Liberal Forum

—————————————

Opening shot:

https://x.com/yourfellowarab/status/178 ... 07899?s=46

Thread 1: Indian nationalist reply (“muh GDP”)

https://x.com/uda4000/status/1785456262051963059?s=46

Responses:

https://x.com/zack_xavier_/status/17854 ... 96350?s=46

https://x.com/diamantes_ices/status/178 ... 53900?s=46

https://x.com/sir_manalot/status/178560 ... 70337?s=46

Other comments

https://x.com/badnocs/status/1785572625084821814?s=46

https://x.com/rasjohnnjui/status/178565 ... 27622?s=46

https://x.com/clonezys/status/1785671710437412938?s=46

 

BASICALLY ALL APES AND LOWER PRIMATES PRACTICE OPEN DEFECATION...oooook,,,,,ooooOOOOK...eeeek...eeeEEEEK.....SCREEEEEEEECH!!!




 OOOOOOK....OOOOOOOOK....!!!!!  EEEEEK.....EEEEEEEEEK....!!!!!   SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH...!!!!!!
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 10:54 am

BASICALLY ALL APES AND LOWER PRIMATES PRACTICE OPEN DEFECATION...oooook,,,,,ooooOOOOK...eeeek...eeeEEEEK.....SCREEEEEEEECH!!!




 OOOOOOK....OOOOOOOOK....!!!!!  EEEEEK.....EEEEEEEEEK....!!!!!   SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH...!!!!!!

I remember when you had a debate with @Cannonpointer  on the subject of population density and growth…would be worth revisiting when he returns 

LowIQTrash » 01 May 2024, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 11:09 am

I remember when you had a debate with @Cannonpointer  on the subject of population density and growth…would be worth revisiting when he returns

It's a total waste of time.....  
When I was born we "only" had 155MM in the USA and it took less than a life time for that figure to double.
I would love to be able to take a peek at what the USA will look like 60 years from now.
I don't approve of how the [[[JWO]]] Social Engineers have manipulated the Goyim Masses into having less desire and less ability to have kids...but look at it like this...THEY ARE THINNING THE HERD......  
 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 01 May 2024, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 10:27 am

—————————————

Opening shot:

https://x.com/yourfellowarab/status/178 ... 07899?s=46

Thread 1: Indian nationalist reply (“muh GDP”)

https://x.com/uda4000/status/1785456262051963059?s=46

Responses:

https://x.com/zack_xavier_/status/17854 ... 96350?s=46

https://x.com/diamantes_ices/status/178 ... 53900?s=46

https://x.com/sir_manalot/status/178560 ... 70337?s=46

Other comments

https://x.com/badnocs/status/1785572625084821814?s=46

https://x.com/rasjohnnjui/status/178565 ... 27622?s=46

https://x.com/clonezys/status/1785671710437412938?s=46

>Oh wow, a racism thread let's see..
>Errm.. ok, maybe the next link
>.... ok, we're not done yet, we still might..
>...

You promised us some racism, why haven't you posted any?

LowIQTrash » 01 May 2024, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 11:09 am

I remember when you had a debate with @Cannonpointer  on the subject of population density and growth…would be worth revisiting when he returns

It wasn't much of a debate. I made evidence-based arguments while he continually restated his faith-based thesis - a thesis powerfully debunked each time it was restated. 

Or so I saw the matter. He never presented a shred of evidence. Nor did he respond to my evidence. 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 11:36 am

It's a total waste of time.....  
When I was born we "only" had 155MM in the USA and it took less than a life time for that figure to double.
I would love to be able to take a peek at what the USA will look like 60 years from now.
I don't approve of how the [[[JWO]]] Social Engineers have manipulated the Goyim Masses into having less desire and less ability to have kids...but look at it like this...THEY ARE THINNING THE HERD......

Perhaps if you had an actual thesis to defend it would be more fruitful. 

Going from an over-population argument to an anti-immigration argument rather puts the kibosh to the first thesis, while providing no onus for me to present a pro-immigration argument. I will continue to destroy any global-over-population argument you care to make, using evidence based argument - while ignoring the bait about illegal/quasi-legal U.S. immigration.
 

Cannonpointer » 01 May 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 1:19 pm

Perhaps if you had an actual thesis to defend it would be more fruitful. 

Going from an over-population argument to an anti-immigration argument rather puts the kibosh to the first thesis, while providing no onus for me to present a pro-immigration argument. I will continue to destroy any global-over-population argument you care to make, using evidence based argument - while ignoring the bait about illegal/quasi-legal U.S. immigration.

You haven't destroyed any argument of mine.
If we put this matter to a popular vote I am certain that most people would agree with me.
Fewer people means less competition for limited resources.
You wish to believe that our resources are unlimited.
That's what you base your flawed belief on.
We've got too many people in our society already living like sardines and that problem will continue to get worse as long as the population increases.. 
 All of your "solutions" are based on theory.
My future model does not require any of your  "solutions" because lowering our population takes care of the problems that have been created thanks to too many people automatically.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/0-Ho ... 7095_zpid/
 

Cannonpointer » 01 May 2024, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 1:13 pm

It wasn't much of a debate. I made evidence-based arguments while he continually restated his faith-based thesis - a thesis powerfully debunked each time it was restated. 

Or so I saw the matter. He never presented a shred of evidence. Nor did he respond to my evidence.

Ok in all fairness, I WAS biased before the argument happened. I will say that you did manage to separate my personal preference (of lower pop density) from what is actually happening. 



 

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

You haven't destroyed any argument of mine.

Forcing you to morph it into an anti-immigration argument is destruction.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

If we put this matter to a popular vote I am certain that most people would agree with me.

The fact that you argue consensus reality makes a case for banality, not for accuracy. Your position on so-called over-population is in fact consistent with the programming of the goyish, so. yes - that drivel would win a popularity contest.

And Fox news pretends Bruce Jenner is a woman.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

Fewer people means less competition for limited resources.

You seem to have forgotten this utterly debunked drivel was already slapped down by facts. The FACTS are that as population has increased, so have resources.

So long as they can blow up a city with an atom, it is really quite silly to yap about limited resources.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

You wish to believe that our resources are unlimited.

You wish to dismiss and ignore history. The ENTIRE third world was in dire poverty with life spans about four decades IN YOUR LIFETIME. Now life spans are in the seven decades, and dire poverty affects less than ten percent of the planet. Your off-the-shelf **** about population is debunked ON ITS FACE by these historical facts. A chart of population and a chart of global poverty superimposed make a **** X, Why you cling to religion over facts is a mystery.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

We've got too many people in our society already living like sardines and that problem will continue to get worse as long as the population increases.

And here we go again, arguing "our" society, and arguing ESTHETICS. Some folks like glass and steel - some log walls and shingles. Some folks dream of living over a bakery and next to a cheese store - others want land. Work on YOUR wish list - don't project it onto those who dream of a penthouse on park avenue.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

 All of your "solutions" are based on theory.

You argument is a morphball that ignores actual historical, verifiable facts.

GHETTOBLASTER » 01 May 2024, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 2:02 pm

My future model does not require any of your  "solutions" because lowering our population takes care of the problems that have been created thanks to too many people automatically.

No one has any idea from minute to minute whether you are complaining about global population, national population, or how many californians are raising real estate prices in your river valley. You're all over the board. The minute a set of facts slaps down your argument, you change your argument. AND you change your complaint. You have gone from "limited resources" (the tritest and silliest argument against humanity's robust existence) to bitching about real estate prices without taking a breath. Who the **** even knows what you are on about? I shoot down your "over-population" jwo narrative and you come back with a **** anti-immigration argument. 
 
And just to avoid stepping over the silliness of that zillow link: home prices are driven by speculation FAR more than by population. America has a psychotic relationship to real estate. Even the legal environment is a greater driver of prices than is population. An excellent example is the city of Santa Monica, which requires every new building to be grid neutral. Then there are esthetics and other zoning considerations. Gotta be a millionaire to buy. But it isn't cuz too many mexicans. Pablo ain't driving prices - I promise. 

 
 

LowIQTrash » 01 May 2024, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 4:27 pm

Ok in all fairness, I WAS biased before the argument happened. I will say that you did manage to separate my personal preference (of lower pop density) from what is actually happening.

Lower populations means less cooperation, less economies of scale, less available labor, less specialization. The Renaissance is taught to us as a "rediscovery" - in fact, it was a population explosion brought on by climate change which allowed people to specialize rather than desperately grub,

The one thing every hamlet, metroplex, and nation have in common is a competition for population. And not fer nuthin.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2024, 12:17 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 12:17 am

Lower populations means less cooperation, less economies of scale, less available labor, less specialization. The Renaissance is taught to us as a "rediscovery" - in fact, it was a population explosion brought on by climate change which allowed people to specialize rather than desperately grub,

The one thing every hamlet, metroplex, and nation have in common is a competition for population. And not fer nuthin.

Those are true. 

It also means the competition is ****. 

Since I’m very lazy I’ll choose to take the easy way out…  

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2024, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 12:10 am

Forcing you to morph it into an anti-immigration argument is destruction.

The fact that you argue consensus reality makes a case for banality, not for accuracy. Your position on so-called over-population is in fact consistent with the programming of the goyish, so. yes - that drivel would win a popularity contest.

And Fox news pretends Bruce Jenner is a woman.

You seem to have forgotten this utterly debunked drivel was already slapped down by facts. The FACTS are that as population has increased, so have resources.

So long as they can blow up a city with an atom, it is really quite silly to yap about limited resources.

You wish to dismiss and ignore history. The ENTIRE third world was in dire poverty with life spans about four decades IN YOUR LIFETIME. Now life spans are in the seven decades, and dire poverty affects less than ten percent of the planet. Your off-the-shelf **** about population is debunked ON ITS FACE by these historical facts. A chart of population and a chart of global poverty superimposed make a **** X, Why you cling to religion over facts is a mystery.

And here we go again, arguing "our" society, and arguing ESTHETICS. Some folks like glass and steel - some log walls and shingles. Some folks dream of living over a bakery and next to a cheese store - others want land. Work on YOUR wish list - don't project it onto those who dream of a penthouse on park avenue.

You argument is a morphball that ignores actual historical, verifiable facts.

No one has any idea from minute to minute whether you are complaining about global population, national population, or how many californians are raising real estate prices in your river valley. You're all over the board. The minute a set of facts slaps down your argument, you change your argument. AND you change your complaint. You have gone from "limited resources" (the tritest and silliest argument against humanity's robust existence) to bitching about real estate prices without taking a breath. Who the **** even knows what you are on about? I shoot down your "over-population" jwo narrative and you come back with a **** anti-immigration argument. 
 
And just to avoid stepping over the silliness of that zillow link: home prices are driven by speculation FAR more than by population. America has a psychotic relationship to real estate. Even the legal environment is a greater driver of prices than is population. An excellent example is the city of Santa Monica, which requires every new building to be grid neutral. Then there are esthetics and other zoning considerations. Gotta be a millionaire to buy. But it isn't cuz too many mexicans. Pablo ain't driving prices - I promise.

I would say that your fundamental premise - that there are sufficient resources to allow 8B humans to survive, if not thrive (whether we want to is a different story) - is sound.

In fact, it would be foolish for me to oppose that line of thought considering I posted that thread a long time ago about how the Jewish dynasties have been hoarding $50+ trillion worth of assets combined over the past 4 centuries. 

Unfortunately because of how humans are programmed, the “thrive” part seems like an impossibility. Whenever a group or tribe seizes sufficient resources, they will dole it all out to their inner group and then weaponize it against their enemies. The “3rd world” was allowed to increase their living standards because of the desire for cheap labor and commodities, not due to some noble goal of “eradicating poverty.” 

Hopefully the third world “immigrants” enjoy their slavery. They won’t have much else to look forward to…assuming they even know what is going on. 

LowIQTrash » 02 May 2024, 12:59 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 12:59 am

Hopefully the third world “immigrants” enjoy their slavery. They won’t have much else to look forward to…assuming they even know what is going on.

They get to meet and enjoy and contribute to their grandchildren. 

That is a major and fundamental improvement in their circumstances from a mere half century ago. 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2024, 1:05 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 1:05 am

They get to meet and enjoy and contribute to their grandchildren. 

That is a major and fundamental improvement in their circumstances from a mere half century ago.

That’s true…

If I were to take the mantle of a counterargument - which I’m not but let’s say I did - I would argue that the remaining physical resources held in reserve by Mother Nature required to sustain a post-industrial standard of living like cobalt, nickel, aluminum, natural gas, iron ore, and silver are not infinite.

Presumably they will one day be gone…so while you would be right in the CURRENT era it’s not a sure thing 200 years from now. And 200 years is really not a long time in the entirety of epochs of human history. 


 

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2024, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 12:10 am

Forcing you to morph it into an anti-immigration argument is destruction.

The fact that you argue consensus reality makes a case for banality, not for accuracy. Your position on so-called over-population is in fact consistent with the programming of the goyish, so. yes - that drivel would win a popularity contest.

And Fox news pretends Bruce Jenner is a woman.

You seem to have forgotten this utterly debunked drivel was already slapped down by facts. The FACTS are that as population has increased, so have resources.

So long as they can blow up a city with an atom, it is really quite silly to yap about limited resources.

You wish to dismiss and ignore history. The ENTIRE third world was in dire poverty with life spans about four decades IN YOUR LIFETIME. Now life spans are in the seven decades, and dire poverty affects less than ten percent of the planet. Your off-the-shelf **** about population is debunked ON ITS FACE by these historical facts. A chart of population and a chart of global poverty superimposed make a **** X, Why you cling to religion over facts is a mystery.

And here we go again, arguing "our" society, and arguing ESTHETICS. Some folks like glass and steel - some log walls and shingles. Some folks dream of living over a bakery and next to a cheese store - others want land. Work on YOUR wish list - don't project it onto those who dream of a penthouse on park avenue.

You argument is a morphball that ignores actual historical, verifiable facts.

No one has any idea from minute to minute whether you are complaining about global population, national population, or how many californians are raising real estate prices in your river valley. You're all over the board. The minute a set of facts slaps down your argument, you change your argument. AND you change your complaint. You have gone from "limited resources" (the tritest and silliest argument against humanity's robust existence) to bitching about real estate prices without taking a breath. Who the **** even knows what you are on about? I shoot down your "over-population" jwo narrative and you come back with a **** anti-immigration argument. 
 
And just to avoid stepping over the silliness of that zillow link: home prices are driven by speculation FAR more than by population. America has a psychotic relationship to real estate. Even the legal environment is a greater driver of prices than is population. An excellent example is the city of Santa Monica, which requires every new building to be grid neutral. Then there are esthetics and other zoning considerations. Gotta be a millionaire to buy. But it isn't cuz too many mexicans. Pablo ain't driving prices - I promise.

I'll just leave you yearning to swim shoulder to shoulder in your vast Sea of Humanity while I continue to enjoy my preferred lifestyle where any man can still afford to live on acreage thanks to the lack of competition.    
 

LowIQTrash » 02 May 2024, 1:18 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 1:18 am

That’s true…

If I were to take the mantle of a counterargument - which I’m not but let’s say I did - I would argue that the remaining physical resources held in reserve by Mother Nature required to sustain a post-industrial standard of living like cobalt, nickel, aluminum, natural gas, iron ore, and silver are not infinite.

Presumably they will one day be gone…so while you would be right in the CURRENT era it’s not a sure thing 200 years from now. And 200 years is really not a long time in the entirety of epochs of human history.

A pond of a given size will support the number and size limits of the school of goldfish. (Pretty colored carp).
They naturally reach that limit and assuming there aren't external factors (predatory birds, poisons, etc.) it will stabilize.
The resources basically determine this.

((I have such a pond but without any controls.
Birds, turtles, frogs, insect larvae, etc. eat at Deezer's Fish Restaurant.
About 10-12 years ago I introduced a about ten dozen feeder goldfish. There's about 200 fish in there now.
They school sometimes in three to four "classrooms" and I can get a rough count.
I do nothing but let that pond run itself.))

I believe human populations will top out wherever they will. It doesn't matter what happens.
If we bomb ourselves or virus ourselves into a valley on the population chart,
does it really matter?
If the so-called scary elite manufacture some nefarious depopulation plan,
again, how concerned should the individual be over this?
Like peepee constantly hand-wringing over one facet of the economy,
he is one individual actually doing nothing but stressing out powerlessly.

At some point this seems academic. Interesting discussion.
But like noticing the Jewish Dynasty hoarding 50 trillion over 400 years,
it's just goldfish recognizing the size of the pond.

LowIQTrash » 01 May 2024, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 10:27 am

—————————————

Opening shot:

https://x.com/yourfellowarab/status/178 ... 07899?s=46

Thread 1: Indian nationalist reply (“muh GDP”)

https://x.com/uda4000/status/1785456262051963059?s=46

Responses:

https://x.com/zack_xavier_/status/17854 ... 96350?s=46

https://x.com/diamantes_ices/status/178 ... 53900?s=46

https://x.com/sir_manalot/status/178560 ... 70337?s=46

Other comments

https://x.com/badnocs/status/1785572625084821814?s=46

https://x.com/rasjohnnjui/status/178565 ... 27622?s=46

https://x.com/clonezys/status/1785671710437412938?s=46

seems more realist than racist to me...
 

JustinSane » 01 May 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2024, 12:16 pm

>Oh wow, a racism thread let's see..
>Errm.. ok, maybe the next link
>.... ok, we're not done yet, we still might..
>...

You promised us some racism, why haven't you posted any?

9 OUT OF 10 RACISTS AGREE DAT DIS BEES DE MOST RAYCISS MEME OF ALL TIME NSHEET
  
 
  
 

LowIQTrash » 02 May 2024, 1:18 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 1:18 am

That’s true…

If I were to take the mantle of a counterargument - which I’m not but let’s say I did - I would argue that the remaining physical resources held in reserve by Mother Nature required to sustain a post-industrial standard of living like cobalt, nickel, aluminum, natural gas, iron ore, and silver are not infinite.

Presumably they will one day be gone…so while you would be right in the CURRENT era it’s not a sure thing 200 years from now. And 200 years is really not a long time in the entirety of epochs of human history.

The counter argument presumes a technological stasis that is ahistorical. 

Finding "more" crude can be as easy as mandating better mileage, for an example of what I am suggesting (not that there has ever been a shortage of crude).

Just because our grandparents rode horses, that doesn't mean that we have to. Investing in rail is another example of husbanding resources - though I by no means agree with the presumption that the metals important today are going to be important next century. Plastic capacitors may be a thing, for all we know - and plastic is available in inexhaustible supply.