Where are you on the political spectrum?

[Florestan]

Did you try the 9 axes quiz or the philosophy one?

Not yet. I'll post the results after taking them.

[greg]

Not yet. I'll post the results after taking them.

Cool 

[Florestan]

I began taking the philosophical test and the 2nd question is this:

I would rather be given an expensive car than save the life of a starving child.

This is begging the answer; nobody in his minds can agree with that. I'm sure not even Trump would strongly agree.

So I'm not going any further with this, it's even more biased than the political ones. Sorry.

[greg]

I began taking the philosophical test and the 2nd question is this:

I would rather be given an expensive car than save the life of a starving child.

This is begging the answer; nobody in his minds can agree with that. I'm sure not even Trump would strongly agree.

So I'm not going any further with this, it's even more biased than the political ones. Sorry.

True. It would have been better to question an approach for how people choose to do good.

If one answer is obviously just evil, then that could imply the test maker has some bias against one of the values.

If they weighed it more heavily than other questions it could be more fair, but yeah, it kinda feels dumb to answer questions that like 95% of the population would feel strongly about answering one way.

[Florestan]

Or "abortion should be restricted to specific cases" Even a pro-choice person could answer affirmatively while a traditional anti-abortionist might think that this sounds far too permissive because the only acceptable cases would be mortal danger for the pregnant mother.

I'm staunchly pro-life but I can think of two more specific cases where abortion should eventually be allowed if dissuasion fails:

1. rape (including incest)

2. medical screening reveals the baby's going to have severe mental handicaps or life-threatening conditions.

[greg]

I'm staunchly pro-life but I can think of two more specific cases where abortion should eventually be allowed if dissuasion fails:

1. rape (including incest)

2. medical screening reveals the baby's going to have severe mental handicaps or life-threatening conditions.

I'm similar but probably more in the middle because I don't like people who are both low IQ and poor creating another human who will end up the same way. It also has a negative effect on society when so many people are like this.

The other end would be people that will just be reckless and never use protection and get multiple abortions. That's totally disgusting imo.

[Florestan]

I don't like people who are both low IQ and poor creating another human who will end up the same way. It also has a negative effect on society when so many people are like this.

I am utterly and irreconcilably opposed to this for so many reasons that I don't even know where to begin. I urge you to think again --- and think hard.

people that will just be reckless and never use protection and get multiple abortions.

This seems to (have) become the norm in some circles, doesn't it?

[greg]

I am utterly and irreconcilably opposed to this for so many reasons that I don't even know where to begin. I urge you to think again --- and think hard.

I'm not promoting action against it. Just that I think people should think twice about putting a person in a bad environment with bad genetics and little hope to climb the economic ladder.

Also there is the assumption that babies will grow up to be people who don't wish they were never born... then look at the suicide rate. People gotta get their stuff in order before making someone live imo.

[Florestan]

I'm not promoting action against it.

I should hope so.

I think people should think twice about putting a person in a bad environment with bad genetics and little hope to climb the economic ladder.

Bad environment is not that absolute. There are plenty of famous people who emerged out of bad environments. I'm sure you can come up with at least a dozen examples.

Bad genetics is not that absolute either. Beethoven's father and grandmother were inveterate alcoholics. Chopin's health was poor all through his life. Schumann's history of madness and suicide ran deep into his family. Would you rather had them not been born?

Climbing the economic ladder might be a thorny issue in the USA but in (Western) Europe not so much.

Also there is the assumption that babies will grow up to be people who don't wish they were never born... then look at the suicide rate. People gotta get their stuff in order before making someone live imo.

I do believe your views are heavily influenced by your being an American. And if I may ask, how old are you?

[greg]

Bad environment is not that absolute. There are plenty of famous people who emerged out of bad environments. I'm sure you can come up with at least a dozen examples.

Bad genetics is not that absolute either. Beethoven's father and grandmother were inveterate alcoholics. Chopin's health was poor all through his life. Schumann's history of madness and suicide ran deep into his family. Would you rather had them not been born?

I'm not sure those genetics examples are the best... my biological dad had alcoholism but I really don't care for it at all so not sure how much genetic that really is.

What I'm curious about is what the IQ of the offspring of two people with 80 IQ would normally be.

The way I see it... It's much harder to climb the economic ladder than descend it.

If you are rich but dumb, you will probably blow your inheritance and become poor. If you are poor but smart, it's going to be a tough climb against other smart people born from wealth.

There is also the other important factor of conscientiousness/work ethic which I won't get into.

If you are destined to be poor and dumb, that's an extremely unfair position to start with. Your destiny will just be a pawn in the game of rich men, or worse, you'll just be a criminal. It would be very hard to rise above that. But the one good thing is that less intelligent people somehow tend to be happier. So probably my opinion needs that opposing perspective as well.

I do believe your views are heavily influenced by your being an American. And if I may ask, how old are you?

Maybe so. 32.

[Florestan]

I'm not sure those genetics examples are the best... my biological dad had alcoholism but I really don't care for it at all so not sure how much genetic that really is.

Which only proves my point.

What I'm curious about is what the IQ of the offspring of two people with 80 IQ would normally be.

IQ tests are overrated.

The way I see it... It's much harder to climb the economic ladder than descend it.

Only in countries/societies where the difference between the top of the ladder and the bottom of the ladder is huge. I believe that a civilized country/society should strive for as wide a middle ground as possible.

If you are rich but dumb, you will probably blow your inheritance and become poor.

True, unless your inheritage is so large that you'll become poor and dead almost simultaneously.

If you are poor but smart, it's going to be a tough climb against other smart people born from wealth.

I don't think it's such a zero-sum game. Now that I think of it, there are possibly more people born poor but smart who made it big. Let's keep to classical music: Mendelssohn, Poulenc, Magnard --- otomh, three smart people born in wealthy families. Now, otomh, smart people born in (relatively) poor famillies: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Chopin.

There is also the other important factor of conscientiousness/work ethic which I won't get into.

Why? This is one of the most important factors.

If you are destined to be poor and dumb, that's an extremely unfair position to start with.

I firmly reject this whole predestination thing. Nobody is destined to be anything. Calvinism is un-Christian nonsense.

[SimonNZ]

people that will just be reckless and never use protection and get multiple abortions.

This seems to (have) become the norm in some circles, doesn't it?

Rubbish. What could possibly make you believe that?

[Jo498]

What I really do not understand is how many people seem to be both callous and paternalist about the question that many other people must have a life not worth living. They are usually inconsistent because nobody asks for homeless people to be rounded up and shot or for poor countries to be carpet-bombed to put them out of their misery or for ignoring suicidal people standing close to bridge railings but they are rather quick to assume that it is better to be aborted (not live at all) than to live a lower/lowest class life in a western country or even a middle class life as an "unwelcome child". 
I find such remarks that are very frequently made in passing stunning and abhorrent. Because of the obvious inconsistency I am never quite sure if they are meant seriously or only cheap shots (conservatives only care about babies welfare in the womb not afterwards etc.).

Another problem I have with these values surveys is that they rarely distinguish between what one prefers or takes as just/right in a certain case and what one thinks about government enforcement of this position. I think it is plausible to have a fairly "conservative" stance e.g. in certain aspects of sexual morality or drug use but at the same time be against the government enforcing these things by law. Although I have to admit that drug prohibition is one of the fields where I am very confused and have changed my position several times without ever getting settled. (Prostitution is a similar case; prohibition seems to make it worse but supposedly the liberalization measures Germany took in the last 20 years had also some very bad effects, probably they came at the wrong time when the huge economic differences and practically open borders to (south)eastern Europe made all kinds of human trafficking easy and lucrative.)

[SimonNZ]

or only cheap shots (conservatives only care about babies welfare in the womb not afterwards etc.).

How is that a cheap shot? Isn't it true?

[Florestan]

How is that a cheap shot? Isn't it true?

No, it's not.

http://archiwum.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/355253,Millions-benefiting-from-child-welfare-payments-in-Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary

[SimonNZ]

It's insulting that you think a couple of cherry picked programs from Poland and Hungary disprove all the hostility I've seen and read from conservatives towards poor parents who the y commonly treat as useless mouths.

[drogulus]

Another problem I have with these values surveys is that they rarely distinguish between what one prefers or takes as just/right in a certain case and what one thinks about government enforcement of this position. I think it is plausible to have a fairly "conservative" stance e.g. in certain aspects of sexual morality or drug use but at the same time be against the government enforcing these things by law. 

     This especially applies to abortion, where people declare their opposition to terminating pregnancies they will never have, a free choice that should be denied to everyone who disagrees, including the majority of people who actually can get pregnant.

     It's impossible to ignore the fact that strong abortion restriction comes with other restrictions on reproduction and health generally for women and children. Abortion restriction is 25% abortion, 75% restriction. There is no general opposition to Repub wives and mistresses abortion. Like the drug laws, control of subject populations has always been a goal. Poor women are super subject populations, affluent drug users not very much. They consume drugs at home, not on the streets.

     The most effective anti abortion measures are birth control and good health care. Abortion cranks oppose both. There's not enough behavioral control in such measures.

     

[greg]

Rubbish. What could possibly make you believe that?

Hearing about stories of it. There's so many reckless people here in the US that's it's not hard to believe at all.

Why? This is one of the most important factors.

It is. Just didn't feel like going a bit offtrack about how the bottom level of jobs in terms of intellectual ability requirements are extremely low paid.

I'd have to work probably 120 hours a week to make in my previous job to make what I make now working 40 hours a week... so hard work can only go so far. Working "smart" just destroys hard work even if both are important.

I firmly reject this whole predestination thing. Nobody is destined to be anything. Calvinism is un-Christian nonsense.

I didn't mean that literally... i don't believe in a predestiny either. Just a bad way of saying that it's going to be harder.

I don't think it's such a zero-sum game. Now that I think of it, there are possibly more people born poor but smart who made it big. Let's keep to classical music: Mendelssohn, Poulenc, Magnard --- otomh, three smart people born in wealthy families. Now, otomh, smart people born in (relatively) poor famillies: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Chopin.

I don't know what to say about this because i have in mind an average American so this is such a different background that it's hard to compare.

Which only proves my point.

Of course. But also i never said anything about alcoholism as an example. 😁

IQ tests are overrated.

I really don't think they are overrated tbh.

[Florestan]

It's insulting that you think a couple of cherry picked programs from Poland and Hungary disprove all the hostility I've seen and read from conservatives towards poor parents who the y commonly treat as useless mouths.

You implied that conservatives don't care for babies after they are born and when I gave you two examples of conservatives who take active measures for children's (and their families') welfare, instead of admitting you were wrong you accuse me of insulting you? Your disingenuity is shocking.

[Florestan]

32.

What a beautiful age! (I'm 47)

I wish you a long, healthy and happy life, Greg!