I don't know about anyone else, but here in America, there's a lot of legislation/policies refined and made so much so that they are nearly idiot proof, essentially hurting the whole by dragging the rest down. At the very least it's an annoyance. What i'm asking is, do we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are not smart enough to not spill hot coffee on themselves, and if they do blame it on the person who served it to them for not having a "Warning: Drink may be hot" sign on them? Do we really need to keep those people around? I do not mean that we get rid of them, that would be monsterous, but should we as a community paste warning signs all over the place, spend loads of extra time idiot proofing, for people who are not smart enough to realize that standing up in a roller coaster MIGHT be a bad idea? Should we let it be survival of the fittest, where the stupid die off and the smart live long?
The bums of the society drag the whole down, and true, there are legitimate people just down on their luck, but many are those who are un-educated because they were too stupid and dropped out, druggies or other people with vices, and they just drain everyone. However, when you have people who are so unintelligent that they cannot reason the simplest things out, should we just let them be, and if harm comes to them because of a self inflicted injury, not be responsible as a whole? If you don't wear a seatbelt when you drive and you die, it's not the governments fault, it's the driver's, but yet, we now have laws in place that you are fined for not wearing one because people are too stupid to do so. Would it not be better for society to just let those die off? Less people to support, more self-efficient people, less time expenditure to ensure the safety of the whole, and an entire slew of other problems, gone, just by letting stupid people be stupid.
meaning unless you do everything perfectly dont mock others in short yes they might have made stupid descions but really it dosnt make them sub human or anything and it certainly dosnt mean we shouldnt help them out and anthoer thing... what if said person cant help it lets just call them the "lesser iq bunch" so by your logic since the "lesser iq bunch" are never gonna know any better we should let them die? surely this isnt what your implying is it? i would sure hope not.
Obviously, that's how averages work. How many of those though are 95, or 97, or something close to the average? One standard deviation is 15 for IQ.
what if said person cant help it lets just call them the "lesser iq bunch" so by your logic since the "lesser iq bunch" are never gonna know any better we should let them die?
No, what i'm saying is, remove the checks against idiocy. For example, you know the Public School Ban on Home-made lunch in Chicago (Or somewhere, i'm tired). Instead of banning home-made lunches of everyone, you'd let those who wanted to over-eat over-eat. If they die of health problems, well, that's their problem for eating that much. If they have a legitimate disease and they can't help but overeat, go to a doctor, get help, but we shouldn't infringe on EVERYONE'S ability to choose for themselves because a minority can't make a basic decision as to not eat unhealthy foods exclusively.
i would sure hope not.
Extermination would never be the answer, as proven by Hitler. However...I don't think it would be a bad idea to have it be law that if you have some sort of genetic disease or are below a certain IQ (Just for a random number, 70, which is 2 standard deviations below the norm.)(Innate, if you suffered a head injury that would not affect genetic heritage) that you can only adopt, as these traits can be passed on.
