01 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 222nd comment:
Scandum said:
You argue that the utilitarian point is moot, agreeing with this I bring forth the egalitarian point, and now I'm talking in a vacuum?
I don't doubt your intelligence, but like other highly intelligent individuals you seem to have issues with the big picture at times. I hypothesize that this is due to the ability to compartmentalize, which aids in problem solving and hence raises IQ, but makes it difficult to see how things interconnect.
David Haley said:
(I couldn't think of a more serious thing to say in response to you, sorry, since you still seem mostly interested in talking in your vacuum without engaging in good-faith debate.)
You argue that the utilitarian point is moot, agreeing with this I bring forth the egalitarian point, and now I'm talking in a vacuum?
I don't doubt your intelligence, but like other highly intelligent individuals you seem to have issues with the big picture at times. I hypothesize that this is due to the ability to compartmentalize, which aids in problem solving and hence raises IQ, but makes it difficult to see how things interconnect.
Sounds like an argument against intelligence.
01 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 223rd comment:
Sandi said:
Once upon a time, the word "discriminate" was defined as:
1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
2. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
As in, "He was a man of discriminating taste, and enjoyed fine wine and good cigars."
Since the Civil Rights movement co-opted it in the '50s, it has come to be an emotionally laden term implying prejudice. It's hard to have a fair discussion when your brain is awash with chemicals. Consider the following:
1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
2. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
As in, "He was a man of discriminating taste, and enjoyed fine wine and good cigars."
Since the Civil Rights movement co-opted it in the '50s, it has come to be an emotionally laden term implying prejudice. It's hard to have a fair discussion when your brain is awash with chemicals. Consider the following:
I clearly meant prejudice. Also, interesting historical note, but the use of language changes with time, even changing the meaning of words. In this case as well as with your example, context makes clear what is intended I'd say.
Sandi said:
It should be obvious that prospective parents have an emotional bias as well as a financial bias if they're on welfare, and doctors have a very strong financial bias. Who, then, is capable of making a sensible decision? Or should we leave it to chance and have a lottery?
In all but a few cases we lack the information to make a sensible decision, and I see little problem with the emotional bias of parents. That same bias they'll need to be good parents to begin with.
Not to mention, problems in how social security and health care work should be addressed by fixing those systems.
01 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 224th comment:
Runter said:
Sounds like an argument against intelligence.
More a matter of economy. For example strength and speed are to a degree exclusive, Olympic athletes tend to train for either, but typically not for both, the limitation is largely evolutionary, that is, we could breed humans that are both fast and strong. The same goes for intelligence, we can breed humans that have both a high field dependence and a high IQ, but in practice you see that the two, to a degree, are exclusive.
High field dependence is associated with high creativity, and low field dependence is associated with high IQ. This is why the label 'creative genius' is used to separate your average high IQ genius with what is commonly understood when someone is labeled a 'genius'. I should mention that there is no clear scientific consensus when it comes to creativity and IQ.
01 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 225th comment:
Scandum said:
You argue that the utilitarian point is moot, agreeing with this I bring forth the egalitarian point, and now I'm talking in a vacuum?
I don't doubt your intelligence, but like other highly intelligent individuals you seem to have issues with the big picture at times. I hypothesize that this is due to the ability to compartmentalize, which aids in problem solving and hence raises IQ, but makes it difficult to see how things interconnect.
David Haley said:
(I couldn't think of a more serious thing to say in response to you, sorry, since you still seem mostly interested in talking in your vacuum without engaging in good-faith debate.)
You argue that the utilitarian point is moot, agreeing with this I bring forth the egalitarian point, and now I'm talking in a vacuum?
I don't doubt your intelligence, but like other highly intelligent individuals you seem to have issues with the big picture at times. I hypothesize that this is due to the ability to compartmentalize, which aids in problem solving and hence raises IQ, but makes it difficult to see how things interconnect.
I should consider paying you for these psychoanalyses – they're worth their weight in gold in giggle value.
(And I didn't actually argue that the utilitarian point is moot, mmkay.)
01 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 226th comment:
David Haley said:
I don't know about you, but my IQ is 156, and I type at 106 wpm with 99.2% accuracy.
For the record, just because that might have been too much of an in-joke, I was playing on Locke's web page and not making any claim about my own intelligence or typing skills. :tongue: As a matter of fact, I have never taken an IQ test and have no idea whatsoever what my score would be.
01 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 227th comment:
Scandum said:
More a matter of economy. For example strength and speed are to a degree exclusive, Olympic athletes tend to train for either, but typically not for both, the limitation is largely evolutionary, that is, we could breed humans that are both fast and strong. The same goes for intelligence, we can breed humans that have both a high field dependence and a high IQ, but in practice you see that the two, to a degree, are exclusive.
High field dependence is associated with high creativity, and low field dependence is associated with high IQ. This is why the label 'creative genius' is used to separate your average high IQ genius with what is commonly understood when someone is labeled a 'genius'. I should mention that there is no clear scientific consensus when it comes to creativity and IQ.
Runter said:
Sounds like an argument against intelligence.
More a matter of economy. For example strength and speed are to a degree exclusive, Olympic athletes tend to train for either, but typically not for both, the limitation is largely evolutionary, that is, we could breed humans that are both fast and strong. The same goes for intelligence, we can breed humans that have both a high field dependence and a high IQ, but in practice you see that the two, to a degree, are exclusive.
High field dependence is associated with high creativity, and low field dependence is associated with high IQ. This is why the label 'creative genius' is used to separate your average high IQ genius with what is commonly understood when someone is labeled a 'genius'. I should mention that there is no clear scientific consensus when it comes to creativity and IQ.
In that case I guess we need to keep David from passing on those bad genes. Only the Scandums of the world shall reproduce.
01 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 228th comment:
Runter said:
In that case I guess we need to keep David from passing on those bad genes. Only the Scandums of the world shall reproduce.
I thought eugenics was about promoting good traits?
-Crat
01 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 229th comment:
aidil said:
I clearly meant prejudice.
Yes, you clearly meant prejudice. You very clearly meant prejudice.
"Any program where someone other then the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to procreate will result in prejudice."
I think you're going out on a limb, here. Want a banana? :smirk:
02 Jul, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 230th comment:
The combined intelligence of several humans brought the computer before you into existence. Without that, we might as well be dogs.
02 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 231st comment:
Runter said:
In that case I guess we need to keep David from passing on those bad genes. Only the Scandums of the world shall reproduce.
Oh wait, you're that guy who like a broken record keeps repeating the same misinterpretation over and over. I'd psychoanalyze you, but I'm stumped about the kind of upbringing that would encourage something as stupid as that.
Sandi said:
"Any program where someone other then the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to procreate will result in prejudice."
I think you're going out on a limb, here. Want a banana? :smirk:
I think you're going out on a limb, here. Want a banana? :smirk:
I wonder if he has a problem with the justice system as well, you know, where someone other than the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to freedom, certainly that must result in discrimination, prejudice, and.. favoritism. I mean, it's a slippery slope (pause for dramatic effect), before you know it everyone will be in jail.
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 232nd comment:
I thought that your whole "argument" was that it's all about hereditary traits, not environment like "upbringing"… Hmm…
02 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 233rd comment:
Scandum said:
I'd psychoanalyze you, but I'm stumped about the kind of upbringing that would encourage something as stupid as that.
Scandum is the smartest guy in the room. Just ask him, he'll tell you.
Scandum said:
I wonder if he has a problem with the justice system as well, you know, where someone other than the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to freedom, certainly that must result in discrimination, prejudice, and.. favoritism. I mean, it's a slippery slope (pause for dramatic effect), before you know it everyone will be in jail.
You can tell that to everyone who actually has been discriminated against over the years. You can compare all of those injustices to imprisoning criminals when you explain it to them.
02 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 234th comment:
David Haley said:
I thought that your whole "argument" was that it's all about hereditary traits, not environment like "upbringing"… Hmm…
Compulsive behavior is generally an acquired trait, though obviously there's a genetic predisposition. I don't think Runter at this point in time can stop himself from repeatedly praising my supposed evolutionary fitness. It'd be endearing if it wasn't such a sad attempt at flame warring.
02 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 235th comment:
Scandum said:
Compulsive behavior is generally an acquired trait, though obviously there's a genetic predisposition. I don't think Runter at this point in time can stop himself from repeatedly praising my supposed evolutionary fitness. It'd be endearing if it wasn't such a sad attempt at flame warring.
David Haley said:
I thought that your whole "argument" was that it's all about hereditary traits, not environment like "upbringing"… Hmm…
Compulsive behavior is generally an acquired trait, though obviously there's a genetic predisposition. I don't think Runter at this point in time can stop himself from repeatedly praising my supposed evolutionary fitness. It'd be endearing if it wasn't such a sad attempt at flame warring.
'Supposed' is a good start. I'd use the word alleged, probably.
02 Jul, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 236th comment:
Well, it looks like this thread is finally turning into a semi-decent debate thread. Glad to see it. I still can't be bothered to read every single post since yesterday, but I'm pleasantly surprised with the direction this has taken. Keep it up guys and gals.
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 237th comment:
Not to curb your enthusiasm or anything, but you must have a different definition of "semi-decent debate" than many others here. Maybe the fact that you haven't read all the posts is relevant. :rolleyes:
02 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 238th comment:
David Haley said:
Not to curb your enthusiasm or anything, but you must have a different definition of "semi-decent debate" than many others here. Maybe the fact that you haven't read all the posts is relevant. :rolleyes:
Oh, I thought he was being sarcastic. :P
02 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 239th comment:
Scandum said:
Oh wait, you're that guy who like a broken record keeps repeating the same misinterpretation over and over. I'd psychoanalyze you, but I'm stumped about the kind of upbringing that would encourage something as stupid as that.
Runter said:
In that case I guess we need to keep David from passing on those bad genes. Only the Scandums of the world shall reproduce.
Oh wait, you're that guy who like a broken record keeps repeating the same misinterpretation over and over. I'd psychoanalyze you, but I'm stumped about the kind of upbringing that would encourage something as stupid as that.
People wouldn't be talking to you if they didn't want to hear that broken record. Somehow, it entertains them.
Scandum said:
I wonder if he has a problem with the justice system as well, you know, where someone other than the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to freedom, certainly that must result in discrimination, prejudice, and.. favoritism. I mean, it's a slippery slope (pause for dramatic effect), before you know it everyone will be in jail.
Sandi said:
"Any program where someone other then the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to procreate will result in prejudice."
I think you're going out on a limb, here. Want a banana? :smirk:
I think you're going out on a limb, here. Want a banana? :smirk:
I wonder if he has a problem with the justice system as well, you know, where someone other than the person in question gets to decide on someone else's right to freedom, certainly that must result in discrimination, prejudice, and.. favoritism. I mean, it's a slippery slope (pause for dramatic effect), before you know it everyone will be in jail.
I happen to be one of those who thinks that criminals have rights, yes. Whatever warped idea you have about that is irrelevant.
02 Jul, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 240th comment:
David Haley said:
But if we have people genetically engineered to be happy with menial jobs, and all jobs for that matter, that would make them happy (by definition) and therefore productive (as happier people tend to be more productive) – so maybe it's not so cold after all… after all, it's all in the name of the greater happiness, which seems to be your rationale here!
Quote
So yes, there is a kind of discrimination in that certain people may not be able to have children without going through an embryo screening process, but that, IMO, is a price worth paying for the enormous benefit to happiness and productivity that it generates.
But if we have people genetically engineered to be happy with menial jobs, and all jobs for that matter, that would make them happy (by definition) and therefore productive (as happier people tend to be more productive) – so maybe it's not so cold after all… after all, it's all in the name of the greater happiness, which seems to be your rationale here!
Your deductive logic may be sound but (IMO) the premise is wrong: I don't agree that deliberately inflicting disabilities on a person until the job that you have decided he should do becomes the most difficult and challenging thing he can cope with will actually make him happy. There's a lot more to life than work, and there are a lot more opportunities for happiness beyond mere job satisfaction. Those other opportunities will be taken away if you mentally cripple someone.
Since (unlike aidil) you obviously don't agree with deliberately causing mental retardation anyway, why are you advocating it?
Random Picks
You argue that the utilitarian point is moot, agreeing with this I bring forth the egalitarian point, and now I'm talking in a vacuum?
I don't doubt your intelligence, but like other highly intelligent individuals you seem to have issues with the big picture at times. I hypothesize that this is due to the ability to compartmentalize, which aids in problem solving and hence raises IQ, but makes it difficult to see how things interconnect.