Future problem in the country

[Capt Caveman]

nvm

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Most of you seem to equate intelligence with financial gain and material possessions. Why should they be connected?

The op seems to think that having a lot of children that others have to pay for is a sign of stupidity or low IQ. Again, I'm not seeing the connection.

From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

This is a very old argument, and it always stems from the belief that you are somehow superior to most others. Constructing a logic that allows for the "control" of the inferior breeders for the benefit of the race has been done time and time again. The beauty of the system is that you get to pick and choose which traits are superior, thereby allowing you to select only those that reflect your own bias. The fundamental problem is that every race, class, religion, or shouting society can "prove" that they are indeed the superior beings, and therefore have to protect the human race by making sure that the lessor people stay in there place.

It's a great deal as long as you're at the top.

I've said, there's nothing to eb done about, it's how things work, of course we're not going to just kill off the inferior ones, or do anything else for that matter. I'm just proving that if they indeed reproduce more, then the population stupider people grows in size. Anyways, as i linked above, it turns out the richer families produce more offspring, so it isn't happening, even though, if they did have more kids, it would.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Most of you seem to equate intelligence with financial gain and material possessions. Why should they be connected?

The op seems to think that having a lot of children that others have to pay for is a sign of stupidity or low IQ. Again, I'm not seeing the connection.

From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

This is a very old argument, and it always stems from the belief that you are somehow superior to most others. Constructing a logic that allows for the "control" of the inferior breeders for the benefit of the race has been done time and time again. The beauty of the system is that you get to pick and choose which traits are superior, thereby allowing you to select only those that reflect your own bias. The fundamental problem is that every race, class, religion, or shouting society can "prove" that they are indeed the superior beings, and therefore have to protect the human race by making sure that the lessor people stay in there place.

It's a great deal as long as you're at the top.

Thank you for addressing the rational concerns that ultimately lead to a rejection of eugenics/Social Darwinism

Financial success != intelligence

Indeed, many very intelligent people choose to stay at home and raise kids properly (definition of evolutionary success here!) rather than earn more money.

Also, since the censusDB data was posted disproving the major premise of the OP, the argument is invalid, and most definitely unsound.

 

[Dumac]

Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Dumac
Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

I posted a statistics page, that proved me and the OP wrong.

(although if the poor did reproduce more, we'd have been right)

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Dumac
Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

I posted a statistics page, that proved me and the OP wrong.

(although if the poor did reproduce more, we'd have been right)

Thanks John Madden.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Dumac
Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

I posted a statistics page, that proved me and the OP wrong.

(although if the poor did reproduce more, we'd have been right)

Your argument would then have been valid, but not sound. But since your major premise was deep-sixed, your argument is invalid.

/thread

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Dumac
Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

I posted a statistics page, that proved me and the OP wrong.

(although if the poor did reproduce more, we'd have been right)

Thanks John Madden.

:laugh:

They showed their high IQs.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Greenman
From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

No, success would be having as many offspring as possible that live to reproduce themselves.

The human race has deemed it a moral imperative to take care of those who can't take care of themselves thereby completely derailing evolution.

Were we to let evolution take it's natural course, there would be no welfare of any kind and those poor who couldn't feed their 7 ill-behaved bastards would die of starvation and evolutionary balance would be maintained. Instead it's just as several people in this thread have described. The productive* members of society will slowly become the minority until society collapses on itself. I just hope I'm not around to say "I told you so."


*I won't use the word intelligent, because that has nothing to do with it. Many people are productive, useful, important members of society even if they're not naturally brilliant.

 

[rsd]

I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: KK
you're, not your. fvcking idiots. :roll:

No no no, you misunderstand. The OP is saying that the problem is that it's idiots fvcking idiots.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Dumac
Hey guys, let's try debating without all of the emotional cherades!

Go!

I posted a statistics page, that proved me and the OP wrong.

(although if the poor did reproduce more, we'd have been right)

Your argument would then have been valid, but not sound. But since your major premise was deep-sixed, your argument is invalid.

/thread

uh lol, my argument can be applied to any debate, subjective "opinions" not mattering, only the facts mattering. As shown by my posts, as soon as one of my facts wasn't a fact anymore, I immediately conceded.

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
dude you make those less fortunate sound like animals. "breeding". "offspring".

i'm not ripping on you for it, i'm just saying... they are human beings too. how many people get to choose where they begin their lives? zero. a human life is a human life IMO. no one has the right to judge or look down upon people that aren't well-off or priveleged.

having said that, i think the only realistic thing that can be done is to promote birth control and safe sex... not just among the poorer segment of the population though. i predict you will get flamed for this post. g/l

But every kid has the choice of doing well in school where they can get a free education

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: rsd
I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

none of us have promoted class cleansing. All i was saying was that facts are facts(which turned out to be incorrect facts), i said nothing should be done about it, lol....

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd
I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

none of us have promoted class cleansing. All i was saying was that facts are facts(which turned out to be incorrect facts), i said nothing should be done about it, lol....

really?
From OP:

What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

So the OP failed at coming up with a "solution" but still suggests something should "fix" this "problem".

Additionally your arguments aren't valid with or without facts for reasons too numerous to list.

I'll reiterate it again: For being so "smart" you and the OP sure came up with a stupid argument.


Say hi to LaShonda for me while you train for kickboxing.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
You know nothing about a civilized society then.

What do you plan to do with the one's that can't succeed? Just let them die and let the trash people, scoop them off the streets and throw them in the dumpster? We'll also have higher crime rates, time to build more prisons or start killing them.

I know plenty about a civilized society but what has been created is not one. Welfare should be an extremely short term aid to help people survive while they get their life in order not a multi-generational way of life. Welfare has become the slavery of the modern age. Go look at any ghetto Black neighborhood. Instead of handing down a trade or encouraging the kids to do well is school the older generations teach the younger ones how to get more welfare money. Isn't that great? They teach them how to be a leech, not how to better themselves.

The crime rates are also the highest among welfare recipients so welfare is as much of the problem as it is any kind of solution. The way the world is going eventually the state is not going to be able to support those that won't make any effort to support themselves either. That is the biggest rub too. I don't mind paying extra taxes to provide a fund to aid people when in REAL times of need but I do have a problem paying extra taxes so I can help to support entire communities their whole lives....and the lives of their children....and their children....and so on....

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd
I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

none of us have promoted class cleansing. All i was saying was that facts are facts(which turned out to be incorrect facts), i said nothing should be done about it, lol....

really?
From OP:

What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

So the OP failed at coming up with a "solution" but still suggests something should "fix" this "problem".

Additionally your arguments aren't valid with or without facts for reasons too numerous to list.

I'll reiterate it again: For being so "smart" you and the OP sure came up with a stupid argument.


Say hi to LaShonda for me while you train for kickboxing.

what? well, let em rephrase, I never said anything about class cleansing. and, my arguments have no facts? so, you mean, my argument that humans passed on capacity for intelligence through gens? is that not a valid fact for you? I truly won't go any further if you don't agree on that.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Greenman
From an evolutionary point of view, success is having as many offspring as possible, the more fertile those offspring, the better. Darwin has it in for you.

No, success would be having as many offspring as possible that live to reproduce themselves.

The human race has deemed it a moral imperative to take care of those who can't take care of themselves thereby completely derailing evolution.

Were we to let evolution take it's natural course, there would be no welfare of any kind and those poor who couldn't feed their 7 ill-behaved bastards would die of starvation and evolutionary balance would be maintained. Instead it's just as several people in this thread have described. The productive* members of society will slowly become the minority until society collapses on itself. I just hope I'm not around to say "I told you so."


*I won't use the word intelligent, because that has nothing to do with it. Many people are productive, useful, important members of society even if they're not naturally brilliant.

I don't agree with that statement at all. While that is the case in some places and at some times, overall most people just say "tough shit", I'm comfortable, let those vermin die.

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd
I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

none of us have promoted class cleansing. All i was saying was that facts are facts(which turned out to be incorrect facts), i said nothing should be done about it, lol....

really?
From OP:

What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

So the OP failed at coming up with a "solution" but still suggests something should "fix" this "problem".

Additionally your arguments aren't valid with or without facts for reasons too numerous to list.

I'll reiterate it again: For being so "smart" you and the OP sure came up with a stupid argument.


Say hi to LaShonda for me while you train for kickboxing.

what? well, let em rephrase, I never said anything about class cleansing. and, my arguments have no facts? so, you mean, my argument that humans passed on capacity for intelligence through gens? is that not a valid fact for you? I truly won't go any further if you don't agree on that.

No you are wrong because two "dumb" people can have a "smart" child. It is not as simplistic as you want to make it appear. Two short people can have a tall child as well. Perhaps the likelihood increases, but what you define as "smart" may not pass for "smart" in other cultures and countries.

Summary: You are completely and utterly wrong

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: rsd
I love when computer-chair quarterbacks start espousing genetic theory and promoting class-cleansing.

Go back to drinking your diet coke while you chat up "babes" in WOW.

none of us have promoted class cleansing. All i was saying was that facts are facts(which turned out to be incorrect facts), i said nothing should be done about it, lol....

really?
From OP:

What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

So the OP failed at coming up with a "solution" but still suggests something should "fix" this "problem".

Additionally your arguments aren't valid with or without facts for reasons too numerous to list.

I'll reiterate it again: For being so "smart" you and the OP sure came up with a stupid argument.


Say hi to LaShonda for me while you train for kickboxing.

what? well, let em rephrase, I never said anything about class cleansing. and, my arguments have no facts? so, you mean, my argument that humans passed on capacity for intelligence through gens? is that not a valid fact for you? I truly won't go any further if you don't agree on that.

No you are wrong because two "dumb" people can have a "smart" child. It is not as simplistic as you want to make it appear. Two short people can have a tall child as well. Perhaps the likelihood increases, but what you define as "smart" may not pass for "smart" in other cultures and countries.

Summary: You are completely and utterly wrong

of course it's not instant, thats how genetics work. In the the long run, everyone here seems to concerned with small or short samples.

and i don't care what other cultures define smart as. thats out of context, i'm using the word the way americans know it.

 

[zanejohnson]

i didn't read the thread but all i have to say is that coming from a poor family does not automatically make you somehow less superior than someone born from a poor family, we all start at the same place, it's what happens after that that matters... there are stupid rich people and brilliant poor people, i think we can all agree on that, it doesnt matter where you are in life when you procreate, it just matters on how you raise your young, to know t he truth in life that hard works gets you where you need to be, and not working or slacking will do the opposite.

I learned this early on, started working when i was 16, its easy to see, the person who works hardest even in the kitchen of a Mcdonalds, is the one that's gonna get promoted when a management or better position comes along...you get my drift, that's about how everything in life works.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: zanejohnson
i didn't read the thread but all i have to say is that coming from a poor family does not automatically make you somehow less superior than someone born from a poor family, we all start at the same place, it's what happens after that that matters... there are stupid rich people and brilliant poor people, i think we can all agree on that, it doesnt matter where you are in life when you procreate, it just matters on how you raise your young, to know t he truth in life that hard works gets you where you need to be, and not working or slacking will do the opposite.

I learned this early on, started working when i was 16, its easy to see, the person who works hardest even in the kitchen of a Mcdonalds, is the one that's gonna get promoted when a management or better position comes along...you get my drift, that's about how everything in life works.

uh, again, general trends, not specifics.... i mean, your right that even poor people can work up, but, thats not the point

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
All people, the poorest of the poor included, are human beings with an inherent dignity, and they deserve to be treated as such. Love them, respect them, and do what you can to help them.

And when you can't or they outright refuse your help, what then?

 

[rsd]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Viper0329
All people, the poorest of the poor included, are human beings with an inherent dignity, and they deserve to be treated as such. Love them, respect them, and do what you can to help them.

And when you can't or they outright refuse your help, what then?

Then GAS THEM!! ARRR that's the spirit!!! Where's my Pitchfork and Torch?!?!?

(sarcasm for those who are slow on the uptake)

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What can be done about this problem? It's not politically correct to suggest neutering women that are on welfare tand have 6 kids, but somewhere you have to make the decision that it's just not worth the future hassle of having to deal with this problem.

The solution is GENOCIDE. We will breed a master race of rich, intelligent white people!

The problem with your problem is that we NEED the poor. They do all of the jobs that we, the middle/upper class, don't want.

The people you're talking about are the ones dependent on the welfare state, which most of the poor are not (since they're doing the jobs we don't want, after all, like trash collection, janitorial duties, etc.). This is a problem that can be fixed without resorting to population neutering.

In other words, the real solution here is to fix our broken welfare system.