Ex-Nintendo VP Kaplan: Ban Sex for Lazy Parents

Nope, I tend to think, "How can we construct some form of society in which co-operation is seen as a good thing."



I do blame a mix of factors only one of which is genetics.

I understand that for many people 'Genetics' is superior because it sounds all 'sciencey and stuff' and therefore has some form of 'truth' to it (and gets mentioned on Csi a load of times). I understand that that 'poor schools and economic adversity' sound less sciencey and stuff and are therefore less 'truthy'. What I don't understand is - if we discount all the environmental factors ('less truthy') and agree that it comes down to genetics - it would mean that Genetic Evolution (which is loads of science all in one go) is in fact making us more stupid.

Erm... why?



No, mate, you really don't. And that's no fault of yours. I'm withholding relevant personal detail.


I don't think I've actually quoted you at all yet.



Because (a) there is no way of objectively judging an absolute IQ (b) being clever doesn't make you nurturing (c) being the child of clever parents does not make you sane.



Nope. I would not. I would currently have sex with Lila from series two of Dexter.

Cheers

Tim

Really? Aren't you based in Wakefield?



Just for the record fact fans, human development is now thought to be a result of approximately 30% genetics, 70% environment. A child with a genetic predisposition to low intelligence in a good school may still do well, or a child with a genetic predisposition to high intelligence may be stunted with a poor lack of educational resources.

The argument would therefore follow that we need an environment which educates all to a high standard - rather than sending your kids off to boarding school because you can afford it, or plonking them in front of the TV all day because you can't be bothered to stimulate them yourself.



If we have offended, I'm sure you have all our apologies Tim (but at least you know that no-one's being personal).

This thread is starting to go a little off-topic. If we ever were to prohibit society to those with a high level of IQ, I'd be interested to see where Horatio would rate in that and if he would still advocate it if it mean his elimination, either before or after birth. I don't think we're in any danger of that kind of society soon.

Regardless, IQ is hardly the sole contributor to forming a nurturing, inclusive, developed, understanding, tolerant and well-edcuated society anyway. But sitting your child in front of either an interactive or non-interactive television screen in anything more than moderation, particularly as an alternative to good parenting, is not going to get us there any faster.

Arf and yes... we are.



I was/am/was/amway furious. I'm not offended. Hell, I'm at SPOnG for godz's sakes, I can't afford to be offended.


Yeah, brilliant. I like that about SPOnG Forum folk. Diverse. Diversity is good.



Good parenting, now there's a barrel of worms all called Pandora. Maybe it's time to ask someone in authority such as, say, the governor of Alaska.

Cheers

Tim

------ Today Tim's Pomposity Rating is a pathetic 70% Apparently ----

I'd rather to listen to the state senator for Illinois, if we're going to obscurely reference US politicians for views on abortion all for reasons I'm not entirely clear about..

Last week, obscure; this week, not so much.

You're still being obscure Tim - what's that got to do with the topic in hand?

(Unless you're referencing yourself here, in which case, it's your own business and not something you need to be posting on here)

Tim, I don't think anyone isn't suggesting that things wouldn't have not been better if you hadn't never been born.


That's just fence-sitter talk, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Tim is famously equivocal.


Wow, Tim's pomposity rating broke clean through 100%.

I may or I may not be. In the case of Eugenics, I am firmly and unequivocally in the "That is an insanely s**t idea developed by people who prefer to generalise than get all confused by the complexities of human interaction."

Tim

Alternatively. There are unarguably people without whom the world would be a better place. If we could devise a good way of identifying these people before they are born, and preventing their birth, it saves us the bother (and moral unpleasantness) of hunting them down and killing them like an endangered animal in Sarah Palin's (telescopic) sight.

The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.

Cheers

Tim

I knew it would only be a matter of time before this discussion got onto Temporal Physics! why must every discussion end with infinitive outcomes!

Different, yes... but in a better way.

Better as in...the entire human race wiped out by its own actions?

hmmm...God does have a great sense of humour.

we are in the process at the min of wiping are selves out so we do not need to worry

That's the beauty of our race isn't it? We always find infinite ways to do something, including wiping ourselves out. The Gods just made wager on us i think...one of them said "you know what would be fun, making a race so unstable in its thinking processes that at one point it can wipe itself out"
"Alright, let's do that, and i bet my magical slippers that they'll wipe themselves out in 6,5 million years!"
"5 million! And can we intervene?"
"Only as reincarnations of them or as something magical...like angels or stuff, no all-powerfull intervening!"
"This will be fun to watch!"

I was raised by video games and I turned out fine. I dare anyone who disagrees to face me in battle, I'll rip your heart out!!!

Yes, but better for some means unbetter* for others.

*all hail the universal negator. It makes the world an unworse place!

Even if they never existed in the first place..?

I consider wanking into a cup to be sex - lonely sex, unless you can get the nurse to give a hand.

So, that just leaves adoption

Entire child population of China says hi!!!