You get a Dalek in a Jar (RAR!)

[Eternal_Freedom]

It's bound and helpless now. Give it the slightest chance and it will start killing again. That is it's sole purpose, it's sole function. That is the problem. Even when alone, helpless, seperated from a casing and even dying, a Dalek instinctively tries to destroy. This is not something you can take chances with.

It is neither about morality or about my love for the earth. It's a choice, us, or it. No, we don't kill people who are dangerous, but people can change and be rehabilitated. The only times we have seen Daleks show any kind of compassion or similar feelings is when merged with or otherwise infused with other species. That is not the case here.

And your comment about the death penalty doesn't work. Like I said, humans can be rehabilitated, can show remorse. Daleks cannot.

[Batman]

There is no such thing as a routine genocide. Once a genocide has been successfully executed, the species you genocided is gone.
And yes, what, we're slowly genociding cattle? Do you know what genocide actually means? We're expressly and intentionally breeding farm animals so they'll be around to feed us in the future. We're pretty damned interested in making sure those beasties stay around.
As for rats and other vermin, nobody gives a damn about them as long as they stay out from underfoot. Genocide means we try to get rid of all of them.

I'm also curious as to know when and where humanity at large (as opposed to select subsections of it that were, by and large, considered stark raving mad by the rest of humanity) declared that anything not them needed to be EXTERMINATED.

[Purple]

It's bound and helpless now. Give it the slightest chance and it will start killing again. That is it's sole purpose, it's sole function. That is the problem. Even when alone, helpless, seperated from a casing and even dying, a Dalek instinctively tries to destroy. This is not something you can take chances with.

And what chance are you taking with it? Yes, it might eventually pose a threat if it was free and given a means of evil. But those are all ifs and buts. How can you justify murder based on them? Can you truly execute a living creature, no an entire race for nothing more than implied intent?

It is neither about morality or about my love for the earth. It's a choice, us, or it. No, we don't kill people who are dangerous, but people can change and be rehabilitated. The only times we have seen Daleks show any kind of compassion or similar feelings is when merged with or otherwise infused with other species. That is not the case here. And your comment about the death penalty doesn't work. Like I said, humans can be rehabilitated, can show remorse. Daleks cannot.

Serious sociopaths can't ever be rehabilitated. And yet we don't execute them just because they are irreparably evil.* Especially not if they were reduced to a harmless brain in a jar. There was a thread a while back about a rich sociopath kid that ran people over. He killed, and he can newer show remorse or rehabilitate. Would you support executing him? What if he insisted that, if released from prison he would kill again?

Right now, the only choice you have is one which you have imposed upon your self by ignoring circumstance and implementing your own prejudice.


*Remember, I am talking from a European perspective. We abandoned hanging for stealing more than a shilling quite a while back.

There is no such thing as a routine genocide. Once a genocide has been successfully executed, the species you genocided is gone.

Two things. Firstly, I was speaking metaphorically. Secondly, you could argue that humans do routinely attempt and fail at performing genocide against "pest" species. Especially since the term does not apply to species but to cultures and thus could be used to describe the extermination of a particular population of a particular species living in a particular region, like say the rat population of your average city.

I'm also curious as to know when and where humanity at large (as opposed to select subsections of it that were, by and large, considered stark raving mad by the rest of humanity) declared that anything not them needed to be EXTERMINATED.

Whilst there was newer a case of someone declaring "everything" to be exterminated there were plenty of situations in our past where we have singled out one group or the other for extermination. And people did go along with it just fine. So we as a species are hardly clean of blame. And whilst the crimes of the Daleks might be greater in magnitude, that is simply to be expected on account of the facts that they have had a lot more time and that there are a lot more Daleks than there are us.

So again, who are we to judge the Daleks, especially in this case when we do not even know if said crimes are real or just a fiction which Q used as a template to mess with us?

I mean really. Just say this line out loud: "You were created based on a character from a television show which told me that your race has committed great acts of evil. So I shall punish you for them and because I am afraid that you will commit great evil to me."

[Broomstick]

Can it survive outside of the jar for at least short periods? And if so, how easy or difficult would it be to unhook and reattach it to the system? As in, can I give it a hug without killing it?

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Aaaagh! Hugging a DALEK? You sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, mentally and morally depraved, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, person you!

Where is that brain bleach?

Seriously, though - it's an intelligent creature that would slaughter me and mine without remorse given the chance. WHY THE FUCK IS IT IN MY HOME? Kill it in pre-emptive self-defense of me and my race.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The OP said "Q gives you a Dalek." We were expressly told, it's a Dalek. No ifs, no buts. It is a Dalek and guilty of everything we see in the TV program.

Can I execute a living creature for implied intent? When it's a Dalek, yes. Because I know full well that it would do exactly the same. And you may say that the odds of it escaping and having a chance are slim, but even small odds add up over time.

If you decided to spare the Dalek Q gave you and give it to the authorities, and that Dalek later escaped and killed even one person, you would be responsible. You had a chance to act, and you did not. Could you live with yourself if you had a chance to stop a Dalek from killing one person and didn't? Or does it have to be five or ten or a thousand? How many lives have to die because of your actions before you admit you were wrong?

Incidentally, thank you Broomstick and Batman for agreeing with how absurd it is to even try keeping it alive.

[Purple]

The OP said "Q gives you a Dalek." We were expressly told, it's a Dalek.

Assume it is a real Dalek, and Daleks are real than. That changes nothing, as I will explain. But let us continue with this assumption from now on.

No ifs, no buts. It is a Dalek and guilty of everything we see in the TV program.

We are told "the Daleks" are guilty of these things. Not "this Dalek". The fact that they all literally look alike does not mean you can condemn it without proof any more than you could say that "every human" is guilty of killing other humans because you watched a war documentary.

Can I execute a living creature for implied intent? When it's a Dalek, yes. Because I know full well that it would do exactly the same. And you may say that the odds of it escaping and having a chance are slim, but even small odds add up over time.

And once again, would. Potential, implication, intent. Just because it "would" do something does not mean that it ever will. And until it does, or you have proof that it did the creature is still innocent.

To use a metaphor. If god him self was to come down from heaven and give you the perfect and unquestionable knowledge that if I ever sit behind the will of a car I will undoubtedly crash and kill people. How can you be sure that I will ever even sit behind that wheel? And would it be alright to execute me to save those people acting on that information alone?

If you decided to spare the Dalek Q gave you and give it to the authorities, and that Dalek later escaped and killed even one person, you would be responsible. You had a chance to act, and you did not. Could you live with yourself if you had a chance to stop a Dalek from killing one person and didn't? Or does it have to be five or ten or a thousand? How many lives have to die because of your actions before you admit you were wrong?

Could you live with your self knowing that you took a life because you were afraid of what it might some day do to someone else?

[Batman]

Ìt's a Dalek. Clark would probably agree it needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice. He'd probably need therapy afterwards, but he'd still agree.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As it's a Dalek, yes, yes I can live with that. How about you actually answer my question now?

[Purple]

As it's a Dalek, yes, yes I can live with that. How about you actually answer my question now?

I did. But if you want a full and comprehensive reply here it is. Whilst I could not live with the knowledge that through my inaction people have died, I could also not live with the knowledge that from my fear of the future I have taken a life which was for all intents and purposes innocent. And if I am to chose between those two evils I would pick the one that "might" come to be over the one that most certainly "is".

[Broomstick]

Could you live with your self knowing that you took a life because you were afraid of what it might some day do to someone else?

Look, I don't blame a tiger for being a dangerous predator, it's just what a tiger is. It's not evil for a tiger to kill and eat a primate - and not always in that order, either. However, I happen to be a primate and thus if I found myself confronted by a tiger and had a gun I wouldn't have a problem killing it to keep myself or my family safe. Too bad for the tiger.

Likewise, a Dalek has no compassion, mercy, or remorse and is intent on exterminating all non-Dalek life in the universe. It's what a Dalek is. Being non-Dalek, I don't have a problem eliminating the threat it represents.

Yes, I could live with myself.

[Batman]

Let's see. 100% of available evidence says that the creature in the jar will end up causing not inconsiderable harm,possibly including the end of all humanity and depending on circumstances, the end of all creation. The evidence for this creature turning out to being benign leave alone beneficient on any level is-inexistent.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You said the Dalek is innocent until proven guilty. A Dalek is quite literally bred for war and extermination. There is no uncertainty in whether or not it will try and kill and destroy others.

How many times do I have to say it. It. Is. A. DALEK. A creature whose only purpose it to destroy, anything and everything that isn't a Dalek too. A creature that is the amalgamation of the very worst elemnts of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong, dialed up to eleven. How can you possibly see any redeeming features in it? It will try and destroy others, it is it's nature.

If the Dalek was in a casing with no weapons or shields and you had an anti-tank gun, would you not open fire and kill it? You probably would, because it's a threat and will try and kill you as soon as it sees you. A dalek is just as dangerous without it's casing, precisely because people like you think "well maybe it won't try to kill us."

EDIT: A Dalek is like a virus. Their own creator likened them to a virus. Would you feel bad about destroying the last traces of Ebola or HIV? Their only purpose is to destroy and reproduce and continue until they are the only form of life. They know nothing else. Would you object if I held in my hand the very last vial of smallpox and I threw it into an incinerator?

[Tribble]

If you decided to spare the Dalek Q gave you and give it to the authorities, and that Dalek later escaped and killed even one person, you would be responsible. You had a chance to act, and you did not. Could you live with yourself if you had a chance to stop a Dalek from killing one person and didn't? Or does it have to be five or ten or a thousand? How many lives have to die because of your actions before you admit you were wrong?

I was asked what I would realistically do if I was given a Dalek in a jar. I have stated my response- hand it over to authorities. It if a defining aspect of who I am as a person: Rightly or wrongly, I will not kill a sentient creature who is at mercy and is incapable of any action. Period. Disagree with me if you wish, that's your prerogative.

And the Dalek was stated to be fully contained - if the scenario was "you have a Dalek in a jar and its breaking out, what do you do?" then yes, I would kill it asap.

[Batman]

No it wasn't. The OP merely stated it was in a glass jar. There was nothing about there being no way for the Dalek to get out of it.

[Tribble]

Well that defeats the whole purpose of the scenario, because Daleks would likely have the strength to break through glass. So you literally have no option as it's actively breaking through the glass trying to kill you.

EDIT: Unless you want it to kill you the moment it breaks through the glass.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If you find a rabid dog roaming the streets you put it down. A Dalek is far, far more dangerous than a rabid dog. Both have an equal chance at reforming.


As to Mr. Rogers' capacity to reform one, he did manage to nearly bring a politician to tears and got him to openly admit that the speech given was moving. If you can convince a politician to be compassionate I think you'd have a chance at teaching a Dalek to love others. (See his speech before a Congressional committee regarding funding for PBS. He managed to triple the federal donation to PBS just by arguing in favor of not cutting the funding.)

[Tribble]

No, no, Eternal_Freedom doesn't want jokes here like my joke of getting the Dalek drunk this is a serious discussion lol.

EDIT: Well, as serious a discussion as Q giving you a Dalek can get anyways. In which case, I will say, in all seriousness - Mr. Rogers will not work. It's a Dalek - a being created for the specific purpose of killing all living things. A human politician doesn't even come remotely close, and the idea that Mr. Rogers would be able to convince a Dalek to change its mind is absurd.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Do you honestly think I'm being serious?

[Tribble]

No, but some people might think you are so I thought I'd help dispel any illusions

If we are going to take the OP's thread literally, we have a Dalek in a glass jar. Depending on the thickness of the glass, the Dalek may very well be able to break it. And if there is any way to escape, given how fast we've seen Daleks conduct mental math it will only take it a few seconds to figure out how to. In which case, all Q did by putting it in the glass jar was give you a few precious seconds to consider your options:

A) Try to find a way to kill the Dalek as it's breaking out. -if you have weapons handy you should have the advantage, though I think a Dalek has superior physical strength which would put you at a disadvantage if it became hand-to-hand.
B) Run away and hope that the glass jar will slow it down long enough for you to escape.
C) If you are suicidal and Q gave you the Dalek as a unique way to kill yourself, let it kill you the moment it breaks out.

I think most people would like to think they'd pick option A, some end up picking option B as that's their natural response to threats (it's called "fight or flight" for a reason) and very few (if any) will pick option C.

And that's pretty much all there is to the discussion if you get a Dalek in an escapable/breakable container.

I think the OP was assuming that the Dalek could not escape on its own, and the question was more a moral dilemma of what to do with it. Is that the case?

[TimothyC]

Ìt's a Dalek. Clark would probably agree it needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice. He'd probably need therapy afterwards, but he'd still agree.

About that,

It's hard to snap a Dalek neck, when they don't have necks to snap.

[Grumman]

With its intelligence and age a Dalek might well be as much beyond us as we are beyond that pig or rat. So how can it be any more wrong in its actions than we are in ours? If they are, who are we to say?

The morality of such actions is based on thresholds, not relative intelligence. If Albert Einstein murdered his wife it would not be morally superior to Joe Thug doing the same just because he's smarter than she is.

[NecronLord]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Note, the Doctor actually grabs a gun and just shoots the thing. And so should you.

[Batman]

Video removed by user. Also, TimothyC, that was rather funny

[Purple]

We just need to establish something here with the OP. Is the Dalek inside some sort of proper but still transparent container and tied into its life support system or is it literally a glass jar that it can break out of at will? Because if it's the latter all we get to do is die or run away.

[Batman]

All you get to do is die or run away. I can always admit I can't handle it on my own and call in the rest of the Tights Brigade (because as we all know, that's what I usually do).