Liberal Forum

*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2024, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2024, 9:15 pm

Those were the excuses I fully expected to see come in.

Yeah yeah - excuses. Not refutations. Not brutal takedowns. Not unassailable refutations. Excuses.        

You claimed home ownership has declined. I put the lie to that claim. You blathered about cars. I made an incisive and incontestable observation that cut your argument in half. You blathered about pensions - a THIRD off-topic tangent that I simply ignored. 

*The issue was never homeownership. But I still destroyed your irrelevant claim. 
*The issue was not the quality of cars - and you should never have even THOUGHT about introducing that topic. Cars are probably the single biggest area where the working man has come far ahead in the past 50 years, able to get three times the value for his coin.
*The issue was never pensions. Utterly irrelevant to the topic and unworthy of a third brutal hoogle.

The issue is whether global population is worth fretting over. It's whether the whole "population crisis" is a thing. I've made a good argument that it isn't. You've responded to each of my arguments with blather and twaddle. 

Look, I was really hoping you would give my argument a good contest. For example, you could have made the case that correlation is not causation and that what has reduced poverty is not more people but rather better tech. You could have argued that if India had controlled its population better, then that better tech would have done even MORE good for its people. You could have insisted that poverty reduction has happened in SPITE of, not because of, population growth. That was your proper argument, and I have waited for a long time for you to make it.

I would not agree with that, but I'd at least have had to do something other than play speed bag with a marshmallow, fielding irrelevancy after irrelevancy while watching you make crazy and easily disproven claims that can be destroyed with a mere hoogle and zero analysis. 

At the end of the day, when you find yourself parroting the elite party line, you need to be nervous that SOMEWHERE down the line, you zigged where you should have zagged.

The simple fact is, my position is based in faith, principle, and humanity - not in any set of facts that I can prove. I can never prove that more people = more available resources and less poverty. It's an argument that can go on forever (if one eschews irrelevancies, which one has not done). I WILL say that there is a whole big **** of a lot of correlation which would SUGGEST that more people = less poverty and longer life spans. But I would never say that I can prove it. I don't have the chops to back up such an argument, even though I believe the argument is true and I believe there ARE people with the chops to prove it. 

I don't need to make any "excuses" for believing that cutting human population is the piss-poorest way of tackling our problems ever **** from an elitist think tank and consumed by a gulled population. And I will say AGAIN: So long as a single atom contains sufficient energy to power (or destroy) an entire city, don't talk to me about shortages. Of anything. The pretense of shortages is a sucker's game, devised to transfer power and wealth to a select few.