So here's a really, really dark conversation. Hypothetical of course!!

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Oh boy, the Tecnno-Tards are going to come after you for that one. The Dependents will not have to be gotten rid of for when technology fails, and it will, they will do themselves in because Landru will no longer be there to guide them. A couple of years ago we had two, one week power outages due to intense weather and it was very enjoyable to get back to basics for a change. I realize that when the lights go out and stay out it will be a lot different, but the cave man me is strong and I am one of the strange ones that can easily revert and get back the value of what is important in life like, air, water, food, family and Faith. Everything else is just window dressing.

That happened where I lived too. I had no car at the time and there was no electricity for over a week. The grocery store had some minimal power, but had to operate cash only (with all the ATM's down). The worst part of that was the lack of showers once the water pressure was gone. Oddly enough I wasn't really bothered by the lack of technology (many people would goto the homes of those with generators to charge their phones though). I just sat at the table and wrote. Just a slightly less interactive version of what I do here. Water, some food, some air, and nothing else. The city didn't goto hell which was the most surprising part.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Walk it back all you want.

I didn't say that people with low IQ's ought to be dead, and as this directly related to beliefs and religion, are you implying that religious people have low IQ's and ought not to live?

Its the fault of the parents; you cannot have 25 IQ points higher than the parent that is most deficient or lower than the smarter parent. I have no idea what it means except try to take after the genius parent in scoring 25 points higher. Not sure religion has anything to add except don't marry a white salamander.

Yes you can. IQ is a completely pointless number.

If I could wave my totally hypothetical wand I would not get rid of anyone in particular. Not in general terms anyways. I would however sterilize the planet for say, thirty five years. By that time we may finally have it together enough (or not) to start our annoying breeding habits again.

P.S. perhaps I can get vethumanbeing to help me with this one , and Beezzer, can I count you in also? We can call it something vaguely harmless sounding like....`World Domination Bunnies` If that helps persuade you sir. Ummmm.... the complications can be sorted afterwords I`m sure.

a reply to: bluemooone2



The "guild' has always existed.

This will be considered.

There have been and always shall be hated my friend. Mayhem. Carnage. Dominion. What one human can do in a moment of cruelty with no immediate repercussions never ceases to amaze me. The thing you need to be clear on is when you are the one holding sway against those who you hate, for whatever reason, things can get muddled. You can get lost and things that didn't make sense to you before ring with a certain clarity or even purity. You reach for a moral high ground at some point, though you may not even be a moral person. I think that's your internal strife of good and evil fighting for dominance.

a reply to: OpenEars123

Does that include militant atheists? They tend to have all the lovely qualities you ascribe only to Muslims and Christians.

Btw, what happened to all the world's other religions? They have their fundies, too.

While we're at it, can I get rid of the eco-nuts? How about the political nuts? Oh, and then let's take care of the ones who would identify with any group that has an "ist" or an "ism" attached to it.

In fact, why do we bother allowing anyone to have any strong feelings or preferences for anything at all?

Maybe we ought to just structure society like they do in that book, The Giver.

This is assuming of course that there is a need to get rid of a large portion of the human population.
VOLUNTEERS! There are alot of people who really see no reason to live anymore anyway for a myriad of reasons, they are chronically ill, have lived their life and know it's all down hill from here ect. As long as they are of adult age and of sound mind I'd start there, allow them to die with dignity. And well that is where I'd stop since I'm not the one to judge who should live or die, neither are you either but well to each their own I guess.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I would get rid of people that want to get rid of people, they are dangerous.

So you would get rid of yourself? )

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Walk it back all you want.

I didn't say that people with low IQ's ought to be dead, and as this directly related to beliefs and religion, are you implying that religious people have low IQ's and ought not to live?

Its the fault of the parents; you cannot have 25 IQ points higher than the parent that is most deficient or lower than the smarter parent. I have no idea what it means except try to take after the genius parent in scoring 25 points higher. Not sure religion has anything to add except don't marry a white salamander.

Yes you can. IQ is a completely pointless number.

Tell that to the Great Apes ('your' DNA component totally useless as is) try to breed with the humans instead and uplift your specie.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Tell that to the Great Apes ('your' DNA component totally useless as is) try to breed with the humans instead and uplift your specie.

I have no clue what you are talking about. IQ in adults is nothing more than a measurement of how quickly you can learn, it's not a measurement of what you know. A person with a lower IQ who spends more time studying will have a larger body of knowledge than a person with a higher IQ who doesn't study at all. Furthermore there are multiple types of intelligence which make the composite number of IQ useless. Last, IQ tests are well known for being biased, INTP and INTJ personality types score significantly higher on IQ tests than the others because they happen to think in the same fashion as the test designers rather than because they're actually smarter.

Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86. Paris Hilton has an IQ of 117.

As I said, IQ means nothing.

All the ufologist and scientologist just put them on their own island.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Tell that to the Great Apes ('your' DNA component totally useless as is) try to breed with the humans instead and uplift your specie.

I have no clue what you are talking about. IQ in adults is nothing more than a measurement of how quickly you can learn, it's not a measurement of what you know. A person with a lower IQ who spends more time studying will have a larger body of knowledge than a person with a higher IQ who doesn't study at all. Furthermore there are multiple types of intelligence which make the composite number of IQ useless. Last, IQ tests are well known for being biased, INTP and INTJ personality types score significantly higher on IQ tests than the others because they happen to think in the same fashion as the test designers rather than because they're actually smarter.

Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86. Paris Hilton has an IQ of 117.
As I said, IQ means nothing.

You would have no reasonable access to this personal information. On the scale you are reporting "learning efficiency" A Jay Bird would be higher than Andy Warhol, without making millions using other minions to silkscreen his works of 'art'. Read the novel "Edie" (Sedgwick) and how he used her and eventually let her die to drug addiction. He was too cunning a business man to be labeled deficient, he was a master manipulator of both his patrons, art dealers and those he surrounded himself with. Another problem was vanity (his wigs); Karma got him eventually (died from a botched gall bladder operation at 62 he predicted). As far as Paris Hilton is concerned; missed out knowing Warhol (he would have eaten her alive).

originally posted by: starfoxxx
All the ufologist and scientologist just put them on their own island.

Planet would be better; every extremist/preditor gets to go to one specifically designated. Only those of the same inclination.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
You would have no reasonable access to this personal information. On the scale you are reporting "learning efficiency" A Jay Bird would be higher than Andy Warhol, without making millions using other minions to silkscreen his works of 'art'. Read the novel "Edie" (Sedgwick) and how he used her and eventually let her die to drug addiction. He was too cunning a business man to be labeled deficient. His problem was Karma (died from a botched gall bladder operation).

Well, first of all birds are quite intelligent contrary to popular belief. It has been estimated that the average pigeon is more intelligent than the average person. Many animals are far more intelligent than we previously thought they were actually. Elephants, Dolphins, Dogs, Birds, Chimps, and the list goes on. People however can do calculus, birds can't because they haven't been taught (I bet an African Grey could do it though if it was taught math for enough time). That is the difference in ability to learn vs body of knowledge.

As far as calling a person of Andy Warhols IQ deficient goes. You are aware that 1 in 6 people test at his IQ level or lower? Of course, even that statement involves giving some credence to IQ meaning anything in the first place.

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Aazadan: Well, first of all birds are quite intelligent contrary to popular belief. It has been estimated that the average pigeon is more intelligent than the average person. Many animals are far more intelligent than we previously thought they were actually. Elephants, Dolphins, Dogs, Birds, Chimps, and the list goes on. People however can do calculus, birds can't because they haven't been taught (I bet an African Grey could do it though if it was taught math for enough time). That is the difference in ability to learn vs body of knowledge.

Well aware of the ability of an African Grey to recognize itself in a mirror (self awareness knowledge) as well as the Dolphin, Elephant and Human.

Aazadan: As far as calling a person of Andy Warhols IQ deficient goes. You are aware that 1 in 6 people test at his IQ level or lower? Of course, even that statement involves giving some credence to IQ meaning anything in the first place.

One avoids those things that may appear frightening/unpredictable/uncivilized (those people not associated with, such as known cannibals or head hunters circa 1920 New Guinea). 1 in 6 (not so bad) the one is obviously a Zombie.

a reply to: Cuervo

I would change the laws of nature so that any sort of violence or hurt you inflict upon something, you simultaneously feel it two-fold.

I really liked this idea at first. Until I thought about it a bit.

In times of extreme rage at the gross injustices done with open impunity against one group of people by another, I would imagine: My self as a super vigilante, with the power to instantly appear on some battlefield and turn bullets and missiles back upon the aggressors. A lot of work that would be!

Then I saw your post. Excellent! Make a natural law. That would save the super vigilante ever so much work!

But then, upon reflecting further, I thought of all the exceptions, modifications, and exemptions that would be required in order to make it workable. I considered the case of Porcine Pete and Bovine Bob:

---------------------------
Bovine Bob was looking toward the slaughter shed. Farmer Johnson was swinging his hatchet toward the neck of Gallus Gale Domesticus (chicken). Bob yelled out, "Woah! Pete! Did you see that? Farmer Johnson's head came clean off!"

Porcine Pete started laughing, "Hah, Hah, Oink, Snort. Well, that's the law you know."

Pete started rooting about beside a potato plant while Bob turned back to eyeball the grass. "Oh yeah!" they both said as they bit. They both let out screams of pain as double sized bite chunks disappeared from their backs.

---------------------------

After considering this a bit, I'm leaning toward the super vigilante scenario, lots of work, but at least life would be closer to normal.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Star for you!

How come the answer to the hypothetical wasn't yourself, so that others may live?

That's just what I wonder, every time there's a mass shooting / suicide.

"Hey, go ahead with your mass murder/suicide plan. Just start with the suicide, then do the mass murder."

a reply to: OpenEars123

So before you reply with your rebuttals. Just have a 'think' what life would be like WITHOUT all these people... Have a think.

Something I would never live to see.

One of your categories would eliminate me immediately.

Two of your categories would eliminate me by interpretation.

Many would eliminate me through semantics.

That's a very lifeless world you imagine.

a reply to: OpenEars123

So, your friends that name a race are racists, yet you can name people with certain beliefs, and that is somehow more acceptable? That sounds like the condemnation you claim to dislike. Lumping people of faith in with pedos, rapists, serial killers, and people that harm animals shows a real bias.

What was that about persecution and judgment, again?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He actually said:

My answer hypothetically, was 'religious nuts' the ones who are brainwashed, and condemn everyone they meet, unless they conform to god. 

So unless you consider the vast majority of religious people along with yourself to be 'religious nuts' you can stop playing the victim....