Way to add to the discussion. (sarcasm)
You see the true colors of people when death stares them in the face.
I do understand where you are coming from. I saw a sign today that said welcome to Wilmington North Carolina (My town obviously) and I saw there was a penis drawn on it. No matter what you say intelligence and maturity usually go hand and hand. It really bothers me that someone could do something like that.
Sorry mate, had I known you would've been upset I wouldn't have drawn that. My bad brah.
I'm just curious about two things:
If we stop allowing people with <100 IQ to reproduce, how would we even go to that solution? The only way I can see this happening is through two dictatorial actions taken upon the American people, who value freedom so much. First, there will have to be a mandatory IQ testing of EVERY citizen to be permanently recorded into a national database. And TWO, the individuals with less than 100 IQ will have to undergo painful and humiliating sterilization surgery. Not to mention, how will we determine what age to start cutting off people's balls? People can get smarter (in IQ sense) as they age. So a high schooler at 18 who is below 100 IQ can actually achieve higher than 100 IQ assuming they gain more practice in problem solving and using his/her brain. If this sterilization act is put into place and we temporarily (for sake of argument) sterilize someone, they'll have to undergo the surgery again to be able to reproduce again.
This thread is utter mindfuck and those who support it are dumb because they don't realize that this kind of idea is more trouble than its worth. Smart people have always been able to achieve great things; creating a world of only smart people is moot.
So, which is it? the world or America. the two are not synonymous.
America = Case Point
We = Americans (towards OP and me since I'm American and he's from NC; therefore appropriate to use American society as model)
World = Direction of argument
Hence, the space in between.
Nice try though.
No, no that's not what you wrote. Your first paragraph states that what the OP desires would never happen because Americans wouldn't allow it in their country. It explicitly states that this wouldn't happen because:
The only way I can see this happening is through two dictatorial actions taken upon the American people,
You did not include a phrase such as "for example", "case in point", "even if it happened elsewhere at least american would be free". Nor did you write
(Text in all CAPs, mine)
"the only way I can see this happening, IN AMERICA, is through...."
You then go on to talk about the world.
The above post is one of two things (A) typical American arrogance, or (B) sloppy composition. I'll grant you the latter since you're correct, you and the OP are countrymen and it would be logical for him to start with his own country. but you imply that ultimate success or failure is dependent on what the US does, which comes across as living in your own bubble of arrogance.
You claim it's not what you intended and then remark 'nice try' as you thought I was trying to score points on you. Or as if you believed my post was an attempt to invalidate your entire argument. I find either theory... Insulting.
Let me make myself clear, I was not trying to negate your argument by pointing out some minor failure of logic or composition. I was objecting to your apparent thesis that events in the United States would, necessarily, dictate results to the world. Yes the US has all kinds of passive and proactive influence, but contrary to popular belief the world does not REVOLVE around the US.
maxim 3: A munitions tech at a dead run outranks everybody