greenblooded

Part 1: I can't put my finger exactly on why this torments me so, because when I read your words I "feel good" and agree mostly, but there's this religiousness - a meme - that keeps popping up here: a human is a human is a human and has the rights of such no matter how broken. It's as if we are elevated to a spiritual status apart from all life on Earth for no other reason than we have human DNA, even if we are at a lower functional level than said non-human life. Seeing humans as sacred does not sound objective to me - but I'm a total noob to this, and obviously have much to learn. The second part I look at backwards. Stoopidah (like me) and average people are the majority, and have the majority vote when it comes to many important issues. I would not wish for intelligent folk to micromanage the dumdums, but I would wish that the dumdums didn't always get their way due to sheer numbers. Look at the USA for example: religion is the norm, with half the people believing in creation. They kick and fight to not go metric, call global warming a contentious issue, invade and murder in the name of corporate profit, and.. well, the list goes on (applies to many countries). I see this as a direct result of a few intelligent yet immoral people steering the herds of voters. Most people choose not to think, and those who do have little more power than to discuss 'a better way' without achieving much. Like Galt and his mythical comrades, retiring to a secluded spot with a group of like minds may be the only way to escape the inertia of stupidity that is modern society. Perhaps the Moon or Mars?

Sorry, but it only half makes sense (the last half). What continues to vex me is the point at which a person is intelligent enough to be liable for the choices they make. In your example, children and the mentally handicapped do not qualify; we address the former with an age test and the latter with guardian rights, but what about people who are not legally considered retarded, yet are pretty darn close to it? What about the people above them, and so on? 50% of any population is of below average intelligence, and a another huge chunk is not far above average, leaving a relatively small group of 'superior' and 'very superior' (shrink's terminology) thinkers to handle the innovation. Where does one draw the line? If a bonobo is able to outperform a human on an IQ test, then why should it not have the right to vote for W? Conversely, why should a stupid (below average) human get the same voting rights as someone in the 99.7th percentile? To me it seems rather PC to not state the obvious - that most people, most, are too stupid to make the right choices. Why then does a group of people claiming to simply see things as they are (here) not say it as such? or do they?

Thanks for taking me up on this Jake! I could ask you to perhaps define intelligence as you see it relating to humans, then I'd have a relative marker to define bonobo (for example) intelligence. My own personal definition of intelligence, which I've not intended for use here but will mention anyway, is the ability to adapt and thrive in a changing environment, but that would make rats smart and apes dumb, so maybe can only be applied to humans relative to each other.

Even though a bonono may show greater intelligence than many mentally handicapped people, do these people still have greater rights? Is this a birthright? I'm wondering where the line is drawn between man and beast. Do we treat some animals better than humans if they are smarter, or do we treat some humans as animals because they do not display the traits of man? There's also the issue of an intelligence/empathy spectrum within functional humans - does a sociopath, unable to experience emotions in a typical human way, count as human? I'm playing devil's advocate here (not that I'm religious), but these are legitimate questions.

Just a quick question: how retarded must one be to no longer qualify as being human?