[R] advocating death

[Jebslund]

Their interest is the demand side of the economy continuing to function via people still being able to afford their businesses products and services. A shrinking economy means that they lose money. Their stock portfolio will tank.

True, but they don't stand to gain anything from several billions of shit-poor people whose combined economic potential is less than any single individual one of them, and who still consume resources that would be best spent elsewhere.

Culling the poorest part of the world and retaining the economically more viable part of the population would not harm their economic interests much, especially seeing how menial unskilled labour is being increasingly automated. As unskilled labour is replaced by machines, there simply is no point in retaining people without the skills necessary to stay employed.

Besides, the elite isn't suicidal - surely they must realize that the population growth and resource consumption must be capped at some point, lest they be reduced to eating their money sooner or later. Providing the rabble with the means to subsist and further propagate would be counter-productive to that end, while letting them starve and stir trouble in their despair only provides a credible excuse to put them down.

Emphasis mine.

Seriously? Putting the poor down? Culling them?

[Farnhamia]

I don't have a banhammer the way Reppy does. Nevertheless, Imperium Sidhicum has earned the ultimate penalty.

[Saiwania]

I'm on the fence as to whether this violated any rule. The legal defense loophole that I see, is that this was their opinion of what would happen, rather than an actual policy proposal made on their behalf; so it was all taken out of context. My interpretations don't hold any power or one iota of influence, but I ask that it be taken under advisement that this is possibly just a misunderstanding?

[Jebslund]

I don't have a banhammer the way Reppy does. Nevertheless, Imperium Sidhicum has earned the ultimate penalty.

Thanks, Farn. *leaves treat of choice*

[Kyrusia]

I'm on the fence as to whether this violated any rule. The legal defense loophole that I see, is that this was their opinion of what would happen, rather than an actual policy proposal made on their behalf; so it was all taken out of context. My interpretations don't hold any power or one iota of influence, but I ask that it be taken under advisement that this is possibly just a misunderstanding?

If they wish to appeal, they know how to reach us.