Observation: Overpopulation Is The Root Cause Of Most Of Our Problems On Planet Earth

[Into the Night]

Hello Frank,



LOL!

OK, that is funny.

That totally eluded me when I created my identity.

I have zero interest in flame wars. I came to actually talk politics, to be a POLItical TALKER.

I would also rather avoid flame wars, even on as flammable a subject as this one is. My image is simply a recollection of a pet I used to have. I like parrots. My moniker is a warning against society moving 'into the night' of ignorance, slavery, tribalism, and illiteracy.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Frank,



Admittedly priceless!



One thing is for sure. I would not be choosing a Macaw for an avatar in a politics chat site. That's like asking to be called out for parroting a party line.

If one does try to make such a statement, that already pretty well describes their ability to debate right then and there. Actually, YOUR image is rather a bit more fitting to my moniker, when you think about it, assuming that is an image of a sunset and not a sunrise.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Into the Night,

If one does try to make such a statement, that already pretty well describes their ability to debate right then and there. Actually, YOUR image is rather a bit more fitting to my moniker, when you think about it, assuming that is an image of a sunset and not a sunrise.

It is a sunset. I liked the way that ray of light reflected off the water. Like a ray of hope, beaming it's message out to all.

 

[PoliTalker]

Into the Night,

Since babies are uneducated and are completely dependent on someone else for survival, that is a self fulfilling argument.

If you had read the book, you would know it is talking about world population growth, and it is sadly correct. This absurd argument about babies being incapable of working at birth is a ridiculous one. 'Planet Of Slums' indicates that the millions in Mexico City for instance (20 million at the time of writing, 12 years ago,) are very poor, lack effective and available contraception, or won't use it due to Catholic Church. They live like, and multiply like rats. They really don't have a lot of opportunity.

Just because one is born into an impoverished household doesn't mean the are condemned to staying there.

Sadly, it usually does.

Since babies are not born as engineers, factory workers, merchants, lawyers, etc. That argument sounds a little hollow.

I was referring to the opportunities available to people born into disadvantaged situations once they are grown, so don't pretend I argued babies should be ready to work.

I think that argument is necessarily a bigoted one.

That would be judging a book by it's cover, since you have not read it.

Now that you have identified the population you want to 'control' (which in my book is the same as 'own', how are you going to do it?

I don't want to control anything. I merely seek to inform people that our planet cannot support an infinite number of humans, and that the closer we get to the limit of what it can support, the lower the lifestyle of the average human goes.

What do you do with the unwanted pregnancies?

That is for each government to decide how to handle it in that country, and for each individual who faces it.

How do you avoid killing to achieve your goal?

We've been over this. What is your obsession with killing? No killing needs to take place. Population levels can be limited by using birth control.

How are you going to force them into this?

I am not going to do anything except voice my views.

I believe rational people, once properly educated, would not want to be part of destroying the Earth, our only common home.

But, of course, there are always anti-social people who only care about them self. Governments should enact effective enticements toward the goals, and if needed, take appropriate measures to ensure long term survival of the human race.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If one does try to make such a statement, that already pretty well describes their ability to debate right then and there. Actually, YOUR image is rather a bit more fitting to my moniker, when you think about it, assuming that is an image of a sunset and not a sunrise.

Wow...now that was an image/screen name coincidence between you two that I never saw.

Amazin'!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

Wow...now that was an image/screen name coincidence between you two that I never saw.

Amazin'!

Que Rod Serling

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night,

If you had read the book, you would know it is talking about world population growth, and it is sadly correct. This absurd argument about babies being incapable of working at birth is a ridiculous one. 'Planet Of Slums' indicates that the millions in Mexico City for instance (20 million at the time of writing, 12 years ago,) are very poor, lack effective and available contraception, or won't use it due to Catholic Church. They live like, and multiply like rats. They really don't have a lot of opportunity.

That is bigotry, plain and simple. You yourself are condemning them to a life of poverty simply because they were born into poverty. Bigotry is a compositional error involving people as the class. Sorry, dude, but people born into poverty CAN and DO climb out of that and become successful. Labeling people as rats is rather a disgusting way to look at it.

I was referring to the opportunities available to people born into disadvantaged situations once they are grown, so don't pretend I argued babies should be ready to work.

You are assuming the opportunities aren't there. They are.

That would be judging a book by it's cover, since you have not read it.

No, I am judging your argument you are making by use of this book.

I don't want to control anything. I merely seek to inform people that our planet cannot support an infinite number of humans, and that the closer we get to the limit of what it can support, the lower the lifestyle of the average human goes.

Who are you to declare what limits the planet has? You are again assuming people are ONLY a liability. You are wrong.

That is for each government to decide how to handle it in that country, and for each individual who faces it.

Oh...so you want to wash your hands of it eh? You would rather use some hired goon to do it.

We've been over this. What is your obsession with killing? No killing needs to take place. Population levels can be limited by using birth control.

Yes. We've been over this. You still have not dealt with my questions. What do you do with the 'illegal' pregnancies? Do you kill the child? Even if the mother wants it?

I am not going to do anything except voice my views.
I believe rational people, once properly educated, would not want to be part of destroying the Earth, our only common home.

I consider this an insult to people in general. You are using the word 'rational' to mean those who agree with you, and that those who do not agree with your are not rational. That is not what 'rational' means. There is only one way to be irrational, and that is to argue both sides of a paradox.

But, of course, there are always anti-social people who only care about them self. Governments should enact effective enticements toward the goals, and if needed, take appropriate measures to ensure long term survival of the human race.

Another insult to people in general. This time you are using 'anti-social' as the label instead of 'rational'. Someone that wants to have a child is not 'anti-social'! Further, you again repeat here that you prefer to use hired goons to do your dirty work for you.

I have to be harsh. Population control is talking about killing people, even if you attempt to limit it to birth controls, even if you try to wash your hands of it by putting it in charge of a government. Supporting such a government will not keep your hands clean.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Into the Night,

That is bigotry, plain and simple. You yourself are condemning them to a life of poverty simply because they were born into poverty. Bigotry is a compositional error involving people as the class. Sorry, dude, but people born into poverty CAN and DO climb out of that and become successful. Labeling people as rats is rather a disgusting way to look at it.

I am not doing anything to those people. It is merely an observation. I did not call them rats. I said they live like rats. People live in squalor, pawing through landfills for food, no running water, no electricity, no screens, no electric lights after dark, no police, no fire service, NO SEWAGE SYSTEM. In some places they have no way to dispose of human waste, so they throw it up on top of the roof. There it dries, and become toxic dust which makes everybody sick. Many die as children. Other children are forced to work, sometimes as sex slaves, drug couriers, etc. I am simply relating what was in the book.

Some do climb out of poverty. I have never denied that. The vast majority do not. They are lucky if they live to be adults. The child mortality rate is very high.

You are assuming the opportunities aren't there. They are.

What opportunity is there in the slums of Mexico City? Sao Paulo? Dhaka? Lagos? Jakarta?

You are again assuming people are ONLY a liability. You are wrong.

I am assuming that more humans is the last thing the world needs, when so many already go hungry.

Here's a little test you can do. I have done it many times. Don't prompt the subject; Ask anyone the following question:

"What does the world really need?"

I have been asking people that question for years. It doesn't matter how many people I ask, the one answer I have never heard is: "More humans!"

Nobody thinks the world needs more people. It appears the world has plenty of humans already. We don't need more. It would actually ease up on a lot of pressures if there were fewer of us.

Yes. We've been over this. You still have not dealt with my questions. What do you do with the 'illegal' pregnancies? Do you kill the child? Even if the mother wants it?

I never proposed any of that. I believe the problem could be approached with education, contraceptives, and incentives for keeping families small. Poor struggling people don't really want more mouths to feed.

I consider this an insult to people in general.

It wasn't intended that way.

You are using the word 'rational' to mean those who agree with you, and that those who do not agree with your are not rational. That is not what 'rational' means. There is only one way to be irrational, and that is to argue both sides of a paradox.

I would add that people who refuse to accept facts are irrational.

Another insult to people in general.

Ensuring the survival of humanity is an insult?

This time you are using 'anti-social' as the label instead of 'rational'. Someone that wants to have a child is not 'anti-social'! Further, you again repeat here that you prefer to use hired goons to do your dirty work for you.

Any individual who pretends not to be part of humanity, and takes actions which threaten the survival of society is anti-social, yes.

I have to be harsh. Population control is talking about killing people, even if you attempt to limit it to birth controls, even if you try to wash your hands of it by putting it in charge of a government. Supporting such a government will not keep your hands clean.

Birth control is not murder. It is the kindest thing we can do for over crowding of already existing humans. And it makes sense to prolong the availability of resources, and improve the live style of humans. We can live better with fewer of us.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Into the Night,
I am not doing anything to those people. It is merely an observation. I did not call them rats. I said they live like rats.

I'll leave you with these two paradoxes. Until these paradoxes are resolved, further arguments on these lines are irrational. Denying that these are paradoxes will not make them go away.

People live in squalor, pawing through landfills for food, no running water, no electricity, no screens, no electric lights after dark, no police, no fire service, NO SEWAGE SYSTEM. In some places they have no way to dispose of human waste, so they throw it up on top of the roof. There it dries, and become toxic dust which makes everybody sick. Many die as children. Other children are forced to work, sometimes as sex slaves, drug couriers, etc. I am simply relating what was in the book.

They are still people. Who are you to decide who lives, who dies, who can have children, and who can not? BTW, poverty does not make people throw their own human waste up on the roof. I think you'll find they DO have access to running water, they DO have lights after dark (in the form of street lights), they DO have police service, and they DO have fire service. They even have a sewage system. They use the overflow system. I think this book of yours has painted a very unrealistic picture.

Some do climb out of poverty. I have never denied that.

Yes you have. I'll leave you with this paradox also.

The vast majority do not. They are lucky if they live to be adults. The child mortality rate is very high.

I think you are trying to rationalize what you are doing as 'merciful'.

What opportunity is there in the slums of Mexico City? Sao Paulo? Dhaka? Lagos? Jakarta?

More than you think.

I am assuming that more humans is the last thing the world needs, when so many already go hungry.

Hunger isn't caused by any limit to grow food. It is caused by lack of distribution of the available food, usually due to socialistic systems mismanaging it, or just outright war.

Here's a little test you can do. I have done it many times. Don't prompt the subject; Ask anyone the following question:

"What does the world really need?"

Here you are attempting to oversimplify. The world needs lots of things. What the world DOESN'T need is someone deciding who lives and who dies, and who can have children and who cannot.

I have been asking people that question for years. It doesn't matter how many people I ask, the one answer I have never heard is: "More humans!"

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

Nobody thinks the world needs more people.

Now you say I'm 'nobody'. You seem to be throwing a lot of insults, but you get bent out of shape when someone insults you. Strange.

It appears the world has plenty of humans already. We don't need more. It would actually ease up on a lot of pressures if there were fewer of us.

You need to get out in the country more. You need to learn how the United States alone can grow almost all the food the world needs by itself. You need to look upon more of the world than just the slums. You need to respect the right to human life and the right to reproduce.

I never proposed any of that. I believe the problem could be approached with education, contraceptives, and incentives for keeping families small. Poor struggling people don't really want more mouths to feed.

You never addressed any of my questions. You keep evading them. Why don't you address the questions I put forward? I'll ask it again: What do you do about the pregnancies that will inevitably occur? What do you about those who rebel against your edict?

It wasn't intended that way.
I would add that people who refuse to accept facts are irrational.

There is only one way to be irrational. That is to argue both sides of a paradox, which you are now doing on three different paradoxes. These arguments around each paradox will remain irrational until you clear that paradox. There is only one way to clear a paradox. You must utterly reject one argument and utterly accept the other, or, in certain cases, utterly reject both arguments.

Ensuring the survival of humanity is an insult?
Any individual who pretends not to be part of humanity, and takes actions which threaten the survival of society is anti-social, yes.

You just insulted the general public yet again. You insulted them by saying:
a) they are anti-social
b) they are threatening society
c) they are not human

Birth control is not murder. It is the kindest thing we can do for over crowding of already existing humans. And it makes sense to prolong the availability of resources, and improve the live style of humans. We can live better with fewer of us.

Your 'mercy' is unmerciful.
Again, you are evading the questions I put forth. Why don't you answer them? You keep chanting this and ignoring those cases. You are trying to wash your hands of what you are proposing.

The only way you are going to keep people as a class from reproducing is by force. The only way to deal with the pregnancies that WILL happen anyway, despite your 'Utopian' dream, is to kill.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I have to be harsh. Population control is talking about killing people, even if you attempt to limit it to birth controls, even if you try to wash your hands of it by putting it in charge of a government. Supporting such a government will not keep your hands clean.

Interesting comment, Parrot. (Why people posting on the Internet do not choose a name that can respectfully be used, is beyond me!)

Would you flesh that out a bit.

I suspect I have comments to make on it, but I'd like to be sure of where you are coming from.

It sounds as though there is religious motivation.

If you could include some indication of that in your "fleshing out" (should you choose to do it)...I'd appreciate it.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello and goodbye 'Into The Night,'

Our discussions have ended. It takes two to have a discussion. I refuse to interface together any longer. I have had enough of your lip.

I'll never understand why anyone would want to put up with the likes of this:

Who are you to ...

You seem to be throwing a lot of insults, ...

'Seem to be' being the operative phrase here.

You need to get out .... You need to learn ... You need to look ... You need to respect ...

You never addressed any of my ... You keep evading ... Why don't you ...

you are now ... You must utterly reject ...

You just insulted .... You insulted them by ...

If you have to explain it then perhaps ... Oh, forget it. Lost cause.

Your 'mercy' is ...

Again, you are ... Why don't you ... You keep chanting ... You are trying to ...

The only way you are going to ... your 'Utopian' dream, is ...

It has been somewhat interesting, but I have had enough. I didn't come here to talk about me. Didn't come here for sermons. I came to discuss issues, not have somebody rag on me. Good bye.

You go on my Permanent Ignore List. I hope you have a nice life, I really do. I just can't be part of it.

And let this serve as fair warning to anyone else who wants to try to get too personal. I have no interest in personal attacks, downtalking other posters, etc. People like that belong on Ignore.

Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate!

Poof!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Overpopulation is a hoax. It's just a bunch of lies created by hateful psychopaths to justify genocide.

Can we trust people who want billions to die to do what's really in humanity's best interest? Hells to the nizzo.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello AssHatZombie,

Overpopulation is a hoax. It's just a bunch of lies created by hateful psychopaths to justify genocide.

Can we trust people who want billions to die to do what's really in humanity's best interest? Hells to the nizzo.

You know, that link in the OP goes to a library site, which has the entire book 'Planet of Slums' available for you to read all or any part of it.

Since this thread is pretty much about the contention of the book, I'd invite you or anyone to read from it. You could read the whole thing if you like, but that's not necessary to comment on excerpts.

I have a hard time imagining anyone who read the book, or any appreciable part of it, thinking that overpopulation is a hoax.

I do recall when I was a kid that people thought nothing of just letting the kids play with the hose on a hot summer afternoon. Just turn it on full blast and let it run free. Splashing, dancing around in it, no nozzle or shut off device at all. Simple, and great fun for kids.

We're not allowed to do that any more around there parts. We haven't been allowed to do that for decades. Never will again. That quality of life has been lost to overpopulation. Numerous regions in the USA are facing water shortages and have watering and water usage restrictions.

If all these communities are forced to use strong conservation measures, including fines, in order to have enough water for the current level of population, and they are continuing to grow, building more housing, more retail, more malls, more everything to accommodate all the new people, all of it tapping into the existing water system, how can these two trends continue without finding additional sources of water?

The Mighty Colorado River, the same one that carved the Grand Canyon, (yes, that one,) once poured into the sea. Those days appear to be over, and have been for decades. There's no more mouth of the Colorado River! It has run dry:

"Between 85 and 90 percent of the Colorado River's discharge originates in snowmelt, mostly from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming.[59] The three major upper tributaries of the Colorado – the Gunnison, Green, and San Juan – alone deliver almost 9 million acre feet (11 km3) per year to the main stem, mostly from snowmelt.[60] The remaining 10 to 15 percent comes from a variety of sources, principally groundwater base flow and summer monsoon storms.[59] The latter often produces heavy, highly localized floods on lower tributaries of the river, but does not often contribute significant volumes of runoff.[59][61] Most of the annual runoff in the basin occurs with the melting of Rocky Mountains snowpack, which begins in April and peaks during May and June before exhausting in late July or early August.[62]

Flows at the mouth of the river have steadily declined since the beginning of the 20th century, and in most years after 1960 the Colorado River has run dry before reaching the Pacific Ocean.[63] Irrigation, industrial, and municipal diversions, evaporation from reservoirs, natural runoff, and likely climate change, have all contributed to this substantial reduction in flow, threatening the water supply for the future.[64][65][66] For example, the Gila River – formerly one of the Colorado's largest tributaries – contributes little more than a trickle in most years due to use of its water by cities and farms in central Arizona.[67] The average flow rate of the Colorado at the northernmost point of the Mexico–United States border (NIB, or Northerly International Boundary) is about 2,060 cubic feet per second (58 m3/s), 1.49 million acre feet (1.84 km3) per year – less than a tenth of the natural flow – due to upstream water use.[68] Below this point, the remaining flow is diverted to irrigate the Mexicali Valley, leaving a dry riverbed from Morelos Dam to the sea that is supplemented by intermittent flows of irrigation drainage water.[69] " [/QUOTE]

Wiki

Hint: THIS IS A GIANT WAKE UP CALL!!!

 

[Into the Night]

Hello and goodbye 'Into The Night,'

Our discussions have ended. It takes two to have a discussion. I refuse to interface together any longer. I have had enough of your lip.

I'll never understand why anyone would want to put up with the likes of this:



'Seem to be' being the operative phrase here.



If you have to explain it then perhaps ... Oh, forget it. Lost cause.



It has been somewhat interesting, but I have had enough. I didn't come here to talk about me. Didn't come here for sermons. I came to discuss issues, not have somebody rag on me. Good bye.

You go on my Permanent Ignore List. I hope you have a nice life, I really do. I just can't be part of it.

And let this serve as fair warning to anyone else who wants to try to get too personal. I have no interest in personal attacks, downtalking other posters, etc. People like that belong on Ignore.

Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate!

Poof!

As I knew would eventually happen. Enjoy your playpen. Ignoring these questions doesn't make them go away. I guess you would rather just throw insults and accusations, but not be able to take any. Your own paranoia got you.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello AssHatZombie,



You know, that link in the OP goes to a library site, which has the entire book 'Planet of Slums' available for you to read all or any part of it.

Since this thread is pretty much about the contention of the book, I'd invite you or anyone to read from it. You could read the whole thing if you like, but that's not necessary to comment on excerpts.

I have a hard time imagining anyone who read the book, or any appreciable part of it, thinking that overpopulation is a hoax.

I do recall when I was a kid that people thought nothing of just letting the kids play with the hose on a hot summer afternoon. Just turn it on full blast and let it run free. Splashing, dancing around in it, no nozzle or shut off device at all. Simple, and great fun for kids.

We're not allowed to do that any more around there parts. We haven't been allowed to do that for decades. Never will again. That quality of life has been lost to overpopulation. Numerous regions in the USA are facing water shortages and have watering and water usage restrictions.

If all these communities are forced to use strong conservation measures, including fines, in order to have enough water for the current level of population, and they are continuing to grow, building more housing, more retail, more malls, more everything to accommodate all the new people, all of it tapping into the existing water system, how can these two trends continue without finding additional sources of water?

The Mighty Colorado River, the same one that carved the Grand Canyon, (yes, that one,) once poured into the sea. Those days appear to be over, and have been for decades. There's no more mouth of the Colorado River! It has run dry:

"Between 85 and 90 percent of the Colorado River's discharge originates in snowmelt, mostly from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming.[59] The three major upper tributaries of the Colorado – the Gunnison, Green, and San Juan – alone deliver almost 9 million acre feet (11 km3) per year to the main stem, mostly from snowmelt.[60] The remaining 10 to 15 percent comes from a variety of sources, principally groundwater base flow and summer monsoon storms.[59] The latter often produces heavy, highly localized floods on lower tributaries of the river, but does not often contribute significant volumes of runoff.[59][61] Most of the annual runoff in the basin occurs with the melting of Rocky Mountains snowpack, which begins in April and peaks during May and June before exhausting in late July or early August.[62]

Flows at the mouth of the river have steadily declined since the beginning of the 20th century, and in most years after 1960 the Colorado River has run dry before reaching the Pacific Ocean.[63] Irrigation, industrial, and municipal diversions, evaporation from reservoirs, natural runoff, and likely climate change, have all contributed to this substantial reduction in flow, threatening the water supply for the future.[64][65][66] For example, the Gila River – formerly one of the Colorado's largest tributaries – contributes little more than a trickle in most years due to use of its water by cities and farms in central Arizona.[67] The average flow rate of the Colorado at the northernmost point of the Mexico–United States border (NIB, or Northerly International Boundary) is about 2,060 cubic feet per second (58 m3/s), 1.49 million acre feet (1.84 km3) per year – less than a tenth of the natural flow – due to upstream water use.[68] Below this point, the remaining flow is diverted to irrigate the Mexicali Valley, leaving a dry riverbed from Morelos Dam to the sea that is supplemented by intermittent flows of irrigation drainage water.[69] "

Wiki

Hint: THIS IS A GIANT WAKE UP CALL!!![/QUOTE]

Since we have built the dam system on this river, flow is much better controlled than it used to be. It no longer has the devastating floods every winter. It was those floods that carved out the Grand Canyon.

The river still flows to the sea. At the river's mouth, a delta has formed, and the water flows to the sea under the sand and silt of this delta.

It is true we use more water from the Colorado river than before. That water just doesn't disappear. What doesn't evaporate (like most of the water lost in the Colorado River itself) just flows downhill, and back to the river from whence it came. The amount of water each region gets to use is controlled by the Colorado River Interstate Compact. Lake Mead is also sitting lower these days, largely because the compact is keeping more water upstream using the dam system.


This isn't a giant wake up call. The river itself gets its water from snowmelt in Utah. That varies with the rain and snow passing through Utah (as opposed to north of Utah, where it often passes). As long as we have heat and ocean water, we WILL have fresh water.

 

[Into the Night]

Interesting comment, Parrot. (Why people posting on the Internet do not choose a name that can respectfully be used, is beyond me!)

Would you flesh that out a bit.

I suspect I have comments to make on it, but I'd like to be sure of where you are coming from.

It sounds as though there is religious motivation.

If you could include some indication of that in your "fleshing out" (should you choose to do it)...I'd appreciate it.

Heh. Personally, I don't see a parrot disrespectful. Indeed, they are wonderful birds. They are friendly, smart, and colorful. If you want to call me 'parrot', that's fine with me.

You can see the fleshing out of this argument in previous posts. I will summarize it here:

People who suggest birth controls to be a clean way of controlling the population that doesn't involve killing are living in a dream world. People have a natural desire to reproduce. It is as natural as breathing and eating. No matter what law you pass or education about birth controls you put out, not matter how you color it to look like the 'right' thing to do, there will be two problems:

1) Those that rebel and want to have kids anyway.
2) Those who screwed up using the some birth control method and the result was a pregnancy anyway.

In either case you now have a human life. It is alive. It is growing. You are now faced with the prospect of what to do in order to terminate this pregnancy by force. This means killing that life, even if the mother wants the child. PoliTalker was making the argument that this would be part of a government law. I was pointing out that supporting such a government does not wash one's hands of what is being done here.

Population controls is about killing for force, all to satisfy a perceived need to 'save the planet' or 'to bring balance'.

It is the very reasoning every destructive dictatorship in the world uses to commit genocide.

PoliTalker takes offense at this. He refuses to look at the ramifications of what he is condoning. It makes him uncomfortable to deal with these questions I bring up. Thus, he has decided to 'ban' me. True, he won't let me into any threads he starts from here on, but that still does not stop anyone from starting parallel threads to discuss what he happens to discuss at the moment. He really only locks himself out, since he is no longer able to see and participate in a conversation that he has on his ignore list.

I am already on this thread. He can't banish me from this thread. There is no need for a parallel thread in this case.

When it comes to ignore lists, the only people that get on mine are those that are not presenting any argument or counter-argument. There ARE those trolls that simply like to throw insults, redirect a conversation into trivial areas, play spelling and grammar cop, etc., and contribute nothing to a debate. I lose nothing by ignoring them. They are presenting no arguments in the first place. That is the end of that digression.

I am not making my arguments from a religious standpoint. I am making my arguments from the standpoint of human nature. People want to reproduce. They may justify that for religious reasons, but that doesn't change their desire. There will be the rebellious, and there will be accidents with contraceptives. The only way to deal with that is to kill.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

All hoax. Stop hating humanity.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Heh. Personally, I don't see a parrot disrespectful. Indeed, they are wonderful birds. They are friendly, smart, and colorful. If you want to call me 'parrot', that's fine with me.

You can see the fleshing out of this argument in previous posts. I will summarize it here:

People who suggest birth controls to be a clean way of controlling the population that doesn't involve killing are living in a dream world. People have a natural desire to reproduce. It is as natural as breathing and eating. No matter what law you pass or education about birth controls you put out, not matter how you color it to look like the 'right' thing to do, there will be two problems:

1) Those that rebel and want to have kids anyway.
2) Those who screwed up using the some birth control method and the result was a pregnancy anyway.

In either case you now have a human life. It is alive. It is growing. You are now faced with the prospect of what to do in order to terminate this pregnancy by force. This means killing that life, even if the mother wants the child. PoliTalker was making the argument that this would be part of a government law. I was pointing out that supporting such a government does not wash one's hands of what is being done here.

Population controls is about killing for force, all to satisfy a perceived need to 'save the planet' or 'to bring balance'.

It is the very reasoning every destructive dictatorship in the world uses to commit genocide.

PoliTalker takes offense at this. He refuses to look at the ramifications of what he is condoning. It makes him uncomfortable to deal with these questions I bring up. Thus, he has decided to 'ban' me. True, he won't let me into any threads he starts from here on, but that still does not stop anyone from starting parallel threads to discuss what he happens to discuss at the moment. He really only locks himself out, since he is no longer able to see and participate in a conversation that he has on his ignore list.

I am already on this thread. He can't banish me from this thread. There is no need for a parallel thread in this case.

When it comes to ignore lists, the only people that get on mine are those that are not presenting any argument or counter-argument. There ARE those trolls that simply like to throw insults, redirect a conversation into trivial areas, play spelling and grammar cop, etc., and contribute nothing to a debate. I lose nothing by ignoring them. They are presenting no arguments in the first place. That is the end of that digression.

I am not making my arguments from a religious standpoint. I am making my arguments from the standpoint of human nature. People want to reproduce. They may justify that for religious reasons, but that doesn't change their desire. There will be the rebellious, and there will be accidents with contraceptives. The only way to deal with that is to kill.

I'll get back to you...probably not until tomorrow.

Gotta go to work this morning...golf match and football to watch later.

But there are some interesting things I want to comment on here.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello AssHatZombie,

All hoax. Stop hating humanity.

The desire to prolong the very existence of humanity, and to improve the quality of lifestyle for individuals, is the ultimate expression of LOVE for humanity.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hello AssHatZombie,



The desire to prolong the very existence of humanity, and to improve the quality of lifestyle for individuals, is s the ultimate expression of LOVE for humanity.

But what about the individuals you genocide?