"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2013, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 07:17 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 06:33 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 05:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm sure your suffering will be intense when you are "forced to recognize" gay marriages.

Your life will, no doubt, become intolerable due to the restriction on your right to be a bigot. Drinking Beverage

Missing the point entirely! You are never "forced" to recognize anything! That's the beauty of the government not being able to regulate thoughts. You can consider a marriage not to be a marriage until you are blue in the face. There are plenty of opposite-sex couples that I don't consider married because they sure as shit haven't acted like it! Some of them haven't even stopped dating yet! But that's my right not to recognize it as a marriage as a matter of opinion. My (un)willingness to recognize it as a marriage has no affect on its legal standing.

I don't have a problem with your position as long as you apply it universally. For instance, if I own a business and decide to provide health insurance as a benefit for both the employee and their spouse. I should not be required to offer health insurance to the employee's partner just because the state says the employee's partner is a spouse. If I am free to not recognize gay marriages, then I shouldn't be forced to act in a way that is at odds with my thinking.

In the real world what happens is people will tell you that you are free because you can think whatever you want. Well guess what, those poor souls in North Korean gulags have that very same freedom. Real freedom is being able to do what you want. If it perfectly okay for me not recognize a gay marriage, then I should be able to act on that. If it is okay for me to think blacks are bad employees, then I should be free to not hire them. Let the guy across the street hire them for less money. If they are just as productive as my higher paid cracker employees, his cost will be less and I will be punished for my bigotry when he undercuts me and puts me out of business.

And just to make sure everyone understands I am speaking hypothetically, while I don't discriminate against blacks in the work place, I think people should be free to do so and the market will punish them accordingly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
That is emphatically untrue.

China being a good (although imperfect) example. They are allowed one child per couple. They have has this rule for a long time. And their population is staggering.

Individuals make up societies. Happiness, prosperity, and the standard of living is beneficial for society as a whole.

Again, you assumed that population growth rates decreasing were bad...but you didn't support that claim with evidence. I gave you evidence from the WHO, they estimate that suggests we are overpopulated on this planet. In another 1,000 years, we will have to produce as much food as we've produced in a decade to feed the population for one day. Its unsustainable. We will be unable to produce enough food to feed ourselves (we have trouble doing that now)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:35 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 07:28 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  That is emphatically untrue.

China being a good (although imperfect) example. They are allowed one child per couple. They have has this rule for a long time. And their population is staggering.

Individuals make up societies. Happiness, prosperity, and the standard of living is beneficial for society as a whole.

Again, you assumed that population growth rates decreasing were bad...but you didn't support that claim with evidence. I gave you evidence from the WHO, they estimate that suggests we are overpopulated on this planet. In another 1,000 years, we will have to produce as much food as we've produced in a decade to feed the population for one day. Its unsustainable. We will be unable to produce enough food to feed ourselves (we have trouble doing that now)

I assumed nothing. The math is quite clear and undeniable, A birth per woman rate of less than 2 for a long enough time frame will cause a population to go extinct(unless people immigrate into it from other populations). Its generally consider a bad thing when the population you belong too goes extinct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:46 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 06:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 05:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm sure your suffering will be intense when you are "forced to recognize" gay marriages.

Your life will, no doubt, become intolerable due to the restriction on your right to be a bigot. Drinking Beverage

Chas, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement but you were too stupid to see that.

No, you are simply too stupid to make clear arguments. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 08:59 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
To use technical jargon (there ya go Philo),

The supply of food and shelter is finite. The demand for these things is inelastic (meaning that supply and demand don't have a normal inverse relationship). Now, increasing the population, leads to an increase in the amount of space required for shelter. Forests cut down, housing built. This stresses the ability to produce food.

If the population were to continue to increase, the supply of food (and the inelasticity of demand) would drive the cost of food up to unaffordable levels. It's a damn good thing that nature always seeks equilibrium (or balance if you will).

You also forget the nature of the beast we are dealing with. It would be a different picture if humans lived in harmony with the planet...giving back what you take. But we don't. There is little to no replenishment of our environment congruent to our use of it. Even in death, many cultures require embalming of a cadaver and the burial in sealed vaults, drastically slowing the putridification, decay and reabsorbtion of our bodies back into the earth as worm food.

Additionally, with the longer life spans, population must decrease to continue to support the older generation. Actually, heywould, if you want to stand by your argument I propose this: society would benefit as a whole over your individual death once you are finished having children.

This is basic economics, on its face. Nothing I said is groundbreaking...but I never claimed to be John Nash.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
01-10-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Not recognizing something does not mean you are free to discriminate. Acting in the hypothetical scenario regarding Heathcare, that falls into discrimination. You are free to offer healthcare to everyone or no one.(Obama care excluded from this hypothetical) Offer it to full time employees and not to part time. That's your right. But you can't offer it to some full timers and some part timers, thats discrimination.

You are still free not to recognize it in your daily life (refusing to refer to mike's husband as "husband") or to refuse to socialize, as long as it falls under your individual liberty. The moment you intrude on someone else's liberties, then it's illegal. So your hypothetical scenario is....limited in applicability

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
01-10-2013, 09:02 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You need a births per woman rate greater than 2 to sustain a population. It actually has to be quite a bit more than 2 to make up for the children born that don't survive into adulthood and thus never reproduce...but let us for the sake of argument say its just 2 in order to sustain a population.

Yes, replacement fertility rate approaches but does not actually equal 2 as mortality decreases. I went to the trouble of finding the numbers. 2.075, for the UK, as an example for developed countries. Though of course it ranges as high as 3 for the usual suspects.

(01-10-2013 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Philosoraptor's critique of gay marriage was technically correct, but he is looking at a mole hill and ignoring the mountain. In his country birth control is creating the problem he points out and not those pesky gays.

Second you are conflating what might be good for a specific individual with what might be good for society. Just because birth control makes a woman's life easier doesn't mean it is good for society as a whole.

If your argument is about fertility, that's not an argument.

We might assume that married homosexual couples may wish to raise children, either their own (in a future that is not, in fact, very far off) or another's (via adoption, surrogacy, etc). We might compare this to the number of married heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children. Is there data on this? No. Gut feelings of truthiness are not useful.

Which is already presupposing that there is some overriding procreative imperative, which takes precedence over equal rights and non-discrimination regardless.

(01-10-2013 07:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I assumed nothing. The math is quite clear and undeniable, A birth per woman rate of less than 2 for a long enough time frame will cause a population to go extinct(unless people immigrate into it from other populations). Its generally consider a bad thing when the population you belong too goes extinct.

Right. Because that's totally a risk for human populations in the near future.

There are already far too many humans on the planet to be sustainable under current conditions.

(01-10-2013 07:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And just to make sure everyone understands I am speaking hypothetically, while I don't discriminate against blacks in the work place, I think people should be free to do so and the market will punish them accordingly.

Oh, totally. And if the market as a whole discriminates against them, well, too bad, but them's the breaks, yeah? I mean, that attitude worked so well last time.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
01-10-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 05:25 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 04:16 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  So if homosexual couples contribute less to society by raising less children, it would be economically detrimental for the government to allow those couples access to marriage benefits?

It wouldn't necessarily be economically detrimental (although it probably would), it's just that there wouldn't be a good reason to do so.
One correction though - they don't raise any of their own children.

They don't raise any of their own children?... Well thats just ridiculous. Bunch of no-good homos, refusing to raise the kids they had from previous relationships, in vitro, or adopted... Just awful people. Its hard to believe they don't raise ANY of those kids, but of course you wouldn't lie about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
01-10-2013, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 05:50 PM by Cake.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Heywood, it seems that at this point your argument against gay marriage rests on the idea that the population must remain constant or grow for humans to survive. So this is all I will be arguing right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/03/nyregi...-park.html
To start, overpopulation can definitely occur and has devastating effects. These are, or course, deer. However, humans use considerably more resources than deer, and as previously stated by Cathym we barely replace any of it. There are approximately 7.18 billion humans in the world. For every population there is a maximum sustainable level they can achieve, which is based on how much they consume, how long they remain alive, and how many resources they have available to them. The life span has increased greatly in the last few decades. I'd also be willing to bet our rate of consumption has also increased. Obviously some of our resources are limited, and others take time to regenerate. So given that we are using our resources faster and our people are living longer, thus using more in total, we are eventually going to hit our maximum sustainable level as a global population, if we haven't already. Currently sections of the world population aren't even able to meet their needs http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lear...02002.htm.

So that should lay out the dangers of overpopulation. Now for population trends, which you also seem to misinterpret. Population does not act like a parabola with a negative "a" term. How population grows varies based mostly on environmental conditions (or in the case of contraceptives, the ability to control population). A population with a surplus of resources will generally flourish, while one with few or insufficient resources will be more stagnant or even decrease. Massive population decreases, likewise, occur as results of the environment and violence (starvation, natural disaster, international conflict-which often causes starvation). Just because a population does not meet the birthrate needed to replace itself does not mean it will "die out" as you have repeatedly claimed. A populations birth rate of 1.9 applied to a population of 7.18 billion over 10 years (assuming this rate remains the same, which it will not) leaves us with, very roughly, 4 billion people left. I wouldn't exactly be bothered by there being only that many people considering it wasn't so far off a few decades ago. Even if this happened, it's not as if we, as a population, couldn't consciously make the decision to procreate more. And actually, we probably wouldn't need to. Because as I said earlier, the population is dependent on how well it can sustain itself by its resources. With less people in the world, there are more resources for each (that, with advancing technology, should continue to be exploited in reasonable quantities, and being more abundant relative to a lower stable population). Thus, the birth rate should be able to sustain at least a constant population, but more likely will have one with some fluctuations in size.

Oh, and in regards to infant deaths: while they obviously affect the numbers, they have significantly decreased thanks to advanced medical technology. It is not as if this skews the numbers enough to discredit what I have put forth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 12:58 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 07:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 06:58 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement but you were too stupid to see that.

No, you are simply too stupid to make clear arguments. Drinking Beverage

Chas, the reason they are unclear to you is because you have the cognitive ability of a pubic louse. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: