PDA

View Full Version : Babies Are Stupid


Morkeliph
12-07-2005, 4:15 PM
Here's a little article I've enjoyed for some time. Some of you may have already seen it, but for those who haven't, enjoy!
Study Reveals: Babies are Stupid
May 21st, 1997

LOS ANGELES - A surprising new study released Monday by UCLA's Institute For Child Development revealed that human babies, long thought by psychologists to be highly inquisitive and adaptable, are actually extraordinarily stupid.

The study, an 18-month battery of intelligence tests administered to over 3,500 babies, concluded categorically that babies are "so stupid, it's not even funny."

According to Institute president Molly Bentley, in an effort to determine infant survival instincts when attacked, the babies were prodded in an aggressive manner with a broken broom handle. Over 90 percent of them, when poked, failed to make even rudimentary attempts to defend themselves. The remaining 10 percent responded by vacating their bowels.

It is unlikely that the presence of the babies' fecal matter, however foul-smelling, would have a measurable defensive effect against an attacker in a real-world situation," Bentley said.

Another test, in which the infants were placed on a mound of dirt outdoors during a torrential downpour, produced similarly bleak results.

"The chicken, dog and even worm babies that we submitted to the test as a control group all had enough sense to come in from the rain or, at least, seek shelter under a leafy clump of vegetation or outcropping of rock," test supervisor Thomas Howell said. "The human babies, on the other hand, could not grasp even this incredibly basic concept, instead merely lying on the ground and making gurgling noises."

According to Howell, almost 60 percent of the infants tested in this manner eventually drowned.

Some of the babies tested were actually so stupid that they choked to death on pieces of Micronaut space toys. Others, unable to use such primitive instruments as can openers and spoons due to insufficient motor skills, simply starved to death, despite being surrounded by cabinets full of nutritious, life-giving Gerber-brand baby-food products.

Babies, the study concluded, are also too stupid to do the following: avoid getting their heads trapped in automatic car windows; use ice to alleviate the pain of burn injuries resulting from touching an open flame; master the skills required for scuba diving; and use a safety ladder to reach a window to escape from a room filled with cyanide gas.

"As a mother of four, I find these results very disheartening," Bentley told reporters. "I can honestly say that the effort I have expended trying to raise my children into intelligent beings may have been entirely wasted, a fool's dream, if you will."

Study results also prompted a strong reaction from President Clinton. "All of us, on some primitive, mammalian level, feel a great sense of pride in our offspring," Clinton said. "It is now clear, however, that these feelings are unfounded. Given the overwhelming evidence of their profound stupidity, we have no choice but to replace our existing infant population with artificially incubated simu-drones, with the eventual goal of phasing out the shamefully stupid human baby forever."
Courtesy of The Onion

The_Maker
12-07-2005, 4:17 PM
You have too much time on your hands :P

Modred
12-07-2005, 4:23 PM
Babies are Stupid (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=88#comic)

Indeed they are. Not only do they lack rudimentary survival skills, they can't do 2 + 2.

UnHoly-Assassin
12-07-2005, 4:24 PM
I knew this had to be from the onion by reading just a few sentences of it xD. It truely is amazing how stupid a human infant can be; it's a wonder the human race can become the top of the food chain.

BTW, I read a similar article, except this one gave proposals on how to "solve" this problem >;3


Friday, September 17, 2004

2:03 AM
(http://www.thelandofluke.com/archive/2004_09_01_archive.php#109535356107932065)
I can hardly claim to be sparing in my distribution of glaring indictments of the human child as a species. So my apologies if the following diatribe seems a little passé in the context of this particular weblog.

But. Seriously. I have to question the sanity of those who can look at a child and think, "Gosh, I'd like to make one of those!" Not that the process of the making wouldn't be fun, but to deliberately and cold-bloodedly act to produce an additional child in a world already overflowing with them is simply mind-boggling.

The fact is, children are impractically small and fragile, often getting underfoot or caught in expensive machinery. They have a limited number of hit points, often succumbing even to non-magical arrows or melee weapons. They have no ability to soak either cutting or bashing damage, have little resistance to fire or lightning, and can rarely be relied upon to dispatch zombies or other hostile undead creatures without a great deal of time-consuming assistance.

Additionally, they come pre-packaged with outdated emotional drivers which tend to result in them making noise and moving when they should be sitting still and absorbing new directives. These 'emotions' will of course eventually be worn away by corrosive exposure to 'life', and while this process can be accelerated through regular shock therapy, the overall effort required should beggar the patience of even the most experienced long-term strategists.

I therefore propose two alternative improvements that could be made to the current human model.

Option 1: replace human infants with cheetahs.http://www.thelandofluke.com/resources/sep04/thumbs/cheetah.jpg (http://www.thelandofluke.com/resources/sep04/cheetah.jpg)This proud parent knows that one day her child will be able to run down and kill a zebra from a standing start, a pride few human parents will ever know. Unless we act now.


Cheetahs are sleek, dynamic, and can kill a wildebeest with a single swipe of their claw or a swift spine-severing bite. A human child, however, would be unlikely to achieve such a kill, even against relatively smaller prey. In fact, the average human child would more than likely come away trampled from an encounter with a zebra herd, as opposed to coming away with a still-steaming carcass heavy with nourishing flesh and marrow.

Human young also lack the natural fur colouring to blend into the African savannah, making them particularly vulnerable to hostile predatory cats. This has, of course, been one of the primary consumer complaints about the current model ever since its inception. Lack of claws, predominance of tail-less versions, and unimpressive rates of acceleration have also marred the image of the present-day human child template.

I can, however, accept that concern for the state of one's furniture might be a negative factor in the minds of some people, vis-à-vis the human/cheetah reconfiguration plan. As such, I have also prepared a secondary alternative for the betterment of mankind.

Option 2: replace human infants with hydralisks.http://www.thelandofluke.com/resources/sep04/thumbs/hydralisk.jpg (http://www.thelandofluke.com/resources/sep04/hydralisk.jpg)Unless your child can spit venomous spines with enough force to puncture steel and/or energy shields, you should seriously consider upgrading.


There are many incontrovertible arguments for switching human children over to the hydralisk model. The resilient yet flexible exoskeleton alone should prove reason enough, with hydralisks able to, on occasion, withstand a direct hit from heavy artillery shells launched from tanks, without sustaining any long-term injuries.

Furthermore, a human child would be unlikely to defeat a Protoss Zealot in battle, even if their foe's energy claws were to fail at an opportune moment. A hydralisk, however, would reduce that same Zealot to a dragoon within the time period of a single high-quality video cut-scene.

More compelling is the fact that a dozen newly-spawned hydralisks are more than capable of bringing down a Terran Battlecruiser, whereas a similar number of toddlers could do little against such a ship but become mulched in its landing gears, assuming the Battlecruiser had the sportsmanship to fly low enough to make a fight of it.

Finally, with the exception of occasional mutants or upgraded half-trolls, human children have nowhere near the regenerative capability of hydralisks, often taking months to recover from a single fractured bone, making them all but useless in the swiftly-changing arenas of inter-species combat.

Aquarian
12-07-2005, 8:36 PM
*Sucks thumb*

Darmago
12-07-2005, 9:54 PM
I want a hydralisk!

Dark_Viper
12-07-2005, 10:02 PM
hehe.. nice one.. i know my Girlfriend would love a cheetah model.. how much?

Protoss_Honor
12-07-2005, 10:30 PM
Hmm Hydralisk, "HEY MOM! CAN WE GET A BABY HYDRALISK?"

bluemicrobyte
12-08-2005, 2:32 AM
All I read was "Study Reveals: Babies are Stupid" and I decided to post a reply:

Babies are stupid... duh!! And you know what? Scientists are stupid! It took them this long to figure out that babies are stupid? Sometimes I wonder why we pay scientists....

Hawthorne
12-08-2005, 4:13 AM
Uhm... we pay scientists!?! Then where is my HOVER CAR! If I don't get a hover car ain't gonna give a cent to those scientists :)

Aquarian
12-08-2005, 4:34 AM
Uhm... we pay scientists!?! Then where is my HOVER CAR! If I don't get a hover car ain't gonna give a cent to those scientists :)

Wheres me Metal Gear?!:mad: