Here's the kicker, there are countless Islamic nutjobs who want every last American dead. Is this the fault of every other Muslim? Of course not. But, you can't tell that sort of thing by looking at someone, can you? If he were a Muslim, it would be a strike against him for that reason. Not fair in the least, but not illogical either, and not necessarily bigoted (bigotry would imply a lack of reason, although some bigotry would undoubtedly come into play). I know that that's not the nice thing to say, and it sucks that things work that way, but life's never been a politically correct fairyland. Not that I think he is a Muslim (although I think I'd prefer a sane and peaceful Muslim to someone who spent all those years in Rev. Wright's congregation), just saying that although I disagree with their assessment, I can see where they're coming form.
Well, we do live in a civilized society, and no one should ever be financially ruined because they get sick, although I for one find it preferable that it be done with as little meddling with the finances of individuals as possible.
I think the problem is that citizens aren't equal even in first world countries, what makes you think they would be equal in a world wide government? It isn't now, and I doubt it would be then. If people were equal, we wouldn't see the poor get shafted in the legal system while expensive hot-shot lawyers get the rich off, we wouldn't see class based education discrimination, we wouldn't have a brain dead chimp running things because daddy was also president. I think if there were a one world government, there'd still be the us versos them mentality (location based discrimination likely, classism indistinguishable from the former guaranteed). Unless you can set up some sort of utopian system, I really don't see a change of government size fixing that sort of problem.
That aside, in a one world government we'd lose the freedom to get the hell out of an oppressive regime. There would be no refugees or asylum because there'd be no where to go. That one government would be all there is, and if it went bad (and most do), something of that scale would probably be really hard to fix. Well, either that or it would be too incompetent to govern, fall apart, and we'd be back to were we started. Either way, it just seems like a really bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket Maybe it would work, but I'm always skeptical when it comes to a large government working the way it is intended.
In Australia education is government controlled and it's (no offense) a much higher standard than most American schools
None taken. Our schools, from what I've seen, kinda suck. btw, the quote in your post came from the other guy.
I guess my post should have consisted of more than [citation needed]. I'm not denying that a small group of elite assholes are keeping third world countries in debt, just that they're doing it for the benefit of the first world. They're doing it for the benefit of said assholes alone, not for the general benefit of first world countries. Same thing happens in the first world countries, small groups of assholes try to suck the money out of the rest of us. Coincidentally, your article points out what happens when power is given to bureaucrats on an international level, which would seem to counter your original point.
Why not? The topic is government overstepping its bounds in in effort to control people and take away rights, so I think that, in light of the fact that there actually are politicians stupid and/or evil enough to want to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, bringing up the 2nd Amendment is rather fitting.
Too bad that in the UK, the authorities and the criminals (but I repeat myself) are the only ones with guns.
Not much to be afraid of when you can just shoot the dissenters.
And that is why any politician who wants to take away my 2nd Amendment rights will never get my vote, or, in the event that they do win, my guns. Better a criminal than a subject.
The Russian czar was eventually replaced by communists who believed in free stuff for all.
Open source advocates believe in free software for all, and will likely try to destroy the position of Copyright Czar.
This isn't just money wasting legislation, someone has actually set up a very elaborate experiment to test if history repeats itself under controlled conditions.
1) IQ (as opposed to knowledge and skill) is mostly pre-set and is able to be determined comparably early in childhood and will have only comparably minor variations throughout later years.
Epic fail. How do you measure IQ? Unless they have some sort of new magic way of doing it, IQ is measured by knowledge and skill, ergo, IQ IS knowledge and skill. That's the fundamental flaw of IQ, they're taking what is obviously a variable and claiming it is a constant. Even if IQ is constant, there's no way to scientifically prove it, therefore, it is just another pseudoscience.
It should also be mentioned that the use of IQ makes about as much sense as using a single number to measure an object's weight, height, width, length, composition, color, ect. There are many different types of smart, using a single number to represent them all shows a distinct lacking in one of the said smarts. Not that my second point has any relevance in light of my first, just a little icing on the cake.
2) There is a not huge, but statistically significant correlation between IQ of children and their parents. Children of IQ 150 parents won't statistically have huge IQ, but their mean IQ will be approx 110 instead of 100 as for general population, which does suggest that intelligence is at least partly inherited.
Smart parents educate their kids better, news at 11.
3) Genocide based on genetic properties is evil. But this does not make the above things untrue.
Very true, but it does serve to highlight the 'I'm-inherently-smarter-than-you' attitude usually seen in hardcore IQ proponents.
Okay, honest question for people who support this: How would you plan on physically, socially, and economically plan on doing this? I mean, it seems like there'd be way too many hurtles to cross before one could seriously suggest something like this, physically, because, although I'm not an expert in the field, I wouldn't think that a human would have the same output as a cow, socially, because there would be many groups opposed to the idea, and financially, because I don't think a women will work for the same wages a cow takes. So, if anyone here really supports this, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing why you support it (and no, won't someone please think of the cows is not a good reason) and more importantly how you would hope to make mass produced human milk a reality.
It doesn't matter, but it does. Sure, you can easily get an education of equal/better quality at a state school than some ivy league cesspool like Harvard, but the education itself isn't what matters. What matters is the brand name degree, the myth that ivies are superior, and the connections you can make by rubbing shoulders with important people.
Well, it comes off sounding condescending and smacking of sexism to me. Even though one could argue that the description is somewhat accurate (as one could argue Lil' Missy describes Palin) you wouldn't call Obama the Uppity Nappy Head, would you?
Rabidly pro-life? Jeez, that's a dumb term. How can someone be rabidly pro-life? Is that the same as someone being rabidly anti-murder? If I think someone should go to jail if they rob me, am I rabidly anti-theft? What constitutes being rabidly for/against something? A lack of logic maybe? Well, logically speaking, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and killing babies by any other term is still the same, so who has the error in logic?
I love how all people on welfare are "uneducated dolts" etc...
That's why you got modded flamebait. Not because it's flamebait, but because it's true. You challenged some pretentious douche's elitism by implying that lowly peons like myself might actually want make something of ourselves if given the chance. Yeah, people abuse the system, what of it? People abuse every system. Wealth transfer programs help a hell of a lot of people out, who in turn become productive members of society, thereby improving society as a whole, but never mind that! We've got inferiority complexes to take care of by looking down on the less fortunate and bitching about having to give them a hand! (And did you catch the multiple classist stereotypes in the GP's post? How that's interesting while your post is flamebait is beyond my comprehension.)
Just some nitpicks, but...how can someone be rabidly pro-life? Is that the same as someone being rabidly anti-murder? If I think someone should go to jail if they rob me, am I rabidly anti-theft? What constitutes being rabidly for/against something? A lack of logic maybe? Well, logically speaking, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and killing babies by any other term is still the same, so who has the error in logic?
(is a miscarriage negligent homicide?).
That depends: is it a natural, unavoidable one, or did it occur because the mother was doing something stupid, like smoking while pregnant? That's like asking about the legal status of death by falling down the stairs? Did the faller trip, or was the faller pushed? They're entirely different scenarios with a common factor, stairs. Are stairs also wrought with potential craziness? You're just trying to muddy the waters on that one.
There is something wrong with it: lack of hard evidence. Sure, it is easy to understand how it could be true, but we simply don't know if it is. By the same accord, it easy to understand how an all powerful being, possibly from a higher dimension (aka God), could have created the universe, but you run into the same problem, a lack of solid scientific evidence. IMHO, you are viewing the multiverse concept through rose colored glasses simply because it sounds more scientific.
I would say that's because hair/eye color are very different that the brain. For example, no amount of sociological input will ever give me a nice platinum blond mane (sigh), however, the ability of the brain can be shaped significantly with external factors. Also, I would assume that, considering how much more complex the brain is compared to various physical traits, the genetics would also be mush more complex, and therefore it would be difficult to determine just how much of an impact any one gene or set of genes would have.
The parent poster forgot to click AC, a the moderator modded him Insightful. Considering the topic, either this is the finest piece of meta-humor I've ever seen, or there are two exceptionally dumb assholes on/. today.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the kicker, there are countless Islamic nutjobs who want every last American dead. Is this the fault of every other Muslim? Of course not. But, you can't tell that sort of thing by looking at someone, can you? If he were a Muslim, it would be a strike against him for that reason. Not fair in the least, but not illogical either, and not necessarily bigoted (bigotry would imply a lack of reason, although some bigotry would undoubtedly come into play). I know that that's not the nice thing to say, and it sucks that things work that way, but life's never been a politically correct fairyland. Not that I think he is a Muslim (although I think I'd prefer a sane and peaceful Muslim to someone who spent all those years in Rev. Wright's congregation), just saying that although I disagree with their assessment, I can see where they're coming form.
Well, we do live in a civilized society, and no one should ever be financially ruined because they get sick, although I for one find it preferable that it be done with as little meddling with the finances of individuals as possible.
Ideologies, not just religions. Anything that becomes too powerful can be a danger.
That aside, in a one world government we'd lose the freedom to get the hell out of an oppressive regime. There would be no refugees or asylum because there'd be no where to go. That one government would be all there is, and if it went bad (and most do), something of that scale would probably be really hard to fix. Well, either that or it would be too incompetent to govern, fall apart, and we'd be back to were we started. Either way, it just seems like a really bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket Maybe it would work, but I'm always skeptical when it comes to a large government working the way it is intended.
In Australia education is government controlled and it's (no offense) a much higher standard than most American schools
None taken. Our schools, from what I've seen, kinda suck. btw, the quote in your post came from the other guy.
I guess my post should have consisted of more than [citation needed]. I'm not denying that a small group of elite assholes are keeping third world countries in debt, just that they're doing it for the benefit of the first world. They're doing it for the benefit of said assholes alone, not for the general benefit of first world countries. Same thing happens in the first world countries, small groups of assholes try to suck the money out of the rest of us. Coincidentally, your article points out what happens when power is given to bureaucrats on an international level, which would seem to counter your original point.
2) The third world wouldn't be kept in perpetual debt for the benefit of the first world.
[citation needed]
Why not? The topic is government overstepping its bounds in in effort to control people and take away rights, so I think that, in light of the fact that there actually are politicians stupid and/or evil enough to want to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, bringing up the 2nd Amendment is rather fitting.
Too bad that in the UK, the authorities and the criminals (but I repeat myself) are the only ones with guns.
Not much to be afraid of when you can just shoot the dissenters.
And that is why any politician who wants to take away my 2nd Amendment rights will never get my vote, or, in the event that they do win, my guns. Better a criminal than a subject.
Snail mail no longer the subject of jokes.
The Russian czar was eventually replaced by communists who believed in free stuff for all.
Open source advocates believe in free software for all, and will likely try to destroy the position of Copyright Czar.
This isn't just money wasting legislation, someone has actually set up a very elaborate experiment to test if history repeats itself under controlled conditions.
The notion that everyone is born equal is unfortunately not true
[citation needed]
That's the funny thing about intelligence. No one really understands it, but that sure as hell won't stop people from quantifying it.
1) IQ (as opposed to knowledge and skill) is mostly pre-set and is able to be determined comparably early in childhood and will have only comparably minor variations throughout later years.
Epic fail. How do you measure IQ? Unless they have some sort of new magic way of doing it, IQ is measured by knowledge and skill, ergo, IQ IS knowledge and skill. That's the fundamental flaw of IQ, they're taking what is obviously a variable and claiming it is a constant. Even if IQ is constant, there's no way to scientifically prove it, therefore, it is just another pseudoscience.
It should also be mentioned that the use of IQ makes about as much sense as using a single number to measure an object's weight, height, width, length, composition, color, ect. There are many different types of smart, using a single number to represent them all shows a distinct lacking in one of the said smarts. Not that my second point has any relevance in light of my first, just a little icing on the cake.
2) There is a not huge, but statistically significant correlation between IQ of children and their parents. Children of IQ 150 parents won't statistically have huge IQ, but their mean IQ will be approx 110 instead of 100 as for general population, which does suggest that intelligence is at least partly inherited.
Smart parents educate their kids better, news at 11.
3) Genocide based on genetic properties is evil. But this does not make the above things untrue.
Very true, but it does serve to highlight the 'I'm-inherently-smarter-than-you' attitude usually seen in hardcore IQ proponents.
Okay, honest question for people who support this: How would you plan on physically, socially, and economically plan on doing this? I mean, it seems like there'd be way too many hurtles to cross before one could seriously suggest something like this, physically, because, although I'm not an expert in the field, I wouldn't think that a human would have the same output as a cow, socially, because there would be many groups opposed to the idea, and financially, because I don't think a women will work for the same wages a cow takes. So, if anyone here really supports this, I'd be sincerely interested in hearing why you support it (and no, won't someone please think of the cows is not a good reason) and more importantly how you would hope to make mass produced human milk a reality.
It doesn't matter, but it does. Sure, you can easily get an education of equal/better quality at a state school than some ivy league cesspool like Harvard, but the education itself isn't what matters. What matters is the brand name degree, the myth that ivies are superior, and the connections you can make by rubbing shoulders with important people.
Well, it comes off sounding condescending and smacking of sexism to me. Even though one could argue that the description is somewhat accurate (as one could argue Lil' Missy describes Palin) you wouldn't call Obama the Uppity Nappy Head, would you?
li'l Missy's views are going to be of great consequence.
'Lil' Missy'? My, aren't you eloquent.
she's also pretty rabidly pro-life
Rabidly pro-life? Jeez, that's a dumb term. How can someone be rabidly pro-life? Is that the same as someone being rabidly anti-murder? If I think someone should go to jail if they rob me, am I rabidly anti-theft? What constitutes being rabidly for/against something? A lack of logic maybe? Well, logically speaking, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and killing babies by any other term is still the same, so who has the error in logic?
I love how all people on welfare are "uneducated dolts" etc...
That's why you got modded flamebait. Not because it's flamebait, but because it's true. You challenged some pretentious douche's elitism by implying that lowly peons like myself might actually want make something of ourselves if given the chance. Yeah, people abuse the system, what of it? People abuse every system. Wealth transfer programs help a hell of a lot of people out, who in turn become productive members of society, thereby improving society as a whole, but never mind that! We've got inferiority complexes to take care of by looking down on the less fortunate and bitching about having to give them a hand! (And did you catch the multiple classist stereotypes in the GP's post? How that's interesting while your post is flamebait is beyond my comprehension.)
(all rabidly pro-life evangelicals)
Just some nitpicks, but...how can someone be rabidly pro-life? Is that the same as someone being rabidly anti-murder? If I think someone should go to jail if they rob me, am I rabidly anti-theft? What constitutes being rabidly for/against something? A lack of logic maybe? Well, logically speaking, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and killing babies by any other term is still the same, so who has the error in logic?
(is a miscarriage negligent homicide?).
That depends: is it a natural, unavoidable one, or did it occur because the mother was doing something stupid, like smoking while pregnant? That's like asking about the legal status of death by falling down the stairs? Did the faller trip, or was the faller pushed? They're entirely different scenarios with a common factor, stairs. Are stairs also wrought with potential craziness? You're just trying to muddy the waters on that one.
There is something wrong with it: lack of hard evidence. Sure, it is easy to understand how it could be true, but we simply don't know if it is. By the same accord, it easy to understand how an all powerful being, possibly from a higher dimension (aka God), could have created the universe, but you run into the same problem, a lack of solid scientific evidence. IMHO, you are viewing the multiverse concept through rose colored glasses simply because it sounds more scientific.
So you're resorting to this multiverse crap to disprove someone? I'm sure Mr. D'Souza will thank you.
I agree on all points.
I would say that's because hair/eye color are very different that the brain. For example, no amount of sociological input will ever give me a nice platinum blond mane (sigh), however, the ability of the brain can be shaped significantly with external factors. Also, I would assume that, considering how much more complex the brain is compared to various physical traits, the genetics would also be mush more complex, and therefore it would be difficult to determine just how much of an impact any one gene or set of genes would have.
The parent poster forgot to click AC, a the moderator modded him Insightful. Considering the topic, either this is the finest piece of meta-humor I've ever seen, or there are two exceptionally dumb assholes on /. today.