Man Convicted of Killing Daughter Over Xbox Accident

[Necromancer]

That's why poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Don't limit it to just poor people, as many other gene pools are just as shallow and over chlorinated.  We have to have a license to drive, own a weapon, fish, hunt, and get married; so why not require one for procreation?

[ceti alpha]

That's why poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Where does Britney Spears come into your theory? 

[MissaFX]

Warranties don't cover physical damage, so he's out of luck anyway.

That's f*cked up. Well, at least we can rest assured that while this dude may get 47 years, his no-good XBOX destroying daughter got the death penalty. 

The xbox wasn't destroyed, it wasn't even damaged.  He killed her because she interrupted his game, not destroyed his xbox.  I read an article a little while ago which made this a lot more clear. 

The xbox lives.

[Necromancer]

A related article said the girl had a two weeks old broken arm that the genius social workers hadn't noticed when investigating abuse claims.  Absolutely pathetic.

[GUTS]

That's why poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Don't limit it to just poor people, as many other gene pools are just as shallow and over chlorinated.  We have to have a license to drive, own a weapon, fish, hunt, and get married; so why not require one for procreation?

Parenthood!  Great movie, that point stuck with me too all these years, it's pretty f*cking disgusting to me that people are just allowed to breed no matter what.  I'm for vasectomies for men who don't pay child support, limiting family sizes for low income families, and castration of serious sex offenders such as child molesters.  Its a harsh truth that pansies don't want to face, but this world is so f*cked up now that drastic measures have to be taken, and step one should be limiting poor people's ability to breed since the alternative of taking them off government assistance and letting children die is not acceptable.

[guyjin]

Because, you know, someone's income is the sole arbiter of their value as a human being.

[MissaFX]

Because, you know, someone's income is the sole arbiter of their value as a human being.

You have hit on one of the most universal truths in human society!  Sadly this is largely true.

[GUTS]

Because, you know, someone's income is the sole arbiter of their value as a human being.

Jesus dude, the point is that PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO RAISE THE KIDS THEY HAVE SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE KIDS, and there needs to be government regulations to enforce it.  Your's is the typical knee-jerk reaction, but if you think about it, why would you want poor people to be able to keep having kids?  So their kids can be raised in poverty, be malnourished, be in and out of the legal system, leech off the government their whole lives, etc?  There's such a huge taboo about messing with people's right to procreate, but with the earth's population growing exponentially the humane thing to do is actually prevent people from over-populating so that the people who are born can have better lives.  Poor and un-educated people will not do this of their own free will, so the governments of the world need to do it for them.

[guyjin]

Because, you know, someone's income is the sole arbiter of their value as a human being.

Jesus dude, the point is that PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO RAISE THE KIDS THEY HAVE SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE KIDS, and there needs to be government regulations to enforce it.  Your's is the typical knee-jerk reaction, but if you think about it, why would you want poor people to be able to keep having kids?  So their kids can be raised in poverty, be malnourished, be in and out of the legal system, leech off the government their whole lives, etc?  There's such a huge taboo about messing with people's right to procreate, but with the earth's population growing exponentially the humane thing to do is actually prevent people from over-populating so that the people who are born can have better lives.  Poor and un-educated people will not do this of their own free will, so the governments of the world need to do it for them.

[Kitsunexus]

The xbox lives.

So why is this news?  ¯\(º_o)/¯

[MurderDate]

hey GUTS that's a sweet Freddy avatar. I noticed that the other day.  Nice

[nodtveidt]

Jesus dude, the point is that PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO RAISE THE KIDS THEY HAVE SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE KIDS, and there needs to be government regulations to enforce it.  Your's is the typical knee-jerk reaction, but if you think about it, why would you want poor people to be able to keep having kids?  So their kids can be raised in poverty, be malnourished, be in and out of the legal system, leech off the government their whole lives, etc?  There's such a huge taboo about messing with people's right to procreate, but with the earth's population growing exponentially the humane thing to do is actually prevent people from over-populating so that the people who are born can have better lives.  Poor and un-educated people will not do this of their own free will, so the governments of the world need to do it for them.

I agree with all of this, except the part about government regulation. China has government regulations, but it's produced mass infanticide as a side-effect. It SHOULD be common sense, but there seems to be nothing common about that

In Vermont, Howard Dean had signed a law stating that anyone who was on public benefits could never receive more benefits due to the addition of another child. It's just plain common sense that if you can't afford the children you have, how the f*ck can you support more? You can't, and the government shouldn't have to support your broke ass when you attempt to burden the social systems even further. Of course, everyone got all up in his face about this, stating that it was "unfair to women" (in Vermont, you can pull out the "unfair to women" card out as much as you like and have 2387456823476 special interest groups gloss and kiss your ass, despite the fact that women in Vermont have far more rights and "special help" programs than men).

It's always been my opinion that having more than two children was socially irresponsible. When a couple has one child, they are helping to reduce the human overpopulation problem. When they have two, the figure doesn't change at all. But three or more and they're contributing to the problem of human overpopulation, and when they can't afford that huge pack of rugrats they're spawning (because they're too poor for cable TV, I guess), it places more and more of a burden on society. "But I have the right to have children!" Yeah, and you also have the right to USE YOUR f*ckING BRAIN but it seems you ignore that one.

[GUTS]

I can't tell if guyjin is just incredibly dense or joking around.  Please be joking.

[Keranu]

It's always been my opinion that having more than two children was socially irresponsible. When a couple has one child, they are helping to reduce the human overpopulation problem. When they have two, the figure doesn't change at all. But three or more and they're contributing to the problem of human overpopulation, and when they can't afford that huge pack of rugrats they're spawning (because they're too poor for cable TV, I guess), it places more and more of a burden on society. "But I have the right to have children!" Yeah, and you also have the right to USE YOUR f*ckING BRAIN but it seems you ignore that one.

What about a couple that had fives sons, like my folks?

[nat]

No offense to your folks, but I don't see the need for any couple to have more than 1 or 2 children, at most. As a matter of fact most couples probably shouldn't have any kids at all. The state of the world's current population is a big issue whether people want to acknowledge it or not. Population is increasing exponentially and before too long we're going to face a real overpopulation problem if something isn't done. I'm not going to pretend to have a cut and dry solution but people need to really think before they start popping out babies like rabbits.