People eat 15,200 World trade center buildings every year

[wildfirepower]

There are 7 billion people on Earth and let us assume 4 billion people each weighs 100 kg. So total human weight is 400 million Tons.

If each person consumes/eats 3% of body weight each day or 3% of 400 million tons that would be 12 million Tons food per day. Which comes to 4.4 billion Tons food consumed every year.

I think each world trade center building (9/11) weighed 500,000 Tons. So human beings eat 8,800 world trade center buildings each year. I mean people eat food equivalent/equal to 8800 WTC buildings.

If food cost is $1 per kg or $1000 per Ton, the world food business is $4 Trillion to $5 Trillion per year (estimated).

Correct me if I am wrong?

[wildfirepower]

Human beings are breeding like rats and they say rats are breeding like rats.

Search in google for "european sex videos" and similar words and you will understand why "human beings are breeding like rats". Everything comes to an end one day.

[Yieu]

I fail to see a problem.

[Icymudpuppy]

We're not even close to breeding like rats. Female Rats kick out another litter of between 6 and 10 young every 54 days. They don't even bother weaning one set before getting pregnant with the next.

Thus, rats can have about 7 litters a year for an average of 56 offspring/year/female. True, they only live about 4 years in the wild, but that's still 3.5 years of breeding for about 196 offspring/female rat over the course of her 4 year lifespan. I'd like to see a human capable of that kind of breeding.

[SWATH]

I'd like to see a human capable of that kind of breeding.

Get me date with...ahh who am I kidding I can't even think of the name of a hot chick.

[wildfirepower]

True, rats only live about 4 years in the wild
You answered your own question. Rats live from 1 day to 4 years. There is no medicine, no law for rats.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I think human beings eat/consume 21 million Tons of food everyday. Which comes to 7.6 billion Tons food consumed every year.

So? WTF does this have to do with anything, or did I miss how this relates to liberty.

[Jinks]

I think human beings eat/consume 21 million Tons of food everyday. Which comes to 7.6 billion Tons food consumed every year.

There are 7 billion people on Earth and let us assume each person weighs 100 kg. So total human weight is 700 million Tons.


Bad assumption.
Food consumpt and body weight varies by age, and health.

But even granting you are right.

Ok, so we eat 15200 WTC a year.
42 WTC a day.....
what's your point?

[dannno]

So how many do we shit :confused:

[McBell]

bad assumption.
Food consumpt and body weight varies by age, and health.

But even granting you are right.

Ok, so we eat 15200 wtc a year.
42 wtc a day.....
What's your point?
HUMANS DID 9/11.


i

[Nate-ForLiberty]

How many tons of poo do they make and how many gallons of pee?

[Yieu]

I see no problem with large amounts of consumption or large amounts of population. Liberty means being free to have as large a family as you want, if that is what you want. If anything it is a somewhat interesting statistic, but the OP came off as complaining or as if it is a bad thing. I see it as a neutral thing, not bad, it just is. And there is not a problem with that.

[Jinks]

I see no problem with large amounts of consumption or large amounts of population. Liberty means being free to have as large a family as you want, if that is what you want.

as long as you feed them yourself

[heavenlyboy34]

How many tons of poo do they make and how many gallons of pee?

lolz! Only you would think of this after reading the article...:eek: :) lol

[Yieu]

as long as you feed them yourself

Yes, that is what I meant, if one is wise at least. I would not recommend someone having a larger family than they can afford to have. If they make that mistake, they're free to make it, but they should look to friends and family for help -- rather than taxpayers. But a responsible person could have as big a family as he wants, so long as he can afford it.

[Jinks]

Yes, that is what I meant, if one is wise at least. I would not recommend someone having a larger family than they can afford to have. If they make that mistake, they're free to make it, but they should look to friends and family for help -- rather than taxpayers. But a responsible person could have as big a family as he wants, so long as he can afford it.

Not recommend? I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal.
We don't tolerate irresponsibility on anything else, especially something that's basically irreversible.
It's very easy to say "they should ask their own friends for help, and they should only help voluntarily", but then we ask "and what if they can't get help voluntarily?"
Is their child's right to live more important than our society's right to choose how to distribute our resources?

[Yieu]

Not recommend? I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal.

It should not be illegal because that puts limits on human liberty! Restricting reproduction is something those who believe eugenics is a good thing advocate for. Eugenics is a horrible idea and practice. Limiting reproduction by force of law is abhorrent, it is anti-liberty, and should never be implemented.


Is their child's right to live more important than our society's right to choose how to distribute our resources?

To put it simply: Yes.

[RideTheDirt]

lolz! Only you would think of this after reading the article...:eek: :) lol
read dannno's post on the first page:p

[roho76]

So? WTF does this have to do with anything, or did I miss how this relates to liberty.

The World Trade Centers want to steal your freedoms.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Reading the OP's first couple posts reminded me of the posts on ATS by Jared Laughner.

[Jinks]

It should not be illegal because that puts limits on human liberty! Restricting reproduction is something those who believe eugenics is a good thing advocate for. Eugenics is a horrible idea and practice. Limiting reproduction by force of law is abhorrent, it is anti-liberty, and should never be implemented.


Creating burden to somebody other than yourself is NOT a human liberty.



To put it simply: Yes.

Yes? So basically what you're saying is a person has right to create burden on society by breeding children he can't feed, and while you don't like that taxpayers have to pay for it, you won't make it illegal.

[Yieu]

Creating burden to somebody other than yourself is NOT a human liberty.

You're misunderstanding what I said. I never said or implied that. I said reproducing as much as you like is a human liberty. But we must also be responsible for who we reproduce, as a matter of morality.

Do you mean to say, by your twisting of my words, that you are for eugenics but didn't want to come right out and say it?


Yes? So basically what you're saying is a person has right to create burden on society by breeding children he can't feed, and while you don't like that taxpayers have to pay for it, you won't make it illegal.

I never said I wanted taxpayers to pay for it. I already said I don't want taxpayers to pay for it. But legislating against reproduction would be one of the worst crimes against humanity. We see how well it's not working for China. What are you going to do, kill or imprison people if they have a kid? There is no such thing as 'societal rights' -- only individual human rights. So yes the right of a child to live supersedes centrally planning a society as you suggested we should do.

Listen, the choice is not either eugenics or taxpayers paying for children. There are other alternatives, and I already named some, such as friends and family helping, or heck there could be charities. But eugenics is a hate crime against humanity, and should always be avoided and argued against.

[Andrew-Austin]

Was this post meant to be some warning about (switch to foreboding voice) overpopulation? If so you might want to make your case more clear and strong.

There are "a lot of people" and they eat "a lot". Got it.

[Yieu]

Was this post meant to be some warning about (switch to foreboding voice) overpopulation?

That is what it sounded like to me, which is why I came here to oppose it. There is no overpopulation problem, that is just an excuse people use to argue for eugenics, which is like racism against the entire human race. Eugenics is the most anti-compassionate thing someone could support. I prefer liberty and being compassionate.

Horrible, horrible things have been done for eugenics. Eugenics is unethical, immoral, and shows a deep hatred for humanity. Eugenicists want other people to die, be sterilized, or not reproduce... but oh, they themselves want to live, and they want their own kids to live...

[Jinks]

You're misunderstanding what I said. I never said or implied that. I said reproducing as much as you like is a human liberty.


Did you forget the condition of responsibility again?

Do you agree that breeding children you are incapable of supporting is "creating burden for somebody other than yourself"?



But we must also be responsible for who we reproduce, as a matter of morality.


So why shouldn't we punish those who do not?



Do you mean to say, by your twisting of my words, that you are for eugenics but didn't want to come right out and say it?


I can't say I am for it without knowing what you mean. But I am for birth control on a societal level for financial purposes.




I never said I wanted taxpayers to pay for it. I already said I don't want taxpayers to pay for it.


I know. But then you said that the child's right to live is above our right to choose how to allocate resources. You might not "want it" but you said it's more important to give the child life, than to allow us to choose, didn't you?



But legislating against reproduction would be one of the worst crimes against humanity.


Why? And allowing people to breed irresponsibly isn't a crime at all?



We see how well it's not working for China. What are you going to do, kill or imprison people if they have a kid?


How is it not working in China? Why is it we have no problem punishing people for all other crimes of waste, pollution, theft, abuse, but this one is hard for you?
You have no problem punishing a person if he gave birth to a child without the mother's consent, nobody would say he was "just excercising his human right".



There is no such thing as 'societal rights' -- only individual human rights. So yes the right of a child to live supersedes centrally planning a society as you suggested we should do.


Individual rights? Does that mean a child shouldn't have to listen to his parents? And a child has right to consent, no need to wait until 18?
If a child's life superceeds society, why AREN'T you for taxpayers paying for it?



Listen, the choice is not either eugenics or taxpayers paying for children.
There are other alternatives, and I already named some, such as friends and family helping, or heck there could be charities.


And I already asked you, what if they all fail? Would you force the child to die or force society to pay? Why are you so convinced this will never be a choice to make? Have you never heard of people starving to death because nobody felt like giving them free food?



But eugenics is a hate crime against humanity, and should always be avoided and argued against.

So while socialism is bad, you prefer socialism at all costs against eugenics or birth control?

[Jinks]

There is no overpopulation problem.

Ok. I may agree with you there's no overpopulation in the sense that there's more people than space, there's plenty of space.

But do you agree there's a shortage of resources for a comfortable life? Or is that all subjective? Or is that all the fault of bankers and government, that once they're gone, life would be just fine for everybody?

[Yieu]

If it isn't plainly obvious why you're wrong, I doubt breaking it down for you point by point would help explain it. I've already touched on the topics you questioned about.

Eugenics is something that socialism favors. Eugenics is the enemy of liberty, eugenics means oppression. Being against eugenics is being against socialism, I'm not really sure how you could see being against eugenics as being for socialism. Being against eugenics means being for liberty. Eugenics is the one that wants to punish people for living.

When you say society has a right to "chose how to allocate resources", that sounds like central planning, which is a form of socialism. So I disagree, society has no such right, it has no rights at all, only individuals have rights. I do not believe there is a shortage of resources, either. How would the State, in its infinite wisdom, be able to determine if someone has had more kids than they can afford? Does that mean everyone would have their incomes, cost of living, finances, and debt levels all spied on so the State can make a Holy Determination that you have too many children and must be punished by means of sterilization or infanticide? Or would it be easier to just restrict everyone to a certain number, such as just one. Either way, that means no reproductive liberty.

Just because it is responsible and moral to only have as many kids as you can provide for (which could be 10 or more even), does not mean anyone should be punished for reproducing, ever. It is not a crime to be irresponsible or immoral. That is a personal matter. If someone can't afford the amount of children they have, then they'll just have to find a solution for it, like make more money or go into debt or whatever, that's their problem and not the problem of anyone else. Just because it may be immoral or irresponsible to have more children than you can provide for, does not mean we must be MORE immoral and irresponsible by responding with the evils of eugenics!

[Diurdi]

let us assume each person weighs 100 kg. So total human weight is 700 million Tons.



Very bad assumption. The average weight of people is much closer to 50kg than 100kg, when you take elderly and children into account. And even if you only take adult males, it's still way under 70kg.

[Jinks]

If it isn't plainly obvious why you're wrong, I doubt breaking it down for you point by point would help explain it. I've already touched on the topics you questioned about.

Eugenics is something that socialism favors.


by socialism i mean putting all members of society and theirs lives above private property and responsibility, not necessarily central planning and certainly not state dictated.



When you say society has a right to "chose how to allocate resources", that sounds like central planning, which is a form of socialism. So I disagree, society has no such right, it has no rights at all, only individuals have rights. I do not believe there is a shortage of resources, either. How would the State, in its infinite wisdom, be able to determine if someone has had more kids than they can afford? Does that mean everyone would have their incomes, cost of living, finances, and debt levels all spied on so the State can make a Holy Determination that you have too many children and must be punished by means of sterilization or infanticide? Or would it be easier to just restrict everyone to a certain number, such as just one. Either way, that means no reproductive liberty.

Just because it is responsible and moral to only have as many kids as you can provide for (which could be 10 or more even), does not mean anyone should be punished for reproducing, ever. It is not a crime to be irresponsible or immoral. That is a personal matter. If someone can't afford the amount of children they have, then they'll just have to find a solution for it, like make more money or go into debt or whatever, that's their problem and not the problem of anyone else. Just because it may be immoral or irresponsible to have more children than you can provide for, does not mean we must be MORE immoral and irresponsible by responding with the evils of eugenics!

[Yieu]

by socialism i mean putting all members of society and theirs lives above private property and responsibility, not necessarily central planning and certainly not state dictated.

That's not what socialism is. And if you care about private property and personal responsibility as well as people's lives, then you must support allowing people to have as many children as they desire.

[Jinks]

That's not what socialism is. And if you care about private property and personal responsibility as well as people's lives, then you must support allowing people to have as many children as they desire.

No, i only support responsible people, i would punish irresponsible people, especiLly if they cause harm to the rest of us. At what point is an action punishable to you? Cant you say "its a personal matter, not your business" to anything?

[Yieu]

No, i only support responsible people, i would punish irresponsible people, especiLly if they cause harm to the rest of us. At what point is an action punishable to you? Cant you say "its a personal matter, not your business" to anything?

I can say it is a personal matter and is not your business to anything, because it's true. How many children I chose to have is certainly not your business, and you have no right to challenge it. It is not your say, it is no one's say except for the parents. How many children I chose to have has no effect on you, and it does not harm you. Trying to limit how much someone else reproduces is very anti-liberty.

[Jinks]

I can say it is a personal matter and is not your business to anything, because it's true. How many children I chose to have is certainly not your business, and you have no right to challenge it. It is not your say, it is no one's say except for the parents. How many children I chose to have has no effect on you, and it does not harm you. Trying to limit how much someone else reproduces is very anti-liberty.
My question was why not allow theft and assault by the same basis? Why is it your business if i steal or attack another person? Isnt it a personal matter? What gives you the right to punish me? What if you having children DID affect And harm me?!

[Yieu]

My question was why not allow theft and assault by the same basis? Why is it your business if i steal or attack another person? Isnt it a personal matter? What gives you the right to punish me? What if you having children DID affect And harm me?!

Did you really just compare me having a kid to someone stealing or assaulting someone? I prefer arguments based on reason.

There is a difference between personal matters and aggression. Study a concept called the non-aggression principle, and you might start to see where I'm coming from. I am not committing an act of aggression by having children, no matter the number. Theft and assault are acts of aggression.

[Jinks]

Did you really just compare me having a kid to someone stealing or assaulting someone? I prefer arguments based on reason.

There is a difference between personal matters and aggression. Study a concept called the non-aggression principle, and you might start to see where I'm coming from. I am not committing an act of aggression by having children, no matter the number. Theft and assault are acts of aggression.

i DID just say that having children without responsibility and causing burden to strangers is as harmful as stealing and assaulting.

Do you admit that people who have children without money or means passes the burden to other people? If not , you are the unreasonable and dishonest one. I can tell you are dismissing responsibility as 'eugenics' so you can poison the well of discussion and try to smear me as anti-liberty, while you advocate for allowing people to breed irresponsibly even when you know its immoral. Oh right, dont legislate morality!

[Yieu]

i DID just say that having children without responsibility and causing burden to strangers is as harmful as stealing and assaulting.

Again with the twisting of my words. I never implied a burden on others. You are insisting that there must necessarily be a burden on others -- not so, unless you believe the fact that other people simply exist a burden on you, which is not true. It is very difficult to debate with someone when you make a point, and then they argue against a completely different point -- that is called a straw man argument. It is simply none of your business how many children I or anyone chooses to have, and if you look down on people for living, that shows a contempt for the human race.


I can tell you are dismissing responsibility as 'eugenics' so you can poison the well of discussion and try to smear me as anti-liberty, while you advocate for allowing people to breed irresponsibly even when you know its immoral. Oh right, dont legislate morality!

I don't think you know what eugenics means. I would never call eugenics "responsible", ever. I'm also not trying to smear you. You have clearly come out in support of eugenics, even if you do not know what it is. And correct, do not legislate morality. Morality is a personal issue.

[wildfirepower]

Bad assumption.
Food consumpt and body weight varies by age, and health. what's your point?
Excellent post. I forgot elderly people and children weigh less and eat less. But I think there are 7.5 billion or more people on earth. Even if world people eat food equivalent/equal to 10,000 WTC buildings per year that seems quite large.

Stand next to empire state building in USA and think people will eat this (food) in a year.

[TNforPaul45]

I think human beings eat/consume 21 million Tons of food everyday. Which comes to 7.6 billion Tons food consumed every year.

There are 7 billion people on Earth and let us assume each person weighs 100 kg. So total human weight is 700 million Tons.

If each person consumes/eats 3% of body weight each day or 3% of 700 million tons that would be 21 million Tons food per day.

I think each world trade center building (9/11) weighed 500,000 Tons. So human beings eat 15,200 world trade center buildings each year. I mean people eat food equivalent/equal to 15,200 WTC buildings.

If food cost is $1 per kg or $1000 per Ton, the world food business is $8 Trillion to $12 Trillion per year (estimated).

Correct me if I am wrong?

You THINK that this is the fact? You are saying that we are breeding like "rats" and consuming the world? Come back when you have some data and not progressive opinions.

[Yieu]

Excellent post. I forgot elderly people and children weigh less and eat less. But I think there are 7.5 billion or more people on earth. Even if world people eat food equivalent/equal to 10,000 WTC buildings per year that seems quite large.

Stand next to empire state building in USA and think people will eat this (food) in a year.

I still do not see a problem. Life is not a bad thing. A large amount of living is not bad either. Consumption will be met with production, no problem there. Life is something to celebrate, not demonize.

[Jinks]

Excellent post. I forgot elderly people and children weigh less and eat less. But I think there are 7.5 billion or more people on earth. Even if world people eat food equivalent/equal to 10,000 WTC buildings per year that seems quite large.

Stand next to empire state building in USA and think people will eat this (food) in a year.

Diurdi said it better, that 50kg is a much closer estimation to average human weight. Which would cut your number in half.

Also, $1 per kg of food isn't bad on the consumer level, but too much on the wholesale and production level. So depending on your argument, you have to adjust accordingly.

Still though, what's your point?

[axiomata]

9/11 was a controlled digestion!

[Yieu]

9/11 was a controlled digestion!

Haha, :D

[Jinks]

Again with the twisting of my words. I never implied a burden on others.


No, I wasn't twisting your words, I specifically said it was MY example , that having children IN SOME CASES, causes burden to others, do you agree or disagree? If you can say "having children no matter how poor and lazy, never causes burden to others" than fine, but if not, you'd have to admit SOMETIMES it does.



You are insisting that there must necessarily be a burden on others -- not so, unless you believe the fact that other people simply exist a burden on you, which is not true.


No, I said if a person is not responsible and has no means of producing survivable fuel supply for his children, he'll by definition pass on his burden and responsibility to another person, even if that person didn't care and voluntarily helped for nothing in return.



It is very difficult to debate with someone when you make a point, and then they argue against a completely different point -- that is called a straw man argument.


It would be a strawman if I said you said something, but I didn't. I said "WHAT IF" that was the case, would you EVER consider you could punish somebody for irresponsible behavior?



It is simply none of your business how many children I or anyone chooses to have, and if you look down on people for living, that shows a contempt for the human race.


I don't look down on people for living. I look down on people who don't take responsibility. It IS my business how many children you have if you depend on me, or people whom are connected to me to feed your children. It IS my business how many children you have if your children become a burden to me because of your lack of responsibility.



I don't think you know what eugenics means. I would never call eugenics "responsible", ever.


I didn't call eugenics responsible, you called responsibility eugenics. You used the word first, you even said that having only children you can afford is responsible, so why isn't the logical conclusion, to legislate and punish for it?



I'm also not trying to smear you. You have clearly come out in support of eugenics, even if you do not know what it is. And correct, do not legislate morality. Morality is a personal issue.

So why is anti-aggression not a personal issue? Why is legislation against aggression not legislation of morality?

I think what you mean is "don't legislate morality that isn't also socially acceptable and politically correct, and what I prefer"

[Chieppa1]

Its pretty simple, if you want to run around punishing people for having kids, then do it. See how long before you get a gun barrel in your face. And ask the government to do it. Then your just immoral. Period.

[brandon]

This is a strange thread.

I bet there are tons of other species that as a whole eat far more than humans do.

For example, there are 163,876,428,562 earthworms (source (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_earthworms_are_there_in_the_world)) in the world. Earthworms eat 1/3of their body weight in a day. So they consume about 0.13 oz a day, for a total of 485 WTCs per year.

[brandon]

Excellent post. I forgot elderly people and children weigh less and eat less. But I think there are 7.5 billion or more people on earth. Even if world people eat food equivalent/equal to 10,000 WTC buildings per year that seems quite large.

Stand next to empire state building in USA and think people will eat this (food) in a year.

Food gets grown. Food gets eaten. Never a miscommunication. You cant explain that.

[Jinks]

Its pretty simple, if you want to run around punishing people for having kids, then do it.


I don't, I want to run around punishing people who are irresponsible and cause harm to me, or cause harm to people I believe are innocent and undeserving. That includes theives, robbers, violent attackers, rapists....etc.



See how long before you get a gun barrel in your face. And ask the government to do it. Then your just immoral. Period.

I ask the government what I am willing to do, but sometimes am unable due to my resources.

[Jinks]

Food gets grown. Food gets eaten. Never a miscommunication. You cant explain that.

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/5897852/People-take-me-seriously-Cant-explain-it.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Bill-Oreilly-Proves-God

[wildfirepower]

I bet there are tons of other species that as a whole eat far more than humans do.

For example, there are 163,876,428,562 earthworms (source (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_earthworms_are_there_in_the_world)) in the world. Earthworms eat 1/3of their body weight in a day. So they consume about 0.13 oz a day, for a total of 485 WTCs per year.
Bull elephants weigh 8 tons and they eat 300 kg per day which is 3% of body weight. People also eat close to 2% - 3% of body weight per day.

[brandon]

Bull elephants weigh 8 tons and they eat 300 kg per day which is 3% of body weight. People also eat close to 2% - 3% of body weight per day.

A nest in which insects or spiders deposit their eggs is called a "nidus". Honeybees have hair on their eyes. The only insect that can turn its head 360 degrees is the praying mantis.

[wildfirepower]

Still though, what's your point?
1,840 Earthquakes in 2010

8 Magnitude and Stronger:

We had one this year. The USGS average is 1, if any per year. The RHS1 average is two per year.

7 Magnitude and Stronger:

We experienced a whopping 20 of these shakers this year. That exceeds the USGS yearly average of 17 by 3 bringing us to 117% of average.

6 Magnitude and Stronger:

We experienced 136 of these strong quakes in 2010. The USGS average is 134 per year giving us an increase of only 1% from average rates.

5 Magnitude and Stronger:

There were 1684 of these quakes during 2010! USGS average is 1319 per year leaving us a 27% increase in these quakes.

The deeper a quake is, the less it will be felt at ground level. A 7 magnitude quake happening 500 km below the surface may barely be felt, if it is at all, while a magnitude 4 happening at just a few kilometers below the surface may feel more like a 5 magnitude quake. With the crustal shifting we’ve experienced this year, many quakes occurred at depths of 10 and 35 km.

http://rockhoundstation1.net/wp/2011/earth-watch/2010-earthquake-watch-annual-report/

[wildfirepower]

Still though, what's your point?
The Bible do not lie, is the word of God. This world should give rise to the kingdom of Christ, the “cleaning” is painful, but Jesus will restore everything. Who want to go with Him? Repent and join to Christ that you will have living with the eternal God, righteous and loving, the Lord of all the law of life, of love and peace, the true Light.

Swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, -they break out; and blood toucheth blood.
For this shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowl of the heavens, yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away." (Hosea, 4:1-3)

Ash is rich with nutrients and helps in better growth of the forest. To provide ash to the forest, rotten and fallen woods and some good trees have to be burned. There cannot be ash without a fire and fire does not distinguish between anything and anybody.

[Yieu]

The Bible do not lie, is the word of God. This world should give rise to the kingdom of Christ, the “cleaning” is painful, but Jesus will restore everything. Who want to go with Him? Repent and join to Christ that you will have living with the eternal God, righteous and loving, the Lord of all the law of life, of love and peace, the true Light.

Swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, -they break out; and blood toucheth blood.
For this shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowl of the heavens, yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away." (Hosea, 4:1-3)

Ash is rich with nutrients and helps in better growth of the forest. To provide ash to the forest, rotten and fallen woods and some good trees have to be burned. There cannot be ash without a fire and fire does not distinguish between anything and anybody.

This has nothing to do with the thread. And we can go to be with God without being Christian. God wants us to be with him, and he is all-merciful. For it to be possible for Him to be all-merciful, he would have to allow multiple paths to reach Him, or else he is not merciful, and we all know He is merciful.

God also told us to be fruitful and multiply, so it is not a bad thing for there to be a large amount of humans or a large amount of consumption. God would not approve of eugenics.

[Jinks]

God also told us to be fruitful and multiply,


Unconditionally?



so it is not a bad thing for there to be a large amount of humans or a large amount of consumption.


Until you can't afford it and have to steal or beg, right?



God would not approve of eugenics.

where is that from?

[Yieu]

Unconditionally?

Why do you seem to insist on viewing reproduction as a negative thing? It is wise to only have as many children as you are able to take care of, but no one has a right to punish anyone for having children.


Until you can't afford it and have to steal or beg, right?

I don't think you're quite grasping the scale of the markets. As long as consumption is met with production, there is no problem.


where is that from?

That is my opinion, because God has commanded us not to kill, he has informed us that it is sinful and that sins are punished. Eugenics tries to kill people, through various "hard" (actual killing) or "soft" (sterilization and other means) methods, and therefore it is sinful.

[Jinks]

Why do you seem to insist on viewing reproduction as a negative thing?


I don't. Why do you insist on ignoring that irresponsible behavior is a bad thing, and you never tolerate irresponsibility when it comes to any other issue?



It is wise to only have as many children as you are able to take care of, but no one has a right to punish anyone for having children.


Why can't I say "it's wise not to steal, kill, rob, assault, pollute, insult, ..." but no one has a right to punish anybody for doing it?



I don't think you're quite grasping the scale of the markets. As long as consumption is met with production, there is no problem.

Yeah, and what if it isn't? Are we currently meeting? or are the bankers keeping us from it?




That is my opinion, because God has commanded us not to kill, he has informed us that it is sinful and that sins are punished.


Again, UNCONDITIONALLY?



Eugenics tries to kill people, through various "hard" (actual killing) or "soft" (sterilization and other means) methods, and therefore it is sinful.

What about birth control that doesn't include abortion? I think my question to you hasn't been answered.

It was, that IF all voluntary means of assistance have failed to help a starving child, is the child's right to live above another person's private property? (I originally said "society" hoping you'd understand that society includes all people, as individuals, whom decide on their own not to help). I can understand if you're always say "its not my business, somebody else will help them" but are you willing to say, "If they can't get help, I am willing to let them die, and it's not killing them, because my private property comes first".

You do a good job as always throwing around the word "eugenics" to replace responsibility, now it's my turn to ask whether you really mean what you do about private property and right to life (hint, you can't have both).

[Yieu]

I don't. Why do you insist on ignoring that irresponsible behavior is a bad thing, and you never tolerate irresponsibility when it comes to any other issue?

Irresponsible behavior is a bad thing, but it's not my job to judge everyone's behavior.


Why can't I say "it's wise not to steal, kill, rob, assault, pollute, insult, ..." but no one has a right to punish anybody for doing it?

I already answered this question. Having a child is not an act of aggression on another individual, and the other acts are. Research the non-aggression principle.


Again, UNCONDITIONALLY?

Yes, unconditionally, we should not kill, under commandment from God. To the utmost end of the concept.


What about birth control that doesn't include abortion? I think my question to you hasn't been answered.

It was, that IF all voluntary means of assistance have failed to help a starving child, is the child's right to live above another person's private property? (I originally said "society" hoping you'd understand that society includes all people, as individuals, whom decide on their own not to help). I can understand if you're always say "its not my business, somebody else will help them" but are you willing to say, "If they can't get help, I am willing to let them die, and it's not killing them, because my private property comes first".

You do a good job as always throwing around the word "eugenics" to replace responsibility, now it's my turn to ask whether you really mean what you do about private property and right to life (hint, you can't have both).

I never said eugenics was responsible, and I already said that before. It seems that you might not know what eugenics means.

And again, you are trying to box it in to pretend that you can force it to only be two options, when there are more than two options. It is not "pay taxes for them or kill them". That is like one of those philosophical questions that force you to make a bad choice or a worse choice, while ignoring that there might be more choices. Voluntarism is always an option.

[squarepusher]

Children may eat a bit of food, but they can also be very productive. Children are very intelligent, and could easily more than make up for their cost in food. Also, you must consider the possibility that an orphan may invent some new technology someday, like say a food generator. Or even less fantasy, he may be a joy in someones life and help a successful adult work harder and be more productive (thus earning his cost in food).

This this viewpoint that children are leeches on society has many flaws in my opinion.

[Jinks]

Irresponsible behavior is a bad thing, but it's not my job to judge everyone's behavior.


why is it your job to judge a person for stealing, robbing, threatening, assaulting, killing?



I already answered this question. Having a child is not an act of aggression on another individual, and the other acts are.


Why do you always lose the part where I say "without being able to support your child".

Please say it again, if you can "Having a child [without a means of supporting him, and relying on another person to keep a child alive] is not an act of aggression on another individual, and the other acts are."



Research the non-aggression principle.

Yes, unconditionally, we should not kill, under commandment from God. To the utmost end of the concept.


Not even death penalty and self defense, gotcha.



I never said eugenics was responsible, and I already said that before.


You said the oppositely, you said what I call "responsible" is "eugenics".



It seems that you might not know what eugenics means.


I don't think I do, please explain.



And again, you are trying to box it in to pretend that you can force it to only be two options, when there are more than two options.


You just haven't told me what they were. And you seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that one of the options can fail, and have no response to it.



It is not "pay taxes for them or kill them".


I never said it was. So I asked, if not "pay taxes" and not "kill them" and "voluntary charity doesn't work" then WHAT?



That is like one of those philosophical questions that force you to make a bad choice or a worse choice, while ignoring that there might be more choices. Voluntarism is always an option.

Voluntaryism isn't ending starving today, unless you're telling me starvation doesn't exist, or that those who starve dead today WANT TO AND CHOOSE TO and we should respect their wishes. I have no interest in talking to somebody who lives in fantasyland and everything will magically happen, the fact you continue to deny that voluntaryism can fail to fix a problem is pathetic.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Voluntaryism isn't ending starving today, unless you're telling me starvation doesn't exist, or that those who starve dead today WANT TO AND CHOOSE TO and we should respect their wishes. I have no interest in talking to somebody who lives in fantasyland and everything will magically happen, the fact you continue to deny that voluntaryism can fail to fix a problem is pathetic.

I predict you will not be here long with that sort of viewpoint....

[Jinks]

Children may eat a bit of food, but they can also be very productive. Children are very intelligent, and could easily more than make up for their cost in food. Also, you must consider the possibility that an orphan may invent some new technology someday, like say a food generator. Or even less fantasy, he may be a joy in someones life and help a successful adult work harder and be more productive (thus earning his cost in food).

This this viewpoint that children are leeches on society has many flaws in my opinion.

is there a shortage of orphans that need parents and can bring joy? Or are not all children equal and having your own child is more valuable than African orphans?

[Jinks]

I predict you will not be here long with that sort of viewpoint....

I'm just asking. Can you tell me where i'm wrong?

If voluntaryism works so well, where is it helping in the 3rd world, why aren't more people doing it?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I'm just asking. Can you tell me where i'm wrong?

If voluntaryism works so well, where is it helping in the 3rd world, why aren't more people doing it?

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even know what the fuck the term Voluntaryism means?

[Jinks]

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even know what the fuck the term Voluntaryism means?

I think I do now, it's something that doesn't exist today, so that's why starvation still exists. If it existed, well, not just existed, if it existed UNIVERSALLY, that would be utopia and starvation would only happen by choice.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I think I do now, it's something that doesn't exist today, so that's why starvation still exists. If it existed, well, not just existed, if it existed UNIVERSALLY, that would be utopia and starvation would only happen by choice.

:rolleyes:

Voluntaryism = All peaceful human actions should be voluntary (in otherwords, minus coercion and/or fraud).

[Andrew-Austin]

Bull elephants weigh 8 tons and they eat 300 kg per day which is 3% of body weight. People also eat close to 2% - 3% of body weight per day.A nest in which insects or spiders deposit their eggs is called a "nidus". Honeybees have hair on their eyes. The only insect that can turn its head 360 degrees is the praying mantis.

brandon makes a good point, we should grow hair on our eyes and turn our heads 360 degrees, like the humble insects of nature. Being more natural would make us more sustainable, thus by having more kids we wouldn't be inherently lowering the living standards of our neighbors, and they wouldn't have to kick our butts for it through a system of socialism that isn't statism.

I have learned much from this thread.

[oyarde]

The World Trade Centers want to steal your freedoms.

Already has taken alot.

[squarepusher]

is there a shortage of orphans that need parents and can bring joy? Or are not all children equal and having your own child is more valuable than African orphans?

well, for different people, different things. If a family cannot conceive, or does not want get pregnant, then they can adopt (like Angelina Joline). Some families only want to raise their own children by their choice.

Is there an orphan shortage? maybe, I do not know, but it comes down to, is human life valuable (babies are good), or human life is not valuable (babies are bad)

[osan]

Not recommend? I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal.

Of course you don't.


We don't tolerate irresponsibility on anything else, especially something that's basically irreversible.

Oh bullshit. We tolerate all manner of irresponsibility. Having children is not a crime. Murdering your neighbor or robbing the 7-11 is. There is a big difference between having children and committing crimes.

And what is this "we don't tolerate" bullshit? Who is "we"? And who determines what is "irresponsible"? You are trapped inside the tiny invisible cube I call ShitThink. Your thinking is all screwed up. You need to fix that. Preferably sooner than later, too.


It's very easy to say "they should ask their own friends for help, and they should only help voluntarily", but then we ask "and what if they can't get help voluntarily?"

Then they are in a lot of fucking trouble. That's life.


Is their child's right to live more important than our society's right to choose how to distribute our resources?

More ShitThink of the false dichotomy brand. Sorry, but that is a non-starter. Care to try again?

[Jinks]

Then they are in a lot of fucking trouble. That's life.


Just so we're clear, you're willing to let them starve dead because your right to property is more important than their right to live, correct? "That's life" is right, I wish some would be more honest and say it (to these people's faces)



More ShitThink of the false dichotomy brand. Sorry, but that is a non-starter. Care to try again?
You can try by telling me what I missed.

If you propose "its none of your business, leave them alone" then you should be able and willing to follow through, and say "even if you're dying, its still not my business" and if you propose "let people choose to help" you have to follow through and say "if they don't, that sucks, sorry" (unless there's a backup option you didn't tell me about).

[osan]

Creating burden to somebody other than yourself is NOT a human liberty.

I can agree with that. Having children you cannot afford to feed is not that. Government stealing from others to take care of those children, on the other hand, is.

Take away the safety net and you would be surprised how rapidly even the dullest among us wise up to the new reality.




So basically what you're saying is a person has right to create burden on society by breeding children he can't feed, and while you don't like that taxpayers have to pay for it, you won't make it illegal.

He wrote no such thing. YOU wrote it.

[Jinks]

well, for different people, different things. If a family cannot conceive, or does not want get pregnant, then they can adopt (like Angelina Joline). Some families only want to raise their own children by their choice.

Is there an orphan shortage? maybe, I do not know, but it comes down to, is human life valuable (babies are good), or human life is not valuable (babies are bad)

Why do you see human life as one equal? You acknowledged that some people want their own children, and some choose to adopt, how can there be preferences if all humans are equally valuable?

SO I don't think it's a fair dichotomy that human life is either bad or good, I think some are good, and some are bad.

[MelissaWV]

So... we can rebuild the Twin Towers out of fecal matter?

I am shocked that didn't win the rebuild design contest.

[Jinks]

I can agree with that. Having children you cannot afford to feed is not that. Government stealing from others to take care of those children, on the other hand, is.

Take away the safety net and you would be surprised how rapidly even the dullest among us wise up to the new reality.





He wrote no such thing. YOU wrote it.

we're not taking away the safety net anytime soon when even the so called 'libertarians' aren't willing to say "let them starve because it's none of our business" or "if nobody voluntarily helps, you don't get to live". When more people act like what they say, I'll be willing to believe that the safety net is going away and people will learn.

how many people today are even willing to say 'the unemployment we see is good, because many of these people never should've had jobs in the first place, they were working for banks scamming people'? Americans want it both ways, and we never seem to want people to suffer even if they do wrong. (well, I personally do, I don't know how many people here are as honest or consistent)

[moostraks]

i DID just say that having children without responsibility and causing burden to strangers is as harmful as stealing and assaulting.

Do you admit that people who have children without money or means passes the burden to other people? If not , you are the unreasonable and dishonest one. I can tell you are dismissing responsibility as 'eugenics' so you can poison the well of discussion and try to smear me as anti-liberty, while you advocate for allowing people to breed irresponsibly even when you know its immoral. Oh right, dont legislate morality!

Interesting use of the term breed usually put forth by zero population climate fear mongers who hate humans. just a thought ...

[Jinks]

Interesting use of the term breed usually put forth by zero population climate fear mongers who hate humans. just a thought ...

because "having children" isn't explicit enough, it may include adopting, I wanted to be clear.

I am not zero population, and I don't hate humans.

[osan]

There is no overpopulation problem

How do you know? You might be right, you might not. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure.


that is just an excuse people use to argue for eugenics,

No doubt this is true for some. But what if they are right? What if there is a capacity limit. What if, in addition, once the threshold is crossed, conditions for sustaining human life deteriorate in nearly catastrophic fashion? Not saying it is so, just asking the questions. If you knew that it was indeed so, would your answer change? Mine would not. We are either free or we are not. If freedom means we all starve because of over population... well, better that than a long miserable life as a slave.


Eugenics is the most anti-compassionate thing someone could support.

We agree. It presumes that some subset of humanity holds the moral authority to destroy the rest according to some arbitrary set of criteria. If we are to have this, then I want to hold a grand seance to resurrect Hitler because if we're going to live like that, I want the bitchin' uniforms. The NAZIs had the baddest-ass uniforms ever. Nobody else even comes close.


Horrible, horrible things have been done for eugenics. Eugenics is unethical, immoral, and shows a deep hatred for humanity. Eugenicists want other people to die, be sterilized, or not reproduce... but oh, they themselves want to live, and they want their own kids to live...

Therein lies the hypocrisy. Why are they not the first to volunteer to die? Because they deserve to live whereas the rest do not? How very interesting.

[moostraks]

because "having children" isn't explicit enough, it may include adopting, I wanted to be clear.

I am not zero population, and I don't hate humans.

Bull...this is an offensive term used by people with a particular mindset. There are other more appropriate terms.

[osan]

Very bad assumption. The average weight of people is much closer to 50kg than 100kg, when you take elderly and children into account. And even if you only take adult males, it's still way under 70kg.

You have apparently never been to West Virginia. The load of blubber here alone brings the global average up by at least 50 pounds.

Come visit and you will no longer doubt. :) :) :)

[Jinks]

How do you know? You might be right, you might not. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure.


You'd have to define it first.

By the way, why is it we have no problem blaming illegal aliens for taking advantage of our "birthright" law, so much that some want to abolish the amendment. But we can't blame poor people for having children on the similar basis?



No doubt this is true for some. But what if they are right? What if there is a capacity limit. What if, in addition, once the threshold is crossed, conditions for sustaining human life deteriorate in nearly catastrophic fashion? Not saying it is so, just asking the questions.


Yeah, some are just afraid to ask. They go all slippery slope to other people, but never themselves.



If you knew that it was indeed so, would your answer change? Mine would not. We are either free or we are not. If freedom means we all starve because of over population... well, better that than a long miserable life as a slave.


that's a stupid dichotomy, why are we only free or not? why can't we be conditionally free based on social situations?



We agree. It presumes that some subset of humanity holds the moral authority to destroy the rest according to some arbitrary set of criteria.


what's a non-arbitray criteria to do it?



If we are to have this, then I want to hold a grand seance to resurrect Hitler because if we're going to live like that, I want the bitchin' uniforms. The NAZIs had the baddest-ass uniforms ever. Nobody else even comes close.


Hitler invented neither eugenics nor racism, he just had the opportunity to use it.



Therein lies the hypocrisy. Why are they not the first to volunteer to die? Because they deserve to live whereas the rest do not? How very interesting.

nope. not hypocrisy. I am set the example by not having children and not asking people to feed me. Also, I dont consider all humans equal, if I did, you'd probably have a point. that's like asking, why don't I lock myself in prison if I want there to be prisons?

[Jinks]

Bull...this is an offensive term used by people with a particular mindset. There are other more appropriate terms.

teach me, "give birth"?

[osan]

No, i only support responsible people

That's nice.


I would punish irresponsible people, especiLly if they cause harm to the rest of us.

You have a very bad case of ShitThink.... worse than you other posts had suggested. Criminal acts get punished - those that cause actual harm to others. On this we may agree. Those that do not... Is it responsible to engage in extreme skiing? It sure as hell is. Skydiving? Yup. Mountain climbing? Car racing? Flying? Drinking alcohol? Smoking a joint? Jerking off? By someone's standards, any of these could be seen as "irresponsible" and by your arguing could qualify those engaging in such activities for punishment. This is, of course, a great steaming pile.

When I am out on the range being irresponsible by shooting guns, if you attempt to punish me you may become my next target. Seriously though, your thinking is profoundly screwed up. The good news, however, is that if you are willing to learn a better way, your difficulties can almost certainly be corrected.



At what point is an action punishable to you?

When you bring direct harm to another. This isn't that hard to figure out. If I cut your legs off with a chainsaw, it is pretty clear I am a likely candidate for some punishment. If I fart in a subway car on a hot August afternoon at rush hour, reprehensible as the act may be, I have not brought anyone to real harm - just some discomfort that hopefully dissipates at the next stop.

[osan]

My question was why not allow theft and assault by the same basis? Why is it your business if i steal or attack another person? Isnt it a personal matter? What gives you the right to punish me? What if you having children DID affect And harm me?!

Troll alert.

If you are this stupid, you are beyond hope.

If you are trolling you are... um... beyond hope, I suppose.

Try getting serious because this line of argumentation is a complete waste of time, which is very irresponsible of you. Perhaps you should be punished.

[Jinks]

When I am out on the range being irresponsible by shooting guns, if you attempt to punish me you may become my next target. Seriously though, your thinking is profoundly screwed up. The good news, however, is that if you are willing to learn a better way, your difficulties can almost certainly be corrected.

When you bring direct harm to another.

So like somebody suggested earlier, what if you stood where you were and I aimed to shoot just 2 inches above your head?

I don't INTEND to hurt you, but did I actually cause harm? What if I'm a good shooter and all my "misses" are on the "safe side" (always 2 inches or further to you, never closer, ever!), should I be legally allowed to do my shooting? I'll even take full responsibility by buying insurance for you upfront, I'll pay for any accidents, and if you're hurt, I'm willing to be punished for any other way anybody would've hurt you.

[osan]

Life is something to celebrate, not demonize.

Feh, speak for yourself.

Progressives and other such vermin are the most intensely self-hating animals on the planet. They define the term "mental illness". They are utterly saturated with self-loathing and express it in outwardly-turned terms of loathing of everything that is like them, which would include you and me and the world of men in toto.

[Anti Federalist]

Troll alert.

If you are this stupid, you are beyond hope.

If you are trolling you are... um... beyond hope, I suppose.

Try getting serious because this line of argumentation is a complete waste of time, which is very irresponsible of you. Perhaps you should be punished.

You're having your chain yanked by our old pal AxisMundi v.2.0

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

You're having your chain yanked by our old pal AxisMundi v.2.0

Yea, you're probably right. Jinks has that 'I'm stupid, so kick me repeatedly' act down pat....

[MelissaWV]

You're having your chain yanked by our old pal AxisMundi v.2.0

Ah good... I'm not the only one that figured it out :p

[Jinks]

Ah good... I'm not the only one that figured it out :p

I've heard that said to me many times, but who/what is axismundi?

[squarepusher]

So like somebody suggested earlier, what if you stood where you were and I aimed to shoot just 2 inches above your head?

I don't INTEND to hurt you, but did I actually cause harm? What if I'm a good shooter and all my "misses" are on the "safe side" (always 2 inches or further to you, never closer, ever!), should I be legally allowed to do my shooting? I'll even take full responsibility by buying insurance for you upfront, I'll pay for any accidents, and if you're hurt, I'm willing to be punished for any other way anybody would've hurt you.

reckless endangerment? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment)

[wildfirepower]

This is a strange thread.
Brandon, you had posted in this forum "It would be a crazy coincidence if fireworks caused one mass death, cold caused another, storm one mass death, confusion another, poisoning one, hail yet another, etc., all within such a short time frame. "It's not all that uncommon" is what you keep hearing, but yet the media has never reported on it like this before"

This was regarding Mass animals deaths worldwide.

[osan]

You're having your chain yanked by our old pal AxisMundi v.2.0

Can we just hunt him down and beat him to a semi-coherent pulp?

Oh wait, he's already a semi-coherent pulp.

Never mind.

[PreDeadMan]

HUMANS DID 9/11.


i

well 1 human did 9/11....
http://i.alexiscordova.com/uploads/hulkhogan911.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

No matter how many times I see that, it still makes me LoL.


well 1 human did 9/11....
http://i.alexiscordova.com/uploads/hulkhogan911.jpg

[wildfirepower]

42) More than 3.5 billion people depend on the ocean for their primary source of food. In 20 years, this number could double to 7 billion.

http://www.savethesea.org/STS%20ocean_facts.htm

[wildfirepower]

The price of food is at the heart of this wave of revolutions.

Twenty years ago, things were more manageable. When grain production collapsed in the Soviet Union during the 1980s and what had been one of the world's greatest grain exporters became a net importer, the resulting surges of anger brought down the whole Communist system within a couple of years – but stopped there. Today there are no such firebreaks, and thanks to digital communications, events happen much faster.

For the poor of the Middle East, the price shocks at the start of this year were like experiencing a second killer earthquake in three years – but unlike with an earthquake, there was someone you could blame. So angry were the food price protesters in Tunisia that, after Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali declared a state of emergency and promised to reduce the price of food. But it was too little, too late: by mid-January he was gone.

In these poor countries, food purchases can consume 70 per cent of income. The result, when prices of flour and grains shoot up by 30 per cent, is extreme distress – the sort of distress that sends people out into the streets in fury.

Tunisia's turmoil, warned The Washington Post as the toppled president flew off into exile, "has economists worried that we may be seeing the beginning of a second wave of global food riots". As we know now, it turned out somewhat differently. Food riots in 2008, revolutions in 2011 – what, where, who is next?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-price-of-food-is-at-the-heart-of-this-wave-of-revolutions-2226896.html