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

Hello AssHatZombie,

AssHatZombie said:
The world is not overpopulated.

There is a resource distribution problem.
Click to expand...

So frankenfood is the solution? A little genetic engineering to the rescue? Absurd. That unhealthy food is only created as a for-profit wealth generator for the rich owners of agri-business. There is no market to distribute it to poor people who can't pay for it. That so-called food is created to make money not feed people.

It is about much more than food.

We have no back-up Colorado River.

Where is the water going to come from?

Do you doubt the fact that there is no more mouth of the Colorado River?

There used to be before we had so many humans drinking from it.

And creating the 'food' which 'just needs to be distributed.'

They are not giving that food away!

Ya know what that sounds like?

That sounds like wealth redistribution.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Hello ssHatZombie,



So frankenfood is the solution? A little genetic engineering to the rescue? Absurd. That unhealthy food is only created as a for-profit wealth generator for the rich owners of agri-business. There is no market to distribute it to poor people who can't pay for it. That so-called food is created to make money not feed people.

It is about much more than food.

We have no back-up Colorado River.

Where is the water going to come from?

Do you doubt the fact that there is no more mouth of the Colorado River?

There used to be before we had so many humans drinking from it.

And creating the 'food' which 'just needs to be distributed.'

They are not giving that food away!

Ya know what that sounds like?

That sounds like wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

So you agree it's a distribution problem?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello AssHatZombie,



I've done nothing of the sort.

And keep this esoteric.

If you try to make this about me I'll have no part of that.
Click to expand...

Oooooo. That's a THREAT, dude. You are making the argument of the stick fallacy again! Careful, AssHatZombie, he's going to stick you on his dreaded ignore list! :laugh:
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, Parrot…thanks for that.



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.
Click to expand...

Even if you are correct here…still no killing.





In either case you now have a human life.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a zygote or fetus?

Either can become a human life. Neither is.

And egg…is not a chicken. If you ordered a chicken dinner and they brought you an omelet, you would not accept it.

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.
Click to expand...

It is a zygote or fetus. It is no more “alive” than a tumor.

This argument sounds very religiously motivated to me. All of your arguments sound that way. If they are, please let me know they are.



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

Horse shit. Population control is about population control. No killing needed at all.



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

C’mon, Parrot. Let’s be real here.





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.
Click to expand...

He has not decided to ban you for any of those reasons. He would debate them and you from here to eternity.

He banned you for the personal stuff.

I am not bothered by that. If you act like an asshole to me…I will call you an asshole. (Probably I’d call you a fucking asshole.)





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.
Click to expand...

He CAN ban you from this thread if he wants.

Retro banning is allowed in this forum. All he needs do is notify a moderator to retro ban you...and you will be banned instantly. He is simply putting you on ignore. You are free to contribute…which you are doing.

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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing the reasons for YOUR ban list.

Poli’s reasons are different.

Mine are different from Poli's...and from yours.




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.
Click to expand...

Ummm…I doubt you truly are not dealing with this from a religious standpoint.

We’ll continue to discuss this, but I am convinced your arguments are PRIMARILY motivated by religious considerations. There is absolutely nothing I see in human nature to sustain your arguments at all.

I strongly advocate for a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body for whatever reasons she deems appropriate…and that includes a desire to lower the human population. I see nothing wrong with governments attempting to lower rising population…or with attempting to lower it...by influencing less procreation.

ASIDE: For the record, I was raised a Catholic…and am now what would be regarded as an agnostic. My agnosticism is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

What is your position on the religious continuum?

I strongly suspect it is the PRIMARY motivation for you thesis.
 
Frank, life beginning at conception is science, not religion. Are u anti science?

That being said, im still pro choice. Let's just not kid ourselves.
 
Hello and goodbye AssHatZombie,

AssHatZombie said:
The postulation of infinite humanity seems to leave out the fact of death. Hence you are revealed as an idiot. I too rest my case.
Click to expand...

If you are going to stoop to personal attacks, then you forfeit your argument.

Personal attacks are the tool of those who do not feel confident in the merit of their argument.

Your rude judgement of other posters means you are abandoning the issue.

But the real loss is respect.

You've got none for me, and now I've got none for you.

And without basic respect, civil discourse is not possible.

Since I have no interest in insult contests, no future conversations between us shall occur.

Your name has been added to my permanent Ignore List.

Anybody else wanna tell me off? Please feel free to come forward right now.

I am interested in building an effective filter to enhance my experience here.

I only wanna talk to the good people.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello and goodbye AssHatZombie,



If you are going to stoop to personal attacks, then you forfeit your argument.

Personal attacks are the tool of those who do not feel confident in the merit of their argument.

Your rude judgement of other posters means you are abandoning the issue.

But the real loss is respect.

You've got none for me, and now I've got none for you.

And without basic respect, civil discourse is not possible.

Since I have no interest in insult contests, no future conversations between us shall occur.

Your name has been added to my permanent Ignore List.

Anybody else wanna tell me off? Please feel free to come forward right now.

I am interested in building an effective filter to enhance my experience here.

I only wanna talk to the good people.
Click to expand...

You lost, fool. Or you could take back your infantile mewlings about infinite humanity.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Frank, life beginning at conception is science, not religion. Are u anti science?

That being said, im still pro choice. Let's just not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

Ass...I have never asserted that life does not begin at conception. I have asserted that a zygote is a zygote...and a fetus is a fetus.

They may become human beings at some point...but until they do, they essentially are a pregnancy occurring in a single woman's body. It is my opinion that she should have the right to decide if she wants that pregnancy to continue...or to terminate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top