Well, it kinda IS an issue. *** or not, they're still human both physically and emotionally--plus, its not nice to call them "retards". That also can be said for the paralyzed, deaf, & mute.
Also, animals DO self sacrifice & satisfy each other's needs; Elephants have been known to sacrifice themselves to save a fellow member of the heard & bonobos are known to be quite compassionate (as well as sexual).
Believe me, I have had monkeys before (my dad did research on them & then we had to donate them to a sanctuary) and if you think they're monkeys, at least they don't have to be put in a cage.
Then that leaves accomplishments.
Who says they can't accomplish anything? I've heard of many autistic kids who are able to draw, play piano, and memorize certain lectures. Sure, they may learn at a slower pace, but that doesn't mean they don't have the potential to accomplish anything.
Regarding the original post: I think people who think like that should read stuff like Amanda Baggs' blog. That and some of the links on it made me realize that there is no clean, unambiguous correlation between inward sentience and outward behavior (be it excretion habits, speech, or even IQ test performance, as much as I bought into IQ for a long time). We don't know what the inner worlds of other people are like, especially if we can't communicate with them, but usually not even if we can communicate with them. (This is something we Neurotypicals are supposed to be slow to learn, at least according to ISNT, and I'd have to say I agree. I sort of knew it before, but I tend to forget, and it became ever more relevant when I started to have some of the same communication problems with my aspie beau that my older sister had in the past, and to show some of the same symptoms of repressed frustration and failure of indirect communication that she did. Glad I caught it quickly!)
THere is noone who is better than others OVERALL. Evereybody has strengths and weaknesses.
It is simply not possible to make all people exactly equal overall. And some strengths/weaknesses are more important than others.
I guess you would say the specific kind of logic measured by IQ tests is "the most important" strength for a human being.
I wouldn't be surprised to see you affirm such a preposterous belief.
Enjoy Picknose you have alot in common with a troll.
ooh,zing!
White Anglo-Saxon protestants. . .the entry requirements for the KKK. See, anything to do with wasps are evil!!!
*spits at mention of KKK*
**** scum,the lot of them.
scum,the lot of them.
Well, OBVIOUSLY they are. -____-'' LOL, try finding someone at this board who disagrees with that.
you would be hard pressed 
If there were more replies, there would be more idiots replying
wise words.
Quality over Quantity.
No I would not say IQ is an accurate measure of contribution. And your argument,she who cant think of a username is fallacious because people who disrespect lowly people may not contribute anything to THEM that does not mean they do not contribute to a society as a whole ie through the advancement of human knowledge.
You assume that what society values is valuable to begin with. What would be the most laughable is if all their striving to survive was vain from the beginning because of some future event in the universe that will come to pass despite their progresss.
I guess all those people that just wanted to be happy will have the last laugh huh? lol.
Well said! I wish I had thought of that, myself.
There are not a lot of bright people who cannot clean floors. You are just making random assertions. Some people are more easily replaced than others. There are more people capable of cleaning floors than there are people capable of inventing electricity. Therefore, the former are worth less than the latter. People with high IQ's, generally are able to do more things than those people who have low IQs. Obviously an individual's value has to be individually assessed, but in general more intelligent people are more value than non-intelligent people.
Well, you sure as heck aren't earning any points for modesty.
Why is it necessary to develop a coherent set of ideas? The world is already coherent. The most complex and rigorous and coherent and tested set of ideas will shatter against it in the end. There are better things to do with the parts of the brain involved in abstraction than trying to build a pale and pseudo-shatterproof imitation of the world in your head. (Those of us who aren't capable of holding large amounts of complex tied-together abstractions in our heads for long have mostly already figured this out by necessity, or we would not think, survive, have useful ethics, etc.)
And no, I'm not doing things purely on visceral reaction, nor am I particularly anti-intellectual. This conversation may be frustrating, but I'm being as clear as I can. There are gaping holes in any set of ideas. There are no gaping holes in the world around us. If we want ideas that will work in the real world, we have to be able to observe the real world closely. It does not mean we don't change it. We're part of it, anything we do can change it. But unless you understand how you intersect with the real world, and how other parts of it intersect with each other, you're going to get even more frustrated than you are by talking to the people here at the moment, once you go about trying to change it. A really nice aspect of the world is that it's all around you and you don't have to make it up for it to exist. And any person who wants to successfully navigate the world of ideas or use it to any good purpose has to understand the holes between them and the edges around them.
That's the word I was looking for: observation. Aspies tend to be particularly good at this, by the way.
I'm pointing out that your genes are a gift, not something you earn. By all means be proud of what you achieve through your efforts, but don't look down in contempt on those who were born with less potential than you have.
Genes are not a gift given to you. They are PART OF YOU. They are what make you better or worse than other individuals. And I look up to and down on people accordingly.
I'm sorry to say it, but this kind of statement has the following words written all over it:
"LIFE OF PAIN AND SELF-LOATHING"
I used to kinda think like you do, Louise18, but when I figured out I didn't have the right kind of gifts/people skills to make my unrealistically lofty goals happen, self-loathing began and many, many worse things including some extreme forms of self-destruction.
Just a heads-up on what this *could* lead to.
I think the best retaliation for a lot of egotistical, better-than-thou sentiments (e.g. Trolling) might be to not respond to her, at all. I advise others to follow my lead, or Respond At Your Own Risk.
I fail to see why believing you are not the worst person in the world constitutes being egotistical.
Nothing to do with it. It was your MANY specific comments (not the concept you are presenting here) that raised my ire, and the ire of most other people who perused this thread.
Folks: Do not feed the troll.
More destructive comments in view from Louise18--already. Let her take her superiority complex elsewhere. Please do not let this continue.