So Liberals...

[Orton's Arm]

Belichick/Pioli picks in Rounds 3-7 . . .

Your football is as ridiculous as your politics.  Didn't think that was possible.

Your response is even more irrelevant than usual. Didn't think that was possible.

 

In any case, you're comparing apples to oranges. To be a starter on the Patriots, you have to beat out players like Matt Light or Tom Brady. To start for the Bills, you need only be better than Jeff Posey or Bennie Anderson.

[Chilly]

Your response is even more irrelevant than usual.  Didn't think that was possible. 

 

In any case, you're comparing apples to oranges.  To be a starter on the Patriots, you have to beat out players like Matt Light or Tom Brady.  To start for the Bills, you need only be better than Jeff Posey or Bennie Anderson.

742250[/snapback]

 

You mean, on the Patriots you have to beat out Logan Mankins, Monty Beisel, and Ellis Hobbs.

 

On the Bills, you need only be better than Willis McGahee, Takeo Spikes, Nate Clements, and London Fletcher.

 

This is fun!

[Typical TBD Guy]

As long as the genetic decline at the root of this problem continues, its symptoms will inexorably worsen.

742104[/snapback]

 

Two horrific things stood out to me in your lengthy post:

 

1. Your ridiculous opinion that government should get involved with how we procreate.

 

2. Your utter contempt for fellow humans who don't meet your standards of ability.

 

(Regarding the latter, please note the curious common ground you share here with Alaska Darin).

 

I'm not sure if you are just playing devil's advocate as some sort of intellectual exercise for yourself, but in case you actually believe the sh-- you typed... my suggestion is to sign off immediately, go outside, have a few beers, and go converse with a real-life human of the opposite sex. If this woman isn't attractive or doesn't meet your physical fitness standards, try not to hold it against her. More cushin' for the pushin'...or so the saying goes.

 

In other words: just enjoy life, man. If all of us common retards eventually lead to the destruction of your precious representative democracy in these United States, my question to you is, "so what?" Nothing lasts forever. Not any one government. Not any one country. Not even you. Maybe not even your arrogance.

 

PS: If you end up getting the fat chick pregnant, and the baby turns out to be not as intelligent as you, oh wise one...try not to hold it against the poor child.

[Orton's Arm]

You mean, on the Patriots you have to beat out Logan Mankins, Monty Beisel, and Ellis Hobbs.

 

On the Bills, you need only be better than Willis McGahee, Takeo Spikes, Nate Clements, and London Fletcher.

 

This is fun! 

742257[/snapback]

I suppose so. In any case, my sig is merely one of a series of sigs that explore the reasons for TD's failure. In earlier sigs, I've mentioned the lack of success TD experienced in the first and second rounds.

 

Bills: current starters chosen in rounds 1 - 2 (2001 - 2005)

Lee Evans (WR)

Willis McGahee (RB)

Nate Clements (CB)

Aaron Schobel (DE)

Chris Kelsay (DE)

 

Patriots: current starters chosen in rounds 1 - 2 (2001 - 2005)

Deion Branch (WR)

Richard Seymour (DE)

Matt Light (LT)

Ty Warren (DE)

Eugene Wilson (FS)

Vince Wilfork (DT)

Ben Watson (TE)

Logan Mankins (OG)

 

Notice TD's list has only five names to the Patriots' 8. Also, TD only found one quality lineman (Aaron Schobel); whereas the Patriots found four or five. Which team do you think will win the battle of the trenches?

[Alaska Darin]

I suppose so.  In any case, my sig is merely one of a series of sigs that explore the reasons for TD's failure. 

742265[/snapback]

Except the two teams have garnered the same number of starters from the rounds of the drafts you cited. Which proves exactly one thing: Very few players drafted after the second round become productive NFL starters.

 

Whoopie.

[Orton's Arm]

Two horrific things stood out to me in your lengthy post:

 

1. Your ridiculous opinion that government should get involved with how we procreate.

 

2. Your utter contempt for fellow humans who don't meet your standards of ability.

I'll deal with your second point first. For whatever reason, I've fallen in love with the search for objective truth. Sometimes by stating things I think are true, some people may think I'm arrogant. To me, that's just the price of doing business. Is it arrogant to suppose that any children Marilyn vos Savant might have would be more likely to find a cure for cancer than O.J. Simpson's kids? Or that the world would be better off with a cure for cancer than it is without one? I don't want to spend time in bars getting fat chicks pregnant; I want that cure for cancer. I want clean fuels, solar power satellites, maglev trains, and other things only smart people can provide. Everyone else wants a brighter future too; but often people let their emotions get in the way of exploring cause and effect relationships. Only by understanding such relationships can we turn our hopes for a brighter future into a living reality.

 

The two forces JSP mentioned--feminism and liberalism--have really messed up how we procreate. It used to be that intelligent women had as many children as less intelligent women. Thanks to feminism, there are now myriad ways for smart women to spend their time that have nothing to do with having kids. A woman is 22 by the time she finished college, 24 by the time she gets her master's, and 29 by the time she gets her PhD. By then, her reproductive years are more than half over, she's buried under a pile of debt, and she needs to keep busy at some demanding job to pay off this debt. Under these circumstances, it's extremely difficult for a woman to have more than one or two children.

 

You say the government shouldn't get involved with how we procreate. Too late. Liberals instituted social programs which gave welfare women financial incentives to have as many children as possible. To pay for these expensive social programs, they raised taxes on working people. As a result of these tax increases, couples found that both people had to work to maintain a middle class lifestyle. Understandably, this made it more difficult to have children. On the other hand, welfare women could have children quite easily, because they didn't work, there were financial incentives for them to have children, and because their standards for child-rearing were generally low. This system used the government's power to transfer reproductive potential out of middle class homes and into welfare homes. Obviously, not all middle class women are intelligent, nor are all welfare women stupid. But the average middle class woman is smarter than the average welfare woman. So government policies created massive damage to the gene pool.

 

But as this discussion has shown, you can't bring up this damage without being called a Nazi, arrogant, or an extremist. These accusations are the result of a highly politicized, anti-scientific climate. In the far East, there's a saying that the nail that sticks out gets the hammer. Unfortunately, a lot of that mentality exists in the U.S. as well; and many people feel an instinctive urge to hammer down anyone who has risen above the common level. This urge is the enemy of greatness. The desire to hammer down the best and the brightest is why the U.S. education system is a failure. The desire to create equality by hammering down the best is deeply destructive, and is the root of much of the evil in this world.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'll deal with your second point first.  For whatever reason, I've fallen in love with the search for objective truth.  Sometimes by stating things I think are true, some people may think I'm arrogant.  To me, that's just the price of doing business.  Is it arrogant to suppose that any children Marilyn vos Savant might have would be more likely to find a cure for cancer than O.J. Simpson's kids?  Or that the world would be better off with a cure for cancer than it is without one?  I don't want to spend time in bars getting fat chicks pregnant; I want that cure for cancer.  I want clean fuels, solar power satellites, maglev trains, and other things only smart people can provide.  Everyone else wants a brighter future too; but often people let their emotions get in the way of exploring cause and effect relationships.  Only by understanding such relationships can we turn our hopes for a brighter future into a living reality.

 

The two forces JSP mentioned--feminism and liberalism--have really messed up how we procreate.  It used to be that intelligent women had as many children as less intelligent women.  Thanks to feminism, there are now myriad ways for smart women to spend their time that have nothing to do with having kids.  A woman is 22 by the time she finished college, 24 by the time she gets her master's, and 29 by the time she gets her PhD.  By then, her reproductive years are more than half over, she's buried under a pile of debt, and she needs to keep busy at some demanding job to pay off this debt.  Under these circumstances, it's extremely difficult for a woman to have more than one or two children.

 

You say the government shouldn't get involved with how we procreate.  Too late.  Liberals instituted social programs which gave welfare women financial incentives to have as many children as possible.  To pay for these expensive social programs, they raised taxes on working people.  As a result of these tax increases, couples found that both people had to work to maintain a middle class lifestyle.  Understandably, this made it more difficult to have children.  On the other hand, welfare women could have children quite easily, because they didn't work, there were financial incentives for them to have children, and because their standards for child-rearing were generally low.  This system used the government's power to transfer reproductive potential out of middle class homes and into welfare homes.  Obviously, not all middle class women are intelligent, nor are all welfare women stupid.  But the average middle class woman is smarter than the average welfare woman.  So government policies created massive damage to the gene pool.

 

But as this discussion has shown, you can't bring up this damage without being called a Nazi, arrogant, or an extremist.  These accusations are the result of a highly politicized, anti-scientific climate.  In the far East, there's a saying that the nail that sticks out gets the hammer.  Unfortunately, a lot of that mentality exists in the U.S. as well; and many people feel an instinctive urge to hammer down anyone who has risen above the common level.  This urge is the enemy of greatness.  The desire to hammer down the best and the brightest is why the U.S. education system is a failure.  The desire to create equality by hammering down the best is deeply destructive, and is the root of much of the evil in this world.

742298[/snapback]

 

What the !@#$?

 

You've really got to get together with KurtGodel77 and talk eugenics.

[Orton's Arm]

What the !@#$? 

 

You've really got to get together with KurtGodel77 and talk eugenics.

742356[/snapback]

For someone as smart as you, that was a very shallow response. The only specific objection you've offered is that KurtGodel77 apparently believes in eugenics as well.

 

To help move this discussion forward, it would help if you advanced whatever specific, meaningful objections you may have. I can think of several off the top of my head:

1. The belief that genes don't determine potential. (It's been discredited, but many still believe it.)

2. The belief that if left alone, the gene pool will take care of itself. I see no evidence in favor of this, and a lot against. Maybe you see things differently.

3. The belief the government shouldn't do anything to combat the genetic decline we're experiencing. If you believe this, paint a picture of the alternative you envision; while fully taking into account the effects the declining gene pool will have.

[cromagnum]

 

 

Eugenics is the same way.  There's nothing wrong with giving smart people big tax breaks or other incentives to have more kids.  There's nothing wrong with the government creating financial incentives to discourage stupid people from having kids.  Such actions are reasonable, prudent, and humane.  They are also vitally necessary. 

 

Some would say that while these measures may be reasonable in themselves, they represent a slippery slope.  That argument doesn't hold water with me.  The fact of the matter is we're already on a slippery slope.  As the quality of the gene pool declines, our political system becomes increasingly vulnernable to demagoguery.  The two most recent presidents--Clinton and W--are demagogues.  As long as the genetic decline at the root of this problem continues, its symptoms will inexorably worsen.

742104[/snapback]

What about genious out of neccessity...

 

There are children raised in poor and working poor households that become innovators and entrepreneurs in this country and every country on the planet.

 

Being raised in a poor household by poor parents does not mean these children will follow the same path 100% of the time....I have met plenty of people raised on the wrong side of the tracks who have contributed to our society beyond holding down a factory job or being a manager ...

 

Rich or poor some humans have more Desire to excell above and beyond those around them...I also have met rich slackers and poor slackers that kick back and make do with whats available to them and also contribute to society in areas of kindness and helpfullness or not...

 

Maybe it's I just rolled out of bed and read your post, but you appear to be a hardliner 2nd cup of coffee is on the way

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

For someone as smart as you, that was a very shallow response.  The only specific objection you've offered is that KurtGodel77 apparently believes in eugenics as well.

 

To help move this discussion forward, it would help if you advanced whatever specific, meaningful objections you may have.  I can think of several off the top of my head:

1. The belief that genes don't determine potential.  (It's been discredited, but many still believe it.)

2. The belief that if left alone, the gene pool will take care of itself.  I see no evidence in favor of this, and a lot against.  Maybe you see things differently.

3. The belief the government shouldn't do anything to combat the genetic decline we're experiencing.  If you believe this, paint a picture of the alternative you envision; while fully taking into account the effects the declining gene pool will have.

742363[/snapback]

 

The reason you didn't get a substantive response out of me is because of point #2. You believe that to be so...but that doesn't make it so. In particular, you can't have much basis to believe so, since the genetics of intelligence are, if at all understood, are understood poorly.

 

Which is above and beyond the fact that studies show that genetics, environment, and upbringing all combine to determine intelligence. In fact, the most important contributing factor to intelligence is diet, not genetics: everything else being equal, if you starve vos Savant's children in their developmental years, they'll basically grow up to be idiots who believe in stupid sh-- like eugenics or Kelly Holcomb's arm.

 

And even beyond that...I actually had started a substantive response, explaining what "deviation towards the mean" is, and how Marilyn vos Savant's children and grandchildren would more likely than not be average. But I figured, nah, why bother, I already had to dispute this Nazi bull sh-- with KurtGodel77, if you want my opinions you can look them up from back then. But apparently you're not smart enough to research past posts...which I suppose makes you genetically inferior to me.

[Orton's Arm]

What about genious out of neccessity...

 

There are children raised in poor  and working poor households that become innovators and entrepreneurs in this country and every country on the planet.

 

You bring up a valid point. To add to that, living in poverty may inspire people to become harder-working or more ambitious than they would have been had they had everything handed to them on a platter.

 

The points you raised are why I don't favor basing reproduction incentives on economic status. I don't want to tell an intelligent, poor woman she shouldn't have kids. Nor do I want to create financial incentives for a stupid, rich woman to populate the next generation as much as possible. The incentives I favor are based on intelligence, not economic status.

 

My problem with present government programs is that, on average, they encourage the wrong people to have kids. The smartest and most ambitious people tend to get off the welfare rolls and out of the ghetto; leaving behind those who tend not to have the same work ethic or intelligence. The very people you admire--those who got themselves out of poverty--are affected by the disincentives to have children I mentioned earlier. The innovators and entrepreneurs you described will tend to have fewer children and fewer grandchildren than those who lacked the ability or the ambition needed to leave welfare behind.

[cromagnum]

You bring up a valid point.  To add to that, living in poverty may inspire people to become harder-working or more ambitious than they would have been had they had everything handed to them on a platter. 

 

The points you raised are why I don't favor basing reproduction incentives on economic status.  I don't want to tell an intelligent, poor woman she shouldn't have kids.  Nor do I want to create financial incentives for a stupid, rich woman to populate the next generation as much as possible.  The incentives I favor are based on intelligence, not economic status.

 

My problem with present government programs is that, on average, they encourage the wrong people to have kids.  The smartest and most ambitious people tend to get off the welfare rolls and out of the ghetto; leaving behind those who tend not to have the same work ethic or intelligence.  The very people you admire--those who got themselves out of poverty--are affected by the disincentives to have children I mentioned earlier.  The innovators and entrepreneurs you described will tend to have fewer children and fewer grandchildren than those who lacked the ability or the ambition needed to leave welfare behind.

742397[/snapback]

I lived in the projects and dropped out of highschool in the 10th grade.

My dad worked his azz off and now pulls down a $100 grand a year working 80 hours a week....In my family line of about 200 we have railroad workers, floor installers, waste managegement super visors, Rn's, one neuro surgeon, retali employees, couple of criminals , and One welfare recipient....Many college graduates.....My cousin micheal who was educated in catholic schools and went to boston latin, earned a scholarship to northeastern for 4 years due to his his intellect and being in the top 10% of his class.....

 

Micheal at 16 was a heavy gambler and ran into $20grand debt with a bookie..

My papa had to pay off the debt....Mike who lived in dorchester also hung out with a bad element, they did all kind's of sh--, one so severe the schollarship was pulled by northeastern...He ended up doing para legal work for a boston attorney, and to make fast cash on the side before becoming fulltime started a drug distrubution buisness...He was sucessfull, bought house and all kinds of sh--, his partner got pinched and setup mike in a 200lb pot deal in revere mass...

His fiances dad was a mass state trooper he had some legal pull.

 

200lb's of pot got mike 16 months, at first he served 2 months at southbay which is the worst for a whitekid...He then transfered to billerica HOC, a suburban jail..

 

Anyway,when released he scored a job on the bigdig, cut his leg with a concrete cut saw and recieved workers comp that pays 900 a week and goes to night school in boston and just learns what ever he wants....

 

Rich or poor, smart or average and below average...It' personal desire to excel.

I believe welfare has to be overhauled along with corporate welfare...

 

Welfare of any kind is abused and should be dealt with more scrutiny to weed out the scammers...

 

Look at the defense deptartment, they did fund remote viewers and phycics..

Zero gravity, nuclear hand grenades and a wild assortment of imaginary weapons at a cost of billions that never produced fruit...

 

Oversight on all goverment expenditures is really needed, and a concensus of the scientific community on fictional ideas that are funded in the defense dept, would help to curb that fraud as well as stringent qualifications on any welfare that is available.....Money is a game and everyone wants to play it, be it good or bad.

 

I admire anyone whos works hard without having to recieve welfare when they honestly don't need it... Be it rich or poor, libs and cons all favor welfare of some sort.....Oversight on all welfare programs will alleviate rampant abuse that is common in gov't giveaways, just saying..

 

I ramble sometimes, just my nature as a stoner loser burnout high school flunkie..

But I have worked hard and never relied on any welfare of any kind...Blood sweat and tears is what I have relied on, I'm a blue collar deadhead

[Orton's Arm]

But apparently you're not smart enough to research past posts...which I suppose makes you genetically inferior to me. 

Hmmm . . . are you joking around here, or do you really believe yourself genetically superior to me?

 

The point you made about malnutrition during childhood years is more relevant to Third World nations than to the U.S. According to Jensen (A.R. 1980, Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. P. 178]), correlations between siblings are as follows:

 

Adult IQ correlations

full siblings reared together, r = +.49

full siblings reared apart, r = +.47

unrelated persons reared together (adoption), r = -.01

 

"By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic."

 

While terrible living conditions can and do affect I.Q., such conditons aren't common enough in the U.S. to affect the correlations Jensen observed.

 

You raised a strong point by mentioning regression towards the mean. The accepted term, by the way, is regression toward the mean, not deviation toward the mean. In any case, your description of the phenomenon itself was correct as far as it went. I'm not happy about the phenomenon, but its eftects can be softened by raising the average level of intelligence. Conversely, a social policy which lowers the average level of intelligence will make the problem worse than it otherwise would have been.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I'll deal with your second point first.  For whatever reason, I've fallen in love with the search for objective truth.  Sometimes by stating things I think are true, some people may think I'm arrogant.  To me, that's just the price of doing business.  Is it arrogant to suppose that any children Marilyn vos Savant might have would be more likely to find a cure for cancer than O.J. Simpson's kids?  Or that the world would be better off with a cure for cancer than it is without one?  I don't want to spend time in bars getting fat chicks pregnant; I want that cure for cancer.  I want clean fuels, solar power satellites, maglev trains, and other things only smart people can provide.  Everyone else wants a brighter future too; but often people let their emotions get in the way of exploring cause and effect relationships.  Only by understanding such relationships can we turn our hopes for a brighter future into a living reality.

 

The two forces JSP mentioned--feminism and liberalism--have really messed up how we procreate.  It used to be that intelligent women had as many children as less intelligent women.  Thanks to feminism, there are now myriad ways for smart women to spend their time that have nothing to do with having kids.  A woman is 22 by the time she finished college, 24 by the time she gets her master's, and 29 by the time she gets her PhD.  By then, her reproductive years are more than half over, she's buried under a pile of debt, and she needs to keep busy at some demanding job to pay off this debt.  Under these circumstances, it's extremely difficult for a woman to have more than one or two children.

 

You say the government shouldn't get involved with how we procreate.  Too late.  Liberals instituted social programs which gave welfare women financial incentives to have as many children as possible.  To pay for these expensive social programs, they raised taxes on working people.  As a result of these tax increases, couples found that both people had to work to maintain a middle class lifestyle.  Understandably, this made it more difficult to have children.  On the other hand, welfare women could have children quite easily, because they didn't work, there were financial incentives for them to have children, and because their standards for child-rearing were generally low.  This system used the government's power to transfer reproductive potential out of middle class homes and into welfare homes.  Obviously, not all middle class women are intelligent, nor are all welfare women stupid.  But the average middle class woman is smarter than the average welfare woman.  So government policies created massive damage to the gene pool.

 

But as this discussion has shown, you can't bring up this damage without being called a Nazi, arrogant, or an extremist.  These accusations are the result of a highly politicized, anti-scientific climate.  In the far East, there's a saying that the nail that sticks out gets the hammer.  Unfortunately, a lot of that mentality exists in the U.S. as well; and many people feel an instinctive urge to hammer down anyone who has risen above the common level.  This urge is the enemy of greatness.  The desire to hammer down the best and the brightest is why the U.S. education system is a failure.  The desire to create equality by hammering down the best is deeply destructive, and is the root of much of the evil in this world.

742298[/snapback]

 

It takes a lot more than raw intelligence to make great intellectual discoveries like - as you say - finding the cure for cancer. It takes a LOT of hard work (and luck). Those smart women you're complaining about who aren't having enough children...how are they supposed to find the time to make all these great discoveries you're demanding if they are too busy pumping out babies every other year (and then raising these babies...an intense, 18+ year commitment)?

 

Furthermore, you speak of emotions getting "in the way of exploring cause and effect relationships." Yeah, people tend to get "emotional" when you're advocating that the government tell them how and with whom they should procreate . I'm confident that humans can solve their civilization's problems and maintain their free will at the same time. And if we can't? So !@#$ing what? "Give me liberty or give me death." Think about it. If you want a utopian society, go build some robots out in a remote field and start a new robotic civilization, free from all those pesky imperfections in humans like "emotions."

 

And finally, how do you suspect our government goes about determining intelligence? Let's assume the IQ test is infallible. So what should be the cutoff on the IQ exam? And what happens if you personally - Mr. Arm - don't make that cutoff? How'd that make you "feel?" Oh right, emotions...I forgot...you're only interested in objective truth.

[Orton's Arm]

I lived in the projects and dropped out of highschool in the 10th grade.

My dad worked his azz off and now pulls down a $100 grand a year working 80 hours a week....In my family line of about 200 we have railroad workers, floor installers, waste managegement super visors, Rn's, one neuro surgeon, retali employees, couple of criminals , and One welfare recipient....Many college graduates.....My cousin micheal who was educated in catholic schools and went to boston latin, earned a scholarship to northeastern for 4 years due to his his intellect and being in the top 10% of his class.....

Now that was a good post! Your father in particular really sounds like a man I can respect, and many members of your family have really shined in some adverse circumstances. And even though you dropped out of highschool, you seem a lot smarter than most college graduates I know.

 

As you intended, your example points to the value of a strong work ethic and good character. If there was a way to encourage people with these traits to have more kids than those who lacked them, I'd be in favor of it. I don't really know how the government can go about measuring these traits.

 

On the other hand, intelligence can be measured. I don't feel intelligent people are any less hard-working or honest than less intelligent people are. The programs I favor would increase the average level of intelligence without doing very much to help or harm the average character level and work ethic of the American people. While I'd like to have all three issues addressed (character, work ethic, and intelligence), improving the intelligence of the population is better than not improving anything at all.

[Orton's Arm]

It takes a lot more than raw intelligence to make great intellectual discoveries like - as you say - finding the cure for cancer. It takes a LOT of hard work (and luck). Those smart women you're complaining about who aren't having enough children...how are they supposed to find the time to make all these great discoveries you're demanding if they are too busy pumping out babies every other year (and then raising these babies...an intense, 18+ year commitment)?

There's truth to this. A woman who starts having kids at age 20, and who has a large family, will find most of her adult life consumed by this task. To some extent this burden could be eased by free daycare, but even with that she will probably need to put her career on hold for a while. This would create short-term pain for the U.S., as intelligent women took time away from their careers to raise large families. The long-term benefits from these families would be experienced by future generations.

 

The second point you raised is that my suggestions would take away people's freedom. I don't feel the government should forbid less intelligent couples from having children, nor do I feel the government should force smart people to have kids. I just want to see financial incentives to encourage specific types of behavior. The U.S. government freely uses financial incentives to encourage all sorts of behavior anyway, so it's not like the programs I'm advocating would reduce the level of freedom. I just feel that if you're using financial incentives, you may as well use them to achieve something constructive for a change.

 

As for how I'd feel if I didn't make the cutoff--it would be a tough break, and I'd feel bad about it. But I've dealt with worse things than blows to my ego or a government's refusal to provide subsidies for my kids. I'd liken the experience to getting rejected by the college you really wanted to go to. Yes, your feelings are hurt, and yes, it may well affect the future course of your life. It's a tough break, but you move on.

 

Edit: I'd like to address your point about curing cancer. You're right to say you need more than just smart people--it takes work, luck, etc. In my list of government responsibilities, I mentioned improving the gene pool, which gives you the smart people you need as a starting point. I also mentioned the government should be doing a good job with education, and that it should fund publicly beneficial projects such as basic scientific research. So if you give yourself a pool of really smart people, educate them in a school system which actually cares about education, and then proceed to fund their cancer research efforts, you're doing everything you can to maximize the chance of a cure for cancer. The hard work and luck are up to them.

[cromagnum]

Now that was a good post!  Your father in particular really sounds like a man I can respect, and it sounds like many members of your family have really shined in some adverse circumstances.  And even though you dropped out of highschool, you sound a lot smarter than most college graduates I know. 

 

As you intended, your example points to the value of a strong work ethic and good character.  If there was a way to encourage people with these traits to have more kids than those who lacked them, I'd be in favor of it.  I don't really know how the government can go about measuring these traits. 

 

On the other hand, intelligence can be measured.  I don't feel intelligent people are any less hard-working or honest than less intelligent people are.  The programs I favor would increase the average level of intelligence without doing very much to help or harm the average character level and work ethic of the American people.  While I'd like to have all three issues addressed (character, work ethic, and intelligence), improving the intelligence of the population is better than not improving anything at all.

742437[/snapback]

Thank you for those kind words my fellow human holcombs arm with a prosethetic

arm

 

The gov't is to soft with some rules....For instance when I was in school and fugged off my teachers could confront my lazyness with a variety of corrections.

Unfortunately now there are lawsuits for spanking a kid or trying to correct bad behaviour with a variety of displinary actions....Teachers are leery of crossing the NEW line established by the gov't that was lobbied by do gooders...

 

My best teachers got through my goofiness to learning in school with challenging me in a variety of ways, best ones taught me to learn with a unigue perspective on how these subjects relate to life and gave examples that made sense to ME.

If a teacher punished me WITH a slap or sent me to a corner or the principle..

The only result was me being suspended and goofing off in the street, and I became vindictive toward those teachers and principles, I would be creative in my tactics to settle a score...I would steal the teachers answer books for test, make copies at the library and sellem to students...Or just fall asleep in class and drool and snore..I was an ****....Now my dad was rarely at home due to his travelling work on the rails....Mom was to tiny to hurt me, although a great talker in yelling at me.....When dad came home if I messed up he would kick me in the azz and knock me in the noggin and order me to clean the yard or garage.. I obeyed otherwise I get another size 12 steel toed herman survivor in my buttocks, that fuggin hurt for weeks, but it changed my attitude for the better..

 

Your right about intelligence and humans, I do not know of any accurate test to determine who will be productive and who will not based on test....

 

Nutrition and education in a variety of applications is a good way to combat learning fatiqueness....In my opinion, this could be a great thread on the subject you started holcombs arm, I would like to delve into this discussion and read other posters opinions and analysis on this issue....And try to narrow the causes and corrections to better humanity in the U.S and elsewhere....Rock on my friend.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The reason you didn't get a substantive response out of me is because of point #2.  You believe that to be so...but that doesn't make it so.  In particular, you can't have much basis to believe so, since the genetics of intelligence are, if at all understood, are understood poorly.

 

Which is above and beyond the fact that studies show that genetics, environment, and upbringins all combine to determine intelligence.  In fact, the most important contributing factor to intelligence is diet, not genetics: everything else being equal, if you starve vos Savant's children in their developmental years, they'll basically grow up to be idiots who believe in stupid sh-- like eugenics or Kelly Holcomb's arm.

 

And even beyond that...I actually had started a substantive response, explaining what "deviation towards the mean" is, and how Marilyn vos Savant's children and grandchildren would more likely than not be average.  But I figured, nah, why bother, I already had to dispute this Nazi bull sh-- with KurtGodel77, if you want my opinions you can look them up from back then.  But apparently you're not smart enough to research past posts...which I suppose makes you genetically inferior to me. 

742391[/snapback]

 

Minus Holcombs nitpicking about your statistical terminology, I finally understand and agree whole heartedly with you analysis. And that is why welfare through the WIC program is so important, a government program that he and others rail against. Without it, the difference in IQs in the U.S. as exemplied by Holcombs example in a later post would be more stark.

 

I can't quote stat and verse right now, but in my USDA days I could bore you with a lot of stats.

 

Face it government has and always will be involved in our lives and public education, feeding poor kids and addressing special needs children makes imperfect progress towards raising everyone's chance at success. As I am about to put my son to bed, I am greatful for public education, without which, it would be one a greater difference of haves and have nots very much like that of an earlier history in our country.

 

Private industry only cherry picks the best and serves its own interest, which is good for many purposes and as a competitive expensive alternative to public education, but it should never be held up as an example of a successful exclusive model. Private education will never and cannot work effectively on its own.

[cromagnum]

Minus Holcombs nitpicking about your statistical terminology, I finally understand and agree whole heartedly with you analysis.  And that is why welfare through the WIC program is so important,  a government program that he and others rail against.  Without it, the difference in IQs in the U.S. as exemplied by Holcombs example in a later post would be more stark. 

 

I can't quote stat and verse right now, but in my USDA days I could bore you with a lot of stats.

 

Face it government has and always will be involved in our lives and public education, feeding poor kids and addressing special needs children makes imperfect progress towards raising everyone's chance at success.  As I am about to put my son to bed, I am greatful for public education, without which, it would be one a greater difference of haves and have nots very much like that of an earlier history in our country.

 

Private industry only cherry picks the best and serves its own interest, which is good for many purposes and as a competitive expensive alternative to public education, but it should never be held up as an example of a successful exclusive model.  Private education will never and cannot work effectively on its own.

742561[/snapback]

Long time Yellowlinesandarmardillos, post the info when you have time, I find it interesting and enjoy reading about the subject, take care

[Orton's Arm]

Thank you for those kind words my fellow human holcombs arm with a prosethetic

arm

You remind me a little of myself, especially that rebellious streak when it comes to overly dictatorial teachers. Your suggestion about a nutrition and education thread is interesting. I'm not what you'd call a nutrition expert, but I'd certainly welcome the chance to read the opinions of those who are. I tend to have strong opinions about certain aspects of education, which is totally out of character for me. I may start a thread about the topic once this discussion has run its natural course.