Coerced birthcontrol shots for those on welfare legal?

[The_AC]

It's more complicated than that...

Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments. Debate is ongoing about whether these heritability estimates are too high, owing to inadequate consideration of various factors — such as the environment being relatively more important in families with low socioeconomic status, or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment.

...as you see the genetic component is very low in children. But since there is correlation with good environments it then self-reinforces as individuals age.
This is why it is of critical importance to insure all children have access to a learning environment conducive to mental development.

Isn't that a bit like observing that 1-yo males and females have similar breast sizes, 10-yo males and females have slightly different average breast sizes, and 20-yo males and females have very different average breast sizes, then concluding that the differences in breast sizes between males and females are mostly due to environment, since as they get older they are exposed to more and more of the environment?

Whether or not eugenics "works" is completely not open for debate, unless people want to argue that evolution is some conspiracy theory.

Those insisting that eugenics doesn't "work" look about as goofy as someone insisting that slavery doesn't "work." First, it is indisputable that it "works": you need something done, you threaten to kill people unless they do it; so it gets done. Second, no one cares about the fact that it works, people only care about the fact that it's immoral.

The only "eugenics" I support is cutting back welfare, or reforming it. I might be in favor of extra welfare money given to those who choose to get birth control, but that one's a slippery slope.

 

[Geosurface]

Isn't that a bit like observing that 1-yo males and females have similar breast sizes, 10-yo males and females have slightly different average breast sizes, and 20-yo males and females have very different average breast sizes, then concluding that the differences in breast sizes between males and females are mostly due to environment, since as they get older they are exposed to more and more of the environment?

Whether or not eugenics "works" is completely not open for debate, unless people want to argue that evolution is some conspiracy theory.

Those insisting that eugenics doesn't "work" look about as goofy as someone insisting that slavery doesn't "work." First, it is indisputable that it "works": you need something done, you threaten to kill people unless they do it; so it gets done. Second, no one cares about the fact that it works, people only care about the fact that it's immoral.

The only "eugenics" I support is cutting back welfare, or reforming it. I might be in favor of extra welfare money given to those who choose to get birth control, but that one's a slippery slope.

At last, an extremely reasonable post.

The only thing I'd disagree with is eugenics being immoral. I think it could certainly be implemented in ways which were immoral, but I also think it could be implemented in ways which were not. I think the sooner a society implements it, the more moral they can afford to be.

And I also think that any star-faring, multi-planet species out there has almost certainly engaged in heavy eugenics upon themselves.

So the question is, do we want to graduate to that league or not?

 

[drebo]

I understand the idea that people should be financially responsible before bringing a child into the world, but the idea that the most fundamental point of life (reproduction) is tied to a person's financial situation seems absolutely abhorrent to me. "You're not rich enough to reproduce" is an idea that has no place outside of capitalist eugenics.

Sure it does. It's a fact of life and has been for thousands of years.

Bad harvest year? No kids being born. Drought? No kids being born. Unsuccessful hunting season? No kids being born.

Translated to todays terms: no money to provide for your family? No kids should be born.

 

[drebo]

Isn't that a bit like observing that 1-yo males and females have similar breast sizes, 10-yo males and females have slightly different average breast sizes, and 20-yo males and females have very different average breast sizes, then concluding that the differences in breast sizes between males and females are mostly due to environment, since as they get older they are exposed to more and more of the environment?

Whether or not eugenics "works" is completely not open for debate, unless people want to argue that evolution is some conspiracy theory.

Those insisting that eugenics doesn't "work" look about as goofy as someone insisting that slavery doesn't "work." First, it is indisputable that it "works": you need something done, you threaten to kill people unless they do it; so it gets done. Second, no one cares about the fact that it works, people only care about the fact that it's immoral.

The only "eugenics" I support is cutting back welfare, or reforming it. I might be in favor of extra welfare money given to those who choose to get birth control, but that one's a slippery slope.

Only problem is that requiring people to be responsible for themselves is not eugenics.

So it's not really applicable to this.

Eugenics is not allowing people with blue eyes to reproduce because they're more sensitive to the sun. Or forcing all fetuses to get tested for all known genetic disorders and aborting them if the possibility exists.

Requiring that people on public assistance do everything in their power to not make their situation worse (i.e. not having more children or quitting their jobs) is not eugenics. It's fucking personal responsibility.

 

[Orignal Earl]

At last, an extremely reasonable post.

The only thing I'd disagree with is eugenics being immoral. I think it could certainly be implemented in ways which were immoral, but I also think it could be implemented in ways which were not. I think the sooner a society implements it, the more moral they can afford to be.

And I also think that any star-faring, multi-planet species out there has almost certainly engaged in heavy eugenics upon themselves.

So the question is, do we want to graduate to that league or not?

Ah yes...a reasonable post

But then you think spacemen sounds reasonable. What do you think Gene Roddenberry would think of your perfect world?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Don't forget to pull for the US curling teams.

Cheers...maybe next time.

 

[Geosurface]

Ah yes...a reasonable post

But then you think spacemen sounds reasonable. What do you think Gene Roddenberry would think of your perfect world?

I don't really care what Gene Roddenberry would think. Not much of a Star Trek guy personally. It's alright.

And if you're envisioning my "perfect world" as some sort of place where everyone is identical and all look and think the same, you're very far off.

I just think that negative traits tend to gain an increasingly large share of the gene pool when selection pressures are removed and food is abundant. I think using economic incentives and genetic engineering to effectively simulate natural selection, but even better because it would have an intellect guiding it for the first time, is simply common sense.

And may be flat out necessary to even sustain the civilization we have now, let alone advance it to where many of us have always believed it was headed.

As for "spacemen" ? Do you think it's reasonable to believe we are the only technological species in what appears to be an infinite or at least absurdly vast universe? Even if somehow that were true, it still would be very wise of us not to remain a single planet species. Dangerous situation to be in. Asking for extinction.

 

[TheSiege]

Read this, welfare takes LOTS of other forms

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rs-are-not-america-s-real-welfare-queens.html

 

[Whiskey16]

Whiskey16 continues to be what he always is, a censorious alarmist and weird internet stalker. As long as we're doing the "don't take him seriously because of his other posts and what other people think of him" game, take some time to look at Whiskey16's track record and how much respect he warrants around here, if you're one of those "go with the herd" types.

I've said some things in the past which I regret now, and have apologized for them repeatedly.

This is the first attempt in recognizing errors that I recall ever seeing. Yet I do not believe you have any remorse, rather adapting your presentation style to continue repeatedly consistent calls against certain populations perpetuating undesirable traits right in line with your repeated enthusiastic condemnation of blacks for crime and intelligence. You are a racist, plain and simply. You use this forum to spread your racist views.

On your statements to shoot undesirables in the streets, I failed in witnessing any recantation, rather, MONTHS after your posts you went back to revise and in a self serving revisionists manner wiped history in editing out such offensive posts, all in a desperate attempt to save face as you kept on going with the same racist agenda.

The whole issue of traits which benefit society vs. traits which are a detriment to it applies every bit as much no matter what group of people you're looking at. There is no genome which is magically immune from the tendency of negative traits to outbreed positive traits once an environment of plenty has been established.

You remain a fascist eugenics racist who is on the written record degrading blacks as undesirables for possessing a 'thug gene' and repeatedly advocating to shoot and slaughtered your declared undesirables. That is your record for all to be aware and consistent with your continued topics of enthusiasm.

You remain on this forum to use it to consistently spread hateful bigotry, generally dehumanise your undesirable groups (as upon your statements and pics of animal control and horses as examples of breeding stocks on previous pages), and advocate genocide to purge society of those you deem a lesser value.

Slavers long had a goal of capturing and breeding better blacks. You are akin, and use this forum as a soap box to advocate hateful bigotry and crimes.

 

[Geosurface]

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

You are using a handful of posts I made months ago, then misrepresenting the living shit out of them, to construct a fantasy version of me and my beliefs for you to then "slay the dragon" on so you can feel good about yourself.

Knock yourself out.

I'll just reaffirm a couple of basic key points:

1.) Your representation of my views is NOT accurate.

2.) Your summarizing of what I was saying in those (poorly thought out) posts from months ago is NOT accurate.

3.) I have apologized for and expressed regret about my more offensive posts from months ago NUMEROUS times, and frankly I refuse to believe you haven't seen me do so. Several of the times I did so were in other threads where you dredged those posts up.

4.) I didn't try to edit those old posts to "wipe history" - as I knew that wouldn't work anyway. I did it to make people like you who like to drag them up again and again have a slightly harder time doing it. I did it to inconvenience you, and because I no longer agreed with what I'd said in them. But make no mistake, I knew people still had them copied down.

So enjoy your strawman battling, hope it's fun.

 

[SolMiester]

an effective way to stop the next generation of people on welfare is birthcontrol shots for any girl/woman of child bearing age. also applies to those on social security disability.

1 shot every 3months, paid for by Medicaid.

now the problem is how to get them to the clinic?

stick: threaten to reduced their welfare $?
carrot: give them an extra $25 that month for getting the shot?

and no repurcussions to the doc if the girl does get pregnant since the shots are only 97% effective.

Great idea!

 

[Hugo Drax]

Society needs poor and lower Iq people to exploit. Think about it. We need to employ cops,prison guards, the people that maintain prisons, the people that process welfare, jobs working in special schools for the halfwits,idiots and young thugs. etc..

In addition to the poor people around the world that we use to build our products and collect our rare earths,etc..

 

[Tango]

Isn't that a bit like observing that 1-yo males and females have similar breast sizes, 10-yo males and females have slightly different average breast sizes, and 20-yo males and females have very different average breast sizes [...]

No, it isn't.

 

[The_AC]

No, it isn't.

"Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments. Debate is ongoing about whether these heritability estimates are too high, owing to inadequate consideration of various factors — such as the environment being relatively more important in families with low socioeconomic status, or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment."

...as you see the genetic component is very low in children. But since there is correlation with good environments it then self-reinforces as individuals age.
This is why it is of critical importance to insure all children have access to a learning environment conducive to mental development.

[Differences in breast size of males and females] in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is...

...as you see the [X vs Y chromosome] component [of breast size] is very low in children. But... it then self-reinforces as individuals age.

Just sayin'

 

[piasabird]

It is a matter of humanity and priorities. We all know one main reason people are having children is they know they will get free money. The question here is do we as humans and Americans place more value on the children or the free meal ticket. I think that a lot of government welfare just destroys the family structure. The family unit is the foundation of society. We need to change our policies to build up our families and not to destroy civilization. Do we place greed above the value of children, or are children just a means to get gain. Where is the humanity?

 

[Tango]

Just sayin'

Chromosomes are not a function of experiences. IQ is (directly and through positive feedback mechanisms).

 

[Geosurface]

Chromosomes are not a function of experiences. IQ is (directly and through positive feedback mechanisms).

IQ can be very prone to influence by environment and experiences, but still be overwhelmingly dictated (in terms of it's upper limit) by biology.

I might have an border collie who ends up much smarter because I'm actually challenging it's mind by taking it through obstacle courses and having it herd sheep, and teaching it all sorts of advanced tricks. It might be much more intelligent than it would have been if I'd kept it in a kennel its entire life.

But that dog still won't be reading novels or learning how to do calculus because those are simply beyond the maximum range of what his brain is capable of under ANY circumstances.

And those are acknowledged to be some of the smartest dogs. That's acknowledged because it's actually true, not all dog breeds (despite being separated by VERY minimal differences in DNA) are equally intelligent. Some breeds are quite dumb, others are very smart.

I might have a chihuahua puppy and a border collie puppy and try to raise them identically with all those intellect-stimulating activities previously mentioned, but the border collie is still going to get more out of it and end up smarter, because its genetics allow for that.

One last example would be defragging two computers' hard drives, cleaning all the malware off them, deleting a bunch of useless stuff in the cache to free up space, updating the drivers, etc... doing all this will help BOTH computers, but the one with the i7 processor is still going to be faster than the other one which is a Pentium II.

This is what it means for IQ to be overwhelmingly heritable. It doesn't deny the power of environment and positive feedback mechanisms, education, a family which values these things, etc... it just makes it clear that biology has much MORE power and determines the limits of what environment can do.

 

[Tango]

IQ can be very prone to influence by environment and experiences, but still be overwhelmingly dictated (in terms of it's upper limit) by biology.

I might have an border collie who ends up much smarter because I'm actually challenging it's mind by taking it through obstacle courses and having it herd sheep, and teaching it all sorts of advanced tricks. It might be much more intelligent than it would have been if I'd kept it in a kennel its entire life.

But that dog still won't be reading novels or learning how to do calculus because those are simply beyond the maximum range of what his brain is capable of under ANY circumstances.

Correct. Dogs are not known to read novels. Dogs' intelligence is way less influenced by environment than humans'.

This is what it means for IQ to be overwhelmingly heritable.

It does not mean that. You wished it did, because you support extreme racism, but that does not make it true.

The coefficients posted above told you how much intelligence is genetics determined in children. It is normal that the coefficient increases over time as in our society environment and genetics are also correlated. If you have studied introductory statistical inference you know how this reality translates naturally into that statistical result.

The best part is, all this debate is pointless. Our society supports individual rights, and even overwhelming evidence that things whereas you would like them to be (which does not exist) would not translate into support for policies repressing the rights of the outliers (who would nevertheless exist). And since this is not going to change, I think you would be happier if you stopped supporting dystopian ideas and embraced a 21st century sensibility. That's really up to you though.

 

[Geosurface]

I don't recall mentioning anything about race. Heritability of IQ and other traits is every bit as true within a given population as between different ones.

It is your side who are engaging in wish fulfillment. Don't like the implications of genetics looming so large in determining what individuals can do? Muddy the waters and insist on a ridiculous, unrealistic standard of evidence before you'd accept it (which actually is never) right?

Heritability expressing itself more and more as a person gets older does not necessarily have to be because "in our society environment and genetics are also correlated" - there are many traits which express in more extreme ways as a person ages. Including things like facial features becoming more pronounced and more characteristic of the individual's genome as they get older. So why can't it just be that the longer the genetic code has to express itself, the more dramatic the expression becomes?

I think things like the twin and adoption studies put the lie to the idea that environment can really dislodge someone from their genetic trajectory. Seems more like at best it can wiggle them a bit one direction or the other. Maybe another analogy is firing a bullet out of a gun. Sure, the wind can definitely effect the bullet's path somewhat, but the most important determination of what that bullet would do was made at the time it was fired.

I'll take your last paragraph there to basically be an admission that on some level you understand all this but it makes you feel icky to consider admitting that, and since society will never have the sense to use this information to improve itself anyway, it's just needlessly rude to talk about it.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Lots of people with supposed high IQ definatlty can be the worst types of humans.

 

[Whiskey16]

I'll just reaffirm a couple of basic key points:

1.) Your representation of my views is NOT accurate.

2.) Your summarizing of what I was saying in those (poorly thought out) posts from months ago is NOT accurate.

You are lying:

I don't recall mentioning anything about race. Heritability of IQ and other traits is every bit as true within a given population as between different ones.

Hmmm, around the new year you presented this:

My understanding is that blacks commit ALL types of crime at a higher rate than whites, even surprising types like white collar crime, paedophilia, and serial killing which are commonly thought to be the province of whites.

Making the situation even more lopsided is the fact that Hispanics are rolled into the white category for offenders but are kept distinct when victims. Some of the mugshots I've seen listed as "white" were gut-bustingly hilarious in how obviously non-white they were. Egyptians are also categorized as white. I think a very sizable portion of whites' already low crime rates are attributable to people nobody would consider white if passing them on the street. Primarily Mestizo Hispanics.

On my iPhone so I can't verify right now but perhaps nehalem can help a brotha out (particularly regarding what I said in my first paragraph)

The true crime rate of full blooded Northern European descended folk like myself and like most people think of when you say "white" is very low. East Asians are even lower though I believe.

Damning racist consistencies in your white-supremacist posting:

Originally Posted by geosurface:

Race, genetics and crime


The Thug Gene

A year ago I [Geosurface] was a devoted racial egalitarian and liberal. I then got my "nose under the tent" of information like this, and simply by virtue of not successfully burying my head in the sand, and accepting the truth of these studies, and their obvious connection to observed crime rates, social problems, etc... I am now, according to many, a "racist"

I'm curious. What does it mean to be a racist? Does one automatically become a racist when exposed to certain truths unless they successfully avoid taking said truths on board?

Is it meaningful to be considered a "racist" when you fully acknowledge that this is all just about AVERAGES and that every group, including blacks, produces plenty of amazing, brilliant, gentle people too?

But if some groups produce certain problematic types of people at a far higher rate than other groups do, or other types of very desirable (for civilization) people at a much lower rate... should this have implications for say, immigration policy?

...and just last week:

Unfortunately, the mechanism for this honing process is death. It isn't pleasant. It is, however, necessary.

We understand the power of selective breeding and population control just fine when we're talking about other animals. When we're talking about dog shows and horse races which ultimately just show off the talent of the breeders who selected for the traits.

Why is it that we have fooled ourselves into thinking we don't have to apply this knowledge and understanding IN ANY WAY to our own species, and that somehow this will never have any negative impact? It is madness.

No twisting nor dishonest misrepresentation by anyone. Geosurface's racist and criminally violent agenda at this forum remains consistent an blatantly clear.

 

[Tango]

I don't recall mentioning anything about race. Heritability of IQ and other traits is every bit as true within a given population as between different ones.

It is your side who are engaging in wish fulfillment. Don't like the implications of genetics looming so large in determining what individuals can do? Muddy the waters and insist on a ridiculous, unrealistic standard of evidence before you'd accept it (which actually is never) right?

Heritability expressing itself more and more as a person gets older does not necessarily have to be because "in our society environment and genetics are also correlated" - there are many traits which express in more extreme ways as a person ages. Including things like facial features becoming more pronounced and more characteristic of the individual's genome as they get older. So why can't it just be that the longer the genetic code has to express itself, the more dramatic the expression becomes?

I am an economist. I have a very, very deep understanding of the mechanisms underlying statistical inference. You maybe do not. It is not that it does not necessarily have to be, it just happens that it is an acquired result, that we then need to use in related inferences in order to reach correct conclusions.

Facial features are a completely unrelated problem. They get more prominent because tissues relax with time, not because they "evolve" according to a genetic design that has them emerging later in life.

I think things like the twin and adoption studies put the lie to the idea that environment can really dislodge someone from their genetic trajectory. Seems more like at best it can wiggle them a bit one direction or the other. Maybe another analogy is firing a bullet out of a gun. Sure, the wind can definitely effect the bullet's path somewhat, but the most important determination of what that bullet would do was made at the time it was fired.

I'll take your last paragraph there to basically be an admission that on some level you understand all this but it makes you feel icky to consider admitting that, and since society will never have the sense to use this information to improve itself anyway, it's just needlessly rude to talk about it.

Not at all. That your beliefs are based on the failure to understand the phenomenon is a scientific fact. The reason why I remarked the reality that societies would refuse your conclusions even if the ideas supporting them were correct was an attempt to give you a reason to make peace with the world around you for different reasons, knowing that people with the kind of agenda you exhibit rarely change their mind due to evidence, because they usually base the said agenda on emotions and then try to find some piece of evidence to justify it.

In any case believe what you want. It's going to be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Geosurface]

You are lying

You like to infuse a racial angle into everything I say. It is not present in my discussion in this thread. That's what I was talking about when I said I hadn't brought up race. Which I haven't. Everything I've talked about applies within groups.

Your favorite pass time seems to be to read what other posters you disagree with write, convince yourself that you have found some hidden malevolent thing they're advocating by reading between the lines, and then trying to convince everyone else they're a monster, dehumanize them, and brow beat the forum about why they're allowed to post. You need to learn to distinguish your own imagination about what people mean from what they are actually saying.

I have literally never seen you quote me and provide your interpretation of my meaning without you getting multiple things wrong. Perhaps you should find another hobby.

In any case believe what you want. It's going to be irrelevant anyway.

You act like the issue of nature vs. nurture with regards to this sort of thing is settled. It isn't. Or that economic thinking is completely transferable to biology. It isn't. It is hotly contested and if you are trying to convince either me or yourself that political correctness and wish-thinking hasn't infected the entire debate heavily, I want some of what you're smoking.

 

[Tango]

You act like the issue of nature vs. nurture with regards to this sort of thing is settled. It isn't. Or that economic thinking is completely transferable to biology. It isn't. It is hotly contested and if you are trying to convince either me or yourself that political correctness and wish-thinking hasn't infected the entire debate heavily, I want some of what you're smoking.

No, I am trying to explain to you that you ignore the interaction between regressors. It is not economic thinking that you should transfer, just the mechanisms of statistical inference (which in fact don't even need to be transferred, they are actually the same).

Both genetics and the environment determine IQ. You ignore how much the environment matters because you misunderstand the meaning of the coefficients. The coefficient on genetics itself changes depending on the environment. If you read Turkheimer et al.the coefficient on genetics for low socioeconomic status families is actually not statistically significantly different from zero. It is however high and significant for high socioeconomic status ones. You might or might not understand what this means, but if you will look into it (I mean understanding how inference works) you'll quickly realize you grossly overestimate the weight of genetics alone (without interactions) in determining IQ.

Since people who work in the field do understand this, and policy makers use academic research to inspire policies, it is natural that the focus is on the environment. It is not a matter of political correctness.

Also, you should remember that the coefficient on genetics does not measure the proportion of IQ caused by genetics, but the proportion of variability in the trait (this case intelligence) that can be attributed to the variability in the regressor (this is true of any regression).

 

[Thebobo]

Society needs poor and lower Iq people to exploit. Think about it. We need to employ cops,prison guards, the people that maintain prisons, the people that process welfare, jobs working in special schools for the halfwits,idiots and young thugs. etc..

In addition to the poor people around the world that we use to build our products and collect our rare earths,etc..

The world needs ditch diggers too; Judge smails