Humans are a virus.

Short guy syndrome? No, I have 20/8 vision. Most people do not have a brain that can process vision that acute, hence why the average is 20/20. My lens in my eye is slightly misshapen due to genetics, which is why I wear glasses. There are multiple simple corrective surgeries that could be done to permanently fix my vision, although even without glasses I can see well enough to survive. I wear them because I cannot stand to have vision less than my potential. (And I like counting blades of grass on a football field from the stands or tree leaves in a forest a mile away.)

And you assume that bullies only attack those who are physically weak? Bullies attack any who are a THREAT to them. They are jealous and to overcome their inferiority they use aggressive posturing. I defended myself and put plenty of bullies on the ground, but that doesn't have any effect. Real life is not a television show where anyone who stands up for themselves automatically wins the respect of others. As I grew older and stopped fighting, I still didn't submit. I know how to take a punch, and quite a few people have hurt their hands on my face.

This conversation makes me smile.

[quote="Zync"]

Bartimaeus wrote:

Of course. Food is a drug like any other.

So you wear glasses. But I will clarify that if you only need reading glasses past the age of 30, and didn't need prior to the end of your "breeding age" ( around 45-50 ) then I would not have any real issue with it. I don't consider wrinkles bad, and issues with sight MUCH later in life could arguably fall into that category. However, if you had to wear classes prior to puberty, than absolutely, you forfeit! You're carrying a genetic disease.

Um, no duh ...

Absolutely not. Almost all of the father's side would pass, all of his ancestors would, and most of my mother's side would pass. There are plenty of well-built people in this world. If only 10% of the world's 6.77 billion people passed my criteria ( which I would assume the number to be more around 15% ) that would leave 677 million breeders in the world! Extinct?! Come on now ...

Of course.

1. I completely disagree. Since you fail to provide any points, I will do the same. Where do you assume on this?

2. I do not. The rest of my family does, and I see no problem with it.

3. Thanks again for not providing any points. You're a worse troll than Dragonheart.

4. Yes, we would be, because humans at one point were all idiots. If we were all smarty pants back then, I think our society would be in a much better place.

5. Failure.

6. When you said that taxpayer crap...uh...no...because he's kind of paying for it himself?

7. Based on the last thing quoted, I can safely say that you deserve to be ignored for the troll you are.

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

{1} You are genetically predisposed to put on too much fat for a society based on agriculture. ( Instead of hunting/gathering society, where the more fat could be argued. I don't think you'd convince me, but you'd have a chance. ) In this case you shouldn't breed. ( Although you could adopt ).

Indeed. You're LESS "Fit" for a PARTICULAR environment that we are CURRENTLY in. You're pretty smart, you should realize the point of genetic variation is to have different combinations of genes so that we would be able to survive in different types of areas. Pretty sure they teach that in like grade 11/12 Biology. The point of maintaining the genes that make one fat would be, if there was ever a situation that induced famine, or a natural disaster that destroyed society and we had to revert to a hunter gatherer society etc. They're more fit for that environment. Just because they're less fit for the current environment, doesn't mean it's not beneficial for other environments. Lower intelligence, Eyesight, etc. are things that wouldn't really be good in any situation - however having a more efficient metabolism can be better in certain environments. You might want to keep that in your dictator world.

Let me spell it out the formal way, since I don't seem to be getting my point across. I start with 5 assumptions and derive from there:

| 1: Humans have had a recorded stable agriculture since the Babylonians,
| over 14,000 years.
| 2: The human population of 6.77 billion could not be supported if
| agriculture was lost.
| 3: Being overweight/fat is due to an over consumption of resources. Having
| a genetic predisposition to place extra fat requires over consumption for
| mere survival, still falling under the category of "over consumptions".
| 4: There will always be genetic mutation in animal offspring. That's the way
| genetics works.
| 5: If the current rate of human consumption continues, the human race will
| destroy itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6: The best genetics for physical tendencies in human beings would be the
| ones that correlate to a agriculture-based life style, for it is not only
| stable, but without agriculture, only a very small populous would survive,
| in which case, the "fat gene" would gain dominance. ( derived from 1,2,4 )
| 7: There is no benefit to maintain the "fat gene" in the human population.
| ( derived from 6 )
| 8: Greatly reducing the percentage of fat humans in the world would reduce
| the amount of resources needed to sustain the human race. ( derived
| from 2,3 )
| 9: If the "fat gene" is removed from the human population, there is a much
| greater chance that humans won't destroy themselves. ( derived from
| 5,7,8 )
Therefore, preventing as much of the "fat gene" from being in the human
population is not only good, but race saving for human beings.

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

{2} You have poor and greedy habits that should not be passed on to your children. This is a social argument, not a genetic one, but the point of this system ( for me ) is to give the most potential possible to all humans. If a possible parent has habits that are obviously going to reduce their children's potential, then they should not raise children, just as the ones who are genetically going to reduce their children's potential shouldn't raise children.

Same thing, you're assuming this environment will always last and that the fat gene will never be useful, when it very well could be. A large reason (Obviously there is genetics, but to a lesser degree than other heritable qualities) for obesity is because of culture & environment, and under your dictatorship that culture wouldn't arise so even if the gene was still around you wouldn't have fat people, but you would maintain the gene for possible calamities.

Hopefully my above argument satisfies most of these points ( because it does ), however, there are "fat genes" that are so extreme they cause hormone imbalances under which the body stores fat regardless of diet or exercise. My mother had a friend with such a decency, I remember her from when I was about 8 because she was so big. She would gain weight on a grapefruit diet and merely end up in the hospital from lack of nutrition. She had 2 children before she died of heart failure at age 33. That's not right.

Jay.J wrote:

On another note, I love Pyths quote where he just says "Wall of text"....and another completely unrelated note - you never replied to my IQ bit - I assume you just accept that I'm right in that regard then?

Oh, I thought you would read my other posts where I briefly address the issue if IQ. My system isn't perfect, I never said it was. I IMPLIED that it is far beter than our society today, and have stated that such a social change could save humanity from its consumption addition.
But if you want me to go into details about IQ, than I would say 2 IQ tests a year from ages 3-18 would be statistically efficient to get an accurate understanding of an individual's IQ. 30 points is enough for an accurate statistical model with a standard deviation less than 10%. With my previous criteria of 100 IQ, this would mean anyone scoring a 90 or above would pass the {f} test.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Zync wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

Of course. Food is a drug like any other.

So you wear glasses. But I will clarify that if you only need reading glasses past the age of 30, and didn't need prior to the end of your "breeding age" ( around 45-50 ) then I would not have any real issue with it. I don't consider wrinkles bad, and issues with sight MUCH later in life could arguably fall into that category. However, if you had to wear classes prior to puberty, than absolutely, you forfeit! You're carrying a genetic disease.

Um, no duh ...

Absolutely not. Almost all of the father's side would pass, all of his ancestors would, and most of my mother's side would pass. There are plenty of well-built people in this world. If only 10% of the world's 6.77 billion people passed my criteria ( which I would assume the number to be more around 15% ) that would leave 677 million breeders in the world! Extinct?! Come on now ...

Of course.

1. I completely disagree. Since you fail to provide any points, I will do the same. Where do you assume on this?

2. I do not. The rest of my family does, and I see no problem with it.

3. Thanks again for not providing any points. You're a worse troll than Dragonheart.

4. Yes, we would be, because humans at one point were all idiots. If we were all smarty pants back then, I think our society would be in a much better place.

5. Failure.

6. When you said that taxpayer crap...uh...no...because he's kind of paying for it himself?

7. Based on the last thing quoted, I can safely say that you deserve to be ignored for the troll you are.

At first I began creating this intricate post interlacing the previous discussion with these new "comments", showing that your #1-6 were not debate topics but accusations, and could not be responded to with any form of supported argumentation.

But then I realized I was assuming that you were looking for a discussion. That assumption is incorrect. You're an uneducated teen seeking self-esteem, and that I cannot give, placing us at an impasse. That makes this a waste of time. Not only does a INTP like myself have a hard time debating with an INFJ like you, but I seem to be looking for an understanding about plausible social change while you seem to need self-fulfillment. Hence, I will not continue this line of "discussion", if it even can be called as such.

Still, feel free to read the discussions between Jay.J and myself. We might get somewhere

First point:

Zync wrote:

Not at all. In fact, what I've been saying is that NOTHING falls into his "virus" category. It's really such an exaggeration of what viruses actually do that no living thing, including an actual virus, falls into that category.

Really?

Zync wrote:

I would agree that Smith's analogy of humanity to a Virus is correct, and I wouldn't argue against it being "evil". ( Whatever that word means ).

Zync wrote:

The smart AND physically able children are not picked on, and they are the only ones we want ( in this world ). Did someone try to tell you that intelligence and strength can't be in the same body at the same time to make you feel better or have you simply played so many games that you have drained your mind into such conclusions on your own?

I didn't experience bullying and I was a chubby kid. Bullying has correlation to perceptions of easy targets, not to genetic traits.

Zync wrote:

Absolutely not. Almost all of the father's side would pass, all of his ancestors would, and most of my mother's side would pass. There are plenty of well-built people in this world. If only 10% of the world's 6.77 billion people passed my criteria ( which I would assume the number to be more around 15% ) that would leave 677 million breeders in the world! Extinct?! Come on now ...

Zync wrote:

I have 2 brothers, of the 3 of us, not one wears glasses, and on average have an IQ of about 135 ( I am actually the lowest at about 131-132 ). My youngest brother was actually put through weeks of testing after high school and was "certified genius", whatever that means.

After reading the above I have come to the conclusion that you have a severe complex about your family being superior to other families.

Zync wrote:

Every mammal body is able to store and metabolize fat. Without it, a mammal would have to continuously eat ( literally non-stop ) to maintain body heat through active digestion. ( Don't think I'm using the "correct" words, but I'm sure you understand the meaning Jay.J ).

Incorrect, fat is simply the most volume-efficient storage method for energy that our bodies have access to. People eat small meals more frequently than would be required without body fat as a storage mechanism voluntarily already.

Zync wrote:

| 1: Humans have had a recorded stable agriculture since the Babylonians,
| over 14,000 years.
| 2: The human population of 6.77 billion could not be supported if
| agriculture was lost.
| 3: Being overweight/fat is due to an over consumption of resources. Having
| a genetic predisposition to place extra fat requires over consumption for
| mere survival, still falling under the category of "over consumptions".
| 4: There will always be genetic mutation in animal offspring. That's the way
| genetics works.
| 5: If the current rate of human consumption continues, the human race will
| destroy itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6: The best genetics for physical tendencies in human beings would be the
| ones that correlate to a agriculture-based life style, for it is not only
| stable, but without agriculture, only a very small populous would survive,
| in which case, the "fat gene" would gain dominance. ( derived from 1,2,4 )
| 7: There is no benefit to maintain the "fat gene" in the human population.
| ( derived from 6 )
| 8: Greatly reducing the percentage of fat humans in the world would reduce
| the amount of resources needed to sustain the human race. ( derived
| from 2,3 )
| 9: If the "fat gene" is removed from the human population, there is a much
| greater chance that humans won't destroy themselves. ( derived from
| 5,7,8 )
Therefore, preventing as much of the "fat gene" from being in the human
population is not only good, but race saving for human beings.

#5 appears to be a slippery slope fallacy based on the assumption that consumption will grow at an exponential rate without reaching a critical point at which either technology will increase production capacity or growth will stagnate.
#'s 6, 7 and 9 are unacceptable because I find it hard to believe that there is such a "fat gene". The predisposition for additional fat deposits is most likely an interaction of many different protein codes that may have functions independant of fat storage as well as the interaction.

Zync wrote:

But then I realized I was assuming that you were looking for a discussion. That assumption is incorrect. You're an uneducated teen seeking self-esteem, and that I cannot give, placing us at an impasse. That makes this a waste of time. Not only does a INTP like myself have a hard time debating with an INFJ like you, but I seem to be looking for an understanding about plausible social change while you seem to need self-fulfillment. Hence, I will not continue this line of "discussion", if it even can be called as such.

Still, feel free to read the discussions between Jay.J and myself. We might get somewhere

You have no idea? Look who's spouting accusations now. You still have given me no points. Stop trolling, and argue. If I'm so uneducated, then you could kick my butt. You sound like a noble from medieval times. Arrogant and not caring. I think people that are over-arrogant forfeit their rights, simply because I think so, as that is the logic you're using. If you were completely dominant over me in an argument, then you would be able to actually ARGUE. Absolutely ridiculous.

Pythagoras wrote:

First point:

Zync wrote:

Not at all. In fact, what I've been saying is that NOTHING falls into his "virus" category. It's really such an exaggeration of what viruses actually do that no living thing, including an actual virus, falls into that category.

Really?

Zync wrote:

I would agree that Smith's analogy of humanity to a Virus is correct, and I wouldn't argue against it being "evil". ( Whatever that word means ).

... Notice how I capitalize Virus. That means it is a proper noun, i.e. the actual/biological virus. Smith's analogy of humans to a Virus is correct. His description of a "virus" however, is incorrect. How many times do I have to state this until it is understood?

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

The smart AND physically able children are not picked on, and they are the only ones we want ( in this world ). Did someone try to tell you that intelligence and strength can't be in the same body at the same time to make you feel better or have you simply played so many games that you have drained your mind into such conclusions on your own?

I didn't experience bullying and I was a chubby kid. Bullying has correlation to perceptions of easy targets, not to genetic traits.

Um, when did I say chubby disqualified you as "physically able"? There are plenty of chubby people I know who can do great things with their physical form. In addition, chubby =/= fat. I specified a BMI of greater than 25.0. In addition, I separated out the qualifier of "fat" from "picked on" for this very reason.
Being physically meek ( generally meaning small ) results in bullying. Being fat might result in teasing, but not being bullied.

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

Absolutely not. Almost all of the father's side would pass, all of his ancestors would, and most of my mother's side would pass. There are plenty of well-built people in this world. If only 10% of the world's 6.77 billion people passed my criteria ( which I would assume the number to be more around 15% ) that would leave 677 million breeders in the world! Extinct?! Come on now ...

Zync wrote:

I have 2 brothers, of the 3 of us, not one wears glasses, and on average have an IQ of about 135 ( I am actually the lowest at about 131-132 ). My youngest brother was actually put through weeks of testing after high school and was "certified genius", whatever that means.

After reading the above I have come to the conclusion that you have a severe complex about your family being superior to other families.

I can think of a number of families that would have a statistically "better" gene pool than my own. This quote was a counterpoint to an argument, and my family did the job. In addition, if I was asked more specific questions, I know my family well enough to give those details.
I won't deny that I view my family far above average ( statistically ), but we are by no means the "best". If that was the case, we're all f****d.

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

Every mammal body is able to store and metabolize fat. Without it, a mammal would have to continuously eat ( literally non-stop ) to maintain body heat through active digestion. ( Don't think I'm using the "correct" words, but I'm sure you understand the meaning Jay.J ).

Incorrect, fat is simply the most volume-efficient storage method for energy that our bodies have access to. People eat small meals more frequently than would be required without body fat as a storage mechanism voluntarily already.

Actually yes. Every sugar/carbohydrate is first placed into a fat cell prior to being used as energy. True, the liver stores excess protein which can be used as ( very inefficient ) energy, but to use the carbon chains which are our building blocks of life, they don't just sit in the colon until we need to move our arm, they sit in a fatty cell. ( I restrict my description to mammals, because I don't know about reptiles and doubt a mollusk or shellfish functions like we do in this regards. )

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

| 1: Humans have had a recorded stable agriculture since the Babylonians,
| over 14,000 years.
| 2: The human population of 6.77 billion could not be supported if
| agriculture was lost.
| 3: Being overweight/fat is due to an over consumption of resources. Having
| a genetic predisposition to place extra fat requires over consumption for
| mere survival, still falling under the category of "over consumptions".
| 4: There will always be genetic mutation in animal offspring. That's the way
| genetics works.
| 5: If the current rate of human consumption continues, the human race will
| destroy itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6: The best genetics for physical tendencies in human beings would be the
| ones that correlate to a agriculture-based life style, for it is not only
| stable, but without agriculture, only a very small populous would survive,
| in which case, the "fat gene" would gain dominance. ( derived from 1,2,4 )
| 7: There is no benefit to maintain the "fat gene" in the human population.
| ( derived from 6 )
| 8: Greatly reducing the percentage of fat humans in the world would reduce
| the amount of resources needed to sustain the human race. ( derived
| from 2,3 )
| 9: If the "fat gene" is removed from the human population, there is a much
| greater chance that humans won't destroy themselves. ( derived from
| 5,7,8 )
Therefore, preventing as much of the "fat gene" from being in the human
population is not only good, but race saving for human beings.

#5 appears to be a slippery slope fallacy based on the assumption that consumption will grow at an exponential rate without reaching a critical point at which either technology will increase production capacity or growth will stagnate.
#'s 6, 7 and 9 are unacceptable because I find it hard to believe that there is such a "fat gene". The predisposition for additional fat deposits is most likely an interaction of many different protein codes that may have functions independant of fat storage as well as the interaction.

I don't know if technology will make up for human consumption. But neither do you, and I don't see how a speculation creates a fallacy out of the obvious.

About the "fat gene", if you would have continued reading my post, I give an example of one. I don't remember specific details about the woman, and I don't care how many protein codes are used to result in the extra deposit of fat. We don't get these codes magically, but from our parents ( more from our mothers since she is responsible for mitochondria, and in fact all organelles ).

Zync wrote:

I don't know if technology will make up for human consumption. But neither do you, and I don't see how a speculation creates a fallacy out of the obvious.

Technology will make up for it, or the population will cease to grow. That's why it's a critical point. Human's wont drive themselves to extinction, they'll drive themselves to population decline at worst.

I just thought of another point. Today I have nothing to do, so I've decided to do 1000 stomach crunches. It will increase my fitness, but that's a lot of energy consumption that is seemingly unnecessary. What's your position on something like that? What's the balance between fitness and fatness that you're looking for? Anorexia to the line of being feeble but not crossing it?

Bartimaeus wrote:

Zync wrote:

But then I realized I was assuming that you were looking for a discussion. That assumption is incorrect. You're an uneducated teen seeking self-esteem, and that I cannot give, placing us at an impasse. That makes this a waste of time. Not only does a INTP like myself have a hard time debating with an INFJ like you, but I seem to be looking for an understanding about plausible social change while you seem to need self-fulfillment. Hence, I will not continue this line of "discussion", if it even can be called as such.

Still, feel free to read the discussions between Jay.J and myself. We might get somewhere

You have no idea? Look who's spouting accusations now. You still have given me no points. Stop trolling, and argue. If I'm so uneducated, then you could kick my butt. You sound like a noble from medieval times. Arrogant and not caring. I think people that are over-arrogant forfeit their rights, simply because I think so, as that is the logic you're using. If you were completely dominant over me in an argument, then you would be able to actually ARGUE. Absolutely ridiculous.

I will humor you this last time ...

If you read the other posts, Pythagoras for example, does draw on examples of his own childhood, however, they are used in attempt to show that my purposed theory is flawed in some way. As such, we are both looking for the answer as to weather or not my theory is plausible. Therefore we can discuss.

Lets go back over your original post:

Bartimaeus wrote:

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

1. There is no way to measure true intelligence. Believe in an IQ test, and I think you forfeit your rights. That's "weak" wisdom.

2. You forfeit somebody's rights because they like eating more than usual?

3. Some people don't care what people think of them. What are you, one of those shallow fools that only care in looks?

4. Eyesight? I wish I could flame, because if I could, I would have a very certain word here for you.

5. Because you are physically weak makes you an undesirable?

6. Your points are completely ridiculous. If we were be ruled by you, we'd all be exinct. Bad genes are always present, no matter what. Bad eye sight could come from someone a thousand years ago. You forfeit their rights based on random chance? Even if they're a mastermind, you'd still consider them trash because they have poor eyesight? You sir, are a complete fool for not allowing someone like that to breed.

In 1, you state that my wisdom is "weak" because I believe in an IQ being accurate enough. That is an accusation, not an argument.

In 2, you ask a question, to which I said "yes".

In 3, you accuse me of being a "shallow fool", to which I explained the types of physical characteristics that seem naturally superior.

In 4, well, you got nothing accomplished.

In 5, you ask an obvious question to which I said "of course" and you responded "fail" or something of the like. Again, pointless ...

In 6, you made wild accusations to which I responded with facts about the earth's population and assumptions about who would in fact qualify in my purposed criteria. ( You also go on a tangent about "random"ness, which simply suggests that you want the world to be fair, not discuss as to whether or not the world is fair. )

This is the last time I'm discussing this line of ( "logic" isn't the right word .. ) conversation. We are not searching for the same thing. It's like an astronomer and a oceanographer trying to work together, wait no, they're both looking for something physical. It's like an astronomer and a psychologist trying to work together. Ya, it's that far off.

And the woman who could gain weight on a grapefruit diet was either a liar or it's likely the mutation caused a fat digestion enzyme to become ineffective, which isn't really the sort of thing you're trying to get rid of with your selection mechanism (which is over-consumption, not under-digestion), unless you're just opposed to having to look at fatties.

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

I don't know if technology will make up for human consumption. But neither do you, and I don't see how a speculation creates a fallacy out of the obvious.

Technology will make up for it, or the population will cease to grow. That's why it's a critical point. Human's wont drive themselves to extinction, they'll drive themselves to population decline at worst.

I think here you're leaving out the idea of "waste". If we simply consumed and moved on without scaring the world, than I would completely agree with you. But, humans are gods of waste, i.e. leaving behind things that make re-growth impossible without further human intervention, and sometimes impossible all together. So ... I still stand by my point, and say that our behaviors don't just make a critical point, but lower that critical point over time.

Pythagoras wrote:

I just thought of another point. Today I have nothing to do, so I've decided to do 1000 stomach crunches. It will increase my fitness, but that's a lot of energy consumption that is seemingly unnecessary. What's your position on something like that? What's the balance between fitness and fatness that you're looking for? Anorexia to the line of being feeble but not crossing it?

I'm not going to get too specific, or create a diet, or exercise routine, etc. I'll simply fall back on Body Mass Index ( BMI ). If you fall above 25.0 and cannot see the ripples in your abs, than you are fat. ( There is the possibility of body builders who could surpass the 25.0 BMI with muscle. That is why I depict the "abs" as a possible exception. )

Pythagoras wrote:

And the woman who could gain weight on a grapefruit diet was either a liar or it's likely the mutation caused a fat digestion enzyme to become ineffective, which isn't really the sort of thing you're trying to get rid of with your selection mechanism (which is over-consumption, not under-digestion), unless you're just opposed to having to look at fatties.

Lol, this post made me laugh. Maybe she was lying about the "grapefruit" thing, but she knew she was going to die if she didn't lose weight, so I'm sure the fear put her into ( at the least ) a good diet. Still, even an enzyme disabling her to digest certain kinds of fats would cause over-consumption due to the abundant need of other fats. It still needs to go.

Zync wrote:

I'm not going to get too specific, or create a diet, or exercise routine, etc. I'll simply fall back on Body Mass Index ( BMI ). If you fall above 25.0 and cannot see the ripples in your abs, than you are fat. ( There is the possibility of body builders who could surpass the 25.0 BMI with muscle. That is why I depict the "abs" as a possible exception. )

That's not what I was asking, I was asking over-consumption due to frivolous exercise to build muscle for the sake of muscle classifies as over-consumption that must be halted. Was Michael Phelps wrong to consume thousands of calories/day more than your average fat person so he could train all day for months so he could win at the Olympics? And if that's okay because it supported multiple industries, then what about the average Joe Testosterone who wastes all that energy building (and then supporting) unnecessary muscle?

Her over-consumption of grapefruit and consistent malnutrition while still being overweight was offensive to you? That sounds like you just don't like looking at fatties. No worries, I don't either.

Pythagoras wrote:

Zync wrote:

I'm not going to get too specific, or create a diet, or exercise routine, etc. I'll simply fall back on Body Mass Index ( BMI ). If you fall above 25.0 and cannot see the ripples in your abs, than you are fat. ( There is the possibility of body builders who could surpass the 25.0 BMI with muscle. That is why I depict the "abs" as a possible exception. )

That's not what I was asking, I was asking over-consumption due to frivolous exercise to build muscle for the sake of muscle classifies as over-consumption that must be halted. Was Michael Phelps wrong to consume thousands of calories/day more than your average fat person so he could train all day for months so he could win at the Olympics? And if that's okay because it supported multiple industries, then what about the average Joe Testosterone who wastes all that energy building (and then supporting) unnecessary muscle?

Her over-consumption of grapefruit and consistent malnutrition while still being overweight was offensive to you? That sounds like you just don't like looking at fatties. No worries, I don't either.

Actually, when I talk about over consumption of fat people, I'm not actually talking about food. If you remember from my first couple of posts, I'm actually referring to the consumption of medical care. ( Remember the whole, there is not "Health Care" in America, only "Sick Care". ) This could even extend into the billion dollar diet industry. To me, that is the over consumption.

Eating enough food for you to exercise and feel better, would more seem like an investment for physical efficiency. I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean sure, Michael Phelps was eating what 4 people normally eat. But he's not sitting in a hospital bed; getting diagnosed with Diabetes, or waiting for a stomach staple, or having one of the other 25 weight-related diseases listed in the film "Super Size Me." If you haven't seen it, it's on Hulu now, and you should. I haven't eaten fast food in over 2 years thanks to that film, and even cut down red meat to no more than twice a month.

Zync wrote:

Hopefully my above argument satisfies most of these points ( because it does ), however, there are "fat genes" that are so extreme they cause hormone imbalances under which the body stores fat regardless of diet or exercise. My mother had a friend with such a decency, I remember her from when I was about 8 because she was so big. She would gain weight on a grapefruit diet and merely end up in the hospital from lack of nutrition. She had 2 children before she died of heart failure at age 33. That's not right.

You give an extreme counter example for me saying that in your dictatorship that, obesity will not be culturally possible, or you'll die (Or be unable to reproduce). Even people with the inefficient genes that make people fat/obese in todays society would not be able to do so in yours. Do realize, that in every Nurture/Nature debate....both sides DO play a role, so even people with fat genes will carry them on because of the culture that you will undoubtedly create.

Zync wrote:

| 2: The human population of 6.77 billion could not be supported if
| agriculture was lost.

Why do you assume that we would be trying to support that population anyway? That, and I'm talking about like...HUGE calamities that you might want to prepare for, whether it be Global winter from a nuke fest, or just like massive natural disasters. Just saying you might want to prepare for it by not eliminating a gene because they're MORE wasteful (especially when I'm arguing they won't be with the new conditions of your dictatorship). And regardless - with your restrictions we'll be decreasing the popularity vastly anyway.

Zync wrote:

3: Being overweight/fat is due to an over consumption of resources. Having
| a genetic predisposition to place extra fat requires over consumption for
| mere survival, still falling under the category of "over consumptions".

No? Having a predisposition to being fat means your body uses energy more efficiently. That just means you have to eat less to sustain yourself. If anything, these people will eat less because of your dictatorship, and will end up consuming LESS. Having a gene that allows you to convert food more efficiently, and not need it and thus storing it into fat - means you NEED less. They won't BE fat anymore, because as soon as they hit that 25.0BMI, crap - they can't reproduce anymore .

I think your problem here is having the fat gene = going to be fat. That's just not true...I mean it is in your extreme cases, but not in the general population.

Zync wrote:

Oh, I thought you would read my other posts where I briefly address the issue if IQ. My system isn't perfect, I never said it was. I IMPLIED that it is far beter than our society today, and have stated that such a social change could save humanity from its consumption addition.
But if you want me to go into details about IQ, than I would say 2 IQ tests a year from ages 3-18 would be statistically efficient to get an accurate understanding of an individual's IQ. 30 points is enough for an accurate statistical model with a standard deviation less than 10%. With my previous criteria of 100 IQ, this would mean anyone scoring a 90 or above would pass the {f} test.

I read them all, I just didn't really think you touched on it enough. Again, even if you have statistically RELIABLE tests, I don't think they're VALID. At least not if you're trying to measure "Intelligence". Like I said, IQ is a good predictor of school success (r=0.5) and job success (r=0.3) but is NOT really a good tool to measure ones actual intellectual abilities. Even then, they don't measure social ability, and if anything there is evidence that people with higher IQ's are more likely to have bad social skills, some falling into psychopathic/sociopathic behavior. And again, by making the cut off for each generation 100, you're just .... raising the bar to a stupid point. IQ is a deviation. If generations become increasingly intelligent, than the tools themselves will fail. You'll have to make newer tests for each generation since the "average" would be higher and higher each generation (Presumably - considering it's already happening [Refer to my last IQ post], and if anything there's a general stupidity that's being bred, so it's VERY likely to happen.)

I'm just trying to make your fantasy dictatorship more efficient. I don't think you've thought of everything....which would be more disturbing, since hopefully it's not CONSTANTLY on your mind .

I've never eaten red meat. I saw Super Size me, you don't have to eat fatty foods in order to be fat. Average people don't work out for physical efficiency, they work out (primarily) to look good and be selected for mating or feel good about being a mate.

The fat people paid for their insurance or paid for their medical care somehow. In what way is that more wasteful? Hell, it provides jobs for a wide range of education levels. Without fat people entire industries would drown.

Zync wrote:

If you read the other posts, Pythagoras for example, does draw on examples of his own childhood, however, they are used in attempt to show that my purposed theory is flawed in some way. As such, we are both looking for the answer as to whether or not my theory is plausible. Therefore we can discuss.

This is the last time I'm discussing this line of ( "logic" isn't the right word .. ) conversation. We are not searching for the same thing. It's like an astronomer and a oceanographer trying to work together, wait no, they're both looking for something physical. It's like an astronomer and a psychologist trying to work together. Ya, it's that far off.

Okay, let's try this again....my main problem, heh, with my "post", is that your post seemed so absolutely utterly ridiculous, that I couldn't even believe it was real.

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

1. Firstly, in my opinion, if you're going to base somebody's "intelligence", after an IQ test, you must, firstly:

a). take out any luck factors, because luck should not be a factor in your IQ, as it does not help measure in your intelligence, unless it's a completely uneducated guess test, on which you guess what you think sounds like the best answer based on knowledge
b). perfect the test, as to provide best "intelligence" questions, instead of knowledge questions
c). I'm not sure, but just a. and b. isn't enough letters to warrant using them

2. what happens if you eat the same as other skinny kids, but you end up fat, anyways? some bodies naturally cling onto fat much more than others

2a. what happens if you eat the same amount of food as skinny kids, but it's a different kind of food?

3. I don't really get this one.

4. It'd actually, in my opinion, would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce, because such a high percentage of people have it.

5. what happens if:

a). that kid is either overweight, (usually makes them, eh, pack more of a punch, and harder to get rid of)
b). substantially more muscled than you? what happens if you're, say, 14, still a teenager, and have no muscles, but someone, who is, say, in footbaal, whom is 16, and naturally has a lot more muscle is picking on you? explain how you would stop that?

Is that better?

(edit) Dekar calls you a nazi, by the way, for your first post.

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

Hopefully my above argument satisfies most of these points ( because it does ), however, there are "fat genes" that are so extreme they cause hormone imbalances under which the body stores fat regardless of diet or exercise. My mother had a friend with such a decency, I remember her from when I was about 8 because she was so big. She would gain weight on a grapefruit diet and merely end up in the hospital from lack of nutrition. She had 2 children before she died of heart failure at age 33. That's not right.

You give an extreme counter example for me saying that in your dictatorship that, obesity will not be culturally possible, or you'll die (Or be unable to reproduce). Even people with the inefficient genes that make people fat/obese in todays society would not be able to do so in yours. Do realize, that in every Nurture/Nature debate....both sides DO play a role, so even people with fat genes will carry them on because of the culture that you will undoubtedly create.

- Of course obesity will exist. I never said I would eliminate it, that's basically impossible.
- I don't see why people with inefficient genes would not be fat in my society. I'm not rationing their food, I'm preventing them from breeding.
- Of course both nature and nurture play a role, hence my separation of childhood and adulthood obesity. Bad genes would show early, like in childhood, where someone with good genes yet bad habits could easily stay thin throughout their childhood, the fat catching up to the later in life. I even went into the detail of stating that someone with childhood obesity that got their weight under control would be the best candidate to be adoptive parents.

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

| 2: The human population of 6.77 billion could not be supported if
| agriculture was lost.

Why do you assume that we would be trying to support that population anyway? That, and I'm talking about like...HUGE calamities that you might want to prepare for, whether it be Global winter from a nuke fest, or just like massive natural disasters. Just saying you might want to prepare for it by not eliminating a gene because they're MORE wasteful (especially when I'm arguing they won't be with the new conditions of your dictatorship). And regardless - with your restrictions we'll be decreasing the popularity vastly anyway.

Woah, what? You want to talk about "what if", like global warming, natural disaster, or how about fat-loving aliens who are headed to the earth right now to eat all humans with more than 10% body fat!
The point of an debate is to talk about what we can do, right now, with the knowledge we currently have. Anything else is pure speculative and a complete waste of time ...

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

3: Being overweight/fat is due to an over consumption of resources. Having
| a genetic predisposition to place extra fat requires over consumption for
| mere survival, still falling under the category of "over consumptions".

No? Having a predisposition to being fat means your body uses energy more efficiently. That just means you have to eat less to sustain yourself. If anything, these people will eat less because of your dictatorship, and will end up consuming LESS. Having a gene that allows you to convert food more efficiently, and not need it and thus storing it into fat - means you NEED less. They won't BE fat anymore, because as soon as they hit that 25.0BMI, crap - they can't reproduce anymore .

I think your problem here is having the fat gene = going to be fat. That's just not true...I mean it is in your extreme cases, but not in the general population.

See, now I KNOW you haven't read all the posts. Pythagoras has the same issue in assuming this "over consumption" I was referring to was over eating. I never said or implied such a thing. Have I have explicitly said twice already, was that the direct over consumption I was referring to was "Sick Care" commonly known in the USA as "Health Care".
Food is a replenishable resource that does not scare the world. The dumping of bio-hazard material on the other hand, is, and that's the kind of waste due to consumption that is ( if it continues as-is ) going to make this earth uninhabitable.

Jay.J wrote:

Zync wrote:

Oh, I thought you would read my other posts where I briefly address the issue if IQ. My system isn't perfect, I never said it was. I IMPLIED that it is far beter than our society today, and have stated that such a social change could save humanity from its consumption addition.
But if you want me to go into details about IQ, than I would say 2 IQ tests a year from ages 3-18 would be statistically efficient to get an accurate understanding of an individual's IQ. 30 points is enough for an accurate statistical model with a standard deviation less than 10%. With my previous criteria of 100 IQ, this would mean anyone scoring a 90 or above would pass the {f} test.

I read them all, I just didn't really think you touched on it enough. Again, even if you have statistically RELIABLE tests, I don't think they're VALID. At least not if you're trying to measure "Intelligence". Like I said, IQ is a good predictor of school success (r=0.5) and job success (r=0.3) but is NOT really a good tool to measure ones actual intellectual abilities. Even then, they don't measure social ability, and if anything there is evidence that people with higher IQ's are more likely to have bad social skills, some falling into psychopathic/sociopathic behavior. And again, by making the cut off for each generation 100, you're just .... raising the bar to a stupid point. IQ is a deviation. If generations become increasingly intelligent, than the tools themselves will fail. You'll have to make newer tests for each generation since the "average" would be higher and higher each generation (Presumably - considering it's already happening [Refer to my last IQ post], and if anything there's a general stupidity that's being bred, so it's VERY likely to happen.)

If a better standard is created, than fine, but until then, I say a test that accurately predicts both education and career advancement is more than good enough. And again, I never stated that my rules will not change with the adapting world. AS IS RIGHT NOW ( if I was going to hand out "breeding permissions" tomorrow ) an IQ of 100 is a good mark. Will the IQ mark raise, I don't know, but it certainly will change. My eyesight standard might change too. All I stated was that you can't wear glasses, which ( I believe ) would encompasses 20/40 vision, about the legal limit you must have while driving without glasses or other vision assistance. If the pruning worked as I would hope, than some day it could drop to 20/20, or even 20/10 after many generations. I don't know specific numbers, I haven't done that much thought and certainly next to no research.

Jay.J wrote:

I'm just trying to make your fantasy dictatorship more efficient. I don't think you've thought of everything....which would be more disturbing, since hopefully it's not CONSTANTLY on your mind .

Lol, well thanks for the questioning, and no, I don't think about such things "constantly" or really at all until someone either brings it up, or my girl talks about having children. In reality, I would NEVER care to attempt to make such things happen. It get such a society in motion wouldn't make me happy or fulfill some need I have. If I did, my family lineage would quickly got to the bottom of the totem pole, or even fall off. As-is, they are almost always "successful" in their lives. ( There is always the hermit uncle who fails to be "successful" an anyone's eyes besides his mother, lol. ) I do enjoy a world full of idiots.

I read them all, I just really though you'd be more cold-hearted of a dictator than that. I thought you would want a bit more than just "you guys can't breed because you don't fall into my, somewhat arbitrary, categories". I mean, I thought in this debate you were supreme overlord of the world, not elected in or anything. I was thinking it would be more....Hitlerish, for lack of a better world. However one real problem with it regardless - is that it wouldn't work well because sadly, you'd be dead probably be dead before 2 generations so you wouldn't be able to see the fruits of your work, nor would you be able to modify your standards.

Zync wrote:

Woah, what? You want to talk about "what if", like global warming, natural disaster, or how about fat-loving aliens who are headed to the earth right now to eat all humans with more than 10% body fat!
The point of an debate is to talk about what we can do, right now, with the knowledge we currently have. Anything else is pure speculative and a complete waste of time ...

...We're assuming you become a dictator of the world, or at least a country. The whole scenario is a what if. You're a dictator in this what if, and I am your advisor. I'm saying trying to breed out a gene that is currently maladaptive does not mean it will always be maladaptive. At least that's how I'm viewing this "debate" (Which I consider more of a discussion since I'm not sure what our ultimate debate is about?)

Here's your list to be able to breed in your society:

Zync wrote:

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

Zync wrote:

Pythagoras has the same issue in assuming this "over consumption" I was referring to was over eating. I never said or implied such a thing.

It kind of is implied, since well 2 (arguably 4 since Bart/Dragon also misunderstood) misunderstood you. Are you saying that it wasn't SOMEWHAT implied by your list? You really trying to say 2(4) people just picked this up from nowhere? I understand what you're saying now. Overconsumption as in .... more gluttony (Not strictly food/substabces) and extravagance I guess. Why have eye-care centers when you can breed out bad eyes? Why have teachers who help mentally challenged kids when you can just breed them out? So basically - instead of natural selection, you want artificial selection based on your standards? I do want to clarify - as I'm not positive I (and others) fully am understanding your motive. If that is your motive, then why? ...You say

Zync wrote:

Have I have explicitly said twice already, was that the direct over consumption I was referring to was "Sick Care" commonly known in the USA as "Health Care".

How does getting rid of poor eye sight or retarded people accomplish

Zync wrote:

The dumping of bio-hazard material on the other hand, is, and that's the kind of waste due to consumption that is ( if it continues as-is ) going to make this earth uninhabitable.

I don't see the correlation, but there might be something that I'm missing entirely. Maybe just define your motive, and how you plan to accomplish this task (Assuming you were the dictator of the world, or even a country). I'm also curious as how you plan on stopping breeding? Surgery, or peoples word?