PDA

View Full Version : APP - Overpopulation Myth



Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 08:02 AM
Overpopulation is one of the greatest of modern myths.
It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm

Damocles
09-29-2009, 08:03 AM
So, how many kids have you had?

Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 08:07 AM
So, how many kids have you had?

Your question is moot.

Damocles
09-29-2009, 08:18 AM
Your question is moot.
Yet it begs to be answered. Are you doing your part to show your disdain of the overpopulation myth through example, or are you just talk?

DamnYankee
09-29-2009, 08:19 AM
There was a good article in the American Spectator about 4 years ago that detailed this.

SmarterthanYou
09-29-2009, 09:13 AM
there's been a plan in place waiting to be implemented. they even made a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) about it.

Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 09:17 AM
Yet it begs to be answered. Are you doing your part to show your disdain of the overpopulation myth through example, or are you just talk?

This isn't about me.

Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 09:21 AM
there's been a plan in place waiting to be implemented. they even made a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/) about it.

DId you see the discussion going in the comments on this imdb page?

Good stuff.




Ahh to be young and dumb and know everything....Utopia is not possible. Socialism does not work. Why would we try to provide everyone with health care? Altruistic? Maybe. Possible? Past performance does not dictate future performance. However, I dont want to worry about my life light running out when the government says! Fact or fiction... Obama will be this generation's turning point, albatross if you will. The belief in change will prove disaterous and cripple their chance at living any type of dream....and god forbid it be the American Dream... for now anyway....Wake up America and run your own lives!!! P.S. And for those quick to point to racism....I'm Japanese-American....I think we have reasons to hate...but choose not to!

Canceled2
09-29-2009, 09:32 AM
Overpopulation is one of the greatest of modern myths.
It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm

Based on a population of 7.5 billion:

Using the square milage for Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit.

Damocles
09-29-2009, 09:36 AM
This isn't about me.
Translation: I'm all talk, no walk.

Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 09:49 AM
Translation: I'm all talk, no walk.

I'm not advocating the mandatory birthing of babies, mind you.

apple0154
09-29-2009, 10:21 AM
Overpopulation is one of the greatest of modern myths.
It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm

You could be on to something, AssHat. Probably a scam run by a group of disgruntled folks who have continually struck out with the opposite sex. :viol:

Hermes Thoth
09-29-2009, 10:36 AM
You could be on to something, AssHat. Probably a scam run by a group of disgruntled folks who have continually struck out with the opposite sex. :viol:

It's a bunch of murderers who hate humanity.

uscitizen
09-29-2009, 10:59 AM
Or maybe the overpopulation is a concern to some because of the skin tones of the fastest growing populations?

cawacko
09-29-2009, 11:12 AM
I was reading recently in SF that in some real environmentally conscious circles some guys, in their 20's, are getting their tubes tied so as to be more attractive to a potential mate by showing how concious they are about the environment, world etc. Guys do a lot of things to get laid so I can't knock it but damn...

apple0154
09-29-2009, 02:21 PM
I was reading recently in SF that in some real environmentally conscious circles some guys, in their 20's, are getting their tubes tied so as to be more attractive to a potential mate by showing how concious they are about the environment, world etc. Guys do a lot of things to get laid so I can't knock it but damn...

I guess the next internet scam will be bogus medical certificates testifying to having had the operation. The old pick-up line, "Do you want to see my sketches?" will be replaced with, "Do you want to see my Snip-Snip Certificate?"

Lowaicue
09-29-2009, 07:22 PM
Or maybe the overpopulation is a concern to some because of the skin tones of the fastest growing populations?

Now thats fight'n talk, I say that's fight'n talk.
Which does raise the old question for those who state their heritage as American of African descent.
How were things in Libya? (Oh, and before anyone get's really corny, allow me: Many Libyans are really 'intents' guys!! Sorry)

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 07:06 AM
I was reading recently in SF that in some real environmentally conscious circles some guys, in their 20's, are getting their tubes tied so as to be more attractive to a potential mate by showing how concious they are about the environment, world etc. Guys do a lot of things to get laid so I can't knock it but damn... LOL Who'd be attracted to a mate that can't produce children?

Please, please, liberal woman: TIE YOUR FUCKING TUBES. LOL

What an awesome method of reducing the liberal population.

Hermes Thoth
09-30-2009, 07:14 AM
I was reading recently in SF that in some real environmentally conscious circles some guys, in their 20's, are getting their tubes tied so as to be more attractive to a potential mate by showing how concious they are about the environment, world etc. Guys do a lot of things to get laid so I can't knock it but damn...

I think this encapulates the stupidity and intent of the green movement.

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 07:37 AM
I think this encapulates the stupidity and intent of the green movement. I think this is awesome and I promote it whole-heartedly.

uscitizen
09-30-2009, 09:23 AM
LOL Who'd be attracted to a mate that can't produce children?

Please, please, liberal woman: TIE YOUR FUCKING TUBES. LOL

What an awesome method of reducing the liberal population.

No problem ready made families abound.
Especially in the south.

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 09:32 AM
No problem ready made families abound.
Especially in the south. Your regional bigotry is showing again. Where again are the highest percentages of fatherless families? I suspect Democrat controlled inner cities.

cawacko
09-30-2009, 09:46 AM
citizen brings up a good point that it may be racism behind the overpopulation myth. Along those lines racism is probably behind global warming as well. White areas such as North America and Europe have already had their industrial revolution and thus want to stop growing darker countries such as China and India from achieving the same success. Thus under the guise of global warming we can limit those countries economic opportunities. Who knew Al Gore was heading up a racist movement?

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 10:00 AM
citizen brings up a good point that it may be racism behind the overpopulation myth. Along those lines racism is probably behind global warming as well. White areas such as North America and Europe have already had their industrial revolution and thus want to stop growing darker countries such as China and India from achieving the same success. Thus under the guise of global warming we can limit those countries economic opportunities. Who knew Al Gore was heading up a racist movement? Since the Democrat Party is the racist party that does make perfect sense.

Hermes Thoth
09-30-2009, 10:33 AM
If anything the green movement is anti-white. Predomoninantly non white countries are not even expected to adhere to the standards, while the european/north american "developed" nations are expected to "lead the way".

FUCK THE POLICE
09-30-2009, 06:58 PM
Overpopulation is one of the greatest of modern myths.
It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm

Yeah it is a myth.

uscitizen
09-30-2009, 08:08 PM
Your regional bigotry is showing again. Where again are the highest percentages of fatherless families? I suspect Democrat controlled inner cities.

Your knee jerk reactionism is showing.

The south has the highest divorce rate providing ready made families as my post said.

uscitizen
09-30-2009, 08:10 PM
And not just Rascism. What is the term for fear of different religions?

The Muslims are procreating faster than Christians! :shock:

Buy guns, etc.

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 08:35 PM
Your knee jerk reactionism is showing.

The south has the highest divorce rate providing ready made families as my post said. My question was not divorce rates but fatherless families; those where the father has abandoned his family. Where do you suppose this most often occurs?

uscitizen
09-30-2009, 10:29 PM
My question was not divorce rates but fatherless families; those where the father has abandoned his family. Where do you suppose this most often occurs?

In divorces.

You are trying but pitifully so.
What you are referring to is where the father was never part of the family.
And that is in big cities primarially (notrh, south, east and west) but growing in rural areas of the south as well.
Somehow it is not frowned upon by society in recent years.

You are such a kneejerk reactionary it must be dangerous to sit around you while you watch Fox.
Go thru many coffee tables?

Cancel 2018. 3
10-01-2009, 12:10 AM
In divorces.

You are trying but pitifully so.
What you are referring to is where the father was never part of the family.
And that is in big cities primarially (notrh, south, east and west) but growing in rural areas of the south as well.
Somehow it is not frowned upon by society in recent years.

You are such a kneejerk reactionary it must be dangerous to sit around you while you watch Fox.
Go thru many coffee tables?

it is clear you just got done watching jerry springer reruns.....should we be...ware of you?

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 08:36 AM
In divorces.

You are trying but pitifully so.
What you are referring to is where the father was never part of the family.
And that is in big cities primarially (notrh, south, east and west) but growing in rural areas of the south as well.
Somehow it is not frowned upon by society in recent years.

You are such a kneejerk reactionary it must be dangerous to sit around you while you watch Fox.
Go thru many coffee tables?The correct answer is your second one. Mos fathers who abandon their families do so in accordance with liberal social values, and these are prevalent in big Democrat controlled cities. And yes it is infecting The South.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-01-2009, 09:34 AM
Overpopulation is a myth, which is why the US can handle much more immigrants.

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Bring 'em on! Make sure after three years they can speak English, have held jobs with increasing responsibility, have stayed out of the court system, pay taxes and can have at least three naturally born citizens of three different cultural ancestry vouch for them. Otherwise they have to go back home.

Hermes Thoth
10-01-2009, 09:46 AM
Overpopulation is a myth, which is why the US can handle much more immigrants.

In reality we aren't over populated, but the economy is artificially restricted by an engineered credit collapse. I know the land could handle more people.

Hermes Thoth
10-01-2009, 10:09 AM
Green restrictions, and zoning laws keep land off limits for human usage in meaningful ways

uscitizen
10-01-2009, 10:17 AM
In reality we aren't over populated, but the economy is artificially restricted by an engineered credit collapse. I know the land could handle more people.

IN some of the most desired areas we cannot handle much more.
Water, etc are problems.

The Colorado will be sucked virtually dry in a few more years.
The ogalla aquifer is drying up.
The sinkholes in FL from excessive groundwater use.

Thorn
10-01-2009, 10:29 AM
IN some of the most desired areas we cannot handle much more.
Water, etc are problems.

The Colorado will be sucked virtually dry in a few more years.
The ogalla aquifer is drying up.
The sinkholes in FL from excessive groundwater use.

Not only that, but people in cities, especially, don't appear to realize that land mass doesn't usually represent arable land; much of it is rocky and relatively infertile. Fertilizers have to come from somewhere, and even those have a finite applicability. We need forested areas for oxygen. Recent findings are that overfishing has reached a far more critical point than ever previously thought, and the oceans were believed to represent the earth's true breadbasket.

We have to start being more aware and taking better care of this planet. Contrary to what's been thought in the past, it won't take several generations to reach crisis point; this could even happen during our own lifetime, and realistically we don't have anywhere else to go.

uscitizen
10-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Not only that, but people in cities, especially, don't appear to realize that land mass doesn't usually represent arable land; much of it is rocky and relatively infertile. Fertilizers have to come from somewhere, and even those have a finite applicability. We need forested areas for oxygen. Recent findings are that overfishing has reached a far more critical point than ever previously thought, and the oceans were believed to represent the earth's true breadbasket.

We have to start being more aware and taking better care of this planet. Contrary to what's been thought in the past, it won't take several generations to reach crisis point; this could even happen during our own lifetime, and realistically we don't have anywhere else to go.

Ahh anotheer true conservative. Conservationists are the ultimate conservatives. Conserving our world, the only place we can live.

We are too few though Thorn and some of us here will live to see the results of mans shortsightedness.

cawacko
10-01-2009, 10:41 AM
Not only that, but people in cities, especially, don't appear to realize that land mass doesn't usually represent arable land; much of it is rocky and relatively infertile. Fertilizers have to come from somewhere, and even those have a finite applicability. We need forested areas for oxygen. Recent findings are that overfishing has reached a far more critical point than ever previously thought, and the oceans were believed to represent the earth's true breadbasket.

We have to start being more aware and taking better care of this planet. Contrary to what's been thought in the past, it won't take several generations to reach crisis point; this could even happen during our own lifetime, and realistically we don't have anywhere else to go.

Well we can start by eliminating Los Angeles and Southern California. Those a*holes don't contribute anything to society and they take all our water from Nothern California. There's your solution, less people and certainly less d-bags on the planet. Win-win.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-01-2009, 10:50 AM
Well we can start by eliminating Los Angeles and Southern California. Those a*holes don't contribute anything to society and they take all our water from Nothern California. There's your solution, less people and certainly less d-bags on the planet. Win-win.

I'd rather eliminate the entirety of inner California. We can start taking people out of Orange County after that until you reach the point of equilibrium.

uscitizen
10-01-2009, 10:55 AM
Ahh the easiest road is the wrong one to travel in life.

Hermes Thoth
10-01-2009, 11:05 AM
Ahh anotheer true conservative. Conservationists are the ultimate conservatives. Conserving our world, the only place we can live.

We are too few though Thorn and some of us here will live to see the results of mans shortsightedness.

We could have so much food if we wanted. The truth is the elite purposefully constrict food supply as part of keeping us on the treadmill. They fear suitable quantities will make people lazy. so they keep prices inflated.

We could have fish farms as far as the eye could see. We could all have gardens. We could grown food in man made structures harnessing the sun and using hydroponics and manmade substrates.

No. you two contribute to the notion of false scarcity, to scare people into giving the collective the power to kill "competitors". It's the externalization of the dirty work onto the collective.

cawacko
10-01-2009, 11:06 AM
I'd rather eliminate the entirety of inner California. We can start taking people out of Orange County after that until you reach the point of equilibrium.

They grow our food in Central California. We need to eat! They at least put our water to good use. People in LA don't do sh*t with it. Orange County is So Cal, I already included them.

Cancel 2016.2
10-01-2009, 11:26 AM
I was reading recently in SF that in some real environmentally conscious circles some guys, in their 20's, are getting their tubes tied so as to be more attractive to a potential mate by showing how concious they are about the environment, world etc. Guys do a lot of things to get laid so I can't knock it but damn...

All I have to guys like that is.... job well done. You just upgraded the future gene pool.

apple0154
10-01-2009, 11:55 AM
The correct answer is your second one. Mos fathers who abandon their families do so in accordance with liberal social values, and these are prevalent in big Democrat controlled cities. And yes it is infecting The South.

Many do so because the woman files for divorce and custody. How many men are going to support a child who neither lives with them nor do they have a say in how it is raised?

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 12:56 PM
Many do so because the woman files for divorce and custody. How many men are going to support a child who neither lives with them nor do they have a say in how it is raised? That's a good question because it describes how you, being a liberal man and therefore wishing to shirk personal responsibility, thinks. For me, however, a conservative and therefore insisting on personal responsibility, would ask 'What kind of man would not support a child that is his, regardless of the relationship with its mother?'

Canceled1
10-01-2009, 01:57 PM
We could have so much food if we wanted. The truth is the elite purposefully constrict food supply as part of keeping us on the treadmill. They fear suitable quantities will make people lazy. so they keep prices inflated.

We could have fish farms as far as the eye could see. We could all have gardens. We could grown food in man made structures harnessing the sun and using hydroponics and manmade substrates.

No. you two contribute to the notion of false scarcity, to scare people into giving the collective the power to kill "competitors". It's the externalization of the dirty work onto the collective.


The San Joaquin Valley is a prime example of special interest politics over people.

Canceled1
10-01-2009, 01:59 PM
That's a good question because it describes how you, being a liberal man and therefore wishing to shirk personal responsibility, thinks. For me, however, a conservative and therefore insisting on personal responsibility, would ask 'What kind of man would not support a child that is his, regardless of the relationship with its mother?'

The Making Excuses Crowd.

1001 ways to wigggle out of responsibility 101.

apple0154
10-01-2009, 04:22 PM
That's a good question because it describes how you, being a liberal man and therefore wishing to shirk personal responsibility, thinks. For me, however, a conservative and therefore insisting on personal responsibility, would ask 'What kind of man would not support a child that is his, regardless of the relationship with its mother?'

It's truly incredible how you miss the main point. It is not the relationship with the mother, per se. It's rightfully questioning to what use his contribution is being used, vis-à-vis the child.

When it comes to shirking ones responsibility there are many situations where people have said, "I was ordered to do that", thereby relieving themselves of any responsibility.

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 05:59 PM
It's truly incredible how you miss the main point. It is not the relationship with the mother, per se. It's rightfully questioning to what use his contribution is being used, vis-à-vis the child.

When it comes to shirking ones responsibility there are many situations where people have said, "I was ordered to do that", thereby relieving themselves of any responsibility. So your position is that men are ordered to have sex with women?

apple0154
10-01-2009, 06:32 PM
So your position is that men are ordered to have sex with women?

Huh? Are you on strong medication?

uscitizen
10-01-2009, 08:12 PM
We could have so much food if we wanted. The truth is the elite purposefully constrict food supply as part of keeping us on the treadmill. They fear suitable quantities will make people lazy. so they keep prices inflated.

We could have fish farms as far as the eye could see. We could all have gardens. We could grown food in man made structures harnessing the sun and using hydroponics and manmade substrates.

No. you two contribute to the notion of false scarcity, to scare people into giving the collective the power to kill "competitors". It's the externalization of the dirty work onto the collective.

We could do a lot of things and a few of us actually do.

Do you grow a garden?
I grow a garden, meat critters, etc. And actually produce a surplus of food by volume which is sold or given to others.

Most of us succumb to the wills of industry to lead the rat race that benefits them and not necessarailly us. Especially when taking the long view.

Hermes Thoth
10-02-2009, 03:22 AM
We could do a lot of things and a few of us actually do.

Do you grow a garden?
I grow a garden, meat critters, etc. And actually produce a surplus of food by volume which is sold or given to others.

Most of us succumb to the wills of industry to lead the rat race that benefits them and not necessarailly us. Especially when taking the long view.

But the point is that the human carrying capacity of earth is actually much greater than the nihilist eco-murderers would have us believe.

They want us to feel fear so we will kill for them.

Reject the fear. Embrace the truth.

uscitizen
10-02-2009, 12:50 PM
But the point is that the human carrying capacity of earth is actually much greater than the nihilist eco-murderers would have us believe.

They want us to feel fear so we will kill for them.

Reject the fear. Embrace the truth.

Yes the human carrying capacity of the earth is much much higer than now if we all co-operated and did what we should.

You for instance should live in Manitoba and grow chowder peas. Instead of wasting your time fussin on the net and checking out porn.

The problem is for greed, laziness, etc we will never co-operate to that degree.

Hermes Thoth
10-02-2009, 12:54 PM
Yes the human carrying capacity of the earth is much much higer than now if we all co-operated and did what we should.

You for instance should live in Manitoba and grow chowder peas. Instead of wasting your time fussin on the net and checking out porn.

The problem is for greed, laziness, etc we will never co-operate to that degree.

No. The problem is elitist fascists doing everything in their power to drive up food prices, spread fear, and kill people.

uscitizen
10-02-2009, 01:07 PM
No. The problem is elitist fascists doing everything in their power to drive up food prices, spread fear, and kill people.

And WE allow them to do this.


WE are the problem, not THEM.

Your food for everyone concept would work well under a pure communistic plan.
Which will never be possible with humans.

Hermes Thoth
10-02-2009, 01:14 PM
And WE allow them to do this.


WE are the problem, not THEM.

Your food for everyone concept would work well under a pure communistic plan.
Which will never be possible with humans.

Stop blaming the victim.

"that girl deserved to be raped for dressing slutty" --Uscitizen

uscitizen
10-02-2009, 01:15 PM
Stop blaming the victim.

"that girl deserved to be raped for dressing slutty" --Uscitizen

Stop posting lies about what I said asshat.

The "victim" is not always the victim.

Were the finiancial institutions the victims?

Our govt treated them as such.

Hermes Thoth
10-02-2009, 01:17 PM
Stop posting lies about what I said asshat.

The "victim" is not always the victim.

Were the finiancial institutions the victims?

Our govt treated them as such.

"Black people deserved to be slaves" -- Uscitizen

uscitizen
10-02-2009, 01:19 PM
"Black people deserved to be slaves" -- Uscitizen

done with you.
You do perhaps deserve to be a slave. Ohh wait you already are and do not realize it.

Hermes Thoth
10-02-2009, 01:31 PM
done with you.
You do perhaps deserve to be a slave. Ohh wait you already are and do not realize it.

Good. quit sliming up my threads with your stupidity.

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 06:29 AM
With the exception of Thorn, there hasn't been a single person posting on this subject of overpopulation that knows what the hell they are talking about.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 06:31 AM
With the exception of Thorn, there hasn't been a single person posting on this subject of overpopulation that knows what the hell they are talking about.

Set us straight then, IF you can.

Are we really overpopulated, or is that just the lie you need to justify your elitist death agenda?

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 08:36 AM
In many senses yes we are. Some of the things I've seen stated here, like the area of sq.ft. available per person in Texas is just so freaken stupid.

First, human overpopulation is a relative term. Overpopulation is relative to the ratio of humans to available and sustainable resources needed to support those humans. It is also dependent on the means of resources used and distributed through out a population.

Resources one needs to consider to determine if a population is over populated and not sustainable are clean air, clean water, food, shelter, warmth, fuel/energy and other resources necessary to sustain life.

When overpopulation occurs competitive stress is placed on these life sustaining resources leading to a diminished quality of life. The primary indicator of overpopulation is when an organism (in this case human beings) consume resources at a rate which is faster than which they can be renewed, then that organism is over populated.

One such indicator of human over population is the relative correlation between population growth, food production and fossil fuels.

The Human population has been around for about 150,000 years. It took from then till about 1700 for human population to reach about 1 billion. It took from around 1700 to 1939 for the world population to reach around 2.3 billion. World population decreased by about 100 million by 1945 due to WWII and reached about 2.5 billion by 1950. It was around 1950 that the impact of world wide industrial food production methods had a staggering impact. Human population went from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in a mere 50 years. These modern industrial food production methods, in turn, are heavily reliant on the availability of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intensely used in food production for planting, harvesting, fertilizer/pest control manufacturing and application, not to mention their use is hugely important in the distribution and storage of food. We also know that we are by far outstripping our sources of available fossil fuels. That is, those fossil fuels are being consumed at a far greater rate then which they are being renewed. Indications of over population are the intense competition seen for limited fossil fuel resources. For example, large wealthy nations with relatively sparse populations that dominate access to fossil fuels resources have an over abundance of food where as more densely, less developed nations have less access to fossil fuels and food resources for feeding their populations are highly strained. Again, this is solid evidence of over population.

I can use a similar example with fresh water. Explosive population growth has placed huge demands on the limited fresh water resources of the planet. Across the planet were seeing fast increases in deforestation, dessertification, lowering of aquifer levels, decrease of fresh water surface levels in open bodies of fresh water and decreased volumes in surface streams and rivers. In turn we are seeing increased competition for the finite fresh water rersources available in many parts of the world, this is, again, evidence of over population.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 09:01 AM
In many senses yes we are. Some of the things I've seen stated here, like the area of sq.ft. available per person in Texas is just so freaken stupid.

First, human overpopulation is a relative term. Overpopulation is relative to the ratio of humans to available and sustainable resources needed to support those humans. It is also dependent on the means of resources used and distributed through out a population.

Resources one needs to consider to determine if a population is over populated and not sustainable are clean air, clean water, food, shelter, warmth, fuel/energy and other resources necessary to sustain life.

When overpopulation occurs competitive stress is placed on these life sustaining resources leading to a diminished quality of life. The primary indicator of overpopulation is when an organism (in this case human beings) consume resources at a rate which is faster than which they can be renewed, then that organism is over populated.

One such indicator of human over population is the relative correlation between population growth, food production and fossil fuels.

The Human population has been around for about 150,000 years. It took from then till about 1700 for human population to reach about 1 billion. It took from around 1700 to 1939 for the world population to reach around 2.3 billion. World population decreased by about 100 million by 1945 due to WWII and reached about 2.5 billion by 1950. It was around 1950 that the impact of world wide industrial food production methods had a staggering impact. Human population went from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in a mere 50 years. These modern industrial food production methods, in turn, are heavily reliant on the availability of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intensely used in food production for planting, harvesting, fertilizer/pest control manufacturing and application, not to mention their use is hugely important in the distribution and storage of food. We also know that we are by far outstripping our sources of available fossil fuels. That is, those fossil fuels are being consumed at a far greater rate then which they are being renewed. Indications of over population are the intense competition seen for limited fossil fuel resources. For example, large wealthy nations with relatively sparse populations that dominate access to fossil fuels resources have an over abundance of food where as more densely, less developed nations have less access to fossil fuels and food resources for feeding their populations are highly strained. Again, this is solid evidence of over population.

I can use a similar example with fresh water. Explosive population growth has placed huge demands on the limited fresh water resources of the planet. Across the planet were seeing fast increases in deforestation, dessertification, lowering of aquifer levels, decrease of fresh water surface levels in open bodies of fresh water and decreased volumes in surface streams and rivers. In turn we are seeing increased competition for the finite fresh water rersources available in many parts of the world, this is, again, evidence of over population.

Of course it has to do with resources. We could have so much more land under cultivation, and be using our technology to develop food growing technologies. But the powers that be are fearful of other people, and are afraid of losing control, so they restrict the food supply, and put prices so high that people starve..

Population reduction is a goal of the United Nations, so overpopulation is the myth they create to justify their inhumane treatment.

We could spend trillions on desalinization plants instead of bailing out bankers.

There aren't too many humans, there is intentionally bad logistics to make people suffer and ensure complete control of the planet by a self selected elite.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 09:06 AM
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 09:09 AM
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ4

What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?
The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous "one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.

The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 09:12 AM
Of course it has to do with resources. We could have so much more land under cultivation, and be using our technology to develop food growing technologies. But the powers that be are fearful of other people, and are afraid of losing control, so they restrict the food supply, and put prices so high that people starve..

Population reduction is a goal of the United Nations, so overpopulation is the myth they create to justify their inhumane treatment.

We could spend trillions on desalinization plants instead of bailing out bankers.

There aren't too many humans, there is intentionally bad logistics to make people suffer and ensure complete control of the planet by a self selected elite.Dude, you dont' get it. It's not about just how much land you have under cultivation. That don't mean shit if you dont' have the ability to put the seeds in the ground, fertilize and protect them from pest, cultivate and harvest the food produced, then transport, store and distribute that food to the people whom consume it. If you don't have the fossil fuels to provide the energy to accomplish these tasks the amount of land you want to have under cultivation doesn't mean shit because you are limited by available fuels sources.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 09:19 AM
Dude, you dont' get it. It's not about just how much land you have under cultivation. That don't mean shit if you dont' have the ability to put the seeds in the ground, fertilize and protect them from pest, cultivate and harvest the food produced, then transport, store and distribute that food to the people whom consume it. If you don't have the fossil fuels to provide the energy to accomplish these tasks the amount of land you want to have under cultivation doesn't mean shit because you are limited by available fuels sources.

We have people power. People can grow food themselves. The centralization/specialization of food prodution is perhaps not the best idea.

uscitizen
10-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Much of FL has been overpopulated for years.

The proof is in the water restrictions that have been in place for more than 10 years in many places.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 10:00 AM
Much of FL has been overpopulated for years.

The proof is in the water restrictions that have been in place for more than 10 years in many places.

I don't think water restrictions prove overpopulation.

Thorn
10-03-2009, 10:13 AM
I don't think water restrictions prove overpopulation.

If we judge from where I live, water restrictions are a final, last gasp admission by local authorities that there is, indeed, a shortage of fresh water. Without fresh water there can be no crops, no kitchen gardens, no sustainable life. Too many of the existing fresh water resources are being depleted because they're being diverted to regions such as Arizona and southern California that do not have these resources. The mouth of the Rio Grande dried up in 2000 (National Geographic Magazine, Sept. 2001 edition), and the Colorado River and other waterways are seriously depleted. The Ogallalla Aquifer (sp?) is being systematically depleted and cannot be replenished. Nobody knows where the water came from in the first place, though speculation suggests the last ice age.

No water = no plants, no animals, no insects for pollination, no oxygen. That's the short list.

You've stressed the uses of fertilization to increase food yield. Remember that Mott pointed out that fertilizers and pesticides (also necessary for high yield) are both petroleum based and we're gobbling up that supply.

Most people here no longer have huge families, but there are exceptions (that 18 kids and counting family are now expecting their 19th, I hear). One grad student from our department came from a family of 22 kids, of which 14 had survived. Apparently that's common where he comes from.

We can't afford to do that any longer. Education seems to be the key, and a higher standard of living, which permits survival of existing children, tends both to provide education and to reduce the procreation rate.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 10:15 AM
If we judge from where I live, water restrictions are a final, last gasp admission by local authorities that there is, indeed, a shortage of fresh water. Without fresh water there can be no crops, no kitchen gardens, no sustainable life. Too many of the existing fresh water resources are being depleted because they're being diverted to regions such as Arizona and southern California that do not have these resources. The mouth of the Rio Grande dried up in 2000 (National Geographic Magazine, Sept. 2001 edition), and the Colorado River and other waterways are seriously depleted. The Ogallalla Aquifer (sp?) is being systematically depleted and cannot be replenished. Nobody knows where the water came from in the first place, though speculation suggests the last ice age.

No water = no plants, no animals, no insects for pollination, no oxygen. That's the short list.

You've stressed the uses of fertilization to increase food yield. Remember that Mott pointed out that fertilizers and pesticides (also necessary for high yield) are both petroleum based and we're gobbling up that supply.

Most people here no longer have huge families, but there are exceptions (that 18 kids and counting family are now expecting their 19th, I hear). One grad student from our department came from a family of 22 kids, of which 14 had survived. Apparently that's common where he comes from.

We can't afford to do that any longer. Education seems to be the key, and a higher standard of living, which permits survival of existing children, tends both to provide education and to reduce the procreation rate.

Our earth is 3/4 water. It's a logistics issue which could be solved if there was will enough to do it.

Are we paying farmers not to grow food? Yes or no.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 10:20 AM
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/956
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SEEDS SELF-DESTRUCT AFTER ONE PLANTING, FORCING FARMERS IN "THIRD WORLD" NATIONS TO CONTINUALLY DEPEND ON FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR THEIR SEEDS.

One may not believe their eyes after reading this (AFRICANS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA, TROPICAL AFRICA, INDIA, THE WORLD, LISTEN GOOD).

According to the September issue of Scientific American Magazine, seed companies and their scientists are now thinking about developing genetically engineered seeds, from natural foods found in the tropics. These seeds will only be capable of producing foods ONCE, and the genetic engineers will have the power to sell more seeds, while the local seeds would become contaminated and local farmers would have to depend on foreign companies for their seeds.

In California, there is about 11 months of dry weather. In fact much of California is in the high mountains or desert regions, some of it is near the coasts or the far north. Yet, most of California's best land is in regions that were dry lake beds or deserts that are sometimes identical in looks to parts of West Africa Sahel and the regions of Sudan and Southern Africa. In fact after Texas, California has the type of hot climate (110-125 degrees F, that one finds in parts of Africa), yet because of good and efficient irrigation, California's billion-dollar industry is agricultural produce. (hear this African leaders...West Indians others...its agriculture)

Therefore, the idea of taking African seeds and having foreign scientists genetically engineer seeds to produce only once is really committing genocide. How can any nation on earth agree to this scheme of destruction and dependence



This is what our best minds do with their time.

This reveals the true agenda of the elites.

Thorn
10-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Our earth is 3/4 water. It's a logistics issue which could be solved if there was will enough to do it.
Are we paying farmers not to grow food? Yes or no.

By whom? C'mon, so far you're leaving all the work on the shoulders and inspiration of other people! If you don't understand what is required to do this, why are you so adamant that it's easy or even possible on the scale that would be required?

The real point is that in order to survive at any standard that we would deem acceptable, (or at all) we need the biological diversity that we have. That diversity requires that a balance be maintained, and too much stress or consumption of one resource at the expense of another will disrupt that balance and have far-reaching consequences. That means that we simply cannot afford for the human population to continue growing at its present rate. Education and increasing the standard of living worldwide are related ways to encourage the growth reduction rate voluntarily.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 10:26 AM
By whom? C'mon, so far you're leaving all the work on the shoulders and inspiration of other people! If you don't understand what is required to do this, why are you so adamant that it's easy or even possible on the scale that would be required?

The real point is that in order to survive at any standard that we would deem acceptable, (or at all) we need the biological diversity that we have. That diversity requires that a balance be maintained, and too much stress or consumption of one resource at the expense of another will disrupt that balance and have far-reaching consequences. That means that we simply cannot afford for the human population to continue growing at its present rate. Education and increasing the standard of living worldwide are related ways to encourage the growth reduction rate voluntarily.

By whoever.

Yes you and your proactive murder regime are certainly to be admired. NOT.

Your specious murderous logic is fradulent.

Thorn
10-03-2009, 10:30 AM
By whoever.

Yes you and your proactive murder regime are certainly to be admired. NOT.

Your specious murderous logic is fradulent.

OK, you know that nobody is talking about murdering anybody. I haven't seen anything by anyone about "culling the herd" so to speak. The emphasis is on voluntarily keeping family size down, and that's perfectly easy and simple to do.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 10:33 AM
OK, you know that nobody is talking about murdering anybody. I haven't seen anything by anyone about "culling the herd" so to speak. The emphasis is on voluntarily keeping family size down, and that's perfectly easy and simple to do.

That's not the emphasis. The emphasis is on reducing human biomass with an array of anti-human brainwash regimes, and a real reduction in access to resources.

check this out



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/
In "Population Control," Mr. Mosher incisively explores the history and effects of the population control movement from a pro-people perspective, based on the belief that because each person has unique value, more people means more for all of us — more economic production, more potential for artistic and scientific achievement, more innovation. Another recent book on population control, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population" by Matthew Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University, criticizes the human rights abuses committed by population controllers but also criticizes efforts by the Catholic Church and others to increase fertility in a world threatened by anti-natal forces.

Not only have the facts proved Mr. Mosher's Christian-derived beliefs true — the tremendous increase in global population since World War II has been accompanied by tremendous increases in prosperity and scientific achievement instead of the mass starvation and other disastrous consequences predicted by population controllers — but he sounds the alarm about the coming underpopulation crisis.Population control, including its First World variant of anti-family materialism, has become far too successful.

The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.

It used to be that folks relied on their children to help them on the farm or in their businesses, and especially in their old age. Economic incentives encouraged childbearing. But now socialism has taken over that role of families. "As [demographer] Phillip Longman has remarked, the modern nanny state has created a strange new world in which the most 'successful' individuals in material terms are the most 'unfit' in biological terms," Mr. Mosher writes."In all previous ages of human history wealth and children went hand-in-hand."

This brave new world in which children are both culturally and economically undesired could lead to the dissolution of whole societies, particularly Western ones, as they age and their social security systems go bankrupt through a dearth of taxpaying young people, Mr. Mosher suggests.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 11:21 AM
Malthusian Murederous meme

Thomas Robert Malthus Classical economics

Thomas Robert Malthus
Birth February 13, 1766(1766-02-13)
(Surrey, England)
Death December 23, 1834 (aged 68)
(Bath, England)
Nationality British
Field demography, macroeconomics, evolutionary economics[citation needed]
Influences Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi
Opposed William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Ricardo
Influenced Charles Darwin, Francis Place, Garrett Hardin, John Maynard Keynes, Pierre Francois Verhulst, Alfred Russel Wallace, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong
Contributions Malthusian growth model

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus FRS (13 February 1766 – 23 December 1834),[1] was a British scholar, influential in political economy and demography.[2][3] Malthus popularised the economic theory of rent.[4]

Malthus has become widely known for his analysis whereby societal improvements result in population growth which, he states, sooner or later gets checked by famine, disease, and widespread mortality. He wrote in the context of the popular view, in 18th century Europe, that saw society as improving, and in principle as perfectible.[5] William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, for example, believed in the possibility of almost limitless improvement of society. So, in a more complex way, did Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose notions centered on the goodness of man and the liberty of citizens bound only by the social contract, a form of popular sovereignty.

Malthus saw such ideas of endless progress towards a utopian society as vitiated because of the dangers of population growth: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man".[6] As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour.[7] Believing that one could not change human nature, and that egalitarian societies were prone to over-population[citation needed], Malthus wrote in dramatic terms: "epidemics, pestilence and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world".[8]

Malthus placed the longer-term stability of the economy above short-term expediency. He criticised the Poor Laws,[9] and (alone among important contemporary economists) supported the Corn Laws, which introduced a system of taxes on British imports of wheat. He thought these measures would encourage domestic production, and so promote long-term benefit.[10]

Malthus became hugely influential, and controversial, in economic, political, social and scientific thought. Many of those whom subsequent centuries sometimes term "evolutionary biologists" also read him,[11] notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection.[12][13] Malthus remains a writer of great significance, and debate continues as to whether his direst expectations will come about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

uscitizen
10-03-2009, 11:31 AM
Yeah the earth is 3/4 water but well over 98% of that is poison to plants and animals.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 11:32 AM
Yeah the earth is 3/4 water but well over 98% of that is poison to plants and animals.

SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE it is.:rolleyes:

USFREEDOM911
10-03-2009, 11:51 AM
By whom? C'mon, so far you're leaving all the work on the shoulders and inspiration of other people! If you don't understand what is required to do this, why are you so adamant that it's easy or even possible on the scale that would be required?

The real point is that in order to survive at any standard that we would deem acceptable, (or at all) we need the biological diversity that we have. That diversity requires that a balance be maintained, and too much stress or consumption of one resource at the expense of another will disrupt that balance and have far-reaching consequences. That means that we simply cannot afford for the human population to continue growing at its present rate. Education and increasing the standard of living worldwide are related ways to encourage the growth reduction rate voluntarily.


The fact that we're overdue for a major meteor strike, might just take care of this problem.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 11:53 AM
The fact that we're overdue for a major meteor strike, might just take care of this problem.

The problem of humanity? When did humans become a problem?

Thorn's idiotic talk about balance and diversity is just not compelling.

USFREEDOM911
10-03-2009, 11:58 AM
The problem of humanity? When did humans become a problem?

Thorn's idiotic talk about balance and diversity is just not compelling.

We've become to complacent, we rely on to many others, to many don't know what to do when they lose their jobs.
Just think what the majority would do, if they had to rely on themselves or a small grouip.

I don't believe that humans were meant to be herd minded.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 12:31 PM
We've become to complacent, we rely on to many others, to many don't know what to do when they lose their jobs.
Just think what the majority would do, if they had to rely on themselves or a small grouip.

I don't believe that humans were meant to be herd minded.

WTF does that have to do with overpopulation?

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 12:41 PM
Sheeps are the ones who allow themselve to be led to the slaughter.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 12:42 PM
Malthusian murderous memes of misanthropy.

USFREEDOM911
10-03-2009, 02:15 PM
WTF does that have to do with overpopulation?

I think it tends to have people to have larger families; because they feel that they've got enough safety nets to help them, no matter what.

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 02:17 PM
I think it tends to have people to have larger families; because they feel that they've got enough safety nets to help them, no matter what.

That's true. Children are more reliable than a government run by elites who hate us. *shrug*

apple0154
10-03-2009, 03:46 PM
This is what our best minds do with their time.

This reveals the true agenda of the elites.

I wonder if, one day, they'll genetically engineer people so folks have one shot at reproducing.

Now, before one gets their panties in a knot consider the implications. There would be far fewer abortions because everyone would know that was their one shot.

People would be highly selective. Responsible.

What do you think of that idea, Asshat?

apple0154
10-03-2009, 03:49 PM
Oops

apple0154
10-03-2009, 04:29 PM
That's not the emphasis. The emphasis is on reducing human biomass with an array of anti-human brainwash regimes, and a real reduction in access to resources.

check this out

Excerpt from msg 80. "This brave new world in which children are both culturally and economically undesired could lead to the dissolution of whole societies, particularly Western ones, as they age and their social security systems go bankrupt through a dearth of taxpaying young people, Mr. Mosher suggests." (END)

Here's what we need. YouTube - Female robot looks like real OR YouTube - Realistic Robot Woman OR YouTube - fembot

Maybe it's time to retool the auto industry. One type of car. A few choices of robots.

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 04:35 PM
We have people power. People can grow food themselves. The centralization/specialization of food prodution is perhaps not the best idea.You still don't get it. We need fossil fuels to plant, grow, harvest, transport, store and distribute that food. People power is not the limiting resource, neither is land. Fossil fuels and their availability are the limiting factor here.

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Much of FL has been overpopulated for years.

The proof is in the water restrictions that have been in place for more than 10 years in many places.Exactly!

Mott the Hoople
10-03-2009, 04:40 PM
OK, you know that nobody is talking about murdering anybody. I haven't seen anything by anyone about "culling the herd" so to speak. The emphasis is on voluntarily keeping family size down, and that's perfectly easy and simple to do.Are you beginning to see why we insist that Asshat eat pudding with a plastic spoon?

Hermes Thoth
10-03-2009, 04:44 PM
Are you beginning to see why we insist that Asshat eat pudding with a plastic spoon?

Of course, because ad hominem attacks are all you have against my intellectual onslaught.:rolleyes:

Thorn
10-03-2009, 06:39 PM
Of course, because ad hominem attacks are all you have against my intellectual onslaught.:rolleyes:

O-o-oka-a-ay ... :rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
10-04-2009, 05:48 AM
O-o-oka-a-ay ... :rolleyes:

Snarky responses don't buttress your argument.

Hermes Thoth
10-04-2009, 06:02 AM
You still don't get it. We need fossil fuels to plant, grow, harvest, transport, store and distribute that food. People power is not the limiting resource, neither is land. Fossil fuels and their availability are the limiting factor here.

If people grow their own food locally there is no need for this logistical nightmare.

You need to include other options in your thinking, instead of just mindlessly embracing the anti-human mantras of the murderous elite.

Hermes Thoth
10-04-2009, 06:03 AM
Central planning is fine, but sometimes the best plan is distributed execution.

midcan5
10-04-2009, 06:44 AM
This is the world now. "In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations."

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

Hermes Thoth
10-04-2009, 06:46 AM
This is the world now. "In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations."

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

This has to do with the policies with which the elites rule the world, not with the true human carrying capacity of earth.

DamnYankee
10-05-2009, 09:46 AM
Huh? Are you on strong medication?
Not at all.

apple0154
10-05-2009, 10:08 AM
Not at all.

Ahhh, recreational drugs, huh?

DamnYankee
10-05-2009, 10:48 AM
Ahhh, recreational drugs, huh?I can see that you're attempting to deflect, and its been a few days, so let's re-cap:

You said:
It's truly incredible how you miss the main point. It is not the relationship with the mother, per se. It's rightfully questioning to what use his contribution is being used, vis-à-vis the child.

When it comes to shirking ones responsibility there are many situations where people have said, "I was ordered to do that", thereby relieving themselves of any responsibility.

So I asked a question:
So your position is that men are ordered to have sex with women?

Ar you going to answer my question?

apple0154
10-05-2009, 07:26 PM
I can see that you're attempting to deflect, and its been a few days, so let's re-cap:

So I asked a question: (insert: So your position is that men are ordered to have sex with women? )

Are you going to answer my question?

Why would you ask if that's my position? I never alluded to any such thing.

DamnYankee
10-05-2009, 07:35 PM
Why would you ask if that's my position? I never alluded to any such thing. Then what were the men ordered to do?

apple0154
10-05-2009, 08:04 PM
Then what were the men ordered to do?

Make support payments.

DamnYankee
10-06-2009, 06:14 AM
Make support payments. A man should support his family. A real man does voluntarily, gladly.

apple0154
10-06-2009, 05:10 PM
A man should support his family. A real man does voluntarily, gladly.

There are more than a few instances where the man's support payments go to supporting the EX's "accustomed standard of living" rather than being used for the children. When it's time for the children to go to college or are seeking help with the down payment on a house the man doesn't have the necessary funds as they were squandered by the EX.

cancel2 2022
10-06-2009, 06:11 PM
There are more than a few instances where the man's support payments go to supporting the EX's "accustomed standard of living" rather than being used for the children. When it's time for the children to go to college or are seeking help with the down payment on a house the man doesn't have the necessary funds as they were squandered by the EX.


John Cleese is a good example of how crazy Californian divorce laws are, there wasn't even any children involved.

John Cleese has to pay £12.5 million in his divorce settlement. (Source (http://www.lads-stash.com/celebrity/John+Cleese-28034.html))
The 'Monty Python' comedian will have to give over half of his estimated fortune to third wife Alyce Faye Eichelberger, after a ruling made by a Californian court - leaving her richer than him.
Cleese, 69, has been forced into agreeing to a settlement worth £8 million in cash and assets, alongside £612,000 annually for the next seven years.
It is estimated he will be left with a fortune of around £10 million.
Joking about the decision, Cleese said: "I got off lightly. Think what I'd have had to pay if she'd contributed anything!"
In support (http://www.lads-stash.com/celebrity/John+Cleese-28034.html#) of the comic star, his film director friend Michael Winner said: "The result is extraordinary. Alyce lived in a council flat when they met.
"As he put it, 'What I find so unfair is that if we both died today, her children would get much more than mine.'
"There are no dependent children. If ever there was a case for prenuptial agreements, this is it."
It's going to be very, very expensive, but it will be worth every penny. Cleese has two adult children, Cynthia and Camilla, from his marriages to actresses Connie Booth and Barbara Trentham respectively, while Eichelberger has two sons from her previous marriage.
The settlement marks the end of a 19-month battle for the 'Life of Brian' actor and his psychotherapist ex-wife, whom he married in 1992.
Originally Eichelberger had been claiming £900,000-a-year maintenance, two houses and half of all earnings Cleese had amassed during their marriage.

(http://www.lads-stash.com/comment/add/?a=/celebrity/John+Cleese-28034.html)
Cleese split from Booth and Trentham amicably and without the need for lawyers.
He previously said of his divorce from Eichelberger: "It's going to be very, very expensive, but it will be worth every penny."
Your Comments:

Add your comments (http://www.lads-stash.com/comment/add/?a=/celebrity/John+Cleese-28034.html)
by Christina Weston - 17:22:03 19th Aug 2009
John, Will you marry me? I promise to only ask for half of what she did!


http://www.lads-stash.com/image-library/port/376/j/john-cleese-awi-7.jpg (http://www.lads-stash.com/image-pop.php?image=/image-library/port/500/j/john-cleese-awi-7.jpg) John Cleese
enlarge (http://www.lads-stash.com/image-pop.php?image=/image-library/port/500/j/john-cleese-awi-7.jpg)

Share this article: http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20)

Taichiliberal
10-06-2009, 06:38 PM
Over-population becomes a problem because human beings take one societal format and try to apply it globally. Urbanization should never have been the blueprint for "civilization" around the globe, but a history of conquering armies has done that deal. Cultures that originally were agrarian and/or nomadic kept there practices of large families, as it was internalized as religious and cultural identity. Couple this with the city/suburbs blueprints...and you screw up natural resources.

DamnYankee
10-06-2009, 07:50 PM
There are more than a few instances where the man's support payments go to supporting the EX's "accustomed standard of living" rather than being used for the children. When it's time for the children to go to college or are seeking help with the down payment on a house the man doesn't have the necessary funds as they were squandered by the EX. Then the man should monitor this situation and report it to the judge, who would likely reward custody of the children to the man.

You argument is based on three theories on top of one another:
1. The man makes a poor decision in his choice of a wife;
2. The man can't manage the woman and she divorces him;
3. The man can't manage the divorce and so his kids get screwed.

And this is all in response to my post 48 where I pointed out the weakness of the liberal man. How ironic.

apple0154
10-06-2009, 09:38 PM
Then the man should monitor this situation and report it to the judge, who would likely reward custody of the children to the man.

You argument is based on three theories on top of one another:
1. The man makes a poor decision in his choice of a wife;
2. The man can't manage the woman and she divorces him;
3. The man can't manage the divorce and so his kids get screwed.

And this is all in response to my post 48 where I pointed out the weakness of the liberal man. How ironic.

Well, all I can say is "Congratulations" on the ability to manage women.

I think I'll just leave it at that. :whome:

Minister of Truth
10-06-2009, 09:56 PM
Over-population becomes a problem because human beings take one societal format and try to apply it globally. Urbanization should never have been the blueprint for "civilization" around the globe, but a history of conquering armies has done that deal. Cultures that originally were agrarian and/or nomadic kept there practices of large families, as it was internalized as religious and cultural identity. Couple this with the city/suburbs blueprints...and you screw up natural resources.

Our Agrarian Paradises in the US led to the longevity of slavery, the rise of populist politics, and a culture of failure. I do not recommend it, except to those who really love the agrarian life, and do not weaken their character as a result (i.e. Jefferson and many of the agrarian Founding Fathers).

Lowaicue
10-06-2009, 10:04 PM
Over population is when there are too many people around me, not when there are too many people around you.

DamnYankee
10-07-2009, 06:08 AM
Well, all I can say is "Congratulations" on the ability to manage women.

I think I'll just leave it at that. :whome: I figured that you would, given the devastating impact of my argument on the feminized, liberal man. :)

Taichiliberal
10-07-2009, 03:56 PM
Our Agrarian Paradises in the US led to the longevity of slavery, the rise of populist politics, and a culture of failure.

I do not recommend it, except to those who really love the agrarian life, and do not weaken their character as a result (i.e. Jefferson and many of the agrarian Founding Fathers).

Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past

USFREEDOM911
10-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past


They also had slaves.

Why was that??

Minister of Truth
10-10-2009, 02:15 PM
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past


Indentured servitude did lead to slavery, but it particularly led to Americans getting used to the idea of treating people with brutality, as our white indentures had about a 40% death rate.

If you have a problem with property, then obviously you should steer clear of a free, Lockean society. Nice cliched communist talking points, though.

Taichiliberal
10-10-2009, 04:18 PM
Indentured servitude did lead to slavery, but it particularly led to Americans getting used to the idea of treating people with brutality, as our white indentures had about a 40% death rate.

Big difference between being a slave brought over on a slave ship from the African continent, and being an indentured servant who made the choice to come to America with the promise/hope of eventually working towards independence. I get sick and tired of people trying to put them on equal footing.

If you have a problem with property, then obviously you should steer clear of a free, Lockean society. Nice cliched communist talking points, though.


Oh spare me the bullshit, will ya? Every blessed time someone points out the flaws as to how the European social/economic edicts screwed over the native Americans and has lead to our current problems, jokers like you start wailing about communism. I said mistakes could have been AVOIDED so that our land would NOT be in the dire ecological straits that it is...never said anything about switching to communism. Deal with it.

Minister of Truth
10-11-2009, 04:30 PM
You are the one who attacked property rights. I said nothing about property or communism until you chimed in with your drivel.

The sociological study of indentured servitude is the best way to understand how chattel slavery developed in the US. Ultimately, the only differences between the two were race (whites didn't become slaves, obviously), time of service (5-12 years vs. life), and the middle passage and choice, of course.

People grew cultural accustomed to treating indentured servants so miserably that many tried to escape, and 40% of them died while in service. Also, masters increasingly reneged on parts of their contracts, such as refusing to pay out pieces of land and/or financial promises to outgoing servants. It was a system with great promise that quickly turned barbaric. Unlike with slaves, there is no particular reason for an indenture to have longevity, when you will be letting them go free in a maximum of 12 years.

Taichiliberal
10-11-2009, 05:59 PM
You are the one who attacked property rights. I said nothing about property or communism until you chimed in with your drivel.

How is pointing out the historical facts and flaws of American history "attacking" property rights? Nowhere did I state that property rights should be abolished, and I defy you to provide proof via a quote where I did. If you can't, then your BS about communism is just that...BS.

The sociological study of indentured servitude is the best way to understand how chattel slavery developed in the US. Ultimately, the only differences between the two were race (whites didn't become slaves, obviously), time of service (5-12 years vs. life), and the middle passage and choice, of course.

Bull fucking shit! When you can provide documented, historical proof that Europeans of a certain economic class were captured against their will, stuffed into the bowels of ships, sent to America and then sold at auctions, etc., not treating as a whole human being based on race, etc...then you may have a case. Until then, you repeat a lame and tired effort by some to diminish the sheer racial evilness of American slavery by those who perpetraited it.

People grew cultural accustomed to treating indentured servants so miserably that many tried to escape, and 40% of them died while in service. Also, masters increasingly reneged on parts of their contracts, such as refusing to pay out pieces of land and/or financial promises to outgoing servants. It was a system with great promise that quickly turned barbaric. Unlike with slaves, there is no particular reason for an indenture to have longevity, when you will be letting them go free in a maximum of 12 years.

Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.

Minister of Truth
10-12-2009, 12:23 AM
Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.

This is what you said:


Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past


You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery. Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway. In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.

And no, it cannot work when the ideal is liberty. If the ideal is merely a pacified mass of subjects, then removing their rights and claims to property will certainly help achieve that end. At least, it may help crush their spirit, so that they are a less likely threat to the system.

apple0154
10-12-2009, 04:52 AM
You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery. Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway. In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.

It had less to do with property rights/territory and more to do with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o00IRADa0i8&feature=related"

Hermes Thoth
10-12-2009, 05:57 AM
TaiChi acts like white people invented slavery. It actually has a rich multiethnic global history.

Hermes Thoth
10-12-2009, 05:58 AM
More slaves went to the middleast than the americas, but they cut all their nuts off, so the modern population doesn't reflect the blackness.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.


This is what you said:


Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past

You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery.
Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway.

No, I pointed out a COMBINATION, not put each item on equal level per se. And again, there is NOTHING inaccurate about what I wrote.

In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.

I never stated that the Native people were perfect or immune to ideas of territory. What I have stated from the outset is that the Europeans brought over THERE PARTICULAR IDEA OF PROPERTY (or territory, if you like). They enforced that onto a new landscape...and the results are deforestation, pollution and over-population. In other words, what they did to Europe, they did here. The various Native tribes lived WITH the land....which is why in certain regions you had HUGE NATIONS of certain tribes....but WITH a thriving eco-system.

And no, it cannot work when the ideal is liberty. It already did, as history shows. If the ideal is merely a pacified mass of subjects, then removing their rights and claims to property will certainly help achieve that end. At least, it may help crush their spirit, so that they are a less likely threat to the system.
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 04:44 PM
TaiChi acts like white people invented slavery. It actually has a rich multiethnic global history.

That is your warped interpretation....as I never said or alluded to anything of the sort. 3D and I were discussing American Slavery and Indentured Servitude.

Hermes Thoth
10-12-2009, 04:54 PM
That is your warped interpretation....as I never said or alluded to anything of the sort. 3D and I were discussing American Slavery and Indentured Servitude.

And you act like white people invented it. I understand. My comments are apropos.

Hermes Thoth
10-12-2009, 04:56 PM
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.

We're not even close to the maximum human carrying capacity of earth.

This scarcity mentality is just fearmongering to get people to agree to genocide against others.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 05:37 PM
And you act like white people invented it. I understand. My comments are apropos.

You're repeating yourself, yet you provide no proof to back up your accusation. What did I specifically state that gives cause for your assertion? Copy and paste it here, then we have a point of discussion beyond your general opinion.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 05:42 PM
We're not even close to the maximum human carrying capacity of earth.

This scarcity mentality is just fearmongering to get people to agree to genocide against others.

Now, stop and think what you are saying....."maximum human capacity".....exactly what are the living conditions required to reach that? Right now you have areas of poverty all over the world that are indications of what life would be like just approaching what you allude to here (case in point, a fire reported today in Brazil's vast shanty town area). Are you willing to live in such conditions? Or condemn your children or grand children to such a fate?

And just where did I advocate genocide? If you cannot produce a quote from me that states or alludes to such, then you are grossly misinterpreting what I am saying.

DamnYankee
10-12-2009, 06:31 PM
We're not even close to the maximum human carrying capacity of earth.

This scarcity mentality is just fearmongering to get people to agree to genocide against others. Over 60% of abortion clinics are situated in black neighborhoods.

Minister of Truth
10-12-2009, 08:46 PM
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.

1) I consider criticism of property rights and ownership to be an indication of tyranny.

2) While pollution is far greater, there are actually more trees standing in the US today than there were in 1776. Deforestation may be occurring in Brazil, and other parts of the world, but it is not something we can really do anything about.

3) I actually don't think over-population would occur naturally in an agrarian society, because lack of scientific and technological progress would ensure a lower quality of life, and less access to underdeveloped medicines, etc. The reason why the populations of India and China are able to occur is a result of Western influence, such as volumes of bioengineered wheat to people in India (who would otherwise die of mass starvations) and the advances China has seen in the past 20 years, becoming a world power.

Damocles
10-13-2009, 07:26 AM
It had less to do with property rights/territory and more to do with this.
YouTube - Running Bear - Johnny Preston - Original recording 1959 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o00IRADa0i8&feature=related)
You know little. One tribe and one song do not a culture encapsulate, let alone several hundred different cultures. The idea that all Native Americans were and are together on any issue is ridiculous, had they been the whites would never have been able to take over this place.

DamnYankee
10-13-2009, 07:35 AM
That's what happens when you "learn" history from popular culture.

apple0154
10-13-2009, 07:53 PM
You know little. One tribe and one song do not a culture encapsulate, let alone several hundred different cultures. The idea that all Native Americans were and are together on any issue is ridiculous, had they been the whites would never have been able to take over this place.

I know little? Besides your grievous lack of humor name one culture that does not protect their females who are at the beginning of their child bearing age. That was what the song was about. Running Bear wanted Little White Dove and that wasn't going to happen in this life.

However, they did go to the great hunting ground in the sky.

Damocles
10-13-2009, 09:59 PM
I know little? Besides your grievous lack of humor name one culture that does not protect their females who are at the beginning of their child bearing age. That was what the song was about. Running Bear wanted Little White Dove and that wasn't going to happen in this life.

However, they did go to the great hunting ground in the sky.
I know what the song was about. However you simply passed over my point. There were many cultures among Native Americans that employed many of the techniques you consider barbaric even now. Including slavery, torture and other things. They were not one homogeneous people, nor were they all superior in their character.

Different cultures looked at territory differently, however there were wars consistently over territory. It was what fed you, housed you, and what you knew. Just like the previous poster stated, most of the wars between native American tribes was over exactly that. One can couch it into "well they fought for their kids"... but so could somebody today speak of current military actions. Even ones that were preemptive.

Simply put, had Native Americans been one people the US would not exist as Native Americans would not have lost those wars. And even when some saw what was happening and how to solve it Native Americans could not resolve the differences enough to come together to fight off the greater enemy.

We constantly look at what the white people did to this place and work to show the negatives of their actions, yet ignore the negative aspects of the Native Cultures they fought against. The whites were not always the demon depicted in the current more popular versions of history.

Taichiliberal
10-13-2009, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.


1) I consider criticism of property rights and ownership to be an indication of tyranny. A that, my friend, smacks of an attitude found in fascists gov't...where NO criticism on any level is tolerated. Again, I did NOT advocate a dismantling of property rights or the concept of ownership...I merely pointed out that the EXACT same formula brought over from Europe ends up with the same results....pollution, over-population of the land.
2) While pollution is far greater, there are actually more trees standing in the US today than there were in 1776. What? Was that do to natural occurence or through artificial means (transplanting)? And are taking into account the urbanization (major cities and suburbs) that now sits in areas once rambling with meadows or forests and streams? Sorry to inform you, but in Manhattan you can see works of art from a century ago that depict what parts of that city use to look like...and it puts a serious crimp in your statement. Deforestation may be occurring in Brazil, and other parts of the world, but it is not something we can really do anything about. Sorry to inform you, but the deforestation in Brazil is a direct result of demands from certain types of wood and such from outside countries, INCLUDING THE USA. Like it or not, we contribute to the bad policies of that country.

3) I actually don't think over-population would occur naturally in an agrarian society, because lack of scientific and technological progress would ensure a lower quality of life, and less access to underdeveloped medicines, etc. Not quite....look at the great societies of South America, who were destroyed not so much by famine but by their warring ways and over-extension of their empires. As I said, it would occur, but on a much slower rate. Remember, agrarian does NOT mean a total absence of technology (industrial and medicinal), or the development of such. Case in point, look at China. The reason why the populations of India and China are able to occur is a result of Western influence, such as volumes of bioengineered wheat to people in India (who would otherwise die of mass starvations) and the advances China has seen in the past 20 years, becoming a world power.

You're wrong....China and India had VAST empires centuries before the Europeans came to the point of developing certain medicines. Dynasties came and went, knowledge gained and lost. To date, much Chinese traditional medicine does what "modern" Euro-Western medicine can't...and visa versa.

Minister of Truth
10-13-2009, 11:05 PM
You're wrong....China and India had VAST empires centuries before the Europeans came to the point of developing certain medicines. Dynasties came and went, knowledge gained and lost. To date, much Chinese traditional medicine does what "modern" Euro-Western medicine can't...and visa versa.

Yes they did, and like so many empires of the West, East, Africa, etc., they crumbled with the ages. Your comments about Chinese medicine remind me of the naturalpath debate which is going on in another thread, and which pops up occasionally on this site. I am aware of many of the criticisms outlining the deficiencies of Western medicine, but not of the praises of traditional Chinese medicine, so I will not comment further on it.

Thorn
10-14-2009, 11:14 AM
Yes they did, and like so many empires of the West, East, Africa, etc., they crumbled with the ages. Your comments about Chinese medicine remind me of the naturalpath debate which is going on in another thread, and which pops up occasionally on this site. I am aware of many of the criticisms outlining the deficiencies of Western medicine, but not of the praises of traditional Chinese medicine, so I will not comment further on it.

Having worked occasionally with physicians from China, I'll say only that I'm really not impressed, and leave it at that.

TuTu Monroe
10-14-2009, 12:38 PM
I know little? Besides your grievous lack of humor name one culture that does not protect their females who are at the beginning of their child bearing age. That was what the song was about. Running Bear wanted Little White Dove and that wasn't going to happen in this life.

However, they did go to the great hunting ground in the sky.

Your Running Bear and Don't Go Near the Indians were fantastic.
Not everyone can appreciate them.

apple0154
10-14-2009, 07:15 PM
Your Running Bear and Don't Go Near the Indians were fantastic.
Not everyone can appreciate them.

Just as Running Bear looked across the raging river at Little White Dove so doth Sitting Apple gaze across the web at Graceful Swan Tu Tu.

TuTu Monroe
10-14-2009, 08:44 PM
Just as Running Bear looked across the raging river at Little White Dove so doth Sitting Apple gaze across the web at Graceful Swan Tu Tu.

Ohhhh, be still my beating heart. http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020144.gif (http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=10)








(http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=12)

Taichiliberal
10-14-2009, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're wrong....China and India had VAST empires centuries before the Europeans came to the point of developing certain medicines. Dynasties came and went, knowledge gained and lost. To date, much Chinese traditional medicine does what "modern" Euro-Western medicine can't...and visa versa.


Yes they did, and like so many empires of the West, East, Africa, etc., they crumbled with the ages. Your comments about Chinese medicine remind me of the naturalpath debate which is going on in another thread, and which pops up occasionally on this site. I am aware of many of the criticisms outlining the deficiencies of Western medicine, but not of the praises of traditional Chinese medicine, so I will not comment further on it.

You don't need to comment....it's a matter of fact and history that traditional Chinese medicine does a lot that modern Euro/Western medicine cannot. It ain't magic and has limitations, but is damned impressive in a lot of ways. And remember, were talking about what survived the purges of the Maoist during the Communist Revolution....stupid, evil bastards destroyed God knows how much accumulated texts in their insane quest to rewrite history.

But back to the original point...you forget that China and India's population's and dynasties were both thriving by the time European invasions/infiltrations took place. Mind you, you had your plagues and such (dentistry severly limited if not non-existent), but it work and the civilization thrived. Here's a point of interest: India and over-population. A lot of lessons to be learned there.

Hermes Thoth
10-22-2009, 10:45 AM
You don't need to comment....it's a matter of fact and history that traditional Chinese medicine does a lot that modern Euro/Western medicine cannot. It ain't magic and has limitations, but is damned impressive in a lot of ways. And remember, were talking about what survived the purges of the Maoist during the Communist Revolution....stupid, evil bastards destroyed God knows how much accumulated texts in their insane quest to rewrite history.

But back to the original point...you forget that China and India's population's and dynasties were both thriving by the time European invasions/infiltrations took place. Mind you, you had your plagues and such (dentistry severly limited if not non-existent), but it work and the civilization thrived. Here's a point of interest: India and over-population. A lot of lessons to be learned there.


India is not overpopulated. Some cities are dense, but that's just poor planning.

Taichiliberal
10-22-2009, 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You don't need to comment....it's a matter of fact and history that traditional Chinese medicine does a lot that modern Euro/Western medicine cannot. It ain't magic and has limitations, but is damned impressive in a lot of ways. And remember, were talking about what survived the purges of the Maoist during the Communist Revolution....stupid, evil bastards destroyed God knows how much accumulated texts in their insane quest to rewrite history.

But back to the original point...you forget that China and India's population's and dynasties were both thriving by the time European invasions/infiltrations took place. Mind you, you had your plagues and such (dentistry severly limited if not non-existent), but it work and the civilization thrived. Here's a point of interest: India and over-population. A lot of lessons to be learned there.


India is not overpopulated. Some cities are dense, but that's just poor planning.

You're wrong. India's over-population is old news. If you think urbanizatin of farm and forestland would help, then guess what? You get the same BS you have now in the "industrialized world"....as my orginal point with 3D stands valid.

FYI:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/environment/seniorsem03/Overpopulation_in_India.pdf

Hermes Thoth
10-27-2009, 07:11 PM
You're wrong. India's over-population is old news. If you think urbanizatin of farm and forestland would help, then guess what? You get the same BS you have now in the "industrialized world"....as my orginal point with 3D stands valid.

FYI:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/environment/seniorsem03/Overpopulation_in_India.pdf

The myth of human overpopulation is old.

The carrying capacity of earth is great. The truth is that the internationalist fascist banking cartels funds lies to foment a fear of scarcity, so we agree to democide policy.

tinfoil
10-27-2009, 08:55 PM
Or maybe the overpopulation is a concern to some because of the skin tones of the fastest growing populations?


LOL why is it a liberal always injects race?

Taichiliberal
10-28-2009, 10:46 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're wrong. India's over-population is old news. If you think urbanizatin of farm and forestland would help, then guess what? You get the same BS you have now in the "industrialized world"....as my orginal point with 3D stands valid.

FYI:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/s...n_in_India.pdf



The myth of human overpopulation is old.

The carrying capacity of earth is great. The truth is that the internationalist fascist banking cartels funds lies to foment a fear of scarcity, so we agree to democide policy.


Over-population is when the population exceeds the ability of the surrounding natural resources to sustain it. The over-crowded cities all over the world are testament to this, as you have dwindling resources unable to remain pristine in the face of encrouching urbanization and the demands of the international market. Essentially, you cannot adhere to the current format as to what a modern society should be without greatly altering the landscape to accomodate an ever growing population. We see the results in pollution, deforestation, strip mining, etc.

Your "democide" policy is a collection of contrary terms and definitions and neologisms.

Hermes Thoth
10-31-2009, 01:26 PM
Over-population is when the population exceeds the ability of the surrounding natural resources to sustain it. The over-crowded cities all over the world are testament to this, as you have dwindling resources unable to remain pristine in the face of encrouching urbanization and the demands of the international market. Essentially, you cannot adhere to the current format as to what a modern society should be without greatly altering the landscape to accomodate an ever growing population. We see the results in pollution, deforestation, strip mining, etc.

Your "democide" policy is a collection of contrary terms and definitions and neologisms.

Like I said. It's a logistics problem. The earth has the ability to house and nurture many more people than it is now, poor city planning aside.

And democide is not my policy, it's the green fascists policy.

Taichiliberal
10-31-2009, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Over-population is when the population exceeds the ability of the surrounding natural resources to sustain it. The over-crowded cities all over the world are testament to this, as you have dwindling resources unable to remain pristine in the face of encrouching urbanization and the demands of the international market. Essentially, you cannot adhere to the current format as to what a modern society should be without greatly altering the landscape to accomodate an ever growing population. We see the results in pollution, deforestation, strip mining, etc.

Your "democide" policy is a collection of contrary terms and definitions and neologisms.


Like I said. It's a logistics problem. The earth has the ability to house and nurture many more people than it is now, poor city planning aside.

Really? And just where do you suppose you'll get the farmland? Strip mine vast areas and try to force a viable soil source that will grow the necessary crops for food and materials? And as the population increases, where are you going to house everyone? Just turn forests, fields that contain all types of eco-systems into strip malls and tenements? Then what happens to all those lovely animals that people love to eat? I know these questions are tough, but they are the ones you have to consider if people just keep popping out kids as if life will magically remain the same for them.

And democide is not my policy, it's the green fascists policy.

Sorry, but your personal neologism has no place in reality. You just threw together another set of terms that contradict the previous ones you wrote. In short, logic and facts are not guiding what you say. You cannot disprove what I previously wrote, which nullifies your supposition and conjecture.

Hermes Thoth
11-01-2009, 02:18 PM
Sorry, but your personal neologism has no place in reality. You just threw together another set of terms that contradict the previous ones you wrote. In short, logic and facts are not guiding what you say. You cannot disprove what I previously wrote, which nullifies your supposition and conjecture.

Green fascists use lies about environmental issues to grow the military industrial complex. It's real. It's too bad you're on their side.

The earth could support many more people than it is now.

The sad fact is the elite of this world hate humanity and trying to reduce the population using environmental hysteria to scare us into instituting democidal policy.

snap out of your idiotic daze.

Taichiliberal
11-01-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry, but your personal neologism has no place in reality. You just threw together another set of terms that contradict the previous ones you wrote. In short, logic and facts are not guiding what you say. You cannot disprove what I previously wrote, which nullifies your supposition and conjecture.


Green fascists use lies about environmental issues to grow the military industrial complex. It's real. It's too bad you're on their side.

So now environmental activists are in cahoots with the military? And what FACTS do you base this postulated insanity on?

The earth could support many more people than it is now.

You keep saying this, but you offer NOTHING in way of facts or logic to prove it. Youre opinion, supposition or conjecture are no substitute for facts and logic. I provided a link regarding overpopulation in the current real world...I also pointed out real world requirements to sustain a population, conducive to the documented facts of the provided link. To date, you have no logical or factual argument to counter this.

The sad fact is the elite of this world hate humanity and trying to reduce the population using environmental hysteria to scare us into instituting democidal policy.

Again, you offer nothing with regards to these conspiracy theories beyond your repetitve rhetoric and neologisms.

snap out of your idiotic daze. Projecting again? You seem insistent upon proving the validity of your screen name. So unless you can actually mature or increase your intelligence to offer something beyond your moronic blatherings, I'd say we're done here.

Hermes Thoth
11-01-2009, 08:14 PM
Projecting again? You seem insistent upon proving the validity of your screen name. So unless you can actually mature or increase your intelligence to offer something beyond your moronic blatherings, I'd say we're done here.

Will cap and trade agreements be enforced by law? Looks like the greens ARE in bed with the state. DOY.

It's up to you to prove the earth CAN't support more people.

As far as I know we're still paying farmers not to grow food. *shrug*

Many nihilists are obsessed with population control. It's the same philosophy as nazis.

You can educate yourself at my thread:

Green Movement Eugenics

Hermes Thoth
11-01-2009, 08:18 PM
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/earth-hour-scam-world-wild-life-fund-scam/

Editor
I hope this helps you understand the WWF and the ‘green movement’ in general. The people and groups below fund and use NGO’s to convince you that ‘global warming’ is both real and a threat to the very survival of the human race. Global warming is neither real nor a threat.


Environmentalism (for their purposes) has nothing to do with the environment and the sooner people understand this the better.

UNESCO has control of the education system which means these people have control of your child’s mind.

Are these the people your want to entrust your children to?

Meet the real threat to humanity!


.


.

Prince Philip’s principal collaborators in launching the WWF as a funding and worldwide operations arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were Sir Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson, both ardent advocates of eugenics and racial purification. In fact, Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society when he co-founded the WWF. First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Hermes Thoth
11-01-2009, 08:22 PM
The idea that humans are destroying the planet will inspire people to accept mass murder.

that is their theory.

Taichiliberal
11-02-2009, 12:16 AM
Will cap and trade agreements be enforced by law? If it's passed through the House and Senate, yep. That's how our gov't works....we're a country of laws. Geez, what are they teaching in the schools these days that you didn't know this? Looks like the greens ARE in bed with the state. DOY. Yeah, I guess after 8 years of the Shrub & company pissing on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, going through the system and having the gov't and citizens working together in legal agreement is a shocker for you. Don't worry, you'll get use to it.

It's up to you to prove the earth CAN't support more people. Actually, the debate was whether over-population was becoming a problem, not just more people in general. I provided a link to support my statements and added basic questions and statements as to what is needed to supply a growing population. All you can do is try to dodge by throwing in all types of off/near topic BS and repeating yourself ad nauseum...as the posts show.

As far as I know we're still paying farmers not to grow food. *shrug* And as a population expands, how do you propose to keep that farm land exempt from urbanization or from strip mining or oil drilling or acid rain (which ever applys to the area)? I'll wait why you try to shrug up a decent, honest, logical answer.
Many nihilists are obsessed with population control. It's the same philosophy as nazis. Ahhh, this is what...the third gonzo analogy of yours that essentially has no basis in reality or parallel with the definitions of the words and phrases you ignorantly slap together. You haven't even had the stones to explain the last ones, as I've asked.

You can educate yourself at my thread:

Green Movement Eugenics (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=17826)

You don't even have the stones to discuss the information I provided with my link...yet alone honestly respond to any of my questions or posts.....so why in hell should I indulge more of your patented nonsense? Sorry toodles, but I don't indulge double standards.

Once again, you've earned your screen name here. You're done.

Taichiliberal
11-02-2009, 12:37 AM
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/earth-hour-scam-world-wild-life-fund-scam/

Editor
I hope this helps you understand the WWF and the ‘green movement’ in general. The people and groups below fund and use NGO’s to convince you that ‘global warming’ is both real and a threat to the very survival of the human race. Global warming is neither real nor a threat.


Environmentalism (for their purposes) has nothing to do with the environment and the sooner people understand this the better.

UNESCO has control of the education system which means these people have control of your child’s mind.

Are these the people your want to entrust your children to?

Meet the real threat to humanity!


.


.

Prince Philip’s principal collaborators in launching the WWF as a funding and worldwide operations arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were Sir Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson, both ardent advocates of eugenics and racial purification. In fact, Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society when he co-founded the WWF. First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Interesting...because to date there have been no erradication programs of Africa and Asia noted on any news format other than this jackass or Stormfront or anti-green bloggers (in fact, conservation success noted by legit news sites tell quite a different story), and wind farms are debated thoroughly as to placement, environmental impact, etc....and many projects do not pass local approval for those reasons.

So the eugenics and racists must be beside themselves with frustration

As for wind farms that are up and running

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4X07727-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1073466920&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9adda9c3d8a3d482bc216664e94e8a3e

Taichiliberal
11-02-2009, 12:39 AM
The idea that humans are destroying the planet will inspire people to accept mass murder.

that is their theory.

No stupid, lack of clean drinking water, decent food and housing, access to medicine will cause problems. Who said anything about mass murder as an viable answer? Where do you get this stuff?:rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
11-02-2009, 08:01 AM
No stupid, lack of clean drinking water, decent food and housing, access to medicine will cause problems. Who said anything about mass murder as an viable answer? Where do you get this stuff?:rolleyes:

Apparently you didn't actually read the material I presented to you.

It's hard to argue with someone who's ineducable. No wait. It's actually quite easy. You lose from being ignorant.


First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Good Luck
11-02-2009, 07:25 PM
Those who believe humanity is at the thresh hold of catastrophic overpopulation are correct - IF we make only minimal changes to how we feed, clothe and shelter said population.

OTOH, those who maintain the Earth can support a much larger population are also correct, but only if we start changing, significantly, support for that population.

Certainly, simply expanding urban areas to handle population growth is not going to work, as this reduces agricultural lands, stresses the ecology for a large surrounding area, etc. etc. etc. This is due to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, we are supporting ourselves using 6000 year old methods, with (relatively) minor improvements through modern technology. However, when push comes to shove, we are still gathering in groups of inter-supported shelters (cities) while sticking seeds in the ground of surrounding areas, putting the modern version of composted manure on top, and waiting for it to grow into food we can eat; all the time dependent on - and vulnerable to - the vagaries of natural climatic forces. While it is true that since humans first started using determined plots of arable land to propagate domesticated plants, the ability of a single human to grow food has expanded from barely enough for his immediate family to feeding several thousand. But despite that advance, the base methodology is the same - and is starting to run up against the law of diminishing returns.

If a much larger population is to be sustainable, then we need to (literally and figuratively) get our feet out of the furrows and look to new means of food production, as well as how we use all other resources we depend on to run our societies. Food production could be increased dramatically. Using modern technologies, we could literally put food production within the cities themselves, eliminating, or at least greatly easing dependency - and stress - on the surrounding areas. But to do this, we would have to change forever what we use for food. Meat, and even real grains, fruits and cereals would become a rare (and prohibitively expensive) treat. Synthetic similies, made from processed yeasts and algae would become the standard fare for the family dinner table.

Water is composed of the 1st and 8th most abundant elements in the universe. But, for economic reasons, we deplete natural sources at rates far faster than they can replenish. OTOH, we have technology to take any source of wet, and turn it into drinking water, and recycle it at 99%+ efficiency. By our standards, such water is extremely expensive. But, then, at one time common black pepper was literally worth its weight in gold - now its less than an hours labor at minimum wage for a pound. One thing we have seen throughout history: economies --eventually-- (though usually involving much distress and upheaval) adjust to necessity/reality.

As such, overpopulation as an earth-destroying disaster is a boogie. We can and will adapt. Of that, I have little doubt. OTOH, I, personally, would not want to live in the society, or world, that would result from the changes needed to support 20 (or more) billion people on this one, tiny planet.

apple0154
11-02-2009, 07:30 PM
Apparently you didn't actually read the material I presented to you.

It's hard to argue with someone who's ineducable. No wait. It's actually quite easy. You lose from being ignorant.


First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

What, exactly, is wrong with trying to prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world? Who would advocate bringing such children into the world knowing our current political/social system of "every man for himself" and "why should my tax dollars go to help someone else" and other such conventions all pointing to "to hell with the less fortunate"?

DamnYankee
11-02-2009, 07:40 PM
Apparently you didn't actually read the material I presented to you.

It's hard to argue with someone who's ineducable. No wait. It's actually quite easy. You lose from being ignorant.


First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Liberals blindly support genocides planned by Huxley and infanticides planned by Sanger. TaiChi and other black liberals are blinder than most, unable to see that the killing is aimed at their race.

Taichiliberal
11-02-2009, 11:49 PM
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/earth-hour-scam-world-wild-life-fund-scam/

.”

And here's a little reality check from my hometown area that puts this neocon numbskulls blogger bullshit to rest:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/wind-power-helps-li-entrepreneur-go-off-the-grid-1.1558547

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/subsidies-fuel-push-to-harness-li-s-wind-for-energy-1.1558544

I can give you more details on the second link, if you're up to it.

Good Luck
11-02-2009, 11:51 PM
Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

What, exactly, is wrong with trying to prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world? Who would advocate bringing such children into the world knowing our current political/social system of "every man for himself" and "why should my tax dollars go to help someone else" and other such conventions all pointing to "to hell with the less fortunate"?
You read the dictionary definition, and all you can come up with is it is DESIRABLE to "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into this world." Either you still do not comprehend exactly what eugenics is, or you are among those whom the world should (and does) despise beyond all else.

Do you understand how eugenics would "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world"? This is not TREATING sick children through gene therapy. It is keeping them from being born in the first place because they may carry a "damaged" gene. Are you aware that there is not a human being on this planet who does NOT have some damage somewhere in their 46 chromosomes?

What does eugenics, (with your staed desired goals) really mean? It means discouraging people who carry "undesired" genes from procreating. Do you get it? It means society - through government - comes along and tells you to not have children because your gametes may carry a defective gene. It means people like Steven Hawking and Ray Charles will be "prevented from being born" due to their "damaged genes".

It is nazi "master race" fascisism at its worst. What is WRONG with it? Only a mindless drone, so totally whacked out on their drug induced hallucinations of some impossible utopia can not see what is WRONG with eugenics.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No stupid, lack of clean drinking water, decent food and housing, access to medicine will cause problems. Who said anything about mass murder as an viable answer? Where do you get this stuff?


Apparently you didn't actually read the material I presented to you. Like I said before, toodles.....YOU don't have the guts or brains to honestly review and then discuss the information I linked earlier regarding over-population. Then you just ignore or dodge any point or statement in my responses to your bilge. In short, you set a double standard...which no one in their right mind has to accept. And if the absurd assertion of genocide is an example of your links "information", I dare say it's certainly not worth wasting time on. BUT, if you are willing to play by the rules and READ & DISCUSS what I previously linked and stated, THEN I'll return the courtesy.

It's hard to argue with someone who's ineducable. No wait. It's actually quite easy. You lose from being ignorant. This from someone who actually thinks "ineducable" is a word. Way to go, einstein.


First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Yeah, you already stated this....and like I said when you can provide ONE instance where genocide or warrantless mass sterilization has taken place under these organizations, then you might have a case. I'll wait.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 12:05 AM
Those who believe humanity is at the thresh hold of catastrophic overpopulation are correct - IF we make only minimal changes to how we feed, clothe and shelter said population.

OTOH, those who maintain the Earth can support a much larger population are also correct, but only if we start changing, significantly, support for that population.

Certainly, simply expanding urban areas to handle population growth is not going to work, as this reduces agricultural lands, stresses the ecology for a large surrounding area, etc. etc. etc. This is due to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, we are supporting ourselves using 6000 year old methods, with (relatively) minor improvements through modern technology. However, when push comes to shove, we are still gathering in groups of inter-supported shelters (cities) while sticking seeds in the ground of surrounding areas, putting the modern version of composted manure on top, and waiting for it to grow into food we can eat; all the time dependent on - and vulnerable to - the vagaries of natural climatic forces. While it is true that since humans first started using determined plots of arable land to propagate domesticated plants, the ability of a single human to grow food has expanded from barely enough for his immediate family to feeding several thousand. But despite that advance, the base methodology is the same - and is starting to run up against the law of diminishing returns.

If a much larger population is to be sustainable, then we need to (literally and figuratively) get our feet out of the furrows and look to new means of food production, as well as how we use all other resources we depend on to run our societies. Food production could be increased dramatically. Using modern technologies, we could literally put food production within the cities themselves, eliminating, or at least greatly easing dependency - and stress - on the surrounding areas. But to do this, we would have to change forever what we use for food. Meat, and even real grains, fruits and cereals would become a rare (and prohibitively expensive) treat. Synthetic similies, made from processed yeasts and algae would become the standard fare for the family dinner table.

Water is composed of the 1st and 8th most abundant elements in the universe. But, for economic reasons, we deplete natural sources at rates far faster than they can replenish. OTOH, we have technology to take any source of wet, and turn it into drinking water, and recycle it at 99%+ efficiency. By our standards, such water is extremely expensive. But, then, at one time common black pepper was literally worth its weight in gold - now its less than an hours labor at minimum wage for a pound. One thing we have seen throughout history: economies --eventually-- (though usually involving much distress and upheaval) adjust to necessity/reality.

As such, overpopulation as an earth-destroying disaster is a boogie. We can and will adapt. Of that, I have little doubt. OTOH, I, personally, would not want to live in the society, or world, that would result from the changes needed to support 20 (or more) billion people on this one, tiny planet.

Fascinating...because the "adaptation" would lead to a world vastly different from what you and I experience now.....where wilderness areas and natural clean water and food become the EXCEPTIONS and not the norm. I think you and I have found a point of mutual agreement here.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 12:10 AM
Liberals blindly support genocides planned by Huxley and infanticides planned by Sanger. TaiChi and other black liberals are blinder than most, unable to see that the killing is aimed at their race.

Please provide valid, documented recorded proof that black liberals and liberals in general advocate for genocide. Black people advocating self genocide would be an amazing find. Now I'm NOT talking about some anti-abortion/evangelical wonk giving their opinion sided with myopic stats. I want quotes from the horses mouth. If you can't produce such, then (once again) you've proven to be nothing more than some willfully ignorant neocon parrot steeped in bigoted notions.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 12:14 AM
You read the dictionary definition, and all you can come up with is it is DESIRABLE to "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into this world." Either you still do not comprehend exactly what eugenics is, or you are among those whom the world should (and does) despise beyond all else.

Do you understand how eugenics would "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world"? This is not TREATING sick children through gene therapy. It is keeping them from being born in the first place because they may carry a "damaged" gene. Are you aware that there is not a human being on this planet who does NOT have some damage somewhere in their 46 chromosomes?

What does eugenics, (with your staed desired goals) really mean? It means discouraging people who carry "undesired" genes from procreating. Do you get it? It means society - through government - comes along and tells you to not have children because your gametes may carry a defective gene. It means people like Steven Hawking and Ray Charles will be "prevented from being born" due to their "damaged genes".

It is nazi "master race" fascisism at its worst. What is WRONG with it? Only a mindless drone, so totally whacked out on their drug induced hallucinations of some impossible utopia can not see what is WRONG with eugenics.

Right now, you have countless thousands of kids growing up in foster care, you have right wingers wailing against social programs such as welfare, you an educational system that tells you that if you don't pass certain tests at specific times, your life is regulated to limited (if any) improvement. Add to this a medical insurance system that let's people die, a political system that uses the military as the only option for those poor, wars for profit, etc. do you have any idea the cost for caring for a severly handicapped child. I for one would not want to have to make that choice of abortion, but if those that do, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS, NOT YOURS OR MINE.

Good Luck
11-03-2009, 12:29 AM
And here's a little reality check from my hometown area that puts this neocon numbskulls blogger bullshit to rest:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/wind-power-helps-li-entrepreneur-go-off-the-grid-1.1558547

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/subsidies-fuel-push-to-harness-li-s-wind-for-energy-1.1558544

I can give you more details on the second link, if you're up to it.
This has got to be the funniest rebuttal in the entire history of political debate. AssHatZombie posts an OP piece in which the founders and leadership of WWF (an organization at the front of the "save us from global warming" push) are also tied to the leadership of an organization pushing for a world wide eugenics program.

TaiChiLiberal comes back with links about the successful use of a wind farm in Long Island.

Condensed, the argument would be thus:
AssHatZombie: It's interesting how some of those pushing hardest for people to accept AGW as a real threat are also those who are using another scare about over population to push an agenda promoting eugenics.

TaiChiLiberal: Oh yea? Well, wind power is too a viable source of energy!

Good Luck
11-03-2009, 12:35 AM
Right now, you have countless thousands of kids growing up in foster care, you have right wingers wailing against social programs such as welfare, you an educational system that tells you that if you don't pass certain tests at specific times, your life is regulated to limited (if any) improvement. Add to this a medical insurance system that let's people die, a political system that uses the military as the only option for those poor, wars for profit, etc. do you have any idea the cost for caring for a severly handicapped child. I for one would not want to have to make that choice of abortion, but if those that do, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS, NOT YOURS OR MINE.
Who mentioned abortion (besides you?)

Not only that, but you, also, seem to COMPELTELY lack the comprehension to understand that under a eugenics program, it would NOT be "their business". If the child is damaged, it is not allowed to be born. THAT is the central action of negative ("prevent genetically damaged children from being born") eugenics. ie: FORCED abortion for "defective" children; and/or forced sterilization for carriers.

It is truly incredible how utterly brain dead the modern liberal is becoming.

WinterBorn
11-03-2009, 05:44 AM
Who mentioned abortion (besides you?)

Not only that, but you, also, seem to COMPELTELY lack the comprehension to understand that under a eugenics program, it would NOT be "their business". If the child is damaged, it is not allowed to be born. THAT is the central action of negative ("prevent genetically damaged children from being born") eugenics. ie: FORCED abortion for "defective" children; and/or forced sterilization for carriers.

It is truly incredible how utterly brain dead the modern liberal is becoming.

Hey GoodLuck! I haven't seen you around. Good to see you again.

Hermes Thoth
11-03-2009, 07:07 AM
OTOH, those who maintain the Earth can support a much larger population are also correct


I knew you'd see it my way.:)

Hermes Thoth
11-03-2009, 07:08 AM
This has got to be the funniest rebuttal in the entire history of political debate. AssHatZombie posts an OP piece in which the founders and leadership of WWF (an organization at the front of the "save us from global warming" push) are also tied to the leadership of an organization pushing for a world wide eugenics program.

TaiChiLiberal comes back with links about the successful use of a wind farm in Long Island.

Condensed, the argument would be thus:
AssHatZombie: It's interesting how some of those pushing hardest for people to accept AGW as a real threat are also those who are using another scare about over population to push an agenda promoting eugenics.

TaiChiLiberal: Oh yea? Well, wind power is too a viable source of energy!


Very astute observations goodluck! How did taichiliberal get so stupid?

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:13 AM
Please provide valid, documented recorded proof that black liberals and liberals in general advocate for genocide. Black people advocating self genocide would be an amazing find. Now I'm NOT talking about some anti-abortion/evangelical wonk giving their opinion sided with myopic stats. I want quotes from the horses mouth. If you can't produce such, then (once again) you've proven to be nothing more than some willfully ignorant neocon parrot steeped in bigoted notions. Why would I do that? It doesn't bother me if liberals kill themselves with increasing frequency.

apple0154
11-03-2009, 10:39 AM
What does eugenics, (with your staed desired goals) really mean? It means discouraging people who carry "undesired" genes from procreating. Do you get it? It means society - through government - comes along and tells you to not have children because your gametes may carry a defective gene. It means people like Steven Hawking and Ray Charles will be "prevented from being born" due to their "damaged genes".

There is a huge difference between "discouraging" someone and "preventing" them from doing something.

As I briefly touched on and Taichiliberal detailed we live in a society where everyone is against preventing genetically defective births, yet, when such children are born society says to hell with them.

Have you ever visited a hospital which specializes in treating sick children? Check it out one day. Tell them you're thinking of volunteering and would like to look around, get a feel for the place. Submerge yourself in the pain and agony of the newborn or the six month old suffering from severe genetic defects. Or the four year old who will never go home. Their entire existence will be one spent in institutions.

When it comes to despising folks those who insist on bringing such children into the world to suffer such agony definitely sit at the top of my "despise" list. It makes the run-of-the-mill child abuse case seem like a pik-nik in the park.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


You read the dictionary definition, and all you can come up with is it is DESIRABLE to "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into this world." Either you still do not comprehend exactly what eugenics is, or you are among those whom the world should (and does) despise beyond all else.

Do you understand how eugenics would "prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world"? This is not TREATING sick children through gene therapy. It is keeping them from being born in the first place because they may carry a "damaged" gene. Are you aware that there is not a human being on this planet who does NOT have some damage somewhere in their 46 chromosomes?

What does eugenics, (with your staed desired goals) really mean? It means discouraging people who carry "undesired" genes from procreating. Do you get it? It means society - through government - comes along and tells you to not have children because your gametes may carry a defective gene. It means people like Steven Hawking and Ray Charles will be "prevented from being born" due to their "damaged genes".

It is nazi "master race" fascisism at its worst. What is WRONG with it? Only a mindless drone, so totally whacked out on their drug induced hallucinations of some impossible utopia can not see what is WRONG with eugenics.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

What, exactly, is wrong with trying to prevent genetically damaged children from coming into the world? Who would advocate bringing such children into the world knowing our current political/social system of "every man for himself" and "why should my tax dollars go to help someone else" and other such conventions all pointing to "to hell with the less fortunate"?

The major problem with eugenics is that people are not just interested in preventing people with severe and repetitive inherited genetic defects from passing on those traits to other children. Eugenics followers almost always just go beyond the pale.....using poor medical science and judgement to just try and prevent anyone the consider inferior from reproducing in order to create a perfect strain of human beings (master race, as it were).

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 04:51 PM
This has got to be the funniest rebuttal in the entire history of political debate. AssHatZombie posts an OP piece in which the founders and leadership of WWF (an organization at the front of the "save us from global warming" push) are also tied to the leadership of an organization pushing for a world wide eugenics program.


TaiChiLiberal comes back with links about the successful use of a wind farm in Long Island.


Condensed, the argument would be thus:
AssHatZombie: It's interesting how some of those pushing hardest for people to accept AGW as a real threat are also those who are using another scare about over population to push an agenda promoting eugenics.

TaiChiLiberal: Oh yea? Well, wind power is too a viable source of energy!

Obviously, you didn't pay attention to all the posts. I gave TWO (2) SEPARATE REPSONSES. One was to the Ass post about the jokers with beliefs in eugenics......I merely asked for viable proof that the WWF was engaged in unwarranted sterilization programs against black folk?

To date...no answer.

Then I provided a counter-point to his blogger link that rails against wind power.

It's all there in the chronological order of the posts...all one has to do is READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY (damn, I'm tired of typing that....wish some people would actually do it). Once you've done that, the basis for your amusement quickly evaporates. Good luck with that.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 04:59 PM
Who mentioned abortion (besides you?) Your like minded buddies Asshat, Southie, Tinfoil, Tutu blabba, etc., consider abortion a genocidal program. Some of them have used Christian pro-life activist who happen to be black and advocate such a mindset as "proof". They've incorrectly tied eugenics to abortion. I'm just clarifying the debate.

Not only that, but you, also, seem to COMPELTELY lack the comprehension to understand that under a eugenics program, it would NOT be "their business".
If the child is damaged, it is not allowed to be born. THAT is the central action of negative ("prevent genetically damaged children from being born") eugenics. ie: FORCED abortion for "defective" children; and/or forced sterilization for carriers.

See above explanation.

It is truly incredible how utterly brain dead the modern liberal is becoming.

You should stop making dumbass statements like that....especially when time and again you don't read carefully and comprehensively what has previously transpired. That's the problem with neocons....they just run with the headline and a few excerpted paragraphs instead of taking the time to fully research and understand what is being said by others. You just did that here, as I pointed out above.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 05:03 PM
Very astute observations goodluck! How did taichiliberal get so stupid?

Once again, you earn your screen name.

The chronology of the posts show how I responded to everything your posts contained. Evidently, you didn't read them...and if you did you just pretend they don't exist, because let's face it...you don't have the brains or the courage or the honesty to debate an issue beyond what some biased blogger tells you.

Your buddy here made a similar mistake....Good Luck telling each other how brilliant you are. :rolleyes:

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Please provide valid, documented recorded proof that black liberals and liberals in general advocate for genocide. Black people advocating self genocide would be an amazing find. Now I'm NOT talking about some anti-abortion/evangelical wonk giving their opinion sided with myopic stats. I want quotes from the horses mouth. If you can't produce such, then (once again) you've proven to be nothing more than some willfully ignorant neocon parrot steeped in bigoted notions.


Why would I do that? It doesn't bother me if liberals kill themselves with increasing frequency.

Translation: this clown has proven once again he's nothing more tha a willfully ignorant neocon parrot with a serious bigoted streak in him. Properly challenged, he takes the cowards way out by blowing smoke and avoiding a simple burden of proof regarding his beliefs and assertions. Well, having exposed him for what he is, my job is done here.

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 05:37 PM
Translation: this clown has proven once again he's nothing more tha a willfully ignorant neocon parrot with a serious bigoted streak in him. Properly challenged, he takes the cowards way out by blowing smoke and avoiding a simple burden of proof regarding his beliefs and assertions. Well, having exposed him for what he is, my job is done here. Have you committed suicide? Then you're job as a liberal is not done.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 05:42 PM
Have you committed suicide? Then you're job as a liberal is not done.

:palm: And he thinks this is a clever response, folks.....how sad.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Overpopulation Myth

DamnYankee
11-03-2009, 07:25 PM
:palm: And he thinks this is a clever response, folks.....how sad.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Overpopulation Myth (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=546839&postcount=184)
How sad to be a liberal, non-aborted.

Taichiliberal
11-04-2009, 12:05 AM
How sad to be a liberal, non-aborted.

So you wish to all liberals dead? Hmm, typical neocon parrot...flustered that all his BS can be logically and factually disproved, they just want to kill anyone that objects to them....a step from just labeling them "traitors".

Oh, and wishing to abort liberals would require you to determine political leanings in the womb. Neat trick that would be.

Keep blathering, asshole! :cof1:

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 07:30 AM
So you wish to all liberals dead? Hmm, typical neocon parrot...flustered that all his BS can be logically and factually disproved, they just want to kill anyone that objects to them....a step from just labeling them "traitors".

Oh, and wishing to abort liberals would require you to determine political leanings in the womb. Neat trick that would be.

Keep blathering, asshole! :cof1:I wish liberals to fulfill their dreams: abort their babies, sterilize their young men to limit the population of the earth, and euthanize their old folks to save precious resources. :)

Hermes Thoth
11-04-2009, 07:36 AM
Once again, you earn your screen name.

The chronology of the posts show how I responded to everything your posts contained. Evidently, you didn't read them...and if you did you just pretend they don't exist, because let's face it...you don't have the brains or the courage or the honesty to debate an issue beyond what some biased blogger tells you.

Your buddy here made a similar mistake....Good Luck telling each other how brilliant you are. :rolleyes:

Your posts are inane and meritless..

Liberals are constantly repeating the Green Alarmism that will be used to institute democidal policy.

The people behind the green movement are on record as having introduced green hysteria to "make the unthinkable, thinkable".

Shall I repost the material?

Hermes Thoth
11-04-2009, 07:39 AM
And here's a little reality check from my hometown area that puts this neocon numbskulls blogger bullshit to rest:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/wind-power-helps-li-entrepreneur-go-off-the-grid-1.1558547

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/subsidies-fuel-push-to-harness-li-s-wind-for-energy-1.1558544

I can give you more details on the second link, if you're up to it.


These posts have no relevance to stated intentions of those who began the UN programs of cooridnated green alarmism.

Hermes Thoth
11-04-2009, 07:41 AM
Yeah, you already stated this....and like I said when you can provide ONE instance where genocide or warrantless mass sterilization has taken place under these organizations, then you might have a case. I'll wait.

Just go look at Planned Parenthoods abortion stats.

Democides occur one child at a time.

DamnYankee
11-04-2009, 07:52 AM
Just go look at Planned Parenthoods abortion stats.

Democides occur one child at a time.

Sanger's dream has been realized: blacks are killing their own children.

apple0154
11-04-2009, 06:36 PM
Your posts are inane and meritless..

Liberals are constantly repeating the Green Alarmism that will be used to institute democidal policy.

The people behind the green movement are on record as having introduced green hysteria to "make the unthinkable, thinkable".

Shall I repost the material?

Green Alarmism? Soylent Green coming to a supermarket near you. :corn:

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 05:17 PM
I wish liberals to fulfill their dreams: abort their babies, sterilize their young men to limit the population of the earth, and euthanize their old folks to save precious resources. :)

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Overpopulation Myth

:cof1:

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 05:24 PM
Your posts are inane and meritless.. Projecting again...this man is sad, folks.

Liberals are constantly repeating the Green Alarmism that will be used to institute democidal policy. More neologisms from a intellectually bankrupt neocon with his ass in his hat.

The people behind the green movement are on record as having introduced green hysteria to "make the unthinkable, thinkable". More unsubtantiated blatherings in an effort to substitute an Asshhat's supposition and conjecture as fact and truth.

Shall I repost the material? Why? All one has to do is just click back on the thread and read the chronology of the posts and responses again. If you don't know how, ask an adult to show you. Then read EVERYTHING CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY. Maybe it'll sink in this time. :rolleyes:

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And here's a little reality check from my hometown area that puts this neocon numbskulls blogger bullshit to rest:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/s...grid-1.1558547

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/s...ergy-1.1558544

I can give you more details on the second link, if you're up to it.



These posts have no relevance to stated intentions of those who began the UN programs of cooridnated green alarmism.

As the recorded posts show, YOU gave a link to some blogger he gave all types of one sided information and claims as to why wind power is a failure and a scam.

All I did was just provide two articles on how wind power not only works, but has SAVED a local small industry on the suburban hub of New York City.

FACTS that you are too cowardly or willfully ignorant to deal with in an honest manner. So instead, you ignore the content and just repeat your baseless accusations.

Grow up.

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 05:40 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, you already stated this....and like I said when you can provide ONE instance where genocide or warrantless mass sterilization has taken place under these organizations, then you might have a case. I'll wait.


Just go look at Planned Parenthoods abortion stats.

Warrantless means without cause or without approval (official and civilian). Since Planned Parenthood gets it's stats on LEGAL abortions, that means that the abortion was done by the request and consent of the woman. So your statement is non-applicable to the assertion you are making.

And at last check, the birth rate of black Americans FAR EXCEEDS the number of abortions in the black community. So again, your statement is non-applicable to the assertion you are making.

Democides occur one child at a time.

Your neologism is not applicable to a discussion of a fact based subject. Extremist viewpoints that abortion equals genocide has yet to be factually proven...because that claim has been around for over 30 years...and last time I checked the population growth in America is just chugging along nicely.

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 05:48 PM
Sanger's dream has been realized: blacks are killing their own children.

Actually, Sanger's dealings were primarily with the turn of the century immigrants that population the tenements of America's major cities.....those were Europeans of various countries and ethnicities.

And since black folk are not the sole or major user's of the abortion option in a country that they make 13% of the population, your statement smacks of racial myopia....not surprising.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 07:02 PM
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Overpopulation Myth (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=546839&postcount=184)

:cof1:
Just Plain Politics!
:pke:

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 07:05 PM
Actually, Sanger's dealings were primarily with the turn of the century immigrants that population the tenements of America's major cities.....those were Europeans of various countries and ethnicities.

And since black folk are not the sole or major user's of the abortion option in a country that they make 13% of the population, your statement smacks of racial myopia....not surprising.


While Sanger's early campaign was aimed primarily at east Europeans, in 1939 she began to target blacks by creating the "Negro Project," to promote birth control and sterilization specifically within the black community. To carry out her plan, she sought the support of prominent black ministers and political leaders. She wrote, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members." http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html

apple0154
11-05-2009, 08:30 PM
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html

I read that article. Second to last sentence reads, "Marchers and organizers for women's rights, if they truly are concerned about the fate of black women, must be equally honest about the racial reality of abortion--and its eugenicist roots."

And people who protest against smokers, those who advocate higher taxes on tobacco, those who want to forbid adults smoking in the vicinity of children, those who are trying to stamp out cigarette smoking should be aware the most infamous non-smoker, Hitler!

The majority of western countries that are pro-choice are populated primarily by Caucasians and it is Caucasians who want the choice so to infer pro-choice is some kind of eugenics program is complete and utter nonsense.

DamnYankee
11-05-2009, 08:51 PM
....

The majority of western countries that are pro-choice are populated primarily by Caucasians and it is Caucasians who want the choice so to infer pro-choice is some kind of eugenics program is complete and utter nonsense.

In the US most of the abortion clinics operate in black neighborhoods.

apple0154
11-05-2009, 09:25 PM
In the US most of the abortion clinics operate in black neighborhoods.

Maybe that's where they are needed. If the people are poor they have easy access. Maybe they can't afford certain types of birth control such as the pill. Maybe some neighborhoods don't want a clinic.

Consider the following:

Within the past two decades, fertility rates have declined substantially among non-Hispanic blacks (from 91 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1980 to 67 per 1,000 in 2005)* and among American Indian and Alaska Native women (from 83 births per 1,000 to 60 births per 1,000 women between 1980 and 2005)*. Fertility rates also declined slightly overall among non-Hispanic whites (from 62 births per 1,000 women in 1980 to 58 births per 1,000 women in 2005)*.http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/79_PDF.pdf

Blacks: births declined from 91 per 1000 to 67 per 1000
Whites: births declined from 62 per 1000 to 58 per 1000

Either more white women choose abortion or fewer white women become pregnant. In either case blacks are bearing more children so whomever believes abortion clinics are some sort of master plan to eradicate the black folks....well, I guess they aren't too good at math.

Taichiliberal
11-06-2009, 08:34 PM
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html

You're not telling me anything new...I did say "primarily", didn't I? Well bunky, old Maggie is turning in her grave, and shaking her fist in frustration from hell....because to date there has been NO genocide of black folk, and Planned Parenthood DOES NOT emphasize abortion as the first and only method of birth control. To date, you can't prove otherwise...and the black population of 2 parent families has been chugging along quite nicely since old Maggie kicked the bucket.

You've failed again to logically and factually prove your statements and assertions....but that's never stopped you before. Carry on.

Taichiliberal
11-06-2009, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Southern Man
In the US most of the abortion clinics operate in black neighborhoods.


Maybe that's where they are needed. If the people are poor they have easy access. Maybe they can't afford certain types of birth control such as the pill. Maybe some neighborhoods don't want a clinic.

Consider the following:

Within the past two decades, fertility rates have declined substantially among non-Hispanic blacks (from 91 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1980 to 67 per 1,000 in 2005)* and among American Indian and Alaska Native women (from 83 births per 1,000 to 60 births per 1,000 women between 1980 and 2005)*. Fertility rates also declined slightly overall among non-Hispanic whites (from 62 births per 1,000 women in 1980 to 58 births per 1,000 women in 2005)*.http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/79_PDF.pdf

Blacks: births declined from 91 per 1000 to 67 per 1000
Whites: births declined from 62 per 1000 to 58 per 1000

Either more white women choose abortion or fewer white women become pregnant. In either case blacks are bearing more children so whomever believes abortion clinics are some sort of master plan to eradicate the black folks....well, I guess they aren't too good at math.

Well, contrary facts have yet to deter folks like Southie from stubbornly repeating their beliefs ad nauseum.