Over-population.

[iamlowsound]

No, I'm not basing it on economic status. What I'm saying is that if someone is stupid no amount of schooling is going to make them really any smarter. Providing extra resources in an attempt to lift them beyond their own limits simply won't work.

The rich are generally rich because they possesed a trait that got them there, wether that is being smart or being savy to something and a hard worker. Allowed to breed they will make more offspring like themselvs.

Just as someone who is born into poverty and bright will pull themelves up into a higher bracket and pass their genetics and monetary gains onto their offspring.

What about a stupid person that is a hard worker? Can't they work hard at their schooling to make themselves smarter?

lowsound

 

[ric1312]

ric1312, you're beginning to make me feel that we should develop "retroactive eugenics", and use YOU as the first test subject.

:scowl:

Not ALL genetic defects can be found prior to birth.

How do I know? My stepson (whom I consider my son) has cerebral palsy. He is a quadraplegic, cannot speak, and can't really even hold his head up. However, he is intelligent, bright, caring, and has a wicked sense of humor. No one knew he would have this problem, he has an older sister and two younger sisters that are completely healthy.

The end result of your "reasoning" (which stretches the definition to the breaking point, by the way) would make it so that he never had a chance to exist, much less touch the lives of countless other people, and bring happiness and joy to them.

Please take this aphorism to heart:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

...oops, too late...

Obviously you can't account for birth defects, even if the gentic stock of the parents is good. Abnomailities are going to happen, it's just that they shouln't be allowed to pass on.

Beyond the love your family feels for your son and he feels for you is there logically a point to a life of a person who is a quadraplegic and has no real funtion in society?

You also missed the whole point. I doubt your stepson will be passing on his genetics to anyone. Call me a jerk or whatever.

 

[jomahu]

woahhhhh....yeh, i'm out.


besides, we got to hit the road for a gig in philly.

 

[ric1312]

What about a stupid person that is a hard worker? Can't they work hard at their schooling to make themselves smarter?

lowsound

No intelligence does not work like that. You can memorize things and gain knowledge, but the IQ limits what you can grasp and utilize and understand.

Their is a difference between stupid/low base intelligence and ignorant. (Ignorant as in no schooling not rude)

For instance I have a very average IQ. I could read advanced mathmatics and physics books all day long, even memorize them but theres no way I'm every really doing to understand them on the same level as someone with an exceptional IQ.

To put it another way you could train a chimp very complicated sign language and work with them their whole life but they would never be as smart as a human. In order for them to gain that degree of intelligence they would have to be gentically altered or bred over many generations with smarter and smarter chimps.

 

[Jared Lash]

The rich are generally rich because they possesed a trait that got them there, wether that is being smart or being savy to something and a hard worker. Allowed to breed they will make more offspring like themselvs.

Well here's the divide that can't be bridged in this argument.

According to your logic Paris Hilton must have smart genes while she's one of a small handful of people that would actually make me consider the benefits of eugenics.

I mean, she's much more successful than anybody I know of who grew up poor in war torn Bosnia, so she must have better genes.

Ric1312, your whole argument is based on misconceptions of biology and confusing cause for effect.

There has yet to be a genetic correlation found for intelligence. Which isn't to say there isn't one, it just hasn't been fully elucidated. So your solution is to basically look at a person's station in life as an indicator of whether or not they get to have children. It's flawed reasoning.

 

[iamlowsound]

No intelligence does not work like that. You can memorize things and gain knowledge, but the IQ limits what you can grasp and utilize and understand.

For instance I have a very average IQ. I could read advanced mathmatics and physics books all day long, even memorize them but theres no way I'm every really doing to understand them on the same level as someone with an exceptional IQ.

To put it another way you could train a chimp very complicated sign language and work with them their whole life but they would never be as smart as a human. In order for them to gain that degree of intelligence they would have to be gentically altered or bred over many generations with smarter and smarter chimps.

You IQ increase, FACT. Reading, writing and the like increases your IQ, FACT. I took an IQ test about 4 or 5 years ago, said I had an IQ of 120. I took one last year and I had an IQ of 134. These were NOT internet tests.

lowsound

 

[Barkless Dog]

To put it another way you could train a chimp very complicated sign language and work with them their whole life but they would never be as smart as a human. In order for them to gain that degree of intelligence they would have to be genetically altered or bred over many generations with smarter and smarter chimps.

Now you did it, mentioning Chimps!



I love these commercials!

 

[ric1312]

You IQ increase, FACT. Reading, writing and the like increases your IQ, FACT. I took an IQ test about 4 or 5 years ago, said I had an IQ of 120. I took one last year and I had an IQ of 134. These were NOT internet tests.

lowsound

Judging from your avatar you are kind of young. Yes IQ increases, but it levels off with age, and then as you grow old decreases.

What IQ is, is really a measure of how quick you catch on to some new concept. It is not really a measure of how much you know.

So, someone with a low IQ would take a longer time to learn something brand new to them than you would. Someone with a very very low IQ would probably never catch on.

 

[Gard]

Obviously you can't account for birth defects, even if the gentic stock of the parents is good. Abnomailities are going to happen, it's just that they shouln't be allowed to pass on.

Beyond the love your family feels for your son and he feels for you is there logically a point to a life of a person who is a quadraplegic and has no real funtion in society?

You also missed the whole point. I doubt your stepson will be passing on his genetics to anyone. Call me a jerk or whatever.

Man, you do realize that your arguments for eugenics are not at all helped by your inability to say, SPELL correctly.

....maybe you wouldn't qualify to reproduce?

By the way, yes, there is a logical reason for his life, you jack@$$, but I'm not going to waste the time or effort in typing to explain it to you, as you are obviously defective and won't understand it.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

No, I'm not basing it on economic status. What I'm saying is that if someone is stupid no amount of schooling is going to make them really any smarter. Providing extra resources in an attempt to lift them beyond their own limits simply won't work.

The rich are generally rich because they possesed a trait that got them there, wether that is being smart or being savy to something and a hard worker. Allowed to breed they will make more offspring like themselvs.

Just as someone who is born into poverty and bright will pull themelves up into a higher bracket and pass their genetics and monetary gains onto their offspring.

Yes there are stupid people. But stupid people can learn. They can learn how to function in society. They can learn how to make money, To support themselves, to dream, to raise a family, and to vote. Are you telling me that they are not entitled to an opinion because they are stupid? That we eliminate them because of their potential for idiocy? Our history is full of examples of people overcoming adversity and shortcomings in the name of success. For every one of those stories there are hundreds that we don't hear about.

I'm a teacher. Yes some kids are "dumber" than others, but by no means is that a determining factor for their success in our society. I've met many dumb rich people too. You should see some of the boaters I encounter as lifeguard. If a person is incapable of learning, then there are various reasons for this. Mental retardation is one of them. Are you saying that we eliminate people that are ********? How about people with cleft palette's (easily corrected by surgery)? Do we eliminate them because they talk funny? This logic is the basis of a master race. You propose a kind of controlled Darwinism, where we take it upon ourselves to insure that only the strongest survive. Only the strong deserve to break bread, right?

Locke. Everyone has the inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (actually it was property, we added the liberty part ). I tend to agree with this. Especially as a teacher. I provide them the tools to build a life. I work with potential. But based on your philosophy I should just focus on only the students that I think have a chance. Poor and dumb is relative because they are only compared to the rich and smart. You eliminate them, then we start looking the less rich and less smart. That's the slippery slope.

 

[ric1312]

Well here's the divide that can't be bridged in this argument.

According to your logic Paris Hilton must have smart genes while she's one of a small handful of people that would actually make me consider the benefits of eugenics.

I mean, she's much more successful than anybody I know of who grew up poor in war torn Bosnia, so she must have better genes.

Ric1312, your whole argument is based on misconceptions of biology and confusing cause for effect.

There has yet to be a genetic correlation found for intelligence. Which isn't to say there isn't one, it just hasn't been fully elucidated. So your solution is to basically look at a person's station in life as an indicator of whether or not they get to have children. It's flawed reasoning.

I'm not argueing the paris hilton is smart, but she was savvy enough to make millions out of being a b list celebrity. And I don't think her parents came directly from war torn bosnia, I think her parents were already rich when she was born?

No my conclusion was not to look at someones station in life to see if they can have children. That was only a small part of it.

Actually their is a genetic correlation for intelligence. I was watching some study on early man. According to this show the human race was on the verge of extinction at one time because of stupidity.

Not until the latest breed of man evolved and got smarts enough to learn how to farm and learn how to preserve food and water for lean times did they begin to procreate and start the present race of man.

My whole argument is that by and large the stupidest people on the planet are producing the most offspring, unnaturally, because our economic and social constructs allow them too. Whereas in nature, left to fend for themselves, only the strongest and smartest pass on their genetic material. To me this equals that the human race is de evolving or at least at an evolutionary halt.

 

[ric1312]

Man, you do realize that your arguments for eugenics are not at all helped by your inability to say, SPELL correctly.

....maybe you wouldn't qualify to reproduce?

By the way, yes, there is a logical reason for his life, you jack@$$, but I'm not going to waste the time or effort in typing to explain it to you, as you are obviously defective and won't understand it.

Maybe you shoudn't get into aguments with adults, because you obviously aren't one. For the record I never mentioned disabled kids, you did. This is a forum where people can discuss their thoughts. If you don't like my outlook or thoughts that does not give you the right to start calling people names.

I can spell just fine. I thought this was a forum not a term paper.

 

[Gard]

Maybe you shoudn't get into aguments with adults, because you obviously aren't one. For the record I never mentioned disabled kids, you did. This is a forum where people can discuss their thoughts. If you don't like my outlook or thoughts that does not give you the right to start calling people names.

I can spell just fine. I thought this was a forum not a term paper.

Buh-bye.

(I love the ignore function!)

 

[ric1312]

Yes there are stupid people. But stupid people can learn. They can learn how to function in society. They can learn how to make money, To support themselves, to dream, to raise a family, and to vote. Are you telling me that they are not entitled to an opinion because they are stupid? That we eliminate them because of their potential for idiocy? Our history is full of examples of people overcoming adversity and shortcomings in the name of success. For every one of those stories there are hundreds that we don't hear about.

I'm a teacher. Yes some kids are "dumber" than others, but by no means is that a determining factor for their success in our society. I've met many dumb rich people too. You should see some of the boaters I encounter as lifeguard. If a person is incapable of learning, then there are various reasons for this. Mental retardation is one of them. Are you saying that we eliminate people that are ********? How about people with cleft palette's (easily corrected by surgery)? Do we eliminate them because they talk funny? This logic is the basis of a master race. You propose a kind of controlled Darwinism, where we take it upon ourselves to insure that only the strongest survive. Only the strong deserve to break bread, right?

Locke. Everyone has the inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (actually it was property, we added the liberty part ). I tend to agree with this. Especially as a teacher. I provide them the tools to build a life. I work with potential. But based on your philosophy I should just focus on only the students that I think have a chance. Poor and dumb is relative because they are only compared to the rich and smart. You eliminate them, then we start looking the less rich and less smart. That's the slippery slope.

Theres a different between, "eliminate," and not allow to breed unchecked.

Honestly who would you rather see more of on the the planet. Children of the best and the brightest or children of the stupid and lazy?

What's the one thing everyone says? "Why are people so Fing stupid." I'm telling you why, they were allowed to breed more of themselves.

 

[jive1]

Based on scocio-economic and educational status, many of the parents of the great Bluesmen should not have been allowed to breed. Without the Blues we would not have Rock, Jazz, Funk, R&B, Country, Gospel, Soul, Swing, Reggae, and more. Without those genres, there would be no electric bass. One argument against eugenics.

 

[jive1]

Honestly who would you rather see more of on the the planet. Children of the best and the brightest or children of the stupid and lazy?

Like Ted Bundy, The Columbine Shooters, Ted Kazckinski, Mohammed Atta, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Hinkley Jr, etc... Those are all guys who came from relatively well-to-do families, were pretty well educated and yet did no good for society. But those guys based on their genetics and socioeconomic status should be allowed to breed. Yes, we need more of them.

But if you're poor, it's because you have bad genes so you shouldn't have children who can better themselves. So much for the American dream. Famous Amos, Andrew Carnegie, BB King, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. should have never been born.

 

[ric1312]

Like Ted Bundy, The Columbine Shooters, Ted Kazckinski, Mohammed Atta, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Hinkley Jr, etc... Those are all guys who came from relatively well-to-do families, were pretty well educated and yet did no good for society. But those guys based on their genetics and socioeconomic status should be allowed to breed. Yes, we need more of them.

Wow, thats just a really stupid argument. Taking some some people that are psycologically abberant and saying that that is what comes out of people from a good background.

I got an idea and how about you go and check the murder rates in ghetto areas versus affluent. Or even the crime rate. That would more than make up for the handful of Serial killers and whackos who are an abberation and not an expected segment of that part of society.

And you are leaving out the obvious, that society takes serial killers out of the gene pool and either puts them in jail or sentences them to death.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Ric, you'd make an admirable captain because your effort to bail out the sinking ship of your argument is commendable if it's anything at all.

 

[ric1312]

Ric, you'd make an admirable captain because your effort to bail out the sinking ship of your argument is commendable if it's anything at all.

Actually what I'm saying is not really an argument but a statement of fact. The reason people are getting upset with me is because they know that it is logical and undeniable.

 

[jive1]

Wow, thats just a really stupid argument. Taking some some people that are psycologically abberant and saying that that is what comes out of people from a good background.

Never said that. It was a response to your broad generalization that good can comes out of people with the "good backgrounds". I had to list some abberations to show that that logic is very inconsistent.

I got an idea and how about you go and check the murder rates in ghetto areas versus affluent. Or even the crime rate. That would more than make up for the handful of Serial killers and whackos who are an abberation and not an expected segment of that part of society.

Basing these arguments on genetics is an even faultier arguement that doesn't take into account socio-economic factors as well as practical factors such as police presence, economic opportunity, family/community support, discrimination, etc.

And you are leaving out the obvious, that society takes serial killers out of the gene pool and either puts them in jail or sentences them to death.

Not all of them. Some go uncaught. And the ones who are caught or only eliminated after they have caused much damage. If reducing damage to society is the reason for controlling who gets to breed and what not, I think serial killers would make a good argument for it. But since these guys pass the screening for "good genes", no such eugenics program would catch them. Which makes the whole eugenics thing faulty for helping society. Some nutcases go through, and some potentially gifted people are squelched.