vla1ne Posted May 10, 2016 Report Share Posted May 10, 2016 http://www.businessinsider.com/okcupid-asked-its-users-if-people-with-low-iqs-should-be-allowed-to-reproduce-2016-5 this is a pretty interesting story, turns out a dating site called okcupid had a series of questions that were found offensive to some people, and they wanted to have said questions removed, okcupid responded with "they allow us to match you with people of similar interests" and refused to take down said questions. it seemed like an interesting topic, so i wanna know what you guys think. is okcupid in the wrong? should they change the question if it offends others? are they perfectly fine the way they are? or some other thought. [spoiler=my own 2 cents]i take the side of okcupid in this one, it seems to me like the main person getting upset didn't understand the purpose of the questions, and was upset because the question, upon being misunderstood, offended her. apparently she had a leaning disability and didn't catch the definition of hypothetical in class. I personally think the question is hilarious due to my enjoyment of eugenics based hypotheticals, and i would probably say yes to that and laugh at the puppies question just to see what kind of people i would be paired with, who either actually have those kinds of thoughts, or my kind of morbid humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted May 10, 2016 Report Share Posted May 10, 2016 I mean, some people legitimately believe this, and it is the kind of thing that disagreements on can cause offense, so having it there is beneficial in the long run. May as well be treated the same as religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Well, I don't see the problem with asking people questions with possibly offensive answers - if they can match bigots up with other bigots or whatever they'll probably have a higher success rate. It's a stupid as hell question which only has one proper answer but they might as well match together the people who have the same views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪ Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 I personally think IQ doesn't really affect our reproductive systems, as it is a part of our intelligent system, but it could turn out otherwise.......if proven correctly by a series of evidence and scientific standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourmaline Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Yes. We need people allocated to menial labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aix Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 I personally think IQ doesn't really affect our reproductive systems, as it is a part of our intelligent system, but it could turn out otherwise.......if proven correctly by a series of evidence and scientific standardThat's not what the question is asking. It's asking if eugenics should be a thing, where people who have good genes (such as high IQ) should be the only ones to reproduce in order to improve the human gene pool. Yeah, whoever took offense is just misinterpreting things. Nowhere does OkCupid say "People with low IQ should not be allowed to reproduce." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 I mean isnt Foreign Aid and Welfare and Social Programs just Soft-Eugenics downward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion X. Denver Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Eugenics is a pretty funked up practice.I don't think Ok Cupid should be slammed for posing that as a question though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
вєgσттєη ιηѕαηιту Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 I'm all for attempting to breed for better genes. However, I'm against the idea of restricting others life because they are "inadequate". Anyway, socialization is its own form of Eugenics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zauls Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 The fact someone took offence to this baffles me. Yet another example of the hypersensitivity of peoples' emotions these days. I mean, if I was going out with a girl, I'd probably want to know if she had bigoted opinions like this so I could get the funk out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 The fact someone took offence to this baffles me. Yet another example of the hypersensitivity of peoples' emotions these days. I mean, if I was going out with a girl, I'd probably want to know if she had bigoted opinions like this so I could get the funk out of there.I think people got offended due to misperception of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 I think people got offended due to misperception of context.Not to mention the question itself is quite scary in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Yet another example of the hypersensitivity of peoples' emotions these days./thread I mean that's basically all this is.Of course just the question being there isn't a bad thing.Though I suppose I would say that if it was misunderstood OkCupid should check their wording or w/e. Just because if they want to be successful they need to make sure all their questions are clear in the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardgameking Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Well, I don't think the public will ever accept eugenics as everyone, no matter how smart, will be afraid that they, someone they love or their children or something, won't be up to scratch. However, if we get a Mars or lunar colony going, eugenics may just happen naturally. Anyway, I don't think it'll have any impact for the first few generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I don't even know why this is a thing. Idiocy isn't a genetic thing, genetics can /lead/ to it. But idiocy by itself is not genetic. If idiots reproduce, thats fine. But if idiots raise a kid, then that kid too will be an idiot because his parents were idiots, so it would be beneficial to the child to take him/her away and put him/her into a family that isn't comprised of idiots. Granted. that isn't ethical in the slightest, but hey, not like this was ethical to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
вєgσттєη ιηѕαηιту Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Intelligence is greatly influenced by genetics. A naturally intelligent child raised by intelligent parents would be intelligent.A naturally idiotic child raised by intelligent parents would be less idiotic, but still idiotic. A naturally intelligent child raised by idiotic parents would be less idiotic, but still idiotic.A naturally idiotic child raided by idiotic parents would be a blasphemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I'm pretty sure environment shapes the mind more than genetics does. Twins can be completely opposite of each other if raised in different environments. I really don't see how it can't change intelligence. Outside of various learning disabilities, you choose to be stupid or be an idiot, and even those disabilities don't make you an idiot, as they can be overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Why are people discussing this like there's more than one real answer? The thread's to do with OKCupid posing the question, not the question itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted May 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Why are people discussing this like there's more than one real answer? The thread's to do with OKCupid posing the question, not the question itself.the question itself is interesting in it's own right though. there's a ton of ways to think about and answer the question. and discussion of the question does somewhat help understand why people might take offense to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IQuitDolphin Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 God, another example of people not wanting to hear anything simply because it's PAINFUL, so they try to cockblock it any way they can because it "offends" them... -___- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 It's not an idea we should technically embrace because we have issues with an aging population in a lot of aging nations. Admittedly in about 40 years that will stop being as much of an issue when the Baby Boomers die, but in the short term we want to be encouraging births, not selectively birthing. Even if we actually considered the idea to be the right approach, it's just not efficient to do it right now. Till then, manual labour still technically exists, so they still contribute to society. They aren't an active burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchermitcher Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 I wonder if asking the question actually does anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by the question but it is a dating site. Answering 'yes' lowers your chance of getting laid and I'm pretty sure that, rather than finding someone who shares your live for genetic maximization, would be the main priority for most people, even for those who support the idea. Not only does believing in eugenics not say anything about your own genes, but a partner who says yes to that question in a dating site is directly reducing their chances of getting laid because it's a societal taboo and that is kinda stupid from a purely biological, evolutionary viewpoint, which makes you less attractive as a partner to pass down your superior genes with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 I wonder if asking the question actually does anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by the question but it is a dating site. Answering 'yes' lowers your chance of getting laid and I'm pretty sure that, rather than finding someone who shares your live for genetic maximization, would be the main priority for most people, even for those who support the idea. Not only does believing in eugenics not say anything about your own genes, but a partner who says yes to that question in a dating site is directly reducing their chances of getting laid because it's a societal taboo and that is kinda stupid from a purely biological, evolutionary viewpoint, which makes you less attractive as a partner to pass down your superior genes with.It does seem like a strange question choice. I've been trying to figure out the point. I guess there's those few people who are looking for someone with similar...what's the word...values/morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourmaline Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Discrimination is a good thing Mitcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchermitcher Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 The thing is, how many people are going to answer that question truthfully in the first place? Is it really an efficient way of matching up people with similar beliefs? I dare say the chances of getting paired with someone who intentionally said yes to catch and shame others who did is higher. There are plenty reasons to lie and answering the question either way says too little about your belief on eugenics that I feel it just isn't very useful for someone who does believe. It offended some of the people who are too sensitive about this so that's a plus but for its intended purpose I can't help but feel doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.