PDA

View Full Version : Word of the Day: Hypocrisy


Tyrannosaurus
18-11-09, 12:00
Here's my image:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/Thagomizer/hypocrisy.jpg

Now post yours!

TR love
18-11-09, 12:06
Oh hey, good idea!

Lara Croft!
18-11-09, 12:09
http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hypocrisy.jpg

Mad Tony
18-11-09, 13:30
How is the first picture a display of hypocrisy? :confused:

EDIT: Oh wait, I thought it said pro-life LMAO.

Encore
18-11-09, 16:15
I don't get the first image... *feels dumb*

violentblossom
18-11-09, 16:16
I don't get the first image... *feels dumb*

EDIT: Nevermind, I read it wrong. :p

Mad Tony
18-11-09, 16:17
I don't get the first image... *feels dumb*The owner of the car is against eating meat because it "stops a beating heart" yet they are pro-choice.

Quasimodo
18-11-09, 16:21
The owner of the car is against eating meat because it "stops a beating heart" yet they are pro-choice.

Unless the choice is made before the heart develops[/smartass]

iamlaracroft
18-11-09, 16:28
I'm vegan and I'm pro-choice. I prefer animals over humans, especially the child kind.

Mad Tony
18-11-09, 16:30
Pro death FTL

TRhalloween
18-11-09, 16:32
Pro death FTL

Are you saying people who are pro-choice are pro-death?

Encore
18-11-09, 16:33
So this is what the thread really is, a "funny" thread with an agenda. Ok.... *leaves*

Draco
18-11-09, 16:34
Hmm...

Minty Mouth
18-11-09, 16:35
Will this thread be locked tomorrow?

I dont get how the first image is Hippocratic. They would encourage people to be veggies, but still want people to choose for themselves. Makes sense right?

violentblossom
18-11-09, 16:38
So this is what the thread really is, a "funny" thread with an agenda. Ok.... *leaves*

Oh.

*gets it*

*leaves*.

Mad Tony
18-11-09, 16:42
Are you saying people who are pro-choice are pro-death?Pretty much, just like they call pro-lifers "anti-choice".

I dont get how the first image is Hippocratic. They would encourage people to be veggies, but still want people to choose for themselves. Makes sense right?I already explained it to Encore earlier. The owner of the car is against eating meat because it's killing something yet they're pro-choice. In other words, they're not opposed to women getting abortions if it's their choice. Abortion is killing.

See the hypocrisy now? :p

TRhalloween
18-11-09, 16:45
Pretty much, just like they call pro-lifers "anti-choice".


Oh right so you're sinking to their level. Fantastic.

Mad Tony
18-11-09, 16:48
Oh right so you're sinking to their level. Fantastic.Nope, that's just my label for people who are pro-choice.

Here's a good one :p

http://magsol.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hypocrisy.jpg

TRhalloween
18-11-09, 16:50
Nope, that's just my label for people who are pro-choice.

Here's a good one :p

"Pro-death FTL"" sounds very belittling to the other side of the argument.

Minty Mouth
18-11-09, 17:10
Pretty much, just like they call pro-lifers "anti-choice".

I already explained it to Encore earlier. The owner of the car is against eating meat because it's killing something yet they're pro-choice. In other words, they're not opposed to women getting abortions if it's their choice. Abortion is killing.

See the hypocrisy now? :p

Oh THATS what pro-choice means.

Okay I get it now. Yeah thats kinda Hypocritical.

miss.haggard
18-11-09, 17:28
Yeah, but the cows could fight back, they just choose not to.

violentblossom
18-11-09, 17:37
Yeah, but the cows could fight back, they just choose not to.

Are you trying to tell us, Laney, that you are a cow beater?

miss.haggard
18-11-09, 17:48
Drop the 'B' and youve got gold.

TRhalloween
18-11-09, 20:25
Not everyone is a vegetarian because they think eating animals is murder.

maniakatosheto
18-11-09, 20:28
I try cuttin down meat :) Cause i feel bad for the little animals.

Ward Dragon
18-11-09, 21:36
http://magsol.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hypocrisy.jpg

:eek: That is amazing :vlol:

Not everyone is a vegetarian because they think eating animals is murder.

Of course, but the bumper sticker implies that the owner is against eating meat due to the "eating animals is murder" idea, so it's weird to see that right next to a bumper sticker that says it's okay to kill unborn children.

But anyway, I really like that "Pro-Death" label. I'm going to start calling myself that now just because it's awesome :vlol:

Encore
18-11-09, 22:12
the bumper sticker implies that the owner is against eating meat due to the "eating animals is murder" idea

To be perfectly honest my first interpretation of the meat sticker was that meat is bad for your heart (as in, it causes heart disease, and it does). Now I know why I didn't even get the suposed hypocrisy. lmao

On a sidenote, I don't see an underdeveloped fetus as life comparable to a fully developed animal but that's me. You can throw the stones now :D

Paddy
18-11-09, 22:14
To be perfectly honest my first interpretation of the meat sticker was that meat is bad for your heart (as in, it causes heart disease, and it does). Now I know why I didn't even get the suposed hypocrisy. lmao

On a sidenote, I don't see an underdeveloped fetus as life comparable to a fully developed animal but that's me. You can throw the stones now :D

I wont chuck stones, I actually agree with you.

Lavinder
18-11-09, 22:15
I try cuttin down meat :) Cause i feel bad for the little animals.

The thing is, meat is produced on a massive scale and loads of it gets wasted anyway - eating less meat is just wasting produce.

Tyrannosaurus
18-11-09, 22:30
To clarify a little: I don't think it's hypocritical to be pro-choice, a vegetarian, or even necessarily both; but if your rationale for the latter is limited to "eating meat stops a heart form beating," then it most certainly is.

It's not where you stand in your beliefs that matters, but why.

On a sidenote, I don't see an underdeveloped fetus as life comparable to a fully developed animal but that's me. You can throw the stones now :D You might as well start adding the profoundly mentally handicapped, and people whose ancestors come from a different continent than yours while you're at it.

Cochrane
18-11-09, 22:41
The thing is, meat is produced on a massive scale and loads of it gets wasted anyway - eating less meat is just wasting produce.
Lesser demand leads to lesser production, meaning less farm animals raised and killed.

You might as well start adding the profoundly mentally handicapped, and people whose ancestors come from a different continent than yours while you're at it.
Yes, if one is a straw man created by an opponent of abortion, one certainly could do that. Real people would probably notice that there is a significant difference, but straw men, yeah, they're messed up.

Johnnay
18-11-09, 22:46
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_blns4L4Rgo0/SqFs4hU9o2I/AAAAAAAAA_8/7gwyqhBinoE/s320/political-pictures-hypocrisy-abortion-born-gay-rights.jpg

Lara's home
18-11-09, 22:50
The owner of the car is against eating meat because it "stops a beating heart" yet they are pro-choice.

Oh, that's pretty clever I guess.
/silence.

Ward Dragon
18-11-09, 23:15
On a sidenote, I don't see an underdeveloped fetus as life comparable to a fully developed animal but that's me. You can throw the stones now :D

But underdeveloped fetuses don't taste as good as full-grown cows :whi:


Real people would probably notice that there is a significant difference, but straw men, yeah, they're messed up.

I don't see such a significant difference. One factor in considering whether to get an abortion is if the child will be mentally handicapped (for example, Downs Syndrome or something similar). If there's nothing wrong with aborting a handicapped baby, then why does society have to pay to take care of a handicapped child? It was after all the parents' choice to have that child despite the costs and hardships the child will face, so shouldn't the parents be responsible for paying it and not the government? I can easily see things going in that direction and I don't like it. Just this morning I heard about a new government study that's saying women should get mammograms half as frequently now that the government is likely going to have to pay for them. Add to that the fact that the government has already said they'll counsel people with terminal illnesses about how to commit suicide after their treatments have been rejected. Now tell me that the doctors won't be forced to counsel parents to get an abortion if the baby will have a disease or handicap that is too expensive to treat.

Quasimodo
18-11-09, 23:49
Add to that the fact that the government has already said they'll counsel people with terminal illnesses about how to commit suicide after their treatments have been rejected.

Holy ****ing ****.

irjudd
18-11-09, 23:56
I wouldn't be me if I didn't ask WD to point me towards an article or something to read that for myself. It almost sounds scifi!

Lemmie
18-11-09, 23:57
Just this morning I heard about a new government study that's saying women should get mammograms half as frequently now that the government is likely going to have to pay for them. Add to that the fact that the government has already said they'll counsel people with terminal illnesses about how to commit suicide after their treatments have been rejected..

Particularly in reference to your second fact, is there a source you can give us about that? That doesn't sound like a terribly clever thing to say if you're trying to convince people that a public option for health insurance is okay...

Beans-Bot
19-11-09, 00:07
Oh dear, GC has sprung a leak again. :vlol:

And yet I'm still tempted to add fuel to the fire. :pi: MT, aren't you also pro-war? I don't think you have the right to call pro-choice people pro-death in such a demeaning fashion if that's the case. :wve:

[for the record, I'm pro-life, so I actually do agree with you in that respect. Just sayin' before you jump down my throat :p]

Cochrane
19-11-09, 00:07
I don't see such a significant difference. One factor in considering whether to get an abortion is if the child will be mentally handicapped (for example, Downs Syndrome or something similar). If there's nothing wrong with aborting a handicapped baby, then why does society have to pay to take care of a handicapped child? It was after all the parents' choice to have that child despite the costs and hardships the child will face, so shouldn't the parents be responsible for paying it and not the government? I can easily see things going in that direction and I don't like it.
First of all, who ever said there's nothing at all wrong with it? It's a very difficult and emotional choice, and I'm strictly against allowing abortion for those who don't realize this, but it is a choice nevertheless.

The point, though, is how the line is drawn. It's not about keeping "worse" people away from society, it's about when a mass of cells becomes a human being. I certainly respect (though don't agree) if you say that a mass of cells that can become a human being is always a human being, but "Mass of cells" vs "human being" is a very different distinction from the "worthy human being" vs "unworthy human being" that the strawmen like to make.

Just this morning I heard about a new government study that's saying women should get mammograms half as frequently now that the government is likely going to have to pay for them. Add to that the fact that the government has already said they'll counsel people with terminal illnesses about how to commit suicide after their treatments have been rejected. Now tell me that the doctors won't be forced to counsel parents to get an abortion if the baby will have a disease or handicap that is too expensive to treat.
This is really a different debate altogether, but I'll bite anyway. All of europe has universal health care, in many cases (e.g. Finland) directly run by taxpayer money, and nothing like that has even been proposed, so yes, I find it rather easy to tell you that doctors will not be forced to recommend abortions because the child will be too expensive on the system. I don't know anything about the study you are quoting so I can't comment on that, but I think it's clearly wrong to think that government-run health care actually proposes suicide as an alternative to expensive treatment. The fact is that some people prefer dying at a time of their own choosing over a terminal illness. Whether people who make that choice should get any financial help for that (even for the counseling) from the government is clearly worthy of debate, of course, but a quite different issue from "Obama is going to kill the ill!".

Ward Dragon
19-11-09, 00:13
I wouldn't be me if I didn't ask WD to point me towards an article or something to read that for myself. It almost sounds scifi!

Naturally :p It's impossible to find an unbiased source, but I did my best xD

Currently Oregon has government-run healthcare and they do allow assisted suicide when the government has refused to cover the costs of the treatment. They call it the "Death with Dignity Act." Details are on their site:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml#euthanasia

Here's a story about a woman with cancer who was sent a letter by the government basically saying that they wouldn't cover her cancer treatment but they would cover suicide pills, hint hint...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Now I can't find a straight answer about whether this provision is still in the federal healthcare bill or not. At least as of August, the federal healthcare plan had similar provisions to the Oregon plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

Edit: Here's a CNN video describing the government's new regulations for mammograms.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mammogram-study-draws-fire/1635788975

knightgames
19-11-09, 00:14
To be perfectly honest my first interpretation of the meat sticker was that meat is bad for your heart (as in, it causes heart disease, and it does). Now I know why I didn't even get the suposed hypocrisy. lmao


The bumper sticker is a play on one displayed here frequently in the U.S. It's used by the Pro Life folks where instead of 'eating meat' it says abortion stops a beating heart.

The saying is so prevelent on the Pro Life side that I actually didn't even think of it the way you did Encore - as eating meat is unhealthy and stops the consumers heart.

Hence, this isn't really a sign of hypocracy - but a clever ploy for vegetarianism.

Ward Dragon
19-11-09, 00:27
The point, though, is how the line is drawn. It's not about keeping "worse" people away from society, it's about when a mass of cells becomes a human being. I certainly respect (though don't agree) if you say that a mass of cells that can become a human being is always a human being, but "Mass of cells" vs "human being" is a very different distinction from the "worthy human being" vs "unworthy human being" that the strawmen like to make.

But how do you define the difference between "mass of cells" and "human being"? For any definition you think of, there is almost surely a handicapped person who would not qualify as human according to those standards. If the definition is based on physical capabilities, there are paralyzed people. If the definition is based upon mental capabilities, there are people in comas or who are severely retarded. If you go by age alone, that's somewhat arbitrary because there is no real difference between a fetus the day before the cutoff versus the day after the cutoff, so the cutoff day can be pushed in either direction depending who's in control. Currently in the US some states allow partial birth abortion. What's the difference if the baby is killed a minute before being born or a minute after? There isn't any moral difference that I can see. It's just a mess.

(For the record, I don't have a problem with abortion in the first trimester, and I am in favor of euthanasia. I just don't want the government involved in helping people to make the choice.)

Cochrane
19-11-09, 01:05
But how do you define the difference between "mass of cells" and "human being"? For any definition you think of, there is almost surely a handicapped person who would not qualify as human according to those standards. If the definition is based on physical capabilities, there are paralyzed people. If the definition is based upon mental capabilities, there are people in comas or who are severely retarded. If you go by age alone, that's somewhat arbitrary because there is no real difference between a fetus the day before the cutoff versus the day after the cutoff, so the cutoff day can be pushed in either direction depending who's in control. Currently in the US some states allow partial birth abortion. What's the difference if the baby is killed a minute before being born or a minute after? There isn't any moral difference that I can see. It's just a mess.
The short answer is that I don't study biology and hence have no real idea. However, while the exact cut-off point is impossible to define clearly, I think we can say that there are time ranges where it's really not a human being at all, and time ranges where it is, that surround this gray area. Legislation that makes it progressively harder to get an abortion (e.g. free before a certain date, then until some other date only in case it causes harm) is not a perfect solution, which would be impossible, but it is one that may work.

(For the record, I don't have a problem with abortion in the first trimester, and I am in favor of euthanasia. I just don't want the government involved in helping people to make the choice.)
German law actually requires anyone seeking an abortion to get counseling, and the counselors are required by law to try and protect the unborn life. What do you think of a provision like that? It does impact personal freedom of the decision, but as it's in support of not aborting (and, of course, not an unsurmountable obstacle), I don't think it's really wrong. I'm not fully sure, though.

Naturally :p It's impossible to find an unbiased source, but I did my best xD

Currently Oregon has government-run healthcare and they do allow assisted suicide when the government has refused to cover the costs of the treatment. They call it the "Death with Dignity Act." Details are on their site:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml#euthanasia

Here's a story about a woman with cancer who was sent a letter by the government basically saying that they wouldn't cover her cancer treatment but they would cover suicide pills, hint hint...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1
That truly is reprehensible, I fully agree with you there. Things like these should be forbidden by law. In fact, it clearly goes against the principle of human dignity, and I would expect anybody someone suing against such a provision to win if it goes all the way to the supreme court (although making such a long journey can be difficult). It may be worth pointing out, though, that on page three, the article points out that private insurance companies are doing the very same thing. The government running things does not make it more scary than it already is, as far as I can see.

Now I can't find a straight answer about whether this provision is still in the federal healthcare bill or not. At least as of August, the federal healthcare plan had similar provisions to the Oregon plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
The general idea of telling people to think about such things is not necessarily bad. The main problem this article identifies is that it sounds scary. I can't really argue against such a sentiment. Again, the arguments from above apply: Is this really any more scary than what is happening right now? That it should not happen at all goes without saying.

Edit: Here's a CNN video describing the government's new regulations for mammograms.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mammogram-study-draws-fire/1635788975
A false positive rate of 98% is actually a sound argument. I have no idea whether the findings are correct or not, of course, but at least it does not seem like a pure cost-cutting move.

Dark Lugia 2
19-11-09, 01:25
Omg. You've all raped Tyrannosaurus' thread O_O

I found the picture funny :D Its not exactly hard to get... LOL.

I used that Pro-Life America group from that bumper sticker in my AS essay on the abortion debate last week, heh :p

Ward Dragon
19-11-09, 01:26
The short answer is that I don't study biology and hence have no real idea. However, while the exact cut-off point is impossible to define clearly, I think we can say that there are time ranges where it's really not a human being at all, and time ranges where it is, that surround this gray area. Legislation that makes it progressively harder to get an abortion (e.g. free before a certain date, then until some other date only in case it causes harm) is not a perfect solution, which would be impossible, but it is one that may work.

I agree that's the best practical solution, but it doesn't satisfy me from a moral perspective so I think it's important to be consciously aware of how arbitrary the cut-off date is, just to make sure that things don't shift a little bit at a time until we get to somewhere we don't want to be.

German law actually requires anyone seeking an abortion to get counseling, and the counselors are required by law to try and protect the unborn life. What do you think of a provision like that? It does impact personal freedom of the decision, but as it's in support of not aborting (and, of course, not an unsurmountable obstacle), I don't think it's really wrong. I'm not fully sure, though.

I'm not sure either. I like the idea of making sure people know what they're getting into, but on the other hand if they talk a mother into having a baby that she doesn't really want, will the state take care of it then?

That truly is reprehensible, I fully agree with you there. Things like these should be forbidden by law. In fact, it clearly goes against the principle of human dignity, and I would expect anybody someone suing against such a provision to win if it goes all the way to the supreme court (although making such a long journey can be difficult).

Actually the US Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law.

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/gonzalesvoregon.asp

It may be worth pointing out, though, that on page three, the article points out that private insurance companies are doing the very same thing. The government running things does not make it more scary than it already is, as far as I can see.

It is scarier when the government does it. If a private insurance company really screws people over, they can be charged with a crime or sued. However, if the government is the one screwing people over, then who are they accountable to? The Supreme Court which they appointed and has already ruled in favor of such laws? That's really comforting...

A false positive rate of 98% is actually a sound argument. I have no idea whether the findings are correct or not, of course, but at least it does not seem like a pure cost-cutting move.

But if a woman wants to take the precaution anyway just in case she really does have cancer, then she should be able to do so. My worry is that if the government takes over health care and decides that all health care must go through the government program, then it would be very difficult (and perhaps even illegal) for a person to go to a private doctor and pay for tests out of their own pocket if the government refuses to cover it.

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 07:18
MT, aren't you also pro-war?No.

scoopy_loopy
19-11-09, 10:22
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_blns4L4Rgo0/SqFs4hU9o2I/AAAAAAAAA_8/7gwyqhBinoE/s320/political-pictures-hypocrisy-abortion-born-gay-rights.jpg

That is amazing :tmb:

Draco
19-11-09, 16:15
Well this thread has certainly taken an... unexpected... turn.

Personally I think abortion is never a justifiable occurrence when sufficient means to prevent the supposed 'need' to have abortions can be implemented. The fact that humanity would rather slaughter the unborn in numbers greater than any genocide or war to date has ever produced than take responsibility for the management of our own population and reproduction says a lot about our development and how far we still have yet to go.

I don't think abortion should even be an issue up for discussion.

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 16:34
That is amazing :tmb:Not really. Besides the fact that it's killing an unborn baby, most people are also against abortion because that baby in question can't fight for it's rights and defend itself. The picture makes the assumption that people who are pro-life are anti-gay, which just isn't true.

iamlaracroft
19-11-09, 17:23
Well this thread has certainly taken an... unexpected... turn.

Personally I think abortion is never a justifiable occurrence when sufficient means to prevent the supposed 'need' to have abortions can be implemented. The fact that humanity would rather slaughter the unborn in numbers greater than any genocide or war to date has ever produced than take responsibility for the management of our own population and reproduction says a lot about our development and how far we still have yet to go.

I don't think abortion should even be an issue up for discussion.

I'm all for the neutering of the current male population :tmb:

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 17:24
I'm all for the neutering of the current male population :tmb:But not the female population?

Reggie
19-11-09, 17:39
The Government can leave my bits well alone if it ever comes to Draco's way of dealing with things. :p

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 17:44
The Government can leave my bits well alone if it ever comes to Draco's way of dealing with things. :pYeah, I agree.

lara c. fan
19-11-09, 18:33
another random thread :p

Draco
19-11-09, 20:15
The Government can leave my bits well alone if it ever comes to Draco's way of dealing with things. :p

It can be done with a pill.

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 20:19
It can be done with a pill.The government can keep its nose out of the whole thing entirely. I don't understand Draco, from your posts you come off as a libertarian yet you're in favor of this?

Encore
19-11-09, 20:22
Well this thread has certainly taken an... unexpected... turn.

Personally I think abortion is never a justifiable occurrence when sufficient means to prevent the supposed 'need' to have abortions can be implemented. The fact that humanity would rather slaughter the unborn in numbers greater than any genocide or war to date has ever produced than take responsibility for the management of our own population and reproduction says a lot about our development and how far we still have yet to go.

I don't think abortion should even be an issue up for discussion.

That's sticking your head in the sand. Contraceptives would be enough if only laws alone could control people's intelligence and morality. They can't. A country that radically forbids abortions will continue to have them all the same. Just illegally.

Dustie
19-11-09, 22:55
I'm guessing the second thing about the first picture is Pro-American sticker ona a Toyota car?...

Mad Tony
19-11-09, 22:56
I'm guessing the second thing about the first picture is Pro-American sticker ona a Toyota car?...I doubt it. One can be pro-[insert nation here] and own a car from a different country without being hypocritical.

Draco
20-11-09, 01:23
The government can keep its nose out of the whole thing entirely. I don't understand Draco, from your posts you come off as a libertarian yet you're in favor of this?

When I stop paying for someone else's kids, you can tell me I should have no right to stop them from having more.

That's sticking your head in the sand. Contraceptives would be enough if only laws alone could control people's intelligence and morality. They can't. A country that radically forbids abortions will continue to have them all the same. Just illegally.

You aren't familiar with my Population Administration material, that is the stuff that gets people's heads stuck in the sand.

Twilight
20-11-09, 01:40
Here's my image:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/Thagomizer/hypocrisy.jpg

Now post yours!

i don't get it. i'm a vegetarian and i'm pro-choice. by definition, you can only kill what is alive, things are alive when they are born. so aborting an unborn/unalive child is not killing.

killing an already-born animal is murder.

Lemmie
20-11-09, 01:49
i don't get it. i'm a vegetarian and i'm pro-choice. by definition, you can only kill what is alive, things are alive when they are born. so aborting an unborn/unalive child is not killing.

killing an already-born animal is murder.

But babies are alive before they are born, surely?

voltz
20-11-09, 02:12
Technically yes, logically no. You see, it's kinda like that 5 sec rule in reverse....

Uzi master
20-11-09, 03:44
being born is when they baby has matures enough to leave the uterous, logicly they are alive as soon as the sperm and egg unite.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 03:49
The government can keep its nose out of the whole thing entirely. I don't understand Draco, from your posts you come off as a libertarian yet you're in favor of this?

I agree.

The government has no business sterilizing its citizens. We are founded on freedom, and forcing people to sterilize themselves is not freedom.

Heck, forcing us to have health care is bad enough, but this would just be a nightmare.

Draco
20-11-09, 03:51
I agree.

The government has no business sterilizing its citizens. We are founded on freedom, and forcing people to sterilize themselves is not freedom.

Heck, forcing us to have health care is bad enough, but this would just be a nightmare.

Oh I don't know, I think there would be an increase of freedom if people didn't have to worry about abortions or raising kids they never intended to have.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 04:02
Oh I don't know, I think there would be an increase of freedom if people didn't have to worry about abortions or raising kids they never intended to have.

I definitely understand where you're getting at, and I most certainly don't think that your opinion is just pulled out of a hat without logic behind it. It really would be nice to prevent people from killing babies and put a stop to accidental pregnancies. That point of view is great.

It's just that most people really don't want to be sterilized. At least I wouldn't think so. I think it just seems to cross the line when you are being forced to do something to your own body against your will. That seems wrong.

Not to mention, sometimes "accidents" are good. Both my younger brother and I were "accidents" (though my parents call us a "pleasant surprise"), and I'm sure as heck glad that I came to be. :p

Draco
20-11-09, 04:08
I was an 'unintended consequence'. But that really doesn't change my opinion on the subject.

I don't think making people pay a fee to get a license to reproduce is inhuman anymore than I think making people pay a fee to get a license to have a dog is.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 04:13
I was an 'unintended consequence'. But that really doesn't change my opinion on the subject.

I don't think making people pay a fee to get a license to reproduce is inhuman anymore than I think making people pay a fee to get a license to have a dog is.

I would agree with that if humans were born sterile and had to have surgery otherwise, but being fertile and forced to become sterile is a different story. It just doesn't seem right.

But I've heard your point of view and you've heard mine, we could go on forever reiterating ourselves. :p In summary, I just want you to know that I do see good intentions from your idea, and I do agree with the reasons why you think something as such should take place, but I don't agree with your opinion of what should take place.

Also, I hope you don't mind me asking this, but have you been sterilized? Sorry if I'm getting too personal, and you really don't have to answer that. I'm just curious as to whether or not you've taken your ideas into practice on yourself or not. :p

Draco
20-11-09, 04:23
I'm an endangered species, so no, not sterilized. But I have considered it. I may love the idea of having children, but adopting is the responsible thing to do.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 04:47
I see. Just curious, that's all. :p

I do think adopting is a very noble thing, but I wouldn't call it the right thing to do, because not everyone has what it takes to raise an adopted child. They can be much more difficult, and in some cases, even problematic. That could be bad for both the child and the adoptive parents. And have you ever seen the movie, Orphan? :eek: lol I'm jking about that one. :p

I have a lot of respect for it, though. And if I ever decide to have children, I will definitely adopt at least one (I've always wanted to adopt a little Asian girl ever since I was a kid).

Draco
20-11-09, 05:10
Responsibility is more than a personal thing in my opinion. Each individual is responsible for the welfare of the whole. Who am I not to do my part to make the world a better place?

Adopting is just one of the many things I'll do.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 06:13
That's very admirable. :)

Draco
20-11-09, 06:35
Thanks, but saying stuff like that on a forum... even one I've been on for almost a decade doesn't mean a whole lot. So there is no point in thinking well of me based on that lol.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 06:59
Well I've known you since I first joined over seven years ago, so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that I admire you as a person for much more than just that. :p

Draco
20-11-09, 07:26
Hmm, well I think I'd be a disappointment in real life. :p

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 07:27
Nonsense. :hug:

Draco
20-11-09, 07:29
You will never know :P

Ikas90
20-11-09, 07:30
I consider non-hypocrisy a talent.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 07:37
You will never know :P

Oh I just might! You know when you turn around because you think you're hearing a gush of wind? That's really me stalking you. Yup, cat's out of the bag, now! :pi:

I consider non-hypocrisy a talent.

haha, I like that. :D

Draco
20-11-09, 07:38
Oh I just might! You know when you turn around because you think you're hearing a gush of wind? That's really me stalking you. Yup, cat's out of the bag, now! :pi:

I'm not interesting enough to warrant having a stalker, but if I ever am I'd like it to be you.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 07:39
I'm not interesting enough to warrant having a stalker, but if I ever am I'd like it to be you.

:vlol: Well that's good to know. :D

EscondeR
20-11-09, 07:40
^ Hate to be a party pooper... But it's really time to get a... PM session.

V Exactly :mis:

Draco
20-11-09, 07:41
Speaking of hypoc... oh never mind... lol

gbetch
20-11-09, 08:22
Hmm where did that subject go...hmmm...oh i found...nope, thats lint....uh...oh here it is!

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/20/633680661470525891-hypocrite.jpg

Tyrannosaurus
20-11-09, 08:26
i don't get it. i'm a vegetarian and i'm pro-choice. by definition, you can only kill what is alive, things are alive when they are born. so aborting an unborn/unalive child is not killing.

killing an already-born animal is murder.Look at the rationale behind the pro-vegetarian bumper sticker. It argues that eating meat is wrong because the cow/pig/chicken or whatever was once alive and had a beating heart. You do know that fetuses have beating hearts, don't you?

There can be no question that unborn humans are indeed alive. To justify aborting them, you would have to argue about when and where they can be considered human.

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-11-09, 08:47
Sorry, guys. Back on topic :D

I like to visit some of the links from the front page of Myspace, and Audrina Patridge's (actress from "The Hills") myspace page was featured. I randomly clicked it and browsed down to find this. I couldn't help but notice a little hypocrisy here, tell me how long it takes for you to notice. :p

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg179/MeloniesArt/30_Seconds_to_Marsness_by_Meloni-1.jpg

I lold. :vlol:

EscondeR
20-11-09, 08:52
^ Several seconds: PETA & Teryaki burger. Am I right?

iamlaracroft
20-11-09, 09:06
I fail to understand why men think they have any say regarding what any woman decides to do with her own body. It's no one's business, certainly not that of biased males who will never know the pain of menstruation, miscarriage, nine months of morning sickness or vaginal birth.

As for some real hypocrisy...I love how huge ass Khloe Kardashian posed "nude" for PETA but sports Balenciaga nearly every single day. :rolleyes:

Ikas90
20-11-09, 09:45
http://www.fun.net.pl/Zabytki_From_Hell/2003/2003-02-07/america-fitness.jpg

O-EM-GEE, hypocrisy!!!

Cochrane
20-11-09, 09:49
^ Not at all. The gym makes it's money by keeping people fit. It can't just give fitness away for free (by making people climb stairs), now, can it? :D

Reggie
20-11-09, 19:20
It can be done with a pill.
I wouldn't ever sexually abuse women or be irresponsible so why should such a personal freedom be taken away from me like an animal? I just can't agree.

Draco
20-11-09, 19:21
Don't care. I wouldn't ever sexually abuse women or be irresponsible so why should should such a personal freedom be taken away from me like an animal?

That's great, but you and I are in a minority. The world is overpopulated and being Mr Sensitive isn't going to solve it.

We can either do a world war or do the responsible thing.

Reggie
20-11-09, 19:43
Do you think some areas are less overpopulated than others? Maybe because I live in Cornwall where its quite sparse population-wise, I'm not able to fully appreciate the point you're making. That's the reason I deleted the 'don't care' part of reply. I do care, I just don't think I can fully appreciate what your idea would mean. Evenso, I still can't support the idea because I would lose out and I'm not prepared to make myself infertile because I treat my freedoms with the responsibility they ought to be dignified with. Perhaps its this that we people need to be taught more about? Of course, big ideas are more attractive to people than telling them they need moderation. :(

Draco
20-11-09, 19:54
The underlying basic idea with my idea is that people need to demonstrate a conscious willingness to be a parent before they can be. There is no restriction on who can or can't, although obviously anyone not willing to pay the fee is definitely not parent material.

Is there the potential for abuse? Absolutely.

Can that potential be minimized to practically zero? Yes.

I don't expect something like this to be in place tomorrow, but it is the inevitable direction we must go as a race to ensure our survival.

Uzi master
20-11-09, 23:14
I douht caring for a child is cheep Draco, you shouldn't make someone pay to be fertile, not everyone has lots of money anyway and I SERIOUSLY doubt it will ever happen.

Reggie
20-11-09, 23:19
The underlying basic idea with my idea is that people need to demonstrate a conscious willingness to be a parent before they can be. There is no restriction on who can or can't, although obviously anyone not willing to pay the fee is definitely not parent material.

Is there the potential for abuse? Absolutely.

Can that potential be minimized to practically zero? Yes.

I don't expect something like this to be in place tomorrow, but it is the inevitable direction we must go as a race to ensure our survival.
Thanks for elaborating. I don't disagree with you so much as what I did (like when I first heard you mention it a few years ago) but I still have my doubts - not sure why and that's why I'm on the fence about it. I'll mull it over. :D

Lizard of Oz
20-11-09, 23:38
People, just shut up and post your Hypocrisy pics:p

Cochrane
20-11-09, 23:51
http://ferroequinologist.de/forums/hypocrisy.png
Happy?

On a more serious note: Why are there so many people here who always go "Oh, this thread is turning interesting but off-topic. Stop having an actual conversation here!"? Not just you, but in general. I've seen threads with active discussions, real ones, not spam, being locked for "off-topic". Why? Whom does an off-topic thread hurt?

Reggie
20-11-09, 23:57
Happy?

On a more serious note: Why are there so many people here who always go "Oh, this thread is turning interesting but off-topic. Stop having an actual conversation here!"? Not just you, but in general. I've seen threads with active discussions, real ones, not spam, being locked for "off-topic". Why? Whom does an off-topic thread hurt?
I've thought the same thing before. As far as I was concerned, I was happy to leave it there anyway (I have nothing more to add :o) but I know exactly what you're saying.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 00:34
I fail to understand why men think they have any say regarding what any woman decides to do with her own body. It's no one's business, certainly not that of biased males who will never know the pain of menstruation, miscarriage, nine months of morning sickness or vaginal birth.Because there's a living breathing child inside that womb that can't stand up for itself? Many women seem to think that the abortion is a women's rights issue, when it most certainly is not.

We can either do a world war or do the responsible thing.How about neither?

Just to clarify, of course I think we should do things responsibly but I don't feel forced sterilization is responsible at all.

Draco
21-11-09, 00:45
I douht caring for a child is cheep Draco, you shouldn't make someone pay to be fertile, not everyone has lots of money anyway and I SERIOUSLY doubt it will ever happen.

If someone is financially unable to pay a fee for a license to reproduce... why would you conclude they could support children with the current nonsystem?

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 00:51
"License to reproduce". You do realize how totalitarian all this sounds?

Lemmie
21-11-09, 00:52
Sounds like China to me.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 00:53
Sounds like China to me.Even China hasn't implemented such a policy.

Lemmie
21-11-09, 00:56
Even China hasn't implemented such a policy.

Haven't they? I think they have - not nationwide but in certain provinces.

There's a documentary on Channel 4od - 'China's Stolen Children'. It's about couples who have unplanned pregnancies without a licence and then have to sell them to wealthy families. Otherwise, they have to abort them or pay a huge fine.

EDIT: This is what I gathered from the documentary, but it was a while ago so my rememberance might be a bit hazy. I'm going to re-watch it and affirm or correct my statement.

EDIT 2: Yup, as I thought. Families must have a birth permit, even for their only child.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 00:57
Haven't they? I think they have - not nationwide but in certain provinces.

There's a documentary on Channel 4od - 'China's Stolen Children'. It's about couples who have unplanned pregnancies without a licence and then have to sell them to wealthy families. Otherwise, they have to abort them.I know they limit families to one child but I haven't heard of this. Wouldn't surprise me if they did have such a thing though.

I don't know why China want to limit their population. The only thing their army has got going for it is its size lol.

Draco
21-11-09, 02:21
"License to reproduce". You do realize how totalitarian all this sounds?

Only to dramatic types, but I am aware how it comes across. You need a license to do everything else you are 'free' to do, why not one for the most important thing of all?

I don't know why China want to limit their population.

Because they have a massive population.

Quasimodo
21-11-09, 03:37
Only to dramatic types, but I am aware how it comes across. You need a license to do everything else you are 'free' to do, why not one for the most important thing of all?



Because they have a massive population.

Do you plan to practice what you preach?

Draco
21-11-09, 03:43
Do you plan to practice what you preach?

Which part?

Quasimodo
21-11-09, 03:56
Which part?

Sterilization.

Draco
21-11-09, 04:04
Sterilization.

I've already answered that. I have considered it.

Uzi master
21-11-09, 06:28
Look, I can respect you think some people should be starilized, but making it mandatory or needing a birth license is just too far, you wan't it so bad? become a dictator. end of story.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 13:01
Only to dramatic types, but I am aware how it comes across. You need a license to do everything else you are 'free' to do, why not one for the most important thing of all?But it would be a huge increase in government control over the individual. Also, there would be so much room for abuse in such a law. As a Liberatarian, I thought this would be something you would vehemently oppose.

Reggie
21-11-09, 14:32
On the subject of hypocrisy:

Francois de La Rochefoucauld :
'Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue'.

Its one of my favourite quotes just thought I'd share it. :)

Draco
21-11-09, 14:42
But it would be a huge increase in government control over the individual. Also, there would be so much room for abuse in such a law. As a Liberatarian, I thought this would be something you would vehemently oppose.

The abuse would be as minimized as possible. As a Right Wing Fanatic, I thought this would be something you would vehemently support.

See what happened there? I may believe the government needs to be smaller, but that doesn't mean some things shouldn't be done to improve our quality of living across the board.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 14:56
The abuse would be as minimized as possible. As a Right Wing Fanatic, I thought this would be something you would vehemently support.

See what happened there? I may believe the government needs to be smaller, but that doesn't mean some things shouldn't be done to improve our quality of living across the board.I'm not a right wing fanatic. As a conservative I oppose it because it's extremely unnecessary government intervention. Wait, scrap that, I think most people would oppose this, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.

It would improve the quality of life of no one.

Draco
21-11-09, 14:57
I'm not a right wing fanatic. As a conservative I oppose it because it's extremely unnecessary government intervention. Wait, scrap that, I think most people would oppose this, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.

It would improve the quality of life of no one.

What makes you think it won't? Do you think having more people will not be bad for the world then?

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 15:00
What makes you think it won't? Do you think having more people will not be bad for the world then?Having more people will be bad for the world but forcibly removing a human being's right to procreate and requiring them to pay for a license to do so is certainly not the right way to go about it. Totalitarianism is never a good way of solving problems.

Draco
21-11-09, 15:02
Having more people will be bad for the world but forcibly removing a human being's right to procreate and requiring them to pay for a license to do so is certainly not the right way to go about it. Totalitarianism is never a good way of solving problems.

See, that is just dramatic wording. You aren't actually arguing against it. I have displayed some positives and discounted the whole 'freedom' angle. I am also fully aware of the negatives.

Reggie
21-11-09, 15:14
On the subject of totalitarianism, look at the state of Russia since they became a 'democracy'. Mafia and corruption running rampant. I know that's not totally down to them being a capitalist democracy now but its proof that it is not the answer to our problems but at the same time, I don't think dictatorship is either. The problems of our world require more than vast overarching ideas that claim to be what everyone needs.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 15:29
See, that is just dramatic wording. You aren't actually arguing against it. I have displayed some positives and discounted the whole 'freedom' angle. I am also fully aware of the negatives.Of course I've been arguing against it - it's a huge expansion of government and it denies certain people the right to procreate because of their economic position. Plus, it'd be hugely expensive.

Draco
21-11-09, 16:06
Of course I've been arguing against it - it's a huge expansion of government and it denies certain people the right to procreate because of their economic position. Plus, it'd be hugely expensive.

I think you are overstating it. What is the cost breakdown of welfare vs the cost of this program?

Do you think the program couldn't be funded from the fees?

What other government expenditures would be able to be scrubbed when this system is put in place?

What are the big effects of a population downscaling?

Why is the good of the human race as a whole not your primary concern?

Ultimately the government would be smaller, but naturally strict controls must be put into place. I am well aware of the potential for abuse, but that is due to the human factor more than anything else.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 16:31
I think you are overstating it. What is the cost breakdown of welfare vs the cost of this program?

Do you think the program couldn't be funded from the fees?

What other government expenditures would be able to be scrubbed when this system is put in place?

What are the big effects of a population downscaling?

Why is the good of the human race as a whole not your primary concern?

Ultimately the government would be smaller, but naturally strict controls must be put into place. I am well aware of the potential for abuse, but that is due to the human factor more than anything else.How am I supposed to know? This program doesn't even exist (thankfully) so it's impossible to estimate just how expensive this would be.

The good of the human race as a whole is one of my primary concerns, that's why I'm opposed to such a oppressive and totalitarian violation of human rights.

Draco
21-11-09, 16:56
How am I supposed to know? This program doesn't even exist (thankfully) so it's impossible to estimate just how expensive this would be.

The good of the human race as a whole is one of my primary concerns, that's why I'm opposed to such a oppressive and totalitarian violation of human rights.

It would have a big impact, but it is certainly not beyond prediction. Appealing to emotional reactions is the way politicians argue against facts, don't stoop to that level.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 17:53
It would have a big impact, but it is certainly not beyond prediction. Appealing to emotional reactions is the way politicians argue against facts, don't stoop to that level.I'm not. I'm opposing an idea which I believe is a huge and gross violation of human rights.

rowanlim
21-11-09, 18:06
Sorry for not responding directly to the idea of hypocrisy, but I'm gonna have to agree with Draco here.

I feel Earth & humankind is overtaxed from the increasing human population. Notice that a lot of today's problems: starvation, global warming, energy crisis etc, stems from the fact that Earth is not able to sustain us anymore. She can't keep belching out oil, sprouting crops for us when we keep growing & growing.

You may think population administration but it's something we have to consider. Reproducing is no longer a right when we can't afford to reproduce. It's not like we have natural enemies to control our population, which should be the way to go. I'd love to say that oh, being a parent is a wonderful thing, being able to create offspring is something natural, but it's no longer a right when it's unnecessary to reproduce a football squad.

At this rate, we're gonna force ourselves into extinction & I guess if we're all gonna keep deluding ourselves that everyone has the right to have kids, we deserve to be wiped out since we obviously can't cater to the demand of every individual to have food, water, shelter & other basic necessities. Sometimes we've to think of the right thing to do rather than what we want to do. That's what defines us as humans.

Draco
21-11-09, 18:24
I think what defines us as human is our blatant refusal to take prevention over contention.

rowanlim
21-11-09, 18:30
I think what defines us as human is our blatant refusal to take prevention over contention.

Then we've deluded ourselves into thinking we are here to do good for humanity & the Earth.

Reggie
21-11-09, 18:35
How about something is done to encourage people to adopt rather than have more children? This is more constructive, positive and its something people are going to be more open to than forced sterilisation and yet addresses the same problem, just in a more considerate way. And of course, adoption agencies already have measures to prevent these children going to poor/disadvantaged families. Seems to make far more sense to me.

Cochrane
21-11-09, 18:35
Sorry for not responding directly to the idea of hypocrisy, but I'm gonna have to agree with Draco here.

I feel Earth & humankind is overtaxed from the increasing human population. Notice that a lot of today's problems: starvation, global warming, energy crisis etc, stems from the fact that Earth is not able to sustain us anymore. She can't keep belching out oil, sprouting crops for us when we keep growing & growing.

You may think population administration but it's something we have to consider. Reproducing is no longer a right when we can't afford to reproduce. It's not like we have natural enemies to control our population, which should be the way to go. I'd love to say that oh, being a parent is a wonderful thing, being able to create offspring is something natural, but it's no longer a right when it's unnecessary to reproduce a football squad.

At this rate, we're gonna force ourselves into extinction & I guess if we're all gonna keep deluding ourselves that everyone has the right to have kids, we deserve to be wiped out since we obviously can't cater to the demand of every individual to have food, water, shelter & other basic necessities. Sometimes we've to think of the right thing to do rather than what we want to do. That's what defines us as humans.

There is nothing wrong with the basic idea that the earth can only sustain so many human beings. The question, however, is how high this number actually is and what measures, if any, are needed in order to avoid exceeding it.

For example, do we really have trouble feeding everyone? Most industrialized nations produce far more food than they need and at least the EU is throwing wast amounts of it away, simply to keep prices acceptable. In fact, farmers here get money both for producing food and, because of the huge unnecessary capacities, for stopping to produce food. It's madness, but it shows that modern technology can feed a great deal more people than it currently does. Distributing it is the interesting question.

Another issue is fertility rates. In the countries that abuse the earth most, these are usually very low. Among the industrialized nations, only Israel and New Zealand have fertility rates that will not lead to a net loss of inhabitants in the long run. Decreasing births as the development level rises has been observed for quite some time. In fact, even the second generation of immigrants to the US will already have significantly lower fertility rates than their ancestors. In fact, in Europe, several countries are already having problems because there are too few (young) people here.

The main problem with a population that is too huge is the amount of resources they use and pollution they create as the countries become developed. However, the mechanism above counters that. The danger then comes from the gap between an area becoming developed, and the population increase stopping. Population control in such a situation might be helpful, but only on a local scale and it would probably not need to be so… draconic. Besides, introducing modern, less wasteful technology in developing countries can already help with some of the problems.

A "Brave New World" where reproduction is no longer a right may be necessary at some point, but I'd rather work to avoid that than to make it happen faster.

Draco
21-11-09, 18:40
I agree with that in principle, but I don't think we as a race can do it. Too many people are too selfish to really care enough to do what is right.

Reggie
21-11-09, 18:52
I agree with that in principle, but I don't think we as a race can do it. Too many people are too selfish to really care enough to do what is right.
Many enough to make such an initiative useless? I don't think so. Maybe in the short term, success would be limited. However, I believe that in the long-term, encouragement of adoption through incentives (money that would otherwise be spent on this sterlisation programme) would gradually win people over to a better approach and eventually, less people would be adding to the population while those who are otherwise disadvantaged can be given another chance at life with a family.

Sterlisation is just too extreme even if it provides a total solution to a population that is too large and adoption, while it would not be a total solution would most likely be enough to make positive changes for everyone. I can think of a couple other alternatives which could perhaps work in tandem with this idea (thus making it more effective) but on the whole, I think its a more humanistic approach which people would more readily endorse. That's what I've thought after saying I would mull it over.

rowanlim
21-11-09, 18:58
@Reggie: Adoption is a noble act, it is good to encourage it, but since infertility affects 1 out of 7 couples worldwide (from Wiki :p), I imagine asking a person who is perfectly capable of reproducing to adopt would get a response like "it's my right to make babies since I can". I just don't think it's right to insist that one should make babies because that function is necessary. I agree that adoption is a more acceptable approach than population administration but the latter shouldn't be discredited.

@Cochrane: I'm aware of the imbalance between developed & developing countries; the latter has too many mouths too feed & not enough rice to go around, the opposite applies to the former. In an ideal world where people are willing to help others, I'm sure we can overcome the problems associated with overpopulation that the developing nations are facing. Draco's reply explains why I think it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

I agree with that in principle, but I don't think we as a race can do it. Too many people are too selfish to really care enough to do what is right.

Of course we can argue about people not supporting the government to carry out population administration, but the idea is people should stop thinking about what they want rather than what they need.

Reggie
21-11-09, 19:05
@Reggie: Adoption is a noble act, it is good to encourage it, but since infertility affects 1 out of 7 couples worldwide (from Wiki :p), I imagine asking a person who is perfectly capable of reproducing to adopt would get a response like "it's my right to make babies since I can". I just don't think it's right to insist that one should make babies because that function is necessary. I agree that adoption is a more acceptable approach than population administration but the latter shouldn't be discredited.
As I've always maintained, with rights come responsibilities. A Government that has the balls to emphasise and successfully encourage that one needs to take on or at least seriously consider such responsibilities as an ethical duty to society is the Government that could successfully initiate such a scheme. I know I may very well adopt as an alternative anyway. I can't think of anything more direct in helping someone.

I know that my idea is not as strong as Draco's because his is much more sweeping in nature (easier to present ideas in such a way convincingly) moreover, he's had far more time to flesh out his idea than I have mine. So I'm not discrediting his idea per se, just forming my ideas on what I think could be a more ethical alternative which I think could account for Cochrane's ideas as well which is what I was alluding to before. Its just as much, if not more about correct management resources.

rowanlim
21-11-09, 19:15
Sorry I didn't mean to say that you were discrediting his words, I certainly didn't agree to Draco's post because his was more impressive, it was something I had been thinking about lately whenever people complain about the problems we're facing yet no one wants to step up to do the right thing :)

Reggie
21-11-09, 19:21
Sorry I didn't mean to say that you were discrediting his words, I certainly didn't agree to Draco's post because his was more impressive, it was something I had been thinking about lately whenever people complain about the problems we're facing yet no one wants to step up to do the right thing :)
Seriously, its fine - no need to apologise. :) I haven't studied Geography for many years (which is probably weakness in such a debate) or even considered that population may be a problem until I seriously thought about it when posed with Draco's idea. You mentioned the fact that reforming the way we distribute resources globally would be slow to get going. True, that process may be slow but fair trade initiatives have been gaining momentum over the years in what has been a slow but ever improving process. That much I do know and I believe that resources is what the prime concern needs to be. As a secondary concern, the adoption initiative may gain its own momentum overtime if a country's government and society and were to take such a thing more seriously.

DwightSchrute
21-11-09, 19:29
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YZax7rBeFvc/Sa3Nh0BvgeI/AAAAAAAABWE/CVhk8n-cK9U/s400/96_photo.jpg

Hypocrisy at its finest! Literally.

NemesisX13X
21-11-09, 19:30
:vlol:

Draco
21-11-09, 19:31
I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to the point where we have to take such drastic measures, I merely want to expose people to the idea that it is inevitable if we don't take responsibility as a race now. Everything in existence is finite, including us. We perpetuate through reproduction, so it would certainly be a bad idea to have to put such strong controls over it.

Another inevitability is a central world government. At some point it will have to happen if we are to ever climb out of the cradle and start crawling, then walking among the stars.

rowanlim
21-11-09, 19:33
I agree that if everyone can agree that adoption is a good alternative & that we're all responsible to evenly distribute Earth's resources, we wouldn't have to worry about so many issues. Things are improving, albeit slowly. It's the speed of improvement that I worry about; improvement isn't coming fast enough. Plus people are still not being more open than I'd hoped to the idea of "giving up" their ability to reproduce & adopting children.

Maybe I'm not opposed to Draco's ideas because I've been known to demand an immediate solution to a problem, regardless of how many toes I roll over :p

Reggie
21-11-09, 19:44
I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to the point where we have to take such drastic measures, I merely want to expose people to the idea that it is inevitable if we don't take responsibility as a race now. Everything in existence is finite, including us. We perpetuate through reproduction, so it would certainly be a bad idea to have to put such strong controls over it.

Another inevitability is a central world government. At some point it will have to happen if we are to ever climb out of the cradle and start crawling, then walking among the stars.
That's very encouraging then as your idea would mean that it wouldn't be enforced until it was abolsutely necessary and until then we could consider the more moderate alternative which are already in place albeit working at a slow rate. At this point, I think what we need is major reform in resource distrbution a la fair trade initiatives and of course an effort to change people's attitudes towards abortion perhaps through educating people about the positives it holds for all parties. A central world government also makes a lot of sense as with such a government efforts could be made to co-ordinate the initiatives discussed. Of course, some powers are still better off with much smaller, even local governments.

I agree that if everyone can agree that adoption is a good alternative & that we're all responsible to evenly distribute Earth's resources, we wouldn't have to worry about so many issues. Things are improving, albeit slowly. It's the speed of improvement that I worry about; improvement isn't coming fast enough. Plus people are still not being more open than I'd hoped to the idea of "giving up" their ability to reproduce & adopting children.

Maybe I'm not opposed to Draco's ideas because I've been known to demand an immediate solution to a problem, regardless of how many toes I roll over :p
Then what we need is a better co-ordinated efforts by all countries and organisations to improve the speed at which things improving. Perhaps Draco's suggested step is the right one. Of course, implicit in this is the need for better international relations. We all saw what happened when Burma got hit hard by typhoons, the developed countries rushed to help but the process was drawn to a total halt by the military government's refusal to allow aid to get through. Its an example which hints at the complexity of the problems facing such initiatives.

As for your second point, patience is a virtue! If things are improving slowly but at a feasible rate, then efforts should be made to quicken the pace to change along similar lines rather than opting for extreme alternatives.

Cochrane
21-11-09, 20:05
I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to the point where we have to take such drastic measures, I merely want to expose people to the idea that it is inevitable if we don't take responsibility as a race now. Everything in existence is finite, including us. We perpetuate through reproduction, so it would certainly be a bad idea to have to put such strong controls over it.

Another inevitability is a central world government. At some point it will have to happen if we are to ever climb out of the cradle and start crawling, then walking among the stars.

Okay, under these circumstances I agree with you. It may become necessary if we don't find other ways to solve the problem that we're facing.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 20:30
Another inevitability is a central world government. At some point it will have to happen if we are to ever climb out of the cradle and start crawling, then walking among the stars.No. A central world government is not and never will be a necessity.

Draco
21-11-09, 20:31
No. A central world government is not and never will be a necessity.

That is pure delusion.

Cochrane
21-11-09, 20:45
No. A central world government is not and never will be a necessity.

In many areas, it's already a necessity today. It's just not being done yet.

Mad Tony
21-11-09, 23:56
That is pure delusion.Actually, it's an opinion.

miss.haggard
21-11-09, 23:58
Kids are expensive, ship the unwanted ones off to the moon.

Draco
21-11-09, 23:59
Actually, it's an opinion.

It is still delusional. The only way it won't happen is if we destroy each other first.

Melonie Tomb Raider
21-11-09, 23:59
Kids are expensive, ship the unwanted ones off to the moon.

:vlol:

Mad Tony
22-11-09, 00:05
It is still delusional. The only way it won't happen is if we destroy each other first.Not really. I know you have your views on what might happen in the future (which is fair enough) but stop acting like you know what will happen, because you don't.

Encore
22-11-09, 00:08
Kids are expensive, ship the unwanted ones off to the moon.

We can also "Battle Royale" them..

Draco
22-11-09, 00:08
Not really. I know you have your views on what might happen in the future (which is fair enough) but stop acting like you know what will happen, because you don't.

There are only so many paths our race can take. Don't be blind to any of them.

We can also "Battle Royale" them..

Fisher-Price Gladiators

miss.haggard
22-11-09, 00:10
We can also "Battle Royale" them..

Interesting idea... I would love to see a viking baby battle a ninja baby.

Winner gets first ticket to the moon.

Dustie
22-11-09, 15:20
How is a central world government going to make any difference - on human mentality, for example?