Michael S. Lorrey wrote,
> It concerns me whenever someone brings these things up (myself included). Such
> policies are obviously fraught with the potential for abuse. I very much
> the idea that someone should be stripped of their rights and locked away just
> because their MRI shows similarities to people who have committed certain
Yes, that concerns me too, though we should remember that 95% of those in US
prisons are men. By chemically castrating male babies, as Feminazis have
recommended (doctors already mutilate male genitalia via circumcision, so just
extend the operation a bit further), society could curb crime and perhaps make
the work place less hostile toward females.
> We DO, as a matter of fact, live in a society that presumes innocence (or at
> least is supposed to). If society is going to impose such a violation of
> individuals privacy to 'protect' itself, it should also be required to protect
> the individual, from the alleged consequences of their alleged future alleged
> acts, by offering GE treatment to eliminate such a defect, AND society should
> assume total liability for the consequences of such treatments, if it is going
> to force them on people.
No one has suggested compensating boys who had prepucectomies (removal of the
foreskin) against their will. So the practice of removing their testes (probably
not more painful) shortly after birth might not meet with much resistance
either. Or maybe a more politically correct alternative would be to simply
transgender boys sometime before puberty. That would also result in lower crime
rates. If the US were to vanguard such policies, it could soon become common
practice world wide. As for the reproductive side effects, a few hundred men
could provide enough sperm for in vitro fertilization of millions of fetuses.
Better yet, instead of milking a small population of studs for semen, fertility
clinics could simply use cloning, thereby bypassing the need for males
altogether. In short, to eliminate crime, all we need to do is eliminate males
(no "profiling" required).
> Any 'defect' that society claims is 'bad' ought to have
> a pretty damn large database of convincing evidence that 90-99.99% of
> individsuals with that defect will commit a violent crime before it is
> to be screened for and corrected.
That fits perfectly with the profile of the US criminal, since 95% of them are
male. Eliminating the defect called masculinity would therefore almost
completely eliminate violent crime.
> That being said, such treatments should be
> done on a worldwide basis. I would not want to 'cure' all Americans of the
> potential to kill, for example, when agressive countries like China, or muslim
> nations that breed terrorists, do not practice similar policies.
Absolutely right. We'd need to eliminate males world wide.
PS: Some list members may object to such a plan on the basis that 98% of men
never commit any violent crime. But, hey, better safe than sorry, right girls?
I wonder how many extropes will take this mockery seriously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT