Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #74 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
The problem with a Democratic society is everyone is allowed to vote.

The majority of people are ******* retarded, stupid people out number the smart ones 10,000-1, and if you can appeal to those stupid people which is very easy to do, you end up with a herd of sheep that unquestionably give you support.

To vote it should be required that you have an IQ of over 120 or be over 40 years old (hopefully by then you are wise enough to make up for your lack of intelligence)
User avatar #148 to #74 - Loon (11/23/2012) [-]
I am pretty sure Hitler had an IQ above 120. But from what you wrote, you sound like you would support fascism.
#180 to #148 - tranminh (11/23/2012) [-]
facism isn't bad, it could work if the leader and his/her party had really good ideals
User avatar #121 to #74 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
Just a btw im sick of replying to this post, so many notifications.
#119 to #74 - anonymous (11/22/2012) [-]
Why is everyone voting this down? He is completely right. Young people are so often influenced just by what their friends believe in. Its a shame.
0
#106 to #74 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #110 to #106 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
i have already explained IQ twice now i should not need to explain it to you too.
Simple version.
When have you ever met a person with a high IQ that was dumb?
When was the last time you met a person with a low IQ that was dumb?

The system has flaws but it works well enough.
0
#116 to #110 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#87 to #74 - anonymous (11/22/2012) [-]
Wow. That was perhaps the most asinine comment I have read in a long, long time. Please, do yourself and all of us a favor by shutting the **** up next time.
User avatar #85 to #74 - mexicoman (11/22/2012) [-]
Well the problem is that IQ is an awful indicator of true intelligence, and that most stupid people tend not to vote anyway. An age limit like that sounds like it asks for trouble. Why should 40 year olds determine how life is for everyone under that age? Especially considering that older people tend to be more authoritarian and conservative. I oppose anything but equal rights, and I believe it is important that freedom be extended as broadly as possible.
User avatar #95 to #85 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
The notion that someone who has lived twice as long as another would be incapable of comprehending what that other person needs in life is quite silly to be honest.
And IQ is a flawed system, but can you honestly say you have met anyone with a high IQ that was unintelligent?

Yes there are plenty of people with low IQ that do apply themselves and are intelligent individuals but on the average ten times as many are complete imbeciles.
those imbeciles worry me.
User avatar #115 to #95 - mexicoman (11/22/2012) [-]
People who are older have different motives, as well as different moral codes in many cases. If you only allowed the elderly of today to vote for example, you would see an increase in Medicaid/Medicare spending and a downturn in financial aid for college students because ' **** that socialist **** , pull yourself up by the bootstraps'. You would see More drug war laws, as well as an increase in wars because they were raised in the red scare and have international hostility practically ingrained in them. These same types of problems would persist with forty year olds onto the younger generation. That is part of why I believe strongly that voting rights ought to be extended as broadly as possible. Sure, lets not actively encourage stupid people to vote, but there are intelligent people of all ages that deserve a voice.
User avatar #122 to #115 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
TL;DR: You want Obama to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants and behold them the rights to vote.

Your example of elderly people expresses your motive well for elderly people are probably the only group which actually follows politics, and are the most intelligent in it. Every single group votes based on blocks like you have described for elderly people; Hispanics vote mostly on illegal immigration, Asians on legal immigration, Blacks on race.
#100 to #95 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
>And IQ is a flawed system
Citation needed.
User avatar #104 to #100 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
You do get that you have selected the one thing from my statement that supports your belief and ignored everything else completely, this tells me you are an unintelligent individual and your opinion is meaningless.
User avatar #105 to #104 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
I just hate this intellectual fallacy that is being sprouted which states IQ is somehow meaningless. This is what Communists in Russia tried to argue. This thesis that IQ is a false-system is completely wrong.
User avatar #111 to #105 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
It is not false, it is flawed, but it still works fine.
User avatar #117 to #111 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
I would argue you to be wrong. Look into scientific studies on IQ; it shows very well the future of a person. If he will pass college, if he will die young, what score he will get on the ACT test.

0
#108 to #105 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #112 to #108 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
You can say the exact same thing for a driving test:

Oh well, this whole thing is like, based on the fallacy which assumes that this test will pinpoint how well I drive. It is based on a set of rules which cannot be described as "universal"

Would you argue that someone who fails a driving test is a better driver than someone who perfectly passes it? I mean, afterall, the two scores should mean no difference to you since the test is based on abstract rules.
0
#120 to #112 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #130 to #120 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
Look into scientific studies which use IQ to measure a persons later success in life. IQ is a very valuable measurement which can very accurately pinpoint what a person will become and what he can become. A driving test is a very good example to what you use as an argument. IQ tests measure, again, very accurately what a person would score on the ACT, which thus would decide what he will become in life making it an accurate test. Driving tests measure how people can do abstract things such as parallel park, and this equates well with how they can maneuver using a wheel.

Another example of its accuracy is how it passed through the blood; how family members tend to have the same IQ's eachother, and the same racial groups.

In all the studies comparing identical and fraternal twins -- it is found that separated identical twins raised apart scored closer in IQ than fraternal twins raised together. Other sources of excellent data are found in studies of adopted children. Adopted children are closer to their genetic parents' IQs rather than with their foster parents who they grow up with.
0
#132 to #130 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #139 to #132 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
What about not being a total ******* retard do you not understand? You are trying to argue that because there is no simple handbook written which states what intelligence is, that is it totally irrelevant which cannot be the case if you look into scientific data.

The universal system of intelligence is measured through scientific studies which prove the validity of IQ in showing how a person evolves in life: the grades he gets, how much money he makes in a job. That has strong correlation with IQ. And to see that IQ is very relatable to heredity makes my case stronger.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, read a book about it (ones that weren't published in the Soviet Union).

Look to my example of a drivers test which I expanded upon in my last comment. It applies very well to your idiotic argument.
-1
#146 to #139 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #156 to #146 - byposted (11/23/2012) [-]
IQ measures intelligence to the point of which it is seen in society. THAT IS THE ANSWER.

Nobody knows what "intelligence" literally means but IQ applies intelligence as measured by our society to how it reflects in the real world.
-1
#158 to #156 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#153 to #146 - byposted (11/23/2012) [-]
You know what, I'm done. No scientist would agree with your Soviet-like thesis, just so you know that.

I have explained to you everything but heredity; and that makes my case stronger because it shows that intelligence is a matter of biology, the brain, evolution. It is NOT "abstract" and environmental just because it doesn't go well with your autism.

Grades, occupation, and income have everything to do with IQ. Studies have shown a .82 correlation between IQ and yearly income. If you're going to argue against that as not being "useful", then I'm going to throw up over my keyboard.
0
#159 to #153 - gritsreborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #164 to #159 - byposted (11/23/2012) [-]
Haha, k bud. Take this to /sci/ and see what they say.
#175 to #164 - tranminh (11/23/2012) [-]
correlation and causation are very different...life doesn't revolve in a vacuum where IQ is the dominant factor which decides all things. Not to say a higher IQ will not benefit you in real life, but some people mature gradually over time and develop their intelligence. So essentially in order for your system of government to vote you're proposing:

1. Annual IQ tests which must be moderated/standardized, created, distributed and marked

This will cost an immense amount of money not to mention the fact that taking a written IQ test doesn't prove your intelligence at all

2. You are segregating society into 2 classes, one higher and one lower.

Subjugating the lower classes to humiliation may either lead to a revolution of that class, or eventually the discrimination of that lower class, beginning with revoking the rights to vote. A split society is never good, look what happened in America in the 60's and 70's, two different social groups (young vs old) fighting for reform/conservative

Your system is flawed. Ideal sure, I believe Socrates (or one of his students) thought around the same lines as you, that only the intelligent should lead however it just won't work.
#91 to #85 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
>Well the problem is that IQ is an awful indicator of true intelligence
All scientific evidence which measures a person's growth in life and achievement would say otherwise. Go back to Revleft.
User avatar #99 to #91 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
It is a flawed system tho.
you can not say someone is dumb solely on their IQ as it is a measurement of how they can learn, not have learnt.

Just on average someone with a high IQ is an intelligent person, and someone with a low IQ is unintelligent.
User avatar #102 to #99 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
But it is certainly an accurate system of measurement when it comes to pinpointing a person's intelligence, that is, a person's ability to learn and adapt to society's challenges.

Just because blacks, on average, score near to mentally retarded doesn't make them retarded of course; but it does show that their intelligence capabilities are less than Asians and Whites because they even score poorly in Western countries where their environment is better.
User avatar #84 to #74 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE (11/22/2012) [-]
the problem is that over 120 IQ 40 year olds tend to find themselves in many similar economical social circles. When a decision needs to be made it's likely between them and another party being chosen to suffer they would all go 'well **** THOSE guys huehue'
User avatar #88 to #84 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE (11/22/2012) [-]
that's actually an incredibly basic notion concerning democratic functions. I hope you don't vote.
User avatar #83 to #74 - lcarnage (11/22/2012) [-]
Ahh...Ignorance is bliss.
#80 to #74 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
Lol mad cracka, yo time of runnin thang is ova.

Dere will never be another straight whitey prezident ever ag'in, an' dere's nuttin' you can do boutit.
User avatar #81 to #80 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
You come across as a very terrible troll.
We all know black people can not afford the internet.
#86 to #81 - silentnigga (11/22/2012) [-]
publik librarey 						*****
publik librarey *****
0
#82 to #81 - silentnigga has deleted their comment [-]
#76 to #74 - anonymous (11/22/2012) [-]
Dude. We're a republic.
User avatar #78 to #76 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account** (11/22/2012) [-]
you are.
 Friends (0)