Low IQs 'shouldn't have children'


PDA






2dogs
September 30, 2003, 07:21 AM
Perhaps criteria other than IQ should be considered in who should or should not be "encouraged" not to procreate:

Million Mom Marchers .

Ditto anyone with the last name Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein or Waxman.

Michael Moore, assuming he could (and that is a big assumption).

Any "journalist" for CNNPBSMSNBCABCCBSNBCNEWSWEEKTIME


:evil:
--------------------




http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7417014%255E13762,00.html

Low IQs 'shouldn't have children'
From correspondents in Copenhagen
September 30, 2003

A DANISH academic has sparked an uproar by calling for state measures to encourage childbearing among intelligent people but to dissuade those with low intellectual ability, to create what he called a better Danish society.

Helmuth Nyborg, a well-known psychology professor at the University of Aarhus who specialises in intelligence research, said it was time to "abandon the politically correct" and to practice selection in order to "improve the coming generations and avoid degenerates in the population", in comments this weekend that have been widely reported on national television and the country's main newspapers.

"I'm aware that my proposal breaks a taboo that dates back more than half a century, since Hitler's Aryan race program, and it is very controversial," he said.

"But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said.

His proposals triggered outrage among many politicians and experts, including Integration Minister Bertel Haarder, who said Nyborg's suggestions were "against all moral principles".

But he said statistics show that women with lower educations have more children than highly educated women, who tend to spend more time studying and working before starting a family.

Nyborg suggested that highly educated women could have their workloads reduced while less intelligent parents could be paid to not have children.

"It's easy to make associations to Hitler and Nazism, as my critics do. But this has nothing to do with Nazism. Hitler was not a eugenicist, but an ideologue who abused the program of procreation," he said.

"He didn't want to improve the human race, he wanted to eliminate certain groups such as Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, and he massacred the most intelligent among them," Nyborg said.

Nyborg claimed intelligence was hereditary, and said it was "unfortunate and worrying if parents of lower intelligence bring more children into the world, as is the case today in Denmark, than highly intelligent parents".

"We can already choose to have children or not by doing practical tests in fertility clinics which show whether the fetus has hereditary genetic malformations," he said.

"It's possible to choose the eggs. So why not keep the best ones, in terms of intelligence," he said.

"Between 10 and 20 per cent of the population, who are at the lower echelon of society and who cannot fill in a time sheet at work or who cannot hold down a job or take care of their children, should not have children," he said.

"We are all aware of this problem, but we don't dare talk about it. But we should, for the sake of society and the future, so that we can have productive citizens and not people who need help," he said.

Agence France-Presse

If you enjoyed reading about "Low IQs 'shouldn't have children'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
September 30, 2003, 07:33 AM
This reminds me of the eugenics movement, a precursor to the Nazi atrocities. Eugenics was actually pretty popular at one time in the US. They wanted to prevent criminals and low IQ people from having kids. A mandatory sterilization program was actually held constitutional by the Surpreme Court, if I'm not mistaken.

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 07:36 AM
You shouldn't go out in the cold without bundling up, either. This does not mean that we need to offer federal incentives to buy warm clothing, or make it a criminal offense to not wear a scarf.

2dogs
September 30, 2003, 08:03 AM
This reminds me of the eugenics movement, a precursor to the Nazi atrocities.

Interestingly:

"The group [Planned Parenthood] was founded by Margaret Sanger, still portrayed as a feminist heroine by Planned Parenthood activists today.

But Sanger was, first and foremost, a eugenicist – one who believed in the inferiority of non-white races. In 1939, she proposed the infamous "Negro Project," a plan developed at the behest of public-health officials in southern states, where she writes, "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Sanger also attempted to set up birth-control clinics in poor New York City neighborhoods to target "Blacks, Hispanics, Slavs, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, Jews and Catholics."

Sanger was closely tied to Ernst Rudin, who served as Hitler's director of genetic sterilization. An April 1933 article by Rudin – entitled "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" – for Sanger's monthly magazine, The Birth Control Review, detailed the establishment of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene and advocated its replication in the United States. A subsequent article by Leon Whitney published the following June by Sanger, entitled "Selective Sterilization," praises and defends the Third Reich's pre-holocaust "race purification" program.

After the war had concluded and Nazi atrocities came to light, Sanger quickly changed the name of her organization from the Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood – to distance herself from her earlier Nazi associations. "



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27780

Baba Louie
September 30, 2003, 09:58 AM
Break out your tin-foil hats kids. Some good points made from the ultimate Boy Scout of Arkansas yet a tad on the controversial side (understatement of the day... and its early yet)

http://www.kurtsaxon.com/controv018.htm

Still and all, a good and interesting read, guaranteed to have some nodding their heads in agreement, while others will seek out sound counter point for debate/argument sake.

Follow his link at the bottom to his Home page for other... interesting reads. I'm sort of surprised that Kurt "survived" the Dec 31 1999 millenia changeover tho'. Been reading his ramblings since 94 or so.

IMO & FWIW, the only pleasure the poor can afford is making babies (well, a few minutes of pleasure compared to the remining PITA of feeding and raising them to be productive little worker bees) while the "Intelligentsia" tend to prefer to lose themselves in their work with the occasional foray into the art of reproductive pleasure and the related joy of raising their off-spring to be well rounded, productive little power-mad, gov't wary, firearm loving, anarcho-capitalists :D

Adios

Mark Tyson
September 30, 2003, 10:06 AM
I always had the impression that Kurt Saxon was very intelligent but, frankly, a little nuts. Didn't he used to work with the American Nazi party? Didn't he once call for the machine-gunning of anti-war protesters in the 60's? He is pretty witty, in a twisted Hannibal Lecter sort of way.

Sean Smith
September 30, 2003, 10:08 AM
For those who want to learn more about the fallability of IQ testing, a good book to read is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. His politics may annoy you, but his analysis of the history of measuring intelligence (and its political consequences) is spot on.

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 10:15 AM
IQ testing may not be very useful in spotting idiots, that's for sure, however, much like pornography, you know 'em when you see 'em. ;)

RON in PA
September 30, 2003, 11:55 AM
This kind of "intellectual" BS has been going on since at least the 19th century and Galton and the social-Darwinists. The author may claim he is not a NAZI, but this kind of thinking always seems to be part of "programs" that statists come up with. The "unintellegent" are always some group that the "superior" group (superior in their own mind) wants to eliminate.

Bill Hook
September 30, 2003, 12:12 PM
As i'm sure most of you know, our state eugenics laws served as the model for the Nazis.

Wasn't it the Carrie Buck case that German Jurists utilized, in particular?

C.R.Sam
September 30, 2003, 12:25 PM
"But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said. Hold the parents strictly responsible, problem should pretty well self solve in a generation or so.

The author of the idea should go to a few Mensa meetings. Great crossection from clueless to cognizant.

Sam

Joe Demko
September 30, 2003, 12:54 PM
People who advocate this kind of activity always assume that they are part of the group that would be allowed to breed. We all know what happens when you assume.

GinSlinger
September 30, 2003, 12:58 PM
The well-read/well-to-do have historically had fewer children than the masses.

Why worry now?

GinSlinger

Bill Hook
September 30, 2003, 01:01 PM
Why worry now?

Because the need for manual laborers is decreasing with advances in automation and the welfare state means that the many will be leeching off the few. In years past, there were jobs for these folks and they HAD to work if they wanted to eat.

Balog
September 30, 2003, 01:15 PM
I cannot believe this is even a topic of discussion on a pro-RKBA board. If you don't think the government is qualified to tell you if you can carry or not, why should the same incompetent @$$-clowns be allowed to dictate who can reproduce? Look at the Chicom government and their "population growth" controls. Whether you are pro-life or not, forced sterilization [of men and women] and forced abortion is a travesty comparable to genocide.

Edit:For spelling

Smoke
September 30, 2003, 01:16 PM
I am now aware of a Danish academic that should be discouraged to reproduce.

Mike Irwin
September 30, 2003, 01:41 PM
Mandatory sterilization was carried out in Virginia well AFTER the Nazis had been relegated to the trash heap of history.

One of the more detestable practices that reared its head in the United States.

Unfortunately not a lot of people know that many states carried out forced sterilization programs. Some of the people I've discussed this with have been absolutely shocked to find this out. You can see just a little wind come out of thier sails when they find out that Nazi Germany didn't corner the market on the practice.

Mike Irwin
September 30, 2003, 01:46 PM
""But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold the parents strictly responsible, problem should pretty well self solve in a generation or so.

The author of the idea should go to a few Mensa meetings. Great crossection from clueless to cognizant. "

Nice concept, but I believe that in Denmark it is against the law to strike your child as a punishment.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm an ogre, but my parents paddled me when I crossed the line. Not often, but often enough that I made sure that the line wasn't crossed that often. I believe that limited corporal punishment has a role in child rearing.

My parents believed so, too, and I didn't turn out to be a pedophile rapist axe murdering sniper.

cordex
September 30, 2003, 02:00 PM
I'm sorry, maybe I'm an ogre, but my parents paddled me when I crossed the line. Not often, but often enough that I made sure that the line wasn't crossed that often. I believe that limited corporal punishment has a role in child rearing.
Agreed. If carefully and correctly applied, it can be very fruitful.
My parents believed so, too, and I didn't turn out to be a pedophile rapist axe murdering sniper.
Yet.
:scrutiny:

:)

Mike Irwin
September 30, 2003, 02:18 PM
WARNING: The following is NOT intended to be a serious post, nor is it intended to condone child abuse. It may offend some people. If you think you might be offended, don't read it.

"Agreed. If carefully and correctly applied, it can be very fruitful."

Yep.

A few simple rules to follow when employing loving "behaviorial modification therapy (BMT)" to a recalcitrant child....

Always paddle when your anger is hot and fresh.

Never use a board under 2x3, or over 4x4 in size.

Nails are optional, but a 1" protrusion is always a good rule of thumb.

Paddling until the thug's eyes pop out is not usually necessary to get the point across. Bulging is fine.

Experts agree that the lost of up to 1/2 pint of blood in a 5 to 12-year old is OK, and upwards a pint is OK for older hooligans.

Duct tape is useful for keeping screaming, which might disturb the neighbors, to a minimum.

Remember to tell your child, before commencing BMT, that "This hurts me more than it hurts you. Not physically, but mentally. And mental pain is the worst pain of all..."

keederdag
September 30, 2003, 02:58 PM
I will only say this ONE MORE TIME; Soylent green IS children.:D

Mike Irwin
September 30, 2003, 03:07 PM
"Soylent green IS children."

And a fine use for them it is...


Great...

I'm supposed to get together with MTNBKR for the gunshow this weekend.

Given the nature of the past couple of posts, I'll probably find myself handcuffed in the back of his Toyota with a gun pointed at my head until we get to the gunshow venue -- the same on the way back -- if his daughter accompanies us.

Oh well, I've traveled under worse conditions before. The Pennsylvania Turnpike comes immediately to mind... :)

Brian Dale
September 30, 2003, 03:29 PM
"But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said. And nowhere does he show that "less intelligent" children, or those who get low scores on standardized tests, are the same group as "problem kids." He just takes it as given, and goes on from there. There is NO basis for treating these groups as equivalent until all of the kids have fathers at home and they're taught right from wrong. Without that starting point, the data are meaningless.

On "intelligence" tests: I think it's the Steve Gould book above that describes the history of intelligence testing. IIRC, it was invented and developed for the U.S. military in the First World War, to WEED OUT recruits who would be untrainable due either to lack of intelligence or lack of even rudimentary education. NOwhere was anything shown about those at the other end of the curve, the "smart" people. That still seems to be the case. Intelligence tests are one thing I do well, which might show nothing but a lot of practice on standardized tests. The Mensa groups I've belonged to in various parts of the country match Mike Irwin's assessment: "Great crossection from clueless to cognizant."

I'll still be happy if I read in the future that "people like us" (THR members of all stripes) are having more kids. Why? We'll teach them well.

{EDITED TO SAY IT EXPLICITLY: NO HUMAN EUGENICS!}

Waitone
September 30, 2003, 04:14 PM
With term limits and sterilization we could really make a dent in Washington.

Selfdfenz
September 30, 2003, 04:22 PM
Will

One would assume from the author's POV that the overall IQ of the Danish volk would slowly increase over time if low IQ peps were not allowed to reproduce in the future.

But, after the intelligencia gets sooo smart, don't they go gue...I mean gay, at an abnormally high rate. I don't see that group pulling up the IQ a great deal, as they don't have all that many children....

Besides, parental IQ is not necessarily an indicator of what the IQ of the F1s will be.

S-

For all of our efforts to breed what we see as better, Labrador Retrievers are still Labrador Retrievers. Not even after all these years, not even with German Shepards as a model of that a canine whiz kid should be. "

Selfdfenz 2003 ...on the folly of breeding better humans.

Dave Markowitz
September 30, 2003, 04:27 PM
I have to wonder if this guy is a bozo or evil. Perhaps both.

Having high intelligence does not mean that one has great wisdom, nor morals. Look at the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. Many very intelligent, yet evil and often unwise people.

Conversely, lack of intelligence doesn't mean one will be immoral. There are plenty of good, hard-working, moral folks who aren't on the right side of the bell curve.

Having worked in academic administration in the past, and thus working closely with many highly-intelligent academics, I can assure you that plenty of these people may be smart but can't find their own behind with a map. This guy looks like he fits that mold to a "T".

keederdag
September 30, 2003, 04:28 PM
High IQ=gay....I'm speachless! THAT IS RARE.:uhoh:

rock jock
September 30, 2003, 04:55 PM
What do you expect from a continent where euthanisia is practiced on a regular basis.

Mike Irwin
September 30, 2003, 05:09 PM
"Youth in Asia..."

Never liked their music.

The girl they had as the lead singer for awhile was hot, though...

:D

Azrael256
September 30, 2003, 05:40 PM
When everyone is an Alpha, who will take out the trash?

I make it a point to be nice to the people who serve my food and collect my garbage. The stereotype dictates that they are normally of a lower order of intelligence, and I'll make no comment as to the veracity of that claim, but imagine what would happen if they all quit tomorrow.

jimpeel
September 30, 2003, 07:21 PM
Man is the only animal that seeks to weaken its species. The female of the species will mate with anything, not just the strongest. The males are like rabbits jumping from hole to hole. The human species seeks to elevate and preserve that which any other species would leave to the carnivores.

In some ways, as much as I hate to admit it, Peter Singer is correct.

But then there's Stephen Hawking :confused:

jimpeel
September 30, 2003, 07:27 PM
Integration Minister Bertel HaarderThere's a wry joke in there somewhere.

Zach S
September 30, 2003, 07:30 PM
Personaly, I think if they got rid of these laws that are common sense, and were meant for our own well bieng (helmet laws and seat belt laws come to mind first), not to mention all these stupid warning lables on damn near everything, the gene pool would be able to clense itself of morons wthout regulating who can have children.

Glock Glockler
September 30, 2003, 07:41 PM
Jimpeel,

Much appreciated, I have to confess that I agree with you, although I do get a wee bit nervous about having the govt run a eugenics program, I think the free market will do a better job.

One thing that we must keep in mind is that to a certain extent we have a govt run eugenics program right now. Those that are best able to survive and adapt to their environment, the highest income earners, are taxed disproportionately to that the most unfit are able to have scores of kids at their expense. In a sane world the most fit would breed the most and the least fit would eliminate themselves from the genepool.

I can tell you stories for hours about the experiences of my brother, who is interning as a DMD at a govt hospital, and how we are being taxed to keep alive some of the more stupid people that you wouldn't think would share our air. One such example is a guy who decided to go off roading on his 4 wheeler in the woods at 4 in the morning whicle pitch black, drunk and stoned. He fell off, smashed his face into a rock, and was brought into the hospital where the state spent well over 100k to save his life. Why?

Is it right that intelligent and fit people have their wealth taken from them, reducing their ability to provide for their progeny so that human feckle matter like this guy can survive and preserve his ability to contaminate the gene pool? Is it right that people, regardless of genetic fitness, can send as many kids as they can have to a govt school and make everybody incur that cost which they should have to bare themselves? And govt welfare?

Breeding has a financial cost and if one has not demonstrated the ability to improvise, adapt, and overcome in their environment to the extent where they can bare their that cost then they have no business having children. It amazes me that people are so comfortable with the idea of eugenics when it applies to horses, cattle, dogs, and other animals but they react so harshly when it is mentioned in reference to humans.

telomerase
September 30, 2003, 07:44 PM
Low-IQ welfare recipients can have ten kids, while middle-class tax slaves can only manage two. Now, does it take more government programs to fix this, or fewer?

gburner
September 30, 2003, 10:36 PM
'...the female of the species will mate with anything...'

Where are these women?

:banghead:

jimpeel
September 30, 2003, 11:55 PM
Where are these women?Waiting for those rabbits. Get in line.

jimpeel
October 1, 2003, 12:41 AM
http://www.candles-museum.com/mengele.jpg

You may read about him him HERE (http://www.candles-museum.com/mengele.htm).

gburner
October 1, 2003, 12:49 AM
Josef Mengele...currently (and for eternity) on display smoking a dog rocket while up to his nipples in a fish tank filled with pirrhanas, in the mezzanine of the fifth level of hell.

jimpeel
October 1, 2003, 01:34 AM
I like to think of he and Hitler reincarnated as toilets in the largest, busiest Jewish Temple on Earth. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Low IQs 'shouldn't have children'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!