Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You don't have to have debt.
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be
And who decides what the questions should be? In other words, who gets to decide which people shouldn't be allowed to vote?
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).
Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work).
No, a decision being "informed" is not a necessary component of democracy.
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).
Also, "weeding out the retards" as you put it, seems to me like you're eliminating the ordinary man's right to vote. That goes against the very core of democracy.Nope. Right is still there. He can vote, as long as he passes the test that ensures he has a fairly balanced view of things.
[/quote]The majority of criminals are going to find it very hard to get a gun.Um, no. Criminals will pretty much always have easy access to guns, thanks to gun-runners and smugglers
The problem with this scheme is that there's a massive loophole in it. Say I'm unemployed and on benefits. It's time to join the army. Wait! I'm starting my own business washing cars. You can't put me in the army now, because I'm working. Never mind my business will fail three weeks later and I'll be back on benefits, technically it's a job.
Alright then. Maybe the army was a bad idea. What about assigning them to building roads or something? They don't get payed but they do get food and a barracks to live in if they don't have a house.
What good does that do? Now you've created a slave underclass who can't get ahead any more because they're unpaid and fully dependant on the state and their 'job'
True. Alright then. Pay them an amount they can live on, but only barely.
And are these barely paid workers going to work on government projects, which would otherwise be contracted to construction companies who have to pay proper wages? I think you just undercut the sector and put a lot of people out of work.
Alright then. Maybe the army was a bad idea. What about assigning them to building roads or something? They don't get payed but they do get food and a barracks to live in if they don't have a house.
What good does that do? Now you've created a slave underclass who can't get ahead any more because they're unpaid and fully dependant on the state and their 'job'
Why not create something like a mandatory education course which could be vocational for all people who want to claim their dole money. The course would only be 2 or 3 days a week but it could give them the training and skills necessary to put themselves back into work and out of the welfare system, after all most people on the dole do want to work.
Good idea. For the first 6 months you attend these courses with no work. After those 6 months you work for your dole money in the government and attend these courses on the weekend (probably not both days).
The problem is: we need a system that you can't escape from if you don't want to work but also doesn't punish those who are unlucky.
Australia here.Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)READ THE BOLDMayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.
I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
We can't let those fucking angus quarter pounders multiply, they will rape our crops and burn our daughters.
Itsalmostalways their fault for giving into their kids whining or just letting them eat all they want.
See: World War 2 for further reading.How to not fuck over the world with your first SI:How would you isolate a human that had the potential to enslave the world?
Put it in a physical body that it CAN NOT GET OUT OF EVER.
Do not give it wireless internet access. It MUST use a SEPARATE COMPUTER to access the internet.
Do not give it any ability to "plug in" to anything.
In other words: human made of mechanical parts.
END DRAMA
Well then we are in agreement.Can we pick australia, if it existed?
(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.
WAIT: Are these the living dead or are they infected people?But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But we are talking hypothetical zombie attack here and it has been clarified in this thread that zombification works, in at least part, by brain death of non zombie parts of the brain.
Your idea is equivalent to keeping corpses unembalmed because they "might not be completely dead/might get better" Sure statistically that is true, but it is not worth the risk of spreading disease.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.
Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.
Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.
They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.
My checklist would include-
-limited information access - Too much information at once without the necessary cognitive filters could wildly distort the SI's perception of the world.
-An 'abort' option should be available until the SI reaches maturity, after which point this must be removed if SI-human relations are to be anything more than master and slave.
-Create more than one. - If an SI is to understand itself it will need other members of its 'species' to interact with. Without them it will always see itself as an outsider which is a serious risk.
-Don't give it access to the nuclear trigger - You wouldn't trust your five-year-old son with the big red button so why trust your new SI with it?.
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.
No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.
What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.