Well we could always limit ourselves to one child of each gender per family and kill any babies that aren't what follows the rules.
Ever hear of China's "One-child Policy?" It's pretty much the same thing, except that instead of killing babies, you tax the hell outta the families that go over the limit.
Fleamo, I'm having a hard time trying to argue with you for two reasons. One, your a moderator and I don't want to get on bad terms with you.
Hey, it's just Fleamo. Unless you start flaming, he'll probably rather enjoy the discussion.
You cannot treat a child like an adult. It ruins their childhood and takes the fun out of life.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Care to prove me wrong?
I was taughto believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and I had such a great childhood and turned out wonderful. I'm a student who gets High Honors, Strait A's in all classes, and no problems in life. On the other hand I remember some kids who weren't given a just child hood.
They were taught those things in life before others. The one kid turned out to be a bum who gets F's and probably will repeat the 9th grade. The other, my cousin, was in trouble with the police before and does nothing with his life and he's a Senor in highschool. No job, no good grades. Nothing.
Sorry, but anecdotal evidence means next to nothing in a debate, and even less so in an
online debate. 'S how science and statistics work, I'm afraid.
Do you think that over-population is new?
Depends on how you define "new." On the usual time scale, it isn't really, as it's been around, but on the global scale, yes, I'd say it is pretty new. It is, after all, in the nature of populations to grow exponentially.
It has been here for many a years and we have not just started to manage it. It's not so simple. You have under-developed countries all over the world that don't understand principles or negative effects of such things. You can't simple snap your fingers and say, "No more over-population"
I don't think that anyone here will disagree with that fact that overpopulation is happening, or that it is a serious issue. If you want to get into a deeper debate about proposed solutions/results of that, I'm sure it'd make for a hell of an interesting time.
However, if you're trying to say that there is a positive correlation between a child's exposure to explicit material and how many children they have when they get older, thus contributing to overpopulation, then I think you'll have a hell of a time trying to prove your point.
You speak non-sense when you say an asteroid is the single most greatest threat to the Earth.
It actually makes a good deal of sense if you look at it from the right point of view. Sure, overpopulation will no doubt cause the death of millions of humans, but that effects primarily humans, and will have little effect on the Earth as a whole. An asteroid, however, has the potential to seriously alter some landscapes, climates, biomes, or just generally fuck up ecosystems, the water cycle, nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle, etc., thus radically changing the planet as a whole.
the atmosphere is ment to break up such object before they collide, and even then it may just wipe out a city or small country. Not a threat to the world.
It's all a matter of scale. Drop a rock big enough (say,
10 km in diameter, and, hypothetically, you can radically alter the planet for the worst in a
very short period of time.
No, it's poor taste.
"Taste" is extremely relative and objective thing to bring up, and depends heavily on the society in which one is brought up.
You have no idea how much media can control the teenage mind.
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the power the media wields. What is questionable, however, is whether or not the impact of the media is really going to contribute noticeably to overpopulation, or whether or not working to remove this influence will help the situation at all.
My friends, the not so bright ones, watched Jack Ass 2 at a party we were at. They liked it so much that they wanted to do something simular like it. The one almost cracked his head open on rocks, and the other twisted his ankle going off a jump. You see what I'm saying? Media is extremely persuasive.
Once again, anecdotal evidence. Tsk.
The way I see it, the increasing sexuality of modern society is merely a sign of a morphing global culture, and that's something that's bound to happen anyways. Whether or not this is a sign of increasing immorality in the world is really up to your religious/moral beliefs, so I'm not in any position to say what's concretely right or wrong, but what I will say is: until there is solid evidence that being more open of sexuality towards younger children will increase the global birth rate, or cause an increase in violent crime, or generally lower our standard of living, I don't really have a particular issue with it. If nothing else, it's a pretty good excuse to force parents to (gasp) actually be parents, rather than letting the media raise their children.
Edit: Also, RB, you should consider using multiple quote tags to separate out your original responses and what you're quoting. It's much more coherent than that weird underlining thing you've got goin' on.
Just sayin'.
