D
Deleted member 36594
Guest
Content removed as it has offended too many unintentionally.
P.S: My english sucks that's why.
P.S: My english sucks that's why.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 36594
Guest
*removed*
Last edited by a moderator:
Rukiara
Registered Member
- Jun 28, 2010
- 64
- 16
Firstly; you have a lot of good points. XD
Secondly; I am a woman, and I do agree to an extent that since women choose that its deteriorated a bit, BUT I do not believe that is the soul reason.
In arranged marriages commonly they were arranged to people who could pay or "donate" the most to the family, the family would benefit an amount OR the womans parents had to have a dowry and so it all came down to what it is now adays -- money, wealth, not intellect and brawn (which is part of it), part of the natural way of life is a little bit intellect, and a little bit strength. Being a "nerd" is technically considered a bad gene, you have to have an appropriate mix of both (so being a nerd is too much of one good gene, and not enough of another, does that make sense? As is the opposite being a jock is too much of a good thing, and not enough intellect). Going back to our natural roots we are built to live in the word without houses, cars, etc.
So a "perfect male" would be the man who could hunt, he was swift, he was strong, he could think well enough to use tools to catch his prey etc.
A perfect woman was obviously slender, this represented an agility as men have a tendency to "Fight" and women is more "flight". Not a bad thing, an example of this is if a family has a child and that child becomes endangered for some reason, the male would have the instinct to go out and hunt down the thing that endangered his child, as the woman has the instinct to stay with the child and protect him, thus working together perfectly. A woman also would be a bit of a thinker, as they would have to forage etc.
So really, money has always been an issue and is the thing that makes "Dominant" males now adays, it's not really the men who can work hard and earn their meals, its the men who can purchase the biggest tvs, the most shoes, etc. And in the case of arranged marriages, the man with the biggest pig took the woman.
So you see to an extent I agree but to another I think its simply human greed that deteriorates our kind. I unfortunately have a hard time staying thin, as both my parents have a chubby gene so it kind of comes naturally, but to balance that out (as any woman who followed their basic instincts would tell them) I have gotten with a man who has a higher metabolism than me, and to try to counter my parents if I stay fit, active, and eat healthy when I am pregnant then studies show that there is a way to "turn off" certain genes, or to lessen the chances of them having those genes (I.E. How eating fish helps stimulate their brain.)
We've lost our basic instincts and thats our issue imho, three cheers for an apocalypse! Lol.
Secondly; I am a woman, and I do agree to an extent that since women choose that its deteriorated a bit, BUT I do not believe that is the soul reason.
In arranged marriages commonly they were arranged to people who could pay or "donate" the most to the family, the family would benefit an amount OR the womans parents had to have a dowry and so it all came down to what it is now adays -- money, wealth, not intellect and brawn (which is part of it), part of the natural way of life is a little bit intellect, and a little bit strength. Being a "nerd" is technically considered a bad gene, you have to have an appropriate mix of both (so being a nerd is too much of one good gene, and not enough of another, does that make sense? As is the opposite being a jock is too much of a good thing, and not enough intellect). Going back to our natural roots we are built to live in the word without houses, cars, etc.
So a "perfect male" would be the man who could hunt, he was swift, he was strong, he could think well enough to use tools to catch his prey etc.
A perfect woman was obviously slender, this represented an agility as men have a tendency to "Fight" and women is more "flight". Not a bad thing, an example of this is if a family has a child and that child becomes endangered for some reason, the male would have the instinct to go out and hunt down the thing that endangered his child, as the woman has the instinct to stay with the child and protect him, thus working together perfectly. A woman also would be a bit of a thinker, as they would have to forage etc.
So really, money has always been an issue and is the thing that makes "Dominant" males now adays, it's not really the men who can work hard and earn their meals, its the men who can purchase the biggest tvs, the most shoes, etc. And in the case of arranged marriages, the man with the biggest pig took the woman.
So you see to an extent I agree but to another I think its simply human greed that deteriorates our kind. I unfortunately have a hard time staying thin, as both my parents have a chubby gene so it kind of comes naturally, but to balance that out (as any woman who followed their basic instincts would tell them) I have gotten with a man who has a higher metabolism than me, and to try to counter my parents if I stay fit, active, and eat healthy when I am pregnant then studies show that there is a way to "turn off" certain genes, or to lessen the chances of them having those genes (I.E. How eating fish helps stimulate their brain.)
We've lost our basic instincts and thats our issue imho, three cheers for an apocalypse! Lol.
D
Deleted member 36594
Guest
Thanks Rukiara.
Well, true. What is more troubling is how easily some women can fall for any type of man. And when I say "Jerks" I don't really mean those fit size ones. I'm sure most guys have seen chicks hanging out with those spoilt, skinny, fark face brats.
I know a beautiful girl who is a graduate from an University. Yeah, both beautiful and smart! But she falls in love with a skinny, fark face guy who only finished high school. What a waste...
Also, in this information age, "Survival Of the Fittest" (in terms of physical strength) won't really be the pillar of mankind but knowledge.
Without knowledge, there won't be medicines, guns, and humans being able to travel in space.
Oh well..
Well, true. What is more troubling is how easily some women can fall for any type of man. And when I say "Jerks" I don't really mean those fit size ones. I'm sure most guys have seen chicks hanging out with those spoilt, skinny, fark face brats.
I know a beautiful girl who is a graduate from an University. Yeah, both beautiful and smart! But she falls in love with a skinny, fark face guy who only finished high school. What a waste...
Also, in this information age, "Survival Of the Fittest" (in terms of physical strength) won't really be the pillar of mankind but knowledge.
Without knowledge, there won't be medicines, guns, and humans being able to travel in space.
Oh well..
Last edited by a moderator:
LiamLC
Regular Member
- Nov 1, 2009
- 407
- 286
good + bad =/= average gene
If good is dominant it will prevail if bad is dominant it will prevail there is little compromise (there can be compromise due to the fact that some traits require multiple genes which may be contributed by both parents).
I think it sounds like your saying that women shouldn't have full rights (even though I know that's not what you mean) so you might want to change that.
Other than that, I agree with your concept.
If good is dominant it will prevail if bad is dominant it will prevail there is little compromise (there can be compromise due to the fact that some traits require multiple genes which may be contributed by both parents).
I think it sounds like your saying that women shouldn't have full rights (even though I know that's not what you mean) so you might want to change that.
Other than that, I agree with your concept.
MiLiTARYiV
Senior Member
- Jan 9, 2008
- 963
- 605
I'm a nerd, fighter, lover, rough neck, business man, gentleman, smart and handsome wrapped in one package. It cant get better then this. Thats why u I choose very very cautiously who I choose to sleep with. I dont want to have the wrong type of female with my seed by accident..
Since I am 6'4 6'5 I usually choose tall women so we can have a tall child..
On another note me and my girl was just talkign about this. How alot fo people are having babies and kids who have no business what so ever too.
Also I will never get to this day, why people on welfare are allowed to have babies. Imean if you ron welfare that means you cant take care of your self and your child now, so how and the heck your going to have 3 more while on welfare..
They should make all people on welfare get their tubes tied...Includes men too, and if you have any kids then you get cut off welfare point blank.
Sometimes I just shake my head when I see some of the dumbest retarded lazy people having kids... And guess what, like the OP said, sadly they are reproducing more of their kind at a fast rate.
Since I am 6'4 6'5 I usually choose tall women so we can have a tall child..
On another note me and my girl was just talkign about this. How alot fo people are having babies and kids who have no business what so ever too.
Also I will never get to this day, why people on welfare are allowed to have babies. Imean if you ron welfare that means you cant take care of your self and your child now, so how and the heck your going to have 3 more while on welfare..
They should make all people on welfare get their tubes tied...Includes men too, and if you have any kids then you get cut off welfare point blank.
Sometimes I just shake my head when I see some of the dumbest retarded lazy people having kids... And guess what, like the OP said, sadly they are reproducing more of their kind at a fast rate.
Rukiara
Registered Member
- Jun 28, 2010
- 64
- 16
I TOTALLY AGREE. I have a friend who is registered to have 'asburgers' or something like that, right? So he gets money every month from the state for that, and has no job. His wife is legally mentally retarded, and she gets money for that, and together they had a child and now the get even more money. They make 1200 a month about doing absolutely literally nothing, my friends plays video games all the time, oh btw thats 1200 PLUS foodstamps PLUS they live in a "special" apartment where they only pay 200 a month or less. Meanwhile the state won't even let me have foodstamps while I work my butt off trying to scrape by enough money a month to eat. :/ They literally denied me foodstamps or anything when I lost my job due to back issues, yet no one cares! (I'm not complaining, I work really hard online as a freelancer and I am happy working, I believe working is a privilege because without work there is no play, because play becomes monotonous.)
They have a child and this women, also, weighs in about 320 lbs (just guessing), so much so that you could not tell she was pregnant, and she gets tired from taking the elevator to her car. Meanwhile intelligent people are holding back on having children because they obviously aren't ready and want to raise children properly, and other women use them as extra money and welfare tickets. UGH.
Slightly off topic, and to get it back on topic that is more of bad genes and deteriorating human kind plunging themselves into idioticy.
Has anyone seen Idiocracy ? It's a pretty fun movie that goes well with this topic.
[QUOTE]imdb com /video/screenplay/vi1526530841/[/QUOTE]
That's the trailer.
(Obviously remove spaces and add the dot.
)
MiLiTARYiV
Senior Member
- Jan 9, 2008
- 963
- 605
WHAT!
We are?? Where. Not in the USA. We are light years behind Japan in technology.
IQ?? Havent you seen the news, read the paper, or ever heard about all the dumb criminals lately. Like the one that tried to rob cash loan business but instead it was the police station..lol
Medical advances? What ? Where.. Is aids cured.. Even cancer which is a immune disease.. Heck we still cant cure flu or common cold..
Faster then ever??
USA is like Blackberry Rim Company no innovation at all just reproducing same thing with different specs
Last edited:
muscleteen
Power Member
- Oct 28, 2008
- 679
- 1,074
Personally I believe this is a good thing. Here is why:
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
muscleteen
Power Member
- Oct 28, 2008
- 679
- 1,074
Personally I believe this is a good thing. Here is why:
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
muscleteen
Power Member
- Oct 28, 2008
- 679
- 1,074
Personally I believe this is a good thing. Here is why:
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
You're right. Many "good genes" marry "bad genes" and vice versa. It's always been like this (even in royal times when kings and princes were having sex with the maids and queens and princesses with the bodyguards).
BUT also, many people ARE wise and wary when choosing their partners. THIS my friend is why there will ALWAYS be a small percentage of the world's population who is "superior" in their field (actors marry singers, doctors marry forensics scientist, etc).
It's all about the law of randomness and variation. Some "people" get lucky and have the good genes.
Hope that makes you less "angry"
LiamLC
Regular Member
- Nov 1, 2009
- 407
- 286
The average IQ isn't rising. I would like to see your source for that. Also, IQ tests are not too accurate, by practicing the type of problems on it (puzzles and critical thinking) you can increase your score without increasing your IQ. Overall, they are generally correct, but a slight increase is rather meaningless.
We are making technological advances because, technology grows exponential. Now that computers exists it allows for thousands of other things to exist, like mobile phones which allow for more technologies to be created etc. and the rising population creates more economic demand so more motivation for innovation. Even if we were significantly dumber we would still be advancing technologically at speed higher to other points in history because of the massive opportunity presented to us based on already established technologies.
IMO medical technology isn't actually growing that fast or at least where it matters.
MiLiTARYiV
Senior Member
- Jan 9, 2008
- 963
- 605
double post
Last edited:
Strygwyr
Junior Member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 154
- 1,480
It's called the flynn effect. And you're right, apparently they have leveled off now and are possibly in decline. There were significant rises during the 40s through to the 80s. I'm talking about developed nations... I'm sure there will be increases seen in developing nations for quite some time as education becomes more accessible etc.
Well the test measure IQ, so yea, you're increasing it. Unless of course you mean you can increase your IQ, while maintaining the same level of intelligence. But then you get into the argument of "what is intelligence" and how is it defined. There are quite a few models, and I'd argue that if you are raising your problem solving and critical thinking abilties, you are raising your overall intelligence through increases in those subsets.
I'd have to partially agree with you there. Nevertheless, some pretty great minds go into the inventions of today. Even the computer is a relatively recent invention. I'm not sure as to the timeframe OP is talking about.
Well, it will never grow as fast as the general public would like... It's all relative, and it depends on the timeframe we're looking at.
LiamLC
Regular Member
- Nov 1, 2009
- 407
- 286
Yes that's true. For some reason I was assuming we were talking about USA and Europe.
The first thing you said was right. I also see where you're going with that. However, I believe IQ is relative (the median score is 100) maybe I'm wrong so I don't see how there can be a drop in IQs. It's not actually measuring your intelligence. It's a test, it just assesses (<-- weird word) it so that you can see your standing for placement purposes (i.e. advanced classes)
I believe you were the one who brought up technology. So what time frame were YOU talking about? lol (but I do see what you're saying
)
Strygwyr
Junior Member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 154
- 1,480
No I don't watch the news. Biased, sensationalized bullshit is all it is. It caters to these exact "average" people that OP has a problem with. If anything I'll read up on world events.
I'm sorry, I forgot the world revolved around the US. As far as I'm concerned, Japan is part of the Earth and as such, part of this dicussion.
Good work, you managed to list 3 of the most complex diseases/viruses to cure. Do you want me to list the hundreds of treatments and cures for other health problems developed in the last 100 years.
There're treatments for cancer and survival rates are increasing. The life expectancy of those with HIV/AIDS as more than doubled in the last 20 years.
I'm not even going to argue about the common cold. I doubt there ever will be a cure.
Last edited:
quick note
intelligence is not measured by what u know, its measured by your ability to absorb and retain new information
ex. you could teach a mentally handicapped person a complex task through lots of repition and he could perform well in that field, but since it took him five times longer to learn it he hasnt increased his intelligence at all, merely gained new information
vice versa
if a mensa certified genius learned quantum physics in a day, he hasnt inceeased his intelligence level at all, he was already smart so it wasnt hard for him
sorry bout any instances of fat fingeritis but im on my celly
Posted via Mobile Device
intelligence is not measured by what u know, its measured by your ability to absorb and retain new information
ex. you could teach a mentally handicapped person a complex task through lots of repition and he could perform well in that field, but since it took him five times longer to learn it he hasnt increased his intelligence at all, merely gained new information
vice versa
if a mensa certified genius learned quantum physics in a day, he hasnt inceeased his intelligence level at all, he was already smart so it wasnt hard for him
sorry bout any instances of fat fingeritis but im on my celly
Posted via Mobile Device
LiamLC
Regular Member
- Nov 1, 2009
- 407
- 286
You're right and wrong.
intelligence is not measured by what u know
that is correct
its measured by your ability to absorb and retain new information
that is incorrect. Intelligence has to do with the way you think. Some people have photographic memory and they retain and absorb information freakishly well but they don't necessarily have a high IQ.
Here is an example of the type of question they would ask you to judge your IQ:
If a square piece of paper was folded in half 3 times and then a hole was punched in he bottom right hand corner, when it was unfolded, which of the following pictures would illustrate the hole placement on the square... (i just made that up but you get the point)
tacopalypse
Senior Member
- Nov 30, 2009
- 935
- 2,533
i think what's really happening here is that both smart people are getting smarter AND dumb people are getting dumber.
an example being that us internet marketers profit more from dumber customers. so we make our fake review pages and fill their heads with lies just so they'll fill out our cpa offers. and we get richer because of it. we improve our strategies and get better at extracting money from them, and they just give us all their money and get poor and dumber.
and as this cycle continues, the people at the top will just get better at what they do while the people at the bottom will just get worse and worse. and since it makes us loads of money, we intentionally perpetuate it. and that's just life, it seems.
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that marketing makes it's targets stupid while simultaneously making the marketers rich, and it also increases their marketing proficiency so they can extract even more money from their targets while making them even stupider in the process.
and that's just the game we play. i pass no moral judgement here, it's just the way things are.
an example being that us internet marketers profit more from dumber customers. so we make our fake review pages and fill their heads with lies just so they'll fill out our cpa offers. and we get richer because of it. we improve our strategies and get better at extracting money from them, and they just give us all their money and get poor and dumber.
and as this cycle continues, the people at the top will just get better at what they do while the people at the bottom will just get worse and worse. and since it makes us loads of money, we intentionally perpetuate it. and that's just life, it seems.
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that marketing makes it's targets stupid while simultaneously making the marketers rich, and it also increases their marketing proficiency so they can extract even more money from their targets while making them even stupider in the process.
and that's just the game we play. i pass no moral judgement here, it's just the way things are.