Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

reply to post by Annee

Society has a train load of bad failed parents - - period!!!!!!!!!! People are people - - individuals. Like gays - - people are not a group think.

What's this? Logic?

Money does one thing. It gives you more and better choices. You - as an individual - still have to be responsible for the decisions you make with the choices afforded you.

Then whose to say the poor shouldn't have kids or that people should only have 1 or 2 kids? You cannot judge the individual based on the majority or likelihood of something. Like I said to Maslo. You can have preemptive or postoperative. Preemptive sacrifices countless innocent and good lives for the sake of conservative policy. Postoperative allows bad people into the world with the guarantee of all the good people with them. It is far less assumptive, and for more liberal and free. And I, being more so liberal, like it. I do not like continuation. I am the type of person who would see the world bathed in fire for the sake of freedom to remain true. I am that extreme of a liberal.

Yes - - some have to work to create better choices for themselves. It still boils down to the responsibility of taking advantage of those choices.

Which is really totally random, and therefore you cannot stop reproduction for the sake of a few, even most, being bad. One man who cures pollution is worth a thousand polluters.

You are so hung up on money - - - I think you better start looking inward as to why.

I am not hung up on money. I do not see money as any legitimate reason why a person should or should not have kids. You have said that it is best for everyone to be limited to 2 children. I have said it is better to not bother, and to just ensure a generation grows up knowing the issues and solving them. its worked for eons, I see no reason to doubt it now.

I will be honest with you. I do think most people are just... there. Just robots. But I do know they know the truth. They just don't want to change it. But I do know they will fight for what is, as it is. Therefore change is not the answer.

The only way to fix the planet is to not try and fix man, but to fix man's damages. Without violating live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Then whose to say the poor shouldn't have kids or that people should only have 1 or 2 kids? You cannot judge the individual based on the majority or likelihood of something.

Show me where I said anything about the poor not having the allotted child - if it becomes law.

AGAIN - - you are so hung up that some people have wealth. You want to explain that?

reply to post by Annee


Not really. Probably honestly from the discussion with Maslo. However,

Parents who have only one child - - focus all their resources personal/economical on that one child. My older grandson is an only child. I see how he was raised. He is an amazing kid - - and he loves that he is an only child.

I'm not saying you hate the poor. Maslo clearly does. But I cannot help but suspect that you at least feel that the poor should not have kids. If that's what I'm feeling and I'm wrong, sorry.

But bare in mind that you did claim fewer people use fewer resources, which is simply not true under all sets with that conditions. Maybe some, but not all. And to base one child policy off of greed, simply demands that then the poor be the only ones allowed to breed, because the rich sure as hell don't seem to be contributing much with their kids consuming as much as a small village in Africa.

of course I disbelieve all these positions. Because I believe laws should not be based off majority, but the individual.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Not really. Probably honestly from the discussion with Maslo. However,
I'm not saying you hate the poor. Maslo clearly does. But I cannot help but suspect that you at least feel that the poor should not have kids. If that's what I'm feeling and I'm wrong, sorry.

Yes - you are wrong. People like Booker T. Washington is a good example of brilliance out of poverty.

But bare in mind that you did claim fewer people use fewer resources, which is simply not true under all sets with that conditions. Maybe some, but not all. And to base one child policy off of greed, simply demands that then the poor be the only ones allowed to breed, because the rich sure as hell don't seem to be contributing much with their kids consuming as much as a small village in Africa.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Except - - your anti-bias against kids from wealthy parents. What do you base your expertise on? A handful you hear about in the media? Your prejudice is showing.

of course I disbelieve all these positions. Because I believe laws should not be based off majority, but the individual.

Laws are based on need. Of course not all agree with what some consider need.

It is neither majority or individual.

reply to post by Annee


If brilliance comes from poverty, why make rules on reproduction?

I know many good successful rich people. but to claim having more money makes parenting easier is not true. If anything it makes your child more likely to be greedy and consume more.

Laws are based off protecting the peace. Perhaps that is a need. But it essentially serves no other role than making the execution of someone who pushes their power over others ok to everyone else.

Simply put, rather than banning more than one child and getting everyone angry and ready to revolt, why not use the same funds and power to fix problems. Example, like paying farmers to put up solar panels rather than grow nothing. Or cutting taxes off electric cars and creating incentives? And if that doesn't work, hell, take over the company, steal their hidden technology, and bid it to the highest bidder. From the blood of secrets comes much good.

Here is proof that Gore is talking out of his bum.

Maybe what he could be say is Population Redistribution. But he won't so I am going to claim the concept as mine.
Lets take high density demographics and relocate selective individuals to low density demographic. This would create a balance, solve the global financial crisis and correct the wobble of the earth.

Below is a link to a table of population densities current as of July 2011.

There is no other way. So everyone better accept it.

Population densities

Originally posted by Gorman91
If brilliance comes from poverty, why make rules on reproduction?

Are you missing something in this debate?

reply to post by Annee


You did say that a world union should enforce strict reproduction laws.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

You did say that a world union should enforce strict reproduction laws.

And you have chosen to elaborate on that persecuting the poor?

It is you - - who has some personal issue with people who have money.

reply to post by Annee


No. I have no problem with people having money. I have problems with people having money and using it to destroy others who do not.

Simply put, being the little socialist I am, I hate people who abuse the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of others. And being the fact that I do believe capitalism is necessary, I see the value of money as an incentive, but not a god.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

No. I have no problem with people having money. I have problems with people having money and using it to destroy others who do not.

Well then you are in denial.

You clearly have issues with wealth.

reply to post by Annee




Why is having a problem with wealth wrong? I am quite stoic.

The difference is, will I do anything about it against others? No. While you have clearly shown a desire to force your ways unto others, I have no desire to do the same, other than the areas of protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Everyone has their biases. The question is if it gets in the way. So, well, prove it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

Why is having a problem with wealth wrong? I am quite stoic.

The difference is, will I do anything about it against others? No. While you have clearly shown a desire to force your ways unto others, I have no desire to do the same, other than the areas of protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Everyone has their biases. The question is if it gets in the way. So, well, prove it.

I have issues with wealth. I am not going give it to any one. Thats the issue

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

Why is having a problem with wealth wrong?

Why is it right?

How do you judge people?

Do you judge people by their race? Sexual orientation? Religion? Career?

reply to post by Annee


By their character. But that doesn't mean that having problems with wealth means I have a problem with their character. I have problems with atheists, gays, communists, anarchists, capitalists, republicans, democrats... hell, if you're part of something, chances are I have a problem with it. That doesn't necessitate I hate you, nor does it necessitate I force my way upon you, nor does make me right, nor wrong. It is but an opinion. And btw, a distracting one from the point of my query. If people with more than 2 kids still successfully raise children, why should those who cannot be the reason they suffer? The individual overrules the general law.

reply to post by guessing


And that's what I hope, for I would never ask you for your wealth, nor force you to give it up.

Originally posted by guessing

I have issues with wealth. I am not going give it to any one. Thats the issue

And why should you?

"That which is not earned has no value"

This idea that people with money - just sit back at laugh at everyone else is ridiculous.

Value is something that is earned. It wouldn't matter if you were the King of the World.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

By their character.

You keep judging character by wealth.

Those who have it - - do not have character.

reply to post by Annee


You say this but without proof nor evidence. Saying the same thing just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

Oh also, people with money DO have the right to sit on top of a tower and laugh at the world, weather you like it or not. yes I don't think those people have character. But its still their right.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

You say this but without proof nor evidence. Saying the same thing just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

I was born in poverty. The principal of my primary school made sure we had shoes by buying them herself. When I was 13 - - my mom married a millionaire. I've been on both sides.

Oh also, people with money DO have the right to sit on top of a tower and laugh at the world, weather you like it or not. yes I don't think those people have character. But its still their right.

Successful people. You still have issues separating Success and money. You do not become successful without hard dedicated work. The power people of the world are not sitting on their ass playing video games. What they decide is of importance - - - may not be what you decide is important.