sotanaht - You got proper Kong debating style down I see. Make shit up? Check. Repeat the same flawed argument that I already explained was flawed? Check. Let's take a closer look shall we? bq. I say the world is “either disastrously overpopulated or on its way to becoming so in the near future without direct intervention.” As evidence, I offer the statistics given on the page of wikipedia. Only your source didn't prove the preceding claim. If you make shit up and attach a source that doesn't prove anything, you haven't actually constructed a valid argument. See you actually have to use something called logic, which involves connecting related things together in a sensible manner to create a fusion of data that supports the original hypothesis. WHICH YOU DIDN'T DO. bq. You are offering the counter argument “The world is not overpopulated nor is it on it’s way to becoming so *I did not make that argument.* Once more so you don't miss it. *I did not make that argument.* I said your argument is flawed because you are ignoring countless confounds. I said overpopulation is implausible for various reasons and will naturally check itself. In case those words are too big I will rephrase: You are ignoring all other plausible explanations, focusing only on the one you happen to like. I already explained the problems with that kind of reasoning. bq. Given the thread of course, my “thesis statement” should be “Child licenses would be beneficial because they could serve as one measure of reducing population growth especially in impoverished areas.” Ok. Next time start that way, and then build your argument. Don't burst in making false claims supported by links that aren't even relevant to the point. bq. You are correct, populations cannot sustain themselves very much above carrying capacity for very long. Great. bq. However, for a population rapidly approaching 10 BILLION (circa 2050, see chart), “not very long” is still a great many years, and “not very much” can still be a great many people. Maybe. Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda. See when you delve into hypotheticals, even unicorns become relevant. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but making up doomsday scenarios and calling them "likely," "possible," or in the case of this thread "happening now OMG RUN," then it becomes a pointless collection of opinions and bullshit. Which is totally fine, but don't masquerade it as reality or anything else besides what it is. bq. Additionally, when referring to the carrying capacity of a planet, damage caused during the brief period of overpopulation can take an incredibly long time to repair. Wonderful, but irrelevant. It is nothing more than a buildup to an emotional appeal, or perhaps another topic. bq. Overpopulation aside, the numbers on that page (see chart) confirm my earlier assertion that people in impoverished conditions have more children then any other group. From the child’s point of view, it should not be preferable to be born into impoverished conditions, and therefor if it is possible to reduce the number of children born into those conditions doing so would be a logical and beneficial action. Which is great, but again does not prove anything that was claimed. It perpetuates economic and social inequality, but I already established how that is a separate issue... bq. People born into poverty are on average more likely to live their lives in that state then those who are not (citation needed?). Because poverty and crime are strongly correlated (even if the causality of the relationship is in question), it is a natural assumption that a reduction in the number of people suffering from poverty might also reduce criminal activity. If people born into that situation are likely to remain there, then reducing the number of people born there might reduce the total number of impoverished people substantially. ....which you immediately turn into an emotional appeal and a strawman perhaps. None of this is really relevant, and it goes back into the "well it sounds good, evidence be damned" territory. I don't care about maybes. sotanaht – You got proper Kong debating style down I see. Make shit up? Check. Repeat the same flawed argument that I already explained was flawed? Check. Let’s take a closer look shall we? <blockquote> I say the world is “either disastrously overpopulated or on its way to becoming so in the near future without direct intervention.” As evidence, I offer the statistics given on the page of wikipedia. </blockquote> Only your source didn’t prove the preceding claim. If you make shit up and attach a source that doesn’t prove anything, you haven’t actually constructed a valid argument. See you actually have to use something called logic, which involves connecting related things together in a sensible manner to create a fusion of data that supports the original hypothesis. WHICH YOU DIDN’T DO. <blockquote> You are offering the counter argument “The world is not overpopulated nor is it on it’s way to becoming so </blockquote> I did not make that argument. Once more so you don’t miss it. I did not make that argument. I said your argument is flawed because you are ignoring countless confounds. I said overpopulation is implausible for various reasons and will naturally check itself. In case those words are too big I will rephrase: You are ignoring all other plausible explanations, focusing only on the one you happen to like. I already explained the problems with that kind of reasoning. <blockquote> Given the thread of course, my “thesis statement” should be “Child licenses would be beneficial because they could serve as one measure of reducing population growth especially in impoverished areas.” </blockquote> Ok. Next time start that way, and then build your argument. Don’t burst in making false claims supported by links that aren’t even relevant to the point. <blockquote> You are correct, populations cannot sustain themselves very much above carrying capacity for very long. </blockquote> Great. <blockquote> However, for a population rapidly approaching 10 BILLION (circa 2050, see chart), “not very long” is still a great many years, and “not very much” can still be a great many people. </blockquote> Maybe. Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda. See when you delve into hypotheticals, even unicorns become relevant. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but making up doomsday scenarios and calling them “likely,” “possible,” or in the case of this thread “happening now OMG RUN,” then it becomes a pointless collection of opinions and bullshit. Which is totally fine, but don’t masquerade it as reality or anything else besides what it is. <blockquote> Additionally, when referring to the carrying capacity of a planet, damage caused during the brief period of overpopulation can take an incredibly long time to repair. </blockquote> Wonderful, but irrelevant. It is nothing more than a buildup to an emotional appeal, or perhaps another topic. <blockquote> Overpopulation aside, the numbers on that page (see chart) confirm my earlier assertion that people in impoverished conditions have more children then any other group. From the child’s point of view, it should not be preferable to be born into impoverished conditions, and therefor if it is possible to reduce the number of children born into those conditions doing so would be a logical and beneficial action. </blockquote> Which is great, but again does not prove anything that was claimed. It perpetuates economic and social inequality, but I already established how that is a separate issue… <blockquote> People born into poverty are on average more likely to live their lives in that state then those who are not (citation needed?). Because poverty and crime are strongly correlated (even if the causality of the relationship is in question), it is a natural assumption that a reduction in the number of people suffering from poverty might also reduce criminal activity. If people born into that situation are likely to remain there, then reducing the number of people born there might reduce the total number of impoverished people substantially. </blockquote> ….which you immediately turn into an emotional appeal and a strawman perhaps. None of this is really relevant, and it goes back into the “well it sounds good, evidence be damned” territory. I don’t care about maybes.

2009-11-20T20:39:50-08:00

true

1481138

65427

2009-11-20T20:54:11-08:00

706249

bq. I’m not sure why people would be surprised that Obama supports this Democrats are usually the ones drawing the line when it comes to religious issues. <blockquote> I’m not sure why people would be surprised that Obama supports this </blockquote> Democrats are usually the ones drawing the line when it comes to religious issues.

2009-11-20T17:55:21-08:00

true

1480612

65603

2009-11-20T17:55:21-08:00

706249

bq. You yourself need to stop repeating the same nonsense without proof. You want us to give proof in our arguments? Give some yourself. I'm not the one making the claim. Everyone keeps saying "this will happen because of this," and I am saying "you have no evidence of this claim." Next time don't respond if you don't know what is going on. bq. “Humans are destroying topsoil and consuming fossil fuels much faster than the planet can renew them and those resources are currently required to produce and distribute the necessary quantity of food to feed the population, and therefore humans are overpopulated on Earth That is poorly worded. Even if it were true, it would mean the problem is consumption patterns and a poor [or nonexistent] renewable resources plan. Your quote tries to tie population into it as the cause or perhaps some sort of correlation, but that is just as much bullshit as the rest of the claims here. You don't get to say "well this cause is the only one that matters because I said so dammit." Population is only one of many factors, something you might understand if you bothered to read the lengthy post (that you even quoted) where I already explained this concept. bq. For your argument, while 5 people given enough food for 50 may not all be fed in certain statistically rare situations It isn't statistically rare, it is "the way our world works.":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth Wealth is unevenly distributed, something that I would have previously assumed was a given. bq. 50 people given enough food for 5 will never all be fed. Irrelevant. You would never get 50 people in the room in the first place if there were not enough resources to support a population that large. This was my first argument that was conveniently ignored by ya'll, so let's break this down. (I'm focusing on one family tree, so the numbers might look a bit odd) You have two people. These two people have two kids. You now have four people. Those two kids each have two kids. You now have eight people. Uh oh. We have only gone two generations, and already we hit the limit "food for five people." They won't be able to reproduce any further because the 'extra' members are going to starve off. Period. No maybes, they will die because there is not enough food in existence. Now explain to me how the hell you think you get into a situation where fifty people end up trying to split enough food for five. That's right, you can't, because *populations cannot sustain themselves beyond the threshold of available resources*. Why so many of you consistently claim it is possible is something that just stuns me. <blockquote> You yourself need to stop repeating the same nonsense without proof. You want us to give proof in our arguments? Give some yourself. </blockquote> I’m not the one making the claim. Everyone keeps saying “this will happen because of this,” and I am saying “you have no evidence of this claim.” Next time don’t respond if you don’t know what is going on. <blockquote> “Humans are destroying topsoil and consuming fossil fuels much faster than the planet can renew them and those resources are currently required to produce and distribute the necessary quantity of food to feed the population, and therefore humans are overpopulated on Earth </blockquote> That is poorly worded. Even if it were true, it would mean the problem is consumption patterns and a poor [or nonexistent] renewable resources plan. Your quote tries to tie population into it as the cause or perhaps some sort of correlation, but that is just as much bullshit as the rest of the claims here. You don’t get to say “well this cause is the only one that matters because I said so dammit.” Population is only one of many factors, something you might understand if you bothered to read the lengthy post (that you even quoted) where I already explained this concept. <blockquote> For your argument, while 5 people given enough food for 50 may not all be fed in certain statistically rare situations </blockquote> It isn’t statistically rare, it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth">the way our world works.</a> Wealth is unevenly distributed, something that I would have previously assumed was a given. <blockquote> 50 people given enough food for 5 will never all be fed. </blockquote> Irrelevant. You would never get 50 people in the room in the first place if there were not enough resources to support a population that large. This was my first argument that was conveniently ignored by ya’ll, so let’s break this down. (I’m focusing on one family tree, so the numbers might look a bit odd) You have two people. These two people have two kids. You now have four people. Those two kids each have two kids. You now have eight people. Uh oh. We have only gone two generations, and already we hit the limit “food for five people.” They won’t be able to reproduce any further because the ‘extra’ members are going to starve off. Period. No maybes, they will die because there is not enough food in existence. Now explain to me how the hell you think you get into a situation where fifty people end up trying to split enough food for five. That’s right, you can’t, because populations cannot sustain themselves beyond the threshold of available resources. Why so many of you consistently claim it is possible is something that just stuns me.

2009-11-20T17:19:48-08:00

true

1480528

65427

2009-11-20T17:21:50-08:00

706249

<pre>bq. TEXT or <blockquote>TEXT</blockqoute></pre> For longer posts you will probably need to use the html one (the second one). <pre>bq. TEXT or <blockquote>TEXT</blockqoute></pre> For longer posts you will probably need to use the html one (the second one).

2009-11-20T16:22:11-08:00

true

1480352

65427

2009-11-20T16:22:11-08:00

706249

I need a few of each type. I can give swords, and will return the favor as soon as possible. I need a few of each type. I can give swords, and will return the favor as soon as possible.

2009-11-20T16:12:43-08:00

true

1480324

65583

2009-11-20T16:12:43-08:00

706249

bq. It’s all common knowledge really. I don’t know why you are bothering to oppose it. "Common knowledge" is an indirect way of saying "I can't be bothered to provide evidence to support my views, so I am going to make an appeal to popularity." bq. I’m not here to go digging up statistics, I’m here to argue with people, and to express my emotions. I really do not care if any of what I say would have much credibility in an actual debate. Then feel free to leave SD. I'll have you on mute until you are ready to actually participate. ---- bq. Children are also a matter of shared space and resources, in fact, they are the single greatest matter of that nature. As a general rule the west places less of an emphasis on this. If you want to change that then feel free, but until then it is inefficient and perhaps immoral to just pick and choose as you please. bq. For every human being born, every other human being on the planet must share the very limited space and resources available on the Earth with one more person, be they rich or poor. A cute but utterly meaningless argument. bq. It will and has. No, it really hasn't. But hey, feel free to provide evidence. bq. If it had not already surpassed that point, there would be no such thing as poverty. Is it really that hard for any of you to provide evidence? If I put five people in a room with enough food for fifty people, there is *absolutely no guarantee* that all five will have the same amount, or even that all five will get an adequate amount of food. One of them might hoard the food, perhaps one will abstain for some reason, maybe three of them will force the other two to make t-shirts for a grain of rice a day; there are a million possible causes for poorness and hunger, but you guys keep picking the reason that is convenient for you. It doesn't work that way, and saying it doesn't make it so. ---- If you guys try to learn to use logic and reason and stop repeating the same nonsense without proof, let me know and we can have an actual discussion. <blockquote> It’s all common knowledge really. I don’t know why you are bothering to oppose it. </blockquote> “Common knowledge” is an indirect way of saying “I can’t be bothered to provide evidence to support my views, so I am going to make an appeal to popularity.” <blockquote> I’m not here to go digging up statistics, I’m here to argue with people, and to express my emotions. I really do not care if any of what I say would have much credibility in an actual debate. </blockquote> Then feel free to leave SD. I’ll have you on mute until you are ready to actually participate. <hr /> <blockquote> Children are also a matter of shared space and resources, in fact, they are the single greatest matter of that nature. </blockquote> As a general rule the west places less of an emphasis on this. If you want to change that then feel free, but until then it is inefficient and perhaps immoral to just pick and choose as you please. <blockquote> For every human being born, every other human being on the planet must share the very limited space and resources available on the Earth with one more person, be they rich or poor. </blockquote> A cute but utterly meaningless argument. <blockquote> It will and has. </blockquote> No, it really hasn’t. But hey, feel free to provide evidence. <blockquote> If it had not already surpassed that point, there would be no such thing as poverty. </blockquote> Is it really that hard for any of you to provide evidence? If I put five people in a room with enough food for fifty people, there is absolutely no guarantee that all five will have the same amount, or even that all five will get an adequate amount of food. One of them might hoard the food, perhaps one will abstain for some reason, maybe three of them will force the other two to make t-shirts for a grain of rice a day; there are a million possible causes for poorness and hunger, but you guys keep picking the reason that is convenient for you. It doesn’t work that way, and saying it doesn’t make it so. <hr /> If you guys try to learn to use logic and reason and stop repeating the same nonsense without proof, let me know and we can have an actual discussion.

2009-11-20T15:13:46-08:00

true

1480147

65427

2009-11-20T15:13:46-08:00

706249

bq. What I am saying is Arabs will have the majority in 2012. That means they can elect an Arab leader, an Arab congress, etc. It will no longer be a Jewish country. Hopefully. There are quite a few in the Israeli government who will try their best to deny even that much. <blockquote> What I am saying is Arabs will have the majority in 2012. That means they can elect an Arab leader, an Arab congress, etc. It will no longer be a Jewish country. </blockquote> Hopefully. There are quite a few in the Israeli government who will try their best to deny even that much.

2009-11-20T13:41:07-08:00

true

1479776

33288

2009-11-20T13:41:07-08:00

706249

bq. Wait I am not sure how this works.. do the government send them money or is it locally? This is money coming from the federal level. It might be a bit confusing, but I think "this page":http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/funding/ covers most of the programs. <blockquote> Wait I am not sure how this works.. do the government send them money or is it locally? </blockquote> This is money coming from the federal level. It might be a bit confusing, but I think <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/funding/">this page</a> covers most of the programs.

2009-11-20T13:39:38-08:00

true

1479768

65603

2009-11-20T13:39:52-08:00

706249

Yeah, how dare they run a business here. Yeah, how dare they run a business here.

2009-11-20T13:27:50-08:00

true

1479729

65623

2009-11-20T13:27:50-08:00

706249

bq. Where I live, AA and NA wouldn’t exist if it weren’t provided by the Christian Church. I'm thinking though, shouldn't that be handled at the state level, or even by the local town? ---- bq. This actually shows a good deal of bias in America toward Muslims and some other types of religions… Yeah, that was what I meant by hypocrisy. bq. though I am not sure whether any religious groups get funding by government or not… Oh, faith-based projects exist. They were one of the big achievements of Bush, and Obama has expressed support of them as well. <blockquote> Where I live, AA and NA wouldn’t exist if it weren’t provided by the Christian Church. </blockquote> I’m thinking though, shouldn’t that be handled at the state level, or even by the local town? <hr /> <blockquote> This actually shows a good deal of bias in America toward Muslims and some other types of religions… </blockquote> Yeah, that was what I meant by hypocrisy. <blockquote> though I am not sure whether any religious groups get funding by government or not… </blockquote> Oh, faith-based projects exist. They were one of the big achievements of Bush, and Obama has expressed support of them as well.

2009-11-20T13:18:17-08:00

true

1479692

65603

2009-11-20T13:18:28-08:00

706249

A small amount of climate data and private emails from a single university is not going to "expose global warming from CO2 as a fraud." Nice try though. A small amount of climate data and private emails from a single university is not going to “expose global warming from CO2 as a fraud.” Nice try though.

2009-11-20T13:06:58-08:00

true

1479659

65626

2009-11-20T13:06:58-08:00

706249

bq. I don’t see why the folks of OT don’t organize a trade, really. It's slow, kind of like the zombie thing, so I suspect there will be lots of complaining. <blockquote> I don’t see why the folks of OT don’t organize a trade, really. </blockquote> It’s slow, kind of like the zombie thing, so I suspect there will be lots of complaining.

2009-11-20T09:38:55-08:00

true

1479234

65604

2009-11-20T09:39:17-08:00

706249

bq. I already have 5, 4, 3, and 2… and we all know I’m not popular at all. >.> Well, I suspect that being a moderator earns your profile a higher traffic flow than the average user. <blockquote> I already have 5, 4, 3, and 2… and we all know I’m not popular at all. >.> </blockquote> Well, I suspect that being a moderator earns your profile a higher traffic flow than the average user.

2009-11-20T09:30:17-08:00

true

1479214

65604

2009-11-20T09:30:17-08:00

706249

I just discovered that even "a surprising number of Democrats":http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1412/faith-based-programs-popular-church-state-concerns support these. There is a lot of hypocrisy in those figures, but I am curious as to what everyones thoughts on this are. Do you support federal funding of such programs, or do you oppose it? Why? I just discovered that even <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1412/faith-based-programs-popular-church-state-concerns">a surprising number of Democrats</a> support these. There is a lot of hypocrisy in those figures, but I am curious as to what everyones thoughts on this are. Do you support federal funding of such programs, or do you oppose it? Why?

2009-11-20T09:15:03-08:00

true

1479187

65603

2009-11-20T09:15:03-08:00

706249

Hobbits "are (were) real.":http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119101034.htm Could they still be hiding somewhere? Hobbits <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119101034.htm">are (were) real.</a> Could they still be hiding somewhere?

2009-11-20T08:44:31-08:00

true

1479137

65600

2009-11-20T08:44:43-08:00

706249

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/2/topics/65313?page=1#posts-1478702'>Frogmanex</a>:</cite> That game got nothing but bad reviews. =\</blockquote> Too many trolls and pk'ers I heard. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/2/topics/65313?page=1#posts-1478702">Frogmanex</a>:</cite> That game got nothing but bad reviews. =\</blockquote> Too many trolls and pk’ers I heard.

2009-11-20T08:38:48-08:00

true

1479122

65313

2009-11-20T08:38:48-08:00

706249

bq. I’m not exactly sure what constitutes disturbing the peace, so that may be enough right there. Based on precedent, that would not hold up in court. <blockquote> I’m not exactly sure what constitutes disturbing the peace, so that may be enough right there. </blockquote> Based on precedent, that would not hold up in court.

2009-11-20T07:43:31-08:00

true

1479040

65480

2009-11-20T07:43:31-08:00

706249

bq. The standard of living in China is horribly low due to overpopulation. Proof? You can't just assume causal factors based on convenience to your argument. bq. There is not enough jobs to go around Something that effects every country, both high and low population. bq. For your second argument, the liberties of Chinese people are already being infringed, not “maybe someday possibly”, NOW. That's not what I was saying. You have no real evidence that more people will create a problem, you are just making weak assumptions and "what if" scenarios. <blockquote> The standard of living in China is horribly low due to overpopulation. </blockquote> Proof? You can’t just assume causal factors based on convenience to your argument. <blockquote> There is not enough jobs to go around </blockquote> Something that effects every country, both high and low population. <blockquote> For your second argument, the liberties of Chinese people are already being infringed, not “maybe someday possibly”, NOW. </blockquote> That’s not what I was saying. You have no real evidence that more people will create a problem, you are just making weak assumptions and “what if” scenarios.

2009-11-20T07:38:05-08:00

true

1479038

65427

2009-11-20T07:38:05-08:00

706249

That was the part where you were supposed to sell yourself, not make a snarky remark. Way to miss the ball. That was the part where you were supposed to sell yourself, not make a snarky remark. Way to miss the ball.

2009-11-19T21:19:31-08:00

true

1478565

65565

2009-11-19T21:19:42-08:00

706249

Lots of people are on twitter, why should we care that you joined the throng? Lots of people are on twitter, why should we care that you joined the throng?

2009-11-19T21:15:16-08:00

true

1478556

65565

2009-11-19T21:15:16-08:00

706249

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/2/topics/65555?page=1#posts-1478372'>Marh</a>:</cite> Yeah, I don’t think it’s exactly SD material. ;) But yeah, I saw this on the news earlier. Definitely surprising, she’s got a huge impact on our culture and is arguably the most influential person on television. From what I head she claims to be moving onto something else afterwards (not sure if they mentioned this in your link), but she wouldn’t specify what. I’ve never had an interest in Oprah at all, but I’ll at least be a bit curious to see what she’s planning to do.</blockquote> Well according to "Time:":http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/11/19/reports-oprah-to-end-talk-show-in-2011/?xid=rss-topstories bq. Word is, however, that Oprah will say tomorrow that she is ending her syndicated show in 2011 to focus on OWN, her cable network. So maybe it won't be a big change, depending on how she runs it. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/2/topics/65555?page=1#posts-1478372">Marh</a>:</cite> Yeah, I don’t think it’s exactly SD material. ;) But yeah, I saw this on the news earlier. Definitely surprising, she’s got a huge impact on our culture and is arguably the most influential person on television. From what I head she claims to be moving onto something else afterwards (not sure if they mentioned this in your link), but she wouldn’t specify what. I’ve never had an interest in Oprah at all, but I’ll at least be a bit curious to see what she’s planning to do.</blockquote> Well according to <a href="http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/11/19/reports-oprah-to-end-talk-show-in-2011/?xid=rss-topstories">Time:</a> <blockquote> Word is, however, that Oprah will say tomorrow that she is ending her syndicated show in 2011 to focus on OWN, her cable network. </blockquote> So maybe it won’t be a big change, depending on how she runs it.

2009-11-19T20:09:28-08:00

true

1478391

65555

2009-11-19T20:09:28-08:00

706249

Do they release versions without the vocals? Do they release versions without the vocals?

2009-11-19T20:06:19-08:00

true

1478374

65353

2009-11-19T20:06:19-08:00

706249

bq. Uhh, i like eminem better. Even though i do not like rap or hip hop or *whatever he does*. I can tell how much you like him. <blockquote> Uhh, i like eminem better. Even though i do not like rap or hip hop or whatever he does. </blockquote> I can tell how much you like him.

2009-11-19T20:04:43-08:00

true

1478367

56325

2009-11-19T20:04:43-08:00

706249

Well it's interesting but I didn't think it warranted serious discussion. Well it’s interesting but I didn’t think it warranted serious discussion.

2009-11-19T20:01:38-08:00

true

1478356

65555

2009-11-19T20:01:38-08:00

706249

Me neither, but the show is a pretty big part of our current media order. Me neither, but the show is a pretty big part of our current media order.

2009-11-19T19:47:38-08:00

true

1478302

65555

2009-11-19T19:47:38-08:00

706249