|
Post by NuSapiens on Apr 1, 2005 11:52:33 GMT -5
This confirms the above. You think culture (i.e. what people read, study, look on tv, talk about) should be shaped directly or indirectly by the state. Said in different words, this means that someone should force someone else to study, read, see etc. what he thinks fit. However, I think many agree with you. Not quite. The crucial question for any state is how to choose constituents, how to enfranchise voters and citizens. Genetically determined tendencies play a big part, especially in a nation such as the USA where education and nutrition allow most anyone (including the "poorest") to reach their full genetic potential. For instance, in health care there is a law of diminishing returns. So for each dollar spent on an individual's health care beyond a "baseline" amount, less and less benefit is gained. This means that someone who goes to a free clinic in an urban ghetto gets almost as much lifetime benefit from medical care as a billionaire with the best care available. Ditto for education. So the underpriveleged are really quite priveleged (it's not uncommon for welfare kids to have satellite TV, Playstations, designer shoes, and other such luxury items). Reading one book or website is not the problem: the problem is how a preponderance of someone's time is spent and where their mind is focused. So ideally, people who choose to focus their lives in a stupid or socially destructive way have every right to do so, but perhaps do not deserve enfranchisement by the state.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 4, 2005 4:54:15 GMT -5
Not quite. The crucial question for any state is how to choose constituents, how to enfranchise voters and citizens. Genetically determined tendencies play a big part, especially in a nation such as the USA where education and nutrition allow most anyone (including the "poorest") to reach their full genetic potential. Reading one book or website is not the problem: the problem is how a preponderance of someone's time is spent and where their mind is focused. So ideally, people who choose to focus their lives in a stupid or socially destructive way have every right to do so, but perhaps do not deserve enfranchisement by the state. With "enfranchisement" do you mean that people "wrongly focused" should not be allowed to vote? I don't want to keep alive a discussion if no one else is interested (it seems we are the only ones posting in this thread), but I must notice you see the state as the Subject and the constituents as its means. It's not the state who chooses its constituents, the state is just the name we give to some aspects of the way some people choose to discipline their common life. The state is a mean for the costituents aims. Obviously some costituents may decide that some other costituents are of a different class within the state, as in ancient Sparta. Then this second class ceases to be costituent, as no one would "subscribe" such a "social contract". Sincerely, I have sort of a disturbing feeling that under your system Snoop Snop Dog would not be able to vote (not that I think he votes now, anyway). Maybe I got it all wrong. Let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia on Apr 15, 2005 9:48:18 GMT -5
Agrippa,
I've found a lot of what you have to say very interesting, and I agree with most of it. Biologically, things look rather bleak for us right now. However, it is possible that liberalism is providing a selective pressure to our race in that (for the most part) those who are having children are those who want to have children. Behaviour has a significant genetic component, so if those with a desire to have children are the only ones having them, won't this eventually result in higher birthrates?
|
|
nikki
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by nikki on Apr 17, 2005 12:48:36 GMT -5
The least intelligent would be those who think that intelligence can be determined by race. Two children born of different races can be just as capable of learning and retaining information.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 23, 2005 9:17:50 GMT -5
Or people who don't understand the purpose of a generalization.
|
|
|
Post by silverman on Oct 31, 2005 19:55:07 GMT -5
The Native Americans ;D
|
|
|
Post by silverman on Oct 31, 2005 20:01:20 GMT -5
Whoa, I never thought East Asians would be ranked the dumbest. I always thought East Asians were pretty smart people.
Now the Native Americans, Australoids, or Black Africans on the other hand were in the stone age for a long time. Heck the Native Americans couldn't even invent the wheel ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 31, 2005 20:25:00 GMT -5
The native americans, at least the pre columbian civilizations, knew of the wheel, if you go to Mexico you can find wheeled toys from the aztec civilization in the museums.
The reason why they didnt use the wheel is simple, they didnt have horses, they didnt have cammels, they didnt have donkeys, nor any other suitable domesticated animal.
I believe that makes their civilizations even more impressive, the incas had to rely on professional runners to administrate their empire.
|
|
|
Post by silverman on Oct 31, 2005 23:17:25 GMT -5
Well the wheel maybe only an example. Their military technology was still in the stone age. Northern Native Americans lived in tepees and did not even construct buildings. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas were pretty advanced but not for their time. Their big prymids could not make up for their horrible weapons .
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 1, 2005 11:11:51 GMT -5
Whoa, I never thought East Asians would be ranked the dumbest. I always thought East Asians were pretty smart people. Now the Native Americans, Australoids, or Black Africans on the other hand were in the stone age for a long time. Heck the Native Americans couldn't even invent the wheel ;D. Well, native americans developed civilizations much more advanced than any of the sub-saharan or australoid ones. I was personally sorprised that someone voted semites, jews. They are the smartest group there is, and excell in almost every science. I didn't vote any race. I think it's offensive and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Nov 2, 2005 10:26:46 GMT -5
actually sub saharan have developed good civilisations like i:e mali songhay to name a few. so batrus and silverman how can you say what you have said. your right about race though batrus because the northen europeans were the last to produce a good civilisation so if they were the smartest we would have evidence of what they achived back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 2, 2005 12:45:11 GMT -5
I didn't say that they haven't had any good civilization. Simply that the native american civilization were more advanced.
I don't know specifically about germanic history to claim or deny what you've said. I just wanted to clear up that there's no point on insulting a group for no reason, especially when the genetic origin of group intelligence is still being debated.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Nov 2, 2005 14:49:41 GMT -5
Did native americans have universities? West africans seem to have. There are countless other examples I could present.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 2, 2005 15:14:00 GMT -5
Again never said that west african didn't have advanced civilization. I just offered my perception that the amerindians ones were generally more advanced. Of course i'm not an archeologist and i don't pretend to be always right. It's only my opinion.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Nov 2, 2005 15:28:36 GMT -5
Though I disagree, I can understand your sentiments. Native americans civilisations had advanced stone architecture and calenders which west africa generally lacked, however east africa has seen some remarkable civilisations. The swahili for one are generally overlooked, but it is safe to say that they were materially contemporary with that of 15th century europeans, barring the fact they had indoor plumbing. Much like what remains of tenochtitlan, or macchu picchu, the foundations of an advanced stone architecture can be seen. Sub-saharan africa was'nt as primitive as most people think.
|
|