The Media finally agrees.. homosexuals aren't human.

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Ghet for Prez, Oct 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dear Retard,

    Stop looking at complex global systems from the perspective of one variable.

    Population is not the end-all be-all variable required to determine overpopulation.

    If abortion and homosexuality are so useful at reducing global population, then why is it failing so hard at that goal?

    Love,
    ~Ghet
    test
  2. Leila Night

    Leila Night efrain,you're my one&only

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,830


    Very good post.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Numbers, Ghet.
    Perhaps they are not the only variable.
    However, they are certainly a significant part of the equation.

    Would you like me to post the numbers?
    Or are you going to participate in this conversation instead of simply attempting to get somebody to submit to your malformed views? If you seek the latter, talk to Leila. She apparently will agree with gibberish.
    test
  4. Azeus... you think in a line. You think in linears and in permanents and it's really just sad.

    That is why you can't wrap your head around the words I am typing.

    Allow me to make this really simple that even a 5 second-old can understand it:

    You ask asking me how many bullets does a pistol hold per magazine, under the simplified assumption that this number alone can determine if a war can be won. (The side with the most bullets in it's magazines can surely win!)

    I am telling you that war is an incredibly complex affair. What good are bullets if you do not train the people to aim them? What good are bullets if artillery cuts down your soldiers before you can even get them within range of the pistol?

    You keep asking for numbers of population growth alone within a set span of time as if that is the only valid number to determine if overpopulation is occuring. Population growth in the past has been -higher- than it is today, yet, overpopulation did not occur in those times.

    Therefore, you are not only looking for the wrong variables, you are using it to ask the wrong questions.

    IF you truly believe Socialist population culling technniques is going to bring down populations, then why isn't it working now? Why is growth -STILL- slated for higher than it is today?
    test
  5. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Yeah, you said you were still working on it. What's the progress report.
    test
  6. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Ghet: your position on overpopulation seems sound, though I haven't read enough of your post to be sure.

    Your opinion on abortion being the taking of human life is as fueled by your political point of view as the "Peter Pan Complexed" [dunno] and the liberals and the whatsawhosits or whatever scapegoat label you can come up with.

    Remember: YOU were the one who took the word of a flawed source and even then permutated it into something it in fact did NOT say.
    test
  7. I'ma have to fork over some dollars to get it professionally looked at.

    I said 4 weeks 3 weeeks ago.

    Make it 2 and I'll have the money setup for a full molecular scan.
    test
  8. This very argument between Azues and I opens an important question about abortion:

    If abortion exists to solve overpopulation:

    1.) How do you cure overpopulation if you are not actually killing actual humans?
    2.) Why isn't it working?
    3.) Is the question of #1 the answer for #2 and if so.... o_O
    test
  9. Out of roughly 1.5 billion fertile women, 350 million do not have access to medical abortion. Are you suggesting that giving that extra 23% of women access to abortion will magically cause all numbers to drop across the entire planet?
    test
  10. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    1. Not having reproductive sex also isn't killing actual humans, but if everyone did it, it would cut down on population growth. [dunno] "Killing actual humans" is a sufficient but not necessary prerequisite. Same with pregnancy prevention/termination. YOUR issue is whether abortion is "pregnancy termination and NOT killing of actual people" or if the former is in fact the latter.

    2. Because there are other factors to both overpopulation and population growth. For example: stopping SOME people's pregnancy doesn't stop others FROM having children. People think abortion will have the same effects on the numbers that irreversible birth control will. (Chemical castration, etc.) but this is Azeus' simple problem of not understanding basic math (and I mean BASIC).

    Not to mention that better use of limited resources will increase the amount of people a given geographical area can sustain. Whereas our technology on this planet may not have been able to sustain 2 billion people 100 years ago, our technology now can handle well over the 6.5 billion we now have. The reason there are problems is an issue of where the resources are, how they are handled and imperial greed such as the underdevelopment of africa over the past 500 years, the land of many of our greatest resources.

    3. You cure overpopulation simply by killing you Catholics.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Ghet, I understand what you are saying far more clearly than you realize. The problem isn't that I can't keep up with you, it's that you are avoiding the question which I have asked of you. I did not say that numbers are the only aspect of it. I didn't even say that they are the most important. I simply said that the numbers are all that I am concerned with at this point in the conversation. Once you provide those numbers then we shall move on from there.

    Conversations must move in a line, otherwise they go in circles and I'm not seeking to play conversational hop-scotch with you. If you want to do that, talk to Nis. You know well enough where that leads.

    Now, I'll ask you once more . . . "What are the numbers?"
    test
  12. You think linearly. By your own admission.

    Again, population growth has been higher in the past than it is today. Why wasn't overpopulation a problem then?
    test
  13. Aye, I have covered this. Feminizing males, homosexuality, divorce rates, and abortion all work in UNISON for one goal. YET: Population continues to GROW and is slated as such for almost... forever.

    Therefore, such tactics are -FAILING- in what most peoplare are assuming they are designed to solve. So the question must be asked: 1.) Why are these methods failing and 2.) Could these methods be really designed to be doing something else instead?

    And it's even more complicated than even that.

    Our technology allows for population growth, yes, but there are even economic prereqs to consider: currently, populations can only grow in urban centers. This increases drug abuse, suicidies, homicides, poverty, but most importantly, it also results in a massive redistribution and consolidation of wealth. From slave owners/militaries to land owners. From land owners to banking institutions. From banks to industrial entities. From industrial entities to finance capitalists. And from finance capitalists to foreign labor and resource investment. And then those guys repeat the cycle. Power shifts hands, and the powerful start getting everyone else riled up for war.

    If overpopulation was truly the problem, then power would be allowed to continue to change hands freely, resulting in the unchecked warfare of old, allowing us to get back to the slaughter we were once so content in subjecting ourselves to. We have the weapons for it. A disease here, a semi-nuclear weapon there, point a few million machine guns at this city... With almost 60% of the world's populations consolidated into urban areas.. we could get humanity down in no time flat.

    And if it Overpopulation is such a dire problem that everyone is making it out to be, then who cares how sloppy it the solution would be? But something is amiss! Things has become more complicated. Overpopulation isn't the problem. It never has been. These Socialist population culling techniques are designed for something else entirely.

    It will be taxable Catholic Mexican laborers that sustain the precious liberal social programs so many people have become convinced they cannot live without.

    And this, I believe, is the key issue for everyone who claims that overpopulation is a problem.
    test
  14. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    How many people were killed during WWII?

    50 Million, right?
    How many were killed during WWI?

    How many have been killed in wars and battles since?

    Ghet, just answer the question and we can move forward.
    You want me to think and discuss this subject in a circular manner with circular logic and that leads nowhere. What are you afraid of? State the numbers.

    What was the world's population 100 years ago?
    What was the world's population 50 years ago?
    What is the current world population?
    Project ahead and what will it be in 50 years with modern medicine and technology?
    Do the same for 100 years.
    Then 500 years.

    Overpopulation is inevitable unless something is done now.
    It is wise to deal with a problem before it becomes a problem.
    That is what foresight is all about. You have no argument and you know it.
    If you did, you would answer the question and then when I ask my next question you would prove me wrong by answering it. But you won't be able to answer it and you know it.
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    You wanna see basic math? Let's see . . .
    I'll give you some basic math since you clearly want to duck the other question on world population.

    How many fetuses have been aborted since 1950 around the world?
    Make sure that you include China, India and the Philippines as well as Taiwan, Korea and Vietnam.
    test
  16. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Here's basic math. Abortion has been going on for all those years, and the population doubled. [dunno]
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    You're leaving out a lot in this statement.
    Abortions have been going on for many years, but how many births have taken place that would have been abortions had abortion been legal and not shunned so religiously?

    Ghet will not answer the numbers questions because they will end this entire debate and he knows it. We're talkin about close to a Billion people who have either ceased to exist or not come into existence in the last 50 years because of:

    * Abortions
    * Suicides
    * Murders
    * Wars

    A billion is not a small number.
    Those billion would have had children and grandchildren by now.
    If 500 Million couples have 3 children that would be 1.5 Billion people.
    If those 1.5 Billion people had 3 children each . . . well, you can do the math.

    Yes, the population has doubled WITH abortions, murders, wars and suicides.
    What will happen to the population without abortions, murders, wars and suicides?

    You just proved my point.
    Thank you.
    test
  18. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    With abortions legal: birthrates went up.

    Without abortions legal: birthrates would go up faster.

    Which of these two would end overpopulation?

    NEITHER.
    test
  19. Azeus:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Every number you'll ever need right here in pretty graph form.

    Now explain, if abortion exists to cull the world's population, why is it failing SO hard at said mission?
    test
  20. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    I made the capacity argument for population growth before with Azeus. He just doesn't get it.

    Anyway, what's with this presumption for both Ghet and Azeus that there is actual controlling NWO logic to the decisions with abortion. Just because abortion is legal it does not mean that some secret grand NWO decision behind it. Not every legislative/judicial decision is part of some grand conspiracy. Remember that the bigger the conspiracy the harder it is to keep it all hidden. I personally take the view that any conspirary-type stuff is done at the level of the poets/authors/theorists who argue for stuff like science, which we all follow zealously and are embedded in our laws/institutions. The "conspiracy" (if one can call it that) unfolds over time.
    _____
    Also, fetuses actually already have limited rights, its just a that a women's right to choose currently trump the fetus' limited right. So its not that fetuses have no rights and are on the level of property, its that a child/adult have a greater level of rights than a fetus. So abortions to eliminate homosexuals may actually be illegal under the current framework if we assume that discriminatory-type rights apply to fetuses. (i.e. A woman can have an abortion, but cannot discriminate against her child on the basis of sexual preference, race, etc.) I.E. A women's right to choose is not an absolute right.

    legally, this could easily be set up by giving fetuses different sets of rights in different trimesters. ex. 1-2 trimester, right to no discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, etc & succession right to parent's property if they die (already true in several Civil Law jurisdictions) & right to no surrogate-mother; 3rd trimester, right to life no abortion period. This would also account for the fact that a fetus is ultimately a developing human being and thus SHOULD have some definitely have some rights imho.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)