Population Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Great, deflect from the current argument with more drummed up bullshit I already disproved in the thread your reference. There are no quotation marks around that first quote. The Bible also explicitly says, thou shall not kill, though if you went and looked at the original text (aramaic and greek) those words wouldn’t appear anywhere.[/quote]

I am literally laughing out loud at this.

The Bible cannot explicitly use the word “kill” because it was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

What language was the Bill of Rights written in?

Ah yes. English. Which means that it if were to explicitly say something, it would explicitly say that thing. And yet it doesn’t. Funny how words have meanings and don’t simply bend to anybody’s will on command.

Unbelievably weak argument. Truly astounding that you have tried to slither away with that piffle.

Anyway–I have another question and it’s not designed to attack you, I’m curious: do you not consider any and all taxation to be immoral in that it’s involuntary confiscation at “gunpoint,” as you like to say?

82

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

In the fairy tail world you live in where children are worse off without the government I’m okay with having 10 cents a day stolen from me to save them. But I would not go to someone’s house with a gun to collect from them, like you. [/quote]

What? Either you would want SNAP killed, or you would not. What the hell is your answer?

84

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Great, deflect from the current argument with more drummed up bullshit I already disproved in the thread your reference. There are no quotation marks around that first quote. The Bible also explicitly says, thou shall not kill, though if you went and looked at the original text (aramaic and greek) those words wouldn’t appear anywhere.[/quote]

I am literally laughing out loud at this.

The Bible cannot explicitly use the word “kill” because it was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

What language was the Bill of Rights written in?

Ah yes. English. Which means that it if were to explicitly say something, it would explicitly say that thing. And yet it doesn’t. Funny how words have meanings and don’t simply bend to anybody’s will on command.

Unbelievably weak argument. Truly astounding that you have tried to slither away with that piffle.

Anyway–I have another question and it’s not designed to attack you, I’m curious: do you not consider any and all taxation to be immoral in that it’s involuntary confiscation at “gunpoint,” as you like to say?[/quote]

I never said anything explicitly used any words, numb nuts. And language, definition, and culture change and have changed greatly sense it’s writing. English is only the same language in the same context. Hence, there are many english versions of the Bible that also do not say "thou shall not kill.

85

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.[/quote]

Absolute nonsense. You proffered the most radical interpretation of the Second Amendment on this board, were shown to be peddling utter bullshit by me and others, and then refused to yield despite the self-evidently contradictory nature of your own words.

He’s right: this argument about literal v. non-literal in a text written in another language…wow.

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.[/quote]
Its written in the same language that we currently use. To use a cultural analysis is weak because there were many things that culturally were true then that aren’t now that we disregard. Like say that women and blacks weren’t citizens or people. We generally accept that they are all now…well north of the Mason-Dixon line anyway. I guess that might be vanishing like reproductive rights down south of it.

87

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.[/quote]
Its written in the same language that we currently use. [/quote]

Exactly.

“The Bill of Rights explicitly states that broccoli is green” can only be true if the words (or a variation of them whose meaning is exactly unchanged) “broccoli is green” are found in the Bill of Rights.

DD tried to fudge this. Too bad nobody is going to fall for this Hebrew-translation piffle.

88

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

In the fairy tail world you live in where children are worse off without the government I’m okay with having 10 cents a day stolen from me to save them. But I would not go to someone’s house with a gun to collect from them, like you. [/quote]

What? Either you would want SNAP killed, or you would not. What the hell is your answer?[/quote]

that is a very explicit answer to your original question. This new question you just asked (without your suffering children hypothetical) I’ve already answered numerous times in this thread.

89

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.
[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was not quoting the text with what I wrote nor did I claim to.
[/quote]

Again–not only do you use the word “explicit,” but you say “it states it right there in the text,” removing any doubt as to whether you’re contending that the text of the Second Amendment explicitly–as in, in words–states this notion that the citizen militia is supposed to literally rival the federal government.

And then, just a short while later, you’re lying about having said all this.

Pure class.

90

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.[/quote]

Absolute nonsense. You proffered the most radical interpretation of the Second Amendment on this board, were shown to be peddling utter bullshit by me and others, and then refused to yield despite the self-evidently contradictory nature of your own words.

He’s right: this argument about literal v. non-literal in a text written in another language…wow.[/quote]

So what does the amendment say? Although I’ve asked this over a dozen times and never gotten any answer.

And it is no at all radical in the day it was written. It was normal.

91

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Your last sentence is fucking gold. [/quote]

Sadly, it’s not an absurd one in the context of that thread he’s talking about. He’s contention amounted the notion that a used the word explicit and then used some words that weren’t in the original text. Despite never addressing my repeatedly arguing that’s exactly what it says in the language and culture of the time written. He refused to ever even offer any alternative to what it says.[/quote]

Absolute nonsense. You proffered the most radical interpretation of the Second Amendment on this board, were shown to be peddling utter bullshit by me and others, and then refused to yield despite the self-evidently contradictory nature of your own words.

He’s right: this argument about literal v. non-literal in a text written in another language…wow.[/quote]

So what does the amendment say? Although I’ve asked this over a dozen times and never gotten any answer.

And it is no at all radical in the day it was written. It was normal.[/quote]

It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its exact meaning is of course open to interpretation, just as the meaning of the First Amendment does not protect literally every conceivable manifestation of speech. Many conservatives believe that this limits the protection only to arms which can be borne–in which case your theory is a pile of smoking rubble on the floor. Sorry.

What it certainly doesn’t say–EXPLICITLY, as you insist–is that the people have the right to rival the federal government in terms of actual firepower and capability. And guess what? I’m not holding a radical liberal point of view here–I’m arguing the same thing that the conservatives on this board are arguing. You’re standing ten miles to the right of fucking Wayne LaPierre and you’re pretending that your position is perfectly demonstrable and logically inevitable.

You are wrong. Please understand that this is the last time I’ll explain it to you–I have tried. TB has tried. Even Push offered an interpretation of the Second under which the legality of MPADS was left ambiguous. Literally no one on T-Nation, so far as I can tell, has argued for private ownership of SCUD missiles and fissile material, which would be permissible under you fantastical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

92

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
What if this happened in the West in some form?

Say… Forcing welfare recipients to take birth control?[/quote]

I’m not in favor of ‘no consent’; but I have no problem wirh birth control being a condition for receiving certain social services. [/quote]

I do. It is goes against a person’s dignity and the other thing, birth control is rather ineffective.

93

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, one of the most effective forms of argument involves discerning and then illuminating the nastier implications of one’s opponent’s position. [/quote]
I am familiar with this

You jump to soon with it

You hadn’t even discerned your opponents position yet, so you cannot possibly discern the nastier implications of it

94

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You hadn’t even discerned your opponents position yet[/quote]

In fact I did, and a discerning observer would understand this. A question was asked and then answered. From there it all arose. [Though he’s since fudged it.]

Anyway, always a pleasure to hold your hand though a logical progression. Until next time.

95

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Anyway–I have another question and it’s not designed to attack you, I’m curious: do you not consider any and all taxation to be immoral in that it’s involuntary confiscation at “gunpoint,” as you like to say?[/quote]

If you care to continue.

96

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]

A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]

So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]

Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.

The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]

Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.

I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]

“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?

I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]

It is not pure coercion because you have the option of leaving. There are a number of governments whose antipathies toward the nutritional requirements of children are more in line with your own.

Regarding “I think it should have never been started”–yeah, and I think somebody should have smothered Hitler in the crib. But it didn’t happen.

So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

Your bolded question is idiotic. Humans and children will always die of lack of the resources to survive because the universe is a destructive place fundamentally.
[/quote]

Is that so? Tell me, how many American children died of starvation last year? And the year before?[/quote]

I don’t know. But the answer is not zero.
What I can be sure of is that more children outside the United States died as a result of starvation because central bank policy exported inflation(and the subsequent food price increase) to our creditor nations. So if you want to point to the United States or “developed countries” low starvation rates then you can’t do this without pointing to the children that are dying abroad due to vendor financed spending.
Well I suppose you can continue to feed American children by destroying the rest of the world’s savings as long as central banks abroad are cooperative, but eventually they will run out of their citizen’s savings as well and the full force of inflation will come back to affect U.S. children.

97

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]

A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]

So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]

Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.

The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]

Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.

I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]

“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?

I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]

It is not pure coercion because you have the option of leaving. There are a number of governments whose antipathies toward the nutritional requirements of children are more in line with your own.

Regarding “I think it should have never been started”–yeah, and I think somebody should have smothered Hitler in the crib. But it didn’t happen.

So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

Your bolded question is idiotic. Humans and children will always die of lack of the resources to survive because the universe is a destructive place fundamentally.
[/quote]

Is that so? Tell me, how many American children died of starvation last year? And the year before?[/quote]

I don’t know. But the answer is not zero.
[/quote]

Actually, it is. There has not been a child who has died because of lack of access to food–excluding cases of abuse (i.e. a parent or guardian actively denies food to his or her child) and extraordinary circumstances (runaways)–for years.

Regarding the rest of your post, I have little interest in debating the merits of central banking with you.

98

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]

A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]

So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]

Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.

The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]

Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.

I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]

“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?

I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]

It is not pure coercion because you have the option of leaving. There are a number of governments whose antipathies toward the nutritional requirements of children are more in line with your own.

Regarding “I think it should have never been started”–yeah, and I think somebody should have smothered Hitler in the crib. But it didn’t happen.

So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]

Your bolded question is idiotic. Humans and children will always die of lack of the resources to survive because the universe is a destructive place fundamentally.
[/quote]

Is that so? Tell me, how many American children died of starvation last year? And the year before?[/quote]

I don’t know. But the answer is not zero.
[/quote]

Actually, it is. There has not been a child who has died because of lack of access to food–excluding cases of abuse (i.e. a parent or guardian actively denies food to his or her child) and extraordinary circumstances (runaways)–for years.

Regarding the rest of your post, I have little interest in debating the merits of central banking with you.[/quote]

I cannot believe you can say that seriously. I have personally known illegal immigrant families where children have died due to malnutrition based illness.

In fact when my family migrated here(mother, 2 grandparents, sister), the only reason we had full meals is because my mother worked 16 hours a day near starvation for a couple of years.

If she decided that she would eat full meals, we would have surely suffered sickness and malnutrition.
Would you consider that “abuse” on her part?
I wouldn’t because she’s my mother.

Further, If you don’t want to discuss the reason how Americans on every level(individual, local, state, federal) are able to borrow and spend more than they save and consume more than they produce at the expense of the rest of the world, then your argument for “not letting children starve” is only as valid as the children of American citizens as long as we’re able to export inflation.

99

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

I cannot believe you can say that seriously. I have personally known illegal immigrant families where children have died due to malnutrition based illness.

In fact when my family migrated here(mother, 2 grandparents, sister), the only reason we had full meals is because my mother worked 16 hours a day near starvation for a couple of years.

If she decided that she would eat full meals, we would have surely suffered sickness and malnutrition.
Would you consider that “abuse” on her part?
I wouldn’t because she’s my mother.

[/quote]

I’m speaking about statistics. I don’t know anything about your family. But do some reading and you will learn that starvation ceased to be an American cause of death long ago. Malnutrition is still an issue, but not the kind of malnutrition that kills children in East Africa or rural Guatemala–rather, the kind of malnutrition that describes a diet of fast food, hot dogs, and Lunchables whose consequences, while insidious both mentally and physically, are not comparable to those of a diet of a half a yam per day for ten years. Food insecurity is the big one, but this is far enough removed from starvation (in terms of actual damage done) to warrant its exclusion from this discussion.

In short, you are simply incorrect. You said that “humans and children will always die of lack of the resources to survive,” which I assume referred specifically to starvation in America (given that that’s the topic of this discussion), which is frankly just not true–that particular problem has essentially been eradicated in the US.