Thread: Should violent criminals be castrated?

The purpose of prison is to reform criminals, however this is not always possible. Many criminals repeatedly break the law and are undeterred by the prospect of punishment. There are several factors believed to contribute to criminal behavior, one important factor being high testosterone levels. It has been proven that testosterone is linked to aggression, in 1990 James Dabbs studied 4,462 men and concluded that "the overall picture among the high-testosterone men is one of delinquency, substance abuse and a tendency toward excess." Even in women, Dabbs found high testosterone levels were related to crimes of unprovoked violence. Statistically men commit significantly more crimes than women, specifically violent crimes.

We know that castration can drastically alter an animals behavior, most notably by reducing sex drive and aggression. Not all aggression is caused by testosterone, however the University of California found that in 60% of dogs aggression could be treated with castration. Castration also causes sterility which, considering the inability of prisoners to raise their children, may be an added bonus.

Violent criminals destroy their lives and the lives of others, is society not morally obliged to save them from themselves via castration?

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this has been spammed across numerous other forums by the same person (who then fails to participate in the conversation), I'm going to say I wouldn't mind it being an option for them. If it were effective, it could lead to a reduced sentence or something. However, I have NO idea how such a treatment would affect a person so I can't comment on what kind of psychological conditions castration might cause.

No, my objections would run along similar lines to that of capital punishment. Firstly we shouldn't use any form of violence against criminals, this type of mutilation would certainly qualify as violence, because as a society violence isn't acceptable or tollerated so it would give out a very wrong message, secondly it's not something that can be reversed so serious issues about the potential for miscarriages of justice. Thirdly there is a strong potentential for exploitation, we already know that certain racial demographics are disproportionaly represented within the penal system, you just have to wonder how many of them would end up being subjected to this rather permanent form of punishment when possibly unjustly deserved. Then there are sexual equality laws to consider, would we have to treat female criminals equally? If so this might mean more invasive surgery and thousands of unnecessary life threatening operations.

I would like to see the research. A low level of testosterone should reduce much of the behavior associated with violence, but I am not sure if castration would actually get the desired result. My son in law has spent most of his life in institutions (detention, jail, prison) and this is a huge waste of tax payers money. The money is much better spent on education. That could prevent crimes, but instead the money is being sucked up by institutions that do not prevent or correct the problem.

However, Roundup, the herbicide, also destroys testosterone, and other things can destroy testosterone, so maybe the problem can be managed chemically? But then the thought of loosing one's nuts, would probably be a much better deteriant than time in jail or prison. Pragmatically speaking.

Originally Posted by Rita

I would like to see the research. A low level of testosterone should reduce much of the behavior associated with violence, but I am not sure if castration would actually get the desired result. My son in law has spent most of his life in institutions (detention, jail, prison) and this is a huge waste of tax payers money. The money is much better spent on education. That could prevent crimes, but instead the money is being sucked up by institutions that do not prevent or correct the problem.

However, Roundup, the herbicide, also destroys testosterone, and other things can destroy testosterone, so maybe the problem can be managed chemically? But then the thought of loosing one's nuts, would probably be a much better deteriant than time in jail or prison. Pragmatically speaking.

"Other things" consisting of hormone-mimicking compounds, are detectable today, after many decades of worldwide dispersion in great quantities, in virtually every living human's body. Many are thought to cause abnormal behavior, including aggressive and violent tendencies. jocular

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this has been spammed across numerous other forums by the same person (who then fails to participate in the conversation).......

From Business Insider (1 of 11 amazing testosterone facts):

If your testosterone is TOO high, your brain exhibits symptoms of "mania"

AS Flick has pointed out, the thread has been initiated by a repetitive spammer. Since Grockle has previously brought forth the topic elsewhere then it certainly appears as if this over-obsession has developed into a full blown mania. I will suggest that it would make perfect sense, especially in the interest of science, for Grockle to submit to voluntary castration in order to proof a point.

Let's try to keep the focus on the subject matter rather than the person making the post.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Rita

I would like to see the research. A low level of testosterone should reduce much of the behavior associated with violence, but I am not sure if castration would actually get the desired result. My son in law has spent most of his life in institutions (detention, jail, prison) and this is a huge waste of tax payers money. The money is much better spent on education. That could prevent crimes, but instead the money is being sucked up by institutions that do not prevent or correct the problem.

However, Roundup, the herbicide, also destroys testosterone, and other things can destroy testosterone, so maybe the problem can be managed chemically? But then the thought of loosing one's nuts, would probably be a much better deteriant than time in jail or prison. Pragmatically speaking.

"Other things" consisting of hormone-mimicking compounds, are detectable today, after many decades of worldwide dispersion in great quantities, in virtually every living human's body. Many are thought to cause abnormal behavior, including aggressive and violent tendencies. jocular

Interesting that you say that. Coffee was not always a popular drink, but during the war soldiers were encourage to drink it, because it made them sort of super humans. Then it was noticed coffee also made people more aggressive and prone to fighting, so Sanka was introduced as a coffee substitute.

Perhaps we should look at our culture in the US, and its focus on being competitive, and therefore, increasing a demand for stimulants. I have worked some tough jobs where physical demands, demand at least coffee. In our present environment, where people are afraid of loosing jobs, or are desperate to get jobs, I can understand the attraction to drugs like meth. Being unemployed for months can be terribly depressing and take a toll on one's self esteem and confidence. As I understand it, a little cheap meth suddenly replaces all the good feelings our lousy economy has taken away. However, for the same reasons stimulants and depressants like alcohol, makes us feel good, they also lead to rapes, fights, and crimes. Check out the prison population. Many prisoners were young and under the influence of a drug or alcohol. That is why this stuff is illegal or labeled a controlled substance, but our control of alcohol is a joke. No on stops an alcoholic from having another drink, not even when serious health issues are rapidly bringing this person to death.

So we have chemical, drug and alcohol and cultural issues, and our prison system is sucking the money out of education. How intelligent is that? We are finding, some of these chemicals are showing up in the blood of new born babies.

This is a science forum, so I have to ask, has anyone researched why the aggressive bees from the south are so aggressive? I suspect they evolved this way because of living where coffee beans grow. I am saying what we eat and drink can effect us and our children, and then perhaps a whole species.

Good news! Information about what happens to castrated males is well documented since ancient China. Long-Term Consequences of Castration in Men: Lessons from the Skoptzy and the Eunuchs of the Chinese and Ottoman Courts

More good news. Castrated males do not go bald, so guys if you are worried about going bald, just cut your nuts off. ah, hum, maybe being bald isn't so bad? However, my meth cook, extremely abusive son in law who has spent most his life in prision, is going bald, and may be he would like to keep his hair? I would like to give him that choice.

So what if I posted this on other forums? I value your opinions as much as anyone else's.

Originally Posted by Ascended

would we have to treat female criminals equally?

Male prisoners drastically out number females. Men are also more violent.

Originally Posted by Ascended

we already know that certain racial demographics are disproportionaly represented within the penal system

This is true, although I'm not suggesting all prisoners be castrated. Only violent criminals for whom rehabilitation doesn't work, repeat offenders.

You could substitute castration for any behavior altering procedure - sedation, lobotomy etc. The real question is it justifiable to alter someone in this way, I think it is. It's too expensive to keep locking people up again and again.

Directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

Originally Posted by Pong

Directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

Do criminals make good parents? Allowing them to reproduce continues the cycled of dysfunctional families.

Originally Posted by Grockle

Do criminals make good parents

Generally not. But the right to reproduce supersedes the duty to raise good citizens. Having no offspring is a fate arguably worse than death. Ask a grandma or grandpa about this.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Grockle

Do criminals make good parents

Generally not. But the right to reproduce supersedes the duty to raise good citizens. Having no offspring is a fate arguably worse than death. Ask a grandma or grandpa about this.

I am a grandmother. Many of us are saying we would not want to raise children today, so why would we want grandchildren? I don't think anyone wants a son or daughter living in prison, or killing many people in a school. Our mental system is not good and because I was in the care giving profession and attended a meeting, I learned some older mothers are exhausted trying assure their son's, living independently, take their medications, so they do not kill someone. If sterilization would protect their son's and protect future children by assuring they are not born, those who know the realities would be thankful for the chance of a better life.

Originally Posted by grockle

Originally Posted by pong

directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

do criminals make good parents? Allowing them to reproduce continues the cycled of dysfunctional families.

You are right. It is our duty to raise good citizens and I would vote for sterilizing people who repeatedly have children without a means to care for them. I know I am a bit extreme on this, but I think the well being of child, comes above all esle.

Violent criminals destroy their lives and the lives of others, is society not morally obliged to save them from themselves via castration?

Very true.

Besides, sperm and eggs can be preserved and used later if a person who is incapable of being a good parent, some how becomes a person who would be a good parent.

Originally Posted by Rita

I learned some older mothers are exhausted trying assure their son's, living independently, take their medications, so they do not kill someone. If sterilization would protect their son's and protect future children by assuring they are not born, those who know the realities would be thankful for the chance of a better life.

As well as eliminating those genes from the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by grockle

Originally Posted by pong

directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

do criminals make good parents? Allowing them to reproduce continues the cycled of dysfunctional families.

You are right. It is our duty to raise good citizens and I would vote for sterilizing people who repeatedly have children without a means to care for them. I know I am a bit extreme on this, but I think the well being of child, comes above all esle.

Sorry but I most strongly disagree with this, they have actually tried this in the past, mass sterilization, and it is actually considered a form of genocide under the United Nations Charter. We may have a problem with certain groups of people but that in no way gives us any justification for taking away such a fundemental basic human right.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by grockle

Originally Posted by pong

directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

do criminals make good parents? Allowing them to reproduce continues the cycled of dysfunctional families.

You are right. It is our duty to raise good citizens and I would vote for sterilizing people who repeatedly have children without a means to care for them. I know I am a bit extreme on this, but I think the well being of child, comes above all esle.

Sorry but I most strongly disagree with this, they have actually tried this in the past, mass sterilization, and it is actually considered a form of genocide under the United Nations Charter. We may have a problem with certain groups of people but that in no way gives us any justification for taking away such a fundemental basic human right.

With rights their are duties, and I question if those incapable of preforming the duties should have rights? I say this while at the same time having intense fear of giving a government the authority of determine who has children and who does not. I am not sure I am willing to give government that authority, but sometimes we have to choose between the worse of two evils, and violent people must be controlled. Keeping them in prison for a life time, is not a good option. However, this too can prevent them from having children.

Those in favour seem intent on treating the symptom not the cause......... I mean the underlying cause.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Those in favour seem intent on treating the symptom not the cause......... I mean the underlying cause.

Well, supplying birth control makes God angry and parents don't seem to know how to educate their kids in regard to sex so...cut their nuts off, I guess.

Originally Posted by Rita

You are right. It is our duty to raise good citizens and I would vote for sterilizing people who repeatedly have children without a means to care for them. I know I am a bit extreme on this, but I think the well being of child, comes above all esle.

You believe that you are a good citizen if you forcibly castrate people against their will and deny them a basic human right all under the guise of 'think of the children'?

You even said that you would vote for sterilizing people who have too many children and who do not have the means to care for them. Wow..

Where does it end?

It is a very disturbing eugenics program you have built up in your head there. Because this is eugenics. 'Raising good citizens' and ensuring that you rid the gene pool of any undesirables.

Of course we won't factor in that many who commit violent crimes which you would advocate castrating men over, suffer from some form of mental illness and may have been victims of violence themselves as children. It is best to just say 'castrate criminals' to stop them from breeding because one does not usually advocate the castration of mentally ill people as that is so, well, 1930's and 40's.. Especially not in polite society.

Very true.

Besides, sperm and eggs can be preserved and used later if a person who is incapable of being a good parent, some how becomes a person who would be a good parent.

How nice of you to think of the future..



Because we all know that the best way to tackle violence in society is to have a State that is violent in return and castrates people against their will. But at least you have a system in place in your head to ensure that any "oops" moment can be prevented if a person is found innocent, or somehow passes whatever test to prove that they could be a good parent.

Another flaw in this proposed punishment is that it only addresses violent men. There is a whole other gender that does violent crime as well, there are female prisons for a reason.

Because I am human I have a list of people I should like to see castrated. Because I seek to be a good human I would never allow anyone to see it (or use it).

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by Rita

You are right. It is our duty to raise good citizens and I would vote for sterilizing people who repeatedly have children without a means to care for them. I know I am a bit extreme on this, but I think the well being of child, comes above all esle.

You believe that you are a good citizen if you forcibly castrate people against their will and deny them a basic human right all under the guise of 'think of the children'?

You even said that you would vote for sterilizing people who have too many children and who do not have the means to care for them. Wow..

Where does it end?

It is a very disturbing eugenics program you have built up in your head there. Because this is eugenics. 'Raising good citizens' and ensuring that you rid the gene pool of any undesirables.

Of course we won't factor in that many who commit violent crimes which you would advocate castrating men over, suffer from some form of mental illness and may have been victims of violence themselves as children. It is best to just say 'castrate criminals' to stop them from breeding because one does not usually advocate the castration of mentally ill people as that is so, well, 1930's and 40's.. Especially not in polite society.

Very true.

Besides, sperm and eggs can be preserved and used later if a person who is incapable of being a good parent, some how becomes a person who would be a good parent.

How nice of you to think of the future..



Because we all know that the best way to tackle violence in society is to have a State that is violent in return and castrates people against their will. But at least you have a system in place in your head to ensure that any "oops" moment can be prevented if a person is found innocent, or somehow passes whatever test to prove that they could be a good parent.

Where does responsible citizenship and responsible parenting begin? What kind of world do you want?

Originally Posted by Rita

Where does responsible citizenship and responsible parenting begin? What kind of world do you want?

A world where we must accept the consequences of our actions, even those rooted in poor decision-making, and not one where we allow the government to control reproduction.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Another flaw in this proposed punishment is that it only addresses violent men. There is a whole other gender that does violent crime as well, there are female prisons for a reason.

Why the assumption that castration is punishment? Personally I am opposed to a revengeful and punishing prison system. I wish we would at least experiment with co ed prisons, where men and women could live together with families.

I very feel strongly that we greatly improve how we deal with people with mental problems. A relatively high percentage of our population is schizophrenic and a large percent is autistic and many, many more are bi polar, and many come from abusive homes or abusive environments like violent city slums. A civilization that thinks in terms of revenge and punishment is no better than the worst element of the society. In my opinion, we are doing a piss poor job of dealing with reality and the US seems to be most retarded, compared to European countries that are more humane.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Where does responsible citizenship and responsible parenting begin? What kind of world do you want?

A world where we must accept the consequences of our actions, even those rooted in poor decision-making, and not one where we allow the government to control reproduction.

I love the rain forest and rivers of Oregon, and I want sunny days.

Bringing a child into this world and being an unfit parent is not acceptable. The child is not the one should pay the consequences for bad choices.

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Another flaw in this proposed punishment is that it only addresses violent men. There is a whole other gender that does violent crime as well, there are female prisons for a reason.

Why the assumption that castration is punishment? Personally I am opposed to a revengeful and punishing prison system. I wish we would at least experiment with co ed prisons, where men and women could live together with families.

The OP starts off with criminal conduct and attempts to reform such conduct. Are you proposing castration for all aggressive males even those that haven't committed a crime?

Originally Posted by Rita

Where does responsible citizenship and responsible parenting begin? What kind of world do you want?

Responsible citizenship and parenting does not begin by forcing castration on men against their consent and then saying that it is because those men are violent, while disregarding that forcible castration goes against one's basic human right, and is just as violent and does nothing to address the cause of the violence. Not to mention it is inherently immoral and just wrong.

Why the assumption that castration is punishment?

You think forcing castration on the male population if they do not behave a certain way or if they commit a crime is not a punishment?

Personally I am opposed to a revengeful and punishing prison system. I wish we would at least experiment with co ed prisons, where men and women could live together with families.

Forcible castration and experimenting on prisoners by having their families live in the prison with them (because having children live in prisons with criminals is a good thing?).. Egads!..

Their families have not committed any crimes, so why would you want to have them live in prison?

I very feel strongly that we greatly improve how we deal with people with mental problems. A relatively high percentage of our population is schizophrenic and a large percent is autistic and many, many more are bi polar, and many come from abusive homes or abusive environments like violent city slums. A civilization that thinks in terms of revenge and punishment is no better than the worst element of the society. In my opinion, we are doing a piss poor job of dealing with reality and the US seems to be most retarded, compared to European countries that are more humane.

You do not think that forcible castration is a punishment. Sorry to burst your bubble, but castration against one's consent is revenge and punishment and it is not in any way, humane. Nor does it address the causes of violence. Frankly, your solution is barbaric, immoral and denies men their basic human rights. It is also illegal.

And, it's not much good for preventing sexual deviance. The eunuchs of old often fathered children, it was said. jocular

University of California found that in 60% of dogs aggression could be treated with castration.

I would probably tend to be a little less aggressive myself. How come when you talk about doing some sadistic thing to the male privates, guys kind of get a weird feeling down there?

Instead of actually castrating the poor buggers, let's just threaten to do it. I can see a bunch of badasses all of a sudden screaming out, "I'll be good, I'll be good, honest I will". And they'll be doing so in a low voice.

That's the other thing, I don't want to walk into a karaoke bar and hear 'Big Girls Don't Cry" being sung by some 240 lb steroid gobbling ex-con weightlifter bad boy.

Originally Posted by jocular

And, it's not much good for preventing sexual deviance. The eunuchs of old often fathered children, it was said. jocular

I think Rita places too much importance on testosterone when it comes to violence and aggression in general.

Originally Posted by Rita

Bringing a child into this world and being an unfit parent is not acceptable.

The government can't even handle money or attend work more than once a week. So what makes you think these people should determine whether or not someone should be forced into a life-altering surgery that could change even their personality?

To me, that's a horrifying suggestion.

Originally Posted by Grockle

So what if I posted this on other forums? I value your opinions as much as anyone else's.

Originally Posted by Ascended

would we have to treat female criminals equally?

Male prisoners drastically out number females. Men are also more violent.

Originally Posted by Ascended

we already know that certain racial demographics are disproportionaly represented within the penal system

This is true, although I'm not suggesting all prisoners be castrated. Only violent criminals for whom rehabilitation doesn't work, repeat offenders.

You could substitute castration for any behavior altering procedure - sedation, lobotomy etc. The real question is it justifiable to alter someone in this way, I think it is. It's too expensive to keep locking people up again and again.

I agree, we should be thinking of castration as away to help a person instead of as punishment. However, this does mean giving a person a choice. For some people drugs work very well. However, we have not taken drug therapy testing far enough and I am sure this is what leads to the failure of drug treatments. We seek balance, and at first a drug may give us the balance we seek, but a few months down the road, we are out of balance again, because daily doses of medication does not allow for the natural cycling of ups and downs we need for balance.

A permanent physical change such as castration, could be counter balanced with hormone therapy, but the big the problem is this person would be denied sexual pleasures. However, we do have transgender people who chose to loose a penis and they seem to enjoy their changed lives but I don't think this would be satisfactory for most. If a man could be castrated and still get an erection, then it would not be a big deal. Sperm could be saved if this person's life stabilized and chose to be become a parent.

I know for a fact there are people who would love to not have the tempers they are, and who live in fear of their violent impulses. I wrote to convicts for a a few years, long before the Internet made it possible to have intellectual discussions. When it comes to undesirable human behavior, we should have compassion and seek away to resolve the problem for the person suffering the problem. Do unto others as you would them do to you.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Bringing a child into this world and being an unfit parent is not acceptable.

The government can't even handle money or attend work more than once a week. So what makes you think these people should determine whether or not someone should be forced into a life-altering surgery that could change even their personality?

To me, that's a horrifying suggestion.

Whooo! you really made the wrong assumption about what I think! The state illegally took my grandchildren and what happened from there was a lesson in tyranny that I never thought we could have in the US. You might notice I write about the Military Industrial Complex and about loosing our liberty. I am radical about this because of what the state did to my family. You could not have made a worse statement to me. I most certainly did not say the state should have this authority.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by jocular

And, it's not much good for preventing sexual deviance. The eunuchs of old often fathered children, it was said. jocular

I think Rita places too much importance on testosterone when it comes to violence and aggression in general.

I think you should ask a few questions before telling people what you think it is that I think. This is a science forum. There is a relationship between testosterone and violence. It is not the only cause of violence for sure. But I thought we were speaking scientifically about the effects of castration.

Opinion and value statements come in when speaking about reproduction. If a person is not capable of being a good parent, or is not willing to be a good parent, this person should not have children, because it is not a right to victimize children. This does not necessarily mean state authority should intervene, and when it does, perhaps it should do so differently than it has done, but for sure I mean that culture should be clear about this. We should not be amoral and put reproductive people's desires above the well being of a child.

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Bringing a child into this world and being an unfit parent is not acceptable.

The government can't even handle money or attend work more than once a week. So what makes you think these people should determine whether or not someone should be forced into a life-altering surgery that could change even their personality?

To me, that's a horrifying suggestion.

Whooo! you really made the wrong assumption about what I think! The state illegally took my grandchildren and what happened from there was a lesson in tyranny that I never thought we could have in the US. You might notice I write about the Military Industrial Complex and about loosing our liberty. I am radical about this because of what the state did to my family. You could not have made a worse statement to me. I most certainly did not say the state should have this authority.

If the government isn't going to have a part in this, who has the authority to castrate criminals?

Only if it were to be televised to international audiences. We could use a suitable replacement to the current reality television shows.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Bringing a child into this world and being an unfit parent is not acceptable.

The government can't even handle money or attend work more than once a week. So what makes you think these people should determine whether or not someone should be forced into a life-altering surgery that could change even their personality?

To me, that's a horrifying suggestion.

Whooo! you really made the wrong assumption about what I think! The state illegally took my grandchildren and what happened from there was a lesson in tyranny that I never thought we could have in the US. You might notice I write about the Military Industrial Complex and about loosing our liberty. I am radical about this because of what the state did to my family. You could not have made a worse statement to me. I most certainly did not say the state should have this authority.

If the government isn't going to have a part in this, who has the authority to castrate criminals?

The person who may be castrated of course. It is a possible choice. Do you want to be as you are, or would like to be different?

Well reading some of these comments I'm starting to change my mind on this issue, perhaps it is a good idea after all. But if it works really well why stop with the violent criminals, what about bank robbers, shoplifters or car thieves heck I reckon that would make for a great deterent. Better still lets stop people from ever getting to the stage where they may become violent, we can screen people from childhood and if their testosterone levels are to high then we can chop their nuts and hey presto they magically won't present a danger of ever becoming violent, oh what a wonderful solution this is, how could I have not seen such amazing benefits.

Originally Posted by Rita

I think you should ask a few questions before telling people what you think it is that I think. This is a science forum. There is a relationship between testosterone and violence. It is not the only cause of violence for sure. But I thought we were speaking scientifically about the effects of castration.

Opinion and value statements come in when speaking about reproduction. If a person is not capable of being a good parent, or is not willing to be a good parent, this person should not have children, because it is not a right to victimize children. This does not necessarily mean state authority should intervene, and when it does, perhaps it should do so differently than it has done, but for sure I mean that culture should be clear about this. We should not be amoral and put reproductive people's desires above the well being of a child.

This is indeed a science forum Rita and my comment was in response to someone who was also commenting on your views about dogs being less aggressive after being neutered.

And since this is a science forum, I provided a scientific report about studies that were done to show that testosterone you were so concerned about earlier, actually interact with violence - in other words, castration is not the answer. Since you have now switched this ideal to bad parenting, that is not going to solve the problem either. There are a variety of reasons why someone could be a bad parent. Their history, how they were treated as children, their current situation and those they have around them can all play a part in how one parents. It does not excuse bad parenting, but it does show that parenting is a skill that one learns from our own parents and those around us.

If someone is deemed a bad parent, then the State's intervention will usually occur in many steps and when all hope is gone or when there is a clear danger to the children, then the State will remove the children from the parent's care for the children's own safety.

Instead of castration, perhaps the State should provide more funding for therapy and counseling for struggling parents and education. Because castration is not the answer. What castration can end up doing is changing the person's behaviour and personality, sometimes to being worse than they were before. Sure, they won't be having any more children, but you are not addressing or solving what made them bad parents in the first place and their children will end up being the same because not only was the parent(s) bad, but the State was also bad in giving that as an ultimatum - ie. the child will grow up to think that abuse is the norm as it will have seen the State and the parents as its examples.

Forcing castration or even encouraging it under the guise of 'you're a bad parent' is tantamount to eugenics and torture and goes against any basic human rights principles a person has and at no time should it ever be acceptable.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Well reading some of these comments I'm starting to change my mind on this issue, perhaps it is a good idea after all. But if it works really well why stop with the violent criminals, what about bank robbers, shoplifters or car thieves heck I reckon that would make for a great deterent. Better still lets stop people from ever getting to the stage where they may become violent, we can screen people from childhood and if their testosterone levels are to high then we can chop their nuts and hey presto they magically won't present a danger of ever becoming violent, oh what a wonderful solution this is, how could I have not seen such amazing benefits.

Disturbing. Very, very, disturbing. Imagine you're a parent, and you're son just got diagnosed with 'high-testosterone syndrome'. Suddenly, for nothing that he did, he will be rendered sterile. Now imagine you're a three year old, and some doctor just told you there's something wrong with you. You have to go through a procedure, completely altering your sexuality and life. You think that's a life any parent would condone, or any child want?

[QUOTE=Tranquille;399316]

Originally Posted by Rita

This is indeed a science forum Rita and my comment was in response to someone who was also commenting on your views about dogs being less aggressive after being neutered.

And since this is a science forum, I provided a scientific report about studies that were done to show that testosterone you were so concerned about earlier, actually interact with violence - in other words, castration is not the answer. Since you have now switched this ideal to bad parenting, that is not going to solve the problem either. There are a variety of reasons why someone could be a bad parent. Their history, how they were treated as children, their current situation and those they have around them can all play a part in how one parents. It does not excuse bad parenting, but it does show that parenting is a skill that one learns from our own parents and those around us.

If someone is deemed a bad parent, then the State's intervention will usually occur in many steps and when all hope is gone or when there is a clear danger to the children, then the State will remove the children from the parent's care for the children's own safety.

Instead of castration, perhaps the State should provide more funding for therapy and counseling for struggling parents and education. Because castration is not the answer. What castration can end up doing is changing the person's behaviour and personality, sometimes to being worse than they were before. Sure, they won't be having any more children, but you are not addressing or solving what made them bad parents in the first place and their children will end up being the same because not only was the parent(s) bad, but the State was also bad in giving that as an ultimatum - ie. the child will grow up to think that abuse is the norm as it will have seen the State and the parents as its examples.

Forcing castration or even encouraging it under the guise of 'you're a bad parent' is tantamount to eugenics and torture and goes against any basic human rights principles a person has and at no time should it ever be acceptable.

I am sorry, I did over react to what you said. I should have walked my dog when another post triggered intense emotions, that interfered with my ability to reason. I hate it when that happens.

Back on topic, there are many studies indicating there is a connection between testosterone and violence. It also appears marriage has a civilizing effect on men because it lowers their testosterone, and this could be a good argument for making prostitution legal. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...e-and-hormones It is also known as men age and their testosterone decreases they often become more domestic. http://ezinearticles.com/?Testostero...me?&id=1510207 At least that is what was being taught when I studied gerontology, and I have seen men change. Plenty of husbands are terrible, abusive people until their testosterone level drops, some of us see the change as a big improvement and it is disturbing to me that only bad things are said about the change.

Watching foot ball increases a man's testosterone level and the likelihood of violence. I paid my way through college being a janitor and a bar I cleaned would get trashed on foot ball nights. That is the only time towel dispensers would get torn off the wall. It was obvious male hormones were raging.
A research shows that watching football increases the supporters ...

www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=119594...en
Apr 24, 2012 – Spanish supporters' testosterone and cortisol levels increased while watching the World Cup football match, when Spain beat Holland in 2010.



Watching soccer increases the supporters' hormone levels

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424120543.htm
Apr. 24, 2012 — Spanish supporters' testosterone and cortisol levels increased while watching the World Cup football match (soccer), when Spain beat Holland ...

I also remember working in a store across from a high school and at least one man was so driven by hormones he could not focus on learning. I felt so sorry for him. I do not think we are being scientific about some of our judgments. And girls, oh my goodness! Their judgment can be totally destroyed by hormones, but this thread is not about how hormones effect females and their judgment. May be a thread should address hormones and judgment and how we change as we age? These arguments could lead to questioning if there is a God, why did he make humans as they are? It might be a workable formula for prehistoric times and filling the planet with humans, but it is not a workable formula for civilizations. Bottom line, hormones are very powerful and can interfere with being reasonable people.

I am not advocating for forced castration, but I would like to advocate for being more scientific about the human condition. If we were more scientific, perhaps we could be more compassionate and charitable towards those who are having a hard time being human. We might consider managing hormone levels to reduce human problems, this might come before prison or other forms of punishment.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

That's the other thing, I don't want to walk into a karaoke bar and hear 'Big Girls Don't Cry" being sung by some 240 lb steroid gobbling ex-con weightlifter bad boy.

Being a former karaoke host at a mostly male gay bar, i have witnessed this and it is hilarious. You really shouldn't deny yourself this experience. It had me laughing myself into tearful hysteria.

I agree and disagree with just about every poster in this thread. I certainly understand Rita's point of view and sympathize with her, but I also am not inclined to castrate anyone for any reason. I don't believe in "fixing" people. The whole idea of determining who is broken and who isn't is a matter of opinion. The opinion of the many outweighing the opinion of the few. I don't believe in objective morality.

To say that something is simply immoral or wrong is bizarre to me. Are arranged marriages right or wrong? Depends on who you ask. So in reality, from a scientific point of view, there is no right or wrong. Simply a more commonly preferred method.

I don't think anyone, no matter how "mentally ill" they are, is broken. They simply don't function in a way that is compatible with the majority of other people. To me, removing aspects of a system that create conflicts within the system is perfectly acceptable. If you are running your computer and two programs you have installed conflict with each other causing a breakdown of the OS then you decide which program you can live without and uninstall it. It's pretty simple really.

I don't like the prison system. I think we should simply be allowed to kill anyone who poses a threat and we should weigh the consequences of that choice and realize that by killing someone who poses a threat to us, we present ourselves to be a threat to others and they will likely decide to kill us, well it would be messy for a while but eventually, with a smaller population, the motivation to kill would start to wain and those with the forethought to realize that inspiring others to murder us is not a good way to survive and so the remaining survivors would be those less inclined to kill unless there was a serious threat not only to themselves but to a group of people who would support you and protect you in your endeavors to remove the threat. of course this is how "civilized" government got it's start, well at least its what I suspect. Becomes a bit of a never ending circle. Humans are corrupt, they begin to self police, a remaining few survive and create a social order, the social order grows and takes on a personality of its own until the people who created it see it as corrupt, the order is disbanded, self policing begins and a new social order is in place until it becomes corrupt.

Humans are ugly nasty creatures that seek out revenge, punishment, and satisfaction. We will never have a government that does not reinforce this. Because all governments are created in the image of their creators.

" 'Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave."

If the root problem is aggression, then I don't think castration will resolve it. I've already cited that this "process" will not resolve the issue in violent women. I was considering that this may be a matter of domestication of the human animal.

There has been an on going study in Russia on the domesticated silver fox. Dmitri K. Belyaev, a Russian scientist, had been investigating the process by which wolves were domesticated into our canine companions.

Belyaev wondered if selecting for tameness and against aggression would result in hormonal and neurochemical changes, since behavior ultimately emerged from biology. Those hormonal and chemical changes could then be implicated in anatomy and physiology. It could be that the the anatomical differences in domesticated dogs were related to the genetic changes underlying the behavioral temperament for which they selected (tameness and low aggression). He believed that he could investigate these questions about domestication by attempting to domesticate wild foxes. Belyaev and his colleagues took wild silver foxes (a variant of the red fox) and bred them, with a strong selection criteria for inherent tameness..

...The result of this breeding program conducted over more than 40 generations of silver foxes was a group of friendly, domesticated foxes. These domesticated foxes, which were bred on the basis of a single selection criteria, displayed behavioral, physiological, and anatomical characteristics that were not found in the wild population, or were found in wild foxes but with much lower frequency. One of the reasons that these findings were so compelling was that the criterion used to determine whether an individual fox would be allowed to breed was simply how they reacted upon the approach of a human. Would they back away, hissing and snarling, and try to bite the experimenter? Or would they approach the human and attempt to interact?

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations. I am aware of the highly speculative nature of this suggestion, but there is some science to support it.

Early Canid Domestications: The Farm-Fox Experiment

Man's New Best Friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication

Domesticated Silver Fox

Selective Breeding in Silver Foxes : The Silver Fox Experiment

Why would we want to breed out aggression?!

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Why would we want to breed out aggression?!

There may be a consensus that said aggression is detrimental to society.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Why would we want to breed out aggression?!

50 million deaths in WWII, for example. Tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US. Or do you think this is an effective form of evolution?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Why would we want to breed out aggression?!

50 million deaths in WWII, for example. Tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US. Or do you think this is an effective form of evolution?

Welcome to real life. There will always be a threat- and if you "breed out" aggression, no one ill be left with any drive to answer that threat.
No one will have the impetus to fight for the things need fighting for. Maybe our survival. Maybe the condition of our planet. Maybe funding for research. Either way, aggression is fundamental to our existence and to remove it would be to remove ourselves.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Why would we want to breed out aggression?!

50 million deaths in WWII, for example. Tens of thousands of deaths annually in the US. Or do you think this is an effective form of evolution?

Welcome to real life. There will always be a threat- and if you "breed out" aggression, no one ill be left with any drive to answer that threat.
No one will have the impetus to fight for the things need fighting for. Maybe our survival. Maybe the condition of our planet. Maybe funding for research. Either way, aggression is fundamental to our existence and to remove it would be to remove ourselves.

Why would you assume aggression is the only response to aggression? Does the army which have the more physical and aggressive fighters necessarily win the war? Why would you assume removing it would necessarily remove the human spices from existence? Has aggression been the best predictor of success of a species? If you happen to cross paths with a rabid animal, does responding in rabid manner the best and only possible resolution for your survival? Would just trapping the animals and allowing to die out in a cage be just as effective? Perhaps with aggression being breed out there would be no one to initiate a threat, thus no need to meet that threat with aggression.

I'm not convinced that more aggressive animal survives over generations.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Why would you assume aggression is the only response to aggression?

Why do you assume I made that assumption?
It is, however, an effective response to aggression. One that's engrained deeply within us, as well.
So one response to defensive aggression is to back down. That's not necessarily the response to other methods of avoiding a confrontation, such as ignoring it, bribing it or negotiating, where they may force their aggressions, take advantage of the need to negotiate to milk it for what it's worth or even- enslave the other party.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Does the army which have the more physical and aggressive fighters necessarily win the war?

Quite often, yes, actually. Look at Vietnam, Korea, or any advance into Russia. Hitler ran into a great deal of trouble when he tried to cut under Russia and across the top of Inda when he ran into Nepalese natives armed with the Kuhkri knives that tore his larger, more numerous, better armed and trained battalion apart.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Why would you assume removing it would necessarily remove the human spices from existence?

I did not make that assumption. Again.
I did, however, state that it's an essential part of us and its effective removal could render us inert.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Has aggression been the best predictor of success of a species?

No, but it is a strong indicator of a successful survivor. We still have slugs and they are not very aggressive. But they also have a very short life expectancy. And a very low quality of life. The more aggressive you are, the better your odds of living longer and having more.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

If you happen to cross paths with a rabid animal, does responding in rabid manner the best and only possible resolution for your survival?

Quite likely, actually... I'm guessing you've not been exposed to rabid animals much. A quick and aggressive act is more likely to produce success- Eliminate the threat.
You cannot negotiate with a rabid animal, nor lure it away from you. You have pretty much two options...:
Run- hope it doesn't bite you on the butt...
Grab it ands snap its neck and hope it doesn't get a bite in...
Which is better? Who knows... But I prefer to eliminate the threat than to run like a little.... beyatch. That's just me.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Would just trapping the animals and allowing to die out in a cage be just as effective?

Trapping it is a form of aggression. And good luck getting the impetus to confront aggression in any manner that doesn't require the aggressive urge in the first place.
I think you're not really realizing just how deep aggression goes in our behavior.
Politics is aggression. Religion is aggression. Aggression is market- territory- motivation.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Perhaps with aggression being breed out there would be no one to initiate a threat, thus no need to meet that threat with aggression.

Unless you eliminate all life on Earth from having aggression... that's simply not possible. Nature is aggressive and all life forms on Earth have evolved by that standard since pretty much the origin- devour, defend, kill.
And even if you could do that... we have no way of knowing what manner of lifeforms may, one day in the future, encounter us. We can hope that they are a reasonable advanced species of life... But if they have any aggression, our descendants may curse our bones as they get enslaved and slaughtered for having led them to it.

I get it- You, personally, may believe, that aggression must be bad. What an interesting dogma, you have. Like Capt. Janeway from S.T. Voyager that magically always found a good solution to every problem in order to avoid doing anything she considered negative. It's why that show sucked and why if I had been captain of that ship, it would have been home 7 years sooner. Would have made a kinda boring plot, though... Aggression has its use and its place and it's very, very deeply a part of us. Now, you may believe that overly-aggressive behavior should be removed from a society... Something that I think a little aggression could easily solve.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

I'm not convinced that more aggressive animal survives over generations.

C'mere- I can show ya...

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Welcome to real life.

The use of rhetoric that suggests the writer is pragmatic and has a superior grasp of the situation is often an effective schoolyard technique. It is baseless as an argument on a science forum.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There will always be a threat- and if you "breed out" aggression, no one ill be left with any drive to answer that threat.

I understood Mr Mojo to be talking about that subset of aggression that uses aggression as the primary mechanism of behaviour, both as repsonse (to anything), or as self initiated (in most circumstances). You appear to be using it as one half of the dichotomy, fight or flight. If this is the case your argument is of the form, "We shouldn't breed out legs. Legs are very useful." And, ot course, I should have to agree with you on that one.

Originally Posted by John Galt

The use of rhetoric that suggests the writer is pragmatic and has a superior grasp of the situation is often an effective schoolyard technique. It is baseless as an argument on a science forum.

If you say so. In the meantime, in real life, aggression is a part of real life.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I understood Mr Mojo to be talking about that subset of aggression that uses aggression as the primary mechanism of behaviour, both as repsonse (to anything), or as self initiated (in most circumstances).

A lack of a definition is not my problem.
MrMojo's response treated it as though he believed any aggression is a form of 'hate" or automatic violence.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You appear to be using it as one half of the dichotomy, fight or flight.

hardly, conisdering that I pointed out the roots of aggression in forms of behavior, including politics, motivation- one pursuing a girl is aggression. Aggression is not a black or white- it's shades of gray, degrees and intensity.
To remove "aggression" is to remove the entire scale, not just what he finds displeasing.
If he finds an overly-aggressive serial killer to be displeasing, I can 'aggressively' remove that overly-aggressive serial killer from the gene pool and solve the problem neatly and efficiently, while being much less of an aggressor than the serial killer.

Originally Posted by John Galt

If this is the case your argument is of the form, "We shouldn't breed out legs. Legs are very useful." And, ot course, I should have to agree with you on that one.

Agreed. Perhaps that lack of a definition should be made less lacking. To breed out aggression, however, is a bit more complex. As one would need to define the scale of aggression, what's acceptable and what isn't- and then define a method of breeding it out- since it may not manifest so easily. In which case the very simple statement of "We should breed out aggression" must include any form of aggression.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Why would you assume aggression is the only response to aggression?

Why do you assume I made that assumption?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There will always be a threat- and if you "breed out" aggression, no one ill be left with any drive to answer that threat.

You posit there will always be such a threat (aggression), then posit if there isn't counter-aggression there will be no one left. You've missed the point that without aggression initially, there is no need for a counter-aggression.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

One that's engrained deeply within us, as well.

Again you've missed the point of my proposition of possibly breeding such a genetic trait out.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Does the army which have the more physical and aggressive fighters necessarily win the war?

Quite often, yes, actually.... Look at Vietnam, Korea, or any advance into Russia. Hitler ran into a great deal of trouble when he tried to cut under Russia and across the top of Inda when he ran into Nepalese natives armed with the Kuhkri knives that tore his larger, more numerous, better armed and trained battalion apart.

Since you used a qualitative response, my point of it not being necessarily indicative of what group survives a conflict stands.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Why would you assume removing it would necessarily remove the human spices from existence?

I did not make that assumption. Again.
I did, however, state that it's an essential part of us and its effective removal could render us inert.

I refer you back to my first response above.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Has aggression been the best predictor of success of a species?

No, but it is a strong indicator of a successful survivor. We still have slugs and they are not very aggressive. But they also have a very short life expectancy. And a very low quality of life. The more aggressive you are, the better your odds of living longer and having more.

You have provided an example of a species that continues to exist that is not very aggressive. The elephant in the room is the human animal that has evolved to top of the food chain while in the mist of larger, faster, and stronger predators. Much of our success has come from farming plants and animals.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Grab it ands snap its neck and hope it doesn't get a bite in...
Which is better? Who knows... But I prefer to eliminate the threat than to run like a little.... beyatch. That's just me.

Interesting choice of action and words. I would rather not place any part of my body near the teeth of rabies infected animal. The appearance of retreating to gain a more tactical advantage wouldn't concern me.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Would just trapping the animals and allowing to die out in a cage be just as effective?

Trapping it is a form of aggression. And good luck getting the impetus to confront aggression in any manner that doesn't require the aggressive urge in the first place.
I think you're not really realizing just how deep aggression goes in our behavior.
Politics is aggression. Religion is aggression. Aggression is market- territory- motivation.

I suspect we are using two different definitions. I define aggression as an unprovoked physical attack. BTW traps work.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Perhaps with aggression being breed out there would be no one to initiate a threat, thus no need to meet that threat with aggression.

Unless you eliminate all life on Earth from having aggression... that's simply not possible.

Well aren't humans already doing this presently? There are far more domesticated animals for our use now than before. We are are eliminating animals which we consider a threat to us. It isn't necessary to modify all life, only those which we may deem hostile. Claiming that it is impossible, isn't really something you can prove. At best you can say that it would be extremely difficult presently.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Nature is aggressive and all life forms on Earth have evolved by that standard since pretty much the origin- devour, defend, kill.

You missed that part where I stated that humans are presently modifying the environment; directly and indirectly we are changing nature (e.g. global warming, genetic modification).

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And even if you could do that... we have no way of knowing what manner of lifeforms may, one day in the future, encounter us. We can hope that they are a reasonable advanced species of life... But if they have any aggression, our descendants may curse our bones as they get enslaved and slaughtered for having led them to it.

Please tell me your not talking about flesh eating reptilian aliens or the grays? Let's avoid the slippery slope of humans reacting to inter-galactic invasion for now. The future is unknown, but it hasn't stop humans from experimenting.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I get it- You, personally, may believe, that aggression must be bad. What an interesting dogma, you have. Like Capt. Janeway from S.T. Voyager that magically always found a good solution to every problem in order to avoid doing anything she considered negative. It's why that show sucked and why if I had been captain of that ship, it would have been home 7 years sooner. Would have made a kinda boring plot, though... Aggression has its use and its place and it's very, very deeply a part of us. Now, you may believe that overly-aggressive behavior should be removed from a society... Something that I think a little aggression could easily solve.

You don't actually get it, and I don't hold beliefs or dogmas. I was merely speculating the possible benefit of taming in the continued existence of an entire species over generations. Don't get ahead of yourself on a short term solution, for you may find your little aggression stops at your generation. It has been suggested that such a taming has been done to one of our primate cousins, the bonobo.

"In bonobo-land in the south, the story was different," Hare explains. "The river would have protected the ancestors of bonobos from gorillas." With more food to go around, females could gather in larger groups, form tight social bonds, and better resist the advances of males. In this land of plenty, the least aggressive males, who opted for alliances rather than brute force, were most likely to mate. South of the river, the nicer apes thrived.

Tame Theory: Did Bonobos Domesticate Themselves?

The self-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

Originally Posted by Neverfly;399416ated

A lack of a definition is not my problem.
MrMojo's response treated it as though he believed any aggression is a form of 'hate" or automatic violence.

You should really stop trying to guess what I believe or post. If you need clarification, just ask.
It seems you have broader definition of aggression.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

The question was sincere and calm.

In the meantime, you typed a lot above, but said little to counter what I said.

You clarified that you are referring to unprovoked violent aggression only... Very well, please explain exactly how one breeds that out?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

The question was sincere and calm.

In the meantime, you typed a lot above, but said little to counter what I said.

I've countered all that you've said.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You clarified that you are referring to unprovoked violent aggression only... Very well, please explain exactly how one breeds that out?

Again, as noted in post #47 the suggestion is highly speculative, since there is no established repeatable methodology on humans at this time. Are you just being argumentative for argumentative sake?

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Again, as noted in post #47 the suggestion is highly speculative, since there is no established repeatable methodology on humans at this time. Are you just being argumentative for argumentative sake?

The idea is absurd, agreed. But the principle of it makes defining what aggression is that can be bred out just as problematic. I would posit- as I already did, that there is a benefit to aggression. However, if you're isolating a particular kind of aggression, I might note that tends to breed itself out, on its own, as well. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

Thank you. There is sometimes a difference between what I say and what I would act on, because I say things hoping we can think about what we think. However, sometimes I do say things I would act on, and I know people who do not know me, can not know which things I would act on and which I would not. It would be nice if we had black print for things we are sure about, and blue print for things we are wondering about.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Rita

Where does responsible citizenship and responsible parenting begin? What kind of world do you want?

A world where we must accept the consequences of our actions, even those rooted in poor decision-making, and not one where we allow the government to control reproduction.

Castration can become a consequence of violent rape or sodomy. This would not be date rape, and if there were any question if a person acted violently it would not be a consequence. However, if a man beats and rapes a woman and leaves her in the woods believing she is dead and is likely to do this again, or sodomizes another man in a hostile act of domination, perhaps the consequences should be harsh? The judgment should be based not only on doing the wrong, but the likelihood this person will do it again.

Originally Posted by Pong

Directly violates what - in my view - is the most precious of all human rights: "to found a family" in other words to have children.

This right doesn't come without responsibility. I wonder if a man who gives young women drugs or alcohol, and leaves them pregnant and has no intention of supporting the mothers or of doing anything to be a father, should have the right to procreate? I am dealing with the results of such behavior. My oldest granddaughter has never seen her father, and there is much pain involved, and now the pain is being passed on her to son. Young women without fathers or uncles to protect them, are much more vulnerable to unhealthy sexual behaviors, as step fathers rape them, men take advantage of them, sometimes they end up on sex trade market. They are lucky if the worst is only a child they can not support.

Young men need fathers, uncles, grandfather, or male mentors to transition them from childhood to adulthood. When such a male figure is not available the young man is apt to have a variety of problems, poorly channeled aggression is one of them.

A culture that holds sex is a right and skips the duty part of the rights, is a civilization in trouble.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It is, however, an effective response to aggression. One that's engrained deeply within us, as well.
So one response to defensive aggression is to back down. That's not necessarily the response to other methods of avoiding a confrontation, such as ignoring it, bribing it or negotiating, where they may force their aggressions, take advantage of the need to negotiate to milk it for what it's worth or even- enslave the other party.

I am not sure if I can say this here, but submitting is how women avoid being beaten, or stopping the beating they are taking. This too often becomes rape.

Originally Posted by Rita

Young women without fathers or uncles to protect them, are much more vulnerable to unhealthy sexual behaviors, as step fathers rape them

Can you say "gross [and bigoted] generalisation"?
Let's check...

• 38% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse in the family were by a brother/stepbrother
• 23% were perpetrated by a father
• 14% were perpetrated by an uncle
• 13% were perpetrated by a stepfather
• 8% were perpetrated by a cousin
• 6% were perpetrated by a grandfather
• 4% were perpetrated by a mother

Hmm, 13% by stepfather and 23% by father. I wonder what that does to your claim. And even uncles "beat" stepfathers.

(Yes it's male and female children in there. Which may skew the figures somewhat - but at least I've presented some figures as opposed to an overall, and, frankly, distasteful, generalisation).

Originally Posted by Rita

I am not sure if I can say this here, but submitting is how women avoid being beaten, or stopping the beating they are taking. This too often becomes rape.

A very essential case of aggression being necessary against an aggressor. Even if she seeks help elsewhere, others will need to be aggressive in protecting her.
It's a bit like a criminal and a cop.
A criminal can be a negative form of aggression and a cop can be a positive form.

For the human species as a whole, I believe wholeheartedly that we need a bit of aggression.

Then again, after re-reading Mr.Mojo's posts, I may have been a bit too reactive at the principle of it, rather than his exact wording.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

I am totally relaxed, and I don't know why you would think otherwise.
If you are doing a thought experiment which involves a eugenics program, wouldn't part of that involve a consideration of how it is to be implemented?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

I am totally relaxed, and I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Since you are asking a specific question base on a hypothetical technology, the best answer I can provide at this time would be is that hypothetical society would be in charge. There may be an unlimited amount of agencies which could be in charge; the answer is unknown at this time. The motivation behind why such a society may agree on such a eugenics program is that it was the best option to continue species. Perhaps that society is all what remained after a global nuclear conflict where a vast majority of all life is extinguished.

If you are doing a thought experiment which involves a eugenics program, wouldn't part of that involve a consideration of how it is to be implemented?

Not necessarily. Technologies can be developed for which the application is an afterthought (e.g. microwave transmissions for cooking, communications, medical treatment, and weaponry).

Originally Posted by Rita

I am sorry, I did over react to what you said. I should have walked my dog when another post triggered intense emotions, that interfered with my ability to reason. I hate it when that happens.

Back on topic, there are many studies indicating there is a connection between testosterone and violence. It also appears marriage has a civilizing effect on men because it lowers their testosterone, and this could be a good argument for making prostitution legal. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...e-and-hormones It is also known as men age and their testosterone decreases they often become more domestic. http://ezinearticles.com/?Testostero...me?&id=1510207 At least that is what was being taught when I studied gerontology, and I have seen men change. Plenty of husbands are terrible, abusive people until their testosterone level drops, some of us see the change as a big improvement and it is disturbing to me that only bad things are said about the change.

Watching foot ball increases a man's testosterone level and the likelihood of violence. I paid my way through college being a janitor and a bar I cleaned would get trashed on foot ball nights. That is the only time towel dispensers would get torn off the wall. It was obvious male hormones were raging.
A research shows that watching football increases the supporters ...

www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=119594...en
Apr 24, 2012 – Spanish supporters' testosterone and cortisol levels increased while watching the World Cup football match, when Spain beat Holland in 2010.



Watching soccer increases the supporters' hormone levels

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424120543.htm
Apr. 24, 2012 — Spanish supporters' testosterone and cortisol levels increased while watching the World Cup football match (soccer), when Spain beat Holland ...

I also remember working in a store across from a high school and at least one man was so driven by hormones he could not focus on learning. I felt so sorry for him. I do not think we are being scientific about some of our judgments. And girls, oh my goodness! Their judgment can be totally destroyed by hormones, but this thread is not about how hormones effect females and their judgment. May be a thread should address hormones and judgment and how we change as we age? These arguments could lead to questioning if there is a God, why did he make humans as they are? It might be a workable formula for prehistoric times and filling the planet with humans, but it is not a workable formula for civilizations. Bottom line, hormones are very powerful and can interfere with being reasonable people.

I am not advocating for forced castration, but I would like to advocate for being more scientific about the human condition. If we were more scientific, perhaps we could be more compassionate and charitable towards those who are having a hard time being human. We might consider managing hormone levels to reduce human problems, this might come before prison or other forms of punishment.

You may not be advocating forced castration in your mind, but what you are advocating is a form of control over the male population so that they fit into this ideal of 'nice'. In doing so, you have somehow or other portrayed men as being violent and completely unable to control themselves and placed the blame solely at the feet of testosterone.

No one is denying that testosterone levels become elevated when the subject is excited or angry or being violent. However treated the testosterone or castrating men who show a propensity for violence is not going to address the cause of the violence.

In other words, it is not the testosterone that causes the violence.

You brought up soccer hooliganism and noted the elevated levels of testosterone in men who would watch football and then cited your experience when you worked in a bar populated by football fans. Alcohol, a sense of competitiveness, desire for one's team to be better and to win, etc, all of it plays a role into football violence. Suffice to say, men who go on sporting rampages after their team wins or loses do not do so because they have testosterone.

Castration can become a consequence of violent rape or sodomy. This would not be date rape, and if there were any question if a person acted violently it would not be a consequence. However, if a man beats and rapes a woman and leaves her in the woods believing she is dead and is likely to do this again, or sodomizes another man in a hostile act of domination, perhaps the consequences should be harsh? The judgment should be based not only on doing the wrong, but the likelihood this person will do it again.

Rape is about control and in many ways, humiliating the victim. Sex is a by-product of that control.

Domestic violence is about control.

And it is not just men who rape. How would you address the many cases of female rapists?

This right doesn't come without responsibility. I wonder if a man who gives young women drugs or alcohol, and leaves them pregnant and has no intention of supporting the mothers or of doing anything to be a father, should have the right to procreate?

You cannot designate who can procreate and who cannot based on whether the parent is a dead beat or not. What of mother's who walk out on their children or abandon them in the father's care?

Young women without fathers or uncles to protect them, are much more vulnerable to unhealthy sexual behaviors, as step fathers rape them, men take advantage of them, sometimes they end up on sex trade market. They are lucky if the worst is only a child they can not support.

Talk about a huge generalisation without any scientific basis whatsoever.. Wow..

You seem to be portraying men as being some sort of monsters who must be castrated and controlled. You have this whole 'they're coming to rape our women folk' thing happening here. No, step father's do not all rape their step daughters, not all men take advantage of women and very few men force or sell their daughter's, girlfriends and partners into the sex trade market.

Young men need fathers, uncles, grandfather, or male mentors to transition them from childhood to adulthood. When such a male figure is not available the young man is apt to have a variety of problems, poorly channeled aggression is one of them.

Again, gross generalisation.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Well reading some of these comments I'm starting to change my mind on this issue, perhaps it is a good idea after all. But if it works really well why stop with the violent criminals, what about bank robbers, shoplifters or car thieves heck I reckon that would make for a great deterent. Better still lets stop people from ever getting to the stage where they may become violent, we can screen people from childhood and if their testosterone levels are to high then we can chop their nuts and hey presto they magically won't present a danger of ever becoming violent, oh what a wonderful solution this is, how could I have not seen such amazing benefits.

It's been brought to my attention in pm that it is not very clear that this message was intended as sarcasm, for those in any doubt it is most definately sarcasm!

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

It may be plausible that the aggression is genetic and may be selectively breed out from future generations.

Who's going to be in charge of the breeding program?

It is only a thought experiment, relax.

I am totally relaxed, and I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Since you are asking a specific question base on a hypothetical technology, the best answer I can provide at this time would be is that hypothetical society would be in charge. There may be an unlimited amount of agencies which could be in charge; the answer is unknown at this time. The motivation behind why such a society may agree on such a eugenics program is that it was the best option to continue species. Perhaps that society is all what remained after a global nuclear conflict where a vast majority of all life is extinguished.

If you are doing a thought experiment which involves a eugenics program, wouldn't part of that involve a consideration of how it is to be implemented?

Not necessarily. Technologies can be developed for which the application is an afterthought (e.g. microwave transmissions for cooking, communications, medical treatment, and weaponry).

The technology is rather trivial. It's been around for thousands of years. You can breed foxes that are tame as puppies in a few generations.
No matter how you slice it, the "agencies" will be a group of people controlling another group of people and turning them into a race of sheep. Of course, in order to maintain your race of sheep, you will still need some shepherds to make sure they stay in line.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The technology is rather trivial. It's been around for thousands of years. You can breed foxes that are tame as puppies in a few generations.

I'm not aware that there are specific methods which can produce predicable results in taming humans at a genetic level at this time, thus evaluating that it is trivial seems inappropriate.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No matter how you slice it, the "agencies" will be a group of people controlling another group of people and turning them into a race of sheep. Of course, in order to maintain your race of sheep, you will still need some shepherds to make sure they stay in line.

Yes, it could be that, or it could be something thing else. We don't know. It seems you are making a present day, westernized, moral/ethical evaluation on a hypothetical society which may have a different set of ethics.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The technology is rather trivial. It's been around for thousands of years. You can breed foxes that are tame as puppies in a few generations.

I'm not aware that there are specific methods which can produce predicable results in taming humans at a genetic level at this time, thus evaluating that it is trivial seems inappropriate.

You select for the traits you want. This is a basic barnyard fact known since the beginnings of agriculture.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No matter how you slice it, the "agencies" will be a group of people controlling another group of people and turning them into a race of sheep. Of course, in order to maintain your race of sheep, you will still need some shepherds to make sure they stay in line.

Yes, it could be that, or it could be something thing else. We don't know. It seems you are making a present day, westernized, moral/ethical evaluation on a hypothetical society which may have a different set of ethics.

No, it's not a matter of western ethics. If you want to maintain certain characteristics of a breed, somebody has to maintain control over the breeding. That means people controlling people.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You select for the traits you want. This is a basic barnyard fact known since the beginnings of agriculture.

I highly doubt farmer Brown is sequencing the gnome, identifying what chemical configuration relates to physical and behavioral affects, then documenting a technique that is repeatable and produces predictable results in humans. Again, the science involve to perform this isn't trivial.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, it's not a matter of western ethics. If you want to maintain certain characteristics of a breed, somebody has to maintain control over the breeding. That means people controlling people.

This could simply be people controlling themselves and their offspring at a genetic level, this is similar to getting a vaccination or selecting a mate based on traits you want your child to have. If there is a consensus that this is the best alternative for the species as a whole, then there isn't an loss of autonomy.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You select for the traits you want. This is a basic barnyard fact known since the beginnings of agriculture.

I highly doubt farmer Brown is sequencing the gnome, identifying what chemical configuration relates to physical and behavioral affects, then documenting a technique that is repeatable and produces predictable results in humans. Again, the science involve to perform this isn't trivial.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, it's not a matter of western ethics. If you want to maintain certain characteristics of a breed, somebody has to maintain control over the breeding. That means people controlling people.

This could simply be people controlling themselves and their offspring at a genetic level, this is similar to getting a vaccination or selecting a mate based on traits you want your child to have. If there is a consensus that this is the best alternative for the species as a whole, then there isn't an loss of autonomy.

The native Mexicans managed to create maize from teosinte grass, which is barely recognizable as a relative. They did this without even knowing about Mendelian inheritance. If there was a consensus about what is best for the species, then you wouldn't need to try to breed out the aggressiveness. People would already be compliant and law abiding.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The native Mexicans managed to create maize from teosinte grass, which is barely recognizable as a relative. They did this without even knowing about Mendelian inheritance.

Are you saying breeding corn is analogous to breeding the behavior habits of a human? Is this where you are drawing your trivial evaluation of the process?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If there was a consensus about what is best for the species, then you wouldn't need to try to breed out the aggressiveness. People would already be compliant and law abiding.

And if they tried that approach and failed, thus shrinking the gene pool? People have been known to over-react under duress while agreeing to be compliant and law abiding while calm.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The native Mexicans managed to create maize from teosinte grass, which is barely recognizable as a relative. They did this without even knowing about Mendelian inheritance.

Are you saying breeding corn is analogous to breeding the behavior habits of a human? Is this where you are drawing your trivial evaluation of the process?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If there was a consensus about what is best for the species, then you wouldn't need to try to breed out the aggressiveness. People would already be compliant and law abiding.

And if they tried that approach and failed, thus shrinking the gene pool? People have been known to over-react under duress while agreeing to be compliant and law abiding while calm.

I think you are missing Harold's point. If there was a consensus, there would be no need to breed out aggression. If they had tried the approach, then the consensus was not present. There is no logic to breeding out something that is not presenting a threat. The reason we have aggression is because we have disagreement. Each human being has different goals in life and from one moment to the next. We rarely base our choices on what is best for the species because the majority of our day to day decisions are not perceived to make much of a difference to our species as a whole. We leave those sorts of decisions to politicians.

The average human makes choices that satisfy personal goals. This is why we have aggression. Because sometimes achieving our goals creates conflict with the goals of those who live around us. A thug has a goal of obtaining the cash in my purse. I have a goal to retain the cash until I decide to spend it. Our goals conflict each other. If he decides his goal is important enough to him to use aggression to achieve it, then he will inspire me to use aggression to acheive my goal. Put short. We can't all have our own way. And our species is not extremely altruistic.

You are suggesting that breeding out aggression would not have to be forced upon people (an act of aggression itself) IF people were all in agreement as to what is best for our species. Harold is stating that IF we were all capable of agreeing on such things, we likely would not have aggression to begin with.

So imagining that we could achieve breeding out aggression by peaceful autonomous means is futile. It could never happen. Force (aggression) would have to be applied to ensure the process is successful.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I think you are missing Harold's point. If there was a consensus, there would be no need to breed out aggression. If they had tried the approach, then the consensus was not present. There is no logic to breeding out something that is not presenting a threat. The reason we have aggression is because we have disagreement. Each human being has different goals in life and from one moment to the next. We rarely base our choices on what is best for the species because the majority of our day to day decisions are not perceived to make much of a difference to our species as a whole. We leave those sorts of decisions to politicians.

The average human makes choices that satisfy personal goals. This is why we have aggression. Because sometimes achieving our goals creates conflict with the goals of those who live around us. A thug has a goal of obtaining the cash in my purse. I have a goal to retain the cash until I decide to spend it. Our goals conflict each other. If he decides his goal is important enough to him to use aggression to achieve it, then he will inspire me to use aggression to acheive my goal. Put short. We can't all have our own way. And our species is not extremely altruistic.

You are suggesting that breeding out aggression would not have to be forced upon people (an act of aggression itself) IF people were all in agreement as to what is best for our species. Harold is stating that IF we were all capable of agreeing on such things, we likely would not have aggression to begin with.

So imagining that we could achieve breeding out aggression by peaceful autonomous means is futile. It could never happen. Force (aggression) would have to be applied to ensure the process is successful.

I understand his point. Do you understand mine that under some circumstances even the most rational, calm, peaceful person can lash-out violently and harm someone else? This is the basis for the legal charges of man-slaughter and temporary insanity. The behavior of people is entirely individually and situationally dependent. You seem to be asserting something is futile and could never happen with a degree of certainty for which you have no evidentiary basis for.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I think you are missing Harold's point. If there was a consensus, there would be no need to breed out aggression. If they had tried the approach, then the consensus was not present. There is no logic to breeding out something that is not presenting a threat. The reason we have aggression is because we have disagreement. Each human being has different goals in life and from one moment to the next. We rarely base our choices on what is best for the species because the majority of our day to day decisions are not perceived to make much of a difference to our species as a whole. We leave those sorts of decisions to politicians.

The average human makes choices that satisfy personal goals. This is why we have aggression. Because sometimes achieving our goals creates conflict with the goals of those who live around us. A thug has a goal of obtaining the cash in my purse. I have a goal to retain the cash until I decide to spend it. Our goals conflict each other. If he decides his goal is important enough to him to use aggression to achieve it, then he will inspire me to use aggression to acheive my goal. Put short. We can't all have our own way. And our species is not extremely altruistic.

You are suggesting that breeding out aggression would not have to be forced upon people (an act of aggression itself) IF people were all in agreement as to what is best for our species. Harold is stating that IF we were all capable of agreeing on such things, we likely would not have aggression to begin with.

So imagining that we could achieve breeding out aggression by peaceful autonomous means is futile. It could never happen. Force (aggression) would have to be applied to ensure the process is successful.

I understand his point. Do you understand mine that under some circumstances even the most rational, calm, peaceful person can lash-out violently and harm someone else? This is the basis for the legal charge of man-slaughter. The behavior of people is entirely individually and situationally dependent. You seem to be asserting something is futile and could never happen with a degree of certainty for which you have no evidentiary basis for.

When is manslaughter legal? When another person is AGRESSIVELY attacking without provocation.

What is the most common source of aggression in otherwise sane people? (yes this may be an assumption on my part) Disagreement.

if you are excluding legally insane individuals or those who are seriously mentally ill by accepted medical and psychological terms, who attack for sheer fun as humans or part of society, then I can see how you can believe that such a situation would exist.

But in a society where EVERYONE as you stated agrees to what is best, then there would never be any situation or circumstance that would cause a sane person to lash out.

Also, you are forgetting that we would have to start with society as it is. And society as it is now, has plenty of aggressive individuals. And do you think those individuals would ever agree to losing the right to breed? They would become more aggressive and fight back aggressively to retain the right to breed. And some who are normally quite good at containing their own aggressive urges would also reject this notion. And would likely become more aggressive themselves and join forces with those who were denied the right to breed.

Implying that our society, would collectively, all inclusively agree to selective breeding voluntarily is absurd. Those who are aggressive would not likely lay down and submit to a ruling that they should not be allowed to breed. They are human beings. They are living organisms, and they have the instinct to survive and pass on their genes just like every other animal on the planet. They will fight to keep that right.

If they give up that right, then their aggression is already gone and they should allowed to breed. Meaning nothing would get bred out after all.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

When is manslaughter legal? When another person is AGRESSIVELY attacking without provocation.

I think you mean to use term self-defense or justifiable homicide.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

What is the most common source of aggression in otherwise sane people? (yes this may be an assumption on my part) Disagreement.

if you are excluding legally insane individuals or those who are seriously mentally ill by accepted medical and psychological terms, who attack for sheer fun as humans or part of society, then I can see how you can believe that such a situation would exist.

But in a society where EVERYONE as you stated agrees to what is best, then there would never be any situation or circumstance that would cause a sane person to lash out.

Agreement doesn't dictate all behavior in all circumstances.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Also, you are forgetting that we would have to start with society as it is. And society as it is now, has plenty of aggressive individuals. And do you think those individuals would ever agree to losing the right to breed? They would become more aggressive and fight back aggressively to retain the right to breed. And some who are normally quite good at containing their own aggressive urges would also reject this notion. And would likely become more aggressive themselves and join forces with those who were denied the right to breed.

Implying that our society, would collectively, all inclusively agree to selective breeding voluntarily is absurd. Those who are aggressive would not likely lay down and submit to a ruling that they should not be allowed to breed. They are human beings. They are living organisms, and they have the instinct to survive and pass on their genes just like every other animal on the planet. They will fight to keep that right.

If they give up that right, then their aggression is already gone and they should allowed to breed. Meaning nothing would get bred out after all.

I never implied this society. This is in a context of another society facing extraordinary circumstances (continued existence).

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by seagypsy

When is manslaughter legal? When another person is AGRESSIVELY attacking without provocation.

I think you mean to use term self-defense or justifiable homicide.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

What is the most common source of aggression in otherwise sane people? (yes this may be an assumption on my part) Disagreement.

if you are excluding legally insane individuals or those who are seriously mentally ill by accepted medical and psychological terms, who attack for sheer fun as humans or part of society, then I can see how you can believe that such a situation would exist.

But in a society where EVERYONE as you stated agrees to what is best, then there would never be any situation or circumstance that would cause a sane person to lash out.

Agreement doesn't dictate all behavior in all circumstances.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Also, you are forgetting that we would have to start with society as it is. And society as it is now, has plenty of aggressive individuals. And do you think those individuals would ever agree to losing the right to breed? They would become more aggressive and fight back aggressively to retain the right to breed. And some who are normally quite good at containing their own aggressive urges would also reject this notion. And would likely become more aggressive themselves and join forces with those who were denied the right to breed.

Implying that our society, would collectively, all inclusively agree to selective breeding voluntarily is absurd. Those who are aggressive would not likely lay down and submit to a ruling that they should not be allowed to breed. They are human beings. They are living organisms, and they have the instinct to survive and pass on their genes just like every other animal on the planet. They will fight to keep that right.

If they give up that right, then their aggression is already gone and they should allowed to breed. Meaning nothing would get bred out after all.

I never implied this society. This is in a context of another society facing extraordinary circumstances (continued existence).

I give up. I apparently do not have the communication skills needed to get the point across. And I know I don't have the will to argue with you. You don't understand what I am saying and I don't particularly care. Since this is just a thought experiment, it is generally a waste of brain energy to even spend time thinking about it anyway.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Grockle

Do criminals make good parents

Generally not. But the right to reproduce supersedes the duty to raise good citizens. Having no offspring is a fate arguably worse than death. Ask a grandma or grandpa about this.

That's a silly "right" to grant anyone in an overpopulated world. You might as well grant them the right to own a Ferrari without requiring them to pay for it.

Over the course of their likely-to-become criminal child's life in prison you'll probably spend an amount of tax payer money that would have been sufficient to buy 2 Ferraris. Or you'll spend it on programs trying to help that child succeed in life despite being raised by a dysfunctional criminal. Either way you're treating the right to incur costs as a right, but requiring the rest of us to pay for it.

That's very different from allowing people the right to become wealthy (and own a Ferrari) if they work for it, because their hard work creates the wealth. Society doesn't go bankrupt trying to grant those kinds of rights. Rights that create the wealth needed to pay for themselves are the only kind anyone should have. Anything else should be a privilege.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Those in favour seem intent on treating the symptom not the cause......... I mean the underlying cause.

What is the underlying cause? Poverty? How do we know poverty isn't being caused by the testosterone levels as well? With so much testosterone in their brains, maybe these men find it too difficult to focus on school work or a job?

I notice a stronger tendency among the girls in most families to be willing to do their homework without complaining. Maybe it's partly because they have less testosterone?

It is a right if most people say it is a right.

Thing is, we're primitive animals and our drive is to reproduce, not consider how you might feel about us choosing whether or not to reproduce.

In the end, you can draw all the justifications for your opinion all you like. But your opinion stops at the life of my son.

So that pretty much leaves you with three options:
1.) Get over it.
2.) Get over it
and
3.) Get over it.

It's just the way it is and unless you're able to show a greater (aggressive) show of force, you'll be left getting over it while the majority go the way of the rabbit.

The girls and homework thing made me laugh, though. I appreciate the entertainment.

You think that just because you're willing to point a gun at the economy and tell it to make room for your son that it's going to? The quantity of resources is a brute fact.

It is the thing that doesn't care what *you* think. It also doesn't care how many guns you have.

The only way you're going to make room for your son is to kill somebody else's son. If you've already gotten over that concern, then you're a psycho. If very many people join you in getting over that concern, then there's going to be a nuclear war and then a lot of peoples' sons are going to die. After there's one nuclear war, there will be two, and then three, and then four..... however many it takes until there are no humans left.

So your choices are:

1) - Live with population control.

2) - Nobody will be alive at all in a few generations.

We evolved with instincts that make it impossible for us to continue to survive. We can either take control of our own course of evolution, or ride out the one that has been charted for us all the way to the destination it has in mind for us (which is extinction.)

Let me put it this way:

If an army of Chinese soldiers marched on America, and they were coming for your son, and the only chance you had to save him was to launch nukes, .... would you do it?

What do you think the enemy is going to do when they see you coming to kill their son?

How many sons have we killed in Afghanistan alone?

Originally Posted by kojax

Let me put it this way:

If an army of Chinese soldiers marched on America, and they were coming for your son, and the only chance you had to save him was to launch nukes, .... would you do it?

What do you think the enemy is going to do when they see you coming to kill their son?

How many sons have we killed in Afghanistan alone?

I'm ok with the eventual extinction of humans. I am sure if the other animals on the planet gave it any consideration and could voice an opinion, many of them would have few concerns about the demise of humans. They would likely look forward to getting their land back and being able to function without being trapped or killed by our trash and technology. Nothing lasts forever. I don't see any reason to believe that we will or should. "should" is such a weird word. It implies so much that cannot easily be validated.

Originally Posted by kojax

You think that just because you're willing to point a gun at the economy and tell it to make room for your son that it's going to? The quantity of resources is a brute fact.

It is the thing that doesn't care what *you* think. It also doesn't care how many guns you have.

The only way you're going to make room for your son is to kill somebody else's son. If you've already gotten over that concern, then you're a psycho. If very many people join you in getting over that concern, then there's going to be a nuclear war and then a lot of peoples' sons are going to die. After there's one nuclear war, there will be two, and then three, and then four..... however many it takes until there are no humans left.

So your choices are:

1) - Live with population control.

2) - Nobody will be alive at all in a few generations.

We evolved with instincts that make it impossible for us to continue to survive. We can either take control of our own course of evolution, or ride out the one that has been charted for us all the way to the destination it has in mind for us (which is extinction.)

This is seriously one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read. You went from a basic population question to nuclear war. You do realize that there is a peak population and plateau, right? You make some major assumptions and exaggerate the hell out of them. In order for one son, another son must die? You do realize people are dying, daily, of natural causes, right?
There is no reason to take this post seriously and grace it with an answer.

Originally Posted by kojax

Let me put it this way:

If an army of Chinese soldiers marched on America, and they were coming for your son, and the only chance you had to save him was to launch nukes, .... would you do it?

Yep.

Originally Posted by kojax

What do you think the enemy is going to do when they see you coming to kill their son?

If they're smart- Surrender.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Those in favour seem intent on treating the symptom not the cause......... I mean the underlying cause.

What is the underlying cause? Poverty? How do we know poverty isn't being caused by the testosterone levels as well? With so much testosterone in their brains, maybe these men find it too difficult to focus on school work or a job?

I notice a stronger tendency among the girls in most families to be willing to do their homework without complaining. Maybe it's partly because they have less testosterone?

Or maybe the majority of poverty is caused by hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, and marginalization - things which don't just fix themselves overnight.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by kojax

You think that just because you're willing to point a gun at the economy and tell it to make room for your son that it's going to? The quantity of resources is a brute fact.

It is the thing that doesn't care what *you* think. It also doesn't care how many guns you have.

The only way you're going to make room for your son is to kill somebody else's son. If you've already gotten over that concern, then you're a psycho. If very many people join you in getting over that concern, then there's going to be a nuclear war and then a lot of peoples' sons are going to die. After there's one nuclear war, there will be two, and then three, and then four..... however many it takes until there are no humans left.

So your choices are:

1) - Live with population control.

2) - Nobody will be alive at all in a few generations.

We evolved with instincts that make it impossible for us to continue to survive. We can either take control of our own course of evolution, or ride out the one that has been charted for us all the way to the destination it has in mind for us (which is extinction.)

This is seriously one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read. You went from a basic population question to nuclear war. You do realize that there is a peak population and plateau, right? You make some major assumptions and exaggerate the hell out of them. In order for one son, another son must die? You do realize people are dying, daily, of natural causes, right?
There is no reason to take this post seriously and grace it with an answer.

Yet you have graced it with one.

At replacement level reproduction, the person who dies to make room for your son is probably your great grand father. Your grand father will then die to make room for your grandson, and your father will die to make room for your great grandson, and then you'll die to make room for your great great grandson.

There's nothing wrong, or psycho about that cycle. The only problem is when people want to have more children than replacement, because then they're not giving their own life for their offspring. Those people are the ones who will end up trying to push someone else's kids out. It tends to be groups that think they are/were once oppressed, like Mormons.

Originally Posted by kojax

Let me put it this way:

If an army of Chinese soldiers marched on America, and they were coming for your son, and the only chance you had to save him was to launch nukes, .... would you do it?

Yep.

Originally Posted by kojax

What do you think the enemy is going to do when they see you coming to kill their son?

If they're smart- Surrender.

Because if they surrender we won't kill their son? We won't exploit their nation so their son dies of starvation or set up a puppet dictator who then kills their son?

It must be fun being naive. I wish I were naive. I'd be much happier.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You do realize that there is a peak population and plateau, right?

Really there isn't. Or rather there is, but you never reach it.

What happens instead is that people start getting pushed out of the economy as we approach it. It's called "poverty", and it kills millions every year.

Only in a communist society would we all starve together. If the world were a communist society today, we would all be under nourished. Instead some people are undernourished to the point where they're dying, while others have full bellies. There is no level of excessive population wherein the first world would feel hunger. 8 billion, 10 billion, 13 billion........ no matter how high it gets, the first world will never feel the effects. We'll just have more wars is all.

Basically all the predictions about overpopulation damaging the world economy which supposedly "didn't come true" ..... well they actually did come true. And they're continuing to come true.

As for nukes, you shouldn't underestimate other peoples' ingenuity. Attacking somebody just because you think they're not capable of nuclear retaliation is a grand game of Russian Roulette. Sooner or later there's going to be a bullet in the cylinder and we're not going to know it.

Originally Posted by kojax

If the world were a communist society today, we would all be under nourished.

We produce enough food globally to feed properly the entire population. The issue is one of distribution.

Let me ask it this way: How can reproduction be a right if food isn't a right?

You have to work for food. I guess some people get welfare checks or food stamps..... but most of us have to work for food. Why shouldn't a person have to work for the right to reproduce?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by kojax

If the world were a communist society today, we would all be under nourished.

We produce enough food globally to feed properly the entire population. The issue is one of distribution.

If so then much of it must be going uneaten.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by kojax

If the world were a communist society today, we would all be under nourished.

We produce enough food globally to feed properly the entire population. The issue is one of distribution.

If so then much of it must be going uneaten.

30% of the food in the UK goes to waste. An indeterminate percentage of food in the US goes towards making people grotesquely obese.

So is food less of a necessity than reproduction? Is that why reproduction should be defined as an unlimited right you can't lose no matter how badly you misbehave, or how little you do to earn the right..... but food can be denied if you don't hold a job?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by kojax

If the world were a communist society today, we would all be under nourished.

We produce enough food globally to feed properly the entire population. The issue is one of distribution.

If so then much of it must be going uneaten.

30% of the food in the UK goes to waste. An indeterminate percentage of food in the US goes towards making people grotesquely obese.

How much nutritional value do you think that food has if it's making people obese?

You want to give a starving kid in Africa a box full of candy bars?

Rita's comments seem more acceptable when we remember that of the other half - women - 1/3 will have hysterectomies including ovary removal (castration!) in their lives. Most will take various hormone pills to tweak and "correct" their moods. But try telling a man his body is also "a project to work on" besides "a tool for changing his environment".

genetics has nothing to do with aggresive action on behalf of people who are suspect to be criminal. it is there phucking mind that does it, THE MIND. ITS THEIR BRAIN!!!! NOT THE ORGAN, THE CONTENT INSIDE OF IT.
CONTENT THAT WAS PUT THERE AND CONTENT THAT WAS GAINED BY EXPERIENCE.

I understand the concept of castration reducing aggression in males. but how would you go about reducing aggression in females. Females can be as violent and dangerous as any man and often against men. What part of the woman will you cut off to change that? Laws have a funny way of needing to be one size fits all or you run into a problem of discrimination. Equality is equality. "Equal but different", regardless of how logically fitting it can be in some cases, usually doesn't fair very well when it comes to the constitutionality of laws.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I understand the concept of castration reducing aggression in males. but how would you go about reducing aggression in females. Females can be as violent and dangerous as any man and often against men. What part of the woman will you cut off to change that? Laws have a funny way of needing to be one size fits all or you run into a problem of discrimination. Equality is equality. "Equal but different", regardless of how logically fitting it can be in some cases, usually doesn't fair very well when it comes to the constitutionality of laws.

Females can have their ovaries removed in a less painful way than men can have their balls lopped off. Just a thought.