UK court bans man from having sex because of low IQ

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Evil fascist!

Okay here is the rub: How do you define intelligence? IQ testing isn't 100% effective and it is clearly shown that ethnicity and culture weigh highly in the results.

There is no universal definition of intelligence. You're correct that IQ testing isn't 100% effective, but it's the best we've got. There are culture-fair IQ tests available, which I think are the ones that should be administered in this case.

If we do this we essentially get ethnic cleansing. This is different from Eugenics and not what it proposed to begin with.

See above.

I will support Eugenics the day they can get a true measure of what makes a better person. That day is not here as we are all still suffering from the subjective tests devised by scientist educated in a particular paradigm with little ability to measure worth outside of that paradigm.

Please research more. I would suggest this site as a decent starting point.

Besides, we don't need to decide who is best to survive and breed, nature will take care of that for us. The thing that pisses off Eugenics supporters is that being smart or strong, or whatever measure they espouse may not be the true best course for humanity...

This is incorrect. Nature stopped deciding who is most fit to survive & what's best for our species after we started to build up civilization after the agricultural revolution. The ruling class have used various eugenic practices, such as war, since the very beginning...before the term was even conceptualized.

After the industrial revolution, our technological progresses made it much more easy for those least fit to continue to reproduce, despite the consequences for our societies. Once contraceptions were introduced, dysgenic effects accelerated, because the stupid were much more likely to not successfully practice it's usage, where as the more intelligent were. There is a high correlation between IQ and the ability to inhibit base instinctual urges.

Check out the site, and do more research. There's a lot more involved than I can recall offhand at the moment. What's best for humanity is to experience higher intellectual development as the generations unfold. The opposite (dysgenics) is occurring based on everything which is already in place. Obviously, the issue must be addressed. Why wait until there are many more idiots already around? Best to nip this in the bud, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by Abductee001

 

If the court was truly protecting him they would have gone after his partner for rape or some such thing. They are not protecting him, they are controlling him. No matter his intelligence depriving a person of free will is wrong. If his partner was coercing him and he hated it they need to go after the partner.

Perhaps that is one of the hidden travesties of this whole thing: They are going after the victim?

*
I've been saying this all along! maybe the courts hands are tied? I feel so sorry for this guy, and i feel he has been taken advantage of.

Originally posted by Abductee001
I've been saying this all along! maybe the courts hands are tied? I feel so sorry for this guy, and i feel he has been taken advantage of.

It seems that the court order and action of Social Services is to ensure that he isn't taken advantage of. The guy seems to have no idea about sex but has urges, like all normal people do. If left to his own devices, he could well be taken advantage of as he has no concept of what it is he is doing.

Take a 12 year old boy, for example, who may well be going through puberty yet still have little or no understanding about what sex is. Would you be happy to allow said 12 year old boy to have sex, just because he can? Or would you seek to protect and educate that boy so that he is ready for sex and understands the concepts involved?

reply to post by unityemissions


Unless it happened within the last 5 or so years I have done very thorough research.

I easily score genius level on every IQ test I've taken 1 professionally administered and quite a few online or software ones where I didn't cheat. The only reason I say this is to make it clear I'm not concerned for myself besides I think they are flawed at best and nothing to place any stock in.

Even if a test that isn't culturally biased could be developed (I don't believe them) we still have the issue of whether or not this test is biased in some other fashion. What if the test starts as not biased then begins to morph to select intelligent sheeple rather than free thinking intellectuals?

The problem is and always will be that the powerful want to gain more power and this is a tool to give them even more power. Essentially whoever designs and administers the testing will get to dictate the course of humanity and this is more power than I believe any group should have.

Besides, who is to say that we don't need to go back a little in order to progress to our ultimate goal? What if the rational mind is not where the power sits? I don't know the answer and distrust anyone who believes they do.

I will grant you that in a world with full swing Eugenics I would be much better off and the world would be more comfortable. But would it be better?

While i truly believe as would any sane person, all of age should have the right to engage sexually, but should all have the right to propagate? Ibelieve in a over populated world there should be government incentives to willing males to be nutted. Maybe an aprenticeship or military career, government job or even an interest free loan or something of incentive. Most youngsters these days seem to have no interest in just one sexual partner or marriage anyway.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Unless it happened within the last 5 or so years I have done very thorough research.

I easily score genius level on every IQ test I've taken 1 professionally administered and quite a few online or software ones where I didn't cheat. The only reason I say this is to make it clear I'm not concerned for myself besides I think they are flawed at best and nothing to place any stock in.

I notice many highly intelligent people hold this view. It does seem to be quite bizarre, seeing as there's plenty of scientifically backed research that proves otherwise. My best guess is that many highly intelligent people don't feel okay with the notion that they're somehow inherently superior to other people. I guess this bothers them.

Even if a test that isn't culturally biased could be developed (I don't believe them) we still have the issue of whether or not this test is biased in some other fashion. What if the test starts as not biased then begins to morph to select intelligent sheeple rather than free thinking intellectuals?

It's called standardization and re-norming, and happens all the time. Edited in: I think it's best to differentiate between "free thinkers" and naive, antisocial misfits. There's many "free thinkers" who are essentially intelligent fools that do much more harm than good, it seems. I would go as far as to say that the IQ test shouldn't be tainted, but also that a psychological evaluation should be administered as well. Being a "free thinker" is awesome, if it means you're more creative, and productive. If you simply want to tear down traditional values because you're a characteropath, then be gone with you, already. Your warped view on reality does much harm.

The problem is and always will be that the powerful want to gain more power and this is a tool to give them even more power. Essentially whoever designs and administers the testing will get to dictate the course of humanity and this is more power than I believe any group should have.

This is a very common, though I think flawed, cultural meme. Once you have acquired enough power, it seems that game would get very, very old. Kind of like the workaholic millionaire who is miserable. I don't think you can get to be a part of the "ruling class" without acquiring the role, out of necessity, of steering humanity towards a more beneficial path. To do otherwise would likely lead to your head slopping around the floor, blood shooting out and all...

Besides, who is to say that we don't need to go back a little in order to progress to our ultimate goal? What if the rational mind is not where the power sits? I don't know the answer and distrust anyone who believes they do.

I'm not speaking of a utopia. I'm saying keeping idiocracy from unfolding, or..what's more likely, keeping civilization from collapsing. If you think we must go that far back to progress further, when we could skip that and just keep on the up and up, well.....you're free to that belief, but I think it's incredibly foolish.

I will grant you that in a world with full swing Eugenics I would be much better off and the world would be more comfortable. But would it be better?

Higher levels of civility: increased productivity, pro-social behavior, and cultural advances + decreased criminal activity, and antisocial behavior....

Yes, it would be better.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Laurauk

 

As I said, I do not agree with the ruling, it is indeed quite ridiculous. I was merely pointing out that the ridiculousness may stem from British age of consent laws, 16 years is too high, IMHO. Indeed the argument in the OP was that the man is incapable of consenting to sex, so if all sexual endeavours of disabled people are legalized, it could lead to some of them being molested. It is a delicate subject, but this mans relationship should not be banned, IMHO. And age of consent should be lowered to 14 years IMHO.

edit on 10/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I couldn't agree less. Why on earth lower the age of consent to 14? That would be a complete disaster. Teen's brains are not fully developed, a fact that ought to be well known, and while at least some kids are deterred by the law, they're saved from making disastrous sexual decisions.
Vicky.

reply to post by unityemissions


We probably shouldn't hijack this thread with a full on eugenics debate because I suspect it could go on for pages. If you start a Eugenics thread I'll come play.

It is appropriate though as this limiting a persons sexual decisions because of their IQ is indeed eugenics at its finest.

reply to post by Vicky32

I couldn't agree less. Why on earth lower the age of consent to 14? That would be a complete disaster. Teen's brains are not fully developed, a fact that ought to be well known, and while at least some kids are deterred by the law, they're saved from making disastrous sexual decisions. Vicky.

Their brains are not fully developed, but I believe at 14 (with appropiate sex education) they are developed enough to decide whether they want sex or not, along with the consequences. I know I was, it does not take Einstein to do it. 16 is too high, IMHO. I would also implement some sort of 3-4-year rule, so that sex between very similar ages is not criminalized even if one is under the limit (for example 13 and 15). Teens will experiment anyway, it is in their nature, and criminalizing sex leads only to higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

reply to post by unityemissions


Your points are simplistic beyond belief. The fact that more criminals with low IQ "get caught" does not mean that only low IQ are criminals. The "smarter" ones just don't get caught or they otherwise know how to work the legal system. There are plenty of criminals in that group -- unless you don't think bank executives can be criminal.

Nature trends towards the median or middle. Studies show that two low IQ parents are likely to have offspring that test higher in IQ than they do. At the other end of the scale, two high IQ parents are likely to have offspring who test out with lower IQ than they do.

This isn't a linear thing with two high functioning parents automatically producing even higher functioning kids. It just doesn't work that way. Nature tends towards the mean. Eugenics may appear to be a simple concept, and it surely is -- too simple, and simply wrong.

reply to post by Abductee001


1 For one he is 41 years old. Under Uk and European Law he is well over the legal age for consent to ether marry, have a job,have sex, what the article does say he does not understand the risks involved, so that gives them the right to take away his indiidual right to choose, which way he wants to live is life.

2 It is an infringement on his basic human rights, not only is it homophobic, but is is discrimination, since he has learning disabilities.

3 If you read the article, the hearing was held in secret, not in the public,Kangaroo Court in my opinion.

If this went all the way to the European Court, I can guarantee you the ruling, would be quashed.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Your points are simplistic beyond belief. The fact that more criminals with low IQ "get caught" does not mean that only low IQ are criminals. The "smarter" ones just don't get caught or they otherwise know how to work the legal system. There are plenty of criminals in that group -- unless you don't think bank executives can be criminal.

I'm sure there is some truth to this, but it seems you're attempting to exaggerate this claim to prove a point. Do you honestly think that the if all criminal were caught, the statistics would truly differ that much now?! Be honest, lol.

Nature trends towards the median or middle. Studies show that two low IQ parents are likely to have offspring that test higher in IQ than they do. At the other end of the scale, two high IQ parents are likely to have offspring who test out with lower IQ than they do.

I'm calling bull# on this one as well. Once again, it's a huge exaggeration. IQ tends to vary less than 5 points from the average of the two parents. There are exceptions, but this is rare. There's nothing mystical about this, it's not "nature", it's regressive genes, lol. You can inherit genes from one of your four grandparents that would tend to lower your overall IQ. The thing is... people tend to marry within a single SD of each other, and IQ is very heritable, so as long as a family line continues to copulate with similarly intelligent individuals, this "regression towards the mean" would be virtually non-existent.

This isn't a linear thing with two high functioning parents automatically producing even higher functioning kids. It just doesn't work that way. Nature tends towards the mean. Eugenics may appear to be a simple concept, and it surely is -- too simple, and simply wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're just falling into the group I already mentioned. Someone who's seemingly intelligent, yet naively foolish.

reply to post by unityemissions

Someone who's seemingly intelligent, yet naively foolish.

Not sure who is more foolish or naive, the one in awe of human notions or the one in awe of nature.

Actually I am quite sure. Humans after all are but a product of nature; not the creators. Respect thy master.