3.14chan

File: license533_ib4f.jpg - (91.54kb, 533x341, license533.jpg) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Licenses Anonymous 06/7/2009(Mon)01:57:07 No.101519

Whenever I hear political debacles about legalizing this, or changing the legal age on that, I always throw in the possibility of a full license system. Has anyone else ever thought about this?

I'm the biggest advocate on this for alcohol. I think the drinking age should remain where it is, but licenses should be administered (upon certified alcohol abuse/effects/etc. training) that allow one to buy and consume alcoholic beverages. This has potential to greatly decrease the number of binge drinking health problems (both short and long term) and even drunk driving injuries. Knowledge is power, and a license is a way to prove that you know your shit about what you're putting into your body, what it can do to you, and what it can do to others.

I also think that licenses would be effective in smoking, voting (so those under 18 who barely missed the cut can vote, not to weed out "bad" voters), and even the legalization of prostitution (they can learn the mental effects of whoring, about diseases and where to get help, and healthy alternatives to such a lifestyle).

Expand All Images

Anita Lehtola Herschel 06/7/2009(Mon)02:06:20 No.101527

I think that every one that will have a child should have a compulsory class to learn how to take care and educate children.

About vote I fear that it could become a political tool to control who will be in power.

About prostitution, I think it is better to have it regulated. Many rich countries have it.

Edited at 06/7/2009(Mon)02:39:28

Fatima Hobbes 07/7/2009(Tue)09:41:03 No.105457

File: 12429357998_ib4f.jpg - (77.35kb, 820x925, 12429357998.jpg)

I think a parenting license should be instated. Honestly, you need a license to drive, to make an addition to your house, but something as important as child rearing is left to whatever fucktard decides to fail birth control. This leads to far too many unwanted or fucked up children.

As a part of this, I think that people should be required to take an IQ test at the age of consent (usually 16-18). If you don't score high enough, you're involuntarily sterilized. This would stop all of the unwanted teen pregnancies. Too stupid? No problem! Now you don't have to worry about raising an equally stupid child.

Now, before you start pointing out that this will lead to a sharp decline in the human population, remember that the earth is supporting about 2-3 billion more humans then it really has the capacity for.

Now, if someone has a child without having the proper licensing, that parent gets a hefty fine and the child becomes a ward of the state and will be put in the care of a licensed individual that is incapable of having children.

That way, everyone wins.

Kurz Steel 08/7/2009(Wed)07:21:07 No.106841

>>105457
what is the minimum IQ limit you were thinking of?

Kurz Steel 08/7/2009(Wed)07:23:06 No.106846

>>106841
also this does not solve the huge number of pregnancies in girls aged 12 to 15.

Nicholai Appledelphi 08/7/2009(Wed)11:40:25 No.107904

any kids having sex before they're 15 should just be shot

Anita Lehtola Herschel 14/7/2009(Tue)12:52:14 No.112432

I think some classes for child raising would do. Future parents would have to pass for some classes and a test, if they fail in the test they would have to pass by more classes and another test.

For drinking and smoking it would be nice.

Prostitution should be regulated, with classes about STDs and apropriated places for them.

About extreme authoritarian governaments, they didn't worked in the past and will not work in future.

Fatima Hobbes 14/7/2009(Tue)08:05:02 No.120377

File: nazis_wideweb__470x3030_ib4f.jpg - (51.6kb, 470x303, nazis_wideweb__470x3030.jpg)

>>106841

Since the average IQ is 100, I would have to say that 100 would be the lowest you could get on that test.

>>106846

Anyone that became pregnant before the age of consent would be given a choice between carrying the child to term and then giving it up to the state for home placement or abortion. Either way, once the girl had recovered from her pregnancy, she and the man responsible would have mandatory sterilizations. While this may seem harsh, there are numerous ways to prevent a pregnancy. Unless the case was rape, I don't see why you shouldn't treat them as people unfit to be parents in the eyes of the law.

Anonymous 14/7/2009(Tue)08:26:12 No.120397

>>120377
The average IQ being 100 means that half of the population is under it. Since the IQ varies during life you will need to sterilize a little more than half of the population.

Them you will need to force the other half of the population to reproduce more to avoid population collapse.

How do you think that the population would accept it? Remember that the army are part of population too.

Fatima Hobbes 14/7/2009(Tue)09:08:13 No.120416

>>120397

First of all, you need to remember how an average is calculated. It would not be over half of the population. At most, it would be about a third.

And yes, I am completely aware of the repercussions of what I am suggesting. In fact, I covered one of your complaints in my first post regarding this topic.

Honestly, the main reason why this will never be implemented is because of the rallying cry of "HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE" that would result from even -suggesting- the idea. But if it were to be passed, there is nothing keeping an individual (licensed or otherwise) from being a part of the military. Since there is already an IQ test (ever tried to pass the asvab) of sorts to get into the military, there is a good chance that those men and women would also be licensed parents. I see no issue, and I wonder why you even brought that up.

Anonymous 14/7/2009(Tue)09:51:37 No.120430

File: IQ_ib4f.png - (6.35kb, 724x185, IQ.PNG)

>>120416
If you choose exactly 100 it would be about half of the population. Them someone with a 105 IQ in a bad day get a result 99, this one will be sterilized. I already got 20 points less in a IQ test in a high stress month. This means that you will have people with a IQ over 110 being sterilized too.

About sterilization in teen pregnancy and in people without a proper licensing, teenagers do a lot of stupid things, they are teenagers. How will you find the father? The mother is easy to spot but the father isn't that easy.

How will you avoid resistance movements? Just because the ones with an IQ over 100 with a perfect historic weren't touched this doesn't means that they will not rebel against you.

The only way to make this work would be if you were some sort of god.

Kurz Herschel 14/7/2009(Tue)10:26:04 No.120448

>>120416

I have a great idea... have all the stupid people in the military. That way you can kill them, and they'll think it's heroism.

Anita Lehtola Herschel 14/7/2009(Tue)10:43:10 No.120458

File: 633510150084118928-b-tards_ib4f.jpg - (70.11kb, 750x600, 633510150084118928-b-tards.jpg)

>>120448
Done!
What's next?

Giordano von Hohenheim 20/7/2009(Mon)11:26:50 No.127746

File: rockefeller2_ib4f.gif - (50.13kb, 252x288, rockefeller2.gif)

>>120430
>>120448

God you say?

If you "almighty superior human beings" forgot the eugenicists already made an attempt at it in the past with there propaganda films in the 1930's.

I still can understand your ideologies. Who are you to have the right to say who can produce? People with lower IQ's can still contribute greatly to society. Naturally, they end up working construction, mining, steel, etc. The reason we see so much stupidity nowadays is because of misinformation, mass media, chemicals in our food/water, and so on. I've seen the true intelligence in some of people you'd least suspect.

You are the ones who deserve sterilization and should be thrown in a mental institution, deemed as a hazard to humanity.

P.S., You think you're superior to other social classes, levels of intelligence now, but when you're targeted your views will take a 180 deg turn.

Thomas Somerville 20/7/2009(Mon)11:47:55 No.127777

>>120377

Condoms breaking, pill not work, vasectomy failing, there are other possibilities beyond rape that are beyond the parents control.

Kashmir Norris 21/7/2009(Tue)01:57:33 No.127955

>>127746

>"almighty superior human beings"
Not all eugenicists think of themselves as almighty superior human beings. As Nietzche said, man is not an end. "Oh my god Nazis!"
>Who are you to have the right to say who can produce hurr ethics?
>People with lower IQ's can still contribute greatly to society. Naturally, they end up working construction, mining, steel, etc.
Everyone can do something. The point of eugenics is furthering humanity as a whole. The same things less able people could do would be performed by more able people. Though they might not do it better, it is better to have smarter people, especially for other work, isn't it?
>The reason we see so much stupidity nowadays is because of misinformation, mass media, chemicals in our food/water, and so on. I've seen the true intelligence in some of people you'd least suspect.
Actually, people are steadily becoming smarter and the mass media actually have been tested to have a positive effect on it.
>You are the ones who deserve sterilization and should be thrown in a mental institution, deemed as a hazard to humanity.
A personal attack, eh?

Edited at 21/7/2009(Tue)02:03:10

Giordano von Hohenheim 21/7/2009(Tue)09:08:13 No.128197

>>127955

Regardless, another person still does not have the right to take away ones privilege to reproduce. However, one who can't make decisions for themselves due to mental retardation, etc is a different story.

Furthermore, judging intelligence has been going through some radical changes and ideas. Does me being a musician make me less intelligent than the ones designing/coding the software/hardware that I use? Is IQ really that important? What is an accurate way to measure intelligence? What is intelligence? What are the implications of a highly intelligent race?

It is not a good idea to have more intelligent workers. They'd have higher demands in wages, health-care, and so on, for the employer this is not very efficient. It is better to have someone who will work hard, not question authority, and may even enjoy their occupation.

Yes a "personal attack". Even if you or a small group don't have a "dark agenda" there are other people that do. In most cases it's the psychopaths that get into power due to their ruthless, yet cunning behavior. They are the ones that would say "Thanks for supporting my ideologies. Any last words?".

Armand 21/7/2009(Tue)08:25:15 No.131016

File: nazieugenicsposter_ib4f.jpg - (180.36kb, 1207x828, nazi eugenics poster.jpg)

>>105457
I must say that I agree with you about licensing breeding with using IQ as one of criterion. I think that it is awful that it is not licensed. What is even more terrifying is the thing called parenthood counseling (or what ever it is called) where people are couraged to have genetically defected children. Basicly this kind of act can be compared to treating the bregnant women with chemicals that are known to cause defects to the children, the diffirence is that the only way to remove the bad genes from the human genepool requires inhibiting the breeding of defected individuals. I would add an other selection criterion, health. We do not want our future generations be sick. Someone can say that diseases can be cured by technology but so can stupidy (which I think is a disease), but I would rather see people using traditional eugenics (positive and negative) to increase the quality of future generations than using genetical engineering and biometrics to integrating computers with human brain when it can be avoided without causing the collapse of societies.
I disagree with you what should be done in the case of illegal breeding. I think that force abortion should be used if possible, if not, then the born child should be killed. New born child isn't really a person, it doesn't even have self-awareness. What if it discovered later when it is older? Just kill it anyway. lol. Then charge the mother and father if he is involved doing the wrong desission, with murder. This way everyone wins.
I rather see 1 billion people than 4 billion because I think that we shouldn't rape the nature if it is not necessary for the success of our speacies.

>>120430
What about people who are born with crappy gene set and therefore can not achieve anything that (really) matters in life?

Eugenics for me is about giving the future generations qualities that I cannot have.

Kurz Herschel 22/7/2009(Wed)09:22:01 No.131934

>Regardless, another person still does not have the right to take away ones privilege to reproduce.
That's debatable, human rights.
>Furthermore, judging intelligence has been going through some radical changes and ideas. Does me being a musician make me less intelligent than the ones designing/coding the software/hardware that I use? Is IQ really that important? What is an accurate way to measure intelligence? What is intelligence? What are the implications of a highly intelligent race?
I define intelligence as the ability to perceive patterns, which has many implications, contrary to "multiple intelligence" theorists, such as in both music and mathematics.
>It is not a good idea to have more intelligent workers. They'd have higher demands in wages, health-care, and so on, for the employer this is not very efficient. It is better to have someone who will work hard, not question authority, and may even enjoy their occupation.
You seem in this part to drift away from a free reproduction ideology, an anti-intellectual. I actually have considered this myself, but only for use in my fascist fantasy land, where even the most benevolent dictatorship could be questioned by people aware enough to rebel, but not enough to see the lack of purpose.

Kurz Herschel 22/7/2009(Wed)09:30:39 No.131937

Moving on, people could be measured in multiple dimensions, and the average of these values could set a standard. As Giordano said, the mentally retarded still have value.

In a state economy, workers could be employed based on their skills, and bred for them within castes.

Sigmund Langley 23/7/2009(Thu)03:15:28 No.132543

The main problem with a IQ based eugenics is the idea that avoid the reproduction of "stupid people" would lead to smarter humans.

This seems logic at first but doesn't really works well in real world. In real world "stupid people" have more children than "smart people" but population's IQ is increasing instead of decreasing.

Eugenics by discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics) were tried in past, we even had genius sperm banks but they didn't worked as expected and were abandoned. To be fair not every eugenic measure were abandoned. We have some Pretty good measures like prenatal care (solve problems before it affect the fetus or minimize the effects)

Also a some genes in heterozygosity generates a benefical trait but becomes a disease in homozygous.

Armand 26/7/2009(Sun)11:20:31 No.135050

>>132543

>In real world "stupid people" have more children than "smart people" but population's IQ is increasing instead of decreasing.

This doesn't prove that selection of smarter people wouldn't increase the overall intelligence of human race. Have you ever thought that increase of IQ on the past decades might be explained by cultural evolution? The environment of people has no doub become more complex by the past decades.

>genius sperm banks but they didn't worked as expected and were abandoned

I do not have much knowlage of the american genious sperm bank but what I know of it is that it worked. It was simply adandoned because the guy doing the thing was unable to continue his work(because of his death if I remember right) and people didn't like the idea of it. Luckily some of the idea still lives in the sperm doning business. The customers are offered information about the doner candidates.

(Traditional) eugenics isn't necessary about getting super results in few years (though we might get them), it is about steadily increasing (or sustaining) the quality of the human race by centuries and milleniums. It is an undeniable fact that genes affect the IQ of a person. Traditional (by that I mean eugenics that is based on modern knowlage but doesn't include genetical engineering) eugenics doesn't only increase the number of desirable genetical traits but it causes cultural evolution too because parents have a greater envinronmental effect on their offspring that strangers.

	[ File Only] Password
Description
Post Text Description Duration (in days; 0 is indefinite) Board Ban Host Name Ban Image Hash Delete Post
Move To