Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[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!

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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...

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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.

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.

[tater]

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

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

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.

[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?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Hitman

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...

[Hitman]

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

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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by 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.

Insert Reece GF photo here


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