Point taken. I didn't mean "common" as in conventional wisdom as much as I meant the ability to see an issue for what it truly is-ex the bullshit. Case in point: Same sex marriage. Partisans who're a load short will harp upon the "obvious" unfairness of denying "two consenting adults" the legal ability to marry. People who're just a tad brighter will rebut that "two consenting adults" can also be siblings. Or a father and son seeking to avoid estate taxes. Would gay marriage advocates concede incest as acceptable? All of a sudden "equal" rights become muddied. There's a million similar issues.
Hmmm... Incest... that is one issue I would not take lightly upon. Actually, I've never considered the issue... Will think about this further, and try to come up with some reasonable answer - according to my more than libertarian view - I'm way beyond more for freedom than that. Editing my updates here: My first inclination is to consider consensual democratic "rules" for society -- but it is kind of discriminating. However, there needs to be some minimal acceptance and trust - just like the notion of infanticide, patricide etc... Actually, I think that is the correct way of starting a deliberation on incest. If it is defined as a basic crime - then it will be such. So why are there some things defined as "crime?" Well, some actions far outweigh in terms of negative impact than positive impact on society and individuals. Just like in trading - there are some things that we know from experience and insight that do simply not work. Homosexual behaviour is not "productive" in terms of evolution, but there is more than family and children to society. Cultural contributions within science, arts, entertainment and so on are greatly in debt to many of the "counter-cultures." A free democracy means that we do not suppress these, but allow their existence and valuable contributions where they might be manifested. In short - the "worth" of a life is not only in terms of your children and earthly fortune - but also in term of other production such as through intelligent contribution. An individual is not only the flesh and blood, his thoughts - but also all the memories, legacy and influences upon others - the contributions through a lifetime - through interactions, inspiration and information contributed. Ultimately, people like Charles Dickens or Alan Turing have had a profound impact and importance on society. And although they have no genetic impact on history - their ideas and work have left a lasting impression. Therefore they are not overall a negative impact on society - but everything has its limits ... e.g NAMBLA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Wow, you're way smarter than me! I think 141 is about 5 points off of genius level. Which test was this, Pabst?
Hate to say it, but if you actually believe this, it's sort of the same as believing that the earth is literally 6500 years old. It's simply an absurd suggestion. Whatever GWB is or isn't, he is not an intelligent man. Street smart? Yer goddamn straight. By the way, I think you meant to say "This is why Obama is no smarter than Bush"
As a former member of Mensa who scored in the top 1% of the admission test for Mensa, I say that intelligence is highly overrated. Pride goes before a fall, and smart people often have a great deal of pride. I am more impressed with someone with average intelligence who has integrity and who has been a good steward of his natural talent than with someone who was born gifted yet has wasted that natural talent. I am most impressed with those who are gifted and who have worked hard to use their gifts for the public good, and who also have integrity. Leaders should be exceptional individuals, as measured by intelligence, integrity, humility, "emotional intelligence", and courage.
Are you sure? I thought "genius" was much higher. Like 160. Hey if the shoe fits. I think you're bright Nik. Perhaps you had a bad day and me a good one. I'm sure there's individual variance. I do know 141 put me in the 98 percentile of my HS class. The test was the Stanford. Funny story. We were given a battery of tests as both applicants and then as incoming Freshman. I went to a Jesuit high school, I wouldn't call it exclusive academically but they probably had a 2-1 applicant/enrollment ratio. Well as a 14 year old I had no idea until a few years later that out of the multitude of required tests that one was an "I.Q." test . I was always a lackluster student so my guidance counselor-some 70yo priest-called me in and said "you're under performing basis your test score." Sitting in front of him he had this computer print out turned wide open, displaying all of my classmates I.Q's. I felt Godlike, "only I possess true insight into all of your native smarts", lol. One of by best friends nailed a 165 on it! SUPER bright guy. Not an easy one to win an argument with....