Hungry world 'must eat less meat' - Page 4

flux · 08-24-2004, 11:16 AM

Creating new laws will not solve the problem. Humans will do what they want no matter what you tell them they can/can't do. According to The Bible we started off with one law, that was broken. Then 10 laws, those were broken. Now modern cultures have thousands of laws all being broken every second of every day. New programs with old minds will never solve anything.

The problem we are talking about is population growth. Population growth is directly related to food supply. If you supply just enough food to support 100 people that population will fluctuate a little above and below but will settle around 100 people. If you double the food supply guess what, the population doubles. I'm sorry I don't have links to these findings, but if you press me for them I'll get them for you.

We were not meant to live so tightly packed together.

jex · 08-24-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flux

Creating new laws will not solve the problem. Humans will do what they want no matter what you tell them they can/can't do. According to The Bible we started off with one law, that was broken. Then 10 laws, those were broken. Now modern cultures have thousands of laws all being broken every second of every day. New programs with old minds will never solve anything.

The problem we are talking about is population growth. Population growth is directly related to food supply. If you supply just enough food to support 100 people that population will fluctuate a little above and below but will settle around 100 people. If you double the food supply guess what, the population doubles. I'm sorry I don't have links to these findings, but if you press me for them I'll get them for you.

We were not meant to live so tightly packed together.

Unless I have a big stick and you don't in which case I take all the food and give it to my best 10 friends in return for their services. They then beat up the other 89 people and make them work for me and they're too weak to do anything cos they're starving and so have to comply and then the UN steps in and tries to frag my ass and they also send in food shipments. But I capture these food shipments and use that to bring in some mercenaries so I can start guerilla warfare against UN troops. I then go into hiding, eat all the food and find oil!

flux · 08-24-2004, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Unless I have a big stick and you don't in which case I take all the food and give it to my best 10 friends in return for their services. They then beat up the other 89 people and make them work for me and they're too weak to do anything cos they're starving and so have to comply and then the UN steps in and tries to frag my ass and they also send in food shipments. But I capture these food shipments and use that to bring in some mercenaries so I can start guerilla warfare against UN troops. I then go into hiding, eat all the food and find oil!

So eventually you steal all the food, kill off all the people producing food and then you starve because you don't know how to farm yourself. End of game.

Stop putting food under lock and key, stop stock piling food. Only produce what you can consume. I'm not suggesting that we deny people food. What I'm suggesting is that we produce what we need, not what we want.

**leejo** · 08-24-2004, 12:08 PM

The hungry world can eat my meat.

**luna** · 08-24-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerman

When did the rights of someone too stupid not to get pregnant outweigh my rights to a secure retirement? How about my right for my tax dollars to NOT support someone gaming hte system by cranking out welfare babies? I say to he1l with them. Let them starve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaitMaker

I know this is a totally unliberal thought but how about
3. THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES AND MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION?

Why does everyone assume they have to have irresponsible sex? I didn't... I didn't sleep with anyone until I was 18.. <and if you know me, you know it has nothing to do with religious values>. How about forcing people to be responsible and not trying to appease them for their bull**** attitudes and inconsiderate anti-social ways. <Getting irresponsibly pregnant is incredibly anti-social.>

If they don't have the money to support the baby, they've already become a drain on society as they join the ever growing welfare support system.

When I was 18, I made a decision to live up to my responsibility of having gotten pregnant at an "anti-social" age. I birthed and raised my son, and forfeited all the college kid debauchery in the name of raising a young man the right way. I wonder what on Earth you would consider the "correct decision" in my case.

I do not appreciate being lumped into a cluster of "bull**** attitudes", inconsideration, a drain on society, or "too stupid not to get pregnant". I collected for a time while I stayed with my little one to raise him properly and to go to college. I have since then given back to the system by working my ass off and paying MY taxes. To imply that my "stupidity" costs you your retirement is obtuse. I've deposited my money into the system just as you have. I have every right in a time of need to draw off of what I have contributed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

IIRC, China had a pretty popular (as in well-known, not as in well-liked) reproductive law in place that seemed to work.

You're kidding, right? EDUCATE YOURSELF. Read the whole thing, but here is just a snippet.

Quote:

The official sanction for violating the one-child policy is a fine. However, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government acknowledges that it cannot always control how local officials enforce the policy. Because of regional population quotas, local officials have an incentive to keep the birth rate down. Chinese women have reported being forced to abort a pregnancy or to be sterilized. Men have told of being severely beaten and having to send their wives into hiding to deliver children.

Without permission, a second child cannot be registered and, therefore, does not legally exist. The child cannot attend school (without payment of bribes) and later will have difficulty obtaining permission to marry, to relocate, and for other life choices requiring the government's permission.

In China, they favor boys. Nevermind the fact that female babies are abandoned or victims of infanticide, so they can get the one child tax break AND their beloved son- that China sure has is right. Gimmie a break.

On a side note, major props go to Leejo for suggesting "A Modest Proposal".

**Pokerface** · 08-24-2004, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

You're kidding, right? EDUCATE YOURSELF. Read the whole thing, but here is just a snippet.

In China, they favor boys. Nevermind the fact that female babies are abandoned or victims of infanticide, so they can get the one child tax break AND their beloved son- that China sure has is right. Gimmie a break.

Dude, I'm not going to get hung out to dry for noting that China had a mandated birth policy. Once again, I didn't say that it was ethical, I didn't say that it was particularly kind; I just said they had one that worked, disproving the argument that it COULDN'T be done. That's all.

**TheFeniX** · 08-24-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

And which god gave that right?

Conceded. Reword: natural rights.

Quote:

Fine. Taxes hurt the poor more than the rich. They aren't constitutional?

Taxes are a neccesary evil that solve more problems than they cause. Plus, poor people tend to get taxed MUCH less than rich. My brother ended up getting more money back than he put in.

Without taxes, we would have no laws because there would be no cops or congressmen.

Quote:

Can you tell me what is an actual crime?

There's thousands of them.

Quote:

I get a ticket for not wearing a seat-belt. Is that an actual crime? I broke the law. Will my not wearing a seat-belt endanger anyone? Only if I strike someone after flying out my window in an accident. How about not wearing a motorcycle helmet? Who am I endangering? Is that an actual law?

In my opinion, those should both be legal for people over the age of 18 with no mental problems. But forcing people to wear seatbelts and helmets doesn't do harm to a specific subset of society. The police have an interest in keeping people alive. They will restrict your ability to do yourself harm.

Quote:

I've only argued the pleadings you have made based on the hypothetical fact that pregnancy was made illegal without "something" being granted. If we make it illegal, than it's illegal. The fact that people may go out and do something after they break the law shouldn't be a deciding factor whether or not something is made into a law.

Yes it should. History dictates this and law-makers have agreed. Abortion, Prohibition, and selling condoms to underage teens. These are neccesary to keep people safe because by having them illegal: you hurt society more than protect it.

Quote:

That is all I've argued against. I think a law like that would be stupid, because that's my opinion. You won't see me issue emotional pleadings like "think of the children" [sic].

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, although I will give you some credit for turning one of my sayings back on me.

Laws like this have been tried before and they failed. I bring up teenagers because this would be the demographic hit hard (just like with anti-abortion laws). Besides, the law only makes a person irresponsible by a vague definition. This would make two people criminals before they even had a shot at raising a kid.

Quote:

How I'm trying to equate it? I didn't start this discussion. I came in after your "It shouldn't be a law because poor children getting irresponsibly pregnant will have to resort to dangerous back-alley methods to cover up their being guilty of a crime".

And of course that was my only arguement against a law that takes away a right couples have had for centuries.

Quote:

Oh so kids are getting pregnant now because their jeans accidently rip? WOW.

Your analogy was just as ridiculous, so I responded in kind.

Quote:

You have not shown how it only harms the poor, since you still haven't defined what we are even talking about. At this point, I've only pointed out that you are playing the poor card and the stupid kid card. You have not put any meat into any arguement.

Pot to kettle. You completely ignored everything else because Strawman's work so well.

Quote:

Again.. let's make or not make a law because the rich may or may not get by with it. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? "The poor won't be able to afford to cover-up lawbreaking like the rich will, so let's keep it legal, shall we?"

Again, let's strawman some more.

Quote:

I am just arguing your reasons you state why it shouldn't be done. I think they are flawed.

You have yet to hit on what business the government has in my bedroom.

Quote:

My point, which must have missed it's mark, is that people DID become responsible when it was necessary.

So rather than education, we rely on fear so people don't have kids? Last time I checked, health class was a requirement in high school anyways. The taught us basic parenting (::shudder:

and this has been 7 years ago.

Quote:

However, no where does it state that you have the right to reproduce and if our government decided to enact a law for population control, I don't think it would be unconstitutional.

I'm not arguing Constitutionality. That would be conceding that the government has any business judging a parent before they even become one.

Overpopulation isn't an issue so it's a red herring. We're talking about here and now. Having a test/class to determine a person's ability to have kids would change nothing except make more people into criminals for something that isn't even close to a crime.

Murder, theft, assault and other crimes with a clearly defined victim are no-brainers, but you can always argue about more ambiguous crimes such as:
1. seat-belt laws
2. drug-use laws (provided it's not related to DUI or PI)
and other "victimless" crimes.

You can't prove that untrianed parents would create a victim out of their child. Until such time as you do, you can't make something illegal on those grounds.

**Pokerface** · 08-24-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Cicular Logic: make something illegal so people can't find a way around it. Laws that hurt a specific minority/class of society are unconsitutional.

You know what, you can whine about it all you want but laws that keep stupid people from practicing medicine are good, even though they discriminate against stupid people. I don't particularly give a hoot what color people are or what their economic status is. I want children raised well.

Quote:

Responsibility is more than you give credit for. You seem to equate not living up to a law-makers version of responsible parenting should be a crime.

BECAUSE IT IS! How are you missing that?

Quote:

So.... we should make it easier for them to be held above the law because they are rich....

"Should" implies that it isn't already being done. And again, you're the only one bringing money into the argument, Fenix.

Quote:

So, under your law: the condom breaks, she gets pregnant, you're screwed unless you have the money and means to get out of the situation.

Under my law, you're screwed unless you're willing to step up and be responsible.

Quote:

My parents hadn't planned on me (the third child) coming along. Guess that means they're filthy criminals.

I'm an only child that my parents tried for six years to have. My parents are better than your parents. :P

Quote:

You fail to realize that even crack-heads can support children monetarily.

Crackheads can have money. They typically lack the wherewithal to support a child. And if they don't, they there's no problem passing my test.

Quote:

Guess what: this test of parenting wouldn't solve your problem. People would still have sex and loose their kids because they lack a piece of paper. So rather than just kids ending up in foster homes, you then get two people thrown in jail.

Guess what: they laws against homicides don't solve our problems. People still kill one another, and instead of just having a corpse in the street, you also get a person thrown in jail. How gouche.

The "it's going to happen in spite of any law" argument is old, and it's not helpful.

**luna** · 08-24-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Dude, I'm not going to get hung out to dry for noting that China had a mandated birth policy. Once again, I didn't say that it was ethical, I didn't say that it was particularly kind; I just said they had one that worked, disproving the argument that it COULDN'T be done. That's all.

I cannot understand how you can honestly assert that their birth policy is "working". Can you please explain?

Fait_Maker · 08-24-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

When I was 18, I made a decision to live up to my responsibility of having gotten pregnant at an "anti-social" age. I birthed and raised my son, and forfeited all the college kid debauchery in the name of raising a young man the right way. I wonder what on Earth you would consider the "correct decision" in my case.

Sounds to me like you made the correct decision. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell which way it's going to go. Are we always dealing with a Luna who has the character to make good on her debt to society or are we dealing with a girl who decides she's found the easy way to make money and become a baby factory.

Quote:

I do not appreciate being lumped into a cluster of "bull**** attitudes", inconsideration, a drain on society, or "too stupid not to get pregnant". I collected for a time while I stayed with my little one to raise him properly and to go to college. I have since then given back to the system by working my ass off and paying MY taxes. To imply that my "stupidity" costs you your retirement is obtuse. I've deposited my money into the system just as you have. I have every right in a time of need to draw off of what I have contributed.

Irresponsible before the fact... responsible after the fact. Where does this conflict with anything I said? For a time, you were a drain on society for your mistake and you've made up for it as did I. If you'll remember my child support story, I too was on welfare for a time. We got pregnant and we got married. I wasn't yet 19 at the time. I was working but had to quit my job because she had a difficult pregnancy and I couldn't afford for someone to stay with her. Don't lump me with Wickerman's comments because I said nothing about anyone's stupidity costing me my retirement.

**luna** · 08-24-2004, 07:34 PM

My apologies for the lumping, Fait.

Although I do need to say that I do not feel that having my son was a "mistake" in any way. If anything, having my son was the most incredible, rewarding and challenging choice I ever made. Thank goodness he happened!

Fait_Maker · 08-24-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Taxes are a neccesary evil that solve more problems than they cause. Plus, poor people tend to get taxed MUCH less than rich. My brother ended up getting more money back than he put in.

Still taxes hurt the poor more than the rich. And we are talking about things that are more hurtful to the poor than the rich.

Quote:

Without taxes, we would have no laws because there would be no cops or congressmen.

I know your point but would like to point out that when the Constitution was written congressmen didn't get paid and there were no taxes.

Quote:

In my opinion, those should both be legal for people over the age of 18 with no mental problems. But forcing people to wear seatbelts and helmets doesn't do harm to a specific subset of society. The police have an interest in keeping people alive. They will restrict your ability to do yourself harm.

Police have an interest in enforcing the law. There is a difference. Again, I was rebutting your statement that pregnancy doesn't endanger lives. You've added another stipulation.

Quote:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, although I will give you some credit for turning one of my sayings back on me.

Like that did ya. I thought it would be funny.

Quote:

Laws like this have been tried before and they failed. I bring up teenagers because this would be the demographic hit hard (just like with anti-abortion laws). Besides, the law only makes a person irresponsible by a vague definition. This would make two people criminals before they even had a shot at raising a kid.

You miss the point of the law though. It is an attempt to control population. This little teenagers aren't suppose to be having a shot at raising a kid.

Quote:

And of course that was my only arguement against a law that takes away a right couples have had for centuries.

It was the only arguement I had a problem with. Give me a break

Quote:

Your analogy was just as ridiculous, so I responded in kind.

I don't feel it was ridiculous at all.

Quote:

Pot to kettle. You completely ignored everything else because Strawman's work so well.

I ignored everything else because I agreed with everything else. I comment on those things I have a problem with.

Quote:

You have yet to hit on what business the government has in my bedroom.

None at all, until your bedroom antics become a problem for society. If your behavior <uncontrolled pregnancies> is deemed a danger to society <uncontrollable population explosion> than I can see where it might be. Your rights stop at the point it infringes on everyone elses.

Quote:

So rather than education, we rely on fear so people don't have kids? Last time I checked, health class was a requirement in high school anyways. The taught us basic parenting (::shudder:

and this has been 7 years ago.

Yeah, but if it actually got the the point that the US government was even considering something like this, education will have already failed.

Quote:

I'm not arguing Constitutionality. That would be conceding that the government has any business judging a parent before they even become one.

Can't find it now, but I thought you brought up Constitutionality in one of your posts.. forgive me.

Quote:

Overpopulation isn't an issue so it's a red herring. We're talking about here and now. Having a test/class to determine a person's ability to have kids would change nothing except make more people into criminals for something that isn't even close to a crime.

But I thought we were discussing this academically because overpopulation was the problem? Now I"m confused. I can't get into an arguement about something when the points keep shifting.

I don't care about the test/class.. That was someone else's arguement. I'm talking about making pregnancies regulated because of overpopulation. I thought we both were.

Quote:

Murder, theft, assault and other crimes with a clearly defined victim are no-brainers, but you can always argue about more ambiguous crimes such as:
1. seat-belt laws
2. drug-use laws (provided it's not related to DUI or PI)
and other "victimless" crimes.

Drug-use laws are not victimless.

Quote:

You can't prove that untrianed parents would create a victim out of their child. Until such time as you do, you can't make something illegal on those grounds.

And I never did. I think it was Pokerface... I could be wrong. To lazy to go back and look.

Fait_Maker · 08-24-2004, 07:47 PM

Despite everything said, I think the only way you are going to even begin to control any kind of population is to make it difficult. One variable to the problem is the baby factories <not you Luna>. Welfare reform would help in this. If they can't get paid for producing kids, they will be less-inclined to produce kids. Nowadays, it is difficult for anyone to have a large family except those the government subsidizes.

Fait_Maker · 08-24-2004, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

My apologies for the lumping, Fait.

Although I do need to say that I do not feel that having my son was a "mistake" in any way. If anything, having my son was the most incredible, rewarding and challenging choice I ever made. Thank goodness he happened!

I hope you know that isn't the way I meant it. While I love my children dearly, I do think it was a mistake to have them when I did. I was young. Things worked out as they do, but it could have been less difficult if not for my "mistake".

**CingularDuality** · 08-25-2004, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fait_Maker

Drug-use laws are not victimless.

BS. Drug use is just as victimless as alcohol use and tobacco use...

Oh, and I had a huge, Dagwood-style roast beef sandwich for dinner tonight (too hot and humid to cook...).

08-24-2004, 11:16 AM	#46 (permalink)
flux Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Charlotte, NC US Age: 36 Posts: 495	Re: Hungry world 'must eat less meat' Creating new laws will not solve the problem. Humans will do what they want no matter what you tell them they can/can't do. According to The Bible we started off with one law, that was broken. Then 10 laws, those were broken. Now modern cultures have thousands of laws all being broken every second of every day. New programs with old minds will never solve anything. The problem we are talking about is population growth. Population growth is directly related to food supply. If you supply just enough food to support 100 people that population will fluctuate a little above and below but will settle around 100 people. If you double the food supply guess what, the population doubles. I'm sorry I don't have links to these findings, but if you press me for them I'll get them for you. We were not meant to live so tightly packed together.

08-24-2004, 12:08 PM	#49 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Hungry world 'must eat less meat' The hungry world can eat my meat.

08-24-2004, 07:34 PM	#56 (permalink)
luna Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Age: 30 Posts: 4,136	Re: Hungry world 'must eat less meat' My apologies for the lumping, Fait. Although I do need to say that I do not feel that having my son was a "mistake" in any way. If anything, having my son was the most incredible, rewarding and challenging choice I ever made. Thank goodness he happened! __________________ Resurgent's New Motivational Motto: "Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!" Jesus had a soulstone.

08-24-2004, 07:47 PM	#58 (permalink)
Fait_Maker Join Date: Mar 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 467	Re: Hungry world 'must eat less meat' Despite everything said, I think the only way you are going to even begin to control any kind of population is to make it difficult. One variable to the problem is the baby factories <not you Luna>. Welfare reform would help in this. If they can't get paid for producing kids, they will be less-inclined to produce kids. Nowadays, it is difficult for anyone to have a large family except those the government subsidizes.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links