Liberal Forum

GHETTOBLASTER » 30 Aug 2023, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 7:18 pm

I believe  financial incentives / penalties  in China ended with trash dumpsters full of dead babies.

No. You have it precisely backwards.

They began it. There were never murdered babies in China UNTIL the one child policy.

GHETTOBLASTER » 30 Aug 2023, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 7:18 pm

I've  wondered if either the Chinese or the Global Elite would resort to germ or nuclear warfare 
At least my list of much more subtle and humane "social engineering" measures to reduce population is being done to people who don't realize what's happening for the most part. Even the Blacks and Browns aren't immune to the Social Engineering schemes..they will eventually follow suit.

I thought you opposed those measures.

This is getting quite confusing. But that is often the case when speaking to people who believe - preposterously and against copious counter-evidence - that we are anywhere CLOSE to the planet's carrying capacity.
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Aug 2023, 9:26 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 9:26 pm

I thought you opposed those measures.

 

The subtle measures I listed don't cause suffering and the young adults targeted with the social engineering measures think that they are the ones in total control of their decision making.
If in 100 years the USA and rest of the World has 1/2 the population it has now and it didn't take a nuclear holocaust or a super pandemic to acheive that..well I would see that as some sort of a win.
At this point I think the die is cast anyway.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 30 Aug 2023, 9:48 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 9:48 pm

The subtle measures I listed don't cause suffering and the young adults targeted with the social engineering measures think that they are the ones in total control of their decision making.
If in 100 years the USA and rest of the World has 1/2 the population it has now and it didn't take a nuclear holocaust or a super pandemic to acheive that..well I would see that as some sort of a win.
At this point I think the die is cast anyway.

I am missing something. 

Please list the measures you AGREE with to limit the number of humans on this planet. 
 

DeezerShoove » 09 Aug 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2023, 12:23 pm

That black and white **** never works for me.
I'm glad it does for some people, I guess.

Within that line of logic is the very 20/20 hindsight I refuse to pretend I had 3 years ago.
 

You were instructed from an early age by your government not to experiment with drugs. 

You knew or should have known the "warp speed" hot shot was an experiment. 

​​​​​​​Take responsibility for your decisions.
 

Cannonpointer » 30 Aug 2023, 9:49 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 9:49 pm

I am missing something. 

Please list the measures you AGREE with to limit the number of humans on this planet.

Abortion. We would have more like 80MM ****** in the USA and many more Liberals of every other stripe if not for EZ access to abortion. 
Women's Lib led to more "Single Children". "Single Child Millennials" evidently became a little too selfish to take on parenthood. Am I deeply bothered by what amounts to a subtle trend..?
NO. Nobody had any say in the matter. Your chance to derail that movement [and all others] passed when you failed to destroy the [[[National Broadcast System]]]

The other examples of Social Engineering that led to less desire to have children..I was not clever enough to have devised myself no matter how much I would like to see the population reduced.
Like a train wreck in slow motion unless the [[[National Broadcast System]]] could have been totally destroyed there was no way to stop any of this social engineering
The after effects of these social engineering measures I dislike short term  but the bigger picture is whether the population is allowed to double again 60 years from now or possibly be reduced.

Cannonpointer » 30 Aug 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 6:52 pm

So... not by extermination.

And not by any of the other means you listed.

How, then, do you propose to reduce this nation's population? Or are you just grousing?
 

Honest explanation of genetic compounding resulting in changing population left living forward here now. Rule of 72 figuring out yields on interest earned works same principle with chromosomes added per generation gap changing the entire population of the food chain one reproduction at a time living in series parallel positions now.

Life is actually self evident to numbers occupying space specifically evolving as displaced lived and/or living.

the fundamental whole is equal to total sum of all its parts. Universe as a whole, human species as a whole of all ancestral lineages combined occupying time inhabiting space now as it has since inception to this atmosphere.

Reasonable doubt invents missing links of self evident results playing statistical averaging facts every generation new statistical averages is used against each arriving reproduction to repeat history again.

You call it honoring traditional values sustaining hope, faith, charity nobody finds out the specifics of evolving in plain sight. Facts should keep it covered up in every rule of law courtroom in this atmosphere.

HillaryClinton » 30 Aug 2023, 9:55 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Aug 2023, 9:55 pm

You were instructed from an early age by your government not to experiment with drugs. 

You knew or should have known the "warp speed" hot shot was an experiment. 

Take responsibility for your decisions.

I have completely.
Never shied away from any questions about motivations or fears (or lack thereof).

​​​​​​​Conspiracies scare me as much as unfounded rumors, nome sane?

GHETTOBLASTER » 31 Aug 2023, 12:54 am » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 12:54 am

Abortion. We would have more like 80MM ****** in the USA and many more Liberals of every other stripe if not for EZ access to abortion. 
Women's Lib led to more "Single Children". "Single Child Millennials" evidently became a little too selfish to take on parenthood. Am I deeply bothered by what amounts to a subtle trend..?
NO. Nobody had any say in the matter. Your chance to derail that movement [and all others] passed when you failed to destroy the [[[National Broadcast System]]]

The other examples of Social Engineering that led to less desire to have children..I was not clever enough to have devised myself no matter how much I would like to see the population reduced.
Like a train wreck in slow motion unless the [[[National Broadcast System]]] could have been totally destroyed there was no way to stop any of this social engineering
The after effects of these social engineering measures I dislike short term  but the bigger picture is whether the population is allowed to double again 60 years from now or possibly be reduced.

Well, none of the measures you cite prevented the doubling of the USA population, so I will put you down as grousing with no viable solution - an implicit wish that someone else will do something terribly nasty. Which leads me to this:

There are two perspectives on this issue - well, three, including the leftist one you have adopted. They are the religious and the secular. The religious straight forward: Wishing for less of God's children is anti-Christ. Perhaps you are not religiously minded. So let's talk about the secular perspective. 

It is accepted science that variation within a species is paramount to that species' survival. It is also accepted that every human being is unique - and so the more people, the greater the variation within the species. To wish for less variation within the species is to wish for a weaker human species. 

Finally, there is the cult perspective. Ignoring ALL evidence, the cultists have decided that humans are a cancer, and resources are limited (in spite of a mere atom containing the power to fuel a large city). They declared peak oil their bugaboo in the 70s. We used more oil in the 80s than had been used in all of history. Then again in the 90s - more than in all of history before THAT. Again in the aughts. Again in the teens. We will do it again in the 20s. It has been a doubling of a doubling of a doubling since the first decade we began using oil - exponential growth. We now have more proven reserves than we started the teens with. Every resource they declare scarce is proven otherwise. Even diamonds are quite abundant, and they have to be controlled by a cartel to APPEAR scarce. 

You have clearly bought into the cultist narrative in your demand for the very lebensraum that is already available to you and to anyone who seeks it. And this is against all evidence. It is an observable, inarguable fact of math that as human population has risen, human squalor and misery have radically abated. It is no stretch to argue that your wish for a reduction of human resources would end in human misery and squalor resuming its previous horrid levels. What you call for is genocide and hell on earth. What you call for is the failure of the species. And the demonic cult has convinced you it is the species' salvation. It is not. The earth is nowhere close to its human carrying capacity. The more people, the less hunger and illiteracy - the longer our life spans and richer our cultures (multi-culturalism is a separate argument, unrelated to population).

We don't need less people. We need more. If we double again, perhaps humans will affect 7% of the earth's land mass, while achieving even greater prosperity than we now enjoy.

 
 

DeezerShoove » 31 Aug 2023, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 12:14 pm

I have completely.
Never shied away from any questions about motivations or fears (or lack thereof).

Conspiracies scare me as much as unfounded rumors, nome sane?

The experimental nature of the vax, its toxicity, and the illegality of pressuring people to take it are not conspiracies, and they never were conspiracies. They are facts, and they always were facts. It is only the twitter censors that declare them conspiracies - and this, to protect pharma's profits. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Aug 2023, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:35 pm

Well, none of the measures you cite prevented the doubling of the USA population, so I will put you down as grousing with no viable solution - an implicit wish that someone else will do something terribly nasty. Which leads me to this:

There are two perspectives on this issue - well, three, including the leftist one you have adopted. They are the religious and the secular. The religious requires little argument: Wishing for less of God's children is anti-Christ. Perhaps you are not religiously minded. So let's talk about the secular perspective. 

It is accepted science that variation within a species is paramount to that species' survival. It is also accepted that every human being is unique - and so the more people, the greater the variation within the species. To wish for less variation within the species is to wish for a weaker human species. 

Finally, there is the cult perspective. Ignoring ALL evidence, the cultists have decided that humans are a cancer, and resources are limited (in spite of a mere atom containing the power to fuel a large city). They declared peak oil their bugaboo in the 70s. We used more oil in the 80s than had been used in all of history. Then again in the 90s - more than in all of history before THAT. Again in the aughts. Again in the teens. We will do it again in the 20s. Every resource they declare scarce is proven otherwise Even diamonds are quite abundant, and they have to be controlled by a cartel to APPEAR scarce. 

You have clearly bought into the cultist narrative in your demand for a lebensraum that is already available to you. And this is against all evidence. It is an observable, inarguable fact of math that as human population has risen, human squalor and misery have radically abated. It is no stretch to argue that your wish for a reduction of human resources would result in human misery and squalor resuming its previous horrid levels. What you call for is genocide and hell on earth. What you call for is the failure of the species. And the demonic cult has convinced you it is the species' salvation. It is not. The earth is nowhere close to its human carrying capacity. The more people, the less hunger and illiteracy. the longer our life spans and richer our cultures (multi-culturalism is a separate argument, unrelated to population).

The population had already grown quite large by the time Womens Lib was introduced.
Obviously you don't understand that in order for the population to have doubled in let's say 50 years that only required a 2% increase per year that nobody actually "feels".
I haven't "bought into" anything. I simply yearn for the days to return when I could spend an entire day on a North Sand Diego County beach and only see a handful of people passing by all day. 
Affordable housing on generous sized lots will be one of the greatest benefits and I think the need for Illegals to flood into the USA will diminish greatly.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 31 Aug 2023, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:48 pm

The population had already grown quite large by the time Womens Lib was introduced.
Obviously you don't understand that in order for the population to have doubled in let's say 50 years that only required a 2% increase per year that nobody actually "feels".
I haven't "bought into" anything. I simply yearn for the days to return when I could spend an entire day on a North Sand Diego County beach and only see a handful of people passing by all day. 
Affordable housing on generous sized lots will be one of the greatest benefits and I think the need for Illegals to flood into the USA will diminish greatly.

I simply would not wish the diminishment of my species for the bowl of gruel that is a larger building lot. There are better ways to acquire that - and if none of those are within my tool kit, I would prefer to stick with the lot I have.
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Aug 2023, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:51 pm

I simply would not wish the diminishment of my species for the bowl of gruel that is a larger building lot. There are better ways to acquire that - and if none of those are within my tool kit, I would prefer to stick with the lot I have.

Diminish the species...?
NO
Diminsh the numbers...?
Yeah that's more like it.

GHETTOBLASTER » 31 Aug 2023, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:54 pm

Diminish the species...?
NO
Diminsh the numbers...?
Yeah that's more like it.

I've explained the science - you've made no counter-argument.

That makes your "no" a foot stomp - not an argument.
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Aug 2023, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:47 pm

The experimental nature of the vax, its toxicity, and the illegality of pressuring people to take it are not conspiracies, and they never were conspiracies. They are facts, and they always were facts. It is only the twitter censors that declare them conspiracies - and this, to protect pharma's profits.

Everything was a conspiracy at the beginning.
That 20/20 hindsight stuff is all yours, my friend.
Your dispute is not with me.

DeezerShoove » 31 Aug 2023, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 3:02 pm

Everything was a conspiracy at the beginning.
That 20/20 hindsight stuff is all yours, my friend.
Your dispute is not with me.

The fact that it was experimental was not a conspiracy. Google it. Or just reason it out. 
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Aug 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 2:58 pm

I've explained the science - you've made no counter-argument.

That makes your "no" a foot stomp - not an argument.

You're really good at making these proclamtions.
I don't need "science" to tell me what sort of lifestyle is superior and which isn't.

GHETTOBLASTER » 31 Aug 2023, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 3:06 pm

You're really good at making these proclamtions.
I don't need "science" to tell me what sort of lifestyle is superior and which isn't.

We were not arguing what kind of lifestyle was superior - we were arguing whether reducing variation within the species diminishes the species. The "science" considers your position full of poop. 

"No" is a proclamation. That's YOUR territory. You've proclaimed without evidence - AGAINST evidence - that the world would be better with less people. 

What I have done is make reasoned arguments based on science. And you've responded "No," and followed it with your original proclamation. 
 
I have backed my arguments - you haven't. Only one of us is relying on proclamations.
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Aug 2023, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 3:05 pm

The fact that it was experimental was not a conspiracy. Google it. Or just reason it out.

This is old ground for you and me. I'll pass. 
You already know where I stand.  

DeezerShoove » 31 Aug 2023, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2023, 3:27 pm

This is old ground for you and me. I'll pass. 
You already know where I stand.

Okay. But that does not make the experimental nature of the vax a "conspiracy."

It's just a fact - ignored at the experimenters' hazard.
 
For that matter, its rumored toxicity and ineffectiveness were never a conspiracy theory, either. It was common sense, backed by math.

71% of ALL patent medicines pushed through the FDA this century were recalled or black-boxed due to unforeseen dangers to the public. 71%.

That number alone would put the odds AGAINST those whose only defense against facts was to declare them a "conspiracy theory." 

But that is NOT the relevant number. Because THAT number resulted from all due diligence being observed. The odds against "warp speed" release are greater. So the number is 71% plus "x." And that would make those who insisted it was safe and effective the conspiracy theorists.

These are facts. No one is required by law to like 'em. But calling them conspiracy is assery. Sorry.