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

Login with username, password and session length

Political feasibility of unpopular ideas

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 18, 2010, 02:21:49 PM
What about this: Declare that the majority of people are going to be sterelized. The ones that revolt are to be exterminated. It's more fair this way.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 18, 2010, 04:53:44 PM
What about this: Declare that the majority of people are going to be sterelized. The ones that revolt are to be exterminated. It's more fair this way.

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. How do you intend to get into power and at what point are you able to turn into a military junta?

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 18, 2010, 05:11:50 PM
What about this: Declare that the majority of people are going to be sterelized. The ones that revolt are to be exterminated. It's more fair this way.

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. How do you intend to get into power and at what point are you able to turn into a military junta?

I don't know, but the whole discussion is being made like the power has already been taken.

Myself, I'm not ever going to participate in this, I'm not even on the USA.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 18, 2010, 06:02:55 PM
I don't think that destroying all people under 120 of IQ would be effective. There's a lot of people over 120 that don't care at all about the well being of this world. They just think about profit and about themselve. They corrupt the people under 120 IQ to gain power for their own by selling junk instead of educate them. If we have good leaders, we can have people of lesser intelligeance working toward  greater goals. If we should kill the ones that are under 120, at lest we should eliminate a whole bunch intelligent but corrupted ones.
We can't just look at IQ's to determinate who is a noble individual deserving of living.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 20, 2010, 06:53:58 AM
I don't think that destroying all people under 120 of IQ would be effective. There's a lot of people over 120 that don't care at all about the well being of this world. They just think about profit and about themselve. They corrupt the people under 120 IQ to gain power for their own by selling junk instead of educate them. If we have good leaders, we can have people of lesser intelligeance working toward  greater goals. If we should kill the ones that are under 120, at lest we should eliminate a whole bunch intelligent but corrupted ones.
We can't just look at IQ's to determinate who is a noble individual deserving of living.

On one hand, 120+ do manipulate their underlings in order to attain material wealth.  On the other hand, I'm not sure I've met a productive individual with an IQ under 120.  But this calls to question: is it productive to 'get ahead' in the social order through manipulation?

You mention that 'good leaders' will be able to motivate individuals of lesser intelligence toward 'greater goals'.  How would this be accomplished if not through exploitation?  It comes down to a level where the weak do what they must to servive, i.e. they do what they are told because they can do nothing else.  Any political agency taking advantage of this fact can be seen as "corrupt" in that way.

What I must ask you is this: do they deserve to live under this rule more than they deserve to be killed off?  Which do you think works more to the benefit of the world (meaning both nature and culture) at large?

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 21, 2010, 12:31:10 AM
How about we nail this down to 3 paths?

Aggressive: take control, herd them and off them
Passive: keep finding ways to justify having and put to use those under 120
Assertive: the gifted people separate themselves, form their own societies and withdraw all support from those under 120
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 21, 2010, 08:24:24 PM
I don't think that destroying all people under 120 of IQ would be effective. There's a lot of people over 120 that don't care at all about the well being of this world. They just think about profit and about themselve. They corrupt the people under 120 IQ to gain power for their own by selling junk instead of educate them. If we have good leaders, we can have people of lesser intelligeance working toward  greater goals. If we should kill the ones that are under 120, at lest we should eliminate a whole bunch intelligent but corrupted ones.
We can't just look at IQ's to determinate who is a noble individual deserving of living.

On one hand, 120+ do manipulate their underlings in order to attain material wealth.  On the other hand, I'm not sure I've met a productive individual with an IQ under 120.  But this calls to question: is it productive to 'get ahead' in the social order through manipulation?

You mention that 'good leaders' will be able to motivate individuals of lesser intelligence toward 'greater goals'.  How would this be accomplished if not through exploitation?  It comes down to a level where the weak do what they must to servive, i.e. they do what they are told because they can do nothing else.  Any political agency taking advantage of this fact can be seen as "corrupt" in that way.

What I must ask you is this: do they deserve to live under this rule more than they deserve to be killed off?  Which do you think works more to the benefit of the world (meaning both nature and culture) at large?

Every civilisations had to got through different level of exploitation in order to create something great. I don't think that all the soldiers of Alexander the Great had great intelligence but they follows his orders and they were proud to be in his armies. And Alexander conquered several kingdoms up to India.
It's like the pyramids, the greak temples, the wall of China, etc. There were kings, nobles, high priests who ordered the projects,  architects who made the plans, and workers who built it.
It's called hierarchy, and without it, nothing great happens. Sure, the ones in the lesser degrees may not be all  happy, but sometimes it has to be for the society to works well.  Everyone should take a part in it. If you don't want to you'll have to face the consequence of your choice.
I think it is better for the world that we educate or manipulate the leaser one if they can't think on their own. If they don't deserve to be ruled, why would they deserve to be killed?
Anyway, if we try to kill them, they are so numerous that we will be overflown by them.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 21, 2010, 08:37:48 PM
Let's add a #4 to scourge's list: don't simply justify the existence of 120-, but actively find ways to put them to use.  Impose stricter laws, implement the death penalty, and so forth.

But this would not work, for the simple reason that we live in a different world than did Alexander the Great, or any mighty civilization before us.  We face overpopulation, and it is the weak, complacent, and oblivious who are always ready and able to drown out the feats of the mighty.  Our neighbors are not barbarians, we can't go and conquer lands in pursuit of knowledge and riches.  We know what is out there; we are in contact with most of the world at this point.  Our civilization is the result of the mighty feats of the past.

Really, they don't "deserve" anything, but if we want to bring our ideals to light, we must do something with them.  We can't ignore or justify them any more, as our economy is collapsing and there is simply not enough room for them in society.  It's their prevalence that is more dangerous than their stupidity.

Re: Political feasibility of unpopular ideas
March 22, 2010, 05:59:43 AM

Really, they don't "deserve" anything, but if we want to bring our ideals to light, we must do something with them.  We can't ignore or justify them any more, as our economy is collapsing and there is simply not enough room for them in society.  It's their prevalence that is more dangerous than their stupidity.


It is clear that than a 5% of population consume less than a  95%.

I think that stupidity is the big problem. What about a democracy just for the smart? It would actually accomplish all the social participation and citizen observance that our current democratic democracy just babbles so much.