The Hunger games in the real world Watch

Anonymous #1
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Should we have a hunger games every year in the real world? It should take place once a year and participants can be volunteers and even prisoners who will then be rewarded by releasing until their next offence. I'd say it will work and help decrease the murders/knife crime/gun crimes by allowing it in the games.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
It happens throughout the year anyway, and it's called "London".
4
reply
CTLeafez
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Anonymous)
Should we have a hunger games every year in the real world? It should take place once a year and participants can be volunteers and even prisoners who will then be rewarded by releasing until their next offence. I'd say it will work and help decrease the murders/knife crime/gun crimes by allowing it in the games.
That's already the plot of the movie The Running Man (1987)
0
reply
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
so like daily america?
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#5
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by CTLeafez)
That's already the plot of the movie The Running Man (1987)
Impossible... Hunger games came out wayyyyy after
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#6
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Glaz)
so like daily america?
(Original post by ecolier)
It happens throughout the year anyway, and it's called "London".
But in this case, not shooting anyone on the street but individuals who were willing to give up their life or who were sentenced for life (inevitably giving up their life.) Tbh, this event would help clear prisons, reduce population size, reduce climate change, get rid of killers/murderers and hence make more efficient use of resources and money in the long run.
0
reply
Minxel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
No way! I hate being hungry and I know I would end up being in district 13 starving and wasting away. Without pizza. :emo:
1
reply
Anonymous #1
#8
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Minxel)
No way! I hate being hungry and I know I would end up being in district 13 starving and wasting away. Without pizza. :emo:
District 13 is the military district - I think they have good food. District 12 was the one suffering most imo. So district 13 may give you pizza...
0
reply
Minxel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Anonymous)
District 13 is the military district - I think they have good food. District 12 was the one suffering most imo. So district 13 may give you pizza...
Ah crap. How did I get THAT basic information wrong 😂😂😂I've read the books and seen the films!! I am thoroughly embarrassed.
Anyway. Yes. I meant district 12.
I'd be in district 12. Starving and wasting away. Without pizza 😞
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#10
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Minxel)
Ah crap. How did I get THAT basic information wrong 😂😂😂I've read the books and seen the films!! I am thoroughly embarrassed.
Anyway. Yes. I meant district 12.
I'd be in district 12. Starving and wasting away. Without pizza 😞
I haven't read the book, but after watching the film Im thinking of reading the book. I just hope descriptions in the story are very vivid
0
reply
tubphonecase
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Anonymous)
Should we have a hunger games every year in the real world? It should take place once a year and participants can be volunteers and even prisoners who will then be rewarded by releasing until their next offence. I'd say it will work and help decrease the murders/knife crime/gun crimes by allowing it in the games.
No. People don't kill people just because they have the urge to, this isn't the purge, they won't 'get killing out their system' by killing some random person in an arena. Tackling issues causing violent crime would probably be a better method than making the poor kill each other for the entertainment of the rich. And rewarding people for murdering more people doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Also I'm a p*ssy and don't wanna get murdered.
1
reply
GreenCub
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
Of course everyone loved the Capitol in the Hunger Games...
0
reply
ghostmalone
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by tubphonecase)
No. People don't kill people just because they have the urge to, this isn't the purge, they won't 'get killing out their system' by killing some random person in an arena. Tackling issues causing violent crime would probably be a better method than making the poor kill each other for the entertainment of the rich. And rewarding people for murdering more people doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Also I'm a p*ssy and don't wanna get murdered.
As a p*ssy, i agree.
1
reply
Anonymous #1
#14
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by tubphonecase)
No. People don't kill people just because they have the urge to, this isn't the purge, they won't 'get killing out their system' by killing some random person in an arena. Tackling issues causing violent crime would probably be a better method than making the poor kill each other for the entertainment of the rich. And rewarding people for murdering more people doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Also I'm a p*ssy and don't wanna get murdered.
But killers are more likely to wait each year to kill rather than take it out on an innocent person, because it is unpunishable. Hunting/Killing is part of our genes... we are meant to live in the wild and not in a manmade civilised city. Tackling issue = violent crime decreases = population increases = resources such as food and fuel run out = people begin fighting = mass killings that is not moral and unreasonable for food.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#15
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by GreenCub)
Of course everyone loved the Capitol in the Hunger Games...
Obviously, even I didn't like the capitol because:
children were taken randomly and it was just between 12-17(?)
Money only went to capitol while district suffered
Soldier and president was ruthless - killing to induce fear and keep dictator leadership

Capitol would have been liked if:
they took volunteers and prisoners
money was evenly spent across districts (in our case, it would to developing countries and poor)
I don't think any country is powerful enough to force this dictatorship
0
reply
tubphonecase
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Anonymous)
But killers are more likely to wait each year to kill rather than take it out on an innocent person, because it is unpunishable. Hunting/Killing is part of our genes... we are meant to live in the wild and not in a manmade civilised city. Tackling issue = violent crime decreases = population increases = resources such as food and fuel run out = people begin fighting = mass killings that is not moral and unreasonable for food.
Random killings are incredibly rare, murders are almost always targeted. And when they are random, the perpetrator rarely just kills the person.
I am a human and can solidly say I don't have an instinctual drive to kill people, I don't think you're right there.
And you're saying tackling issues of violent crime will lead to mass killings? That isn't even a jump, that's a whole pole vault.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#17
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by tubphonecase)
Random killings are incredibly rare, murders are almost always targeted. And when they are random, the perpetrator rarely just kills the person.
I am a human and can solidly say I don't have an instinctual drive to kill people, I don't think you're right there.
And you're saying tackling issues of violent crime will lead to mass killings? That isn't even a jump, that's a whole pole vault.
You don't. But most do - only suppressed by police
It won't lead to mass killings now, but in the future it will - give it about 50-100 years when population peaks.
Also nothing is ever ordered (unchaotic) - it always tends to disorder - look up entropy - doesn't just apply to chemistry, but applies to everything, and hence we will kill.
0
reply
tubphonecase
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Anonymous)
You don't. But most do - only suppressed by police
It won't lead to mass killings now, but in the future it will - give it about 50-100 years when population peaks.
Also nothing is ever ordered (unchaotic) - it always tends to disorder - look up entropy - doesn't just apply to chemistry, but applies to everything, and hence we will kill.
Dude you're telling me that most people have constant urge to murder people? That kinda sounds like a you problem if I'm honest.
How will tackling violent crime lead to population peaking? Violent crime, like most crime, is generally caused by poverty and economic disparity and poor people have more children (throughout history and throughout he world), so if people weren't poor they'd have fewer children and the population won't increase in the way you think.
This is the wackiest argument I've ever seen haha.
0
reply
Anonymous #1
#19
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by tubphonecase)
Dude you're telling me that most people have constant urge to murder people? That kinda sounds like a you problem if I'm honest.
How will tackling violent crime lead to population peaking? Violent crime, like most crime, is generally caused by poverty and economic disparity and poor people have more children (throughout history and throughout he world), so if people weren't poor they'd have fewer children and the population won't increase in the way you think.
This is the wackiest argument I've ever seen haha.
no not really. But you can set off the urge easily by anger. We have been tamed but it can be brought back again
how does number of children correlate to amount of wealth they have?
tbh i got an med interview tomorrow so im trying not to worry too much. this post was a troll lmao
0
reply
tubphonecase
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Anonymous)
no not really. But you can set off the urge easily by anger. We have been tamed but it can be brought back again
how does number of children correlate to amount of wealth they have?
tbh i got an med interview tomorrow so im trying not to worry too much. this post was a troll lmao
The children correlation thing is a phenomenon seen throughout history and geography where there is a negative correlation between wealth and number of children - it's super interesting to look into.
Good luck with your interview
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (115)
59.28%
Yes- I don't like it (10)
5.15%
No- I want it (55)
28.35%
No- I don't want it (14)
7.22%

Watched Threads

View All