NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

EDIT: Also, what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park, and would not necessarily go on in the rest of society.

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

I don't see a problem with it, but you've got to be very careful.

Every member should have a button on their person that could end the event at will. Also, you would have to have signed statements releasing everyone from liability, and releasing any claims to life insurance, etc etc. Each person would need to have their final affairs in order before going in, and this would have to be verified. There are probably some other stipulations I haven't thought of.

EDIT: There should also be a mandatory psychological evaluation to determine the person's sanity.

I'd support arresting everyone who attempts to enter...

Are there fabulous prizes, like chandeliers and trampolines, offered to those who survive?

I'd support arresting everyone who attempts to enter...

I'd support sending in everyone who has been arrested. :D

Sounds boring.

Sounds boring.

What if we replace all the mini-guns, rocket launchers, flak cannons, etc with pies and mud?


Actually, bad idea. Im pretty sure you already have such an arena in your backyard/basement, and if they were to do that, theyd just owe you a ton of royalties :p

I don't see a problem with it, but you've got to be very careful.

Every member should have a button on their person that could end the event at will. Also, you would have to have signed statements releasing everyone from liability, and releasing any claims to life insurance, etc etc. Each person would need to have their final affairs in order before going in, and this would have to be verified. There are probably some other stipulations I haven't thought of.

EDIT: There should also be a mandatory psychological evaluation to determine the person's sanity.

I'm guessing that would be up to the theme park owner, but I would agree that those things would have to be signed and checked.

I don't agree with the psychological evaluation thing, though.

Are there fabulous prizes, like chandeliers and trampolines, offered to those who survive?

Small appliances that whir.

Are there fabulous prizes, like chandeliers and trampolines, offered to those who survive?

It's a distinct possibility.

What if we replace all the mini-guns, rocket launchers, flak cannons, etc with pies and mud?

Murder Park, not Mudder Park!

What if we replace all the mini-guns, rocket launchers, flak cannons, etc with pies and mud?


Actually, bad idea. Im pretty sure you already have such an arena in your backyard/basement, and if they were to do that, theyd just owe you a ton of royalties :p

That's a bit more interesting. You can only kill someone once. You can pie him for hours. :)

Edit: I want one, but the insurance companies resist. :(

will there be ice cream? *fails to see the difference between this and a normal park*

Oh, second question, would it be taped/broadcast? I'm afraid to say it, but if something like this were done as a television show, I'd have no choice but to participate.
The potential for hamming it up for the camera while brutally murdering people would be too much to resist.

I'm guessing that would be up to the theme park owner, but I would agree that those things would have to be signed and checked.

I don't agree with the psychological evaluation thing, though.

Well, we can't allow someone incapable of making such a decision going through with it. I would, however, consent to letting them without a psychological evaluation if they had a clean medical history (psychologically) and they waited a certain period (to make sure they aren't temporarily depressed).

will there be ice cream? *fails to see the difference between this and a normal park*

I suppose there could be, say, a few safe zones where there is ice cream and such. Of course, you'd have to worry about camping.

Oh, second question, would it be taped/broadcast? I'm afraid to say it, but if something like this were done as a television show, I'd have no choice but to participate.
The potential for hamming it up for the camera while brutally murdering people would be too much to resist.

I don't see why it couldn't be. FCC might not like it if it's aired in the US though. ;)

Well, we can't allow someone incapable of making such a decision going through with it.

Mm... okay, yeah, I can agree with this.

Hmmm, is there a moral imperative to protect people from their own stupidity? There is kinda, isn't there? Damn. I reckon I'd be against this wonderful deathpark so.

Mm... okay, yeah, I can agree with this.

The purpose of the evaluation is to make sure that they are capable of making the decision - not to try to talk them out of it. It's not our business to talk them out of it.

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

EDIT: Also, what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park, and would not necessarily go on in the rest of society.

Hmm... I wouldn't support this as a theme park, but how about setting it up in a prison, and let all the guards have a day off?;) It would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison or going through the appeals of a death penalty trial, lol.

I support this idea wholeheartedly, and also reserve the right to sneak in in the middle of the night and lock people I don't like inside.

I also like the idea of making into a reality TV show.

Hmm... I wouldn't support this as a theme park, but how about setting it up in a prison, and let all the guards have a day off?;) It would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison or going through the appeals of a death penalty trial, lol.

This idea is actually more repulsive, as at least in the OP's scenario such a park would be voluntary.

This idea is actually more repulsive, as at least in the OP's scenario such a park would be voluntary.
Oh, it would be voluntary...... Send prisoners from anywhere who would want to join in to that specific prison ;) I'm sure quite a few would...

Oh, it would be voluntary...... Send prisoners from anywhere who would want to join in to that specific prison ;) I'm sure quite a few would...

Even then, Im not sure how much I like the idea of allowing sociopaths, who may or may not already be convicted felons, to indulge in their murder fantasies.

The potential for hamming it up for the camera while brutally murdering people would be too much to resist.

I'd encourage midgets to enter for my amusement :)

a few safe zones where there is ice cream and such.

so its like a normal park but pussy-fied

Are there fabulous prizes, like chandeliers and trampolines...
Sounds like a instrument of murder to me...

*eyes suspiciously*

Sounds like a instrument of murder to me...

*eyes suspiciously*
We could have an odd day, where you only get odd weapons.

Chandeliers, spoons, lawn chairs, etc.

What do you think?

We could have an odd day, where you only get odd weapons.

Chandeliers, spoons, lawn chairs, etc.

What do you think?

Every second Thursday?

Also, weapons in general should be distributed randomly. And one of them should be something absurdly overpowered, such as a nuclear missile. (Obviously, the park would have to be designed to withstand something like that.)

They had something similar as ways back it was called the Colosseum. Gladiators and all that. So you just use different weapons with different terrain. What happens when you do not have enough volunteers? I will tell you what happens, you find them elsewhere. I think it is called Bloodlust and it is usually a bad thing. Anyone convicted of a crime. Anyone we don't like and so on. Pies, and mud would be good though.

We who are about to pie salute you.

They had something similar as ways back it was called the Colosseum. Gladiators and all that. So you just use different weapons with different terrain. What happens when you do not have enough volunteers? I will tell you what happens, you find them elsewhere. I think it is called Bloodlust and it is usually a bad thing. Anyone convicted of a crime. Anyone we don't like and so on. Pies, and mud would be good though.

Interesting side note. Gladiators (the successful ones at least) eventually became so popular they were like rockstars. It eventually became normal for ordinary, free men to volunteer to become gladiators as a way to secure fame. And ass.


This is been another edition of KoL's random historical tid-bit threadjack. *nods*

They do today too have you seen http://www.ufc.com/ add some armor and a few short swords.

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.
Unreal Tournament relies on instantaneous resurrection.

Without respawn, at best you'd get a very careful version of Operation Flashpoint.

They do today to have you seen http://www.ufc.com/ add some armor and a few short swords.

Wrestling is actually far older then gladiatorial games;)

Are there fabulous prizes, like chandeliers and trampolines, offered to those who survive?

The important question is: Can we televise it? Just think, a version of survivor without the stupid gimmicks where you actually have to survive!

Even then, Im not sure how much I like the idea of allowing sociopaths, who may or may not already be convicted felons, to indulge in their murder fantasies.This.
The idea of Murder Park is repulsive.

The important question is: Can we televise it? Just think, a version of survivor without the stupid gimmicks where you actually have to survive!

Of course call it an action sport and you can sell tickets too. $100 a seat. T-shirts, hats, posters you name it need some loud rock and roll. If you can find a way to add riducluosly over power cars then you have the trifecta. You better spend time in the army if you want to join. Marines do it for a living.

They had something similar as ways back it was called the Colosseum. Gladiators and all that. So you just use different weapons with different terrain. What happens when you do not have enough volunteers? I will tell you what happens, you find them elsewhere. I think it is called Bloodlust and it is usually a bad thing. Anyone convicted of a crime. Anyone we don't like and so on. Pies, and mud would be good though.

Nah, see this is better. When the Romans had Gladiators, the intent was usually NOT a fight to the death. It cost a lot of money to buy, train and maintain Gladiators. How's that any good if they get killed and maimed every time they went out? No, death by combat in the arena was not the point.

This would be better precisely because death is the goal. Fraking put the WWE right out of business that would. Ladder match? Feh. Cage match? Feh. How about "Submachinegun match" or "Rusty shovel match?"

You could add pools of acid, ferocious animals, poison traps...

Epic.

Nah, see this is better. When the Romans had Gladiators, the intent was usually NOT a fight to the death. It cost a lot of money to buy, train and maintain Gladiators. How's that any good if they get killed and maimed every time they went out? No, death by combat in the arena was not the point.

This would be better precisely because death is the goal. Fraking put the WWE right out of business that would. Ladder match? Feh. Cage match? Feh. How about "Submachinegun match" or "Rusty shovel match?"

You could add pools of acid, ferocious animals, poison traps...

Epic.

Think of the union dues. Not just anyone can handle acid you have to belong the local acid pool union. We also need animal trainers and handlers. Then you have cleanup people. You also need dead body handlers. Gunsmiths by the boat load. You could setup deals with weapons manufacturers. I think it is a win-win idea.

Think of the union dues. Not just anyone can handle acid you have to belong the local acid pool union. We also need animal trainers and handlers. Then you have cleanup people. You also need dead body handlers. Gunsmiths by the boat load. You could setup deals with weapons manufacturers. I think it is a win-win idea.

Totally, because as silly as the movie "Running Man" was, I think they were spot on when they said a show like that had the highest TV ratings of all time.

Richard Dawson was awesome in that role. Great salesman!

Of course call it an action sport and you can sell tickets too. $100 a seat. T-shirts, hats, posters you name it need some loud rock and roll. If you can find a way to add riducluosly over power cars then you have the trifecta. You better spend time in the army if you want to join. Marines do it for a living.

Hmm, you could go and place bets, too. I see this as a great business oppertunity.

Hmmm, is there a moral imperative to protect people from their own stupidity?

No.

Exactly! What's the big problem with this idea? Why hasn't anyone implemented it yet?

(also, dibs on the rights to work it into an apocalyptic novel and/or screenplay in a few years)

Exactly! What's the big problem with this idea? Why hasn't anyone implemented it yet?

(also, dibs on the rights to work it into an apocalyptic novel and/or screenplay in a few years)

The government frowns on this concept. However, if you find an island not owned by any government, I will claim the island, find sponsors, and make it become a reality.

Exactly! What's the big problem with this idea? Why hasn't anyone implemented it yet?

Ultimately, it stems from the idea that some people think they know how to manage someone else's life better than that person does. <.<

I personally, see nothing wrong with the extinguishing of life, as long as everyone involved agrees. It's their life, after all, to do as they wish with it.

I'd love this. I would participate.

I personally, see nothing wrong with the extinguishing of life, as long as everyone involved agrees. It's their life, after all, to do as they wish with it.There's a major difference between not being against the extinguishing of life and viewing the extinguishing of life as entertainment.

This.
The idea of Murder Park is repulsive.

Why?

There's a major difference between not being against the extinguishing of life and viewing the extinguishing of life as entertainment.

Might as well have fun in life (and death).

There's a major difference between not being against the extinguishing of life and viewing the extinguishing of life as entertainment.

I still fail to see why it should matter. You can make it Pay Per View if you don't want the general public to see it. Besides, it's all voluntary.

I still fail to see why it should matter. You can make it Pay Per View if you don't want the general public to see it. Besides, it's all voluntary.Because society should not be in the business of not only promoting sociopathy, but creating additional sociopaths.

Because society should not be in the business of not only promoting sociopathy, but creating additional sociopaths.

Why is sociopathy so abhorrent to you? Sociopaths are not neccessarily killers, nor do they always commit crimes. In fact, within the specific setup proposed in the OP, anyone involved (including sociopaths) would be within the law.

They would not be doing anything "wrong".

Ultimately, it stems from the idea that some people think they know how to manage someone else's life better than that person does. <.<

I personally, see nothing wrong with the extinguishing of life, as long as everyone involved agrees. It's their life, after all, to do as they wish with it.
Well, that's stupid.

If other methods of killing oneself are legalized -- such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, driving without seatbelts, etc. -- I see no reason why this shouldn't be legalized too. Especially if it can turn a profit by making it quality entertainment. <.<

Because society should not be in the business of not only promoting sociopathy, but creating additional sociopaths.
Plenty of entertainment created for mass consumption involves violence, murder, and destruction. The only difference between this and that would be that this is real whereas that is simulated. If one promotes sociopathy, both do.

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

EDIT: Also, what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park, and would not necessarily go on in the rest of society.

Yes, I would support it. On the sole condition what whomever enters the Murder Park, stays in the Murder Park.

Goodbye violent psychotics.

I'm sure we already call it Thunder Dome.

Yes, I would support it. On the sole condition what whomever enters the Murder Park, stays in the Murder Park.

Goodbye violent psychotics.

Awesome idea only one way in and one way out as the last one standing. What happens if they band together with those weapons and try to break out? We will have to pad it with explosives just to make sure. I bet Saddam would have come out alive.

The government frowns on this concept. However, if you find an island not owned by any government, I will claim the island, find sponsors, and make it become a reality.

I doubt there is such a place.

I still fail to see why it should matter. You can make it Pay Per View if you don't want the general public to see it. Besides, it's all voluntary.

I guess people feel that we've evolved a lot farther from the Romans...

I guess people feel that we've evolved a lot farther from the Romans...

We've evolved very little, actually. Height has increased somewhat, skeletal structure is different, and lifespan is longer, but most of that is due to technology rather than biology.

Culturally, we also haven't evolved all too much; most of our philosophical concepts are highly similar to those maintained by the Greeks and Romans, et cetera, et cetera.

We've evolved very little, actually. Height has increased somewhat, skeletal structure is different, and lifespan is longer, but most of that is due to technology rather than biology.

Culturally, we also haven't evolved all too much; most of our philosophical concepts are highly similar to those maintained by the Greeks and Romans, et cetera, et cetera.

Which is exactly what I was alluding to. :tongue:

Because society should not be in the business of not only promoting sociopathy, but creating additional sociopaths.

allowing =/= promoting

I guess people feel that we've evolved a lot farther from the Romans...

Humans are humans, and compassion is more often used for deception than altruism. I do not support the suppression of the human psyche - any aspect of it. Let them channel it in a controllable way, such as this, than in an uncontrollable way.

It's also natural selection in action. ;)

Besides, it's all voluntary.

It's not, though. You already said that once you're in, you're in for a day, even if you want to leave after 20 minutes. Beyond that, what exactly does consenting to go into the Murder Park entail? Even if we say it's agreeing to be killed, does that mean it's also agreeing to be dismembered? raped? tortured? eaten? If not, how the hell do we prosecute the guy who raped someone in the Murder Park? (And if so, why don't we stop calling it "Murder Park" and start calling it "Anarchist Psychopath Wet Dream Park," since that's what it would be at that point.) If you do allow people to opt out, how exactly do you stop them from running in, shooting someone in the back, and yelling "Okay, I want out now!" before anyone can get near them, which would seem to defeat the point of this place?

But the simplest question of all is this: What exactly happens when someone in the Murder Park says to someone else in the Murder Park, "Don't kill me, please"? Because from your description, it sure as hell sounds like it would be entirely appropriate for the second person to go ahead and kill the first, and that is not "voluntary" by any sane definition of the term.

Why is sociopathy so abhorrent to you? Sociopaths are not neccessarily killers, nor do they always commit crimes. In fact, within the specific setup proposed in the OP, anyone involved (including sociopaths) would be within the law.

They would not be doing anything "wrong".You make the mistake of equating "legal" with "not wrong". I am well aware that this would be legal, under the setup proposed by the OP.

Plenty of entertainment created for mass consumption involves violence, murder, and destruction. The only difference between this and that would be that this is real whereas that is simulated. If one promotes sociopathy, both do.It could be argued that this is the case, but I would say that there is a massive difference between real and simulated violence, and it is real violence and not simulated violence that promotes sociopathy.

allowing =/= promotingYou don't seriously think that the people watching this are going to be unaffected by it, do you?

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

EDIT: Also, what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park, and would not necessarily go on in the rest of society.

Why the fuck would any sane person want to participate in something like that?

It's not, though. You already said that once you're in, you're in for a day, even if you want to leave after 20 minutes. Beyond that, what exactly does consenting to go into the Murder Park entail? Even if we say it's agreeing to be killed, does that mean it's also agreeing to be dismembered? raped? tortured? eaten? If not, how the hell do we prosecute the guy who raped someone in the Murder Park? (And if so, why don't we stop calling it "Murder Park" and start calling it "Anarchist Psychopath Wet Dream Park," since that's what it would be at that point.) If you do allow people to opt out, how exactly do you stop them from running in, shooting someone in the back, and yelling "Okay, I want out now!" before anyone can get near them, which would seem to defeat the point of this place?

But the simplest question of all is this: What exactly happens when someone in the Murder Park says to someone else in the Murder Park, "Don't kill me, please"? Because from your description, it sure as hell sounds like it would be entirely appropriate for the second person to go ahead and kill the first, and that is not "voluntary" by any sane definition of the term.

All of that information would be put up front in the contract. Like you said, there is no viable way, if you can get out at any time, to stop the program. Unless, of course, you have smaller incriments of time - say, 3 hours, or so. When you sign the contract waving liability, you are stating that you fully recognize that you cannot get out of there. An exception would be if you could make it to one of the exits without being killed.

All of the information would have to be prepared for the participant up-front. If the participant is not emotionally prepared for it, ultimately, that's his fault, not the park's.

You don't seriously think that the people watching this are going to be unaffected by it, do you?

I don't care one way or the other. If they can't watch it, don't. No one is forcing them to pay attention.

Why the fuck would any sane person want to participate in something like that?

Their reasons would be their own. I dunno, why does anyone do anything?

To answer the OP: Only if the respawn points can't be camped. -_-

To answer the OP: Only if the respawn points can't be camped. -_-

http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Trojan%20Spawn%20Camping.jpg

All of that information would be put up front in the contract. Like you said, there is no viable way, if you can get out at any time, to stop the program. Unless, of course, you have smaller incriments of time - say, 3 hours, or so. When you sign the contract waving liability, you are stating that you fully recognize that you cannot get out of there. An exception would be if you could make it to one of the exits without being killed.

All of the information would have to be prepared for the participant up-front. If the participant is not emotionally prepared for it, ultimately, that's his fault, not the park's.

At this point, your argument appears to be "if you're too stupid/lazy/etc. to read the fine print, it's your own fault if you get raped and slowly skinned alive while you're screaming, 'OH GOD PLEASE NO,' because that's nicer than having any outside authority say people can't do that sort of thing to each other and get away with it."

I just...I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like someone arguing "having your face beaten in with a brick is nicer than being given a chocolate bar!" What does one say to that beyond, "Um...no...it's really not...."?

At this point, your argument appears to be "if you're too stupid/lazy/etc. to read the fine print, it's your own fault if you get raped and slowly skinned alive while you're screaming, 'OH GOD PLEASE NO,' because that's nicer than having any outside authority say people can't do that sort of thing to each other and get away with it."

Fine Print? It's called "MURDER PARK" for fuck's sake. When you enter, you are no longer under any protection whatsoever. But yes, honestly, if you don't know what you're getting into and you sign the contract, you're a moron, and as I've stated, I don't believe there is any moral imperative to protect people from their own stupidity.

And rape is silly in this park, since it drops your guard, leaving you open for attack. So is the whole "slowly skinning" thing - it's slow.

I don't care one way or the other. If they can't watch it, don't. No one is forcing them to pay attention.I'm not saying that "being affected by" means to be offended by it. I'm saying that there's a probability that being exposed to violence, real, legitimate violence, will lead people to want to perpetrate real, legitimate violence.

I'm not saying that "being affected by" means to be offended by it. I'm saying that there's a probability that being exposed to violence, real, legitimate violence, will lead people to want to perpetrate real, legitimate violence.

They say that about video games and violent movies, too, and it's not particularly convincing. And 'sides, if it's PPV, then they're watching it because they want to. In other words, your "dark monster" is already there.

I just...I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like someone arguing "having your face beaten in with a brick is nicer than being given a chocolate bar!" What does one say to that beyond, "Um...no...it's really not...."?

Not if the chocolate bar is filled with arsenic and polonium. :)

They say that about video games and violent movies, too, and it's not particularly convincing. And 'sides, if it's PPV, then they're watching it because they want to.

Real violance is different from video game violence.

In other words, your "dark monster" is already there.

So we should feed it. This makes sense.

Why the fuck would any sane person want to participate in something like that? This.

I think very, very few people would want to participate in that, because very few people want to die, especially in such a useless, silly way. I suspect even your average psychopath wouldn't do this.

So, even if you would start this thing, you would run out of participants after a few matches tops.

So, even if you would start this thing, you would run out of participants after a few matches tops.

You're most likely right, of course, but I'm more talking about it's mere existence, not viability.

So we should feed it. This makes sense.

Allowing it to exist does not equate to the promotion of it. I cook a meal. You see the meal. Are you forced to eat it? No. But the oppertunity is there.

If there really needs to be an edgy, pursuit based combat game, why not give people these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303) and OC rounds. There'd be a severe penalty for being hit (impact pain and the pain from the OC), while allowing everyone to walk out of the arena at the end of the day. Of course, only EXTREME adrenaline junkies would be willing to risk OC exposure and severe blunt force trauma.

They say that about video games and violent movies, too, and it's not particularly convincing.Sure, just saying it isn't convincing. Looking at the histories of serial killers, it's a fairly common theme for actual violence to pop up.

And 'sides, if it's PPV, then they're watching it because they want to. In other words, your "dark monster" is already there.Certainly, wanting to see it suggests the need for a psychological intervention, but there is a difference between wanting to see it and wanting to act it out. However, once someone has seen it, wanting to act it out is the next step. It would therefore be a good idea to stop this process before it gets to the point before people want to act it out.

Allowing it to exist does not equate to the promotion of it. I cook a meal. You see the meal. Are you forced to eat it? No. But the oppertunity is there.And if seeing the meal makes me want a different meal?

If there really needs to be an edgy, pursuit based combat game, why not give people these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303) and OC rounds. There'd be a severe penalty for being hit (impact pain and the pain from the OC), while allowing everyone to walk out of the arena at the end of the day. Of course, only EXTREME adrenaline junkies would be willing to risk OC exposure and severe blunt force trauma.

-shakes head- No, no, that's not the point. The point is your life is actually on the line. If we use those, then that defeats the whole point of asking this question. :P

Sure, just saying it isn't convincing. Looking at the histories of serial killers, it's a fairly common theme for actual violence to pop up in their histories.

Perhaps, but as children, there isn't much choice in the matter. There IS a clear choice here, thus the difference.

Certainly, wanting to see it suggests the need for a psychological intervention, but there is a difference between wanting to see it and wanting to act it out. However, once someone has seen it, wanting to act it out is the next step. It would therefore be a good idea to stop this process before it gets to the point before people want to act it out.

So thoughtcrime? Fantastic idea.

And if they want to act it out, they can go to Murder Park.

And if seeing the meal makes me want a different meal?

I was equating the meal to violence itself. My analogy was vague, sorry. XD

But really, if you suddenly find yourself bloodlusting...

go to Murder Park.

Fine Print? It's called "MURDER PARK" for fuck's sake. When you enter, you are no longer under any protection whatsoever. But yes, honestly, if you don't know what you're getting into and you sign the contract, you're a moron, and as I've stated, I don't believe there is any moral imperative to protect people from their own stupidity.

And rape is silly in this park, since it drops your guard, leaving you open for attack. So is the whole "slowly skinning" thing - it's slow.

Tangent for a moment: I am a little puzzled at the notion that rape and torture are, as you put it, "silly," given that people are going into this park to murder people for fun. Are you really arguing that all of the dangerous sociopaths in this park are going to approach things in precisely the same "rational" way?

Back to the main point...I'm really very happy with the laws that do not permit one to sign away one's basic human rights, given how easy such a thing would be to abuse. How do you honestly propose one could be certain, really truly sure, that no one going into this park had been in any way pressured or coerced into doing so? How do you guarantee that no one will be told, "I'll pay for your son's desperately needed chemotherapy if you go in the Anarchist Psychopath Wet Dream Park and try to kill a guy with a monkey wrench on TV"?

And, for that matter, how do you propose the families of those who die - or, for that matter, of those who kill - in the park should feel about it? Would you truly be okay with someone raping, murdering, and cannibalizing your loved one because, hey, she signed a contract? Would you really not mind knowing that the guy next door stabbed six people and screwed their corpses on national TV, and there's nothing the law can do about it when he invites your child over for ice cream?

Tangent for a moment: I am a little puzzled at the notion that rape and torture are, as you put it, "silly," given that people are going into this park to murder people for fun. Are you really arguing that all of the dangerous sociopaths in this park are going to approach things in precisely the same "rational" way?

Some will, some won't.

Back to the main point...I'm really very happy with the laws that do not permit one to sign away one's basic human rights, given how easy such a thing would be to abuse. How do you honestly propose one could be certain, really truly sure, that no one going into this park had been in any way pressured or coerced into doing so? How do you guarantee that no one will be told, "I'll pay for your son's desperately needed chemotherapy if you go in the Anarchist Psychopath Wet Dream Park and try to kill a guy with a monkey wrench on TV"?

Erm, so? It's still their choice. They can say no. The person is not being forced to sign. All that's being presented is another incentive to participate.

And, for that matter, how do you propose the families of those who die - or, for that matter, of those who kill - in the park should feel about it? Would you truly be okay with someone raping, murdering, and cannibalizing your loved one because, hey, she signed a contract?

Frankly, I'd be more concerned that my loved one would be willing to sign up for such a thing when they have a wife and kids. But ultimately, so what? It's his right.

Would you really not mind knowing that the guy next door stabbed six people and screwed their corpses on national TV, and there's nothing the law can do about it when he invites your child over for ice cream?

I probably wouldn't let my child go over for ice cream, but as long as he doesn't do anything in society-at-large, so what? It's that guy's risk, and not anyone elses' fault if no one wants to let him buy a house in their community.

I'm not a sociopath, so no.

I'm not a sociopath, so no.

XD That's fine. However, I'd rather let the sociopaths have an out for their urges in this Park, rather than force them to be suppressed and potentially let out on the community as a whole.

Better yet a Safari park, using condemned criminal as the quarry. Charge people to hunt humans. Give family members of any victim of capital crimes a free pass.

Erm, so? It's still their choice. They can say no. The person is not being forced to sign. All that's being presented is another incentive to participate.


Whoa, there. By that logic, if someone puts a gun to my head and says, "Fuck me or I shoot you," and I fuck them, I "voluntarily" consented, because, after all, I could have chosen to get shot instead.

I'd rather let the sociopaths have an out for their urges in this Park, rather than force them to be suppressed and potentially let out on the community as a whole.
To keep sociopaths under control, all you have to do is identify them and then keep an eye on them.
If this Murder Park would help identifying sociopaths by inciting them to reveal themselves, then that would be a good thing.

Perhaps, but as children, there isn't much choice in the matter. There IS a clear choice here, thus the difference.The choice to be exposed or not to violence is not what triggers greater violence, or at least doesn't seem to be.

And if they want to act it out, they can go to Murder Park.Most sociopaths would not risk death in order to act out their fantasies.

I was equating the meal to violence itself. My analogy was vague, sorry. XDAs was I. Seeing violence in Murder Park broadcast on TV will make (some) people want different violence.

But really, if you suddenly find yourself bloodlusting...

go to Murder Park.That's not quite how it works. Not all bloodlust is equal. There's a reason serial killers escalate.

Whoa, there. By that logic, if someone puts a gun to my head and says, "Fuck me or I shoot you," and I fuck them, I "voluntarily" consented, because, after all, I could have chosen to get shot instead.

Incorrect. If you choose not to have sex, you die. The person is actively doing something that will harm you.

In your previous example, if you say no, your situation is not changing, thus the person did not actively harm you.

Totally different situations.

typical anarchist bullshit fantasy, long on "free will!", short on common sense.

XD That's fine. However, I'd rather let the sociopaths have an out for their urges in this Park, rather than force them to be suppressed and potentially let out on the community as a whole.

it...um...it doesn't work that way.

The choice to be exposed or not to violence is not what triggers greater violence, or at least doesn't seem to be.

...So? The person who chooses to watch the show will have to face his own consequences.

Most sociopaths would not risk death in order to act out their fantasies.

Maybe, maybe not. At the moment, sociopaths have no viable way to "vent" their urges, so to speak. There is no legal alternative. However, with Murder Park, there would be.

As was I. Seeing violence in Murder Park broadcast on TV will make (some) people want different violence.

If they do anything, they go through the normal judicial procedures and compensate the victim and/or are punished for it.

That's not quite how it works. Not all bloodlust is equal. There's a reason serial killers escalate.

Perhaps. But if something happens, they bear the legal consequences of their actions. And 'sides, at least we'll have a record of participants.

Maybe, maybe not. At the moment, sociopaths have no viable way to "vent" their urges, so to speak.

I can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes)

think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

of one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

...So? The person who chooses to watch the show will have to face his own consequences.And is it in the best interest of society for there to be a greater proportion of murderers?

Maybe, maybe not. At the moment, sociopaths have no viable way to "vent" their urges, so to speak. There is no legal alternative. However, with Murder Park, there would be.And with Murder Park, we can expect more of them to occur.

If they do anything, they go through the normal judicial procedures and compensate the victim and/or are punished for it.And watch the judiciary become clogged up (more than it is now) with cases.

Perhaps. But if something happens, they bear the legal consequences of their actions. And 'sides, at least we'll have a record of participants.In general, it's better to prevent crime than to deal with it after the fact.

I can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes)

think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

of one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

Well, I suppose if they don't want to go into Murder Park, they could always join the army.

Well, I suppose if they don't want to go into Murder Park, they could always join the army.
Word.

And is it in the best interest of society for there to be a greater proportion of murderers?

Depends on how big the flux is, and how many are actually occuring within society itself, and not in Murder Park.

And with Murder Park, we can expect more of them to occur.

And I'm willing to bet most of it would actually happen in Murder Park.

And watch the judiciary become clogged up (more than it is now) with cases.

Assuming that a great majority would actually take place in society and not Murder Park, sure, but I think that there wouldn't be a significant rise.

And if it's clogged, they could always just repeal some of the dumber laws. :P

Add Murder Park, legalize drugs. I think it's a great idea. :D

In general, it's better to prevent crime than to deal with it after the fact.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/01/minority_report_interface.png

You're also talking about psychological conditioning. How much prevention are you going to allow?

It's an interesting perspective that argues that violent, brutal slaying of other human being is ok, as long as it happens in a certain place.

It's an interesting perspective that argues that violent, brutal slaying of other human being is ok, as long as it happens in a certain place.

This is NSG (tm).

It's an interesting perspective that argues that violent, brutal slaying of other human being is ok, as long as it happens in a certain place.

Well, the "voluntary" bit is the more important part, really. It's in a certain place mostly so those that don't want to see it or be near it don't have to deal with it.

And for safety reasons. Stray bullets are a bitch.

And really, in case no one figured it out yet, the fundamental question I'm asking is "Is death okay as long as everyone involved agrees?" The example is on the bold side, yes, but the example itself is just a hypothetical situation illustrating a possibile manifestation of this voluntary killing. That, and I find the idea intriguing.

I would never in a million years participate, and I'm unsure of the morality, but it would be fun to watch.

And really, in case no one figured it out yet, the fundamental question I'm asking is "Is death okay as long as everyone involved agrees?" The example is on the bold side, yes, but the example itself is just a hypothetical situation illustrating a possibile manifestation of this voluntary killing. That, and I find the idea intriguing.

See, I view this as just another form of assisted suicide. It has more bang, so to speak, but it's still the same. As long as everyone consents of their own free will, and is free of any mental impairment that is severe enough to call their decision-making into doubt, I have no problem with it.

Sounds like a instrument of murder to me...

*eyes suspiciously*
That's part of what makes trampolines the perfect prize. The message sent by giving one is pretty clear:
"So you managed to survive 24 hours? That's just great. Now go home and maim yourself on your own time, please."

See, I view this as just another form of assisted suicide. It has more bang, so to speak, but it's still the same. As long as everyone consents of their own free will, and is free of any mental impairment that is severe enough to call their decision-making into doubt, I have no problem with it.

My thoughts as well. As others have brought up (specifically Jello B), there are plenty of kinks that would need to be worked out in the system first. For instance, PPVing it might not be a good idea. :P

My thoughts as well. As others have brought up (specifically Jello B), there are plenty of kinks that would need to be worked out in the system first. For instance, PPVing it might not be a good idea. :P

Yeah, there's many things to consider, like what about when a player withdraws consent in the middle of the arena?

Yeah, there's many things to consider, like what about when a player withdraws consent in the middle of the arena?

Right. That's the toughest to address. In fact, almost impossible to address. Ultimately, that's a risk one will have to bear when they sign the contract agreeing to participate.

The only thing I can see is letting people leave the arena at any time. Assuming they can make it.

Right. That's the toughest to address. In fact, almost impossible to address. Ultimately, that's a risk one will have to bear when they sign the contract agreeing to participate.

The only thing I can see is letting people leave the arena at any time. Assuming they can make it.

Which bears an inherent problem. If they don't, and someone kills them, then they've died without consenting. That's murder.

Which bears an inherent problem. If they don't, and someone kills them, then they've died without consenting. That's murder.

Not if they signed the contract clearly spelling out the fact that consent cannot be revoked once one enters the arena. It's like deciding not to consent to a procedure once the anesthesia has been injected.

Or we could give them a flag.

Not if they signed the contract clearly spelling out the fact that consent cannot be revoked once one enters the arena. It's like deciding not to consent to a procedure once the anesthesia has been injected.

Or we could give them a flag.

Something that guarantees safe passage is sufficient. Something really really painfully obvious, that could be activated upon command regardless of where you are in the arena.

Also, anyone violating that would need to be charged with Murder 2.

Something that guarantees safe passage is sufficient. Something really really painfully obvious, that could be activated upon command regardless of where you are in the arena.

Also, anyone violating that would need to be charged with Murder 2.

Quite.

Right. That's the toughest to address. In fact, almost impossible to address. Ultimately, that's a risk one will have to bear when they sign the contract agreeing to participate.

The only thing I can see is letting people leave the arena at any time. Assuming they can make it.
That's probably the only way you can have it. Having someone able to cease consenting in the middle of the field of battle would be a recipe for legal disaster.
Protesters would probably start sending in saboteurs, sort of like PETA does with hunters. People who'd wander into the park, withdraw their consent, and then mill about aimlessly trying to get hurt.

That's probably the only way you can have it. Having someone able to cease consenting in the middle of the field of battle would be a recipe for legal disaster.
Protesters would probably start sending in saboteurs, sort of like PETA does with hunters. People who'd wander into the park, withdraw their consent, and then mill about aimlessly trying to get hurt.

Hmm, another good point.

Put a time frame on your withdraw?

Hmm, another good point.

Put a time frame on your withdraw?

Even so, you couldn't withdraw their protection ethically. You'd have to shut down the park and forcibly extricate them.

Either that, or have an extrication unit that will go to them and escort them off the property, also under a flag of protection.

Actually, it would be best to send that extrication team to anyone who withdraws consent, to help ensure no one takes any extra pot shots.

Even so, you couldn't withdraw their protection ethically. You'd have to shut down the park and forcibly extricate them.

Either that, or have an extrication unit that will go to them and escort them off the property, also under a flag of protection.

Actually, it would be best to send that extrication team to anyone who withdraws consent, to help ensure no one takes any extra pot shots.

Hmm, tha'd work. A homing beacon or something.

Hmm, tha'd work. A homing beacon or something.

Even so, you'd have to have a light, or a timeout, or something to keep people from killing them while they wait for the extraction team.

Even so, you'd have to have a light, or a timeout, or something to keep people from killing them while they wait for the extraction team.

A general announcement and such to ceasefire works. They do it at gun ranges, they can do it on a range with guns.

I think you just invented Richmond.

I think you just invented Richmond.

More like Miami.

Even so, you'd have to have a light, or a timeout, or something to keep people from killing them while they wait for the extraction team.

Which of course they would, being sociopaths in the midst of death and gore...

More like Miami.

Have you ever been to Richmond?

(In case it was unclear, I meant Richmond, CA)

Here's something to think about - what are the chances that anyone who shot someone under a flag of truce could ever make it out of the arena?

Fine Print? It's called "MURDER PARK" for fuck's sake.

Ha ha, that made me chuckle.

Right. That's the toughest to address. In fact, almost impossible to address. Ultimately, that's a risk one will have to bear when they sign the contract agreeing to participate.

The only thing I can see is letting people leave the arena at any time. Assuming they can make it.

I suspect you could have entry levels, so it fans out as a park and the first level starts with, say, no weapons, second with knives, third with pistols and fourth with anything.

Since it fans out, the exits are closer at the earlier levels so you have a pretty good chance of running away and out the exit if you'd changed your mind.

Perhaps not 100% effective, you might still be strangled to death but pretty good odds.

To keep it going, perhaps the lower end of society can be paid to attend, $10 an hour say, maybe rising through the levels, it's still their choice, just a monetary incentive, maybe the better you are the better the monetary incentive.

Ha ha, that made me chuckle.



I suspect you could have entry levels, so it fans out as a park and the first level starts with, say, no weapons, second with knives, third with pistols and fourth with anything.

Since it fans out, the exits are closer at the earlier levels so you have a pretty good chance of running away and out the exit if you'd changed your mind.

Perhaps not 100% effective, you might still be strangled to death but pretty good odds.

To keep it going, perhaps the lower end of society can be paid to attend, $10 an hour say, maybe rising through the levels, it's still their choice, just a monetary incentive, maybe the better you are the better the monetary incentive.

Have Mortal Kombat tournaments. Winner gets a house. US has plenty of empty ones now. ;)

Have Mortal Kombat tournaments. Winner gets a house. US has plenty of empty ones now. ;)

Yes, a little variety would be good, a Two Men Enter cage, a section based on The Running Man, like any theme park you want different attractions.

Yes, a little variety would be good, a Two Men Enter cage, a section based on The Running Man, like any theme park you want different attractions.

I was more thinking something like The Most Dangerous Game, but with both sides being equal.

OR!

We make a section like MK, with stage traps and everything. Acid pools and body grinders for the win.

I was more thinking something like The Most Dangerous Game, but with both sides being equal.

OR!

We make a section like MK, with stage traps and everything. Acid pools and body grinders for the win.

I'm not sure I want stage traps, the element of luck is a bit poor, to keep it morally sound the choice should always be there and unluckily dropping into an acid pit seems a bit unfair.

I'm not sure I want stage traps, the element of luck is a bit poor, to keep it morally sound the choice should always be there and unluckily dropping into an acid pit seems a bit unfair.

The choice involves stepping into the bloody arena, and calling it off if you want to quit. I mean, you could have two stages - one with traps, one without.

The choice involves stepping into the bloody arena, and calling it off if you want to quit. I mean, you could have two stages - one with traps, one without.

Fair enough,

I suspect this park would need to be in Africa, where we can pay off dictators in terms of any strict regulations, have enough desperate people to want to earn the potential money and then online broadcasting through credit card payment.

Online broadcasting gives people much more control in choosing what to follow, better than cable.

EDIT: Was that pushing it too far, was it?

Have you ever been to Richmond?

(In case it was unclear, I meant Richmond, CA)

Oh, I was thinking Richmond, VA.

No, I haven't been to Richmond, CA.

Fair enough,

I suspect this park would need to be in Africa, where we can pay off dictators in terms of any strict regulations, have enough desperate people to want to earn the potential money and then online broadcasting through credit card payment.

Online broadcasting gives people much more control in choosing what to follow, better than cable.

EDIT: Was that pushing it too far, was it?

Somalia is probably a good place for it, in the middle of the "country."

And I agree, online streaming would be better. Just set up a PayPal account, or something.

Which of course they would, being sociopaths in the midst of death and gore...

If anyone shoots someone under a flag of peace, we could just announce over the PA a $100,000 reward for the death of the responsible party. They'll never make it out alive.

So close to 70% of these forums is cool with the idea of people being allowed to murder for fun?:mad: Another reason to feel disgusted at the state of humanity.

Leaving aside that their are so many possibilities for abuse regardless of restrictions and precautions implemented, people don't have a right to kill each other for fun. Lots of people have death wishes. Lots of people have murderous impulses. I fail to see why we should indulge them. We can't simply give free reign to people's worst impulses. And this could lead to more non-recreational violence as well. Say someone's family member is killed in this "park," and they want pay back. Or someone invites a family member along and they get killed, leaving the survivor to inherit a large amount of money. Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?

Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?

I think that option would be included in the theme park.

Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?

That's a great idea. In fact, I think all disputes should be settled by trial by combat, rather than trial by jury. Lawyers will have to take up a more profitable career as dashing swordsmen, willing to defend their client's honour against the other guy's lawyer to the death, for only $500 an hour! You're a genius, TRR.

That's a great idea. In fact, I think all disputes should be settled by trial by combat, rather than trial by jury. Lawyers will have to take up a more profitable career as dashing swordsmen, willing to defend their client's honour against the other guy's lawyer to the death, for only $500 an hour! You're a genius, TRR.

Taking this seriously for a moment, it would destroy any notion of a fair trial. Truth and "Justice" would no longer be determined by evidence and law, but simply by physical might.

Besides, how many lawyers would take a case when their was a 50% chance of dying every time they did so?

So close to 70% of these forums is cool with the idea of people being allowed to murder for fun?:mad: Another reason to feel disgusted at the state of humanity.
Less than half of the these forums are cool with it. The majority have picked one of the two "No" options.
That's probably why things like this don't exist outside of dystopian movies and video games. You'd also find it very difficult to get competitors.
People Willing To Face Almost Certain Death In Exchange for the Chance to Commit a Few Murders on the Way Out is already a pretty niche market, and one bound to experience a great deal of attrition once a Murder Park was publicly opened.
Leaving aside that their are so many possibilities for abuse regardless of restrictions and precautions implemented,
I actually think that any restrictions or precautions are less ethical than a simple 24-hour free for all. Providing people with the illusion that they can get out alive if they have second thoughts, or that they have any other safety, increases the likelihood of them attending. It seems less honest.
On the other hand, saying, "Here's your pointy stick, there's roughly a 9% chance that I'll see you noon tomorrow," is an plain disclosure.
Lots of people have death wishes. Lots of people have murderous impulses. I fail to see why we should indulge them. We can't simply give free reign to people's worst impulses. And this could lead to more non-recreational violence as well. Say someone's family member is killed in this "park," and they want pay back. Or someone invites a family member along and they get killed, leaving the survivor to inherit a large amount of money. Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?
Look at it this way, by opening up the competition, the number of people who are willing to participate in such a competition are bound to take a steep drop. What's left will soon be the people who are horrified by the thought of going somewhere to kill and die for fun.
You can view it as social Darwinism, if you want.

Taking this seriously for a moment, it would destroy any notion of a fair trial. Truth and "Justice" would no longer be determined by evidence and law, but simply by physical might.

Besides, how many lawyers would take a case when their was a 50% chance of dying every time they did so?

Hence the $500 an hour fee.

And they (that is, the plaintiff) could choose the weapon, so they could pick something they were good at. For instance, if they suck at fencing with sabres, they could use pistols; if they're too worried about the deadliness of pistols, they could use F-22 Raptors; et cetera.

If for some reason this was ever legalized in a first world nation, it would basically throw the justice system out the window as the parks become a convenient catch all tool to settle scores and otherwise indulge in homocidal urges without legal repercussions. Money is never an object to anyone desperate enough to try and carry it out.

So close to 70% of these forums is cool with the idea of people being allowed to murder for fun?:mad: Another reason to feel disgusted at the state of humanity.

Leaving aside that their are so many possibilities for abuse regardless of restrictions and precautions implemented, people don't have a right to kill each other for fun. Lots of people have death wishes. Lots of people have murderous impulses. I fail to see why we should indulge them. We can't simply give free reign to people's worst impulses. And this could lead to more non-recreational violence as well. Say someone's family member is killed in this "park," and they want pay back. Or someone invites a family member along and they get killed, leaving the survivor to inherit a large amount of money. Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?

Trust me, I'm not ok with it. I haven't voted in the poll until now, though.

So close to 70% of these forums is cool with the idea of people being allowed to murder for fun?:mad: Another reason to feel disgusted at the state of humanity.

Leaving aside that their are so many possibilities for abuse regardless of restrictions and precautions implemented, people don't have a right to kill each other for fun. Lots of people have death wishes. Lots of people have murderous impulses. I fail to see why we should indulge them. We can't simply give free reign to people's worst impulses. And this could lead to more non-recreational violence as well. Say someone's family member is killed in this "park," and they want pay back. Or someone invites a family member along and they get killed, leaving the survivor to inherit a large amount of money. Fuck, why not just legalize dueling and gladiator matches while we're at it?

As the situation states, it's all voluntary, so yes, they do have that right, as they're not harming anyone who did not consent.

Also, I fully support the legalization of dueling, assuming the parties involved consent.

Same with the gladitorial games.

I'm guessing, TRR, you support the criminalization of suicide and the ban of euthanasia?

Look at it this way, by opening up the competition, the number of people who are willing to participate in such a competition are bound to take a steep drop. What's left will soon be the people who are horrified by the thought of going somewhere to kill and die for fun.
You can view it as social Darwinism, if you want.

This is true. It would kill off a lot of potentially dangerous people. Although the survivors would be allowed to return home despite having killed multiple people (obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be survivors), which is indeed a minor issue. 'Course, nobody would seriously be able to abide by the "what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park" rule, so people would be uncomfortable enough keeping the survivors around anyway.

Also, while I supported the idea, I probably wouldn't participate. There's a reason we have things like paintball and video games to release violent urges already, anyway; actually killing people strikes me as somewhat of a waste, since those people (if they are so criminally minded) would better serve the rest of us through forced labour or something.

Oh, I was thinking Richmond, VA.

No, I haven't been to Richmond, CA.

Don't go. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/10/state/n103604D95.DTL&type=health)

Oh, I was thinking Richmond, VA.

No, I haven't been to Richmond, CA.

Richmond VA's that bad? I haven't been in a long time. Shame to see the capital of the Confederacy losing its shine. :tongue: Ah, well. Might want to avoid Richmond, IL, too - it's a damned speed trap.

Don't go. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/10/state/n103604D95.DTL&type=health)

Noted.

... actually killing people strikes me as somewhat of a waste, since those people (if they are so criminally minded) would better serve the rest of us through forced labour or something.

We could conscript them and make a team of shock troopers.

I'm curious as to NSG's opinion:

Would you support (by support, I mean allow, not condone) the establishment of a Murder Park? Basically, you go in, get a weapon, and you're locked in for the day, and are free to kill people off Unreal Tournament style - and you could potentially die as well.

It's entirely voluntary, mind you, like a theme park. Only the theme is DEATH.

So what say you?

EDIT: Also, what happens in Murder Park stays in Murder Park, and would not necessarily go on in the rest of society.


Jesus Christ man! Thats horrible!

We could conscript them and make a team of shock troopers.

The Germans tried that in World War Two, it ended in epic amounts of fail.

The Germans tried that in World War Two, it ended in epic amounts of fail.

So everyone wins, then.

We have them today they are called mercenaries. They kill people for money. Besides no one really believe they will die. They feel they are the biggest, baddest, monster on the planet. This would give them the chance to prove it. In those case usually only one side is armed. Instead of blowing yourself up in a strip mall go to Murder park. Let's face it is a really bad idea. Is it so far from reality though?


It would only work if there was no hope of returning to normal society. Few of these types ever return anyway. Serial killers would not likely sign up as most are cowards and the reason they can move about in regular society is because normal people do not act like they do.