[Snagprophet]

I came here expecting a proposal for a new method of measuring someone's sexual activity similar to an IQ system. I am disappoint.

[manners20]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Though it varies from place to place, there is usually some concept of the age of consent [to sexual activity], below which a person is not allowed to touch other people (or be touched) in certain places, in certain ways, in most circumstances.

This is because we consider that people of this young age are, compared to the average adult person or the person they may grow up to be, prone to making very different decisions and understanding differently the consequences of their actions.

Now, it's completely impractical to treat everyone individually in this case so we just set an age threshold and that's that. Just like we do for lots of other things - we have generalise according to age to estimate what an individual will be like. We're no longer allowed to generalise according to a number of other important personal qualities such as gender, but for now age is OK to talk about.

Now, I don't know about you but I have met plenty of grown adults who are thick as pig ****, and a good few 12-16 year olds, say, who are really switched on and with it. Surely if we forbid certain activities to younguns because they're basically still too stupid to understand them like an adult does, shouldn't we forbid them to adults who are as stupid as the average sub-16 year old?

If there's a 25 year old woman who has a very low IQ and gets along fine in life like most of us do, but just is basically thick and not as smart as the average 15 year old girl (quite plausible), then isn't it just as wrong for a man to **** her as a 15 year old? Would he be "taking advantage of her" and should he be punished?

How can we deal with this? I think it's a pressing issue, actually, and we should basically ban people with an IQ under some threshold from engaging in sexual activity or doing many other things children aren't allowed to, for example entering into legal contracts and so forth. It would be for their own protection.

This is quite a novel suggestion so I expect most of you will object to it immediately - but do explain why. There may well be something I haven't thought of.

You can't lower people who aren't 'smart' to the level of children when they are fundamentally not children; they have experienced more in life whether they have a high IQ or not and should be trusted as adults, unless severely mentally handicapped, to make their own decisions. You cannot 'ban' people from having sex, how would they ever have a family of their own if you did that? It's just as bad as castrating people who aren't deemed 'appropriate' to be parents. That's not anyone's call to make, it takes away peoples' freedom due to someone else's judgments about their intelligence.

[whyumadtho]

Completely unenforceable.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by manners20)
You can't lower people who aren't 'smart' to the level of children when they are fundamentally not children; they have experienced more in life whether they have a high IQ or not and should be trusted as adults, ]

Not all of them. Clearly there are some adults who are less experienced and all-around less mentally capable than some minors, right? Being older doesn't guarantee having more "experience" in life.

unless severely mentally handicapped,

So we agree, you just use a different word for it.

to make their own decisions. You cannot 'ban' people from having sex,

I can't, but the government could, can and does.

how would they ever have a family of their own if you did that?

Aw, they wouldn't. You need to have sex for babies and stuff.

It's just as bad as castrating people who aren't deemed 'appropriate' to be parents. That's not anyone's call to make, it takes away peoples' freedom due to someone else's judgments about their intelligence.

We do this all the time in lots of ways. "Freedom" to do certain things often depends on how capable you are judged, by other people, to do them.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Because it's essential to the morale of our country after a devastating war which crippled us and ended our position as a world power that we condemn and mark as evil everything our opponents stood for even though before the war everyone had pretty similar ideas?

Absolutely this. The evil of Hitler is made a point of to make a disasterous campaign look like some sort of glorious sacrifice. Many of the allied countries did the same before the war, some also did it after the war, everybody agreed it was a rational policy before the war and were put off for emotion reasons after the war, I disagree for moral reasons personally and think it could somehow cause problems for the biodiversity of humanity.

[zaliack]

Section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally touches another person (B), the touching is sexual, B is unable to refuse because of or for a reason related to a mental disorder, and A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder and that because of it or for a reason related to it B is likely to be unable to refuse.

So, there you go, already in a statute. You just need to convince a judge that being stupid is a mental illness

[JasonAlanWard]

My friend. I am not talking about a ordinary genetic strain predisposing to criminality. But rather to FAULTY/WANTING genes... Now; on that front, there is a very simple precept that applies: If something can go wrong in the human body, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, has got it. Taking that as FACT (for inbreeding=ignorance=criminality , for eg.) it is only a matter to establish the PREVALENCE of such (which, in the case of even inbreeding is EXTREMELY HIGH). But; there are many, many other genetic faults and traits which are clearly not good. I am in favor of positive eugenics so long as it preserves the original intent of the human genetic variety without introduced bias. I hope that answers some of your questions...

[JasonAlanWard]

Yes. You need to be able to "divide" 0 by 1.
Divide it in, out, in, out, in, out... and shake it all about...
(Every holes a goal - age limits apply...) !

[JasonAlanWard]

Subject also to availability and desperation...!

[Scootaloo]

(Original post by JasonAlanWard)
My friend

Oh hai there, are you replying to me? Hmm you should have quoted my post because I though you were ignoring me. Henceforth with my response:

But rather to FAULTY/WANTING genes...

No no, I would like some scientific names or studies of these fault/wanting genes. Faulty? I suppose something like hemophilia would be because of a faulty gene but what the heck is a wanting gene, were are you getting these things from?

(for inbreeding=ignorance=criminality

Really?!I know that cousins marrying cousins is something people raise an eyebrow to but are were are you basing your assertions from? True Inbreeding would cause a high prevalence of recessive gene based abnormalities especially if both people involved are carriers. For anecdote's sake Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma and yet his children didn't amount to crime and were rather successful. I think rather the causes of ignorance and criminality are due to one's surroundings to be honest.

Also I hope you do realise that is we were to have a select group of noteworthy individuals that were the only one allowed to have children. Then have their children marry each other, then their children marry each other...we'll eventually amount to inbreeding right?

I am in favor of positive eugenics so long as it preserves the original intent of the human genetic variety without introduced bias.

Doesn't eugenics stop that implying you intend to sterilise individuals and so remove their genes from the gene pool.

Please please cite me some scientific studies, I'm interested in this type of stuff but I don't think eugenics is the way we are going to get rid of hereditary disease.

Pip Pip Cheerio