Why should retards be allowed to speak? - Page 2

jfuh · 03-03-08, 06:35 PM

IQ tests? So out of curiosity what IQ would be too low to vote?

Korimyr the Rat · 03-03-08, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

IQ tests? So out of curiosity what IQ would be too low to vote?

Well, if I wasn't so gravely opposed to this idea, I'd say 115 would be a good bottom floor-- instead of just filtering out the mentally impaired, who mostly do not vote anyway, it would require people be at least one standard deviation above average before they could weigh in.

Still leaves us with the issue of deciding who gets to draw the line and establish the criteria, though. Which means it's still completely out of the question.

jfuh · 03-03-08, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Well, if I wasn't so gravely opposed to this idea, I'd say 115 would be a good bottom floor-- instead of just filtering out the mentally impaired, who mostly do not vote anyway, it would require people be at least one standard deviation above average before they could weigh in.

Still leaves us with the issue of deciding who gets to draw the line and establish the criteria, though. Which means it's still completely out of the question.

Do you not see the inherent problem with that? IQ is based on a normalization from 100 to which the mean is always 100. Someone from 1950 taking an IQ test today would be probably in the range of 80 or 70 but far from being mentally retarded by any means.
Hence irregardless of, there's ALWAYS going to be a huge portion of the populace that will be excluded from participation based on an ever changing baseline - the main flaw (other than the exclusionary aspect of the thread topic itself) of using such a method. Which I don't think that the OP had realized when he used IQ.

Lachean · 03-03-08, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Do you not see the inherent problem with that? IQ is based on a normalization from 100 to which the mean is always 100. Someone from 1950 taking an IQ test today would be probably in the range of 80 or 70 but far from being mentally retarded by any means.
Hence irregardless of, there's ALWAYS going to be a huge portion of the populace that will be excluded from participation based on an ever changing baseline - the main flaw (other than the exclusionary aspect of the thread topic itself) of using such a method. Which I don't think that the OP had realized when he used IQ.

1. I hate people who use the word irregardless, and I like you, so please stop.
2. I think he was quite clear that he opposed the idea, but his statistical standard deviation response on IQ is what he would have given if you pressed him over it, not that he supported such a standard.
3. People who number their posts are almost as bad as people who use the word irregardless, so we're even.

jfuh · 03-03-08, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

1. I hate people who use the word irregardless, and I like you, so please stop.

I like to think of myself from the 1920's hahahaha.
If it annoys that much, very well I'll use regardless - just doesn't feel as disregarding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

2. I think he was quite clear that he opposed the idea, but his statistical standard deviation response on IQ is what he would have given if you pressed him over it, not that he supported such a standard.

The rat? Or the OP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

3. People who number their posts are almost as bad as people who use the word irregardless, so we're even.

touche

Korimyr the Rat · 03-03-08, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Well, if I wasn't so gravely opposed to this idea, I'd say 115 would be a good bottom floor--

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Do you not see the inherent problem with that? IQ is based on a normalization from 100 to which the mean is always 100. Someone from 1950 taking an IQ test today would be probably in the range of 80 or 70 but far from being mentally retarded by any means.

Where you see a problem, I see a feature. It means the standards for political involvement would continue to be increased.

Not that I buy, for one single moment, that people from IQ tests normalized in 1950 would score that low on tests normalized for today. I work with people with 70 IQs and below every day-- they're not capable of basic personal hygiene, much less normal social functioning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Hence irregardless of, there's ALWAYS going to be a huge portion of the populace that will be excluded from participation based on an ever changing baseline - the main flaw (other than the exclusionary aspect of the thread topic itself) of using such a method. Which I don't think that the OP had realized when he used IQ.

I rather thought that was the point of the OP-- that a huge portion of the populace should be excluded from participation. He might not have realized that he was using a changing baseline... but, then again, I don't accept that the baseline would be changing nearly to the extent you describe.

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

2. I think he was quite clear that he opposed the idea, but his statistical standard deviation response on IQ is what he would have given if you pressed him over it, not that he supported such a standard.

Precisely. Despite seeing some merit in it in theory, there are practical reasons for which I would never support such measures.

Lightdemon · 03-03-08, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Well, if I wasn't so gravely opposed to this idea, I'd say 115 would be a good bottom floor-- instead of just filtering out the mentally impaired, who mostly do not vote anyway, it would require people be at least one standard deviation above average before they could weigh in.

Even if IQ tests were reliable and valid measures for intelligence, that kind of contradicts the notion of a democracy.

Statistically speaking, everyone above 1 standard deviation from the norm is only about 15.0% of the population. That's not counting the fact that not everyone votes. Even if the threshold was a score of 100 on the IQ test, that would only render 50% of the total population.

jfuh · 03-03-08, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Where you see a problem, I see a feature. It means the standards for political involvement would continue to be increased.

Not that I buy, for one single moment, that people from IQ tests normalized in 1950 would score that low on tests normalized for today. I work with people with 70 IQs and below every day-- they're not capable of basic personal hygiene, much less normal social functioning.

An obvious exaggeration for me to get a point that IQ is a function with eras not to state of absolute values.
Given that relationship between era and IQ I don't see how it would mean an any more increased participation in political involvement.
It would then entail that the 90's of today are as participating as the 90's of yesterday and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

I rather thought that was the point of the OP-- that a huge portion of the populace should be excluded from participation. He might not have realized that he was using a changing baseline... but, then again, I don't accept that the baseline would be changing nearly to the extent you describe.

As I've admited it was a huge exageration to get a point across and I was more trying to point out to the OP that those supposed "morons" he perceives would not necessarily be the same morons that score an 80 or 70 on an IQ test. What I was trying to drill into.