Posted on 03/04/2012 10:58:27 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
I get to determine who should be eliminated. My neighbors house looks good so I will eliminate him and then I can have his house.
My neighbors kid is ugly so, whack, problem solved
Like it or not, IQ is genetic.
Has the alleged gene been identified?
The leftwing was enamored by eugenics in those days, they had to close their trap with WW2 though
There is a correlation between genetics and IQ. That’s hardly a justification for forced sterlizations to outright mass slaughter.
No, it’s a whole bunch of genes, sort of like the situation with what makes some (very rare) acorns sweet.
The correlation is very strong. I agree with you that fact does not justify forced sterilizations or mass slaughter. But paying them to have more kids doesn’t seem especially productive either, even aside from the issue of such payments not being Constitutional at the federal level.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
I don't see how human rights are graded on a bell curve, however.
I will ping this out later. Been ultra busy lately plus all the insane news.
Thank you for your research.
We essentially pay people to have kids now. How’s that working out?
All men might be equal in the eyes of God, but they are not all equals in any measurable quantity ranging from height, weight, reflectivity, strength, agility, intelligence, or anything else you could possibly measure. IQ being genetic tramples none of life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand paying welfare tramples the liberty of those who pay, and denies the need of pursuit for the recipients. I agree all must have equal human rights, but entitlements are not rights.
Was it not the eugenicist, Sanger who founded “planned parenthood”?
I seem to recall reading that.
How’s it working out? Depends on your point of view. Our “investments in the poor” have paid off handsomely - there are three or four times more poor people than when the transfer programs began in earnest. How many other investments have done as well? Naturally, I don’t think this is an improvement, but then again I’m one of the payers and not one of the recipients.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Yeah, I should have put a [/s] after my comment. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Basically, the “Payers” are having fewer kids and the “Takers” are having more. But, the “Takers” are almost all Democratic voters, so (from their perspective) its working out great.
Yes it was.
My neighbor lets her dog sit out unattended and bark incessantly.
She is a dumb airhead and should be removed from the gene pool.
Even if it is, some people can do a lot with a little, and vice versa!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.