DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Kt-viagra** · 11-05-2008, 06:50 PM

Let us not forget that this is at birth.

Some good statements have come in, nice reading. I'll have to admit I had a little bit of a problem with the 'at birth' element. Of course, as I had written, in a kind of 'thinking outloud' fashion, it's hard to get all the factors so precise in these polls, but this one element did give me a hard time--"at birth."

I agree with the information you carefully pointed out in your #7 post, Maciamo san--in fact, a recent article in the magazine Science atested to how that can make a difference in a persons having a tendency to be an habitual lier. That grey and white does work out to present a difference as the brain grows, yet at birth how can that translate into intelligence?

Well, that word will always come up with the helping modifier, 'ability to', when checked in most dicitonaries, so then, that 'set-up' that I had mentioned before would likely be something that comes before the actual major brain development before birth. Now I do have some information on this which I will share later--it's at home; but I feel there is no disagreement here.

Now there may be something on my voting for 1.4 (although that is counter balanced by my vote for 1.1) and here I will again have to admit that I broke the rules. I didn't take this as being an at birth thing, 1.1 did that, but rather I took this as applying to some who--be it right or wrong, and I'm not saying 'should'--are not given certain rights by society at large, such as the right to drive a car, to have children, or in somecases, perhaps, marry. I think you all may be able to see what I'm getting at here. I have known of one person in my life who was legally prevented from having the right to father children, and genelogically, it was understandable, I think, but right? who knows really.

I like the styles Silverbackman and Kinsao used: "life worth" and "value", respectively. These are things that humankind needs to work on for sure. I am not big on being Political Correct (notice 'not big on' does not equal totally against) and thus reason that we all have to open up to just how the genetic factors play in a lot of these things. I go along with Maciamo on that as science shows that to most correctly, for now at least, to be the case. OH no...this got that long?

11-05-2008, 06:50 PM	#19
Kt-viagra Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 444 Senior Member	Let us not forget that this is at birth. Some good statements have come in, nice reading. I'll have to admit I had a little bit of a problem with the 'at birth' element. Of course, as I had written, in a kind of 'thinking outloud' fashion, it's hard to get all the factors so precise in these polls, but this one element did give me a hard time--"at birth." I agree with the information you carefully pointed out in your #7 post, Maciamo san--in fact, a recent article in the magazine Science atested to how that can make a difference in a persons having a tendency to be an habitual lier. That grey and white does work out to present a difference as the brain grows, yet at birth how can that translate into intelligence? Well, that word will always come up with the helping modifier, 'ability to', when checked in most dicitonaries, so then, that 'set-up' that I had mentioned before would likely be something that comes before the actual major brain development before birth. Now I do have some information on this which I will share later--it's at home; but I feel there is no disagreement here. Now there may be something on my voting for 1.4 (although that is counter balanced by my vote for 1.1) and here I will again have to admit that I broke the rules. I didn't take this as being an at birth thing, 1.1 did that, but rather I took this as applying to some who--be it right or wrong, and I'm not saying 'should'--are not given certain rights by society at large, such as the right to drive a car, to have children, or in somecases, perhaps, marry. I think you all may be able to see what I'm getting at here. I have known of one person in my life who was legally prevented from having the right to father children, and genelogically, it was understandable, I think, but right? who knows really. I like the styles Silverbackman and Kinsao used: "life worth" and "value", respectively. These are things that humankind needs to work on for sure. I am not big on being Political Correct (notice 'not big on' does not equal totally against) and thus reason that we all have to open up to just how the genetic factors play in a lot of these things. I go along with Maciamo on that as science shows that to most correctly, for now at least, to be the case. OH no...this got that long?
	Quote