Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Wouldn't the greater good "thing to do" be to isolate the sick people as a prevention to non sick people while spending efforts on finding a cure to get rid of the decease completely? In this scenario, if 200,000 person were infected per year, you would choose to kill them. This would go on indefinately, and probably lead up to an epidemic where more and more people get infected. And you would simply kill them in the name of the greater good. Under your system, let's say we kill one million individuals in a 10 year period. After then years, we still have the same problem. No progress was made, yet a million lives were lost. What if we have invested in research for the last 10 years instead and had finally found a cure. Then, we'd be at the same point in time, yet under my system, the actual problem would have been dealt with. You don't deal with the problem. You attack a symptom of the problem and it doesn't solve anything.
Obviously, the majority doesn't want capital punishment since we're moving away from it as time progresses and as we evolve. I agree with you that closure is very important. I'm just saying closure can be reached without the destruction of another life. There are other ways.
If you kill the first ten people that appear with the disease and dispose of their remains, you will prevent the possibility of a contamination leak from ever happening. If you kill it at its source it may never even emerge again. That's the point of a quarantine and extermination.Not to mention, you need to realize, overpopulation is a problem. We don't need or have room for as many people as are alive. Also, there are perfectly healthy people in third world countries that are starving to death because we are wasting all of our resources on worthless lives that will never amount to anything.If the majority didn't want it, it would have been outlawed already. There is no need to resort to other ways. Why take the long way, when you can keep it simple and quick. We don't need to waste massive resources on criminals. They're social garbage. I mean, if someone is in for theft or something, they can be reformed and helped and put back into society, so they're worth the resources. But giving someone life means that they can not be saved. We're just wasting time food and money taking care of them till the day their miserable lives end. It's pointless.
We need to exile criminals to obscure places in the world so they can never make it back to society again. It worked well for the British when they exiled Napoleon to Saint Helena back in 1815. Maybe even Mars.
You could fix all this by actually making the prisoners in "for life" support their OWN asses; in addition to performing some service required by society. Something a bit more meaningful than picking up trash or stamping out tags. How about we make the prisoners farm a boatload of food to ship out to needy people. Have Habitat for Humanity come by and pick up a few to do some digging and mixing concrete on these Houses for the Homeless project- which could also be funded in part ( in addition to other charities/projects) by the money the OTHER prisoners make when we put their asses to work actually DOING something instead of fucking and stabbing each other and lifting weights. Prison these days in the US is a fucking JOKE. No- Im not saying it's a nice, easy place to be - Im saying we have a fricken TON of resources RIGHT THERE that we dont use; yet we expect the families of the victims of these same people (in addition to every other law-abiding, tax-paying citizen) to fund their currently useless existence. Hell- it oughta be the other way around; the prisoner in for life should work 7 / 12's at a real job and the money he would have made goes straight to the family. Let him support THEM for a damn change. But HELL NOES!!! That shit makes waaaay too much sense. Reform's AZZ. They dont need to be 'reformed' (the Life sentences / death sentences)- they need to be put to work. We should squeeze every little bit of resource out of these people before they do die. THEN you can say "Life Imprisonment" makes sense and the death penalty doesn't. Currently; neither is put to use efficiently. Actually; neither is put to "use" at all - they are "implemented", with no REAL gain for anyone.
As if you could somehow find the single source of the disease and destroy it before animals and such pick it up and spread it around. One of the biggest risks now adays is that people travel all over, so it can be very hard to stop an outbreak.
But beyond that, the reason the rest of the world is hungry is NOT because we are using all our food to feed people "not worth living", but because we AREN'T GIVING THEM FOOD. We waste tons and tons of food, or instead it goes to create wines and such, and it's not being eaten by ANYONE. Why do we do this? Because with the rush of this food onto the market, the value would go down, among other things. Yay for capitalism!
So you quarantine the area where it comes from and cleanse it. It isn't that hard with the kind of communications in this century.
But somebody has to report it first. Suppose a brand new and extremely contagious disease were to break out, but starting out the symptoms aren't that different from a cold or something like that. It turns out that said disease is fatal after a few weeks or so. With modern transport technology you could certainly have a carrier of the disease pass it all across the world before you even recognized the problem. Communications are worth nothing without accurate information.
12 for prez 2008!
Y'all SERIOUSLY do NOT want me as President. I'd actually fix some shit up in here; and not give a flying DAMN about "image" or re-election. Yeh; I got a few ideas. Here's one: Cut costs in training new recruits by shutting down all the Rifle Qualifying Ranges on all military posts. The same training can be achieved for free at the border; in addition to stemming the flow of illegals coming in. But how will our troops learn to hit a target travelling away from their firing position? you ask. That's where our trusty child-predators-who-think-they-are-being-released-to-Mexico come in. Or ..."go out"; however you wanna look at it. Those can be left lying where they fall to support wildlife as well as function as a deterrent to illegal border crossings in that area. In the meantime, training can proceed for our intelligence personnel by infiltration into the businesses hiring said illegals; our MPs can get training arresting and booking the owners of aforementioned businesses... So it's military Police instead of civillian. Wah. Enough of the pussy-footing around in Iraq. We took it; it's ours now. Why do we keep attempting to "install" "friendly" governments, "allies" in the war on a method. . . . Just annex the goddamn wasteland for crying out loud. Troops on foreign soil - problem solved. US dependance on foreign oil - problem solved. A stabilizing presence in the area - (and yes; it WOULD be a stabilizing presence if I did it) - problem solved. A .45 chunk of STFU for the bridge between Jong-Il's eyes - problem solved. Oh...China!!! you say. Hmm. I think that can be solved by giving them North Korea. The "Chinese Peninsula". "Here ya go, ferras; you can have it."
Yeh, well. . . they say I tend to exagerate a bit. Occasionally.
Total Members: 4960