15% of the UK has a criminal record

9.2 million of 63 million people

At 11/19/13 01:21 PM, poxpower wrote: What the hell is wrong with you people?
Sterilization is AS BAD AS DEATH and WORSE THAN TORTURE?

A medical procedure that is INVISIBLE and PAINLESS is worse than DEATH?

Wow, ok, let's take a survey of NeonSpider: Tomorrow you can choose to have me sterilize you in your sleep or spend 24 hours strapped to a barbed wire chair as I go to town on your various bodyparts with heated pliers.

Or you can choose death if you want, as clearly this life is not worth living if you're not fertilizing females on a daily basis.

No, I said it is equivalent to torture and that torture is worse than death. It's certainly cruel and unusual whether you personally consider it torture or not. And how do you know it's painless and without other possible medical or psychological complications later on? Are you a licensed medical doctor? Care to volunteer for it to find out? Care to have someone volunteer it for you without your consent for some arbitrary stupid reason that may not even be your fault?

It seems to me the one who is advocating medically-unnecessary forcible possibly-irreversible invasive medical procedures on unwilling others with possible permanent long-term medical and health complications is perhaps less sane than the one who says "eh maybe don't do that". Note I never said I was even for the death penalty.

At 11/18/13 02:08 PM, AxTekk wrote: Nice post history broski!

Ooh, nice one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

Believe it or not NeonSpider there are people who voluntarily get themselves sterilized. Men do it so they don't get women that they have sex with pregnant and of course there our women that make sure they can't get pregnant. I have never heard of any of these people writhing in agony because of this so I think calling this torture is a bit stretching it.

While it is true that the Idea of not having children is not nice i'm sure if you gave people the choice between death and sterilization most people would chose sterilization. After all if your dead you cant very well have children anyways.

Oh and before you say most people would not want this so it is cruel and unusual punishment. Well to that I say that most people wouldn't chose to go to jail ether but we cant stop sending criminals to jail just because they don't want to go.

At 11/18/13 11:10 AM, Rome-forger wrote: Criminals are not fit to be parents. Children look to there parents as role models. If one or both of the parents are criminals then the child grows up to see crime as being cool or at lest alright to do. What should be no surprise these children grow up to be criminals as well.

If we sterilize these criminals and make it so that they can't have children then there crime spree will end with them and crime as a whole will drop.

Um, I was thinking maybe instead of sterilizing them, just put the children under government care and if the criminals are innocent or if they have changed, then they could get their children back. And if they commit another crime, their children should get sent away again.

At 11/18/13 11:15 PM, Rome-forger wrote: Your right I'm not a very good speller. I have what is called dyslexia so thanks a lot Jackass. Not everyone that has/had dyslexia is stupid. Some of our greatest minds throughout history had it. Alright now that we are past the childish bull shit lets start debating this like adults.

*You're right, I'm not a very good speller: I have what is called "dyslexia", so thanks a lot jack-ass. Not everyone that has/ had dyslex is stupid. Some of our greatest minds throughout history had it.

Alright, now that we are past the childish bullshit [ed: it's a single noun as it's a colloquialism rather than actually using a premodifier] let's start debating this like adults.

FTFY

If you're dyslexic, use a program with spell check and comb your posts before submitting. Sounding out "appose" when you mean "oppose" completely ruins your argument.

You could insert more persuasive language while you're at it.

this sounds dum,
forced labor and executions sound better

Rome-forger, are you a neo-nazi? You sound like one for sure.

Who the hell are you to judge if someone has kids or not? Believe it or not, people actually in some points of their lives make wrong decisions. They make mistakes. They take the wrong paths and become criminals for the wrong reasons. And did you know that people change? Hear that? People actually fucking change. You're not destined to be the same person forever as the one you were as a teen. There's a reason people go to rehab you know.

As a matter of fact one of the nicest, most helpful person I know once fell took that path. He was a dumb teenager. He was a junkie, did crimes and did drugs. He went to prison at one point for a crime and since then he's a complete different person. He works at a youth center today and is an idol to a lot of teens. Seriously, this guy is chill, he treads everyone with respect, and I mean everyone, he lifts and doesn't drink or smoke. He never gets angry. You're saying he should've been sterilized because he'd be a bad idol? This dude is probably the best idol I can think of.

I know for a fact that so many people take the wrong paths and so many people change. Sterilization of every criminal is just a retarded idea.

What if they're found out to be innocent. Think of the money they'll take out of the State in Court.

At 11/19/13 03:54 PM, jhypsyshah wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

Meh, that's voluntary though. Still raises questions of whether these people are of sound mind when they choose to be sterilised, but it's far less violation-of-human-rights-ish.

t 11/18/13 11:10 AM, Rome-forger wrote:

Criminals are not fit to be parents. Children look to there parents as role models. If one or both of the parents are criminals then the child grows up to see crime as being cool or at lest alright to do. What should be no surprise these children grow up to be criminals as well.

If we sterilize these criminals and make it so that they can't have children then there crime spree will end with them and crime as a whole will drop.

I have a better idea... lets put them on trains to camps outside the cities and send them into a concrete building. We'll say its for de-lousing but really....

We can even make lamp shade out of their hide!

Think of all the lampshades we could make!

There should be forced sterilization for everyone in this forum. I just came back to let you know you're all a bunch of losers. See you on tour!

Hey! Except AxTekk. Ax is very cool.

At 11/21/13 07:54 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 11/19/13 03:54 PM, jhypsyshah wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

Meh, that's voluntary though. Still raises questions of whether these people are of sound mind when they choose to be sterilised, but it's far less violation-of-human-rights-ish.

It gets more interesting IMHO..

His research was based off of military data and he had some controversial views but they were later adopted by sperm banks, in spite of it. He also spearheaded the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank.

I think he's considered the founder of silicone valley. He was responsible for jamming the Nazi radar network during the war and wrote the briefing for the bombing, with the body count needed to ensure the Japanese surrender. He also advocated paying people to get sterilized but it was his undoing, as he was accused of being a racist and a Nazi in his later years. It got him kicked out of the DOD, I think it was after he wrote a book mentioning how the IQ test is biased.

One difference that I remember from his work and comparing it to a modern textbook (within the past 5 years) is that there was no mention of jews in the college textbook's statistics for IQs of different races/subcultures. Instead, Asian decent were at the top. I believe he advocated sterilizing the 'unskilled' but it might have seemed a little racy.

I don't really have an opinion on paying people to sterilize themselves, I'm not really political. I just thought I'd toss his name out there since it seemed to kinda go with the topic. I didn't know if anyone would find this 'forced pseudo-history of sterilization' interesting or not.

I have a better solution-

repeal all these laws against victimless crimes

but then you would have to deal with the fact that most national economy's are jokes and theres no jobs for all these people

Fix The World!! ..and everyone in it. XD

Zee final solution ja?

this is wrong on so many moral levels it's crazy.
think about it- crime is not a genetic thing, it's a circumstantial thing, an education thing and a respect thing.

sterilizing everyone with a criminal record would just piss people off, it might cause a drop in crime but i bet suicide rates would skyrocket too- no point having a safe population if they're unhappy or scared.

Ja! Last one out can just turn off the lamps. XD

What's a fair price for sterilization, anyway? Seems like that could save a lot of time and money. I guess a few hundred bucks, in a lump sum, would really be lowballin' it..

At 11/22/13 03:27 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Hey! Except AxTekk. Ax is very cool.

TANX B

At 11/22/13 05:26 AM, jhypsyshah wrote: It gets more interesting IMHO. [...]

Sorry, I must've gone through that article like three times now, can't figure out which dude you mean lol. Sounds really interesting though, so if you have a name and shit set me that ish bro

At 11/21/13 12:48 PM, StalkerGuy wrote:

Who the hell are you to judge if someone has kids or not?

The same people who judge everything else: Us.
I'll never understand why people think this is an argument, as if we didn't already make hundreds of collective decisions based on morals.

The second you come up with any new decision, they go "WHAAAAAAAAAAA BUT HOW CAN WE DECIDE SUCH A THING????".

We can decide legal majority and whether or not to imprison someone, but we'll be damned if we can ever wrap our heads around reversible sterilization. Now that's just impossible!

Believe it or not, people actually in some points of their lives make wrong decisions.

For the 20th time: Sterilization is reversible.
Even if it wasn't: Adopt a kid.

At 11/23/13 01:51 PM, poxpower wrote: The same people who judge everything else: Us.
I'll never understand why people think this is an argument, as if we didn't already make hundreds of collective decisions based on morals.

The second you come up with any new decision, they go "WHAAAAAAAAAAA BUT HOW CAN WE DECIDE SUCH A THING????".

We can decide legal majority and whether or not to imprison someone, but we'll be damned if we can ever wrap our heads around reversible sterilization. Now that's just impossible!

That wasn't even what my post was about. First of all it's not like prisoners are going to have sex in jail and impregnate someone there, because they can't. And while you're screaming they're reversible then maybe they'll just go have it reversed when they're out? It'd be fucking useless. So please don't come with that bullshit again.

Second of all sterilizing EVERYONE for fucking every crime ever (like OP wants) because they'd be bad idols for their kids is a retarded idea. It would make more sense to just cut off prisoners' arms because it would remove their ability to beat people with them. You know since they're "dangerous". Or maybe "bad idols".
Also while we're at it vasectomies would be so fucking expensive and be so much waste of tax money on such a large scale. It would also be ridiculously hard to proceed on those who aren't willing to have them. Imagine being forced against your will to have a surgery. On your ballsack... I know I would resist it.

People who go to jail because they got busted for weed dealing or getting into a fight should not be sterilized. It's a waste of money and would worsen things for everyone. A lot of good people go to jail and making them sterilized for life would be wrong (and before you scream reversal at me, surely they would be forbidden to have one because it makes the whole sterilization unnecessary).

Believe it or not, people actually in some points of their lives make wrong decisions.

For the 20th time: Sterilization is reversible.
Even if it wasn't: Adopt a kid.

Vasovasostomies (vasectomy reversals) don't always work and fail very often. If they are your definition of reversible then we'd expect maybe 30% of the criminals (or more depending on the time they did in jail) having to pay $4,000-$13,000 for procedures that won't even work for them. They'd be sterilized for life...

And having a child is not an easy decision. Most people prefer to have their own children and not adopt them. It's obvious that you've never had one.

At 11/23/13 10:24 PM, StalkerGuy wrote: And having a child is not an easy decision. Most people prefer to have their own children and not adopt them. It's obvious that you've never had one.

Idk, I'm surprised so many people have to say so many words on the matter. I just don't want to live in a society where the state can take away my ability to have kids.

Pox, I'm kinda surprised you're so fiercely pro-freedom of speech and so don't-give-a-fuck about freedom to procreate. I'm sure we've all broken the law here and there, and anyone who says they'd be cool getting a mandatory penis snipping for that is a) lying through their teeth or b) not of sound mind.

At 11/23/13 10:24 PM, StalkerGuy wrote:

First of all it's not like prisoners are going to have sex in jail and impregnate someone there, because they can't.

Actually they can. Conjugal visits.

And while you're screaming they're reversible then maybe they'll just go have it reversed when they're out?

It would be illegal to reverse it for doctors.
Plus it costs money, money even those people probably wouldn't spend on such a procedure. Even if some did, my guess is the large large majority wouldn't.

Also while we're at it vasectomies would be so fucking expensive and be so much waste of tax money on such a large scale.

Preventing the birth of a single child who'd be a prisoner for life or the ward of the state through welfare could pay for hundreds of vasectomies.

People who go to jail because they got busted for weed dealing or getting into a fight should not be sterilized.

Probably not just for that.

Vasovasostomies (vasectomy reversals) don't always work and fail very often. If they are your definition of reversible then we'd expect maybe 30% of the criminals (or more depending on the time they did in jail) having to pay $4,000-$13,000 for procedures that won't even work for them. They'd be sterilized for life...

Wow, tough shit.
Not my problem.
I'd imagine an offence large enough to warrant sterilization would leave no one crying about a failed reversal.

Note also that I'd be all for sterilizing people who already have children they cannot take care of. We are the ones who pay the financial price for their stupidity, their children pay the emotional price and then future society has to deal with those badly raised criminally-prone unproductive members of society who repeat the same cycle of abuse and neglect as their parents because we're too soft to say "alright, enough bullshit".

And having a child is not an easy decision.

The people we're talking about aren't the most apt at decision-making to begin with.

At 11/23/13 10:33 PM, AxTekk wrote:

Pox, I'm kinda surprised you're so fiercely pro-freedom of speech and so don't-give-a-fuck about freedom to procreate. I'm sure we've all broken the law here and there, and anyone who says they'd be cool getting a mandatory penis snipping for that is a) lying through their teeth or b) not of sound mind.

I'm not for sterilizing all law-breakers.
My guess is that it would mostly be for violent crimes or serious repeat offenders. That sort of thing. I can't tell you what percentage of the prison population that is.

They don't cut your penis off when you get sterilized, you can still have sex, just no babies.

At 11/23/13 11:00 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm not for sterilizing all law-breakers.
My guess is that it would mostly be for violent crimes or serious repeat offenders. That sort of thing. I can't tell you what percentage of the prison population that is.

To me that's largely irrelevant. If you have it on the table as a state punishment, for me that's a big deal. The only times I've heard people, like anyone at all be OK with it is when they have such a strong "us/ them" paradigm that there is zero empathy. Like "all pedophiles should have their cocks cut off" as if there's no chance of an innocent slipping through the net.

I'm no libertarian but I do think there are some things that are always crossing a line, somethings that I would never want my people to sanction. Besides, if you don't want someone going free in society fucking shit up whichever way you could still be focusing on rehabilitating them. It's not like sterilisation is a necessary evil like that.

They don't cut your penis off when you get sterilized, you can still have sex, just no babies.

Yeah, still a mandatory penis snipping though. If that shit doesn't give you the heebie jeebies...

At 11/23/13 11:29 PM, AxTekk wrote:

The only times I've heard people, like anyone at all be OK with it is when they have such a strong "us/ them" paradigm that there is zero empathy. Like "all pedophiles should have their cocks cut off" as if there's no chance of an innocent slipping through the net.

Again why are you so hellbent on ignoring that there are already punishments in place for criminal behaviour that are arguably far worse than sterilization?

??
What you just wrote isn't even an argument, it's an ad hominem. "Well I've only ever heard HITLER!!!! say we should sterilize people!!".

Besides, if you don't want someone going free in society fucking shit up whichever way you could still be focusing on rehabilitating them.

You can do both.
Why burden the taxpayers with these fools and their children?

This way no one has to suffer or die and we get rid of future problems.

As previously stated, the reasons are two-fold:

1. Crime is partially genetic, so sterilizing criminal elements will cut down on criminal behaviour
2. Criminals are not in the position to raise the best children. Typically they are poor, uneducated and suffer a wealth of behavioural problems. Many times they are single parents or leave their spouse to raise children alone, all things that increase a child's chances of being poor / prone to crime.

Anyway I don't particularly care so much about sterilizing criminals as I do about sterilizing people who have too many kids already. That's way worse in my opinion. Round up those single moms with 10 baby-daddies and tie up their god damned tubes before they spawn more idiots we have to pay for. My suspicion is that sterilizing criminals is tackling the problem when it's already too late, especially as it's mostly men you'll be jailing and it only takes one guy to impregnate dozens of stupid women, so really sterilizing the prison population might not even make much of a dent as the women would just have as many kids but with fewer men.

But it can't hurt ; )

As previously stated, the reasons are two-fold:
Crime is partially genetic,
so sterilizing criminal elements will cut down on criminal behaviour

criminal elements such as what genetically?
what biologically in the brain are you sterilizing for?

At 11/23/13 09:23 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Sorry, I must've gone through that article like three times now, can't figure out which dude you mean lol. Sounds really interesting though, so if you have a name and shit set me that ish bro

Dr. William Shockley