This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

DasSquid's Profile

DasSquid's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by DasSquid

More Discussions by DasSquid

Latest Comments by DasSquid

Go to: Young Aussies 'becoming non-believers'

DasSquid's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by DasSquid


statistics like that are mostly useless, to have a proper 'population density' calculation it should be merely HABITABLE land. Most of Australia is red nothing, absolutely uninhabitable.

Anyway, I'm also a young Australian, and I was totally suprised to have recently actually MET a professing Christian in my age group. But she also believed in a whole bunch of woo that completely condradicts her other beliefs, so I found it pretty amusing.

And as others have said, I believe 18.7% sounds incredibly low.

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:51:00 UTC | #315881

Go to: New Device Could Solve Mars Methane Mystery

DasSquid's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by DasSquid

Comment #325381 by j.mills on January 21, 2009 at 8:20 pm

It's a pretty sexy news article to think that there maybe some form of life there. And using this if they can attract funding why not'

Also I personally think it's a pretty good posibility and the ramifications are enormous. Throwing this on the front page everywhere may even get some people interested in science!

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:54:00 UTC | #310213

Go to: Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

DasSquid's Avatar Jump to comment 147 by DasSquid

Is not the background idea of this that those in question are already criminals? Those that are proposed to be put on this compulsory contraception are those that have already abused their children, be it through physical injury, starvation, rape and other sets of horrors.

Another way of looking at this is that I imagine that those who have their children taken away for proven abuses are not gaoled. I say I imagine because I've not looked into it nor experienced it in any way, however it's rather essential to my point.

They aren't gaoled for harming another, let alone a one as defenseless as a child. Let's just assume that the MP's proposal is a 2 year prison sentence as opposed to a 2 year contraception plan. Now again, I'm totally ignorant of conjugal visit rights and the such, but I would assume that it may be incredibly difficult to get pregnant whilst in prison, making it effectively contraception in and of itself.

All I'm suggesting is that looking at it in a different angle, the parent who is proven to abuse their child (who I believe should be gaoled) is instead still allowed to exist in society, but prevented from creating another life, and possibly abusing it as well.

Also in regards to the encroaching powers of the government factor, while I see where you're coming from, we're talking about punishing those who have committed crimes, not punishing the innocent. (Though I absolutely admit mistakes can be made.)

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:19:00 UTC | #297009

Go to: Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

DasSquid's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by DasSquid

39. Comment #311658 by humanpowered on January 3, 2009 at 10:09 pm

... Sure, its easy to say that its not a big deal, preventing pregnancies of unfit mothers. But where does that end' Is it really a big deal to round up the bums on the street and send them to a labor camp' Is it a big deal to not even try to save someone whose injuries require a lot of work and money' ...

Are you kidding' How in the hell can you connect these' You have gone from 'Let's punish people who commit crimes', to 'EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE.'

I would hope just by highlighting this to you that you can see how absurd it is, if you can't, then I don't understand why you're at this website.

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:23:00 UTC | #296782

Go to: Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

DasSquid's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by DasSquid

Just a few points,

I've wanted something like this to be discussed for some time. The idea that unfit parents are able to keep reproducing, pouring children into completely disgusting circumstances and unable to take care of them just horrifies me. Taking a look at the different levels of involvement here.

Individual: If this person is an addict of some sort and has already had a child taken away from them, they've already proven they are unfit to be parents, adding another child to their care would further increase the problems, possibly exacerbating their need for their crutch, be it alcohol or drug related. Forcing this individual to have a 'time out' of sorts will hopefully be a wakeup call for them to sort out their life and would hopefully cause them to stop and actually re-evaluate their lives if they truly want to have another child.

Society: Individuals who've had their children taken away from them are taken care of by some portion of society at large, be it adoption, hospitals, government run care facilities or something of the sort. This basically means that there is also a financial drain on society, and time in terms of those who adopt. If unfit individuals were prevented in some way of having more children, and more children taken away from them, then those who'd normally adopt that child, are free to take care of ANOTHER unwanted child that would normally still be waiting for foster parents.

One argument I heard in that show was that the general public should step up and just magically adopt all of these children, what a joke! I've no idea on actual numbers but I would think that it's mostly a rarity for parents to want to adopt as opposed to having their own children, and to be honest I would prefer to live in a society that has no children to adopt, than too many children and not enough parents to adopt.

The World: It's been argued here already. Overpopulation. Nothing I can really add to that.

edited for spelling error

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:15:00 UTC | #296781

More Comments by DasSquid