7th Circuit Approves Warrentless Gun Seizures

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally? [/quote]

lol, yes. People should be free.

Freedom includes the ability to have sex if they so choose.

You know, people have been doing the “overpopulation” freak out for quite a long time now… Sure you want to ride that train?
[/quote]

Free to carry out actions that are harmful their societies and the human community as a whole? [/quote]

If Tony and Sally Bottomdollar want to have sex, they are, and should be free to do so. We as a society can request that they protect themselves from reproduction but we cannot require they do, nor can anyone be 100% certain the sex won’t result in procreation.

Such is the human condition. In order for people to be free, everyone must be free. (Obviously people who have wronged another, murderers, rapists, etc are an exception) Therefore, yes, even poor people are free.

Freedom means they are allowed to have sex, and gasp want and have children too.

The price of freedom, for me personally, is that because I am able, I must help Tony & Sally. Because once I remove their freedom in an attempt to remove my charge of helping them, I have removed my freedom too.

It’s silly, I know… But it is how it works, that freedom thing.

See above.

[quote]Are you denying the validity of the concept of carrying capacity? Human population increases can go unchecked with no negative repercussions?
[/quote]

I’ve been reading how overpopulation will destroy civilization my entire life, and as I look back in history, an awful long time before my life.

So no, I’m not too concerned as none of the doomsday chicken little’s have been correct yet.

82

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The earth does not have unlimited resources. I’m not necessarily arguing that overpopulation is a current condition, but unchecked population increases hold the potential to cross that threshold. [/quote]

Good thing we seem at least marginally competent at this whole science/technology thing.

83

Liberty does not have a blank check. A compromise must be made between liberty in security. Society as a whole should be free from being materially burdened by the children of those who reproduce without possessing the wherewithal to support their offspring.

You are 35 if I recall correctly, which is hardly a significant length of time in the grand scheme of things. This may not be an issue that those currently alive will feel the repercussions of, but it doesn’t change the fact that the human population is growing at a greater rate than natural resources can be replenished.

84

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Liberty does not have a blank check. A compromise must be made between liberty in security. Society as a whole should be free from being materially burdened by the children of those who reproduce without possessing the wherewithal to support their offspring. [/quote]

Poor people have outnumbered and out reproduced non-poor people since the dawn of civilization.

There is no compromise. You are either free, or not. If a society chooses to not be free, that is on them. You can be free and have a State that (in good faith, mistakes and failures happen) keeps you both free and secure.

Yes, one of the prices of freedom is you have to face the icky problem of there are, and will always be poor people that need the help of those not-so-poor. It really isn’t even that big of a deal, religious organizations have been helping the poor for a long time now… If they can do it, while the Pope holds a golden staff, I’m pretty sure we can too.

[quote]You are 35 if I recall correctly, which is hardly a significant length of time in the grand scheme of things. This may not be an issue that those currently alive will feel the repercussions of, but it doesn’t change the fact that the human population is growing at a greater rate than natural resources can be replenished.
[/quote]

I’m curious if I couldn’t find these very words written a couple hundred years ago too, and a few hundred before that.

85

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]You are 35 if I recall correctly, which is hardly a significant length of time in the grand scheme of things. This may not be an issue that those currently alive will feel the repercussions of, but it doesn’t change the fact that the human population is growing at a greater rate than natural resources can be replenished.
[/quote]

I’m curious if I couldn’t find these very words written a couple hundred years ago too, and a few hundred before that.
[/quote]

I give you both credit , you are both curious about sustainability . In my opinion we should be striving for a sustainable future . especially food and fuel

86

[quote]Bismark wrote:
They are organs belonging to sentient beings, not separate entities possessing agency.[/quote]
And…? We can permit abortion and take care of a small number of potential future costs, or we can cut right to the chase and take care of the problem before it begins. Why not?

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I’m a consequentialism and political realist, so I believe that generally speaking, the ends do justify the means. Bad things must often be done for dry good reasons. Largely, morality and politics should not exist in the same realm.
[/quote]
I’d argue that you’re more than a consequentialist or political realist if you believe the ends justify the means-you must be a seer or psychic.

87

640×579 35.2 KB

Universal sterilization is politically unfeasible. Didn’t you learn anything from the Krogan genophage?

Drawing the line at sentience is a reasonable position. Does anyone actually believe the world would be better off without any form of artificial population control, such as birth control and abortion?