By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Would you support a parenthood licence?

 

Would you support a parenthood licence?

Yes 17 37.78%
 
No 17 37.78%
 
No, except for in certain... 11 24.44%
 
Other 0 0%
 
Total:45
Khuutra on 14 March 2010

Oh God, what if I couldn't qualify for a license? In case you haven't noticed, peoples, I am a genius. Gotta pass on these genes!

Vetoed. >:|



Around the Network
Kamal on 14 March 2010
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
 

What does that have to do with anything?

I think you're in a losing argument. Survival of the fittest does not apply to the modern world. It stopped applying to the world a long time ago.

It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law.

I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves.

Wait, it stopped a century ago? Survival of the fittest stopped at about the time of World War I? How does that make any sense? You're just spouting bullshit. And stupid people produce stupid children through a bad, "stupid" culture, not through stupid genetics. The capability of greater intelligence varies little between people, but physical capabilities too. You could have a perfectly fit man and a disabled man, and even if the disabled man is more intelligent, the fit man is far more likely to survive. This is, of course, all based on some kind of primitive world where survival of the fittest still applies. 

I get your points perfectly well, but I still can't fully wrap my head around them, since they're so immoral and stupid. Oh, and by the way. Do you think we should kill all of the retarded people in the world? Do tell.

See, in a world liek that then yes, only the smartest and the most fit would survive. However I am just talking about brian power, and I am sorry, but there are clear ways to see intellect from clear stupidity. As one said "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," same thing applies to the privilagaged stupid people when applies to knowledge.

I don't see how any of this is immoral considering the fact that we have become what we are solely because of survival of the fittest, not some dreamland utopia you seem to want. The immoral thing would be to stop human biological progress because of bullshit reasons like sympathy and empathy, which by the way is also an evolutionary trait we acquired back when they were required to progress human survival.

But let's take your nonexistant ideal utopia. How do you propose you stop the idiots from outnumbering the smart people? They breed faster and more numerously than the smarties. While Idiocracy is a funny and stupid movie, it still has a lot of merit to it in the first 10 minutes.

Thank god for relativism.

 

I think you really need to broaden your definition of "idiots", as some of them may work 12 hour shifts wishing the best for their childern. I don't know really what you want from this situation for us to become a super-breed of genuises.



"Life is but a gentle death. Fate is but a sickness that results in extinction and in the midst of all the uncertainty, lies resolve."

MontanaHatchet on 14 March 2010

Yeah, I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the world actually works.



 

 

mirgro on 14 March 2010
MontanaHatchet said:
Yeah, I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the world actually works.

The way I see it, that's you.



MontanaHatchet on 14 March 2010
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Yeah, I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the world actually works.

The way I see it, that's you.

You believe that stupid people should not be allowed to have children, so that only smart people can have children. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that most of the people you'd consider "smart" (likely middle or upper class with higher IQs), don't have enough children to meet the replacement rate. The only reason the human race is even still seeing growth is because of those people you consider stupid. I could go into great depth about why you're wrong, but there's no point. You're just too damn stubborn. It's a waste of time.



 

 

Around the Network
mirgro on 14 March 2010
MontanaHatchet said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Yeah, I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the world actually works.

The way I see it, that's you.

You believe that stupid people should not be allowed to have children, so that only smart people can have children. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that most of the people you'd consider "smart" (likely middle or upper class with higher IQs), don't have enough children to meet the replacement rate. The only reason the human race is even still seeing growth is because of those people you consider stupid. I could go into great depth about why you're wrong, but there's no point. You're just too damn stubborn. It's a waste of time.

IQ tests are full of shit. They came into being to segregate the army druing WWII. It's either stopping the reproduction of said people, or removing the idea that everyone has to live no matter what. Hate to break it to you, but do you realize that over 1/6th of the population already in existance is suffering from hunger? Do you realize that the planet is already overpopulated? I'm guess you don't.



Kasz216 on 14 March 2010
Kamal said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
 

What does that have to do with anything?

I think you're in a losing argument. Survival of the fittest does not apply to the modern world. It stopped applying to the world a long time ago.

It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law.

I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves.

Being smart is mainly to do with nurture, any individual from a deprived background go out and become successful it's usually the drive they get from parent reinforcement, nothing to do with intelligence.

You've confused me here.. being successful is nurture... but being smart isn't.

People are born smart of stupid... however it's our enviroment that depends on if we can build on that.

One of the smartest people ever Chris Langan works a Bar bouncer.

On the bright side though... how many other people with an IQ of over 200 can benchpress 500 pounds?  Eat it Hawking.



MontanaHatchet on 14 March 2010
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Yeah, I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the world actually works.

The way I see it, that's you.

You believe that stupid people should not be allowed to have children, so that only smart people can have children. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that most of the people you'd consider "smart" (likely middle or upper class with higher IQs), don't have enough children to meet the replacement rate. The only reason the human race is even still seeing growth is because of those people you consider stupid. I could go into great depth about why you're wrong, but there's no point. You're just too damn stubborn. It's a waste of time.

IQ tests are full of shit. They came into being to segregate the army druing WWII. It's either stopping the reproduction of said people, or removing the idea that everyone has to live no matter what. Hate to break it to you, but do you realize that over 1/6th of the population already in existance is suffering from hunger? Do you realize that the planet is already overpopulated? I'm guess you don't.

Right, just like abortions were invented to reduce the number of minority babies.

And I had no idea that there were hungry people. God, thanks for giving me so much information.

Could someone else take over this argument for me? I'm just getting too annoyed here.



 

 

Kamal on 14 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
Kamal said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
 

What does that have to do with anything?

I think you're in a losing argument. Survival of the fittest does not apply to the modern world. It stopped applying to the world a long time ago.

It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law.

I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves.

Being smart is mainly to do with nurture, any individual from a deprived background go out and become successful it's usually the drive they get from parent reinforcement, nothing to do with intelligence.

You've confused me here.. being successful is nurture... but being smart isn't.

People are born smart of stupid... however it's our enviroment that depends on if we can build on that.

One of the smartest people ever Chris Langan works a Bar bouncer.

On the bright side though... how many other people with an IQ of over 200 can benchpress 500 pounds?  Eat it Hawking.

Was that aimed towards me? As you said before it's your choice to consolidate your knowledge,  but your parents can drive you or give you that drive to succeed in life.

 

E.g. Even with a high IQ you can be counter-productive and even start that cycle with your children.



"Life is but a gentle death. Fate is but a sickness that results in extinction and in the midst of all the uncertainty, lies resolve."

Kasz216 on 14 March 2010
Kamal said:
Kasz216 said:
Kamal said:
mirgro said:
MontanaHatchet said:
 

What does that have to do with anything?

I think you're in a losing argument. Survival of the fittest does not apply to the modern world. It stopped applying to the world a long time ago.

It stopped around a century or so ago. What we now have is stupid people reproducing faster and at a greater rate than the ones that are smarter. Under a survival of the fittest such would not be the case. I am not losing anything, you gave examples of short or fat people, none of which have anything to do with the defining human feature. If a midget is smart he would live if he was a human being as long as he was smart under natural law.

I don't think you understand that by removing survival of the fittest we are hurting the human race as a whole worse than anything else we can do short of destroying ourselves.

Being smart is mainly to do with nurture, any individual from a deprived background go out and become successful it's usually the drive they get from parent reinforcement, nothing to do with intelligence.

You've confused me here.. being successful is nurture... but being smart isn't.

People are born smart of stupid... however it's our enviroment that depends on if we can build on that.

One of the smartest people ever Chris Langan works a Bar bouncer.

On the bright side though... how many other people with an IQ of over 200 can benchpress 500 pounds?  Eat it Hawking.

Was that aimed towards me? As you said before it's your choice to consolidate your knowledge,  but your parents can drive you or give you that drive to succeed in life.

 

E.g. Even with a high IQ you can be counter-productive and even start that cycle with your children.

You can... but it's an outlier.  IQ isn't a perfect indicator of success... but it's a fairly good one.  It's a lot better then random chance in anycase.