time your mother or father told you you had done something wrong (if they did). That is my point, we all do have the capacity to develop and because society is present it is what develops us (we do not need this, but it is what happens).

I agree with the first paragraph to an extent. But as stated above, Society is not nessicary nor does it Set in stone peoples idea's and morals. People have the ability to think for themselves, but unfortunatly not many people exersize the ability.
Do you honestly believe that you have been any less subject to societal influence as me? You have simply adopted a different strain of belief within society.

True, Human life has value and this is why i am having this arguement with you. I know that people with your idea's must exist otherwise what am i? Every action/ idea has an equal and counter re-action. Therefore just because people are poor does not mean that we have to right to condemn them. Right but due to my ideaology you wouldn't be compelled to hurt anyone dear to me. You would take said person into consideration and decide it's no Ethical to hurt them.
The first paragraph was a definition from Wiki which I felt did the job, sorry should have credited it. I do not condemn them because they are poor, I condemn them for those things that seem to come with relative poverty. I have no reason to hurt those close to you obviously and did not mean to suggest that I might, I was just giving an example that you would understand. And although I am apparently a monster (in this respect regarding this topic you are probably right) I do possess some morality.

Due to our inability to provide any proof for said situation i wont argue it anymore. You are right in which that Owners can be to blame but so can the animal. I believe they must register right and wrong otherwise evolution is impossible.
I cannot see how morality is necessary for evolution, if anything it is a limiting factor.

Can we, by any chance, get a linky to the "I'm a cheerleader, so I must be a whore!" thread?

This is where it all started. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479999&page=86)

I am The Remote Islands!

If this thread is dead, then I suppose its time to acknowledge the rather horrible stance I adopt. Although I stand by most of what I have said regarding my personal system, this thread has forced me to polarise slightly(regarding my views of the economic/social status of people). Also, the OP itself was poorly thoughout out although I think somethnig similar would make an interesting social experiment. I know no one cares and that this is not an adequate justification (please, no posts quoting this and asking why I said it (if anything was going to bring them it was saying that)), but to hell with you all, I'm not quite this supremist when I'm in a better mood. I just do not want my views to be misrepresented (even by me) too badly, as I said, I stand by much of what I said independant of the situation suggested in the OP.

This is where it all started. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479999&page=86)

I am The Remote Islands!

In the immortal words of some guy, "What the fuck is this shit?"

I mean, seriously. It's just 20 pages of image spam.

I think in the better interest of everyone, that all those in favor of getting rid of the "poor" people are just moronic and should have their speaking priviliges taken away and that those who are smarter then them and can see past their idiodic views, should just move on cuz none of this is worth wasting are time on. This feels like were trying to debate a brick wall so i say we all move on to something else. Life is to short to debate crazy ideological boneheads and surely we can devote are time to other things, like spending time with our loved ones, especially in this brand new year.

1)Eliminate the social burden of welfare, which in turn would allow tax payer money to go into something more beneficial, like the military or national security.

Why is it that so many Americans feel that a large military is so beneficial. What about increasing funding for healthcare or education? Why can't you get your priorities straight?

Its almost a 110% proven fact that poor people are more likely to be found guilty of committing crimes, especially violent ones.

It's also a fact that in the state of Meryland, a black man speeding at 5 mph over the limit is almost 80% more likely to be pulled over then a white man going at 20 mph over the limit.

It's also a fact that a black man is 60% more likely to be convicted of any crime than a white man of the same crime.

It's also a fact that our beautiful nation does very little to help the poor, compared to, say France.

The conviction rate of poor people is just as much prejudice as an actual fact that poor people commit more crime. Besides that, how do you decide if someone is officialy poor? Does it depend on his/her salary, or how much he/she owns? Do his/her children become included in this genocide, or their spouce? What does this do to our legal system? If a goverment alows this to happen, then everyone who had a hand in the decision should be charged with negligent homicide, which is defined as "a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die"
The decision would be immoral, and would be equivilent of throwing the constitution and bill of rights on a flame.

Right so now we have Poor people killing each other and the Middle and Buisness classes... watching? And as stated above what happens when we run out of Poor people. Poor people will certainly teach their children to get out of the system while they can. In which case what do you suggest? A caste system? Looking at past Civilizations People never fare well when they take advantage of the majority of the population. Usually ends in Revolutions. Besides what makes you think the rest of the Upper Classes are like-minded? I have a feeling that if this idea was conveyed to the rest of our Upper class You would be laughed out of existence, or imprisoned.

Problems only arise when there is no climbing the ladder. In capitalist societies minority IS taking advantage of majority. Or do you think COs and buisness owners think of workers first and thats why they are outsorcing production to india, china and mexico?
While you are taking my joke way to seriously fact is as long as you give people hope you can do whatever you want with them.
"Sure I'm being hunted today. And thats awfull. But if I only get that promotion, then I can buy a better car and then I'll get a new promotion then I'll move out of this area and in 10-15 years I'll be hunting people muhahah"
And if oil really runs out before replacements are ready, and our societies can't waste as much cheap energy anymore, you'll see how bad things can get. My joke about poor being hunted for sport will sound like happy days.