Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After you come up with a source that says the majority of people on public assistance have an IQ of 70 or less. Considering that only 2% of the population have an IQ below 70............
What would lead you to believe that they have higher than minimum wage paying jobs?
Funny how some will defend the rights of the individual in this scenario, but when it comes to their social programs "it's for the common good".
That's why I never accept the common good argument if it violates individual rights. Even if the common good is served by not allowing certain people to reproduce, or by taking their property, or whatever, it's not an acceptable option.
I would argue that it IS in the common good to see to it that things such as the singling out of low IQ citizens for sterilization does not become law. Who else would be singled out after them and for what reason? People over a certain weight, height? People of a certain ancestry? So yeah it's in the common good.
That's a discussion unto itself. There are numerous ways to prevent low IQ people from having children, but first, we have to come to an agreement in society about whether that's what we want.
The alternative is to just let low IQ people have as many children as they want and all their children will become automatic wards of the state.
The only way that this could be accomplished is to get the government involved. For that reason, I'm out.
I thought they had at least some rudimentary debate skills but posts such as this convince me that they don't.
And condemning all that support President Trump as being the same is, well, extremely typical of a poster such as yourself..
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What would lead you to believe that they have higher than minimum wage paying jobs?
I have no idea where you are coming up with this question.
I just want to know your plan for ridding us of the what was it 19.3% of those on public assistance since obviously, IQ is not the primary reason for them being on public assistance.
I don't think this discussion can go anywhere as long as we are thinking so black and white. This isn't about forced sterilization. I think everyone here is against that.
I disagree that government has to get involved. For example, cigarette smoking continues to drop through education, not because the government has prohibited cigarettes.
So if it is decided this is an issue that has implications that need addressing, then incentives need to be found, but nothing would be forced on anyone.
Isn't using that premise the only way the discussion could continue?
If you don't want continually depressed wages, lower the corporate tax rate so American businesses remain in the US.
Oh, trickle down economics. That's worked so well.
Here's a novel idea, pay workers a living wage. Provide them decent health care. All that extra income will be poured into the economy. That has a proven track record of actually working.
Trickle down economics has clearly shown that putting more money into the hands of the already wealthy results in them getting richer, not creating new jobs or giving workers raises.
If these so-called American companies try to hold America hostage by threatening to leave - Let them. Then loyal American businesses can step in and take their place. And if businesses who leave try to sell their goods here, tax their products to the point no one will buy them.
OP,
So I will ignore the freedom issue, which I think your proposal violates, but...
If you cut off child birth at an IQ of about 70 and below - that means about 2.1% of the population or so couldn't have kids. Doesn't that seem too high? 1 out of every 49 people or so not being allowed to procreate?
2% doesn't seem too high at all. Historically, a greater percentage of people in society don't have children at all. According to the last census, 15 percent of women in their 40s have never had children, which is slightly down from higher numbers.
I have no idea where you are coming up with this question.
You're somehow unaware that there are financial costs for raising a child/children? Who pays? Can a minimum wage earner afford to do so? If they could, we wouldn't have public assistance programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
