Saturday, October 2, 2010

VHEMT follow-up

First, let me say that I hadn't expected an idle musing to prompt what's become the most active comment thread so far on an otherwise obscure and rarely updated blog. In defense of VHEMT, I'd like to point out that it's a fairly benign form of a rather sinister movement. As Exhibit 1, below I'll post in full the comments of Anonymous (due the the length, the really juicy parts were clipped from the comment text). Imprisonment, forced sterilization -- it's all in there, enjoy. For Exhibit 2, consider Pollute and Die clip released by the 1010 campaign. They seem to have crossed a line here -- "snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy" is a fair characterization of this stunt. The reaction was one of such unanimous disgust that these people were compelled to issue a (weak) retraction.

These people are too easily dismissed as inconsequential raving lunatics. Occasionally, we're rudely reminded that all this talk of mass-murder isn't mere talk.

------------------- Anonymous's comment -------------------

sorry, i posted it to another forum of similar title...anyway if you want something to knaw on give it a thorough read...




***The Global Non-transferable 0.5 limit plan***

The basis of the argument...



1) we are approximately 50% over global carrying capacity as a species.



2) one child can carry the biological records for two...where a second child assumes the burden of the necessary reduction in population be an involuntary forfeiture of the biological records of two other individuals...



3) under awareness of said earth system stress levels, and loss of specification, many may voluntarily forfeit the passing of their biology as a means of preserving species on the brink, and securing planetary health, while insuring the right of humans to breed, should they choose to, remain an accessible option....in order that this wish be respected, these voluntary forfeitures must not be allowed to become a birth credit to be assumed by any existing parent, maternal, paternal, or both, in the case of a second potential child.

In order that human rights be observed:

The following proposal sites the rights of children not yet created as per 1) that they may not be born into a world that cannot adequately support them, or if this world can arguably support them, that one may site a degraded world relative to that which the potential child’s forbears enjoyed would be the child’s inheritance…

The following proposal sites the right of humans to procreate as per 2), while imposing limits to protect the rights of others who may choose to employ this right…

The following proposal sites the right to chose not to reproduce, as per 3)

Proposed proceedings to safe guard these rights are as follows, and are to be applied equally on a global scale to all members of the human populous.

Initial Proceedings:

all male parents of existing children, that are not already fixed, would need to schedule an appointment to address the situation, or face issuance of a warrant for their arrest for obstruction of justice and associated fines....



all female parents of two or more existing children that are not fixed, would need to schedule an appointment to address the situation, or face issuance of a warrant for their arrest for obstruction of justice and associated fines....



all female parents of fewer than two existing children, should be informed that weather though abstinence, birth control, selection of a fixed male partner, or any other means, they may wish to avoid fines and procedures.

Protocol:

Post conception the suspected father would be incarcerated until such a

time that it can be determined beyond question that he indeed is the

father...If he is not the father; he is free to go... The woman

then would be incarcerated until such a time as she could provide sufficient information to bring the father of her child into custody. Upon determination, the father of the child would undergo vasectomy before being released...

Should the mother choose to terminate the pregnancy in the first trimester, the father would be released unaltered. If the mother does not choose to terminate the pregnancy within the first trimester, this becomes a default decision to carry the child to term under the fore mentioned proceedings.

In any cases of a potential child, by a parent of an existing child, paternal, maternal or both, the offender(s) would have the choice of aborting the child or being put to death. The former decision inclusive of fines: for a father potentially twice ,for assuming what should rightfully be the woman's choice, and for a mother potentially twice, as a means of securing finance for the tubal she would receive in post.

Should any geographical region reach a state of equilibrium within it’s boundaries, the populous will have the option of applying for revokeable immunity.

4 comments:

Aryeh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
said...

Yeah, moi gotz your rights right here.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8pdL0snjUs

rulgert said...

well that was a neat vid...but i'm not sure if you are trying to make a point or not...unless i hear back i'll call it art...

Mr. Trombley said...

I don't pretend to defend them, but I do want to say one thing. When you say "There are two kinds of people in this world: those who will sign on to the VHEMT agenda and those who will not. Which group does the future belong to?".

It seems that these VHEMT types claim to be motivated by morals. It seems to me we would be very lucky that all moral causes would be stable! Why couldn't the right thing to do be self-defeating? Killing Hitler at his height would save the world a madman, but would have made him a martyr. It seems to me that being perfectly good could easily be unstable in this way...

Maybe I'm too pessimistic.