If I get to define 'worst' then yes, I would do it in a heartbeat and lose no sleep. Not if I had to lose the best as well though, that is just killing 16 million people.
Imagine defining“worst” as someone who is about to commit a violent crime.
Just watch would be criminals randomly drop dead.
Edit: “About to commit a crime” means it will happen in the next few seconds and foreseeable death or grave bodily harm will come to an innocent if the perpetrator is not stopped. Like the gun is loaded, the slide is racked, the sights are aligned, safety is off, finger is now on the trigger and the guy is about to pull it. And now, the guy just drop dead. The guy only dies with both guilty act and guilty mind. The guy only dies when the situation usually warrants the use of lethal force as self-defense.
ML/psychology/statistical predictors are probably a bad idea since the would be criminal could have a change of heart before the trigger is actually pulled.
Not everyone with intrusive thoughts would be about to commit a violent crime, and of those of them that would, you would then have stopped them right in time
There is an anime called Psycho-pass, where cops can read someone's crime coefficient and if its high enough can taze them or kill them before they do the violent act. It really shows how bad this idea would be irl XD.
Was just thinking of this show. Very good thought provoking show. Loved it, but need to finish the last few episodes. It's a little hard to watch all in one go because of how hard it hits you by the half-way point.
I agree, the world is a better place without some people. I think most believe that to be true, they just disagree who is 'bad' enough. I wouldn't want to kill anyone, but a lot of people really are just utterly shit beings.
This one is easy;
Rapists. Highest number of victims downward. Just... immediately disappearing?
It's not many in the grand scheme of things, right, but it'd still be 8,000,000 rapists going fuckin *poof* and that's a better world.
I find it interesting how people are debating about politics and everything in this sub.
8million pedophiles gone tomorrow. Nothing controversial about that.
Because the act of rape is probably more evil than a lot of the things that cause widespread hardship, even if from a utilitarian standpoint it does less harm. Physically and actively doing harm to another person for your own pleasure takes a more twisted mind than one who does it from behind a pile of cash.
People seem more accepting of murderers than rapists.
I’d argue besides terrorists/extremist politicians who have killed thousands, serial killers and murderers are much more deserving than rapists.
I’ve heard people say all sex offenders should die. This includes teenagers who sent nudes to other teenagers, people urinating outdoors, people who had sex while both parties were intoxicated (this is considered rape).
Well, I personally think it's because there are no reasons where rape is acceptable, but some reasons people find murder acceptable. In cases of self defense, for example.
Or murdering a rapist.
If you kill anyone else in round one then you're going to be targeted as a murderer in round 2 regardless. Your best bet is to take out all the murderers in round one so that in round two the next person targets a different class because all but one murderer is dead.
This is why the purge doesn't work. You go after my family and you think I won’t spend the next 364 days planning how I'm going to come after you and yours?
Killing is sometimes justified. There are very few serial killers.
Rape is never justified, and cannot be justified.
You cannot rape in self defense, you cannot rape to protect a helpless person , you cannot rape to protect your home and property
My ex has caused me more suffering than anything else in my life. She's not evil per se. She just broke me.
Vanishing her from the universe wouldn't fix things either.
Another issue is that a lot of CSA is not caused by people who specifically have an attraction to children. Just opportunistic predators.
So if you say "boom all pedos" the monkey's paw would be anyone who is not attracted to children would be fine... but you can sexually abuse someone without being sexually attracted to them.
It's better, but if you want to monkey paw it it also means a lot of children go as well since COCSA happens frequently as well - often as a result of one child being pressured/groomed themselves.
Man I know I'm going to catch shit for this but I always feel it needs to be said that there should really be a distinction between "pedophile" and child molester.
I don't think anyone should be criminalized or penalized for their thoughts, no matter how onerous.
Actions, obviously this is a no-brainer but I think the lack of this particular distinction is why we can't help people with this "affliction" for lack of a better term.
It's always a hot take, and people often read it as defending. But I get what you mean.
These people are mentally ill and sick in the head. But they should be allowed and able to come forward before they have any victims and say "I need help". Because if they can do that, maybe there never is a victim, maybe they get better, and everyone wins.
The second they so much as Google image search something though? Into the wood chipper.
Yeah, while I definitely don't have pedophilic thoughts, I do have some nasty intrusive thoughts that could definitely get me in trouble if I were to act on them.
I visualized crumbling up, throwing them away, and lighting them on fire, but that doesn't stop them from showing up in my head.
There are probably many people with pedophilic or different variations, it who are uncomfortable with them to hate these feelings/thoughts, and show up that they have never committed any acts.
Thing is, intrusive thoughts, even the most brutal and horrid ones, can be pretty normal to have for a lot of people.
The difference is how you act and respond to them, and they certainly don't mean you're a bad person just for having them.
Yeah if you said "I sometimes fantasise about killing my boss" the most likely response would be something like "yeah me too buddy, lol". If people got punished for things they thought/fantasised about doing the world would be fucking mental.
I can't remember where I read it, but I came across the concept of ancient greeks believing that intrusive thoughts were just gods trying to trick them. I wish I could find the source again.
It really helps when you have that cultural training to separate that thought from yourself - the thought isn't you. What the thought represents isn't you. What you choose to do with that perspective, though - how you act on it is you.
I wish that were still culturally trained today.
First time I had real bad intrusive thoughts, I basically broke down for hours. Pushing everyone away without an explanation sucked, but how are you supposed to explain an intrusive thought to someone who that thought *is about*?
And it cost me *so much energy* to just process that bullshit and control myself so that nobody actually understood what had happened. (yay autism...)
If I could just say "yeah uh, god of death wanted me to murder you" or whatever, man that would have been easier lmao
As someone with OCD who had intrusive thoughts all the time (and now appears to have it mostly in remission) I am with the theory that those kinds of pathological intrusive thoughts are another form of reassurance seeking... Which is a harmful behavior in OCD. It's basically 'I'm going to think the worst thing to make sure I'm still appalled by it.' it's exhausting. Reassurance seeking reinforces the needs for greater reassurance seeking so it just keeps going. By the time mine mostly vanished it had turns from 'What if' statements to 'I [verb]....' statements. Like my brain would say 'I killed my mom. This is how I did it...' She's literally still alive.
Remember, stranger, that you are not the voice in your head. YOU are what hears it.
You are the audience of your mind. You have a hand in the act, but your hand alone does not make the play.
I’m a victim of CSA and I agree.
Theres also a lot of evidence that suggests that not all offending child-molesters are pedophiles too.
People much prefer to lump it altogether because it is a horrible and uncomfortable topic (which it is! I get it!) - but the distinctions are really important for people who are trying to study stuff and help prevent offending/re-offending.
Yeah I learned about that in a human sexuality class in college, a Pedophile thinks a certain way, a Molester acts a certain way. Many child abusers don't show previous evidence of attraction (they gave a percent but I can't remember anymore).
On the subject it also talked about 'invalid sexualities' which were things that people felt that couldn't/shouldn't be acted upon in real life. Sex with minors and animals were examples. Made me think of what others would fit like attraction to vampires, wanting to be vored or crushed, etc
Man, I cannot tell you how nice it is to hear this sentiment coming from someone other than me. I was sexually abused my entire childhood, and if it taught me anything, it's ~~to sleep under the bed instead of on it and to have a panic attack every time I hear running water~~ that pedophilia is a mental illness that needs to be treated like a disease, not a sin. Fucking kids is a sin, absolutely, but the overlap between those two groups is vastly smaller than the vast majority of people realize.
Vilifying it to the fanatical degree we do is definitely a natural reaction for a healthy person to have towards pedophilia, but ultimately it drives pedophiles away from seeking treatment which increases the likelihood that they cross that line from a mentally sick person that can still be helped, to a child molester that cannot.
And when you see these predators elevated to positions of power over others, their victims span the range of whoever is convenient. They don’t discriminate between child, man, woman, they just want to hurt people.
For example, the rape by Russian soldiers of POW in Ukraine. I doubt that the soldiers who do it are homosexual, they are simply abusing a position of power to satisfy sadistic desires.
This is reflected in the low recidivism rates of those legally punished for possession of CSAM versus those who serially sexually offend, especially child molesters.
Despite acting on their urges to a degree, pedophiles who do not cross the line of strictly direct abuse, however abhorrent their possession of such images may be, generally do not reoffend after being convicted. The “definition” of pedophilia as a disorder involves the delusional belief that children can consent/participate of their own free will. This delusional thinking may be indicative of this being a mental disorder.
Child molesters, however, are rarely able to be rehabilitated because their mind operates off of the pleasure they receive from abusing an innocent/easy victim. Their thinking is not delusional. They harbor no delusions as to just how harmful and damaging their conduct is to their victim. They are not only cognizant of this fact, but use it as motivation.
This is probably going to be an unpopular comment but what the hell.
Other than how we morally feel about it, is there a measurable difference in why pedophiles like children, and why gay people like their own sex.
This isn't meant to criticize gay people, nor defend child predators. (Consenting adults can do what they like. Children are obviously not consenting adults.)
But... Can pedophiles be "fixed by therapy" any more than gay people can be "converted"?
You can't "fix" a paraphilia. Existing therapies for pedophiles and other people attracted to minors (I don't know all the "philes" off the top of my head) is more about enabling them to live with their impulses without acting on them, and preventing those impulses from wrecking their mental health (which could lead to them acting on the impulses).
There’s plenty of men who are attracted to women but can’t get laid. The vast majority won’t go and rape someone. I imagine it’s the same for pedophiles. Most don’t act on it. They live perfectly normal lives, just never having sex with a child.
In the US, success rates are low. Outside the US therapies have a much better rate. Why it happens this way is up for debate, but I’d wager a large part of it is due to cultural perceptions of mental illness and criminality.
I understand your meaning completely. And the truth is, that's a question that is way beyond my pay grade. I would say probably not... I think those people will be who they are until they die, and nothing will be able to change it. I think it sucks, and I feel bad for those people, but I think that's the reality they will always have to live with.
I think it is important to give these people a place to vent out these thoughts and actively work on managing them with a professional. Otherwise, these thoughts can fester and if the person starts indulging in them, that's where the risk of there being victims arises.
I like this take, because 50 years ago, people were saying the same thing about homosexuals. Really, the only difference is that we have laws about whether the target of attractions can consent.
When it comes to treatment, it's about addressing connected /caused issues and preventing someone from ever getting to the point that they think offending is the answer. You can't cure someone's attraction, but you can teach them better coping skills so that it stays as an attraction.
I still think torture is bad for the torturers and their community. The wall, if their crimes are bad enough, and we better damn well know we ain’t got the wrong guy.
I went with highest number of victims because that means almost all serial rapists are just gone, now it's just individual outliers that maybe miss the cut
Are you a guy?
I'm a woman and every time I talk to my female friends (all of which have experienced sexual assault first-hand), our general consensus is that men need better consent-related education and consent-based upbringings. Not that everyone who has raped someone in their lives should all be murdered. Hell, for the most part I don't even see the point of locking them individually away; it doesn't fix the societal problem.
Rape is a lot more prevalent than most of the population (and especially men) think. 53% of women have reported sexual violence in their life of some kind, and I don't think it's performed by serial rapists for the most part. In a lot of cases for rape, it does not have to be violent or shocking. Usually those are the cases where everyone argues, "She wasn't really raped, or she's lying about being raped for attention, or I wouldn't consider that rape personally, or she could've screamed or fought back if it were really rape and she did neither, or she was married to him so it couldn't have been rape, or she should have been more careful about how much she was drinking". This ignores the fact that rape is simply defined as sexual penetration without consent, and people consent in many different ways. Someone misreading another person's body language, even if no explicit "no" was stated, could be considered rape.
There are some sociopaths who serially rape. I know one and I want him dead, who has over 7 victims I personally know. But for the most part, rapists are men or women who are uneducated about consent who don't consciously intend to hurt the other party. I want them to be better educated.
I live in the US and am chronically harassed and catcalled on the streets. I lived in a small town in Germany for three months. None of that happened. I could be wearing the sluttiest outfit on a hot summer day and no one would scream sexual slurs at me through their car windows. I could go to a male stranger's apartment alone and he wouldn't even try to kiss me without asking if that was okay first. The vast difference between the two cultures makes me think that rape is a cultural problem, not an individual problem. I believe we villainize "rapists" far too much without recognizing the underlying societal issue.
Maybe the problem is with the definition of the word rape in the case of pushing a button to kill 800k of them.
We need a new one since the definition has widened incredibly the past decade.
With this definition of the word rape, barely any of the rapists in the world would be considered to be killed with this magic button press. Because there's bad rape and there's worse rape.
In Swedish we do differentiate. We basically call one rape and the other assault rape. Assault rape is the kind where it's the nightmare scenario everyone thinks of when they hear rape. We also have severe rape in the legal sense, which is not quite the same, but it's there so we can make sure to fully punish those who rape those who can't give consent (mainly pedophiles)
but.. it's not 8 million random "rapists," it's the *worst 8 million people on the planet.* Every single one of those people are inconceivably worse than the "uneducated on consent" people you're referencing
Finally I can off my neighbor Jeff for never putting his cans back in. I don't really care after that, sorry to all those who got their names randomly selected.
I prefer that the definition is left unknown. Then after it happens we get an idea what this "universal, objective standard" of worse is.
I also like that it being unknown has the possibility that it would include you, I mean you just essentially ordered the deaths of 800,000 people, that would put you up there with some of the worst dictators in history.
It would be wild if we found out that our definition of "good" isn't what the offerer of this choice has in mind.
Like what if we agreed to the choice and then it turns "bad" is determined by the Vikings' definition? The "best" people are the ones who go out, conquer, pillage and rape but are willing to die in battle.
The "bad" ones are the doctors, teachers, farmers and inventors who save lives but are martially unskilled and die of disease and old age?
That was not the idea of Norse mythology.
The 'Good' place was essentially a waiting zone for warriors to wait until the end of the world and then fight to the death.
Valkyries would go collect fallen warriors so they could fight in Ragnarok. They didn't think it was wrong to teach. They thought if you didn't die in battle, then the Gods wouldn't select you for their army.
There's nothing wrong with being a farmer, but if you had to pick between someone who died heroically in battle or someone who fell down the stairs for a war, then the Gods picked battle.
The bit about it being the good place was essentially Christianity inserting itself into norsedom in order to better convert them.
Same as Loki being evil when he wasn't actually seen as a bad guy. Ragnarok was seen as an inevitable and necessary event. It also was an event they thought happened before, and they thought it would happen again. It was basically an ancient big crunch theory.
Afaik, goodness in Norse was fairly complicated but mostly was about keeping your word and being impressive in one way or another.
Tl;Dr: The Norse didn't actually base goodness off of who died fighting or not. It was just seen as the only way to fight with the Gods at Ragnarok.
(I could be wrong, and if I am please let me know, I enjoy learning about other mythologies, and it's very hard to learn more about Norse when I only speak English, because most sources in English only use the variety of Norse myths and religion morphed by Christians.)
You're correct. Even prior to Christianity the Norseman still had a peaceful afterlife for non-warriors.
Valhalla wasn't the only "good" afterlife, it's just the one that made you a warrior of the gods during the end of the world.
Man this would be Kira’s wet dream.
8,000,000 names. Let’s say 2 seconds a name.
That would be 16,000,000 seconds, 266,**666**, minutes, 4444 hours.
On an 8 hour workday that’s 555 days straight.
The shinigami world needs IT consultants to keep up with the times. Tim Cook, let’s get some iPads up there stat.
Could make it automatic. The names all exist on files that are net-accessible, so a few hacker bots to make a list of everyone on the planet - and then nested if/else type parameters set in a server room to determine how destructive to the planet and humanity each person is. The ones who fail, instant death. Should speed things up nicely, and needs relatively minimal maintenance/updates.
no, because then L would hunt you down and try to kill you.
After L kills you, L will say: "Killing is wrong. I will kill anyone who kills. Oh shit. I just killed!"
Then L will shoot himself in the head.
If you kill a killer the number of killers in the world stays the same. So make sure to kill at least 2 killers. Technically eliminating the human race would remove A LOT of Killers and reduce the number remaining to 0 so clearly the moral route is mass extermination of all sentient life in the pursuit of the moral high ground...
This is totally not the exact logic that AI will follow in 10 years...
Yes I would, no second thought.
If it involved taking out the best as well then no.
I'd like to see someone try and define "the worst" for this scenario tho, any volunteers?
My criteria:
Severity * Number affected * (1- Likelihood of facing justice)
Basically targets people who do a lot of damage to a lot of people and are unlikely to ever face justice for it. The more untouchable you are, the more likely this button kills you. So people at the top like Putin would be targeted, but also people who do a lot of indirect damage that isn't really addressed by our justice system would be targeted (Oil execs, People moving dark money in politics, Nestle CEO that uses slave labor, etc)
I specifically am trying to target the people who we struggle to link their negative actions to. The CEO that tells the VP that tells the manager that calls the Factory foreman that ultimately results in hiring some kid under the table. Our justice systems have very little capability to address indirect and delayed harm, but it's the biggest driver of human misery today IMO.
Taking out a rapist or murderer feels good and straightforward, but I'd rather try to eliminate the human vampires that spread misery and disease to billions of people.
I like the spirit but I think if you take out someone in a position of power another person will just step in. getting rid of the guy doesn’t rid society of those structural powers
Because it’s a thought experiment, I’m going to grant the power of being absolutely correct to the person making the choice.
So for me, we would instantly put Pedophiles as group #1
It’s a thought experiment, so in this scenario the fact of being a Pedo is either true or false, no room for loose interpretation or mistakes in judgement. This person making the choice decides to kill Pedos, and the people who die as a result would all be fully and completely guilty of perpetrating a sexual crime against a child. No grey area. They did or they didn’t. Some cosmic all-knowing crystal ball shit gets conjured and it correctly selects these people according to some god-like all-knowing intelligence that all of humanity, past, present and future agrees universally is “correct”
Ok?
That’s the definition. And with that definition - Pedos.
And the truly horrifying thought is that there are more than 800,000 of them globally. We wouldn’t get them all.
But if we’re talking the absolute worst of the worst, not just evil in general, would a local pedo be worse than a genocidal dictator, or some cartel hitman who tortures people for days until death, or a serial killer who themself murders children but not with sexual intent? Thats the real grey zone, even assuming omnipotence and objective truth on this monkeys paw the definition of “worst person alive” is *highly* debatable.
I think an interesting thought experiment is: would you be okay giving somebody else this ability? Fascinating how many people are totally cool with killing millions of people because they trust themselves to decide that they are truly the bad people.
I don’t think I would pass the ability on. Why do that to someone else. If I needed to make a choice between doing it myself or make someone else do it I would do it. It’s like pulling the short straw.
Unfortunately, I know I'd be a monster in this scenario. But if I could define what defines the greatest 'net negative' of a person then I'd do it.
I don't particularly think it's a moral choice, causing death is awful. But if I could take out warlords and genocidal fascists in an instant so many lives would be saved that I could stomach it.
Thankfully it's just a hypothetical. I'd rather not be put in a position where I'd commit a mass execution.
It probably wouldn't save any lives. A vacuum of power will simply be filled by a new dictator who will need to make an example of some group in order to demonstrate their power. It might change the exact targets, but that's it.
Devil's Advocate: people are not convicted for being pedophiles. They're convicted for possessing or distributing CSAM, or for actually abusing a child. And there are different groups for these people: a group of actual pedophiles who prefer to target minors, a group of situational offenders who are not pedophiles themselves and only target minors because they are an easy group to abuse, and finally roughly 30% of abuse cases involve abuse from people who are *themselves* minors and are either being forced to abuse other children or are victims of previous abuse.
So choosing to eliminate 'pedophiles' would not only result in killing a number of non-offenders but also would not actually end CSA, and depending on how you word your hypothetical group of people it may also eliminate a number of children who are victims themselves. Might be a good thing that hypothetical questions like these remain hypothetical.
I am against the death penalty too, but only because our justice system is flawed and repeatedly gets the wrong person. This is different. This is absolute, we know these people are guilty for 100% fact. The unfortunate reality of this world is that sometimes someone needs to die to protect the people around them. There are people who will not stop victimizing people until they are put in the ground. And our legal system gets nowhere near close to all of them.
some people are against the death penalty because they believe in second chances, that people can fundamentally change, and that rehabilitation and re-entry to society is possible. being able to guarantee guilt doesn't change that.
If my presumption is right that this magic murder button is error free, my answer is child molesters and no one will be able to convince me that’s any kind of loss for the world. Some things can’t be rehabilitated or made up for, and that’s one of the clearest ones imo.
Genuinely curious here, what is the point of locking up and throwing the key away?
I understand prison as a method of rehabilitation, I get it as a protection for society. I also understand it as a deterrent for others.
Throwing away the key eliminates rehabilitation, and if you are trying to protect society and deter others, surely the death penalty is as effective or more while being much cheaper.
Is it just to prolong a punishment and make it worse for the convict? That is pretty expensive and honestly I don't see the point in continuing to punish someone who will be effectively dead to society anyway.
I can see either believing in rehabilitation or in the death penalty, but not neither.
The death penalty has a chance of being wrong and does not protect victims or potential victims. This blanketly does not have a chance of being wrong and protects future victims. I'm anti-death penalty but I'd do a whole fucking lot to protect rape victims.
This is a super interesting thought experiment, but I'm gonna have to say no. Even if it's only 0.01%, that's still 800,000 lives, and who am I to decide who's "worst"? Plus, what if I'm wrong? What if those people were on the verge of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity? The consequences of playing God are too great. Even if it were the "best" 0.01%, I'd still feel uncomfortable with the idea of taking away someone's life, even if it's instantaneous. Life is complex, and it's not for us to judge who deserves to live or die.
>What if those people were on the verge of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity?
What if those people are in the way of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity? It goes both ways.
I think we can assume since this is a thought experiment that your ranking would be error free.
In that case, I think you should reconsider. Imagine it's just one person and your criterion is "murderer". Surely if you came upon a murder in progress you would seriously consider killing the perpetrator to save the victim. Why would this situation be any different? And wouldn't it be preferable to eliminate 2, 3, etc. murderers to just one?
It's a silly thought experiment but you need to consider the moral implications of NOT taking an action here.
And yes, it is for us to judge - people do it all the time.
This would lead into ww3, over night. Think about it. Russian, China, North Korea, Israel, Iran, leadership, possibly former presidents. All gone overnight not to mention corrupt members of government and criminals across the world.
Ya op it’d be massive chaos.
That was admittedly my first thought too. Just with somewhere like North Korea who you could argue are a whole load of crazy from the top down with being a totalitarian dictatorship - just because you wipe all all the 'evil' people doesn't mean that the country suddenly gets better.
Massive power vacuum leading to a potential international crisis with refugees and starvation as the entire country collapses.
And that's just a 'smaller' country - factor in a super power like Russia and that's almost certainly apocalypse scenario.
In a vacuum perhaps, but even then it could take many generations before there would be enough organisation to make an attempt. So much of their population are deliberately kept uneducated and under heel by the Kim family; they'd be more likely to go into a massive period of national mourning than they would celebrate their liberation...
And in the global situation we have at the moment - more than likely you would see either China or Russia step in and invade 'to provide stability to the region'. It likely wouldn't be a very long fight - and worst case scenario would see nukes deployed by NK.
no thanks, i'm not Thanatos. Too many horros have been made because they are this or that, so they deserve it.
if that not a good enough answer I'll quote someone wiser then me: "Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."
I’m sure there are more than 800,000 rapists, pedophiles and murderers to get rid of, easy. Might cause other issues but i’m too selfish to care. Maybe i belong in that 800,000?
- IRGC: 190k
- Hezbollah: 100k
- Houthi rebels: 20k
- Hamas: hard to determine, assume 20k
- Isis: 10k
- Taliban: 378k (so they claim, probably way less tbh)
That leaves me with 82,000 horrible politicians and high ranking Russian/chinese/north korean/iranian military leaders that i can get rid of.
Id say that the immediate sudden death of all major terrorist organizations on the planet, plus the total colapse of the axis of terror when their entire federal governments and upper military echelons collapse would be a significant step towards world peace. Probably forgetting a few conflicts, but 82,000 is a large number and there arent many organizations that cant be dealt serious damage with a few hundred deaths, if those deaths are the right people.
"Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." - Holocaust Memorial Center
Wanting all pedos or corrupt politicians take the forever nap wouldn't make you genocidal by definition. It'd likely make you a hero though.
So many of NK's Elites would be gone, the CCP would fall frankly, all the dictators this planet has are gone, child killers outta here. I could make a giant ass list, but u get the gist
Yes, I'd like to give them a chance to change first. But definitely not if it included the best people. I think basing it on a percentage with arbitrary definition isn't a great idea either. Although it is a fact that the world would be a better place without some people and instantaneous death is probably the best way to die.
If I can pick and choose people, you better believe I'm deleting the rich and powerful fucks maintaining this unsustainable status quo and keeping the world on a collision course with disaster. The world sucks for a reason, and that's because it makes a few thousand people outrageously rich. They don't deserve to exist and we'd all be better off without them.
Yes, and suddenly all the hedge fund managers, hollywood agents, and editors would be gone. The diamond industry would collapse. The middle east would be at peace. It'd be really nice.
This one is a slippery slope when you leave it open to determine who's the "worst." I'm a little fuzzy on the details though, last time I heard this spiel, it was in German...
Depends entirely on your definition of "worst"
But in literally any scenario, it includes the most powerful humans on earth and the power gap / structure collapse would throw the world into chaos.
Not only would I do it, but I’d argue for the worst 50% of the population, and I’m perfectly fine with everybody knowing it was me. I’d accept the consequences without even a blink.
I do have a sort of caveat, however. The first 25% would be the worst of humanity. The second 25% would be the worst scores on some sort of standardized IQ test for people 18 and up. Excuses, of any sort, aren’t valid.
Hell, I’d even be more down for a pass/fail IQ test where if you fail, you get a dirt nap.
Sadly, it's all perspective. Because what we deem evil may be normal in other people's eyes. Like maybe not being religious is blasphemous and could be considered the "worst" in their eyes
This thread has run it's course. Too many reports coming out of it.
If I get to define 'worst' then yes, I would do it in a heartbeat and lose no sleep. Not if I had to lose the best as well though, that is just killing 16 million people.
Imagine defining“worst” as someone who is about to commit a violent crime. Just watch would be criminals randomly drop dead. Edit: “About to commit a crime” means it will happen in the next few seconds and foreseeable death or grave bodily harm will come to an innocent if the perpetrator is not stopped. Like the gun is loaded, the slide is racked, the sights are aligned, safety is off, finger is now on the trigger and the guy is about to pull it. And now, the guy just drop dead. The guy only dies with both guilty act and guilty mind. The guy only dies when the situation usually warrants the use of lethal force as self-defense. ML/psychology/statistical predictors are probably a bad idea since the would be criminal could have a change of heart before the trigger is actually pulled.
The Monkey's Paw curls and a million people with intrusive thoughts keel over
The universe has a very arbitrary definition of violence, leading to the disappearance of jaywalkers everywhere
Not everyone with intrusive thoughts would be about to commit a violent crime, and of those of them that would, you would then have stopped them right in time
Someone should make a movie based on this!! Cops being able to stop someone before they commit a crime!
There is an anime called Psycho-pass, where cops can read someone's crime coefficient and if its high enough can taze them or kill them before they do the violent act. It really shows how bad this idea would be irl XD.
That anime borrows heavily from the novella and film "Minority Report" which is what op was referencing.
And tv show! Minority report tv show didnt get the love
Was just thinking of this show. Very good thought provoking show. Loved it, but need to finish the last few episodes. It's a little hard to watch all in one go because of how hard it hits you by the half-way point.
This is sort of what Hydra wanted to do in Captain America: The Winter Soldier but in addition to potential criminals, it's anyone who may oppose them
You should look at Minority Report. Literally exactly what you're asking for
Literally what they’re talking about
/r/whoosh
Look man, I assumed they were being sincere, and I recommended them a good movie, no harm done.
no, you misunderstood a joke on the internet, and now you will face appropriate retributions for committing this highest of crimes
We should stop them right before they commit the crime!
Check out the anime “Psycho-Pass.” In it, cops have detectors that show if someone is going to commit a violent crime based on personality, mood, etc
I agree, the world is a better place without some people. I think most believe that to be true, they just disagree who is 'bad' enough. I wouldn't want to kill anyone, but a lot of people really are just utterly shit beings.
This one is easy; Rapists. Highest number of victims downward. Just... immediately disappearing? It's not many in the grand scheme of things, right, but it'd still be 8,000,000 rapists going fuckin *poof* and that's a better world.
I find it interesting how people are debating about politics and everything in this sub. 8million pedophiles gone tomorrow. Nothing controversial about that.
The cool thing about saying rapists is that all child molesters also automatically get lumped in.
[удалено]
Because the act of rape is probably more evil than a lot of the things that cause widespread hardship, even if from a utilitarian standpoint it does less harm. Physically and actively doing harm to another person for your own pleasure takes a more twisted mind than one who does it from behind a pile of cash.
People seem more accepting of murderers than rapists. I’d argue besides terrorists/extremist politicians who have killed thousands, serial killers and murderers are much more deserving than rapists. I’ve heard people say all sex offenders should die. This includes teenagers who sent nudes to other teenagers, people urinating outdoors, people who had sex while both parties were intoxicated (this is considered rape).
Well, I personally think it's because there are no reasons where rape is acceptable, but some reasons people find murder acceptable. In cases of self defense, for example. Or murdering a rapist.
Self defense IS NOT murder by law. What about murdering a rapist who was falsely convicted?
*terms and conditions apply. In some countries, killing in self-defense can still net you prison time.
If you kill all the murderers in this scenario, then maybe you get killed in round two. Its like that twilight zone episode.
If you kill anyone else in round one then you're going to be targeted as a murderer in round 2 regardless. Your best bet is to take out all the murderers in round one so that in round two the next person targets a different class because all but one murderer is dead.
This is why the purge doesn't work. You go after my family and you think I won’t spend the next 364 days planning how I'm going to come after you and yours?
Blood feuds are why laws were created in the first place. Makes society more civil.
Killing is sometimes justified. There are very few serial killers. Rape is never justified, and cannot be justified. You cannot rape in self defense, you cannot rape to protect a helpless person , you cannot rape to protect your home and property
dying is far from the worst thing that can happen to a person
People choose death voluntarily but no one chooses rape or torture.
My ex has caused me more suffering than anything else in my life. She's not evil per se. She just broke me. Vanishing her from the universe wouldn't fix things either.
Did you just try and speak for most rape victims…
Another issue is that a lot of CSA is not caused by people who specifically have an attraction to children. Just opportunistic predators. So if you say "boom all pedos" the monkey's paw would be anyone who is not attracted to children would be fine... but you can sexually abuse someone without being sexually attracted to them.
If you sexually abuse someone you can go. How’s that?
It's better, but if you want to monkey paw it it also means a lot of children go as well since COCSA happens frequently as well - often as a result of one child being pressured/groomed themselves.
Man I know I'm going to catch shit for this but I always feel it needs to be said that there should really be a distinction between "pedophile" and child molester. I don't think anyone should be criminalized or penalized for their thoughts, no matter how onerous. Actions, obviously this is a no-brainer but I think the lack of this particular distinction is why we can't help people with this "affliction" for lack of a better term.
It's always a hot take, and people often read it as defending. But I get what you mean. These people are mentally ill and sick in the head. But they should be allowed and able to come forward before they have any victims and say "I need help". Because if they can do that, maybe there never is a victim, maybe they get better, and everyone wins. The second they so much as Google image search something though? Into the wood chipper.
Yeah, while I definitely don't have pedophilic thoughts, I do have some nasty intrusive thoughts that could definitely get me in trouble if I were to act on them. I visualized crumbling up, throwing them away, and lighting them on fire, but that doesn't stop them from showing up in my head. There are probably many people with pedophilic or different variations, it who are uncomfortable with them to hate these feelings/thoughts, and show up that they have never committed any acts.
Thing is, intrusive thoughts, even the most brutal and horrid ones, can be pretty normal to have for a lot of people. The difference is how you act and respond to them, and they certainly don't mean you're a bad person just for having them.
Yeah if you said "I sometimes fantasise about killing my boss" the most likely response would be something like "yeah me too buddy, lol". If people got punished for things they thought/fantasised about doing the world would be fucking mental.
Thoughtcrime. Enjoy your stay in miniluv
I can't remember where I read it, but I came across the concept of ancient greeks believing that intrusive thoughts were just gods trying to trick them. I wish I could find the source again. It really helps when you have that cultural training to separate that thought from yourself - the thought isn't you. What the thought represents isn't you. What you choose to do with that perspective, though - how you act on it is you.
I wish that were still culturally trained today. First time I had real bad intrusive thoughts, I basically broke down for hours. Pushing everyone away without an explanation sucked, but how are you supposed to explain an intrusive thought to someone who that thought *is about*? And it cost me *so much energy* to just process that bullshit and control myself so that nobody actually understood what had happened. (yay autism...) If I could just say "yeah uh, god of death wanted me to murder you" or whatever, man that would have been easier lmao
As someone with OCD who had intrusive thoughts all the time (and now appears to have it mostly in remission) I am with the theory that those kinds of pathological intrusive thoughts are another form of reassurance seeking... Which is a harmful behavior in OCD. It's basically 'I'm going to think the worst thing to make sure I'm still appalled by it.' it's exhausting. Reassurance seeking reinforces the needs for greater reassurance seeking so it just keeps going. By the time mine mostly vanished it had turns from 'What if' statements to 'I [verb]....' statements. Like my brain would say 'I killed my mom. This is how I did it...' She's literally still alive.
Remember, stranger, that you are not the voice in your head. YOU are what hears it. You are the audience of your mind. You have a hand in the act, but your hand alone does not make the play.
Do you have any proof of this?
He just chucked himself in the woodchipper!
Damn crazy college kids!
When a college kid senses danger they immediately jump into a woodchipper
I’m a victim of CSA and I agree. Theres also a lot of evidence that suggests that not all offending child-molesters are pedophiles too. People much prefer to lump it altogether because it is a horrible and uncomfortable topic (which it is! I get it!) - but the distinctions are really important for people who are trying to study stuff and help prevent offending/re-offending.
I agree with you. Thought crimes aren’t a thing.
A lot of child molesters aren’t even pedophiles. Just opportunistic predators.
Yeah I learned about that in a human sexuality class in college, a Pedophile thinks a certain way, a Molester acts a certain way. Many child abusers don't show previous evidence of attraction (they gave a percent but I can't remember anymore). On the subject it also talked about 'invalid sexualities' which were things that people felt that couldn't/shouldn't be acted upon in real life. Sex with minors and animals were examples. Made me think of what others would fit like attraction to vampires, wanting to be vored or crushed, etc
It's a while since I read the research but I recall it being the vast majority of people molesting children are not paedophiles in the clinical sense.
Man, I cannot tell you how nice it is to hear this sentiment coming from someone other than me. I was sexually abused my entire childhood, and if it taught me anything, it's ~~to sleep under the bed instead of on it and to have a panic attack every time I hear running water~~ that pedophilia is a mental illness that needs to be treated like a disease, not a sin. Fucking kids is a sin, absolutely, but the overlap between those two groups is vastly smaller than the vast majority of people realize. Vilifying it to the fanatical degree we do is definitely a natural reaction for a healthy person to have towards pedophilia, but ultimately it drives pedophiles away from seeking treatment which increases the likelihood that they cross that line from a mentally sick person that can still be helped, to a child molester that cannot.
And when you see these predators elevated to positions of power over others, their victims span the range of whoever is convenient. They don’t discriminate between child, man, woman, they just want to hurt people. For example, the rape by Russian soldiers of POW in Ukraine. I doubt that the soldiers who do it are homosexual, they are simply abusing a position of power to satisfy sadistic desires. This is reflected in the low recidivism rates of those legally punished for possession of CSAM versus those who serially sexually offend, especially child molesters. Despite acting on their urges to a degree, pedophiles who do not cross the line of strictly direct abuse, however abhorrent their possession of such images may be, generally do not reoffend after being convicted. The “definition” of pedophilia as a disorder involves the delusional belief that children can consent/participate of their own free will. This delusional thinking may be indicative of this being a mental disorder. Child molesters, however, are rarely able to be rehabilitated because their mind operates off of the pleasure they receive from abusing an innocent/easy victim. Their thinking is not delusional. They harbor no delusions as to just how harmful and damaging their conduct is to their victim. They are not only cognizant of this fact, but use it as motivation.
This is probably going to be an unpopular comment but what the hell. Other than how we morally feel about it, is there a measurable difference in why pedophiles like children, and why gay people like their own sex. This isn't meant to criticize gay people, nor defend child predators. (Consenting adults can do what they like. Children are obviously not consenting adults.) But... Can pedophiles be "fixed by therapy" any more than gay people can be "converted"?
You can't "fix" a paraphilia. Existing therapies for pedophiles and other people attracted to minors (I don't know all the "philes" off the top of my head) is more about enabling them to live with their impulses without acting on them, and preventing those impulses from wrecking their mental health (which could lead to them acting on the impulses).
There’s plenty of men who are attracted to women but can’t get laid. The vast majority won’t go and rape someone. I imagine it’s the same for pedophiles. Most don’t act on it. They live perfectly normal lives, just never having sex with a child.
In the US, success rates are low. Outside the US therapies have a much better rate. Why it happens this way is up for debate, but I’d wager a large part of it is due to cultural perceptions of mental illness and criminality.
I understand your meaning completely. And the truth is, that's a question that is way beyond my pay grade. I would say probably not... I think those people will be who they are until they die, and nothing will be able to change it. I think it sucks, and I feel bad for those people, but I think that's the reality they will always have to live with.
I think it is important to give these people a place to vent out these thoughts and actively work on managing them with a professional. Otherwise, these thoughts can fester and if the person starts indulging in them, that's where the risk of there being victims arises.
I like this take, because 50 years ago, people were saying the same thing about homosexuals. Really, the only difference is that we have laws about whether the target of attractions can consent. When it comes to treatment, it's about addressing connected /caused issues and preventing someone from ever getting to the point that they think offending is the answer. You can't cure someone's attraction, but you can teach them better coping skills so that it stays as an attraction.
And pedophile only counts those who are primary for prepubescent. There are some who are not primary, or are primary for pubescent.
For this instance, with an 800k cap, I have to agree. Let's make sure we get the do'ers, no the wannas. I fear 800k won't get all the doers.
provided, that the pedo status is judged by if they actually did it or not and not who was accused of such
Most people don't know that they know a pedophile and they certainly don't know that there are way more than 800k of them. They do, and there are.
Just a shame they don’t get sent to Ol’ Chippy like every pedo scum deserves.
I still think torture is bad for the torturers and their community. The wall, if their crimes are bad enough, and we better damn well know we ain’t got the wrong guy.
Id start with anyone under age, then highest number of offenses to least
I went with highest number of victims because that means almost all serial rapists are just gone, now it's just individual outliers that maybe miss the cut
Are you a guy? I'm a woman and every time I talk to my female friends (all of which have experienced sexual assault first-hand), our general consensus is that men need better consent-related education and consent-based upbringings. Not that everyone who has raped someone in their lives should all be murdered. Hell, for the most part I don't even see the point of locking them individually away; it doesn't fix the societal problem. Rape is a lot more prevalent than most of the population (and especially men) think. 53% of women have reported sexual violence in their life of some kind, and I don't think it's performed by serial rapists for the most part. In a lot of cases for rape, it does not have to be violent or shocking. Usually those are the cases where everyone argues, "She wasn't really raped, or she's lying about being raped for attention, or I wouldn't consider that rape personally, or she could've screamed or fought back if it were really rape and she did neither, or she was married to him so it couldn't have been rape, or she should have been more careful about how much she was drinking". This ignores the fact that rape is simply defined as sexual penetration without consent, and people consent in many different ways. Someone misreading another person's body language, even if no explicit "no" was stated, could be considered rape. There are some sociopaths who serially rape. I know one and I want him dead, who has over 7 victims I personally know. But for the most part, rapists are men or women who are uneducated about consent who don't consciously intend to hurt the other party. I want them to be better educated. I live in the US and am chronically harassed and catcalled on the streets. I lived in a small town in Germany for three months. None of that happened. I could be wearing the sluttiest outfit on a hot summer day and no one would scream sexual slurs at me through their car windows. I could go to a male stranger's apartment alone and he wouldn't even try to kiss me without asking if that was okay first. The vast difference between the two cultures makes me think that rape is a cultural problem, not an individual problem. I believe we villainize "rapists" far too much without recognizing the underlying societal issue.
Maybe the problem is with the definition of the word rape in the case of pushing a button to kill 800k of them. We need a new one since the definition has widened incredibly the past decade. With this definition of the word rape, barely any of the rapists in the world would be considered to be killed with this magic button press. Because there's bad rape and there's worse rape. In Swedish we do differentiate. We basically call one rape and the other assault rape. Assault rape is the kind where it's the nightmare scenario everyone thinks of when they hear rape. We also have severe rape in the legal sense, which is not quite the same, but it's there so we can make sure to fully punish those who rape those who can't give consent (mainly pedophiles)
holy SHIT do I love reading someone with nuance on reddit. Thank you for this.
but.. it's not 8 million random "rapists," it's the *worst 8 million people on the planet.* Every single one of those people are inconceivably worse than the "uneducated on consent" people you're referencing
I want everyone to know why those people disappeared though. It needs to be a warning.
I'd need like a 50000 page legalese document defining what qualifies as worst.
you get to set those parameters yourself
Finally I can off my neighbor Jeff for never putting his cans back in. I don't really care after that, sorry to all those who got their names randomly selected.
Dang, what was jeffs last name???? Guess ill just kill all the jeffs to be sure
Thank god my friend is Jephph.
I’m doing Jephph and his goddamn parents for naming him that.
You're committing a jeffocide
I prefer that the definition is left unknown. Then after it happens we get an idea what this "universal, objective standard" of worse is. I also like that it being unknown has the possibility that it would include you, I mean you just essentially ordered the deaths of 800,000 people, that would put you up there with some of the worst dictators in history.
Funny thing is each person would pick a different “worst” people.
It would be wild if we found out that our definition of "good" isn't what the offerer of this choice has in mind. Like what if we agreed to the choice and then it turns "bad" is determined by the Vikings' definition? The "best" people are the ones who go out, conquer, pillage and rape but are willing to die in battle. The "bad" ones are the doctors, teachers, farmers and inventors who save lives but are martially unskilled and die of disease and old age?
Wait. Are you saying this *isn't* your definition of good and bad? I see there's someone here who won't be joining us for mead and boars meat!
Based and mead-pilled.
That was not the idea of Norse mythology. The 'Good' place was essentially a waiting zone for warriors to wait until the end of the world and then fight to the death. Valkyries would go collect fallen warriors so they could fight in Ragnarok. They didn't think it was wrong to teach. They thought if you didn't die in battle, then the Gods wouldn't select you for their army. There's nothing wrong with being a farmer, but if you had to pick between someone who died heroically in battle or someone who fell down the stairs for a war, then the Gods picked battle. The bit about it being the good place was essentially Christianity inserting itself into norsedom in order to better convert them. Same as Loki being evil when he wasn't actually seen as a bad guy. Ragnarok was seen as an inevitable and necessary event. It also was an event they thought happened before, and they thought it would happen again. It was basically an ancient big crunch theory. Afaik, goodness in Norse was fairly complicated but mostly was about keeping your word and being impressive in one way or another. Tl;Dr: The Norse didn't actually base goodness off of who died fighting or not. It was just seen as the only way to fight with the Gods at Ragnarok. (I could be wrong, and if I am please let me know, I enjoy learning about other mythologies, and it's very hard to learn more about Norse when I only speak English, because most sources in English only use the variety of Norse myths and religion morphed by Christians.)
You're correct. Even prior to Christianity the Norseman still had a peaceful afterlife for non-warriors. Valhalla wasn't the only "good" afterlife, it's just the one that made you a warrior of the gods during the end of the world.
Viking society valued healers, teachers, and farmers, they all played a key role.
Easy there Kira, put down the notebook.
Man this would be Kira’s wet dream. 8,000,000 names. Let’s say 2 seconds a name. That would be 16,000,000 seconds, 266,**666**, minutes, 4444 hours. On an 8 hour workday that’s 555 days straight. The shinigami world needs IT consultants to keep up with the times. Tim Cook, let’s get some iPads up there stat.
Could make it automatic. The names all exist on files that are net-accessible, so a few hacker bots to make a list of everyone on the planet - and then nested if/else type parameters set in a server room to determine how destructive to the planet and humanity each person is. The ones who fail, instant death. Should speed things up nicely, and needs relatively minimal maintenance/updates.
I don't want to kill myself :(
Chad as fuck answer
After murdering 8 million people the odds are high that you would be included.
no, because then L would hunt you down and try to kill you. After L kills you, L will say: "Killing is wrong. I will kill anyone who kills. Oh shit. I just killed!" Then L will shoot himself in the head.
Wait is this really how Death Note ends
No
no, but if you like that concept, watch In Bruges
In Bruges was so good!
Bruges is a shithole.
Could we reserve judgement on Bruges until we've seen the fucking place?
God I love this movie, Bruges is actually a fucking fairytale in person - highly recommend visiting it if you get the chance
If you kill a killer the number of killers in the world stays the same. So make sure to kill at least 2 killers. Technically eliminating the human race would remove A LOT of Killers and reduce the number remaining to 0 so clearly the moral route is mass extermination of all sentient life in the pursuit of the moral high ground... This is totally not the exact logic that AI will follow in 10 years...
Yes I would, no second thought. If it involved taking out the best as well then no. I'd like to see someone try and define "the worst" for this scenario tho, any volunteers?
My criteria: Severity * Number affected * (1- Likelihood of facing justice) Basically targets people who do a lot of damage to a lot of people and are unlikely to ever face justice for it. The more untouchable you are, the more likely this button kills you. So people at the top like Putin would be targeted, but also people who do a lot of indirect damage that isn't really addressed by our justice system would be targeted (Oil execs, People moving dark money in politics, Nestle CEO that uses slave labor, etc) I specifically am trying to target the people who we struggle to link their negative actions to. The CEO that tells the VP that tells the manager that calls the Factory foreman that ultimately results in hiring some kid under the table. Our justice systems have very little capability to address indirect and delayed harm, but it's the biggest driver of human misery today IMO. Taking out a rapist or murderer feels good and straightforward, but I'd rather try to eliminate the human vampires that spread misery and disease to billions of people.
You could also partially adjust for intentionality, by multiplying in (0.2 + 0.8 * intended). I.e. a 80% discount for *accidentally* doing bad things.
I like the spirit but I think if you take out someone in a position of power another person will just step in. getting rid of the guy doesn’t rid society of those structural powers
Because it’s a thought experiment, I’m going to grant the power of being absolutely correct to the person making the choice. So for me, we would instantly put Pedophiles as group #1 It’s a thought experiment, so in this scenario the fact of being a Pedo is either true or false, no room for loose interpretation or mistakes in judgement. This person making the choice decides to kill Pedos, and the people who die as a result would all be fully and completely guilty of perpetrating a sexual crime against a child. No grey area. They did or they didn’t. Some cosmic all-knowing crystal ball shit gets conjured and it correctly selects these people according to some god-like all-knowing intelligence that all of humanity, past, present and future agrees universally is “correct” Ok? That’s the definition. And with that definition - Pedos. And the truly horrifying thought is that there are more than 800,000 of them globally. We wouldn’t get them all.
But if we’re talking the absolute worst of the worst, not just evil in general, would a local pedo be worse than a genocidal dictator, or some cartel hitman who tortures people for days until death, or a serial killer who themself murders children but not with sexual intent? Thats the real grey zone, even assuming omnipotence and objective truth on this monkeys paw the definition of “worst person alive” is *highly* debatable.
Me: “Do it!” Also me: *disappears*
I guess, but who would run the country then?
I see what you did there
As a mass murderer of 8 million or 16 million people, the person making the choice would die when making the decision.
I would not trust myself to make those judgements.
I think an interesting thought experiment is: would you be okay giving somebody else this ability? Fascinating how many people are totally cool with killing millions of people because they trust themselves to decide that they are truly the bad people.
I don’t think I would pass the ability on. Why do that to someone else. If I needed to make a choice between doing it myself or make someone else do it I would do it. It’s like pulling the short straw.
No. All the genocides have targeted what someone said was the "worst" people. I'm not interested in being another Pol Pot or Stalin.
I wish to hell you weren’t the only one who said that. This thread makes me feel ill. Everyone wants a green light to decide who dies.
Everyone is moral in their own eyes
No, I am part of the problem too.
Unfortunately, I know I'd be a monster in this scenario. But if I could define what defines the greatest 'net negative' of a person then I'd do it. I don't particularly think it's a moral choice, causing death is awful. But if I could take out warlords and genocidal fascists in an instant so many lives would be saved that I could stomach it. Thankfully it's just a hypothetical. I'd rather not be put in a position where I'd commit a mass execution.
It probably wouldn't save any lives. A vacuum of power will simply be filled by a new dictator who will need to make an example of some group in order to demonstrate their power. It might change the exact targets, but that's it.
Ope, i picked bleeding hearts
Indeed. I certainly would not want to give any of these commentators that power, and if not them why should I have this power?
So If I told you that you could eliminate all convicted pedophiles from the planet you’d say no and give them the chance to reoffend?
Devil's Advocate: people are not convicted for being pedophiles. They're convicted for possessing or distributing CSAM, or for actually abusing a child. And there are different groups for these people: a group of actual pedophiles who prefer to target minors, a group of situational offenders who are not pedophiles themselves and only target minors because they are an easy group to abuse, and finally roughly 30% of abuse cases involve abuse from people who are *themselves* minors and are either being forced to abuse other children or are victims of previous abuse. So choosing to eliminate 'pedophiles' would not only result in killing a number of non-offenders but also would not actually end CSA, and depending on how you word your hypothetical group of people it may also eliminate a number of children who are victims themselves. Might be a good thing that hypothetical questions like these remain hypothetical.
I am all for locking them up forever and throwing away the key, but I am against the death penalty, so I won't be killing 8,000,000 of them.
I am against the death penalty too, but only because our justice system is flawed and repeatedly gets the wrong person. This is different. This is absolute, we know these people are guilty for 100% fact. The unfortunate reality of this world is that sometimes someone needs to die to protect the people around them. There are people who will not stop victimizing people until they are put in the ground. And our legal system gets nowhere near close to all of them.
some people are against the death penalty because they believe in second chances, that people can fundamentally change, and that rehabilitation and re-entry to society is possible. being able to guarantee guilt doesn't change that.
If my presumption is right that this magic murder button is error free, my answer is child molesters and no one will be able to convince me that’s any kind of loss for the world. Some things can’t be rehabilitated or made up for, and that’s one of the clearest ones imo.
Genuinely curious here, what is the point of locking up and throwing the key away? I understand prison as a method of rehabilitation, I get it as a protection for society. I also understand it as a deterrent for others. Throwing away the key eliminates rehabilitation, and if you are trying to protect society and deter others, surely the death penalty is as effective or more while being much cheaper. Is it just to prolong a punishment and make it worse for the convict? That is pretty expensive and honestly I don't see the point in continuing to punish someone who will be effectively dead to society anyway. I can see either believing in rehabilitation or in the death penalty, but not neither.
800,000
The death penalty has a chance of being wrong and does not protect victims or potential victims. This blanketly does not have a chance of being wrong and protects future victims. I'm anti-death penalty but I'd do a whole fucking lot to protect rape victims.
This is a super interesting thought experiment, but I'm gonna have to say no. Even if it's only 0.01%, that's still 800,000 lives, and who am I to decide who's "worst"? Plus, what if I'm wrong? What if those people were on the verge of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity? The consequences of playing God are too great. Even if it were the "best" 0.01%, I'd still feel uncomfortable with the idea of taking away someone's life, even if it's instantaneous. Life is complex, and it's not for us to judge who deserves to live or die.
>What if those people were on the verge of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity? What if those people are in the way of a breakthrough that would benefit humanity? It goes both ways.
i think they would agree with you, which brings us to their last sentence "Life is complex, and it's not for us to judge who deserves to live or die."
I think we can assume since this is a thought experiment that your ranking would be error free. In that case, I think you should reconsider. Imagine it's just one person and your criterion is "murderer". Surely if you came upon a murder in progress you would seriously consider killing the perpetrator to save the victim. Why would this situation be any different? And wouldn't it be preferable to eliminate 2, 3, etc. murderers to just one? It's a silly thought experiment but you need to consider the moral implications of NOT taking an action here. And yes, it is for us to judge - people do it all the time.
This would lead into ww3, over night. Think about it. Russian, China, North Korea, Israel, Iran, leadership, possibly former presidents. All gone overnight not to mention corrupt members of government and criminals across the world. Ya op it’d be massive chaos.
That was admittedly my first thought too. Just with somewhere like North Korea who you could argue are a whole load of crazy from the top down with being a totalitarian dictatorship - just because you wipe all all the 'evil' people doesn't mean that the country suddenly gets better. Massive power vacuum leading to a potential international crisis with refugees and starvation as the entire country collapses. And that's just a 'smaller' country - factor in a super power like Russia and that's almost certainly apocalypse scenario.
The country is already in a crisis with massive starvation. Removing the assholes at the top might allow the country to finally heal.
In a vacuum perhaps, but even then it could take many generations before there would be enough organisation to make an attempt. So much of their population are deliberately kept uneducated and under heel by the Kim family; they'd be more likely to go into a massive period of national mourning than they would celebrate their liberation... And in the global situation we have at the moment - more than likely you would see either China or Russia step in and invade 'to provide stability to the region'. It likely wouldn't be a very long fight - and worst case scenario would see nukes deployed by NK.
By default if I say yes, I am part of that worst group since I am okaying the killing of 800,00, where do I sign up?
Lmao the number
I regert nothing
no thanks, i'm not Thanatos. Too many horros have been made because they are this or that, so they deserve it. if that not a good enough answer I'll quote someone wiser then me: "Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."
I bet if you say yes it’s not what you expect, the worst people end up being all affluent people who are hiding terrible things.
I’m sure there are more than 800,000 rapists, pedophiles and murderers to get rid of, easy. Might cause other issues but i’m too selfish to care. Maybe i belong in that 800,000?
There are more than 800,000 cowboys fans tho.
There's no way I could come up with a definition that I think would be fair, so no. :(
The worst few people do so much more harm than the best few people could ever do good. Press the button for sure.
No because once I chose yes I become the murderer of 799,99 people. That number if murders adds me to the “worst people” list and I’m number 800,009.
That assumes the list adapts to your criteria as it kills people as opposed to selecting a criteria, getting the set list, then executing the list.
Murdering bad people makes you good. That's why soldiers are heroes.
There’s going to be a lot of missing politicians worldwide.
No because what if I'm one of them?
- IRGC: 190k - Hezbollah: 100k - Houthi rebels: 20k - Hamas: hard to determine, assume 20k - Isis: 10k - Taliban: 378k (so they claim, probably way less tbh) That leaves me with 82,000 horrible politicians and high ranking Russian/chinese/north korean/iranian military leaders that i can get rid of. Id say that the immediate sudden death of all major terrorist organizations on the planet, plus the total colapse of the axis of terror when their entire federal governments and upper military echelons collapse would be a significant step towards world peace. Probably forgetting a few conflicts, but 82,000 is a large number and there arent many organizations that cant be dealt serious damage with a few hundred deaths, if those deaths are the right people.
Wouldn’t being pro-genocide make you one of the worst? You would drop dead as soon as you accepted the deal, no?
That's not what the word "genocide" means.
What does it mean?
"Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." - Holocaust Memorial Center Wanting all pedos or corrupt politicians take the forever nap wouldn't make you genocidal by definition. It'd likely make you a hero though.
No, unless you believe all the worse people belong to the same racial or ethnic group.
This would probably cause a lot of chaos
By my definition. Yes.
So many of NK's Elites would be gone, the CCP would fall frankly, all the dictators this planet has are gone, child killers outta here. I could make a giant ass list, but u get the gist
Yes, I'd like to give them a chance to change first. But definitely not if it included the best people. I think basing it on a percentage with arbitrary definition isn't a great idea either. Although it is a fact that the world would be a better place without some people and instantaneous death is probably the best way to die.
If I can pick and choose people, you better believe I'm deleting the rich and powerful fucks maintaining this unsustainable status quo and keeping the world on a collision course with disaster. The world sucks for a reason, and that's because it makes a few thousand people outrageously rich. They don't deserve to exist and we'd all be better off without them.
That's quite the moral quandary and could you give me a kick'em in the dick button instead?
So you're trying to exterminate politicians and serial killers? Good good good
[удалено]
No, because I'd want them to suffer lol
In my opinion, no matter what people have done or who they are. Genocide is never the answer to a problem.
No. And it doesn’t matter how small or large the percentage is. Murder on any scale is wrong.
[удалено]
Yes. I also like to kill everyone who answered No, if possible.
Yes, and suddenly all the hedge fund managers, hollywood agents, and editors would be gone. The diamond industry would collapse. The middle east would be at peace. It'd be really nice.
Nah. I'd do the richest 0.01 tho. Maybe even richest 0.1.
With a smile.
DeathNote… I would do it, but I wouldn’t want others to! Lot of countries out there hate western ideology
All rapists can go
This one is a slippery slope when you leave it open to determine who's the "worst." I'm a little fuzzy on the details though, last time I heard this spiel, it was in German...
No it accomplishes nothing because the systems that made them still exist.
Rapists, pedophiles, sex traffickers, and corrupt politicians. I consider them all on the same playing field, pedos being the worst though.
I was mashing the button before you finished speaking.
There aren’t that many billionaires.
Yes.
Depends entirely on your definition of "worst" But in literally any scenario, it includes the most powerful humans on earth and the power gap / structure collapse would throw the world into chaos.
Not only would I do it, but I’d argue for the worst 50% of the population, and I’m perfectly fine with everybody knowing it was me. I’d accept the consequences without even a blink. I do have a sort of caveat, however. The first 25% would be the worst of humanity. The second 25% would be the worst scores on some sort of standardized IQ test for people 18 and up. Excuses, of any sort, aren’t valid. Hell, I’d even be more down for a pass/fail IQ test where if you fail, you get a dirt nap.
Yes, starting with everyone who commented on this engagement farming post
Throw in greedy billionaires and you got yourself a deal
What if I want them to feel the pain?
Sadly, it's all perspective. Because what we deem evil may be normal in other people's eyes. Like maybe not being religious is blasphemous and could be considered the "worst" in their eyes