there is a show on right now .. very sad to watch for the kid's sakes.. but here is the picture... third world country parents have AIDS kid is starving.. and so on ... you know the shows..
i think that they should have a separate commercial trying to raise money for fucking condoms and vasectimies.. (i have no idea how you spell that and i am not going to bother looking it up )
if you are poor and you haven't eaten for five days and you have aids and you are dying.. what would possess you to have children?!?!
why wait till it is too late? start at the begining. if you are going to try to help them do it the right way and help them stop having more babies.
just putting that out there.. seems senseless to me
on a similar note.. anyone ever see the constant gardener? it is about major drug companies infecting third world countries with diseases on purpose to try to cure them with there medications so they can have medical break throughs and make millions of dollars in profits and save the more fortunate people's lives. think that actually happens? i could see people doing that
I've been reading up on eugenics, and I find the whole concept intriguing. I'm not saying that I'm a proponent of eugenics programs, but I do think that they may be able to serve some useful purpose, such as the current situation in the Third World. I suppose that contraceptives are a form of eugenics.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
faeriewench wrote:a friend of mine has been known to say "spay and neuter your idiot" that's kind of like eugenics.
Indeed. LOL
Again, I don't know if social engineering is a completely good or bad thing. Some support eugenics on the basis that those with lower intelligence levels shouldn't be allowed to breed. I don't know how I feel about that, because I really have never been impressed with the empirical evidence that intelligence levels are completely contingent on genetics. There're just way too many confounding variables in many of those arguments. I also don't know if it would really work from an economic standpoint, especially in a capitalist society. If everyone is running around with 130+ IQs, are they all really going to be content to work at McDonald's?
It's a very interesting subject.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
ya that would be somethin to go to macdonalds and get service fromsome one that has an idea of whats going on. but it just wouldnt feel like macdonals if there wasnt a 60 year old janitor, cracked out casheir, a dude with lepercy workin the drive thru, and a girl with a gimpy hand and a bumble foot squirting sauce on a big mac with a caulking gun. home sweet home
Do u know what they do to guys like you in prison?
whatever, Gay-ry. ahaha.
I may be a "dumbass", but atleast i dont like multiple guy's balls on my face while wearing a tu-tu singing "This Little Light of Mine". (like you)
Last edited by SpellboundByMetal on Monday Jan 08, 2007, edited 1 time in total.
faeriewench wrote:a friend of mine has been known to say "spay and neuter your idiot" that's kind of like eugenics.
Indeed. LOL
Again, I don't know if social engineering is a completely good or bad thing. Some support eugenics on the basis that those with lower intelligence levels shouldn't be allowed to breed. I don't know how I feel about that, because I really have never been impressed with the empirical evidence that intelligence levels are completely contingent on genetics. There're just way too many confounding variables in many of those arguments. I also don't know if it would really work from an economic standpoint, especially in a capitalist society. If everyone is running around with 130+ IQs, are they all really going to be content to work at McDonald's?
It's a very interesting subject.
i'll agree that intelligence is not necessarily genetic, but then you get into the whole 'nature vs. nurture' argument. it could be argued that if two people of low intelligence have a child, the child would be more likely to be babysat by the tv, and not encouraged to do well in or be interested in school and learning, and thus would not succeed. where a child of intelligent parents might be more likely to be encouraged to read early, to be motivated to succeed in school and pursue higher education. said child would possibly be more likely to be sent to tutors if the child was having issues in a particular area.
furthermore, there will always be people working at mcdonald's. teenagers will always be looking for some easy money, and old people will always be forced into early retirement.
i think that it would be an interesting social experiment for a generation. it's quite likely that it would lead to a decrease in the need for welfare (as well as put a dent in the overpopulation issue). it might also lead to shows like 'cops' and 'springer' being pulled form the air. and that would make me very happy.
SpellboundByMetal wrote:whatever, Gay-ry. ahaha.
I may be a "dumbass", but atleast i dont like multiple guy's balls on my face while wearing a tu-tu singing "This Little Light of Mine". (like you)
gay-ry.. wow, im back in 3rd grade... ill give you 10 minutes before you bust out fat and ugly jokes..
other than that, the last part of that cutdown was great... i'll give you that much, even though you're a nut juggling cum trap looking for a fix, hey i'll tell you who probably has your fix for you.,.. Meyatch!
now I know what goes on at End of the Sun practices...
(if you guys ever cover "dont let the sun go down on me" ill commit suicide..)
"okay we got da right and fruffy panacakes. ooooooh ver goood you get da rittre bruberries, too!"
faeriewench wrote:
i'll agree that intelligence is not necessarily genetic, but then you get into the whole 'nature vs. nurture' argument. it could be argued that if two people of low intelligence have a child, the child would be more likely to be babysat by the tv, and not encouraged to do well in or be interested in school and learning, and thus would not succeed. where a child of intelligent parents might be more likely to be encouraged to read early, to be motivated to succeed in school and pursue higher education. said child would possibly be more likely to be sent to tutors if the child was having issues in a particular area.
furthermore, there will always be people working at mcdonald's. teenagers will always be looking for some easy money, and old people will always be forced into early retirement.
i think that it would be an interesting social experiment for a generation. it's quite likely that it would lead to a decrease in the need for welfare (as well as put a dent in the overpopulation issue). it might also lead to shows like 'cops' and 'springer' being pulled form the air. and that would make me very happy.
Yes, that would be one of the confounding variables: The parents of higher eco-social status would provide an environment that would foster intelligence and creativity. It's the variable that sinks a lot of the private-school-is-automatically-better-than-public-school arguments.
It would be cool to create a little microcosm somewhere and really put eugenics to the empirical test. There's no way a board would let such a study to happen though on ethical grounds.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
bassist_25 wrote:It would be cool to create a little microcosm somewhere and really put eugenics to the empirical test. There's no way a board would let such a study to happen though on ethical grounds.
you could always do it illegally....
"okay we got da right and fruffy panacakes. ooooooh ver goood you get da rittre bruberries, too!"
Before you can even talk about whether it's nature verses nurture that influences IQ, you have to come with a way to measure it. If I remember correctly from my Psychology class there are 3 or 4 widely used ways to measure IQ and each of those will give you a different answer. The problem with IQ tests is that they measure what we think intelligence is rather than what nature requires of us, which is "Can you stay alive?" and "Can you make more of yourself?"
There were some other people who thought Eugencis was a good idea, they were called Nazis. Maybe you've heard of them.
AtoMikEnRtiA wrote:im sorry, are we on public record defending nazis? hahaha
LOL
No, I'm not a fan of the Nazis. I'm just illustrating that commenting that the Nazis had eugenics programs has no relevance to the argument of whether eugenics is good or bad. If that were the case, then let's not fly in jet planes. Besides, America use to have quite the eugenics program.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
)
ahaha. 
