Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Feuer Frei!]

Interesting...imagine if you weren't allowed to fornicate! If it was illegal for you to be physically intimate with someone!
Well, read on:

A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sex by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about “civil liberties and personal autonomy”.

...his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.
A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.
Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.



Crikeys!!! :hmmm::-?


FULL STORY (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html)

[Gerald]

So over IQ 48 Its OK! And have a sexual intercourse So :stare:

[Skybird]

Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" :), it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

[XabbaRus]

It is a difficult situation. Sex is more than just about the physical act as it does induce strong emotions and feelings.

With an IQ of 48 he probably is lacking the emotional capacity to understand the emotions and appropriateness. However how can you ban someone from having sex?

Quite rightly he probably would be a danger to himself and others in terms of not understanding the need for safe sex. It seems he was in a relationship but I can also understand why they would worry that he could be taken advantage of.

A complicated situation indeed and I would need to have more information to make a true judgement.

[Matador.es]

Canada
Main article: Compulsory sterilization in Canada
Although less well-known[says who?] than other eugenic sterilization programs, two Canadian provinces (Alberta and British Columbia) performed compulsory sterilization programs with eugenic aims. Canadian compulsory sterilization operated via the same overall mechanisms of institutionalization, judgement, and surgery as the American system[why?]. One notable difference is in the treatment of non-insane criminals. Canadian legislation never allowed for punitive sterilization of inmates. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Canada)

In holland a debate has rissen for sterilisation of pedosexuals.

Its not the same, but it allready happens today. I think Canada is most know. Although i thought they stoped doing so in the 80's

[Tribesman]

the racial gene pool
So 1930s again, and it didn't even say if Alan was a muslim.:har:

I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here
Too late to try and cover your arse when you have already repeatedly written about how you want whole sections of society to be banned from breeding.

[FIREWALL]

Court of Protection !!! Held behind closed doors ? :o

[TLAM Strike]

...his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

So sad the court would do such a thing to Dowly...




:O:

[Armistead]

Since when did having a low IQ have anything to do with safe sex. Millions with high IQ's get STD's. Not sure how you could stop someone unless you put a chasity belt on them or locked them away.

Thank God my IQ is 50, so hopefully I'm safe.

[Feuer Frei!]

So sad the court would do such a thing to Dowly... :O:
Shall i edit the title? :D

[Penguin]

Of course does the guy needs to be protected from being taken advantage of. The question is how? In terms of safer sex, it is also the responsibility of his partner.
But retards do sometimes have a sex drive which can bring themselves or others in danger, for this case, it is for example allowed here to give them something to "come down". If the sex is consensual, then it is legal here and no court may say otherwise.
I agree, that we need more infos about this case to make a judgement call, from the information given, I can only say that the only reasonable decision was that the man is allowed to have sex ed.

If I have a car crash when I drive home next hour and my brain gets damaged, those suckers should try to stop me having sex with my Frau!


Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" :), it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

You may not wanted to imply any morale here, but you did.
The talk about the racial gene pool sounds like promoting eugenetics to me. Mankind has evolved from gatherer and hunter society, and even then, the old, weak or dumb were fed (if possible). If you couldn't hunt, then a paerson may contribute to the tribe in other ways.

Bad eyesight has more to do with the lifestyle we have today than with genetics.

The article also states that the guy is together with another man, so no chance of procreation here - the holy gene pool is safe.

If intelligence was solely a matter of genetics, ****ing mankind would have been gone for long. :stare:

[CaptainHaplo]

Ultimately thihs is stupid. The court orders him not to have sex. With a low IQ and moderate mental disability, can he even understand the order properly?

However, on moral grounds, the reality is that any issue like this is a moral issue. Justice is legal moralism. The statement "Murder is wrong" is a moral stance. Every assault, rape, robbery, and speeding ticket case is based on societal morals.

To try and say that there is no moral judgement being made in any discussion regarding a court case is incorrect.

Now - on to the merits. Between the mental disability and measured IQ, the order not only protects the man from his own inability to practice reasonably safe intercourse, but it also those who otherwise could be his future partners. Should he unwittingly catch something, he lacks the mental ability to protect future partners. This order not only protects him, but insures that he will not - intentionally or unintentionally, victimize others. This order is, in essence, similiar to an order which remands a person to oversight due to mental health issues. The mechanics are different, but the purpose is the same - to protect them and society.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I had to think about this for a little bit before forming an opinion. I can see the reasoning behind the court's order and some views in support of it. I can certainly understand the argument about it being beneficial to people he might have interactions with.

However, I'm resigned to my usual Lockean stance on this one. Anyone who has intercourse with this man is doing so out of their own free will and is therefore accepting the consequences. Unless he becomes a rapist or something, the court has no place restricting his rights on the grounds that it is necessary to protect others, for any reason.

Likewise, the court has no compelling moral reason for restricting this man's rights for his own benefit. Granted, he is mentally deficient and may be more prone than most to making unsound decisions, but that is irrelevant. Either this man has been ruled mentally sound enough to be autonomous and should enjoy as little "protection" from the state as he does in the rest of his life, or he has not and is therefore the ward of someone else, in which case he must abide by the decisions of his caretaker(s) and they must accept the consequences of his actions.

This particular issue is no place to draw a moral line when it comes to considering what people may and may not be allowed to do. It is a question of civil liberties because the very act of arbitrarily deciding what is and is not permissible without respect to neutral and negative rights is contrary by nature.

[Skybird]

You may not wanted to imply any morale here, but you did.
The talk about the racial gene pool sounds like promoting eugenetics to me. Mankind has evolved from gatherer and hunter society, and even then, the old, weak or dumb were fed (if possible). If you couldn't hunt, then a paerson may contribute to the tribe in other ways.
First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting. If you know better what I did, then I cannot help it.

Second, I wanted to draw attention to a medical conseqeunce of modern medical treatement, and that is that by doing so we reduce the evolutionary mechnaism of survival of the fittest. We indeed weaken our gene pool that way, whether we like to realise that or not is not the issue here: we nevertheless do. That is a problem that compares to the growing life expectancy due to modern mdeical treatement: it increases costs of the medical system, and sees eiother health system collapsing, or trewatement that is efféctive more and more only affordable for the rich, while the poor do not get it. Talking of 2- or 3-class medicine here. Also, with the share of old population becoming bigger and the share of payiong young population becoming smaller, there are financial problems to which so far nobody has an answer.

All these trhings are factual problems that nobody adresses and noboy can solve so far. Many diseases that are genetically transferred from generation to generation, withion families, thus are spreading, that is a fact. As a race, the homo sapiens in general that is, we become weaker and sicker. That has nothing to do with eugenics or rtace theory. It must be allowed to point out an implication that has a controversial reputation without getting accused of being a racist or in defense of eugenics. Again, I made that clear from all beginning on that I ignored the moral perspective on it all.

And on the old being treated in earlier times. The Iuit, when wandering around in the arctic, used to put their old and weak ones inside an iglo they built once the old became too heavy a burden for the tribe/family to care for, the iglu was sealede from the outside and could not be opened from the inside, and that way they left their oldest members behind. Several indian tribes in North America saw the old ones staying behind when they thoight theior time has come, especally in times when their was pressure on the tribe due to low food stocks or extremew cold winters. In South America, some Indian tribes know the old ones moving out on one last hunt that was meant to mark the end of their wandering on Earth, called the ghost hunt. Other communities sacrificed the weak or old ones to their deities. Both ways are known amongst African tribes as well.

And then I recommend the chapter on the genocide in Ruanda, in the book "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond. There he shows a demographic analysis of the population age structure, and shows that there was a huge rivalry betweern the poseessing old generations qwho could live off their possessions,w hile the young oines had no place and ressources left for themselves to found families, and that this inner tension formed an inner dynamic of highly destructive energy that decisively contributed to the outbreak of the killing.

And all all continents, there were hige movements by people caused by ori8ginal living places becoming too crowded to support the survival of all, or expoeditonary colon ists being sent out in to the unknown to seek relief frpom demographic pressure at home. In these endavours, again the weak and the old ones were the most disadvantaged and were the ones whose interest were sacrificed first.

So, wars also were a way by which demographic pressure was solved.

Your implication of the "edle Wilde" who does not do brutal things to the old and cared for them so much better than we do, is a bit one-sided, I would say. From all eras and continets you can find many examples illustrating the opposite. And when I look at the conditions in some of our contemporary "Pflegeheime", then I remember many examples from the media (and my own experience when I did my practicals at hospitals) that have taught me that my life may become of a kind that I may want to conclude that the price for living any longer may become too high and that it is better to make a certain decision by myself instead of leaving it to fate and random chance alone.

Thinbking about my intial posting with a little bit more of sober mind and a little bit less of sentimentality, is of the essence. The implications I point at, are real, they are problematic, and so far they are unsolved.

[Buddahaid]

What I want to know is who are his partners? It all sounds like there's a line of lonely women formed up outside his house, waiting their turn with the stud-muffin. This is wierd.

[Tribesman]

First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting.

.......You may not wanted to imply any morale here, but you did.

If Al sharpton started a comment with "I am not racist" but then launched into a racist rant his four words would be meaningless rubbish even if somehow he thought they were true.
The problem with the much discredited line of eugenics and racial purity is that it involves a moral issue and attempting to remove or exclude that moral angle simply makes it even more of a moral issue.

[CaptainHaplo]

However, I'm resigned to my usual Lockean stance on this one. Anyone who has intercourse with this man is doing so out of their own free will and is therefore accepting the consequences. Unless he becomes a rapist or something, the court has no place restricting his rights on the grounds that it is necessary to protect others, for any reason.

The problem here is your making the assumption that the person or people involved are doing so not only with a free will, but also with a fairly reasonable understanding of the situation.

They may see a person mentally deficient, think he isn't getting any (or whatever reason they find), and without him cognitavly able to convey correct information, they may place themselves at risk without proper knowledge that he is obligated (but unable) to convey.

Given the man's mental inability to make proper decisions regarding sexuality, it is entirely possible that this is also an action designed to assist in protecting society. If he cannot figure out when and how it is safe to "do it", how can he be expected to be capable of understanding the repercussions of refusing a "no" from a partner - who upon saying no becomes a victim if he fails to stop?

Slippery slope? Perhaps - but tell that to the woman or man that is his first victim. Personal rights end when they infringe on another's rights. The question should be - is he a sufficient enough danger to himself and society to be limited - and if such then I agree - he should be a ward of the state or responsible adult.

[FIREWALL]

You all might want to look at this.... http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

[UnderseaLcpl]

The problem here is your making the assumption that the person or people involved are doing so not only with a free will, but also with a fairly reasonable understanding of the situation.

They may see a person mentally deficient, think he isn't getting any (or whatever reason they find), and without him cognitevly able to convey correct information, they may place themselves at risk without proper knowledge that he is obligated (but unable) to convey.

If that's your logic, then you must also necessarily include a ban on sex for all people who have failed to inform someone they have an STD, may cause (or not cause) parenthood, or profess love where there is none because they are either unwilling or unaware.


Given the man's mental inability to make proper decisions regarding sexuality, it is entirely possible that this is also an action designed to assist in protecting society. If he cannot figure out when and how it is safe to "do it", how can he be expected to be capable of understanding the repercussions of refusing a "no" from a partner - who upon saying no becomes a victim if he fails to stop?

In that case, why not jail people on suspicion of being capable of rape?



Slippery slope? Perhaps - but tell that to the woman or man that is his first victim. Personal rights end when they infringe on another's rights. The question should be - is he a sufficient enough danger to himself and society to be limited - and if such then I agree - he should be a ward of the state or responsible adult.

Other than the first sentence, we're in complete agreement. I hate to pull out the slippery slope argument, since it's often a logical fallacy, but one only needs to look at the number of slopes that have been slid upon to know that the argument carries some weight, especially in the case of civil liberties.

As far as telling it to the victims, I'd have no problem with it. Well, no moral problem anyway. If they're willing to blame the state for not restricting the rights of another law-abiding person in such a way as to prevent the incident from ever happening, I would suggest that they consider the fact that they want other people's rights to be violated in the same way theirs were. Previous offenders, on the other hand, are another case entirely.

[tater]

Amazing that anyone would think this assault on personal liberty is a good idea.

[FIREWALL]

Amazing that anyone would think this assault on personal liberty is a good idea.

Half of the posters didn't even read the whole article.

[Penguin]

First, I excluded any moral perspective in my posting already in my very first four words by which I opened my posting. If you know better what I did, then I cannot help it.


I am aware what you wrote, the thing is that you bring in morale in terms of judgement dressed as biologic facts. When one makes a decision what genetic defects are ok and what not, one makes a judgement call = morale.



Second, I wanted to draw attention to a medical conseqeunce of modern medical treatement, and that is that by doing so we reduce the evolutionary mechnaism of survival of the fittest. We indeed weaken our gene pool that way, whether we like to realise that or not is not the issue here: we nevertheless do. That is a problem that compares to the growing life expectancy due to modern mdeical treatement: it increases costs of the medical system, and sees eiother health system collapsing, or trewatement that is efféctive more and more only affordable for the rich, while the poor do not get it. Talking of 2- or 3-class medicine here. Also, with the share of old population becoming bigger and the share of payiong young population becoming smaller, there are financial problems to which so far nobody has an answer.
All these trhings are factual problems that nobody adresses and noboy can solve so far. Many diseases that are genetically transferred from generation to generation, withion families, thus are spreading, that is a fact. As a race, the homo sapiens in general that is, we become weaker and sicker. That has nothing to do with eugenics or rtace theory. It must be allowed to point out an implication that has a controversial reputation without getting accused of being a racist or in defense of eugenics. Again, I made that clear from all beginning on that I ignored the moral perspective on it all.


The mechanism you refer to is survival of the best adapted. Otherwise the human species wouldn't have survived this long: we have no biological features that are outstanding, the only thing we are good at is adaption.
Here you also bring in the aspect of weakening the gene pool, weakening = judgement. What makes the human genom weaker, especially when regarding the fact that most of us are not fighting anymore in a hostile environment all day long?

The overpopulation issue has many aspects:
With so many people on Earth like never before, genetic deficites are better absorved than in a tribe with 20 people.
The young population becomes smaller only in 1st world countries, in a global scale we never had this many young ones before. So what do do? infinite growth can't be the sollution, somewhere there must be a point when we have many old ones.
You refer later to Diamond, I would like to draw your attention to "Guns, Germs and Steel" ("Arm und Reich" in german), especially the things about pack immunity, he writes about it regarding domestic animals as well as regarding humans. The fact that we live so crowded together today, makes the human species in fact more immune to diseases. Even without modern medicine, an outbreak of the plague would certainly be outstanding in terms of losses, but nowhere as devestating in terms of percentages of the population which are affected as it was in medieval tuimes.
I'm not promoting overpopulation by this, btw, just bringing in some aspects.


And on the old being treated in earlier times. [...]


I am also aware of that, that's what I meant by that they were fed if possible


And then I recommend the chapter on the genocide in Ruanda, in the book "Collapse" by Jarred Diamond. There he shows a demographic analysis of the population age structure, and shows that there was a huge rivalry betweern the poseessing old generations qwho could live off their possessions,w hile the young oines had no place and ressources left for themselves to found families, and that this inner tension formed an inner dynamic of highly destructive energy that decisively contributed to the outbreak of the killing.


This sounds quite interesting, I have Collapse on my night table, didn't made it yet to read more than the chapter about the settlers in Greenland - but I hope that I'll have more time in the next weeks to read it.


So, wars also were a way by which demographic pressure was solved.


:hmmm: the war which set the European people most back, in terms of population (growth) was the 30 Years' War - even then there was a slight pop growth. The reason for it rooted certainly not in demographic pressure...


Your implication of the "edle Wilde" who does not do brutal things to the old and cared for them so much better than we do, is a bit one-sided, I would say. From all eras and continets you can find many examples illustrating the opposite.


lol, where did I imply that I have these hippie thoughts about the morally higher natives?


And when I look at the conditions in some of our contemporary "Pflegeheime", then I remember many examples from the media (and my own experience when I did my practicals at hospitals) that have taught me that my life may become of a kind that I may want to conclude that the price for living any longer may become too high and that it is better to make a certain decision by myself instead of leaving it to fate and random chance alone.


Regarding your previous facts, about the how old ones in history, cynically speaking, we could say that they can take one for the team ;)
No, I get what you mean, but the treatment of old ones in our society has nothing to do with the gene pool.


Thinbking about my intial posting with a little bit more of sober mind and a little bit less of sentimentality, is of the essence. The implications I point at, are real, they are problematic, and so far they are unsolved.

Thanks, I am sober now! I'm sure you mean a rational mind, so no offence taken. I have no sentimentality for old times, I was pointing towards the fact that we have evolved and live in a society and not in the jungle anymore. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, now that I read it)


btw: I won't be able to answer you untill Sunday, so don't think that I back off from the discussion when I don't answer eventually...

[Hitman]

Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" :), it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

It's an interesting point of view, but I would like to add two observations to that:

1) Evolution itself theoretically eliminates those unfit to live in certain environments and promotes the best adapted to survive and procrate, thus pushing their genes forward to the next generation. We should however bear in mind that today's environment for 99% of the humans is not the wilderness, but a civilization. Hence, those physical and health limitations are largely irrelevant, as they would tend to eliminate individuals that can actually be the fittest for today's environment (F.e. imagine a very talented engineer that is hemophiliac). In that sense, you can't say that we are acting against nature; nature just eliminates those unfit for an environment, and hemophiliacs and people with bad eyesight have no problem at all with our current environment.

2) That said, despite intelligence being the main or more relevant characteristic to succed in our modern environment, the people with lower IQ are not eliminated by nature, nor tend they at least to have less childs. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as low levels of culture are usually associated with bigger families in societies where children mortality is low (In those with high children mortality it's a different matter). Here is were we are supposedly acting against nature, if one follows your reasoning. We can solve the illnesses and physical limitations with technology and medicine, but we can't make an idiot be an Einstein. Does that also effect the racial gene pool in terms of average IQ of human kind?

[Armistead]

Just who is the guy having sex with? If he is so incapable that he's going after children or the mentally ill, then surely these women must have clue about his mental state. If women choose to sleep with him without worry of STD's, using protection, etc, they are at fault. Millions do this, why STD's are epidemic.
Don't blame him, he's just trying to get laid, blame the women that sleep with him.
Many civil suits have been won against people giving STD's...Not sure about the crime of it.

[tater]

This case is a pretty horrible assault on personal liberty. If the women were unable to give consent, then that would be rape, and illegal.

If they can say that he's too dumb to have sex, shall they test bimbos before they are allowed to put out? The inner city pregnancy rate out of wedlock is very high, so are they too dumb to understand as well? How about ugly people, don;t they realize that 2 ugly people are more likely to breed unattractive kids?

:)

[Penguin]

Here is were we are supposedly acting against nature, if one follows your reasoning. We can solve the illnesses and physical limitations with technology and medicine, but we can't make an idiot be an Einstein.

Following that darwinistic logic, Stephen Hawking's parents would have aborted him, if they had checked out their baby's genes...:nope:

[Hitman]

Following that darwinistic logic, Stephen Hawking's parents would have aborted him, if they had checked out their baby's genes...:nope:

Actually the opposite: For a human nowadays it is more important to be intelligent than to be physically healthy. Our environment favours intelligent people, not healthy but stupid one ...

In any case I wanted to highlight that Skybird's reasoning was based in objective darwinism, but probably on the wrong characteristics -physical health, which is no longer the more relevant one to be adapated to our environment.

I could say that I do not share those darwinistic views, but in fact unlike you I don't see moral implications in Skybird's assertions. It's an objective fact that the human race has nowadays lots of individuals that would have died in other ages -and environments. Yet, I do not agree in that we are countering nature by that, in fact we have just adapted as a race to different conditions. Defects that earlier mattered, do not any longer, and other things are more important. In the intelligence matter we could eventually be doing against nature by helping mentally weak poeple to keep existing, but here is where moral matters step in, and we all accept that it must be this way. Moral is applied over darwinism, we all agree that it is right, so what's the problem? Not willing to realize that we have superceded darwinism due to our moral convictions, and that we must take care to implement the proper corrections via technology and medicine would be stupid. Morals tell you the right decision to do, but do not hide reality, do not mistake both aspects of the same question.

[tater]

Natural selection rewards reproductive fitness. Nothing else. Idiots making loads of baby are "fit" by definition.

[Ducimus]

What ever happened to natural selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!
- George Carlin


I kinda agree with that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Natural selection rewards reproductive fitness. Nothing else. Idiots making loads of baby are "fit" by definition.

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, epecially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

[Skybird]

I am aware what you wrote, the thing is that you bring in morale in terms of judgement dressed as biologic facts. When one makes a decision what genetic defects are ok and what not, one makes a judgement call = morale.

I did not judge anything. But certain diseases are genetically caused, and can be given on to the offspring of an according ill parent. To say that does not judge that defect as okay or unacceptable - it just says that certain genetic defects are not object of relativisation, but are defects, and just this: defects. There is no known benefit in hemophilia - different to sichel cell anaemia that seems to aid the body in the curing of Malaria and thus can be argued to be of benefit for the body - at the price of other disadvantages, of course.

If I would have said that African negroes are black-skinned, would you also accuse me of a moral judgement, and racism, becasue I say they are black-skinned...? Hardly.


The mechanism you refer to is survival of the best adapted. Otherwise the human species wouldn't have survived this long: we have no biological features that are outstanding, the only thing we are good at is adaption.
That is wrong. Our hands, our brain sturcture, our erected walking, the construction of our voice apparatu, the weight relation between "Unterhautfettgewebe" and muscle mass, our preferred mating psoiton and the accoprding psoition of our internal sexual organs, our sweat glands in the body skin, and the tear glands in our eyes as well as our way of reacting to pain and emtoion with tears - all these are outstanding biological charcteristics that separate us from any other species, may it be chimps or gorillas, may it be whales or dolphins.

Here you also bring in the aspect of weakening the gene pool, weakening = judgement.

No. Reporting on the physical disadvanatge (vulnerability by genetic defects limiting sensory or body functions and making the organism prone to diseases or environmental factors that another subject of said species with normal operational parameters ) is no judging. It is accepting reality. A bleeder has a handicap that is dangerous for him, giving him just a vulnerability,k but no advanatge to comensate it with. A person with a neurlogical deisease making it unable for this person to move the right leg, is just this: a person with the inability to move the right leg. Moral criterions and judgments have nothign to do with it.


What makes the human genom weaker, especially when regarding the fact that most of us are not fighting anymore in a hostile environment all day long?

Everything that produces more individuals designed by the human genome that cannot survive without medical treatement, for the need of medical treatement is not part of the evolutionary deswign study of the sampe called homo sapiens. That a person with diabetes needs to inject insuline in order to live, securtes his life, yes. But it is not the biological norm nor has it any advantage to be like that nor does it represent any kind od adaption to the envrionment. Diabetes it is a malfunction, caused both by nutritional and egnetical variables.

The overpopulation issue has many aspects:
With so many people on Earth like never before, genetic deficites are better absorved than in a tribe with 20 people.
Hardly. We have more people in Europe than ever before, but we also have a bigger share of the population needing glasses. There also is a bigger share of the population that are bleeders. That is becasue more of them survive olong enough to reproduce. In earlier times they cut themselves by accident and died long before they became fertile. I even once read a theory that before the 17th century the overall percentage of bleeder amongst the population was falling, becasue most of them did not survive their first quarter of statistical life expectancy.

The young population becomes smaller only in 1st world countries, in a global scale we never had this many young ones before. So what do do? infinite growth can't be the sollution, somewhere there must be a point when we have many old ones.
You refer later to Diamond, I would like to draw your attention to "Guns, Germs and Steel" ("Arm und Reich" in german), especially the things about pack immunity, he writes about it regarding domestic animals as well as regarding humans. The fact that we live so crowded together today, makes the human species in fact more immune to diseases. Even without modern medicine, an outbreak of the plague would certainly be outstanding in terms of losses, but nowhere as devestating in terms of percentages of the population which are affected as it was in medieval tuimes.
I'm not promoting overpopulation by this, btw, just bringing in some aspects.[/quote]
I know Jarred Diamonds books, I have extensively recommended both books in earlier threats. I even summarised the basic structure of "Collapse" in a separate threat some time ago. There I also recommended some more books on these issues.


This sounds quite interesting, I have Collapse on my night table, didn't made it yet to read more than the chapter about the settlers in Greenland - but I hope that I'll have more time in the next weeks to read it.

A brilliant lecture. It should become mandatory reading in higher school classes, and for all political and economical leaders. I found it much more interesting and relevant than Guns, Germs and Steel, but both beloing together, in a way.


:hmmm: the war which set the European people most back, in terms of population (growth) was the 30 Years' War - even then there was a slight pop growth. The reason for it rooted certainly not in demographic pressure...
That was just one war - how amyn others have there been? I just remind of the "Völkerweanderung" of the Vandales which brought them into conflict with Rome, and the Mayans and Aztecs waging war in order to rpdeuce the numbers of victims they needed to appease their deities during sacrificing rituals when their supply basis became thing due to the population having become to big and the cities too huge.


lol, where did I imply that I have these hippie thoughts about the morally higher natives?

When you generalised, at least gave a general statement, that all cultures before us, implying also the primitive ones, always take care for their elder.

Thanks, I am sober now! I'm sure you mean a rational mind, so no offence taken. I have no sentimentality for old times, I was pointing towards the fact that we have evolved and live in a society and not in the jungle anymore. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, now that I read it)
That does not matter. We still dpeend on physical bodies, and we still suffer from these hulls becoming dysfunctional. And when we increase the number of causes for erratic indiovidual designs ands allow these samples to reproduce, then we also increase the number of dysfuctional genes in the gene pool. The numbers have their own logic to follow, self-reproducing growth rates of variables in any given populations often are not linear, but logarithmical (?word?). That'S what I pointed out. If for example we have bleeders reproducing just for long enoiugh, at one far away time in the future bleeder-genes then will be present in the majority of the population, like in case of global skin colour every scientist anbd every mathematican show you that if all people reproduce with all people despite national and cultural borders and over different continents, a mixture of colour genes will take place that ultimately must lead to to a light brownish skin colpur becoming the dominant ferature in all mankind. Like today the lack of dense body furs also has become a dominant feature.


btw: I won't be able to answer you untill Sunday, so don't think that I back off from the discussion when I don't answer eventually...

No worry, I am at the point where I just can start to repeat what I said. All I wanted was to reject claims that my posting propagated eugenics or supremacist race ntheories or naything like that. I just referred to an implict problem to which medicine or ethics or philosphy or politics or society so far have not found an answer to.

[MaddogK]

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, especially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

You totally left out the part about competing for the available mates in order to reproduce. Natural selection left unhampered by civilization would've eliminated the least able to thrive in favor of their competition, those fit to survive.

You simply can't have natural selection in a society that medically can save almost anyone with any malady (at any cost), because they will eventually add to the gene pool.

...of course they now have artificial means for those who fail to 'naturally' mate.

[Takeda Shingen]

You totally left out the part about competing for the available mates in order to reproduce. Natural selection left unhampered by civilization would've eliminated the least able to thrive in favor of their competition, those fit to survive.

You simply can't have natural selection in a society that medically can save almost anyone with any malady (at any cost), because they will eventually add to the gene pool.

...of course they now have artificial means for those who fail to 'naturally' mate.

I was saving that for the inevitable counterpoint. I never show my entire hand.

You're right; this man would have no chance at survival, let alone reproduction, in a 'natural' environment. My point would have been that it is only civilization that saves him. As such, what is civil is not always the best for the species. It is why so many questions are raised of reproduction by the mentally disabled. Of course, I have no intention of saying yay or nay to that issue, as I have no real answers to give.

[tater]

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, epecially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

[Takeda Shingen]

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

But now we go in circles. Reproduction is meaningless if the organism does not survive to maturation, let alone successfully find a mate. A 'novel superman' will likely survive to pass on his genetic material.

[tater]

But now we go in circles. Reproduction is meaningless if the organism does not survive to maturation, let alone successfully find a mate. A 'novel superman' will likely survive to pass on his genetic material.

Evolutionarily all that matters as "fitness" is passing on the genes. What the traits are otherwise doesn't matter.

Yes, it's semantic, just like the scientific definition of "theory" is semantically different than the plain english version—but the difference matters.

[CaptainHaplo]

Half of the posters didn't even read the whole article.

Ok - ya got me. I didnt read the whole thing initially. Have completed it, and have absolutely no qualms with the decision of the court.

[Takeda Shingen]

Evolutionarily all that matters as "fitness" is passing on the genes. What the traits are otherwise doesn't matter.

Yes, it's semantic, just like the scientific definition of "theory" is semantically different than the plain english version—but the difference matters.

Yes, but what you ignore is what has been stated. Those with the traits that enable survival will live long enough to reproduce. That, by definition, is natural selection.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20selection

[tater]

A dictionary is not where you look for a definition for scientific jargon.

Have you taken evolutionary biology?

[Takeda Shingen]

A dictionary is not where you look for a definition for scientific jargon.

Have you taken evolutionary biology?

A dictionary is where you look up the definition of things.

I'll be generous enough to ignore your insult.

[tater]

A dictionary is where you look up the definition of things.

I'll be generous enough to ignore your insult.

I know, but this is a scientific definition. It's dictionary definitions that have creationists describe evolution as "just a theory."

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was a serious question. Someone who has not taken quantum physics, for example, can be excused not knowing that jargon, either. Your area of study is music, right? (sorry if I misremembered). I'd butcher any use of music theory jargon, for example, even though I love music.

Again, no insult even hinted at.

[Takeda Shingen]

I know, but this is a scientific definition. It's dictionary definitions that have creationists describe evolution as "just a theory."

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was a serious question. Someone who has not taken quantum physics, for example, can be excused not knowing that jargon, either. Your area of study is music, right? (sorry if I misremembered). I'd butcher any use of music theory jargon, for example, even though I love music.

Again, no insult even hinted at.

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ok - ya got me. I didnt read the whole thing initially. Have completed it, and have absolutely no qualms with the decision of the court.

What? Why?

[MaddogK]

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

Not DQ'd, just ignorant.
:cool:

[Takeda Shingen]

Not DQ'd, just ignorant.
:cool:

Also classy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Don't be a jackass, Maddog.

[the_tyrant]

For a taste of the future, watch Idiocracy!:yeah:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
great movie

[Gerald]

Sci-Fi movie..

[MaddogK]

Also classy.

Just having some fun, I intentionally left it ambiguous. Call it 'fishing', no offense meant.
:salute:
I also am ignorant of molecular biology, quantum physics, trek lore, a few other things.

[CaptainHaplo]

What? Why?

Multiple reasons -from the article.

#1 - The person in question was already a ward of the state(at least in part) due to his mental disabilities. He was living in a somewhat supervised environment already.

"He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court"

Note that the local council also restrained this Kieron person from being able to associate with "Alan". Since the relationship started in the "council" home, the other person had to have been another ward of the state, or an employee. Since nothing is made of any incidents regarding employees, it is safe to say that Kieron is another state wardee.

#2 - He had already indicated his actions were a danger to others.
"Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus"

#3 - Sound reasoning based upon the legal definition of consent:

Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.

He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

Alan fails to meet the legal standards required to be able to consent to sex. Should that change, I suspect the order will be rescinded or revoked. However, in this case the judge decided correctly based upon the law. The decision is not in error. The only question then becomes, is the law itself flawed? I find the test as defined to be rather reasonable.

[nikimcbee]

What I want to know is who are his partners? It all sounds like there's a line of lonely women formed up outside his house, waiting their turn with the stud-muffin. This is wierd.

Insert Reece GF photo here:haha:


On a serious note, was this concensual or is he a predator?

[Tribesman]

Multiple reasons -from the article.


Really?

He lived in a home provided by the council
So that would be a council house.

Note that the local council also restrained this Kieron person from being able to associate with "Alan". Since the relationship started in the "council" home,
oh dear.
Since the relationship started in the "council" home, the other person had to have been another ward of the state, or an employee.
Oh dear oh dear.

it is safe to say that Kieron is another state wardee
oh really deary deary me.

With the care in the community measures first introduced under Thatcher due to the wish to sell off state mental hospitals to private developers "council homes" for mildly retarded people with a low IQ are usually just ordinary council houses on ordinary council housing estates done as part of "care in the community"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Multiple reasons -from the article.

#1 - The person in question was already a ward of the state(at least in part) due to his mental disabilities. He was living in a somewhat supervised environment already.

"He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court"

Note that the local council also restrained this Kieron person from being able to associate with "Alan". Since the relationship started in the "council" home, the other person had to have been another ward of the state, or an employee. Since nothing is made of any incidents regarding employees, it is safe to say that Kieron is another state wardee.

Okay, so why is this case in the courts? The warders assumed responsibility. If there's a problem, the state should be on trial for failure to properly handle its charges.


#2 - He had already indicated his actions were a danger to others.
"Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists’ surgery and on a bus"

So? Where were his warders? If they were aware of his nature then why were they not preventing such acts? If they were present, why does it matter? Children see lewd things all the time, even from other children, and we trust their guardians to keep them in check. When that doesn't work, we hold the guardians accountable.


#3 - Sound reasoning based upon the legal definition of consent:

Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.

Then my original point on this stance remains valid. If you are willing to accept that definition as a premise for sexual responsibility, then you must also ban any sex act that results in an undesireable outcome. There is a globe-spanning army of unwilling parents and STD victims who would readily attest to that fact.

What differentiates a mentally-deficient adult from a hormone-crazed youth? The capacity for understanding? Obviously not, given the tremendous number of inadvertent outcomes amongst consenting adults who fit the definition of consent. A test may determine mental competence, but it has nothing to do with what actually ends up happening.

This judgement is borne of fear and the unwillingness to accept the sovereignty of the individual, as well as a disregard for the accountability of the state.


He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

And that's the basis needed for establishing a legal precedence to ban people from sex?:nope: I'll hold my breath as generations of mentally-competent people continue to ignore sex-ed. Let's wait and see how that works out.


Alan fails to meet the legal standards required to be able to consent to sex. Should that change, I suspect the order will be rescinded or revoked. However, in this case the judge decided correctly based upon the law. The decision is not in error. The only question then becomes, is the law itself flawed? I find the test as defined to be rather reasonable.

Aye, there's the question. Just because it is the law does not mean that it is right. IMO, if the state is the ward, it should be the party under judgement, not the rights of individuals.

[Platapus]

In Virginia our last sterilization under the eugenics law was in 1969. Not all that long ago.

[TLAM Strike]

On a serious note, was this concensual or is he a predator?
According to the article he has a consensual relationship with another man. He doesn't appear to be a predator or anything.

[Tribesman]

According to the article he has a consensual relationship with another man.
Could this story really just be the end result from that he was living in a council flat granted to him as a single person and was found to be cohabiting?:hmmm:

[tater]

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

Not at all disqualified. I did not say that at all, nor did I mean that.

The point was merely to use the "fitness" definition from evolutionary biology or population genetics, that's all. Just like "theory" in other discussions we've had here before. If someone uses the dictionary definition, then an observed fact like evolution can become "just a theory" since the scientific definition of theory is so very much more specific than the dictionary version. The scientific fitness definitions include reproduction (sometimes as math (relative abundance of a genotype, etc)).

The definition is important in this case I think because social darwinists (who misuse the language of evolutionary biology) will in effect use the dictionary definition to weed out the "weak" with terrible consequences.

If my writing was poor enough to give offense (quite possible for me) then I apologize, sincerely. No offense was meant, I didn't read what I wrote in that way at all, or I would have written it differently. I am not a biologist, but I entertained paleontology for a while in school (and took classes)—then ended up working with a bunch of paleontologists for about 10 years.