Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 21 Dec 2024, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 8:57 pm

This is a perversion of India's history - a deliberate pretense of ignorance, I suspect. You are ignoring the internal and external issues that India was facing in 1960, not least of which was outdated agricultural norms and poor farm to market infrastructure. India was only recently free of Britain, and was still freeing parts of the nation from Portugal. It was dealing with internecine religious strife. Life expectancy was 41 years.

Today, it has TRIPLE the population it had in 1960, and life expectancy, at 67 years, is more than half again what it was then.

Evidence is not on your side.

YOU are the one making a claim - the tired as **** claim that there are too many people and not enough cookies.

I NEVER suggested we can "**** our way to prosperity." I have made no argument that had India controlled its population, it would be worse off. I am simply throwing **** your LONG-debunked globalist claptrap. There are NOT too many people, and there are NOT too few cookies, and I have proved it with facts. I have challenged you over and over to produce ONE example of a country that had significant population growth and did NOT see a decline in poverty. Nothing in that challenge or in any argument I've made suggests that controlling population will cause poverty - only that population does not induce it.

Well, then, don't do that. It's stupid. 

What I do is compare absolute poverty rates from one period to another, to hip you that your more people = less **** claim is hogwash for simpletons.

Now you are reaching - clumsily, like that too-soon teat grab in the theater when I was 14 and still learning my night moves. Do you EVER google any of this ****?

In 70, a car that didn't kill you would give you a hundred thousand miles, and it cost about a year's pay. Today, a car WON'T kill you and gives you triple those miles and costs about a year's pay. And it'll give you directions and summon emergency help if you need it and are unable. It'll drive over cabled roads, it'll get several times better gas mileage, it'll give you a much smoother ride - hell, it'll drive FOR you, if you buy the right car.

But all of that - home ownership, car ownership - is off topic. Even if your false claim about home ownership were true, it would not be evidence for your thesis. A mobile society is comprised of many demographics, including RENTERS BY CHOICE. Not every renter cannot buy a home.

The topic is that population is not a problem worth fretting about, and I have proved my case - as have you. I thank you for your assistance. My name is Tom Bodett, and I've turned a light on for ya.