He's actually proposing eugenics now... How old are you kaju?
Eugenics is already practiced in the form of parents consulting genetic counselors and certain organizations giving out contraceptives to lower class people who cannot afford them.

A government program that promotes higher birth rates among higher IQ persons would in fact be genius.

I'm not sure if it would work as intended, due to regression, but we can only hope.

And since you're wondering I am 16 years old.

I know you're thinking "OMGOMGOMGOGMLOLOLOLOLOMGOMGOMG!1!1!1!"

So shut the **** up.

I've already revealed my age on this forum, and I don't really care. Age doesn't matter, seeing that you've failed at proposing a viable alternative to what I have proposed.

My ideas on eugenics have been formed by Arthur Jensen (who is, BTW, a PhD in psychology and a world reknown psychometrician).

In any case, if you beat me in debate, good job you beat a 16 year old. If you lose, you obviously need to rethink your ideals. And so far you're losing.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not proposing we kill everyone who doesn't reach a certain benchmark. That would actually be counter productive, not to mention unrealistic. My belief is that the gov't should take an approach that doesn't infringe on anybody's rights.

Eugenics is already practiced in the form of parents consulting genetic counselors and certain organizations giving out contraceptives to lower class people who cannot afford them.

A government program that promotes higher birth rates among higher IQ persons would in fact be genius.

I'm not sure if it would work as intended, due to regression, but we can only hope.

And since you're wondering I am 16 years old.

I know you're thinking "OMGOMGOMGOGMLOLOLOLOLOMGOMGOMG!1!1!1!"

So shut the **** up.

I've already revealed my age on this forum, and I don't really care. Age doesn't matter, seeing that you've failed at proposing a viable alternative to what I have proposed.

My ideas on eugenics have been formed by Arthur Jensen (who is, BTW, a PhD in psychology and a world reknown psychometrician).

In any case, if you beat me in debate, good job you beat a 16 year old. If you lose, you obviously need to rethink your ideals. And so far you're losing.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not proposing we kill everyone who doesn't reach a certain benchmark. That would actually be counter productive, not to mention unrealistic. My belief is that the gov't should take an approach that doesn't infringe on anybody's rights.


16 years old? No ****? You're a smart ************. I'm impressed.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not proposing we kill everyone who doesn't reach a certain benchmark. That would actually be counter productive, not to mention unrealistic. My belief is that the gov't should take an approach that doesn't infringe on anybody's rights.
LOL

You're more generous than I. I'm a member of one of the minority demograpics with the lowest IQs, and even I think the worlds genepool could benefit from more Darwin Award recipients.

But then again I am an equal opportunity stupidity hater. Call it prejudice if you will...

16 years old? No ****? You're a smart ************. I'm impressed.

*bows down*

Why thank you.

I guess that I should be giving my "genetic" credentials here due to the content of my previous posts. LOL.

But the truth is that I read a lot, and, well, that's where I come across all this information. I just finished Conversations with Arthur Jensen by Frank Miele, some parts of The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, and a lot of anti-Jensenist articles in The Bell Curve Wars and The Bell Curve Debate, and also The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (it isn't too good considering that barely any of it deals with actual Jensenism) so now I'm going about armed with arguments and counter-arguments and showing off my 1337 skillz.

8-D

That is not a fact at all. Correlation does not equal causation, and we have no fucking idea how much genetic factors affect IQ. I've said it before and I'll say it again, IQ tests do not provide an adequate metric for intelligence. They are a test of EDUCATION much more than they are a test of POTENTIAL or ABSOLUTE intelligence. Everyone can raise their IQ if they apply themselves, they just have to be taught how.

It's just as likely that the poor have low IQs because they have less access to decent education. Or it could be a combination of the two. You can't state with absolute certainty that all, or even most, stupid people are that way purely because of genetics, and there's nothing that could be done for them. You might as well adopt an Indian style caste system if that's the case, hell adopt a monarchy while you're at it, you've got a firmly entrenched political aristocracy already so it isn't much of a step.For a country that's supposed to be the poster boy of social mobility, the U.S. is in a pretty shameful place right now (I think you barely beat out the UK). Whatever happened to the American dream? You've made it now so **** everyone else?

Needless to say, I'm a firm believer in the empowering nature of education, and I'm a firm believer that an educated, informed populace SCARES THE **** out of politicians far more tha owning a fucking pop-gun ever fucking will.


Agreed. Sir, you are a gentleman & an scholar...

So now is the time I congratulate you. So congrats for being a typical dumbass and decrying someone as racist w/o even carefully reading through the post you quoted. Oh, and congrats for making me have to spoon feed you the information how a program which caters to students' specific needs would actually help low IQ students more than average IQ students.

Typical wanabe PC liberal who decries everyone for either being an 'Uncle Tom' or a 'racist':

:godtroll:


I didn't say you're a racist, I simply said "be careful". It would seem that the knee-jerk reaction is totally your bag.

I am glad, however, that a 16yo with plenty to say about studies and education and such has found a wonderful forum for his/her rants... :binkybaby

I didn't say you're a racist, I simply said "be careful". It would seem that the knee-jerk reaction is totally your bag.



Why should he be careful? What will the consequences be if he's not careful?

Why? Because if he's not careful, you'll say some really nasty stuff to him on an internet forum? Heavens, no!

Yeah, that's was it exactly... :sad8:

You be careful, Jim Jude! Careful, I say!

Why should he be careful? What will the consequences be if he's not careful?

I have no idea, but some things I once said on the internet were interpreted by some to be racist. Didn't go well.

There's such a thing as "The Pleasant Truth" when it comes to certain subjects, even here in Bullshido... :icon_wink

You be careful, Jim Jude! Careful, I say!


I usually try to be.

I have no idea, but some things I once said on the internet were interpreted by some to be racist. Didn't go well.



Intellectual cowardice. It's so cute!

Intellectual cowardice. It's so cute!

Wow, I've never heard that before... how's that?

Wow, I've never heard that before... how's that?


Awww shucks. Look at him. He doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. The poor thing's scared to death. He's just a cute helpless little lap dog.

Huh. I hurt feelings all day, but racism is a whole different ball game. Do you disagree?

Huh. I hurt feelings all day, but racism is a whole different ball game. Do you disagree?

Yeah, sure. I guess you're fine with hurting feelings, just as long as you're not hurting feelings of blacks, or women, or the handicapped, or some other minority. I'd definitely say biting your tongue because you have something un-PC to say is cowardly. No, racial issues are no exception.