• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Population Control

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • No

    Votes: 43 75.4%

  • Total voters
    57
lmao, I can't answer a question if you are going to lie about the situation and use different words. Reword it correctly and I will consider answering it.

sorry sport, just because you can't bring yourself to admit the truth of the situation is no reason to call me a liar (talk about integrity :roll: )

Anyways, Junior (please capitalize pronouns) is off to school.
sorry, sport...you don't capitalize pronouns.

Integrity:

The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

nice, maybe you should try it some time ;)
 
Does rape not happen? Is there some reason we shouldn't consider it? Or should we not consider it just because it shows how your position is flawed? You claim my integrity = 0 and yet you are the one saying that adding rape to this discussion is a red herring despite it being valid to bring up.

show me anywhere where I said rape was a stupid behavior or that women who are raped are stupid. It a red herring, plain and simple. You brought it up because you were losing ground otherwise.

my claim that you have ZERO integrity stems from the FACT that you brought up the rape angle and then argued against it as if I had argued in favor of punishing rape victims.

FWIW...rape is not a stupid behavior on the part of the victim, therefore cases of rape are not relevent to my arguement.

If you'd like to continue arguing that strawman....knock yourself out
 
Last edited:
So you think that a parent who went to college, got a good education (say they made straight A's), graduated and now can't find work, their children should be punished?

(Sorry had to address this one before I stepped out the door. Now I'm really off to class.)

If you went to college, graduated and can't find work...then you are a stupid mother ****er if you have a child and then yes..... you should be punished, severely, for being that ****ing stupid.
 
At some point, the strongest shall survive should kick in here. Many (myself included) certainly feel charitable and want to help those less fortunate but there's a limit and charity is the last and final step. People who are responsible for bringing these children in the world are ultimately responsible and are frequently left out of the conversation... we tend to run right away to it's society's responsibility and if society doesn't step up, society let's kids suffer. No, parents let the kids suffer.... the bleeding hearts I find hypocritical - what do they do to stave off the childrens suffering? They complain about everyone else's willingness to let the kids suffer....

The "strongest shall survive" mentality went the way of the dodo a long time ago when it comes to humans.

And yeah..i'm sure you do feel charitable. Until it comes to the point that you can't get your 8th fancy new car right? (yes that was an exaggeration and not solely directed at you Ockham.)
 
sorry sport, just because you can't bring yourself to admit the truth of the situation is no reason to call me a liar (talk about integrity :roll: )

sorry, sport...you don't capitalize pronouns.



nice, maybe you should try it some time ;)

Correct, I meant proper nouns.
 
So you think that a parent who went to college, got a good education (say they made straight A's), graduated and now can't find work, their children should be punished?

certainly not. though i'm a big believer in incentives, beating a child because his parent is one of the 4.7% of college grads who can't find a job wouldn't be within the proper limits of the state, and would certainly be abusive to the child.


ooooohhhhhhh..... I get it...... you have "not giving someone something" confused with "punishing them".
 
show me anywhere where I said rape was a stupid behavior or that women who are raped are stupid. It a red herring, plain and simple. You brought it up because you were losing ground otherwise.

Your arguement is based upon poor people having kids. You have basically said that anyone that is poor and cannot support kids yet has kids is exhibiting stupid behavior. A raped poor woman fits into that catagory whether you realized it or not.

You set the goal posts. I'm just showing you how much can fit with in those goal posts.
 
So you think that a parent who went to college, got a good education (say they made straight A's), graduated and now can't find work, their children should be punished?
No idea what you're talking about - I've never mentioned those circumstances. Any person who gets pregnant is ultimately responsible for that pregnancy and any child who is born from it. What part of that is eluding you?
 
The "strongest shall survive" mentality went the way of the dodo a long time ago when it comes to humans.

10 points to Hufflepuff for non-deliberate use of irony.

And yeah..i'm sure you do feel charitable. Until it comes to the point that you can't get your 8th fancy new car right? (yes that was an exaggeration and not solely directed at you Ockham.)

I give a minimum of 10% of my earnings away - how much do you give? incidentally, are you aware of what the comparative rates of giving are for conservatives v liberals?
 
The "strongest shall survive" mentality went the way of the dodo a long time ago when it comes to humans.
Disagree. Man is not god.

And yeah..i'm sure you do feel charitable. Until it comes to the point that you can't get your 8th fancy new car right? (yes that was an exaggeration and not solely directed at you Ockham.)
What I deem charity is up to me - charity is provided by the individual. My charities are the Boys Club of America, the Cancer Institute and the Trenton Area Soup Kitchen (TASK). IF I have enough money to guy my 8th or 800th fancy new car, is my business. :shrug:
 
Your arguement is based upon poor people having kids. You have basically said that anyone that is poor and cannot support kids yet has kids is exhibiting stupid behavior. A raped poor woman fits into that catagory whether you realized it or not.

You set the goal posts. I'm just showing you how much can fit with in those goal posts.

IOW, you can't find anything to refute the INTENT of my comments, so you dig for minutae in your interpretation of the letter of my comments and then argue against a point I never made.

thanks for clearing that up

and if we are honest, my arguement is based upon stupid people having kids. it is not my fault that most stupid people also happen to be poor.
 
Last edited:
10 points to Hufflepuff for non-deliberate use of irony.
:lamo

I give a minimum of 10% of my earnings away - how much do you give? incidentally, are you aware of what the comparative rates of giving are for conservatives v liberals?
I've been doing something similar - it's easy to pull it directly from my paycheck so I never miss it. My corporation pushes very hard for all employees to donate and pick individual charity's or to allow the United Way to choose for them. We also have a company "cares" day where we go out and get paid to finish off homes, move dirt, pour concrete, whatever skills outside of work we have, and lend it. I've donated to TASK for a long time and worked there as well as with the VA, which I'm sad to say I haven't done in a while but should get back to it.
 
10 points to Hufflepuff for non-deliberate use of irony.

Actually it was quite deliberate. ;)

I give a minimum of 10% of my earnings away - how much do you give? incidentally, are you aware of what the comparative rates of giving are for conservatives v liberals?

Depends on the situation. I give my money out based on situation not a percentage. I also give my time. Your 10% actually sounds like it is done due to a tithe because of your religion or because of some sort of socially acceptable amount to give out mentality...kind of like tipping a waitress.

As for the rates of giving...don't really care as I'm neither solely conservative or solely liberal in my thinking. My claim to being an Independent is about more than just a political stance.
 
IOW, you can't find anything to refute the INTENT of my comments, so you dig for minutae in your interpretation of the letter of my comments and then argue against a point I never made.

thanks for clearing that up

and if we are honest, my arguement is based upon stupid people having kids. it is not my fault that most stupid people also happen to be poor.

Here's a few of your posts.....


once they're out of the womb, let their own parents take care of them. this isn't Clan of the Cave bear. we have known where babies come from for thousands of years. If you are a poor person who is barely making ends meet on minimum wage, you should be doing everything in your power to ensure you don't have any ****ing kids that you can't support. free condoms from the health clinic....double bag if you have to. maybe the girlfriend/wife should learn to like it up the butt.

If you are too stupid, irresponsible or lazy to prevent having kids that you can't support....maybe it IS time that the government be responsible for you.

well, since it is the poor who can't support their kids, it is only logical that they be the ones who are limited.

their "right" to have kids ends when they expect someone else to pay for it


I'm not saying that the govt should say: OK poor people, you can only have one kid

I am saying that the govt should say: OK poor people, you can have as many kids as you want. We just aren't going to force other people to pay to support them.



and then if they are still stupid enough to keep having kids they can't support. too ****ing bad for them.

there's that vicious cycle again. can't punish the child, so we allow the parent to continue to make poor choices. the child, growing up in that environment sees that there are no consequences for making poor choices, and therefore grows up to make poor choices of their own.

it may be heartless, but as I have said before. better some suffer now, than we all suffer later.

stupidy should be painful, that's the only way to break the cycle.

then, those people and their kids should suffer the natural consequences of their stupidity.we would do well to take a lesson from the animals. the weak, sick, infirm, etc are the first to die. it helps keep the herd (aka society) healthy and viable.



All we have accomplished with our decades of govt entitlements that allow the stupid to survive is to weaken our society.

:2bigcry: OMFG...think of the children.... :2bigcry:

yeah, let's just keep rewarding stupidity so they can keep on breeding more and more kids for us to support.

And I didn't even include all of the ones that I could have. You're whole arguement revolves around stupidity and poor people, and you made no exceptions. You can admit it or not. Don't matter to me. The proof is here in this thread that shows the truth.
 
Last edited:
Here's a few of your posts.....














And I didn't even include all of the ones that I could have. You're whole arguement revolves around stupidity and poor people. You can admit it or not. Don't matter to me. The proof is here in this thread that shows the truth.

and oddly enough, in none of those posts did I ever once mention "rape" :roll:
 
and oddly enough, in none of those posts did I ever once mention "rape" :roll:

Where did I say that you had? I am showing you how your arguement is flawed. That necessitates that I bring up something that you did not mention or did not consider.

BTW that last quote of yours in that post of mine there was in direct response to where I did bring up rape. GG ;)
 
Where did I say that you had? I am showing you how your arguement is flawed. That necessitates that I bring up something that you did not mention or did not consider.

BTW that last quote of yours in that post of mine there was in direct response to where I did bring up rape. GG ;)


how is my arguement flawed simply because there happens to be a small number of women who happen to be poor who are raped that have a kid.

I made it clear that people who are poor or cannot support themselves through no fault of their own are not included.

as i said, you cannot refute my arguement. so you bring up something that was never part of my arguement and try to argue against it.

I did not mention rape because it was not part of my arguement. I also didn't mention one-legged circus monkeys either

tell you what, since it obviously is such a big concern for you.... you get me some statistics on the number of women who are raped each year that actually become pregnant, the number of those who actually have the kid, and the number of those who are poor and....if that number is statistically significant I will address it.

otherwise, it's a red herring and irrelevent to my position
 
Last edited:
Tell me, what happens if adults have children past the government's set limit? Iirc, China's doing a lovely job with their "killing houses."
 
Tell me, what happens if adults have children past the government's set limit? Iirc, China's doing a lovely job with their "killing houses."

snip, snip
 
how is my arguement flawed simply because there happens to be a small number of women who happen to be poor who are raped that have a kid.

I made it clear that people who are poor or cannot support themselves through no fault of their own are not included.

You might want to reword this as it says the exact opposite of what you have been saying.

But lets see if I can get the gist of what you were trying to say. You basically didn't want the "or" part in there but instead wanted an "and" word in there instead? As I recall you made that statement in regards to people that were mentally unable to support themselves. A raped woman still has the mental capacity to support themselves. As such your one caveat does not include them.

as i said, you cannot refute my arguement. so you bring up something that was never part of my arguement and try to argue against it.

I'm not trying to refute your arguement. I have no need to for the simple fact that your arguement is completely without any human morals as such trying to refute it to someone who obviously believes it is pointless. Pointing out a simple flaw is sufficient enough for me.

I did not mention rape because it was not part of my arguement. I also didn't mention one-legged circus monkeys either

Of course it wasn't a part of your arguement. You never thought of it. And there was no need to mention one-legged circus monkeys as they have nothing to do with this subject. Raped women vs your arguement however is valid to this discussion.

Edit: BTW, your arguement is flawed for the simple fact that it does not take into account things beyond human control. Like raped women. It puts everyone into the same boat irregardless of actual circumstances beyond your one caveat of retardation.
 
Last edited:
Nice come back! :bravo:

simply pointing out that you are crying to make a major issue over something that was never part of my argument. still waiting on those rape statisitcs by the way, since it is such an important issue to you
 
simply pointing out that you are crying to make a major issue over something that was never part of my argument. still waiting on those rape statisitcs by the way, since it is such an important issue to you

Tell me...do you know how to debate? You do know that people that are debating you will inevitably bring something up that wasn't orginally a part of your arguement in order to show you flaws right? Is that not the nature of debating? To show the person that you are debating flaws in thier arguement? And doesn't that necessitate bringing things up that wasn't a part of thier original arguement? Please tell me you know this?.....

As for rape statistics...One, you never asked for them. Two irrelevant. Both you and I know that there are women out there that are raped and have the rapists child. How often it happens is irrelevant when compared to the fact that it does happen.
 
Tell me...do you know how to debate? You do know that people that are debating you will inevitably bring something up that wasn't orginally a part of your arguement in order to show you flaws right? Is that not the nature of debating? To show the person that you are debating flaws in thier arguement? And doesn't that necessitate bringing things up that wasn't a part of thier original arguement? Please tell me you know this?.....

look up strawman.

As for rape statistics...One, you never asked for them.

see post #292

Two irrelevant.

you brought it up and keep harping on it, that makes it relevent

Both you and I know that there are women out there that are raped and have the rapists child. How often it happens is irrelevant when compared to the fact that it does happen.

and you and I both know that I was not, have never been and will never be talking about those women when I talk about poor stupid people having kids they can't support.
 
Back
Top Bottom