/sci/ - Science & Math

Define intelligence

It generally takes care of itself.

>>2569112
On the contrary. Because they have sub-par intelligence, they should be provided with basic social services at no charge, because they clearly are not responsible for their inferior earning potential.

>>2569122
Quite the opposite.

>>2569112
We will solve the problem with genetic engineering soon, so why go through the hassle of sterilizing stupid people are massive cost?

Wrong, in fact we should incentivize them to reproduce by giving them extra money for every kid they have.
-Typical Liberal

Practical Implementation:

Krogan-style Genophage with an associated antidote (produced before deployment, of course). Standardised IQ test must be undertaken before fertility reversal.

The system is proposed.

>>2569112
How are you going to convince the voting public that this is the correct view?
Don't say rational argument.

>>2569141

Brilliant. When do we start?

>>2569112
Why?

>>2569141
How do you prevent abuses of power?
Who administers the IQ tests?
What constitutes an "IQ" test?

>>2569147

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? That's why.
>>2569145

We tell them they can have free tacos with every vasectomy.

>>2569141
Interesting concept. It would give people of a sub-par intelligence who want children an incentive to become more intelligent, thus improving the overall intelligence of the population both through psychology and genetics. Fascinating.

>>2569112
well there goes 90% of the world

>>2569112
Totally agree OP.

>>2569169

>>2569160
>Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
No. So I ask again, why?

>>2569136

No! We should take away their school textbooks and replace them with bibles, therefore increasing overall stupidity so that no one will be able to reproduce, thus leading to the second coming of Jesus.

-Typical conservative

ITT: horribly fucktarded misunderstanding of evolution.
(Social durrwanism hurf turf etc.)

Thank you again moot, for bringing /new/ to /sci/, you shitfucking dickmonger.

Protip: if OP's idea were to come true, OP's testicles would be the first to get cut off.

Dumbasses really dont give birth to dumbasses... Dumbass just happens. I can't believe you never met a scientist's son with a sub-par IQ.

>>2569169
Solves overpopulation, I suppose.

>>2569226
I don't know man, I see a lot of dumb parents with retarded children, but the smartest people in my social circle generally have what seem to be intelligent parents.

Obviously i can't objectively discern whether the intelligence is due to good parenting or a genetic factor, but there is still a correlation.

>>2569112
If everybody was smart then they would all just be normal people.

So the bar for being "intelligent" would raise because the way you are using it is very subjective.

>>2569226
I highly doubt that there's no correlation at all, given that the brain is constructed according to the genome. There's a reason why damn near every human is smarter than damn near every chimp.

>>2569264
This is a problem?

>>2569264
Exactly, so more people would strive to be "intelligent" so that they can reproduce, then a few generations down the line the process loops again.

This method exponentially decreases the amount of time it takes for our species to evolve intelligently.

>>2569302
Protip: you are an idiot. Invoking Lamarckian evolution, really? Try to actually understand evolution before you come back to /sci/. I strongly suggest Dawkins's book The Greatest Show On Earth.

>>2569226
Yes they do, even with just biological factors (not including the parents raising the kids) IQ correlates north of 0.6 between parents and child. IQ correlates more than height.

>>2569136

Generally liberal person here, I'm completely in favor of keeping all unintelligent/unattractive people from reproducing.

People with sub-par intelligence should not be able to make threads. Discuss?

>>2569310
It's called artificial selection or selective breeding. It's a well known and documented aspect of classic Darwinist theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Go die in a fire.

>>2569168
I loled.

If this were true, overpopulation would not be an issue. Though, you wouldn't have the finest 12 yr old Chinese boy making your computer parts for dirt cheap.

>[individuals] become more intelligent
>so more people would strive to be "intelligent" so that they can reproduce
Lamarckian evolution.

>>2569363
So, no, really, you need to shut up, and do some reading, and stop spouting false science.

why is no one talking about the obvious problem all the sexy bitches would disappear, but then again as long as there are still some while im alive im cool

>>2569264
>implying op said intelligent

I've been thinking about this for a while too.. but not necessarily for the same reasons you're thinking, I just think that there should be some intervention in the process of reproduction to prevent people mentally unfit (as in a disorder/abusive personality, not necessarily just a dumbass) from having children. Of course, this would come with a whole host of complications I don't think society is willing to deal with, and who would even be involved in this? A government regulatory body? I don't know..

Something I noticed about my high school graduating class. Of the 5 kids with the highest scores, 4 had parents that were teachers of some sort, and the 5th came from a family of health professionals. Terrible sample size and all that, but has anyone else noticed anything similar?

Define intelligence

>>2569112
it takes a special kind of person to mate with a mentally deficient person. I have a feeling that those two types of people would make a nice little straight-path line through the gene pool, if you catch my meaning.

>>2569410
>imp[lying I was the first poster
Also, he didn't say anything about people as individuals becoming more intelligent, just that people would strive to be more intelligent. You need to stop reading non-existent meaning into words, for the express purpose of proving them wrong.
When did I spout false science? The Russian fox-breeding program has been going on, for decades, and the results they've gotten can't be argued with. Are you saying that selective breeding doesn't produce effects in later generations?

>>2569534
Whoever said
>Exactly, so more people would strive to be "intelligent" so that they can reproduce, then a few generations down the line the process loops again.
believes in Lamarckian evolution. Thus he's a retard. I suggested that he go read a book, a very excellent specific book.

That's been about the whole extent of my claims.

Natural selection would make sense to the Americans if they actually believed in it. Ugh.

>>2569112
the intelligence of the parents does not dictate the intelligence of the child. Sometimes, the children of the unintelligent can help their parents become more productive members of society through their new learning experiences.

However, this all depends on the learning environment for the child. So perhaps instead, anyone who lives in the shit part of town shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

What's going on in this thread?

>>2569572
The intelligence of the child is at least /slightly/ positively correlated with the intelligence of the parents. To say otherwise is silly.

>People with extremely good looks should only be allowed to reproduce. Discuss?

Fixed that for you,OP.

Don't want an Earth full of ugly nerds.

I'm astonished again and again at the maximum-hurf commencing in any thread featuring Americans talking about anything remotely evolution-related.

ITT: hurf social darwinisn.

>>2569602

what are those images called?

I'd agree to the less coercive version "People with extremely sub-par intelligence should be encouraged and incentivized not to reproduce."

Forcing anyone capable of making choices about reproduction (that is, anyone who is not incompetent in the legal sense) not to reproduce is immoral.

>>2569226
Children are a product of their environments. You could have parents both with IQs of 140, but if you are neglected at a young age, it can have profound effects on your future development.

Take Asian households for example. It isn't that Asians are inherently more intelligent or slightly more evolved than those of other races (although the latter could very well hold to be true). More so, it's that most Asian families place a higher value on education and have far greater expectations of their children than that of the average American family.

>>2569620
>more evolved
>a good case exists that Asians are more evolved
Leave, and take your /new/ assholes with you on the way out.

>>2569620

But Asian culture is terrible.

agreed, op.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make more stupid people.

>>2569543
He never said that by striving to be more intelligent, individuals would become so - he might not have meant the implication you saw.
People could also be plural, in which case, he would have been completely correct, even with the implication you saw in his post.
I have to say that a large part of the the reason for this conversation was that my initial reply was fueled by your namefag status (and Dawkins gets on my nerves).
I can see where one could easily interpret the post of contention in the way you did. You've been more polite than I would be in you position, though, so I'm going to change my position and agree with you that his intended meaning was wrong.

>>2569631
and because of their terrible culture we have this wonderful little off-shoot/off-shit of a board called 4chan.

>>2569160
>>We tell them they can have free tacos with every vasectomy.
How racist but funny in a dark, sinister manner.

the state should stop keeping people stupid

>>2569627
Leave /sci/ right now and take your D+ in reading comprehension with you.

>>2569655

they make better consumers, and they are already working on killing the current generation. I predict Gen Y and beyond will not live beyond age 55 on average.

Thats kind of harsh. We need the religious people for lulz

>>2569660
What?

>It isn't that Asians are inherently more intelligent or slightly more evolved than those of other races (although the latter could very well hold to be true)
>Implying that Asians could be more evolved
>Implying that evolution has a direction
>Implying there's any credence to any statistical significance in the intelligence difference between human races.

I think it's pretty fair to call that an incredibly bigoted and ignorant post, and that he should leave /sci/ immediately, at least until he understands evolution and basic statistics.

>>2569660
Sadly, no such class exists...

>>2569638
Acceptable. Not sure what you have against Dawkins though. He's a really awesome guy. He's not an asshole. If you want to see an atheist asshole, see Hitchens.

Also, related:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/03/douglas-adams-speaks-about-religion.html

>Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes.
To Be Continued

>>2569310
Fantastic book. I just finished it yesterday, and can't recommend it highly enough.

>>2569701
>Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'.

>>2569701
I consider Dawkins one of my heroes, although I also sort of admire Hitchens. He truly going down fighting for his cause, even though he is dying of cancer.

>>2569713
When I called Hitchens an atheist asshole, that doesn't mean I don't love him. I do.

I was just trying to compare the two to show that Hitchens isn't a mean guy, an asshole, or anything else that (religious) people commonly think of him.

>>2569713
When I called Hitchens an atheist asshole, that doesn't mean I don't love him. I do.

I was just trying to compare the two to show that *Dawkins* isn't a mean guy, an asshole, or anything else that (religious) people commonly think of him.

lol i think everybody that invokes lamarkism should shot in the face

Not sure what Hitchens and Dawkins are trying to prove. They just seem like sophisticated hipster-atheists lost in an endless world of futile arguments.

>>2569734
I hope you are joking.

>>2569734
They're going about in their own way trying to change public opinion. Are they effective? I don't know. They hope that they are. Given the numerous conversions to atheism that get posted to Dawkins's site, it seems to be a not entirely futile exercise.

>>2569746

Yea, but are those people getting converted for the right reasons? Or are they just gullible people?

>>2569755
Dunno.

>>2569746
As the son of a Christian fundamentalist mother (and the stepson of pastor) I can attest to the fact that Dawkins and Hitchens are achieving their goals.

>>2569734
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and wrote inarguably the greatest popular science book of all time "the selfish gene"

although my favorite is "climbing mount improbable"

he's become somewhat of an irascible parasite in the eyes of many over the last 10 years or so because in the face of more and more evidence there is a growing cohort of people, people with influence, people with substantial power, who continue to push a belief system devoid of reason, method, or sanity

I respect the rights of the individual far more than the "common good", so I find your proposal deplorable.

>>2569785
>he's become somewhat of an irascible parasite in the eyes of many over the last 10 years or so because in the face of more and more evidence there is a growing cohort of people, people with influence, people with substantial power, who continue to push a belief system devoid of reason, method, or sanity
I don't know what you're trying to say.

>>2569796

godfags hate him

>>2569796
tons of faggots don't accept evolution or the scientific method because they are faggots

>>2569808
why should we accept evolution? After all, it is only theory.

Inb4 shitstorm, Im kidding

Regarding celebrity atheists like Hitchens or Harris, I think most are assholes. If someone's delusions are making them happier about living life, why take it away? Given no other negative effects as a result of the delusions, most psychiatrists will not try to deprogram a patient's benign delusions--it is last on the list as standard med practice

>>2569828
My homemade atheist copypasta ahoy!

I am an atheist.

First, why should we care? Why talk about it?
1- People tend to be moral, or at least moral enough for society to function, without delusions. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection.
2- Delusional people tend to make less moral decisions which affect the public because they base their decisions on falsehoods.
3- People who hold delusions, and even pride themselves on having faith, lack critical reasoning. This makes them easy to mislead and dangerous
4- While not all delusional people are incredibly dangerous, when the delusion is shared, they tend to prop up the real crazies by supporting their "faith" instead of calling shenanigans on it.
5- The harm caused by these delusions tends to outweigh the benefits.

Also, why are they delusions? Why are they wrong? Pick any popular theist religion. It contains equal parts truth, falsehood, and pizza. Let's take Christianity. Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false. The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.

That leaves the unknown and unworshiped theist gods, and the deist gods. At best, we have no positive evidence for their existence, so positive belief in any particular one, is also delusion. The key part is that while a god may exist, it is a delusion to think that you know their mind, their intent. That leaves the inconsequential gods, like deist gods. That kind of god hypothesis is unnecessary at best.

>>2569838
A mechanistic worldview is just as potentially dangerous as a fundamentalist worldview. While I am an atheist science nerd, I must admit society will be more happy & polite with some sort of religion or dogma that makes them want to be good for fear of punishment in the afterlife. Karma is excellent bc it doesn't necessarily require a god or arbitrator, and thus would be compatible with the cosmic age age.

>>2569893
>I must admit society will be more happy & polite with some sort of religion or dogma that makes them want to be good for fear of punishment in the afterlife
If such a thing existed, maybe. Unfortunately all of the modern popular religions tend to make people more dickish, less rational, and more anti-freedom.

>>2569893
Oh yes, Christians will certainly be happy as long as everyone is living by their moral code and sharing their beliefs. Christian beliefs have a direct result on other people. Gay marriage is one example. Who does it harm? No one. Who is against it? Religious people. Another example would be those trying to get "intelligent design" taught as a viable alternative to evolution. They are trying to impose their idiotic beliefs on other people, and I have a problem with that.

>>2569838
You're an idiot, or at least extremely ignorant of human history. It's not worth my time to explain to you why. Just thought you should know.

I've seen this bullshit before:
>The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.
Put away your bullshit Zeitgeist and learn something real. There is 1) no earlier history about 3 wise men. 2) the Gospel of Matthew doesn't even mention the number of magi. 3) there is nothing in the Matthew that suggests that what is described about the magi is a "forgery". It is in the earliest transcripts and also the Hebrew version that is thought to have preceded the Greek. 4) There is no evidence at all calling the story into question.

>>2569934
Indeed, as I tried to explain, because they think they are right, they will inevitably impose this on others. It's just how the human mind works. This "religious person only in private" idea is hogwash.

>>2569937

>Micah 5:2 that he would be born in Bethlehem.

Unfortunately, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, so the early translators had a problem. He didn't fit that J-word prophecy. So, they need to fix that. "Oh I know, a Roman national census where everyone had to go back to their great x20 (?) grandfather's home town. Perfect!"

That's beyond retarded. There was no Roman national census that year. The available evidence is quite clear on this. Also, it's beyond retarded to think that the Roman would have a /national/ census where everyone had to go to some village of some far flung ancestor. It's insane. That's not how shit worked son.

>>2569937
Are you really trying to defend christianity?

>>2569955
Also, King Herod never massacred the jewish children two years old and younger... just saying

>>2569957
Ah, no, I'm trying to defend reason and logical argument and to criticize internet misinformation.

>>2569976
Nope, you're just perpetuating falsehoods. Waiting on a reply to:
>>2569955

>>2569937
Christianity is OT in /sci/

>>>2569955

>>2569955
There was a prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. There was no prophecy that he would be visited by 3 magi. The two are completely separate issues.

You're stupidly asserting that Jesus was born somewhere other than Bethlehem. You have no rational basis to do so.

Your ignorance of Roman censuses compounds the problem. There were indeed a number of censuses when Quirinius was ruling Syria as consul, and head of the Romon occupying troops there. In all Roman censuses migrant workers had to return to their hometowns. Nazareth was primarily a Roman military outpost and a Jewish migrant worker settlement in support of the outpost. It stands perfectly to reason that Joseph was a migrant worker there, and had to return to Bethlehem. The only thing you have to resolve is the timeframe of which time Quirinius governed Syria. He was literally governor at a time that doesn't fit with the rest of the facts, so it was probably at the time when he governed as consul, as that fits with everything.

>>2569963
[citation needed]

>>2570006
>There were indeed a number of censuses when Quirinius was ruling Syria as consul, and head of the Romon occupying troops there.
Several years off. Also not national. The nearest national was like 10 years away.

>In all Roman censuses migrant workers had to return to their hometowns.
Implying that migrants returning to their home town is in any way similar to returning to the town of you great x20 (?) grandfather.

>>2570006
>You're stupidly asserting that Jesus was born somewhere other than Bethlehem. You have no rational basis to do so.
My rational basis is the blatant forgery of his birth story in order to have him fulfill that earlier prophecy.

>>2570015
See you're problem is you're forming beliefs based on crap you heard on youtube, and you're entirely ignorant of anything related to factual biblical study.

Joseph didn't have to go to Bethlehem because of any ancient ancestor. He had to do so because it's where his family lived and he had no permanent residency in Nazareth. Mathew explains that he was of the "house and lineage of David" as an explanation of why his family was from Bethlehem. Any other explanation is based on ignorance of the practices and culture.

>Several years off. Also not national. The nearest national was like 10 years away.
No, you are wrong. There were censuses that could have been the one Matthew mentioned while Quirinius was consul. There are many competing theories as to which time period is being referred to, but that's the one that makes the most sense.

Its really not that hard to see the truth about Jesus. It was all forged shit in order to fit the prophecies as >>2570038
said.
It always astounds me how preachers talk about Jesus perfectly matching the prophecies, and that means he was the real deal.

I agree with OP.
However, this will never happen because in general people with a lower level of intelligence produce more offspring. I.E. 80% of population growth comes from 3rd world nations that can't kill themselves off in civil wars fast enough to stop balance it out at all.

>>2570038
>My rational basis is the blatant forgery of his birth story in order to have him fulfill that earlier prophecy.
That's like saying that everything Plato wrote about Socrates is a blatant forgery. You're a crackpot. There's no evidence for anything you're saying.

>>2570038
>>2570063
I've said it before and I will say it many many more times,
We need a philosophy board.

>>2570056
Look, does it really matter? I mean, its not like if we suddenly found out that Jesus actually WAS born in bethlehem it would mean the entirety of the story was true.

>>2570056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus
Call me when you get educated about your completely bogus myths.

>>2570059
>forged
You can't claim forgery without fucking evidence, you fucking retard. Do you even know what forgery means?

BTW, there are bits and pieces of the story that match bits and pieces of what was mentioned in the Hebrew prophets. 99% of what was written about Jesus is not connected to any prophecy. Also, most of the prophecies depicted Jesus as a national leader and war hero. If they were writing stuff to match the prophecy, they would have written something completely different.

>>2570072
YES. It matters to me when people spew bullshit and falsehoods. It can be bullshit and falsehoods about physics, or history, or mythology, or anything, but if I'm here I'm going to call people out who perpetuate falsehoods and beliefs without rational basis, whatever they are.

>>2570074
Call me when you free yourself from your zeitgeist cult which is based on more blatant falsehoods than you could ever hope to accuse the christian gospels of containing.

>>2570096
Especially when the falsehoods make people act in a dangerous fashion, like most modern religions.

>>2570100
Why am I a follower of Zeitgeist btw? Let me fix this up and refute Zeitgeist as basically entirely full of shit.

I'm just wondering which part of what I've said made you think I was such a retard as that. Could you explain please?

>>2570102
Right that Mother Theresa was a real loose cannon.

If you justify the spreading of falsehoods in the belief that your falsehoods combats some greater evil, then you are nothing but a nutjob fanatic, and you sure as LIVING FUCK are no scientist.

>>2570123
Wow, you don't know about Mother Theresa? Mother Theresa is arguably single handedly responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

She's an evil bitch.

Go do some research on her, or read The Missionary Position by Hitchens for more information.

>>2570131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29

>Hitchens condemns Teresa for having used contributions to open convents in 150 countries rather than establishing a teaching hospital, the latter being what he implies donors expected her to do with their gifts. He claims that Teresa was no "friend to the poor," but rather that she opposed structural measures to end poverty, particularly those that would raise the status of women. He argues she was a tool by which the Catholic Church could further its political and theological aims, and the cult of personality that she developed could be used by politicians, dictators and bankers to gain credibility and ease guilty feelings, citing Hilary Clinton, Charles Keating and Michèle Bennett as examples.

Also that her poor houses were not medical facilities, just cots for the sick to die in miserable pain. "Mother" Teresa felt that pain and suffering made you closer to Jesus, and hence didn't actually do much to help out the poor saps.

You really didn't know about this? Next you'll be saying you didn't know the current Pope was a former Nazi youth and Nazi soldier / prison camp guard / whatever.

>>2570110
I'm glad you realize Zeitgeist is full of shit. You're making similar claims, and similarly unsubstantiable claims. Stick to facts. Stick to history. Claiming that magi didn't visit Jesus, and that the account was therefore a "forgery" is the kind of baseless nonsense that was in Zeitgeist, and I'm sure there were similar claims there, except they went on in Zeitgeist to claim that there were also 3 wise men who visited other people in myths, which he just made up out of whole cloth. If that's not your source, then I wonder what is.

>>2570131

I always had my suspicions you were a fringe lunatic. Now they are confirmed.

>>2570131
Hahaha, wow. I'm well aware of Hitchens' hatred and attack of Mother Theresa. I wasn't aware that Hitchens' devotees actually followed him there.

>>2569112
On the contrary, people with sub-par intelligence breed more than intelligent people. Unless you're speaking of those with a mental handicap, well then it didn't work when Socrates suggested it and won't work now.

>>2570157
Really man. Do some basic research. She diverted shittons of funds given to her charity that were supposed to open places to help the sick and poor, and instead went to open nunneries. That's fraud, and probably resulted in the deaths of millions had that money went to legit charities.

ITT: A religious nut and a nut who happens to be irreligious.

>>2570172
I'd don't much appreciate or agree with that assessment.

Could you at least make some sort of claim of disagreement as opposed to borderline trolling?

>>2570166
I can't believe those Swedefags gave here a nobel peace prize. We better bust up Christianity before it produces any more Mother Theressas.

>>2570166
>>2570166
>Charities
>thread is about population control
>population problems are most often caused by unintelligent poor people that reproduce anyway.
>mfw

>>2570178
Or abortion clinic bombers. Or people who run in office on the premise that they get to impose their bullshit jeudo-christian values on the rest of us, like banning contraceptives, gay marriage, non-hetero sex in the missionary position, science education, and more.

If you disallow dumb people to breed, you're implying that the only value to a human life is intelligence. A human is a fucking beautiful thing, no matter what it can score on some standardized test. You left brained /sci/ nerds probably will not be able to relate to my sentiments, but if you would just get off your arrogant high-horse and felt something for once then you might understand where I'm coming from.

>>2570172
I'm not a not. I'm not arguing for Christianity. Just for factuality and rational analysis of ancient texts, including religious scriptures of all kinds. I admire Christianity along with most other religions.

I have no problem with people being skeptical of any of the miraculous events or even visions described in scriptures. However, randomly claiming that certain parts are "forgeries" for no reason is absurd.

>>2570190
>>2570190
what's your stance on gay marriage, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution?

>>2570184
Dude, I'm sorry you can't marry your boyfriend. No need to take it out on the poor magi.

>>2570190
>Still arguing that it's reasonable to compel the population to go back to the city of their remote ancestor in a national census.

>>2570190
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html

>>2570199
>Implying I'm gay
>Implying any of my rebuttals have anything to do with the magi

>>2570199
>implying you have to be gay to support gay rights

>>2570190
http://digg.com/news There is no reason gays should not be able to marry, however I view it as a mere change of tax status. Big Bang Theory is to my knowledge a very well supported theory of how our Universe came to be and I believe it as well as you can believe any theory. Evolution has been observed and I accept it as true, however the theory of evolution as an origin of all species is something I believe quite strongly but would never call fact.

>>2570197
I think the big bang theory (which was authored by a Catholic priest) is almost certainly true if General Relativity is even close to being true, which it almost certainly is. The common descent of all life on earth is also a virtual certainty.

As to marriage, I think Western society is best served by keeping that term specific to monogamous heterosexual relationships. But I support civil unions that give homosexual couple similar rights and conveniences.

Stolen from another thread:

What does /sci/ think of a proposal like this:

Temporary mandatory vasectomy/tube tying sometime after birth, prior to puberty. If you want babby to form, you need to get a license.

Taken into account will be:
-Intelligence
-Predisposition to diseases/developmental disorders/other health issues
-Potential to excel as a parent (valuing things such as an education, to forgo baseless hate and prejudice, acknowledging their own flaws to prove they can make decisions free of bias, etc.)
-Must generally be a good parent (caring, responsible, etc.)

All categories will not be judged extremely harshly, only in severe cases will a license not be permitted, with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th categories being the most important.

In countries with population problems, limit is also imposed on no. of children tailored to how they perform in those categories, current population and expected population of the coming decades.

Finally, if abortion were to be fully legalized and scarcely detested and more common place the second category my be less restricted or entirely removed so parents with predispositions to the aforementioned issues can try to have a healthy child.

The purpose: To increase the quality of life for all, reduce the chances of children being born with disadvantages and simultaneously tackling the issues of over population and disinterest in the pursuit of knowledge.

Thoughts? Problems? Counterarguments?

>>2570216
"the magi are a forgery" was basically the claim I challenged. Are you dropping your claim or defending it?

I don't think the possessing power of our brains is the biggest contributor to stupidity. The biggest contributor is how society provides too little incentive to develop yourself mentally. Hell, it downright discourages it most of the time, by calling people losers, nerds or virgins for having any interest in intellectual pursuits. We're basically told to act like animals again, only pursuing the simple pleasures of life, like food, playing around with your tribe, and most importantly, sex.

But it would be interesting to see how things would work out if only people in intellectual pursuits were allowed to reproduce.

>>2570240
More:
Being smart would not be a pre-requisite. Not finishing high school is fine. There are plenty of tradesmen or people who work at supermarkets or other low income jobs who I personally would deem to be fit parents.

In the case of intelligence, it would only be extreme cases; for example, autistics. Of course they are already not likely to have children so it would seldom apply.

If, however, your father had a history of beating children or an extreme history of violence towards others, then he would not be allowed to bring a child up.

As I said, it is judged leniently.

>>2570235
>
As to marriage, I think Western society is best served by keeping that term specific to monogamous heterosexual relationships. But I support civil unions that give homosexual couple similar rights and conveniences.
Why?

Do you support additional restrictions on gay couples adopting vs straight couples adopting?

Do you value some sort of nebulous "good for western society" above the rights of the individual? What you wrote seems to indicate that you do.

>>2570240
Well, My entire family would surely be condemned... But I would support it.

>>2569112
No they should not. Shit like this happens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5twurpp1UPc

>>2569112
The birthrate plummets. There are almost no workers within two or three generations.

>>2570242
I never made that claim, so I have nothing to drop. My original claim was:

>The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.
The three wise men was merely a hint about which story to the ignorant people. The problem with the story is the Roman national census compelling people to go to the hometown of ancient ancestors.

>>2570249
The proper textual analysis of scripture seemed at least marginally related to science. I don't want to shit up /sci/ with my opinions on civil law and homosexuality.

JESUS CHRIST THIS THREAD IS FUCKING STUPID, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. OP IS A FUCKING FAGGOT, I BET YOU'RE THE TYPE OF RETARD THAT TAKES IQ TESTS SERIOUSLY. FUCK OFF, I HOPE YOU DIE OF CANCER AND HAVE A MISERABLE DAY.

>>2570264
Well, this is the reply to why we should care about dismissing religion. The answer is because it's harmful and dangerous. An example provided was treating straights differently than gays.

fuckin boring this discussion. evry1 thinks it, are you going to bring it about? NO, so shut the fuck up, discussion on this topic is worthless, action speaks words. start a revolution to fundamentally change the human condition, or else stop wasting our time with pointless talk.

>>2570276
Revolutions are started with words.

Education is the best path to a culture change without violence.

The Gay Marriage Paradox

Assuming genetics is one cause of homosexuality (the other probably being a form of inter-gender evolutionary conflict that occurs in utero), allowing gay marriage would suppress societal pressures for conforming to the standard man/woman mode of habitation, thereby reducing the number of homosexuals who pass on their genes.

However, prohibiting gay marriage would force homosexuals to marry outside their sex in order to procure the rights and privileges that comes with marriage, thereby spreading their homosexual genes.

Which proves christfags do not possess sound reasoning.

>>2570283

Let the gays marry. Let women abort their unborn babies. Let dudes cornhole. Let Arabs have their non-democracy. Let soldiers torture terrorists. Focus on your own shit, please.

>>2570301
Not sure if compliment, considering it's sad frog and some other anthropomorphic furry.

>>2570309
But that shit affects me. If we allow torture by US peoples, we change the culture where torture becomes more allowable, which makes it more likely that I'll be tortured. So no, I will be loud about this. It's important to everyone, and it's important to me.

>>2570263
Well, your mention of the three wise men is very confusing then, as it seems like that is the part you are objecting to. I suggest in the future you are specific to what part you have a problem with. There are a couple of problems with the face value of the story between Matthew and Luke. The problem of the Census is one those problems. The only real problem is the reference to when Quirinius was governor. It's a dating problem that extends beyond there being no known census then. Like I said, I think the most likely scenario is that the time period intended to be referenced (perhaps by different language initially, perhaps not), was one of the times when he was Roman consul and Syria was occupied.

The thing about going to the hometown of ancient ancestors, didn't happen, although it's easy to get the impression if you don't know the culture of the time. Anyone of the time reading it would have understood that the reason he had to return was because his family lived there and he was a migrant worker.

So I guess the problem is calling the entire story a "blatant forgery" based on one fact that is difficult to make sense of.

>>2570311
Very compliment.

>>2570316
And I still claim requiring people to go to the hometown of their far removed ancient ancestors is a far bigger plot hole.

>>2569121

Yeah this guy is right. Intelligence shouldn't be the only thing looked at.

There are truly stupid people who have not only contributed to society, but have become successful. There are many people who've started successful businesses but dropped out of college because it was too hard.

I know a guy near this college I went to that failed his math class twice before dropping out. He now has a chain of fast food restaurants that are supposed to be the best in the city. He's got like six or seven of the things now.

Dumb as a box of rocks, yet somehow rich and successful. I would prefer him over someone who is naturally intelligent, but is lazy and takes everything for granted. Who contributes more in the end?

>>2570288
Homosexuality probably isn't hereditary, though. It may be genetic, but not hereditary. Gay males are a good thing. More pussssy for me!!

>>2570316
Also, changing copypasta as you claim it's confusing and appear non-troll-ish.

>this thread

>>2570288
No, prohibiting gay marriage does not force gay people to get married to people of the opposite sex. LOL. WTF. No one has to get married.

>Well, I'm gay, and I can get a civil union with my gay partner, but since it's not called "marriage" I guess I'm going to pretend I'm straight and marry a chick instead.

People with sub par intelligence should not post on sci\ discuss

>>2570315
But you're a nut job. You use ridiculous extremist language. So by being loud you're just marginalizing your beliefs.

>>2570326
if the trait is heterozygous or a form of antagonistic pleiotropy than it very well may be heterozygous

it occurs in all sexually reproducing organisms, so unless you believe every organism has the exact same faulty genetic repair system to amend such a mutation, homosexuality is probably genetic

genetic traits aren't discontinuous, and sexual preference is more or less of scale of complexity, where most have slightly above center (heterosexuals), and some hover slightly below center (bisexuals), while still some others are way above or way below

>>2570346
Extremist language where? Example please?

>>2570347
I'm still genuinely curious for an evolutionary explanation of the survival value of gayness, or an explanation of how gayness is a misfiring of some other behavior or something which has survival value.

>>2570340
its used as an example to express the bigger picture of the amount of acceptance or ridicule homosexuals are faced with

if we are not accepting of homosexuals and treat them with disdain, then there is societal pressure for them to deceive others into thinking they aren't gay

>>2570272
When I was a teenager I thought religion was dangerous too. Looking back, I still have no idea why or how I could rationally support that. I mean I talked about the inquisition and the crusades, but that's just fucking embarrassing now. Anyone with any life experience, at least in Western civilization, can attest that religion is on balance a very positive force in society.

>>2570248

But if you had a government agency deciding whether you were good enough to breed I feel like it would just be bureaucratic atrocity that social services is now.

This topic is sort of along the lines of brave new world.

>>2570315
Well, let's be honest. If torture for Gitmo-fags is legal, you have a 1.1 x 10^-485 chance of being tortured. And I think everyone can agree that they'd have no problem with a soldier torturing a genuine terrorist, especially if it is to get intel (but even if it doesn't work in getting intel, wouldn't you not give a shit anyway if he gets tortured?). The problem is if it is an innocent guy. Which is really a tragedy, but as is the case for all the people who served thirty years in prison only to find out after the fact that new evidence (usually DNA) proved them innocent. We can't make flawless decisions, but we make right decisions the great bulk of the time.

>>2570362
Do you even understand what Sharia law is?

Do you understand that these religious fuckers are trying to ban my porn, my contraceptives, and various other bullshit things?

Don't even get me started on how they use my tax money to subsidize their bullshittery.

>>2570370
Yes, and that's why we have courts, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's also why we have habeas corpus. Etc.

For now, it's the few terrorists who are declared guilty until proven innocent. Unless fights this trend, it may continue. I'm doing the good fight.

>>2570356
imagine if the gay gene in males is expressed in females as the big breasted gene, cross-gender gene polymorphism

or the gay gene in some way fights off a particular parasite that others are vulnerable too, typically a heterozygous advantage (two alleles for one trait)

>>2570321
But that's only the implication you get if you aren't familiar with the culture of the time. If you include the words that are implied, which is ("that being why his family lived there"), there is no plot hole.

ITT:
People who haven't read A Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel.
Captcha-ansork this

>>2570386
I would rather not waste my time.

blah, blah, blah, you guys are fucking spineless douchebags, you'll talk about this shit on an internet forum, thinkign you are espousing some revolutionary theorem. people have been thinking about this shit for centuries,however the majority of people are hollow skulled fuckwits, and it won't ever fucking happen. tired of people talking about shit, and it only being that, stupid cunts. it's like arguing about religion, i used to be into dawkins, dennet, sagan etc, then realised its a waste of fucking time, if you cant persuade or destroy then get on with your own life, humans will always be irrational, try changing human nature, try changing them, you cant STFU!!

>>2570386
>A Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel.
Want to give me the sparknotes version? Or I'll just skip to the chase and say that no matter what explanations we're lacking about the material universe, introducing a creator just delays the explanation problems by one step. Now you have to explain the creator.

Nothing is gained.

>>2570395
We still endeavor to stop rapes and murders even though that's human nature.

Bad argument.

>>2570350
"blatant forgery"
"mother theressa has killed millions"

>>2570411
>"blatant forgery"
Well, the first is apparently arguable, but that is in no way extremist language. Extremist language is like "Kill all non-believers!" and "Behead those who insult the prophet" and stuff like that. I've never said we should use physical violence, and I'm always open to change my mind based on the evidence, so it's really hard to call me extremist.

>"mother theressa has killed millions"
Well, she is directly responsible for the deaths of millions through her fraud.

Yeah, I figured.

this isn't /new/


and intelligence isn't the only thing reproduction selects for

to think so would be a lapse in your intelligence

/thread

I prefer that you actually read the book yourself.
>Implying that you could explain the creator.

>>2570459
No summary of argument, no me reading the book. It's pretty simple. My time is valuable. The choice is yours.

Just depends how much you want to know
your choice.

>>2570471
Based on the available evidence, I expect to find about as much truth in that book as I would in Mein Kompf. There, I invoked Godwin's. Maybe the thread will die now.

>>2570459
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html
Nope.jpg

just because we have established laws to restrain our animalistic instincts doesn't mean i'm bullshitting. it's like when some fuckhead says.. if germany did't declare war on russia they would have..., stupid speculation, it'll never change, and none of you would be able to live knowing that forced sterilasition of humans was occuring, i would take up arms ands die a painful death to prevent you from bringing that about, scientists don't live in their own world, i am studying for a bsc and i will never advocate eradication for anyone with iq under 140. that world will never come about, plan for improvements in the real world, poverty in africa, malaria etc, dont dream about that bollocks,

>>2570477
>just because we have established laws to restrain our animalistic instincts doesn't mean i'm bullshitting.
I'm not really sure to whom you're replying.

>>2570471
> For example, Wells argues that the archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional form because the most bird-like reptilian ancestors are found "millions of years later in the fossil record," and then exclaims "The missing link is still missing!" (p. 57) This displays a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and what would be reasonable to expect of the fossil record.
how about no?

Just search for it, does everything have to be spoon-fed?

>>2570489
Actually, this kind anon has for me:
>>2570480
It seems like I'll be passing on reading this 'wonderful' book full of misinformation and ignorance of modern science.

>>2570471
>As I said at the beginning of this review, no one should give more weight to my opinions than to the opinions of Strobel's experts. However, Strobel repeatedly belies his claim of "standing in the shoes of the skeptic" by picking "experts" that are not truly experts on the topics at hand, failing to interview any experts skeptical of his viewpoint, and responding only to straw-man skeptical arguments that his "experts" can knock down. An honest review of the evidence--to which I've tried to provide some points of reference for the reader--shows that the "strong case" Strobel constantly refers to is anything but strong.

This is not to deny that some of the mysteries Strobel presents are indeed big mysteries. For example, while there are theories about the origin of the universe and abiogenesis, it is clear that there is a good deal of uncertainty about these events. But mere ignorance of the answer to a question does not justify a supernatural explanation. Invoking a "God of the gaps"--an explanation where God performs some function to fill in a gap in our knowledge--is unproductive. History shows that such gaps are eventually filled with demonstrable naturalistic explanations, making God a superfluous--or even falsified--hypothesis.

Sounds like a winner.

>>2570480
>Takes one small paragraph from the book
>makes a conclusion
>...

>>2570501
Well I cant exactly put green text the entire damned book, can I? I just picked one example to show the kinds of ignorant bullshit that the book is full of.

>>2570501
We do that kind of reasoning all the time. If you can make such a bullshit comment, you're likely to make other bullshit comments. It's pretty sound psychology bro.

>>2570501
>Strobel is frankly misleading about his experts' qualifications. While spending paragraphs touting each of his interviewees' "doctorate-level" educations, he fails to point out that most of them do not have doctorates in the fields dealing with the issues on which they were interviewed. Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. Strobel clearly meant to insinuate that he picked doctorate-level experts in the fields dealing with the issues they were interviewed about; but, with a few exceptions, this is not the case. This does not bode well for his claim of standing "in the shoes of the skeptic."

There, does this make you feel better?

>>2570424
Extremist language is anything that reveals you as something other than level-headed and rational. It's making extreme statements. Calling the entire story a forgery is extremist on many levels... and it also suggests that you don't know what the word "forgery" means. When you forge something you are faking authorship. It has nothing to do with faking content. Adding "blatant" sends you further into coocoo land.

As for M.T., just keep saying that, and see what people think of you.

>>2570499
there is very little gaps in abiogenesis, do a wiki search,

won't be long until all the research is reproduced in multiple instances and withstood the rigors of the scientific method before being an assertion of fact

then the "god of the gaps" fags will have exhausted their supply of barnacles

>>2570512
>pedantic argument over the definition and usage of forgery
>making a well defended claim is extremist
Gotcha bro.

>>2570395
>>blah, blah, blah, you guys are fucking spineless douchebags, >>you'll talk about this shit on an internet forum, thinkign you are >>espousing some revolutionary theorem. people have been ??>>thinking about this shit for centuries,however the majority of >>people are hollow skulled fuckwits, and it won't ever fucking ??>>happen. tired of people talking about shit, and it only being that, >>stupid cunts. it's like arguing about religion, i used to be into >>dawkins, dennet, sagan etc, then realised its a waste of >>fucking time, if you cant persuade or destroy then get on with >>your own life, humans will always be irrational, try changing >>human nature, try changing them, you cant STFU!!

WORDS OF WISDOM! Let it be, let it be let it fucking be.

Focus on your own work. Einstein didn't make the greatest discoveries in physics by giving a flying shit about other people's bullshit.

As a science nerd atheist, it's my opinion that the atheist proselytizers like Dawkins et al are almost (but not quite) as bad as the Mormon fucknuts on bikes, missionaries who take advantage of poor third world people and give them bibles and then food, Hare Krishnas on my univ campus, the God Hates Fags people, and a whole host of people who are out on a mission to save the world with their retarded religion or ideology. Just stop it, please. The only sort of ideas of which I approve people proselytizing about are anthropogenic climate change, evolution, space exploration financing, sciences financing, and a law mandating women with above average breasts to routinely opt not to wear any clothes (for my viewing pleasure). Thank you very much.

>>2570508
>>2570507
Did you gentlemen enjoy that small conversation?
This thread was going to die anyway...

>>2570520
Yep.

Wait, the troll is remorseful, wtf? Just another delaying tactic perhaps? Psychologists explain this shit!

>>2570514
>there is very little gaps in abiogenesis
lolwat?
we're on abiogenesis now. Well, at least now we're on equal footing. Instead of science vs faith we've moved on to faith vs faith.

>>2570509
Quite an improvement actually.

>>2570519
Well, I fundamentally disagree. I believe in freedom of speech as both an a priori right, and as a very useful means to discover truth, so I want both sides arguing about the issue in order to spread the truth, because usually those who hold false opinions make less good decisions for the rest of us.

/run-on-sentence

I'm typing to the guy who said that rape and murder as a crime is a supression of our animal instincts. Human nature is more than rape and murder. Forced steriliazation of those with sub par intrelligence will not happen, in any time, at any place, we should focus on the means on educating children whose neural potential is essentially unlimited, rather than 'sterliszing' people. a totally dumbshit avenue of though for those who crave attention and want to seem cool with their fascist ways of thinking. any1 who has intelligence seems to think they are qualified to call for the genocide of 'stupid people'. I avoid those people, they are invariably braggarts, with shit all to contribute to discussions of politics or human advancement.

>>2570545
Mostly agreeing.

we should have several classes of people say the lowest 2-3% of scorers of intellect testing, Most genetically predisposed to violence, have the most congenital difficulties. Call it the bottom 5-10% of the population genetically. Once they meet certain criteria (that will be gone over EXHAUSTIVELY) instead of being banned from reproduction they would be required to have any kids they want through genetic engineeering. If this were to be be done for say 10-15 generations we could virtually eliminate congenital disease and people with say Tay Sachs for example would have perfectly healthy families.

Anyone have any Ideas why God wouldn't exist?

>>2570545
Agreed dude. Most of the time these ppl are just trying to impress others with their "edgy" statements, or are trying to inflate their own ego. Forced sterilization of unintelligent people...now you're traversing into Jim Watson territory! Yikes!

>>2570527
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

this is dumbed down for the layman, though I don't expect you to read pass the first paragraph because you are obviously a christfag and christfags don't read

>>2570564
As I said in my atheist rant else-thread, I have positive evidence against a theist god - that is a god which actively interferes in human affairs, and I lack any evidence for or against other kinds of gods - which makes such a hypothesis mental masturbation at best. It's untestable, unobservable, and thus useless.

If Stanley Kubrick were still around, you guys would be of great aid for his next dystopian film.

>>2570578
Why should God have to actively participate our lives?

>>2570564
Besides the fact we now have much better explanations for things besides 'god did it'? Oh, and they also have evidence to support them (which is always important)

>>2570598
Did you even read all of what I wrote, asshat? I covered interfering gods and non-interfering gods.

>>2570598
So, you are a deist? In that case, it really is kind of irrelevant. Evolution is basically fact. If a god did somehow create the universe in the beginning and then leave us to evolve, then it really doesnt matter. Such a god would not give a damn about us (and the feeling should be mutual)

>>2570577
Abiogenesis is a very interesting subject. When I was 14, I thought I would make the biggest breakthroughs ever by proving once and for all in a primordial soup type of experiment that biological molecules can be synthesized under primitive Earth-like conditions from inorganic molecules. I thought I'd surely do this experiment and become the most respected scientist in the world. I kept this fantasy going until I discovered six months later that Miller and Urey did the same thing about 30 years ago--only better. God damnit.

>>2569112
agree

>>2570599
If you were "God" would you want your people to be stupid and completely dependent on you or would you at least let them get some scars of their own, and let them fend for themselves for a while...

>>2570606
>Such a god would not give a damn about us (and the feeling should be mutual)

Well that would be the crux of the matter, wouldn't it? You don't offer any reason to believe this but your own assertion. God could want us to succeed and prosper while being unwilling to intervene on our behalf (for other reasons).

>>2570601
Calm down, I'm just tackling one thing at a time.

when I was 15 I had an infatauation with Richard Dawkins, daniel dennet, carl sagan etc, I would engage any religious person in pointless arguments, quoting those profound truths I thought only me and my fellow atheists were capable of comprehending. I am now 18 and realise that anyone who actually identifies themselves as an atheist is in fact a raging fucking immature wanker who still doesnt understand human nature. amazing atheist on youtube is a great example. meaningless, actionless bullshit spewed forth from a webcam, he will change nothing. I was a diehard atheist once, now i despise them. i don't believe in god, that is not the defining feature of my life, I have religous friends, i dont feel it my duty to 'educate' them, damn those fucking elitist cunts who think they do. live and let live, be a realist, try and help the real world, african kids with malaria and aids, arabian children raised to hate woman and gays, children who don't grow up to love reading and learning, the paths to advancement. dont tell us how much you think black people are inferior, noone cares, we're trying to help the world rather than complain, and we will alway make more of a difference than you before we both die. fuck the racists and homphobes and evangelist atheists on 4chan, fuck them.

>>2570606
Deism is not the idea of God not giving a fuck. In Deism God guides and preserves the world in Divine Providence. He just doesn't do miracles or respond to individual prayers. That doesn't imply that God doesn't have a plan for you. It just implies that you're not going to change his plan for you.

>>2570640
No you aren't you dipshit. You replied to a single sentence which covered interfering gods and non-interfering gods, and you asked "What about non-interfering gods?"

Goddamnit shitcunt.

>>2570618
All they did is produce some amino acids. But we even find amino acids in space. It's a looooong way from there to abiogenesis.

>>2570637
Truth be told, that's the one I'm rooting for.
>>2570648
Infuriated?

>>2569136
>>2569125
where the fuck do you people come from. intelligence is not the same as the ability to have responsibility and hold down a fucking job. How much intelligence is required to work a loading dock, i mean before actual mental retardation. And I've seen a loading dock manned part by the mentally retarded.

>extremely sub-par intelligence, even retardation, barring a fucking vegetable, can still be productive in society, and can still be allowed to reproduce, however much they are capable of

maybe we just need an AMERICA board for you guys to talk about just whose responsible for everything wrong in your lives(oh yeah, uh, your country)

lol

>>2570723
>Implying America is a country and not a state.

>>2570642
Amen (in an sardonic sense of the word), brother.

My story is a lot like yours. I used to be that way, too. I realize now that I kind of got a feeling of superiority, a slight cocaine-like dopaminergic euphoria, every time I would eloquently strike down a religious person's arguments. I, too, realize now I was just a little immature fucker. I'm still an atheist and that will probably never change. I'm a scientist and that will probably never change. But I do realize the futility in some of these debates. It's a fruitless endeavor. I'd rather get back in the lab and try to do something meaningful.

Fuck the atheist crusaders. Fuck the racists. Fuck the authoritarian sterilize-people-I-perceive-as-lesser-than-I people. I'm going to be just a good person--fuck you guys.

>>2570642
>arabian children raised to hate woman and gays

But that's BECAUSE of religion.

>>2569112
I agree.
Christians should be sterilized ASAP.

>>2570642
i love you.

in an internet way of course.

Agreed.

Even if the child wasn't of poor intellectual functioning, he would still likely be carrying latent negative traits that would persist through future generations.

You also must consider that "generally" those of lower cognitive ability are less suited to raise a child and support a functional family.

Morality is not based upon consequences, and so I'm going to have to disagree with this on the grounds that preventing a person reproducing, against their will, is principally immoral.

>>2571828
>Morality

Just GTFO

Me thinks, most of our intelligence is the product of our environment. We have essentially the same monkey brain we had a long time ago, yet we can do science and all that shit. The people from the dark ages seem pretty dumb to us, but they are our forefathers.

The neural net we call human brain is very adaptable and can do smart things, if smart things are encouraged. The children of the dumbest hillbillies could get intelligent, if raised in a different environment.

Yes genes do have an effect, but the reason why we are so successful as a species, is that we can adapt to almost anything. This includes adapting the brain to almost anything.

>>2571828

What? No, not always. Preventing persons that are not materially or mentally ready from reproducing is the moral thing to do. Irresponsible reproduction is immoral.

>>2571837

Failed to notice that the topic of this entire thread is morality.

>>2570642
I agree with you, except I still refer to myself as an atheist because it's true. I don't believe in any god.

I guess the word is loaded wherever you live.

>>2571849

How do you come to that conclusion?

The trouble with a non-consequentially based system of morality is that it is difficult to establish principle values... It require absolute morality, and then we have problems as to what this absolute morality is and where it came from...

>>2571857

Isnt it obvious? When such people reproduce, it negatively affects their children.

What is this non-consequentiality you speak of?

>>2571879

Right, what I'm saying is that the morality of an action is not determined by a consequences i.e. a "good" thing is not good because it causes "good" stuff to happen - it is principally good. Of course, when an action is neither itslef good nor bad, we have to consider consequences... but yeah, I think that preventing someone from reproducing against their will is principally wrong.

>>2571898

Well, I disagree with this line of thought. Fro example, murder or physical assault is generally wrong, but in cases of defense it is not, and can even be the moral thing to do. Morality is affected by consequences and circumstances, IMHO. Absolute morality does not mean that murder is always wrong, that is a misunderstanding of the term.

>>2569112
ITT: people who don't know that morality came from social norms and social contracts

Go to college dumbshits!!

>>2571912

Ah, well I'd argue that murder is still wrong even if it is in self-defense, because killing another is principally wrong haha.

I meant objective morality, rather than absolute morality - my apologies. But absolute morality does mean that action x is wrong regardless of the context and intentions, I believe. Objective morality does not, mean that action x is always wrong, but means that it is not relativistic i.e. culture, opinion etc is irrelevant. Objective morality is, however, required for the belief that action x is always wrong. That's the point I was trying to make when I meant to mention objective morality.

>>2571913

Implying you know for sure that morality comes from social norms. Faggot.

>>2569226
both my mom and dad have phds in bio and chem respectively
my sister is a dentist and i start med school this summer
coincidence? i think fucking not

We don't let them reproduce but we give them a comfortable life for the time that they're here.

sterilizing everyone at birth or soon after to have it reversed when they pass the "we want to have a baby" test.

OP speaks the truth.

>>2572147
> anecdotal evidence
nice to see our future doctors having such a great understanding of statistics etc

>>2572147
both of my parents have phds in those areas too! and i'm planning on med school. Weird.

most people that want to control the world in some way are just butthurt

eugenicists are usually butthurt about believing themselves superior, yet seeing other people having things they'd like.

two seconds of ethics or political philosophy is enough to herp derp this thread

>People with extremely sub-par intelligence
>intelligence
one aspect of intelligence may be loosely defined as the ability to discern reality from fantasy

also, mulsims

>>2572744
lets sterilise people based on some loose definitions

that's not at all neckbeard virgin fascism

(singing)

IF I RULED THE WORLD

PEOPLE WOULD LIKE AND RESPECT ME!!!

No thanks OP. Thats would be pretty fucked up.

idiot tax traps.

Cyanide laced burgers. Advertized as cyanide laced. Anyone who buys them either wants to die, or needs to.

>>2572751
ok, let's let people run around talking about what allah wants and put you in the middle of their country