Just supporting my "Stupid People" claims:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/01/kids.taped.ap/index.html

I've seen the statistics you're talking about.  I guess what I'm wondering is how pertinent they are.  The statistics typically tell how many divorces per thousand people per year.

However, I'm wondering if people are more likely to get married in so-called red states than their blue state counterparts (thus the marriage rate question).  Say two 23 year old people in a religious conservative state decide to get married before moving in together and starting the shagging.  It lasts for 4 years, then when they break up it's a divorce.  Now look at a 23 year old couple that gets together in a 'blue' state, moves in together, doesn't get married, shags for 4 years, and go their seperate ways.  Doesn't count as a divorce.  

While the high divorce rates in more conservative states are definately cause for concern, I can't help but wonder if we're comparing apples to oranges by essentially comparing 2 different cultures like that.

I'm still trying to formulate what this says about relationships in our larger culture, but it just makes me wonder about the relevancy of that particular statistic that I keep hearing.

and we are going to need a "Robispierre Reign of Terror" to "Straighten things out". To have gone as far downhill as we have can't be straightened out overnight (so to speak) unless we have just that. We have given and given and given and given and it's just not enough. Now "all those that we have given to" expect it. They expect it "weekly" and "annually" (individuals and countries).
The spigot (sic?) has to be cut off. When the whining and "threatening" starts. We have to deal with it quickly and harshly. Yes, Himmler's Jackboot may have to be put on some throats. But how much do you give? How much? Do you give all your paycheck, then your property and house to the "State" and let them "dole" it out as "they" see fit? Well THAT is what it will come to all under
the "guise of doing good for the benefit of all". Don't you see? "They" use all the tools of the game to garner your sympathy, caring, guilt, and COUNT on your apathy and lethargic-ness.

Open up your pocketbooks. Give.............  Idi-Amin needs "aid" in his country.........
So does "Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier".............Robert Mugabe............Communist China.....
Russia.............. God help us all

found this online. don't know it's validity or it's source reference. Maybe just some OLD MAN TALKING out his ass.  or maybe not.

-------
When will the earth be full? They call that carrying capacity. Some say we are already over populated. Others say we are not even close. Let me just share this fact. There are 6 billion people living on planet earth. If they stood side by side they could fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida, which has an area of 25,000,000,000 square feet! Take 25,000,000,000, divided by 6,000,000,000, you get 4.16 square feet per person! The world is much bigger than Jacksonville, so overcrowding can't be a problem! If one only leaves the big city and travels out through the Western United States you will realize there are million upon million of acres unsettled land in this world.
-------

If this is true (Of course I am too apathetic and lethargic to find out for myself) then it just proves my point that having babies is not the PROBLEM with overpopulation.

-----
About Himmlers's JAckboot:

This world is full of zealots and old people who fear the future, these "smart" ones may think our society is degrading. In actuality, our Human civilization is yet in it's infancy, we are learning from our mistakes, we will one day grow up as a whole and learn to communicate with one another.

What we need to do now is not tolerate those who fear change, and if given the choice would choose the route taken by the founder and officer-in-charge of the Nazi concentration camps and the Einsatzgruppen death squads. Himmler held final command responsibility for implementing the industrial-scale extermination of between 6 and 12 million people.

Not just against Jews. Racial cleansing is about purging the population of people you FEAR. NAzi's killed indescriminantly out of Fear.

I think I heard on Conan O'Brian last week:  "The population of the United States hit 300 million this week.  China responded: "How cute!""

Robispierre using Madame Guillotine executed over 17,000 people, some were peasants, some were elite, most were political enemies.

Robispierre said: "Virtue without terror is impotent." "Terror without virtue is evil." Nice man huh? He eventually was arrested and faced the guillotine himself.  He killed for personal gain. Under the guise of ridding society of "peasants" or "parasites" if you will.


If only we could resurect this guy to help "straighten us out".  

That doesn't prove crap.  It doesn't address even simple things like feeding everyone.  

When everyone in the world has sufficient food, water, and shelter, then we can talk.

What it "proves" is that trying to solve the worlds overpopulation by regulating how many kids I can have is just plain STUPID.

It is an answer without THOUGHT. Off the cuff. Split decision.......catch my drift? 

I know I am taking it a bit overboard, but this forum is my only soapbox to stand on. I get upset because this topic comes up from time to time (in the real world) and you always hear someone talking without thinking, saying we should tax those that have or want children, we should not allow "parasite" to bear children, we should set a 2 child limit....ect.

They don't think about it and don't realize how absurd an Idea it is to regulate how many children people can have.

lol...  I like that theory...  The Earth won't be full until we're all standing shoulder to shoulder....   

Dude...  The world will be full when we can't move all the human waste through processing plants fast enough.

Well..  We can always shoot it into space.

How about enough food?  1st world nations will always find a way to be full.  3rd world nations are already starving...
Enough space?  Just build up.
Enough water?  The ocean is mighty big...  Just take the salt out.



Keeping pumping out lots of kids...  They'll find a way to deal with it.

I'm gonna have 10...  Maybe 15, if the wife can take it....    Maybe I'll just find a couple women and get 'em all pumping kids out........  Try and set some records here....   5 women working full time at 1 kid a year...  Over the next 20 years...  HELL YEAH!



I have faith...  Someone will find a way to feed all of us.

Your facetious remarks actually back up my point.

But I guess your right, lets just sterilize everyone "they" deem unimportant or parasitic.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control and breed only as many as they can afford to feed and raise? 

No, I don't believe in sterilizing the masses, the poor, and the downtrodden, but I do believe in personal responsibility. 

Quote from: pandy on November 16, 2006, 03:55:24 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control and breed only as many as they can afford to feed and raise? 

No, I don't believe in sterilizing the masses, the poor, and the downtrodden, but I do believe in personal responsibility. 

I believe you are right. It is not unreasonable to expect adults to exert some self control especially if they cannot afford children.

But it is wrong to pass laws dictating who can and cannot have children.

Just to play devil's advocate....

Say there's a disease gene that exists that when passed on to a child by BOTH parents, the disease is 100% fatal. Should it be illegal for two adults who both carry that gene knowingly to purposefully bring a child into the world that they know will with certainty suffer and die?

(Nope, I don't know of any diseases this bad, but I'm simply interested in what folks' ideas are in this hypothetical.)

illegal? NO


Laws should not discriminate on any basis.  Passing one law restricting "certain" people from having children for ANY reason, potentially restricts "everyones" rights.


It would be Immoral to purposefully bring a child into the world that they know will certainty suffer and die. Making it illegal for these Hypothetical people to procreate is unecessary.

Quote from: pandy on November 17, 2006, 08:47:55 AMthe disease is 100% fatal.

You mean Life?  100% fatal.

  Ok....so we all have the same 100% fatal disease....I mean a 100% disease where a child is dead by, say, the time s/he's 6 months old, after suffering a painful and short existence. 

Absoutely not.  As long as that diseased child doesn't infringe on my or anyone else's liberties then why should it be illegal?  So the government can punish the parents for doing a cruel and immoral thing?  I don't think that government should waste time dictating morality. 

The right to life is unquestionable. But are the parents able to sustain that life from infancy onward 'til maturity? Are you asking for Govermental dictated Socialism?

You see.........communal caring (which I love and believe in), and freely giving is a lot different than the "Government" FORCING taxpayers to support orphans in Ethiopia which means the money will end up in the hands of a communist dictator that wants the orphans to die anyway.
This is where your "New World Order" is headed. All under the guise of "helping others". That is the "way" it is "put to you" and harps on your sympathies.

Remember Ethiopia. 100's upon 100's of THOUSANDS of men, women, and children dead and dying, with their bodies stacked up like cordwood. Starving to death. WE (the United States) sent tons upon TONS of food and the Government troops let it set at the holding area until it rotted away and would KILL anyone near it. While allthewhile their dirt poor pitiful (this is what you were spoonfed) Government.....................threw a THREE MILLION DOLLAR BLOWOUT for the visiting COMMUNIST PARTY from Russia. Their "Brothers" in crime.

CASIUSA and I had a longggggggg discussion way into the night years ago about this. If we'd sent people "in" to kill those sorry bastards (as they needed to be put to death ASAP) then we'd've been "oppressors" of a foreign regime. If we'd've done "nothing", we'd've been worthless, uncaring bastards.  So what do you do? You give. And then watch what you've given get gasoline poured on it. Yeah..........I've got a problem "giving" to "some". And I have NO problems with our troops going over and pouring napalm on the palace of a sorry ass communist motherfucker. f%$k what "the world" thinks.

 When you look at it that way it is easy to justify "kill(ing) those sorry bastards"
When you allow yourself to believe a situation like that is hopeless, then decide to just kill em all,  You in turn become no better than the sorry ass communist motherf%$ker you intend to do away with.

I am not saying every situation can be solved diplomatically, of course not. But making an attempt to help those Humans in need is not a fallacy.

OMW I do not disagree with your reasoning. If your facts are straight, I'd be the first with the napalm. But allow me to draw your attention to Ben Franklins quote one more time. Unless you truely believe one race of humans is superior to all others, it is not hard to take a second andconsider the situation as one of them then try to find a solution. Instead of just killing them.  yup. even commies.

Quote from: 3imo on November 01, 2006, 11:27:56 AM
Was it Ben Franklin that said:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.