I hate intellectuals

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120

User570431

Original post by mathew551

I fail at art

I can show you some simple techniques if you want :redface:

Reply 121

TheRevolution

Original post by mathew551

Potential for what, exactly? The potential to make revolutionary scientific discoveries, or the potential to win gold in diving at the 2012 London Olympics? People can compete with other people in different ways, and that is just a fact of life.

Are you suggesting we sterilise those who are basically 'worthless', i.e. cannot contribute beneficial alleles to the gene pool? How unethical would that be?

I said their brains have equal potential, not their diving ability.

It would be so ethical in my mind. they can adopt if they want. The world would be a better place w/ out their genes. the ends justify the means and the means aren't that bad tbh.

Reply 122

username227498

Original post by blueray

I can show you some simple techniques if you want :redface:

Nah, wouldn't want to trouble you lmao. Cheers though :tongue:

Reply 123

TheRevolution

Original post by blueray

I can show you some simple techniques if you want :redface:

What kind of techniques if u dont mind me asking

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 124

helenamm92

Original post by StephenP91

They aren't like that.

I repped you, not for your post but for your signature. That genuinely made me laugh more than it should have XD

Reply 125

username227498

Original post by TheRevolution

Diving ability was just an example of how brains are programmed differently, giving different (success) potentials.

What is your argument for it being ethical, then? It's not their fault that they aren't naturally better at something than someone else, so why should someone else deny them the right to reproduce? This is especially the case for people suffering from cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and other genetic disorders. If we research these diseases, we could find the cures instead of just killing patients off.

And what about mutations in genes? No one in my family has ever been to university, but (hopefully) I will be the first to go. I think I'm the only person in my family to have done A-levels. If (academic) intelligence is only heritable, then I have no idea who it's come from, because my parents argue it isn't from them. :colondollar:

If you killed off my family before I was born, then you wouldn't have me studying for A-levels. You wouldn't have me wanting to contribute to the economy by studying science and (hopefully) getting a nice job researching topics such as this.

Reply 126

Memorable_Life

Original post by TheRevolution

It would be so ethical in my mind. they can adopt if they want. The world would be a better place w/ out their genes. the ends justify the means and the means aren't that bad tbh.

Wait, what? You think it is ethical to sterilise those with non-beneficial genes? Does that include those that have genes that stabilise population distribution of specific characters/qualities?
Surely that is the majority of the population.
In your general population bell curve , there are those in a far extreme that cannot survive with their specific alleles and are removed by natural selection.

Then you have those that are to an extreme with "beneficial" alleles that do survive and succeed in whatever specific area that they are 'enhanced' at. However the majority of the population are at the mean, and therefore have your average alleles and qualities that don't make them special in any way. Your average Joe, dare I say.
Genetically speaking- Average Joes work hard to achieve their success, and therefore you get your so called intellectuals, some of which are gifted and others who genetically speaking are 'average' but fully capture their capabilities in order to achieve something.

Intellectuals don't always mean genetically enhanced. But there are some that are, of course.

The end justifies the means? Removal of these non-beneficial alleles (if those include the average not so special alleles) would mean drastic population decrease and even to the extent of endangering the human species. Not so justifiable.

However if you mean those that disadvantage a person. these alleles are generally removed naturally of the course of time, and any disadvantageous alleles that do show up usually maybe are mutations/ unforeseen problems at conception.
No person, that does not suffer from a disease or disorder, has particularly any disadvantageous alleles.
The majority of the population do have however 'non-beneficial alleles'.

Reply 127

Complex Simplicity

Iron sharpen iron op. Hang out with enough of them and they'll rub of on you.

Personally I think everyone has something their good at. They simply need to find out what it is and work hard at it.

Reply 128

rajandkwameali

I don't get the OP's point.

Is he jealous/envious? I respect intellectuals, despite popular culture disliking them. I think all personality traits are valid, even if everyday society says otherwise. Some people are naturally more learned, that's how we are as a species, we're all different lol.

Fo-shizzle

I'm grateful for intellectuals who provide us with technology and comfort. And I'd like to point out that lack of education and ignorance promotes arrogance and not the other way around.
I wish the OP would stop being angry about things he can't change anyway! The greatest obstacle to happiness is your own mind.