Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

gorgeyetsun

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There are plenty of brownfield sites but for some reason developers seem to like snapping up green field sites.

By us farmland appears to be going out of use as it is currently cheaper to import foodstuffs. Surley this isn't sustainable as fuel/transport costs increase and fuels become scarcer?

A lot of brownfield sites have been contaminated by industry and so they need to be cleaned up before houses can be built on them. It's therefore more cost efficient for building firms to use greenfield sites that don't need to have their top soil scraped away and replaced.

Perhaps the government could give some sort of tax incentive to cover the cost of cleaning up brownfields sites and make them more cost effective?

Tancred

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Democracy is the least bad system we've tried so far, but it's far from perfect.

As 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or less, and such people are essentially incapable of comprehending some of the more complex issues facing society, particularly issues where the evidence supports a counter-intuitive conclusion, wouldn't it be better if passing an IQ test above a certain threshold was a prerequisite for voting?

Or is it the case that we should continue to rely on Politicians being able to dumb down debate so that a majority of voters can understand, even though this leads to the nuances and subtleties of important issues being lost, and encourages partisan conflict and 'rabble rousing' styles of communication?

More to the point: should they be allowed to breed? It's a shame that eugenics got a bad name because of all the nasty things that the Nazis did - the fundamental objectives of eugenics were always good ones. We have an underclass of untold millions of chavs who are too violent, criminal or moronic to be productive members of society. How are we going to solve this problem?

PS - I'm serious. :cool:

susan6780

Tancred wrote: »

More to the point: should they be allowed to breed? It's a shame that eugenics got a bad name because of all the nasty things that the Nazis did - the fundamental objectives of eugenics were always good ones. We have an underclass of untold millions of chavs who are too violent, criminal or moronic to be productive members of society. How are we going to solve this problem?

PS - I'm serious. :cool:

I kind of agree, but how would we decide? Would we sterilise people that wore track suits and weren't doing exercise? Or the chavs that breed at 16? Or women that smoked when pregnant? Would we sacrifice the 1 or 2 offspring that decide on a better future? And would that be worth it?

wotsthat

Tancred wrote: »

More to the point: should they be allowed to breed? It's a shame that eugenics got a bad name because of all the nasty things that the Nazis did - the fundamental objectives of eugenics were always good ones. We have an underclass of untold millions of chavs who are too violent, criminal or moronic to be productive members of society. How are we going to solve this problem?

PS - I'm serious. :cool:

What's the point of suggesting a 'solution' that is never going to be implemented in a million years? You obviously think you're pretty bright (despite not being able to tell the difference between genetic and cultural traits) - if you can't think of anything then how to you expect the 'underclass' to come up with a solution?

wotsthat

susan6780 wrote: »

I kind of agree, but how would we decide? Would we sterilise people that wore track suits and weren't doing exercise? Or the chavs that breed at 16? Or women that smoked when pregnant? Would we sacrifice the 1 or 2 offspring that decide on a better future? And would that be worth it?

You 'kind of agree' that there should be a compulsory sterilisation programme but are worried about the scheme administration and the bad PR that Adolf Hitler gave to such ideas?

It's great that the internet manages to bring together like minded people.

gorgeyetsun

wotsthat wrote: »

You 'kind of agree' that there should be a compulsory sterilisation programme but are worried about the scheme administration and the bad PR that Adolf Hitler gave to such ideas?

It's great that the internet manages to bring together like minded people.

This forum really is dying the death of a thousand cuts. I remember when we just used to have racists in here (Dervish, et al) but when people start talking about forced sterilisation programs, it's time to shut up shop.

These people can't be very bright or they wouldn't even consider voicing these ideas - clearly they don't realise that if this sort of program was implemented, they would be the first on the list.

paulsad

Wow some "superior" intellects on here...
Not all children of "chavs" grow up to be mindless morons ... some become extremely nice yes even intelligent people - such is the diversity of life.
What gives anyone here the right to decide on life or death?
Smacks of Nazism or Naziism whichever you prefer - a dangerous route to go down.
"Right to Vote" - what are you scared of? Its not as if the main choices on offer to vote for are that dissimilar anyway. They already treat all of us (and yes that includes you superior types as well) like idiots anyway.

BertieUK

I think that the subjects of procreation is somewhere this thread should stay well away from remember the saying...

...fools rush in where angels fear to tread...and you are treading on some very thin ice.

susan6780

Aren't we just having banter and voicing some alternative to solutions to problems? Yes I agree I would be the first 'batch' of enforced sterilisation, I wear tracksuits and am immune to exercise so how about getting prisoners to build the new HS2 track? America use chain gangs? Wouldn't that save a little money?

grizzly1911

gorgeyetsun wrote: »

A lot of brownfield sites have been contaminated by industry and so they need to be cleaned up before houses can be built on them. It's therefore more cost efficient for building firms to use greenfield sites that don't need to have their top soil scraped away and replaced.

Perhaps the government could give some sort of tax incentive to cover the cost of cleaning up brownfields sites and make them more cost effective?

I accept their is some pretty toxic stuff out there I have worked with land risk assessments.

Interestingly this guy from Taylor Wimpey says 70% of land developed is brownfield and that the profit margins aren't too dissimilar as the land is often cheaper because oif it. With greenfield the premium goes to the landowner apparently. Sounds like additional planning requirements in terms of infrastructure get attached to greenfield too.

3.00 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYDaVJYqFro


:think: