Originally posted by whodeyI thought your basic rant was anti abortion.
Who says you should vote at all?
I don't see much of an improvement on the other side. It's either Jeb or Hillary.
Luckily, this thread is not about voting for Hillary, this thread is about the power of the state trying to rule us from the pulpit.
Was this not the very tyranny that the Founding Fathers were wanting to avoid?
My thoughts are this: We already have some 8 BILLION people on the planet. About 10 times too many. And before you go 'well would you volunteer to be offed?' I am saying we need a 90% reduction in the number of humans on the planet. 1 billion we can support responsibly, 10 forget it. All you have to do is look at cities like Kolkata, Mexico City, Tokyo, New York City, etc., to be convinced of that. Sure, we COULD support that many and maybe even double that but at what cost? One would be the loss of diversity in the animal and plant kingdom which doesn't bother many people of course since HUMANS are the apex predators and tough shyte if the polar bears go extinct.
So with that in mind, I approve of ANYTHING that lowers the population.
Like smoke all the tobacco you want, it's a great population control measure.
Allow abortion, sterilizations and the like.
Allow gay marriage since as far as I know it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
Gay people BY DEFINITION won't have babies unless it is from a previous hetro partner.
So for the most part, the more gays there are, the less the population will grow.
Hell, I wouldn't care if a virus was created that made 50% of us ALL gay, the population explosion would be over🙂
Originally posted by sonhouseActually people in cities live much more efficiently than people not in cities or in the suburbs of cities. And some of the cities you listed are far more efficient than several others in the US that one could mention.
My thoughts are this: We already have some 8 BILLION people on the planet. About 10 times too many. And before you go 'well would you volunteer to be offed?' I am saying we need a 90% reduction in the number of humans on the planet. 1 billion we can support responsibly, 10 forget it. All you have to do is look at cities like Kolkata, Mexico City, Tokyo, New York City, etc., to be convinced of that.
Its not just about population, its about how that population lives. Currently, the average American damages the environment about 100 times more than a poor Chinese person. Which is why the US produces as much CO2 as China despite having a quarter of the people and many US goods being manufactured in China. So focus your population control measures on the US.
Well managed, the earth could support 20 billion people. Poorly managed, less than a billion.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by whodey
Who says you should vote at all?
But I thought you were clear about which person is God's man (or woman) for the White House. I mean your tone seems usually to be "the guy up there in that office is not God's choice."
So I thought you can direct us this cycle which one is God's choice. Are you just going to bitch about WHOEVER occupies the office of the president ?
I don't see much of an improvement on the other side. It's either Jeb or Hillary.
Maybe things will get so bad that they'll run on the same ticket.
Luckily, this thread is not about voting for Hillary, this thread is about the power of the state trying to rule us from the pulpit.
Was this not the very tyranny that the Founding Fathers were wanting to avoid?
You're a militant libertarian of some kind ?
Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is your man ... or they'd be the most likely pick of the Founding Fathers if they were alive today ?
You should start a "Leave me the heck alone!!" party.
Originally posted by sonshipLeave me the heck alone party? What are you babbling about?Who says you should vote at all?
But I thought you were clear about which person is God's man (or woman) for the White House. I mean your tone seems usually to be "the guy up there in that office is not God's choice."
So I thought you can direct us this cycle which one is God's choice. Are you just going to bitch about WHOEVER occ ...[text shortened]... if they were alive today ?
You should start a [b] "Leave me the heck alone!!" party.[/b]
To date since Roe vs. Wade over 50 million unborn babies have been killed. It has nothing to do with party and more to do with genocide and the sinful nature of man. Last I checked the GOP has done nothing of significance to stop it. All the GOP does is sit around trying to decide how to become more like Dims and still get elected
Now they want to erradicate such thinking. Now Progs want us to believe that the Prog fairy waves her magic want over the unborn before exiting the womb, thus making them human.
Their religion is not for me.
Originally posted by whodey
What if atheists views are wrong? Must they change as well?
Woops, my bad, only religious folk are ever wrong.
What if atheists views are wrong? Must they change as well?
Yes, whodey, if individual and collective progress is to continue. That's generally one piece of the puzzle when it comes to progress: wrong views get supplanted.
Despite your usual political hysterics and distortions, I think the point here is simple. The point is not that religious beliefs have to change, per se. The point is that any views (religious or otherwise) that have no solid backing in reasons should have no say in public policy matters. So, feel free to keep whatever view on the matter; but just realize that it should have no justifiable clout in policy matters unless there are reasonable arguments in its favor. Of course, this goes for any view, religious or otherwise. Obviously, a reason why "religious" views get singled out in this particular area is because religious views in this area characteristically have no good reasons behind them.
Obviously, if one wants a particular view (religious or otherwise) to get more respect, whining about it in typical whodeysian fashion will not do much good. Rather, one would do better by assembling better reasonable arguments in favor of that view. Alas, that's generally a tough task, though, when it comes to religious views.
08 May 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloAbortion is about killing unborn children.What if atheists views are wrong? Must they change as well?
Yes, whodey, if individual and collective progress is to continue. That's generally one piece of the puzzle when it comes to progress: wrong views get supplanted.
Despite your usual political hysterics and distortions, I think the point here is simple. The point is not tha ...[text shortened]... or of that view. Alas, that's generally a tough task, though, when it comes to religious views.
Do you believe in the Prog Fairy that waves her magic wand over unborn children as they come out of the womb, thus making them human?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Proper Knob
Abortion is about aborting a foetus.
fetus /fe·tus/ (fÄ“t´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
Dismissing the unborn child and less than a human being -
Are you ever concerned that this may just be people's attempt to ease their conscience about the matter of the destruction of "unborn offspring."
Did you ever think there is a need to de-humanize the unborn child in order to rationalize legitimate guilt feelings about its being killed?
I think you should take some time to consider the possibility.
Black slaves were thought not to have souls.
Black slaves were thought to be designed to be beasts of burden physiologically.
Do you think it is impossible for these old excuses to be rehashed in modern terms to ease the conviction in the conscience of wrong doing ?
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo its about taking the conscience decision to deny life to someone. Once again your propensity for reducing things to a purely material level is found to be questionable. The over simplification that it simply the abortion of a foetus is also demonstrably false because many women suffer psychological trauma after committing to an abortion. Lastly as you are aware the vast majority of abortions are conducted on the basis of social convienimnece making them morally reprehensible. By the end of this day, 150,000 persons will have been denied the right to life. This is the reality and its bad Karma man!
Abortion is about aborting a foetus.
08 May 15
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not dismissing anything, merely offering a different perspective than that of whodey's. As for your claims about Black people, what are you wittering on about?fetus /fe·tus/ (fÄ“t´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
Dismissing the unborn child and less than a human being -
Are you ever concerned that this may just be people's attempt to ease their conscience abo ...[text shortened]... excuses to be rehashed in modern terms to ease the conviction in the conscience of wrong doing ?
08 May 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand this is an emotive issue. Personally I would like to live in a world where women don't have to make the choice of having an abortion. But unlike you I actually live in reality. What the world doesn't need is 150,00 unwanted, unloved children being born every day. We have more than enough already. People have to make a choice, but it is their choice and they will have to live with the consequences of that decision.
No its about taking the conscience decision to deny life to someone. Once again your propensity for reducing things to a purely material level is found to be questionable. The over simplification that it simply the abortion of a foetus is also demonstrably false because many women suffer psychological trauma after committing to an abortion. Lastly ...[text shortened]... 000 persons will have been denied the right to life. This is the reality and its bad Karma man!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat you wrote was -
I'm not dismissing anything, merely offering a different perspective than that of whodey's. As for your claims about Black people, what are you wittering on about?
Abortion is about aborting a foetus.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it seems that you are avoiding purposely the calling of the aborted - a child.
My comment was a question. Do you think the reluctance to call the unborn child what it is is a rationale similar to reasoning about the justfications of slavery ?
I cannot see why else you would highlight that abortion is about aborting a foetus. What as your point to say this and only this in your post ?
Do you mean a FOETUS and not a CHILD ?
I guess that's what I was "wittering" about.
But you're going to make it all clear as to what you meant.
08 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt doesn't matter where people live, we are right now as we speak using up 50% of the entire planetary resources of such treasures as water, fuels, arable farmland and so forth.
Actually people in cities live much more efficiently than people not in cities or in the suburbs of cities. And some of the cities you listed are far more efficient than several others in the US that one could mention.
Its not just about population, its about how that population lives. Currently, the average American damages the environment about 100 t ...[text shortened]...
Well managed, the earth could support 20 billion people. Poorly managed, less than a billion.
We CANNOT support 20 billion people without drastically reducing the genetic diversity of many other life forms if not completely making them extinct completely. You do know we are in the middle of the biggest extinction event since the last asteroid, the chixulub? like 65 million years ago.
Originally posted by sonshipAnswer to your first question - As someone who has never justified slavery, I couldn't give you an answer.
What you wrote was -
Abortion is about aborting a foetus.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it seems that you are avoiding purposely the calling of the aborted - a child.
My comment was a question. Do you think the reluctance to call the unborn child what it is is a rationale similar to reasoning about the justfications of slavery ...[text shortened]... t's what I was "wittering" about.
But you're going to make it all clear as to what you meant.
Answer to your second question - I'm using the correct terms for 'foetus' and 'child'.