Jeez, let's see, where to begin.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, sterilised at the age of 12. IQ test at the age of 20, and if you pass, you get a voucher for a reversal of your sterilisation, a voucher you can cash in when your income rises above the national average. Obviously not all the reversals will work, but hey, some people can't have kids, tragic, but there it is. In order to make up for this, there's a lottery where people with reversal vouchers but not enough income are drawn out of a hat and allowed to breed and given benefits to support the children. The cost of that would be a drop in the ocean compared the billions we piss away supporting the ever growing broods of sexually incontinent chavs currently.
=====================
National referendum on the death penalty. Two questions:
1. Do you believe we should reintroduce the death penalty? YES/NO.
2. Given that our system of justice is administered by fallible humans and that therefore sooner or later corruption, manipulation or just plain mistakes are inevitable, do you, personally, volunteer to be the first innocent person to be executed? YES/NO.
Only people answering YES to BOTH questions get their votes counted as a "yes". Anyone answering YES/NO is permanently barred from ever holding public office. In the unlikely event that the YES/YES votes outnumber the YES/NO and NO/NO combined, we immediately execute all the people who voted YES/YES, as per their request, and re-run the referendum safe in the knowledge that national average IQ has just tripled.
==================
Introduce a new tax based on body mass index. Anyone with a BMI under, say, 26, doesn't pay anything. Every year on or around April 6th everyone gets weighed and measured at their local post office or whatever, and then for every point above 26, you get an extra 1% added to your income tax, or deducted from whatever benefits you get. Fat people cost us extra in healthcare costs, we should be recouping it from them directly in proportion to how fucking disgustingly blobby they are.
==================
Also, Twitter is a complete and utter waste of time and entirely useless.
(SonofRojBlake, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 9:57, 43 replies)

Jesus, you utter fucking mongoloid.
BMI is not a measure of body fat. Someone muscular could have a BMI that classes them as obese.
IQ is not a measure of capability to function in the real world, and is mostly meaningless for anything other than maths.
People like you should be drowned at birth and your parents publicly executed.
You have a point about Twitter though.
( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:19, closed)

I'm enjoying watching stupid people recommend eugenics for stupid people

(woocfot friends with Sacha Distel, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:47, closed)

It's the circle of government-regulated life.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 11:36, closed)

I'm enjoying people taking this seriously.
I mean - seriously?
(SonofRojBlake, Sat 27 Apr 2013, 14:52, closed)

"Someone muscular could have a BMI that classes them as obese"

If you can afford the protein supplements, gym membership and time to get that muscular, you can afford the tax.

And "IQ test" wasn't meant to mean the obvious nonsense of current IQ tests, it was shorthand for something that tested general usefulness to society rather than Mensa-twattery. Something an illiterate plumber could pass but would be failed by the average double-glazing salesperson.
(SonofRojBlake, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 12:11, closed)

Backpedal harder, you'll break the sound barrier.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 12:26, closed)

I have a BMI of 30.
I don't go to the gym, I don't eat "protein supplements", and I don't particularly spend any time doing much to "get muscular" other than working.

I'm 1.84m tall, 100kg and I can lift a car engine. Why should my taxes go to prop up the unhealthy lifestyles of skinny people who will be crippled with joint failure by the time they're 60?
(gordonjcp, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 13:59, closed)

I think this guy is just pro-ana. We should force feed him lard

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 14:25, closed)

How would you stop middle-class parents hiring private tutors to coach their kids for this test?

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 17:28, closed)

Well?

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 1 May 2013, 22:45, closed)

Eugenics is going to be a bit of a theme, this week.
It's barely worth invoking Godwin's law.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:20, closed)

We should round up all those proposing eugenics and gas them.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:24, closed)

Racist.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:25, closed)

And force everyone who is against eugenics to breed continuously.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:25, closed)

As a country we got rid of the mechanism to even hold a referendem about the death penalty some time ago.
jack straw i believe.
(magictorch, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:38, closed)

Do underweight people get benefits for extra food?

( Major Turd for tonight only, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:39, closed)

you sound very angry
have you been sterilised?
( The Doveston haunted by the memory of his own amnesia, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 10:50, closed)

Look, even if you're the only unsterilized person left on earth that won't change the fact that no one wants to sleep with you.
(Roger McGough-Pipe, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 11:24, closed)

Well played.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 11:31, closed)

Zingaroony!

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 12:23, closed)

Why would an IQ test be a good test for parenthood?
I'm sure there are plenty of very intelligent people who are fucking awful parents, bringing up little shits, and some proper thick people who are great parents bringing up children destined for great things.

Judging by your post, you wouldn't get your sterilisation reversed.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 13:07, closed)

I've got an IQ of around 160, a degree, a good, useful job etc. and I'm an awful parent.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 14:27, closed)

That's about the same the Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein - and a full ten points above Bill Gates. I'm not saying I'm distinctly fucking dubious, or anything - but it does seem logical that such a towering intellect should be achieving more than posting pictures of Steve McDonald on a fairly obscure comedy website.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 15:09, closed)

I'm too lazy for that bollocks.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 15:14, closed)

Well, you could at least post pictures of Gary Kasparov, or something.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 15:22, closed)

Nah.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:07, closed)

parenthuman being
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 15:19, closed)

Says the man who exploits vulnerable skagheads.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:09, closed)

It's not exploitation, Chindedd.
He's popular and important in the desperate drug-addled slapper community.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 17:18, closed)

and a big chin

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:06, closed)

Is that 160 on that Facebook IQ test?

( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 18:18, closed)

Hahahahahahhaah what an overprivileged fucking bender lol
(TheManHimself Beer Drinkin', Breath Stinkin', Sniffing Glue, Fri 26 Apr 2013, 14:46, closed)

How about we apply the same to driving?

Q1) Do you believe people should have the right to drive?
Q2) Do you volunteer to be the first to die in a car accident?

Or maybe sewage?

Q1) Do you believe we should have a sewage system?
Q2) Would you volunteer to be the first to die in a tragic sewer accident?

I think you've just come up with a brilliant plan to ban anything we please.
(fibonacci_cunt cunt, cunt, cuntcunt, cuntcuntcunt,..., Fri 26 Apr 2013, 16:38, closed)

The key word in both your questions is "accident".
Execution is never an accident. It's the calm, considered and in-cold-blood killing of a human being who, since they're by definition locked up, poses no threat to anyone else.
(SonofRojBlake, Sat 27 Apr 2013, 14:59, closed)

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

It is still an accident that the person being killed is innocent. You were clearly trying to derive that the death penalty was wrong from the fact that innocent people will inevitably die from it and no one would want to be the victim of such a tragic system. If your argument works then so do the ones I suggested (and many more), as they still meet the requirements as stated above.

I think you are trying to weasel out of this conclusion by by arguing it is the nature of the killing (deliberate, state sanctioned etc. ...) that makes it bad. This cannot be derived from your argument, it is thus a non sequitur. So actually argue it rather than presenting such vacuous augments.
(fibonacci_cunt cunt, cunt, cuntcunt, cuntcuntcunt,..., Sat 27 Apr 2013, 20:27, closed)

"It is still an accident that the person being killed is innocent"

Them being innocent is not an accident. It's a fact. And them being killed is not an accident, it's very deliberate. You cannot in any sane world define executing an innocent person as an "accident".

"You were clearly trying to derive that the death penalty was wrong "

Uh, no, the argument avoids moral judgement on whether it's wrong or right. It asks only whether each voter believes in the death penalty when it's THEM that it's going to happen to. It's easy to be in favour of a death penalty that only happens to other people. The idea is to focus the mind, to get people to think. A lot of people take the attitude of "string 'em up", without stopping to think that one day, they may be one of "'em". If one is sufficiently barbaric not to be able to process the idea that killing people in cold blood is always wrong, then one might, possibly, be amenable to the concept of self-preservation. Obviously this is not guaranteed...

And yes, the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad, but it's the fact that it's by definition being done to people who are already locked up and therefore no risk to the public that makes it vindictive and, worse, pointless.
(SonofRojBlake, Sun 28 Apr 2013, 21:54, closed)

"Them being innocent is not an accident. It's a fact."

As it is with, say a child being run over by a car. My point still stands.

"And them being killed is not an accident, it's very deliberate. You cannot in any sane world define executing an innocent person as an "accident"."

The fact that you are going to kill someone doesn't change the fact that when
you kill someone who you didn't intend to kill (an "innocent") it is still an accident. I think you are being obtuse on this point.


"Uh, no, the argument avoids moral judgement on whether it's wrong or right. It asks only whether each voter believes in the death penalty when it's THEM that it's going to happen to. It's easy to be in favour of a death penalty that only happens to other people. The idea is to focus the mind, to get people to think. A lot of people take the attitude of "string 'em up", without stopping to think that one day, they may be one of "'em". If one is sufficiently barbaric not to be able to process the idea that killing people in cold blood is always wrong, then one might, possibly, be amenable to the concept of self-preservation. Obviously this is not guaranteed..."

You contradict yourself within a single paragraph here. You are using the possible negative consequences of the death penalty as an argument for it being morally wrong, so you are not avoiding moral judgement.

"And yes, the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad, but it's the fact that it's by definition being done to people who are already locked up and therefore no risk to the public that makes it vindictive and, worse, pointless."

Supposing a country couldn't lock up criminals (for financial, practical reasons)? What if the chances of getting caught were sufficiently low that you needed extra-strict punishment to deter (say in a "wild west" scenario)?

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I can imagine times when it is justifiable. I could also be open to change my mind on it if for instance it was shown that it did decrease the murder rate. Or what if the threat of death made it much more likely that you could, if wrongly convicted, be found to be innocent (an interesting lecture on the subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAW-vom5kBE)? On the other hand, the death penalty can be used by unscrupulous cops to pressure people into confessing, and thus increase miscarriages of justice. There are a lot of points to consider, and frankly "the state-sanctioned, deliberate, in-cold-blood bit does make it bad" is not good enough.
(fibonacci_cunt cunt, cunt, cuntcunt, cuntcuntcunt,..., Sun 28 Apr 2013, 23:48, closed)