Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

IQ

Re: IQ
December 01, 2007, 03:27:46 AM
people under 120 isn't necessarily less sexy. You are kidding who? That's what you want to believe. Beauty doesn't depends on intelligence. Higher IQ doesn't means you won't end up cleaning toilets either. Am I wrong? So would be earth any different? Maybe yes, maybe not... Although if you think in a very elitist way we could say it would. But that's merely an hypothesis.
Some of us got IQ higher than 120 but still, we can disagree and show a sort of aggressive behavior against the rest. So taking in consideration this, would really earth be any better? There's chance it would be exactly the same. perhaps even worse. Except less people...

The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit.

Re: IQ
December 01, 2007, 11:04:07 AM
Yes, there is a possibility for things to not move forward, but if you opt to a world undiscriminating towards morons it's a sure thing that things will only get worse.

So eventually you can choose either to take a risk and to try improve things the way you see fit, or just sit back basking in idleness and watch it all go down the drain.

I believe that's what a few posts earlier B4B and Viridovix explained at length.

Re: IQ
December 04, 2007, 03:12:44 AM
This thread went nowhere because some people are too immature to handle this topic. This is better discussed elsewhere.

Re: IQ
December 04, 2007, 03:56:16 AM
IQ? Mine is probably about 90.

Seems the average in these parts!

Re: IQ
December 04, 2007, 06:27:49 AM
Quote

The answer is that only a few people here seriously considered the question.


The word considered and agreed are not synonyms. Many people considered the question but as you said few agreed with it.

Re: IQ
December 04, 2007, 10:21:44 PM
Quote
The word considered and agreed are not synonyms. Many people considered the question but as you said few agreed with it.


born for banning speaks sense. Nobody answered his question, which leads to the conclusion that most failed to seriously consider it (Hint: it has nothing to do with morals or methodologies).

Re: IQ
December 05, 2007, 12:16:15 AM
Free land on the moon! Free transportation! Sign up now! Room for 6.5 billion of you! Don't wait!

ASBO

“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh

Re: IQ
December 06, 2007, 01:54:30 AM
Now that there has been a fair bit of debate about the particulars, how exactly would this IQ test be administered to the world, given that the majority of countries do not have English as their first language(in my case, it is my third language and I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable taking the IQ test in it) and there may be people with IQ high above 120 who still cannot speak English/not well enough for the test?

Also, in the event we were able to administer and monitor a test multi-lingually, would we eliminate those who show tendencies of a high IQ but have not had the basic training needed to answer some of the questions due to war, dictatorship etc?

Right now, the task of testing even the 4 (or so) billion people (this number excluding children or remote tribes) with the literacy skills necessary to answer the test seems daunting at best. Yet it would also seem necessary in order to achieve a complete 'reset' of humanity. And like I mentioned before, the disposal of all who failed would also take up resources and would most likely pollute.

Re: IQ
December 06, 2007, 08:08:16 PM
Quote
And like I mentioned before, the disposal of all who failed would also take up resources and would most likely pollute.


More or less than the status quo?
To report any abusive, obscene, defamatory, racist, homophobic or threatening comments, or anything that may violate any applicable laws, please send an e-mail to bmouth@bellatlantic.net  with pertinent details.

Re: IQ
December 06, 2007, 08:56:11 PM
Quote

More or less than the status quo?


Incineration of human bodies is fairly toxic (plus the gas combustion emissions/emissions if you're just going to pour petrol over them and burn them), and I don't think our air needs further pollution. Burial of billions is foolish to consider, and natural decay..well.. stinks.

More or less? You tell me.

What we need is further development in space exploration, so that giant capsules filled with bodies can be left floating around space. Of course, that would mean polluting space, but fuck that.

Re: IQ
December 06, 2007, 11:03:59 PM
I dont see why peepul want to kill the dumb. Under 120 isnt so dumb. There are lot of good people under 120, liek mother Teresa and Einstain.

If you kill all the dumb peeple u will have to clean ur own toilets and mow ur own lawns. Thats bad.

I might be technically an imbecile, but even i can see that killin the stupid is immoral and bad. Your lawn will never fourgive you.
ASBO

“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh

Re: IQ
March 22, 2010, 12:31:15 AM
The problem is their continued tendency to revolt and to demand attention for their issues.

Any "solution" that posits changing social roles for 80% of humanity is an internet fantasy in any event, so we should just lie down and die, even though climate change and political instability will sooner than later exterminate much of humanity anyway.

Agreed. While elected leadership panders incessantly before the seething moron tsunami, neglected infrastructure rots and all the fish in the sea are harvested or poisoned to death. In the near future, civilization and nature alike are bound to abandon humanism. Saving every life is a former luxury thay has turned into an expensive liability today.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793