Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Heron TSG]

The day that we start castrating rapists, I'm all for that.

You can't castrate someone with no testicles. What about the women? Men aren't even the vast majority of rapists.

[GlyphGryph]

All law/legislation is based on morals

Now this is just silly. A ton of law and legislation has nothing to do with morality.

You can't castrate someone with no testicles. What about the women? Men aren't even the vast majority of rapists.

Wait... what?

[Max White]

Docters: Doing there best to short circuit evolution since 1854!

[Heron TSG]

You can't castrate someone with no testicles. What about the women? Men aren't even the vast majority of rapists.

Wait... what?

Maybe I exaggerated. There are quite a few more men who are rapists. However, men report rapes far less often. The estimated proportions are that 85% of rapists are men, and 15% are women. The number could actually be much different, though. Point being that you can't castrate all rapists because not all rapists can be castrated.

[Max White]

Point being that you can't castrate all rapists because not all rapists can be castrated.

Maybe not physicaly, but I'm sure this is possible chemicaly.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You know, I doubt that this will actually work like you all seem to think it will. Sure, the mice produce the antibodies, but for how long? Furthermore, we don't know if it'll work on humans. It may be that the body ceases to produce these antibodies after a short period of time, making it useless to taking personal choice out of an individual's life. It might not work on other drugs either, just cocaine.

Then again, the worst case is as such: It works on humans, for our entire lifespan, and on all illegal drugs. A pathetic moralistic Congress plays on people's fears and makes it mandatory for infants. The idea that people must be able to make their own choices in this regard takes a severe setback. I doubt it'll play out like that in reality, but there you go.

Best case, it doesn't work in humans at all.

[Shade-o]

Wouldn't the best case be the elimination of all drug-based suffering? No drug lord gang warfare, no injuries or death caused by overdoses or violence, reduction of long-term illnesses such as cancers and organ failure, a massive dent in the funding for all manner of criminal and terrorist organisations, an increase in the quality of life for people who would otherwise be physically, mentally, or socially hurt by addiction... It ranks up there with world peace and the elimination of poverty.

Not even counting the human benefits, just the money saved on countering the myriad effects of drugs would make the creator(s) the most beloved by just about every government in the world.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. People have to learn to be responsable for themselves. Letting the state choose for them is just furthering the authoritarian dogma that has kept humanity's progress stunted for so long. If an individual chooses to use addictive drugs, that is their choice, and they alone carry the positives and negitives.

[Max White]

No. People have to learn to be responsable for themselves. Letting the state choose for them is just furthering the authoritarian dogma that has kept humanity's progress stunted for so long. If an individual chooses to use addictive drugs, that is their choice, and they alone carry the positives and negitives.

I like this guy, get him a cookie. But not one of the chocolate ones, were running low on them. Choc chip is ok though.

[Shade-o]

How would maximising the quality of life and freeing up resources for things other than treating drunk drivers and shootouts with drug smugglers stunt human progress?

[Max White]

How would maximising the quality of life and freeing up resources for things other than treating drunk drivers and shootouts with drug smugglers stunt human progress?

The argument usely uses a metaphor involving a parent holding onto their childs bike as they try to ride so they don't fall.

[Sowelu]

Actually, you know what?  I think this world could stand to have a Brave New World-esque utopia nation or two in it.  Sure, let some country go ahead and make it mandatory, and see what happens.  We might be surprised...either that, or everyone learns a harsh lesson and never tries it again.

[Max White]

Actually, you know what?  I think this world could stand to have a Brave New World-esque utopia nation or two in it.  Sure, let some country go ahead and make it mandatory, and see what happens.  We might be surprised...either that, or everyone learns a harsh lesson and never tries it again.

I vote for New Zealand. They are out of the way, so we can nuke them if things get out of hand! 

[Realmfighter]

Take one one hundredth of Canada.

It would be larger then most countries anyway, and its not like were using all that land.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How would maximising the quality of life and freeing up resources for things other than treating drunk drivers and shootouts with drug smugglers stunt human progress?

It wouldn't, but this becoming a legal requirement would just be a symptom of a problem. That problem is authoritatian states. Governments who do all they can to control what people do. Make no mistake, they wouldn't be making this law for your or anyone else's benefit. They would be doing it to further their control over people's lives, just because. That kind of legal enviorment is not conductive to a free and open society, and as we've seen in the past, socities that have more civil freedoms make more progress.

People must learn to make their own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. If they never do, and all of their choices are made for them, then they are just...well...sheep. Alive only to produce for the state through some avenue of work, and then die.