#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should sex be illeagal
Should sex be illeagal
yes
Side Score: 53
|
no
Side Score: 101
|
|
1
point
I think it should until you are married because by then you made a commitment to stay with your wife or husband until death splits you TWO up, but now a days some people don't take it seriously because they cheat up each other violating the commitment then want to run away when the baby it born knowing it takes TWO to tango. Side: Until Marriage
I really disagree with waiting until marriage. I know people who aren't married that have lasted WAY longer than people who did get married. Marriage is just a stupid tradition and a legal document. It doesn't make anyone more committed, loyal, or happy with that other person. And why do you keep putting emphasis on "TWO"? Side: No
3
points
2
points
I think it should until you are married If anything, marriage should be illegal. The human cost of its legality is incalculable. because by then you made a commitment As a rule of thumb, I find its best to stop talking the moment you hear yourself use the word "commitment" on the subject of relationships. It makes you sound like the kind of person who nobody in their right mind would want to enter a relationship with. to stay with your wife or husband until death splits you TWO up And why having sex before this is bad, I can neither conceive nor detect in your argument the expression of any reason. but now a days some people don't take it seriously because they cheat up each other Cheating and premarital sex are two entirely different things. If anything, people cheat because they haven't had enough premarital sex. commitment There's that word again. That word like a dagger enters in mine ears. want to run away when the baby it born knowing it takes TWO to tango. I have a solution: the condom. Side: No
1
point
Your arguments against marriage are faulty at best. Your first point about "The human cost of its legality" is not even supported, and thus I will say nothing on that. Your second point is laughable at best. If you fear commitment so much, then it is YOU who is the kind of person no one wants to be in a relationship with. Do you realize that there are some ANIMALS that mate with only one other of their species their entire life-spans? Why can't humans be the same? It is quite possible, and much happier that way. I think cheating an premaritial sex ARE linked, and aparently you do too, considering your second claim on this point. Saying that people cheat because they haven't had enough premarital sex is like saying a drug addict doesn't try marijuanna because he's had too much cocaine. Sex addicts are rampant in our society and that is but one very small piece of a relationship. The fact that you don't believe in commitment shows me that you will simply disagree on this fact. I can tell you that humans were meant to have commitments to one another on a biological basis. ALL mammals for family units, all mammals raise young, and very many mammals only choose one mate. If animals, who do not have the power of higher thinking, can do that, then it's very sad that humans get enslaved to the process of sex. Sex is a means, not an end- which is where modern society gets it wrong. Condoms are not infalliable, monogamy is. Side: yes
2
points
Your arguments against marriage are faulty at best. Your life is clearly devoid of 19th century literature, so I'll forgive you your ignorance and make no further comment. Your first point about "The human cost of its legality" is not even supported Would you like a set of divorce statistics or are you just being perverse and ill-humoured? and thus I will say nothing on that Therefore runs better. Your second point is laughable at best Your vocabulary is repetitive at best. If you fear commitment so much Who said anything about fear? The above is a contemptible notion invented to maintain the union of people who married for the wrong reasons, to people they don't really love. then it is YOU who is the kind of person no one wants to be in a relationship with. Please avoid capitalising words in my presence. Italics are sufficient. And since when has anybody fallen in love with somebody simply because they promise to commit to the relationship? Do you realize that there are some ANIMALS that mate with only one other of their species their entire life-spans? And there are animals who eat their own faeces. Your point? And again, just a minor detail: please do not capitalise words. Why can't humans be the same? Marriage is not required for a relationship to be permanent. It is quite possible, and much happier that way. My parents were unmarried for 15 years. They were perfectly happy then. I think cheating an premaritial sex ARE linked, and aparently you do too, considering your second claim on this point. Unnecessary drivel, get to the point. Saying that people cheat because they haven't had enough premarital sex is like saying a drug addict doesn't try marijuanna because he's had too much cocaine. That is perhaps the worst attempt at an analogy that I have ever heard. For one, the circumstances are reversed, and second, cocaine being a much stronger and more addictive drug, it isn't even analogous. People cheat because they're bored with their relationships. There is one solution and that is reproducing and living with somebody one genuinely loves. And before one does that, it is best to take as many lovers as possible, yielding many benefits such as A) Sex. B) Sexual experience. C) Maturity (and I understand that you may have trouble with this one, so if an explanation is required, do not hesitate to ask. Until such a time, I shall commend it to your faculty of discourse). D) Being and remaining interesting. E) A healthy tendency to deplore doctrines which discourage premarital sex, exempli gratia religion. Sex addicts are rampant in our society and that is but one very small piece of a relationship. Well, males do compose 50% of the population, so you may be right. And what's your point? Olives are a very small part of a meal, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy them on their own. And relationships are, evolutionarily speaking, just the glue and fabric which bonds two fertile mates and is conducive to the rearing of children, so sex is actually a rather important part of a relationship. The fact that you don't believe in commitment shows me that you will simply disagree on this fact. And try to avoid using the phrase "The fact that". There's not much to say here, as I've already disagreed. I can tell you that humans were meant to have commitments to one another on a biological basis. You're juxtaposing commitment and marriage and masquerading one as the quintessence of the other. Please desist. ALL mammals for family units, all mammals raise young, and very many mammals only choose one mate. You, sir, may base your behaviour upon that of animals, but I am loath to do so. If animals, who do not have the power of higher thinking, can do that, then it's very sad that humans get enslaved to the process of sex. I think its sad that a being capable of higher thinking could come to the conclusion that premarital sex was somehow morally wrong or otherwise abhorrent. To be perfectly honest, I suspect you didn't/don't have enough. Sex is a means, not an end- which is where modern society gets it wrong. The only end is death. The means is life. Condoms are not infalliable, monogamy is. Monogamy isn't infallible you buffoon. In fact, how any definition of that word could be applied to monogamy is quite mysterious to me. Side: No
1
point
Your comment on 19th century literature doesn't say ANYTHING to support your argument. No evidence, dismissable. While I have nothing back up my next statement, I am willing to be my life that the reason divorce statistics are so high is BECAUSE modern culture places such a high value on sex as the staple of realtionship. Stop commenting on my grammar and vocabulary, which is acceptible, and focus on the actual argument. You're being very nit-picky, which is childish in any debate. Your open contempt for commitment, or lack of value in it during a relationship, seems to show reluctance against it. That's all I'm saying. Love requires commitment. It's not what MAKES love, but it is a requirement. Of course no relationship is built on commitment, but it certainly helps. I will capitalize for emphasis all I please, it's not trolling and I am not taking YOUR personal preference into consideration when formulating MY argument, at least on the basis of language. I agree that marriage is not a requirement for a permanent relationship, but why should it be barred? Why should it be illegal? There's NO logical reason to bar two people from that choice, not on the basis of liberty. That snippet about your parents is nice. I'm not saying that marriage is going to magically make things happier, but isn't that a kind of marriage anyway (Side Note: I'm pretty sure it's a legal marriage too if they've shared residence for long enough, they'll be taxed like they're married at any rate). People don't cheat because they're bored with their relationships, that's a mask for a much simpler, more primative feeling: lust. We all feel it, whether you act on it is another thing. That's strictly a point of biology. While the next section of your argument makes perfect logical sense, it's just NOT a good way to build a relationship? Or have you ever been in one? Also, attacking me on the basis of immaturity after you have made several immature jabs is rather immature in-of-itself. Focus on the information. Don't insult me, I'm not insulting you and I haven't come to. No, relationships are not an evolutionary tool at all. Most animals just mate and run. Sex isn't required for a relationship, and neither is a relationship required for sex; hence the crime of rape (which, granted, can occur in a relationship). I understand your analogy using the olives on the basis of logic, but on morality, it's weak... and quite unattractive to a woman who values a relationship that has commitment. Again, I did not come for a grammar lesson, you can read and deduce from my argument just fine. Stick to the information please. Commitment and marriage ARE intermarried, not interchangable (I was not making an argument for marriage in that case, just commitment), terms, excuse the pun. I do not base all my behavior on animals, but the fact that you think "sex with as many as you please," seems to suggest the more truly animal-like nature. All of my animal-based BIOLOGICAL arguments were in support of living to a HIGHER standard, not an equal one. My sexual experience is irrelevant to the matter. That is a most immature swing, and innacurate at that. In relation to cheating and extramarital children, monogamy is infalliable. There, I gave you a context. Side: No
2
points
No evidence, dismissable... While I have nothing back up my next statement You haven't read the best books, but your grasp of irony is sublime. I am willing to be my life that the reason divorce statistics are so high is BECAUSE modern culture places such a high value on sex as the staple of realtionship. I'd say that its because people rush into marriages with the wrong people because marriage is the societal norm. Stop commenting on my grammar and vocabulary, which is acceptible It is tolerable I suppose. and focus on the actual argument. The drivel you masquerade as an argument makes poor reading so you'll forgive me if I must amuse myself occasionally. You're being very nit-picky, which is childish in any debate. The term you are looking for is "pedantic" and I have no wish to defend myself. Your open contempt for commitment, or lack of value in it during a relationship, seems to show reluctance against it. Commitment is only necessary during adversity or when considerable effort is required. Why should a relationship be so often adversarial that one should have to make a commitment to persist? Have people forgotten how to fall in love or has everybody become an intolerable bore? That's all I'm saying. That is as well for you are saying little else. Love requires commitment. If you love somebody you don't need to commit yourself to making them happy. You'll do it gladly. I will capitalize for emphasis all I please Every time you capitalise a word you imply that I am an almost illiterate idiot. So don't be surprised as I become increasingly hostile with every instance. and I am not taking YOUR personal preference into consideration when formulating MY argument, at least on the basis of language. I know when I'm being given two fingers. I agree that marriage is not a requirement for a permanent relationship, but why should it be barred? Why should it be illegal? Why should premarital sex be illegal? There's NO logical reason to bar two people from that choice, not on the basis of liberty. Below this line, I shall conduct myself with what I consider to be proper manners, in a bid to refrain from saying anything incendiary. This is necessary, because above is a capitalised word. Another suggestion that I am an idiot. --------------------------------------- If marriage serves no purpose, or is made redundant by abolishing illegitimacy and arbitrary inheritance laws, banning marriage will at least prevent people from rushing into binding contracts with people for whom they are unsuited. I don't actually advocate its illegality, which is something I considered obvious form the tone and context of the original suggestion, but as this is the interpretation you have apparently chosen, I must comply. That snippet about your parents is nice. Thank you. I'm not saying that marriage is going to magically make things happier, but isn't that a kind of marriage anyway No. Marriage is the legal, formal union of two persons. Side Note: I'm pretty sure it's a legal marriage too if they've shared residence for long enough, they'll be taxed like they're married at any rate I am afraid the insurance policy which forced them to eventually marry disagrees. People don't cheat because they're bored with their relationships, that's a mask for a much simpler, more primative feeling: lust. An analogous statement: "people don't eat switch to Nestlé because they're bored with the Cadbury's which they have eaten for 10 years. They switch to Nestlé because they enjoy chocolate". While the next section of your argument makes perfect logical sense, it's just NOT a good way to build a relationship? The comment was not about relationships. It was about premarital sex which occurs outside a long-term relationship. As far as I can deduce, you are talking about the list of boons? Or have you ever been in one? Yes. Also, attacking me on the basis of immaturity after you have made several immature jabs is rather immature in-of-itself. Sir, your fixation on my maturity or lack thereof is detracting from the debate. Focus on the information. Please do not use the imperative without an entreatment. I consider it to be rude. Don't insult me, I'm not insulting you and I haven't come to. Sir, your every use of a capitalised word is, as I have said, an insult, which is why I originally asked you to desist and became hostile. I can read. No, relationships are not an evolutionary tool at all. Most animals just mate and run. An analogous statement: "wings are not an evolutionary tool at all. Most animals have legs". Sex isn't required for a relationship, and neither is a relationship required for sex You have, as near as I can tell, refuted an evolutionary standpoint with a personal viewpoint. I consider the two to be frequently incompatible. hence the crime of rape I don't see how rape comes into this. It's the product of a mental issues. I understand your analogy using the olives on the basis of logic, but on morality, it's weak... and quite unattractive to a woman who values a relationship that has commitment. We have a saying in England (and it is not usually phrased so civilly), that there are some girls with whom one engages in coition, and other girls whom one introduces to one's mother. And it strikes me that our disagreement on the topic of commitment may be illusory. If you consider commitment to mean "the decision to mate with only one female for the duration of the relationship", then that is what I consider to be an implicit part of a normal relationship. Again, I did not come for a grammar lesson, you can read and deduce from my argument just fine. I have expressed my sentiments on the matter. How you respond is entirely up to you. Stick to the information please. See, everything sounds nicer when one is polite. Commitment and marriage ARE intermarried, not interchangable It seems my previous conception of your definition of commitment was incorrect, as it is not compatible with the above statement. Please elucidate. excuse the pun. Excusé. I do not base all my behavior on animals, but the fact that you think "sex with as many as you please," seems to suggest the more truly animal-like nature. I do not consider this to be a valid point sir. Your argument drew on the strategy some animals employ of choosing one mate. Mine made no mention of animals and you cannot discount it for the analogy without discounting your own. All of my animal-based BIOLOGICAL arguments were in support of living to a HIGHER standard, not an equal one. The intent of your arguments is not mysterious to me. My sexual experience is irrelevant to the matter. My apologies. That is a most immature swing, and innacurate at that. The part after the comma devalues the part before it. In relation to cheating and extramarital children, monogamy is infalliable. One can cheat and produce extramarital children while being monogamous. Monogamy is simply the state of being married to one person and does not reference extramarital liaisons. I am compelled to ask, why do you think they invented the word "extramarital" if marriage was infallible? Side: Sex should not be illegal
0
points
The difference between you and me, is that I conceede that I say things that have no evidence and put it forward as belief. You state your beliefs as fact. I refuse to waste my time "debating" with you. I find you to be an overall distasteful opponent, and impossible to get across even the most valid point without it being dismissed by some witless rhetoric. Side: No
2
points
The difference between you and me, is that I conceede that I say things that have no evidence and put it forward as belief. I should have said that the difference between you and I is that I don't call somebody's postings "laughable" and expect to be the best of friends. I honestly couldn't care less for your feelings on the matter. You state your beliefs as fact. I do not believe. I suspect. I refuse to waste my time "debating" with you. The terms of your surrender are deemed to be acceptable. I find you to be an overall distasteful opponent Excellent. and impossible to get across even the most valid point A point is either valid or invalid; there are no degrees. without it being dismissed by some witless rhetoric. If it's witless then it can't be very hard to expose an irreparable flaw and thereby defeat it. Side: yes
1
point
2
points
|
5
points
3
points
While I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, believe that sex should be illegal, I do not agree it should be MORE open than it is now. Do you understand how ridiculously predominant it is in our culture, or that every culture that has had a high value on sex dies out? Side: yes
3
points
While I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, believe that sex should be illegal, I do not agree it should be MORE open than it is now. That's because you are a Christian-other (whatever that means) and you don't understand the value or constitution of liberty. Do you understand how ridiculously predominant it is in our culture That's because it's fun. or that every culture that has had a high value on sex dies out? Nonsense. Side: No
1
point
First off, it's terrible to assume. Your style of debate is to attack the person, not the point, and therefore you are turning a debate into an argument- which is not the point of this site. How does restricting the right to marry endorse the value of liberty? Sex may be fun, but it's also proven to provide emotional bonds to the participants, especially women, and that is why we must be careful in how we address the issues- especially towards children and teenagers, or do I need to bust out the teen pregnacy statistics. As for cultures with high values on sex that die, I need only point to Rome. Side: yes
1
point
First off, it's terrible to assume. Save it. Your style of debate is to attack the person, not the point The reasons for this are many, but to explain them to you would constitute such an attack. therefore you are turning a debate into an argument- which is not the point of this site. I'll assume this is the reason your have become silent on many of your previous positions. How does restricting the right to marry endorse the value of liberty? Again, that niggling ignorance of Oscar Wilde is detrimental to your understanding of what I said, so I'll forgive you. Marriage should be redundant in modern society. It's a religious sacrament that serves no real secular purpose. Sex may be fun, but it's also proven to provide emotional bonds to the participants, especially women, and that is why we must be careful in how we address the issues I form emotional bonds with people by playing chess and I've never heard of any movement against that. You're overstating the issue. Casual sex is not about emotional bonds, it's about gratification. People who have sex as part of a relationship strengthen their emotional bonds, but a one night stand, as my sources tell me it is called, cannot be said to create an emotional dependency in the majority of cases. Frankly it's none of your business who has sex with whom, so long as its consensual. especially towards children and teenagers, The only involvement adults should have in teenage sexuality is the provision of and education in contraceptives and mechanics. or do I need to bust out the teen pregnacy statistics. Teenage pregnancy is easily solved with free provision of contraceptives, superior education and the destruction of religious pressure groups who would have us sink back into the dark ages with their ludicrous arguments against contraception and abortion. People who believe in magic should not be allowed to comment on policy. As for cultures with high values on sex that die, I need only point to Rome. That is a statement so conspicuously devoid of anything which even remotely resembles reason, that I am actually staggered that you thought it wise to utter. Rome decayed into the Byzantine empire because of political and religious divisions, military apathy and barbarian incursions. The matter had nothing to do with sexual liberty. I think anybody who read what you just said could genuinely be shown to have lost brain cells. Side: Sex should not be illegal
3
points
Well i dont agree that sex should be illegal but speaking from a purely scientific standpoint there are two very important reasons why sex should be illegal (or at least restricted) i.e. 1. Overpopulation. The population of the wolrd has gone from 1 billion (pre-industrial revolution) to almost 8 billion today, the population has grown exponentially over the last 100yrs, being fueled primarily by oil. Further inceases have been projected ( i.e. 9 bilion by 2020) which will lead to mass starvation (at best). Throw climate change and peak oil into that equation and you have a recipe for a world wide disastor scenario on a scale never before seen in recorded history, no wonder the fundamentalist chritians think the end is nigh!!!!!!!!! 2. STD's e.g. AIDS, syphilis, etc. etc. These are the two most notable anyway, sex will never be made illegal, and if it was that law would be broken more than any other, were slaves to base desires,and biological impulses. Were essentially a virus.....but thats a different discussion. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
3
points
2
points
From a purely scientific standpoint In my experience, that's a dubious invocation. Overpopulation. Prophylactics and progestogens. The population of the wolrd has gone from 1 billion (pre-industrial revolution) to almost 8 billion today, the population has grown exponentially over the last 100yrs, being fueled primarily by oil. And yet populations in sexually liberated countries in North America and Western Europe are either stagnant or showing minimal decrease. Overpopulation is the result of poverty, not liberal sex. That's 1st grade geography. STD's e.g. AIDS, syphilis, etc. etc. Again, prophylactics. Western, sexually liberated countries have much lower AIDS and HIV rates than poorer, repressed ones. were slaves to base desires,and biological impulses Base desires are the difference between propagation and extinction. Were essentially a virus.. That analogy can be applied to absolutely any form of life. Have you ever known grass to avoid growth on fertile land? Side: No
1
point
Firstly, i dont beleive it to be a dubious invocation, if i did i wouldn't have said it. I was merely trying to kook at things objectively. Yes Prophylactics and progestogens have greatly slowed the rate of population increase in the Western world.That doesnt mean it has become stagnant or has slowed to minimal decrease as you suggeseted. I think you need to check you facts e.g. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ -(i admit that a substantial portion of this increase may be due to mass migration from 3rd world countries) I dont beleive overpopulation is the results of poverty. I think you have a far too progressive view of the human species. We not enlightened, were just out of the jungle. Does poverty exacerbate the problem, yes of course it does, lack of basic education, access to contrapceptives and ahaving a big family for security (and other reasons) all play there part. Again, your argument is valid but prophylactics do not eradicate those diseases. I think you'll find that STDS are going up not down. This point i agree with entirely, i just fail to see how you think it backs up anything you just said. We aer slaves to our base desires. Were like the fungus that engulfs a piece of bread on a humid day, it spreads until the food source it completely exhausted, then it dies leaving a few spores. Yes, again your entirely correct, i could not agree more.The on ly reason i said it is because of the humanist fallacy that proposes we have evolved neyond nature. Science has advanced,we havent. Although the rules of the game have changed a bit.Peace out. Side: yes
2
points
Firstly, i dont beleive it to be a dubious invocation, if i did i wouldn't have said it What is the point of saying this? I was merely trying to kook at things objectively. Objectivism is not the same as a scientific study, which is why I called it a dubious invocation. That doesnt mean it has become stagnant or has slowed to minimal decrease as you suggeseted. I see the problem here. I wasn't speaking of percentage increase, but the actual increase. Compared with the developing world, the United States of America's growth is negligible. Andy many nations in Europe actually are almost stagnant. The second link, which concerns Europe, doesn't actually mention population increase. In fact, the page doesn't contain one instance of the word 'decrease'. I dont beleive overpopulation is the results of poverty. You're obviously not a demographer. It's actually quite well documented that poverty causes families to produce more offspring (ironically), which in turn exacerbates their poverty. If you want the links, just Google it. Nobody on this site ever reads the sources they post beyond the first five lines anyway. I think you have a far too progressive view of the human species. I'd hardly call it a progressive view. I've seen the demographics and I'm fairly certain that there's a mutual correlation between overpopulation and poverty. In fact, I'd even venture as far as to say that the majority of world's social problems are the direct result of poverty. We not enlightened, were just out of the jungle. That's a childish opinion. It exudes feigned disdain for the human race, perhaps in an attempt to convey what you consider to be a superior intellect. The fact is that we are an immensely enlightened race. However, we create vast underclasses to do menial tasks, then give them the power to vote. It's madness and is the reason we have just endured over a decade of governance by New Labour. Does poverty exacerbate the problem, yes of course it does, lack of basic education, access to contrapceptives and ahaving a big family for security (and other reasons) all play there part. As I said, it works both ways and can confuse people. But its not much of a problem. They breed very quickly in the developing world, yes, but they don't consume that many resources and it'll probably end in a massive war. Again, your argument is valid but prophylactics do not eradicate those diseases. I think you'll find that STDS are going up not down. If I have to choose between western sexual liberty and a few thousand infected commoners, I'll pick the former. This point i agree with entirely, i just fail to see how you think it backs up anything you just said. We aer slaves to our base desires. It wasn't intended to. I merely saw your remark and commented on it. Your original point wasn't all that relevant anyway. Were like the fungus that engulfs a piece of bread on a humid day, it spreads until the food source it completely exhausted, then it dies leaving a few spores. To be clichéd, "that's life". The only reason i said it is because of the humanist fallacy that proposes we have evolved neyond nature. I'm a humanist, it seems, but that's pure nonsense. I simply believe that the human being is the most important thing on the planet and as such its happiness should be the greatest concern of the human race. I don't see how a rational person could argue otherwise. Science has advanced,we havent. That depends on what you call advancement. For me, it's a life that doesn't involve picking turnips for 'is Lordship. Although the rules of the game have changed a bit. I have observed in your arguments a fascination with this "game". It seems to be anther presumptuous attempt to categorise and disparage the world you inhabit. Side: No
1
point
Well the main piont was just to defend myself. I didn't consider it to be a dubious invocation, so thats exactly what i said. Your right pure objectivity is unattainable in a scientific study of any kind. So, does mean why must ban the word objective. I said i was "trying" to be objective, i didn't expect you to pounce on every single word. BTW don't come back and say pure objectivity is possible, pure objectivity is unattainable. If you think that warrants calling my assertion a dubious invocation, well i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, your right, i didn't reaslise we were comparing anything, i was merely stating that either way its increasing. I accept that, but to say that is the only casue i think is utterly false, i still think as a speices we will continue to grow and proliferate, as long as there are adequate resources to facilitate it. I dont beleive we will have the forsight to stop consuming for the betterment of mankind, i beleive it will stop when the resources run out, millions (possibly billions) will perish and the population will reach a new stable piont of equilibrium. I still think thats a progressive view becuase you're essentially saying by getting rid of poverty you eliminate overpopulation. That i do not agree with. No, i dont have a superior intellect, i dont look at myself that way at all actually. I beleive in that statement, i dont consider it to be childish in the least, i think you're only saying that becasue it isnt aligned with your own particular views. Read the book "Straw Dogs" by Joh Gray, then come back and say its a childish opinion. BTW i dont how you managed to bring New Labour into this. Again, i dont disagree but you seem to want to blame it all on poverty, i dont accept that. Look, were not taking about personal preference, if we were i be in complete agreement with you. My piont is as a species, STDs are on the increase, even in the western world. I'll leave the last three comments aside, i dont really have any value adding comments to add regarding those.Ok, you think we are the most important thing on the planet, i agree with that. But i can also see how that view is completely twisted, can't you. I can argue otherwise simply based on the fact that we are the ones who consider "US" to be special. We have made a judgment but our frame of refernce is completely biased. Can you really come up with a comprehensive ontological argument which details why i am more important than the fungus that consumes the bread. Im saying there are none, im just saying none are the very satisfying to me. This i wont even bother responding to, i have written enough, plus i got work to do. Yes my friend its a game, is a complete game. Thats exactly what life is, nothing but a game, and it should be viewed as such. Thinking any other way is quite nieve and in my opinion will lead you to think the game is real, and thus take it far too seriously. I leave it at that. Remember the song; row-row-row your boat.......... Side: yes
2
points
Your right pure objectivity is unattainable in a scientific study of any kind. That wasn't my point. I said you can't label your argument a scientific one simply because it involves some statistics. That is why it is a dubious invocation. Yes, your right, i didn't reaslise we were comparing anything, i was merely stating that either way its increasing. Besides which, your statistics cover a decade. I'd make that about a 1% increase (without performing any tedious calculations) per annum. I'd call that relatively minor. I dont beleive we will have the forsight to stop consuming for the betterment of mankind, i beleive it will stop when the resources run out, millions (possibly billions) will perish and the population will reach a new stable piont of equilibrium. And what resources would these be? I still think thats a progressive view becuase you're essentially saying by getting rid of poverty you eliminate overpopulation. That i do not agree with. The statistics show the assertion to be correct. Wealthier people have fewer children. I beleive in that statement, i dont consider it to be childish in the least, i think you're only saying that becasue it isnt aligned with your own particular views When I encounter viewpoints that are superior to or more accurate than my own, I assimilate them. Yours is just silly and betrays ignorance of how incredibly clever humans are. Read the book "Straw Dogs" by Joh Gray, then come back and say its a childish opinion. Read the book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton and tell me we're unenlightened. Or any of Macaulay's essays. BTW i dont how you managed to bring New Labour into this. I presume you can read, so I'll ask you to read it again. Again, i dont disagree but you seem to want to blame it all on poverty, i dont accept that. Well you're not really providing much of a counterargument beyond saying "I can't agree" or "I don't accept that". Look, were not taking about personal preference, if we were i be in complete agreement with you. My piont is as a species, STDs are on the increase, even in the western world. So we'll cure them, problem solved. STDs are caught, in the main, by commoners, so I really couldn't care less. In my opinion there's far too many of them anyway. And the reason they catch them is that they forget or refuse to use prophylactics. It's their fault and it's no basis upon which to detract from the liberty of the middle classes. But i can also see how that view is completely twisted, can't you. I can argue otherwise simply based on the fact that we are the ones who consider "US" to be special. I'll ask you to point out why a selfish motive is a bad motive, when the action benefits all of mankind. We have made a judgment but our frame of refernce is completely biased. Against animals, yes, but who cares? Animals don't need to be protected from poverty and the rest. They're perfectly happy with food, trees, grass and water. Can you really come up with a comprehensive ontological argument which details why i am more important than the fungus that consumes the bread. Because fungi can't feel unhappy. You can. Yes my friend its a game, is a complete game. Thats exactly what life is, nothing but a game, and it should be viewed as such. I'm unconcerned with the labels you apply to existence, but it strikes me that you enjoy using the trivial connotations of games to disparage it. Side: No
1
point
I never said it was a scientific study. I'm sorry you felt like scrutinising every single word i wrote. I said i was speaking from a scientific standpoint, i presented an obersevation and what expectations i have based on it. It really doesnt matter what kind of time line they had in them, as long as we have the energy and resources to sustain our continued gorwth, our population will increase.I dont think you really need to scrutinise the sources i presented, i found them in 2 minutes, there shit. All you need to realise is our population has grown from 1billion to about 7, and its expected to reach about 9 by 2020, that really says it all. "And what resources would these be?" Is it not immediately obvious, OIL. Nuff Said. "The statistics show the assertion to be correct." No the statistics show that it slows the rate of grow, theres a big difference. " I assimilate them" Jesus, you sound like a fuckin robot. Look you may think my views are silly, i don't, and whats more, you haven't presented any argument that has made me reconsider. I think were using very different definitions for the word enlightenment. I think you and i would agree on a great deal.The problem is your using this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and im using this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The two are incomparable. I agree that the human species has reached a high level of understanding(as i said science has advanced), but this in no way frees us from our biology. We are still just the tools of our genes as far as im concerned, their expression in us has become more complex, but they are essentially the same. "Well you're not really providing much of a counterargument beyond saying "I can't agree" or "I don't accept that"." I already presented my argument. I think, given the resources our population would continue to grow at an alamring rate. I base this on the last 100yrs. You've decided to challenge this, but you haven't been able to prove it wrong yet. "So we'll cure them, problem solved." You can't depend on that. You can't be sure that these things will just be solved by medical science, personally i think thats a little arrogant.Nature will always throw up a surpirse or two. "STDs are caught, in the main, by commoners, so I really couldn't care less. In my opinion there's far too many of them anyway." Now who's the one with the superior intellect, i mean fuckin hell, you must be quite the little elitist aren't you. "I'll ask you to point out why a selfish motive is a bad motive, when the action benefits all of mankind." This is the stupidist thing you've said so far im afraid. We are one with nature, to consider ourselves separate from it is a fallacy. This belief, coupled with gratification of the ego (which im sure you love engaging in given that previous comment) are the reason why our culture is so unsustainable. Its the reason we have treated the health of our environement which such indifference. "Because fungi can't feel unhappy. You can." Ok, fare enough thats argument for consciouness.I dont view it as ridiculous but i dont really want to pursue that particular digression "it strikes me that you enjoy using the trivial connotations of games to disparage it." If thats how you chose to rationalise my beleifs to yourself, fare enough. Personally i can't think of a better word for life. I can tell you a reductionist so you definitely wont agree with me when i say life isn't real, its a game. Side: yes
2
points
I never said it was a scientific study. I'm sorry you felt like scrutinising every single word i wrote. Words have meanings. You can't write a word down and blame somebody for taking its meaning to be what you intended to convey. I said i was speaking from a scientific standpoint, i presented an obersevation and what expectations i have based on it. A hypothesis, which I presume is what you are describing, does not make your argument a scientific one. It really doesnt matter what kind of time line they had in them, as long as we have the energy and resources to sustain our continued gorwth, our population will increase. Good. I dont think you really need to scrutinise the sources i presented, i found them in 2 minutes, there shit. Then why present them? . All you need to realise is our population has grown from 1billion to about 7, and its expected to reach about 9 by 2020, that really says it all. The point is that most of those will be born in countries which consume nothing compared to ours, which are showing minimal growth. We in the west consume 80% of the world's resources, so I don't think population increase in the east is all that important in the context of resource consumption, which seems to be the basis of your argument. Is it not immediately obvious, OIL. Nuff Said. We won't need oil forever. No the statistics show that it slows the rate of grow, theres a big difference. I said "The statistics show the assertion to be correct. Wealthier people have fewer children". Jesus, you sound like a fuckin robot. Thank you. Look you may think my views are silly, i don't, and whats more, you haven't presented any argument that has made me reconsider. You seem to concede just about every point, so I can't imagine why that would be. The two are incomparable. I agree that the human species has reached a high level of understanding(as i said science has advanced), but this in no way frees us from our biology. We are still just the tools of our genes as far as im concerned, their expression in us has become more complex, but they are essentially the same. And you want to be... what? I already presented my argument. I think, given the resources our population would continue to grow at an alamring rate. I base this on the last 100yrs. You've decided to challenge this, but you haven't been able to prove it wrong yet. You're selecting some statistics and ignoring others. I've already demonstrated that western nations consume the most and grow the least. You can't depend on that. Any disease or sickness can be cured. There is no such thing as invincibility. You can't be sure that these things will just be solved by medical science, personally i think thats a little arrogant. I don't think you understand what medical science is capable of. Why is it so difficult to believe that we can cure a particular disease? We cured polio. We cured malaria. We eradicated smallpox from the face of the Earth! What makes syphilis so special to you? Nature will always throw up a surpirse or two. Where do you think the cures come from? Now who's the one with the superior intellect, i mean fuckin hell, you must be quite the little elitist aren't you. I am an elitist and have no shame in admitting that. As far as I am concerned, anybody who does not read for entertainment is a commoner and of inferior intellect. This is the stupidist thing you've said so far im afraid. Do not be afraid. We are one with nature, to consider ourselves separate from it is a fallacy. Is a car natural? This belief, coupled with gratification of the ego (which im sure you love engaging in given that previous comment) are the reason why our culture is so unsustainable. What makes you believe that our culture is unsustainable? Its the reason we have treated the health of our environement which such indifference. The reasons we damage the environment are greed and ignorance, not humanism. Ok, fare enough thats argument for consciouness.I dont view it as ridiculous but i dont really want to pursue that particular digression It's a fairly straightforward matter actually. If you left fungi on a piece of bread in a cellar for 100 years, they'd be indifferent (this is a large piece of bread). In fact, you could leave them virtually anywhere and, so long as they didn't die, they'd continue to respire until the end of their days. Try putting a human in that position and then tell me that humans don't require more care, attention and effort than fungi. If thats how you chose to rationalise my beleifs to yourself, fare enough. Personally i can't think of a better word for life. Then you have a limited vocabulary. I can tell you a reductionist so you definitely wont agree with me when i say life isn't real, its a game. Life will cure you of this silliness eventually. Perhaps when you have children and one of them is imperilled, you'll realise that this is not a game. Side: No
1
point
Are we really going to do this? Ok, i can see your only interested in a tit for tat point scoring match but ill entertain you. I wrote; "from a scientific standpoint", to me, that means i was looking at the problem from a scientific perspective, i cited information obtained using scientific principles. Now you've decided to say that the argument i presented initially, amounted to a scientific study, i disagree with.The words i used conveyed exactly what i was trying to say, if i had said im going to perform a scientific study that would have been different. No, it doesnt but the fact that it is supported by factual evidence (which have been obtained through actual scientific studies) does. You think thats good, fair enough. "Then why present them?" Because they support my argument, they present factual evidence, i could have found more comprehensive ones, but i dont care that much. I can tell from this paragraph that you are incapable of feeling empathy for your fellow man. I don't actually consider myself separate from people in developing countries, the only thing that separates us from them is wealth. Your right we don't need oil forever, but we do right now, and for the foreseeable future. I fail to see how that refutes anything. "I said "The statistics show the assertion to be correct. Wealthier people have fewer children"" You seem to think that if there were no poor people there would be no problem with over population. I admit you have not stated this explicitly but you continually infer it in your arguments. In my opinion that's incorrect, the population will increase regardless of wealth distribution. Your welcome, although i think we both know i wasn't meant as a compliment. I'm conceding the pionts i agree with, i capablem of acknowledging when the person im debating is right. This would take far too long to explain, you should investigate the british religious philosopher Alan Watts. Yes, and ive acknowledged your correct, but growing the least doesn't imply that there not GROWING. I agree. Believe me, im fully aware of what medical science is capable of, i just mother nature to be a much stronger force. well im not an elitist, i beleive were all human, were all fallable. Thanks for the kind words, i needed that. Yes a car is natural, it's materials come from earth do they not? A car is just expression of our genetics, like a beavers dam or a spiders web. "What makes you believe that our culture is unsustainable?" Well look at the current state of our natural environment. "The reasons we damage the environment are greed and ignorance, not humanism." I think you need to re-read what i wrote. "This belief, coupled with gratification of the ego are the reason why our culture is so unsustainable." i.e. greed and ignorance are expressions of the human ego. Look you can use reductio ad absurdum to make that argument look silly if you wish, i admit its a perfectly valid criticism, and its exactly what i expected from a reductionist such as youself. "Then you have a limited vocabulary." No my friend you just have limited awareness. Here watch these http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ if your willing to invest the time. "Life will cure you of this silliness eventually. Perhaps when you have children and one of them is imperilled, you'll realise that this is not a game." Look i have no illusions about the pleasure and the pain of life, my piont is that it is all illusory.I think if you want to find out the truth you will eventually, for now your happy playing the game. For you, your intellect is your game, you may eventually come to realise that is all it is. Side: yes
2
points
Are we really going to do this? Yes. Ok, i can see your only interested in a tit for tat point scoring match but ill entertain you. I do not score points. I get them across. I wrote; "from a scientific standpoint", to me, that means i was looking at the problem from a scientific perspective What you presumably meant by that was "I'm going to present an extremely pragmatic argument which I believe conveys superior understanding of the situation and does not mention morality". But that is not the meaning of the word "scientific". There is nothing more to say. No, it doesnt but the fact that it is supported by factual evidence (which have been obtained through actual scientific studies) does. No it does not. Scientific arguments support hypotheses, not plans. Because they support my argument, they present factual evidence, i could have found more comprehensive ones, but i dont care that much. They only supported your United States argument, but the statistics for Europe actually work against you. I can tell from this paragraph that you are incapable of feeling empathy for your fellow man. I'm merely acknowledging a fact. I presented no opinion. I don't actually consider myself separate from people in developing countries, the only thing that separates us from them is wealth. The effects of wealth on consumption and population is the salient issue, so that's quite an important distinction to make. Your right we don't need oil forever, but we do right now, and for the foreseeable future. I fail to see how that refutes anything. When natural oil is redundant, the size of reserves will be irrelevant. You seem to think that if there were no poor people there would be no problem with over population. It would at least be lessened to a point where it is practically inconsequential. The world is an extremely large place and we have never been better fed than we are today, with more people than ever. Your welcome, although i think we both know i wasn't meant as a compliment. It is my wont to say thank you when people insult me. i capablem of acknowledging when the person im debating is right. As am I. We both know what the problem therefore is. This would take far too long to explain, you should investigate the british religious philosopher Alan Watts. I'm not particularly interested in religious philosophy. I find that people can usually describe what they want to be in under 10 words. Yes, and ive acknowledged your correct, but growing the least doesn't imply that there not GROWING. Growth is good. Stagnancy is bad. Decline is worse. There is plenty of room for everybody. You seem to acknowledge that population grows, but fail to realise that we can potentially use bioreactors to produce most of what we need. Your solution is the lazy solution. Believe me, im fully aware of what medical science is capable of, i just mother nature to be a much stronger force. Once more, where do you think the cures come from? And if you believe that we are one with nature, how can you consider nature to be more powerful than us? well im not an elitist, i beleive were all human, were all fallable. That's nice. Yes a car is natural Incorrect. Cars are synthetic and not naturally occurring. it's materials come from earth do they not? That is not what natural means. A car is just expression of our genetics That's like saying a plant is just combusted hydrogen. Well look at the current state of our natural environment. You see only in black and whites. I think you need to re-read what i wrote. Considering ourselves something more than other organisms and apart from nature, which I call humanism, is not the reason we pollute some environments. We can be greedy and ignorant regardless of thinking this. As for your "gratification of the ego" nonsense, if a car is the "expression of genes", and we are "one with nature", genes being natural things, is nature not polluting itself? Look i have no illusions about the pleasure and the pain of life, my piont is that it is all illusory. Then what, in your conception, is real? I think if you want to find out the truth you will eventually, for now your happy playing the game. This statement confirms my earlier suspicions. For you, your intellect is your game, you may eventually come to realise that is all it is. Nonsense. Side: No
1
point
"I do not score points. I get them across." No my friend you score pionts, its probably the only way you know how to debate though, so ill stop giving a hard time for it. "What you presumably meant by that was" Please dont try to tell me what i meant, i know exactly what i meant, and so will anyone who reads it. The defintion of scientific is; based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Now, i presented information from a scientific standpoint i.e. information obtained using the methods of science, and hence based on the principles of science.Now, i see no eror in what i wrote, language is a maleable phenomenon, and just because you took what i wrote to mean something specific, doesn't mean it cannot be interpreted in the way i meant it. Your wrong, get over it. "Scientific arguments support hypotheses, not plans." Yes, the hypthesis is that the population is increasing, try to keep up please. "They only supported your United States argument, but the statistics for Europe actually work against you." Here's a direct quotation from the one on europe: "While the population of the continent has grown, it hasn't come close to the pace of Asia or Africa" "I'm merely acknowledging a fact. I presented no opinion." Ya, and im extrapolating based on what i know of you from our exchanges i.e. im giving my opinion. "When natural oil is redundant, the size of reserves will be irrelevant." Yes, but natural oil is not yet redundant, and it wont be for a long time, jesus, you call yourself smart. "It would at least be lessened to a point where it is practically inconsequential." I doubt it would be practically inconsequential, but i admit i may be wrong. That said, our population would still be expanding, therefore my argument is just as valid. "As am I. We both know what the problem therefore is." A ha ha ha, good one, put back on your monocle and have a sniffter of sherry, you earned it. "I'm not particularly interested in religious philosophy. I find that people can usually describe what they want to be in under 10 words." That sounded like an admission for wanting to stay ignorant to me, but what do i know im just a fallable human, not a omniscient alien lifeform, like yourself. "There is plenty of room for everybody" No theres not we live on a finite planet, and it will be hundereds of years at best before were able to leave it. "You seem to acknowledge that population grows, but fail to realise that we can potentially use bioreactors to produce most of what we need." Look my friend, i have a masters in chemical and biopharmaceutical engineering, please don't try to lecture me on bioreactors. You should be smart enough to realise it will be long time before this becomes a reality. "Your solution is the lazy solution." I don't recall presenting any solutions. "And if you believe that we are one with nature, how can you consider nature to be more powerful than us?" Spiritually we are one with nature, physically we are separate from nature, i wouldn't expect a reductionist like you to understand or accept that. "That's nice." Thanks buddy, im a nice guy. "Incorrect. Cars are synthetic and not naturally occurring." Were naturally occuring, are we not? If cars are not naturally occuring then neither are beavers dam's or spiders web's. They are all the extended phenotypic effects of our (humans, beavers and spiders) genes. "That is not what natural means." I know im fully aware of that. It means existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Now, because i don't consider humankind kind separate from nature, you can see wherei got my definition from, and why i think cars are natural (i.e.caused by nature). Call me wrong if you like, personally i think it is a complete fallacy to consider ourselves separate from nature. "That's like saying a plant is just combusted hydrogen." Ya, your right. "You see only in black and whites." At least i see from both sides. "As for your "gratification of the ego" nonsense, if a car is the "expression of genes", and we are "one with nature", genes being natural things, is nature not polluting itself?" Yes we are, what an astute observation. Let me try to dumb it down for ya, shall i. We have the prescience to realise the consequences of our actions, therefore we can either act like a cancer growing on the natural environment, or we can act like its nervous system, and protect it. What actually happens remains to be seen, in my opinion it doesn't really matter, i dont think we have the power to destroy nature, we'll just destroy the current planetary ecology and ourselves, obviously. Then what, in your conception, is real? Everything is both real and unreal, nothing and everything, yin and yang. http://www.youtube.com/ "This statement confirms my earlier suspicions." I'm glad your narrow mind has finally managed to catagorise me, ive had you pigeon holed from your first message. "Nonsense." No, it makes sense. Side: yes
2
points
No my friend you score pionts I would refute this, but there is a 1460 beside my name, so you may be correct. its probably the only way you know how to debate though, so ill stop giving a hard time for it. Contempt noted and found amusing. Please dont try to tell me what i meant, i know exactly what i meant, and so will anyone who reads it. Obviously only half of what you have written here is correct, else we would not be having this discussion. The defintion of scientific is; based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Now, i presented information from a scientific standpoint i.e. information obtained using the methods of science, and hence based on the principles of science. Irrelevant. Including scientific data in your argument does not make it scientific. Think of all the creationist arguments on this site which include cell theory. You can't call your argument scientific unless it is designed to support a scientific hypothesis and includes a list of observations and models et cetera. Your wrong, get over it. Telling somebody that they are wrong does not make them wrong. Yes, the hypthesis is that the population is increasing, try to keep up please. That is not the hypothesis. That is an observation. Your hypothesis is that the population will at some point exceed our ability to produce adequate resources. That is not a natural philosophic hypothesis, like what causes lightning or how aeroplanes fly, so your argument is not scientific. And telling me to keep up when you don't even know what your own hypothesis is is quite hypocritical. Here's a direct quotation from the one on europe... http://www.populationpress.org/ Ya, and im extrapolating based on what i know of you from our exchanges i.e. im giving my opinion. So you're forming a conclusion based on an extrapolation and then calling it an opinion? And you call this a scientific standpoint? Yes, but natural oil is not yet redundant, and it wont be for a long time, jesus, you call yourself smart. Unless you think the population will pose an imminent threat to resources within the next 30 years, we don't have that much of a problem. Technology doesn't just stop advancing as time goes on. Quite the reverse in fact, it accelerates. If the worst comes to the worst we can synthesise fuels in bioreactors. That said, our population would still be expanding, therefore my argument is just as valid. Your argument is in support of sexual reproduction being restricted to conserve resources. Do try to keep that in mind. A ha ha ha, good one, put back on your monocle and have a sniffter of sherry, you earned it. One prefers Jack Daniels. That sounded like an admission for wanting to stay ignorant to me, Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Religious philosophy does not deal in concrete knowledge, which is why I am interested in natural philosophy. but what do i know im just a fallable human, not a omniscient alien lifeform, like yourself. Leave irony to the witty. No theres not we live on a finite planet, and it will be hundereds of years at best before were able to leave it. It's a big planet. Look my friend, i have a masters in chemical and biopharmaceutical engineering, please don't try to lecture me on bioreactors. I find that highly unlikely. You'll forgive me, but somebody with that degree of education should be able to spell and identify a hypothesis. I think it's best not to believe people who claim to be highly qualified on the internet. I don't recall presenting any solutions. Look up and smile. Spiritually we are one with nature, physically we are separate from nature, i wouldn't expect a reductionist like you to understand or accept that. That's a pathetic attempt to avoid a discussion: "you wouldn't understand". We are not spiritually at one with nature. Nature has no spirituality; it is an artificial concept invented by man. Were naturally occuring, are we not? Yes. If cars are not naturally occuring then neither are beavers dam's or spiders web's. They are not. Artifice is by definition artificial regardless of what species engineers it. They are all the extended phenotypic effects of our (humans, beavers and spiders) genes. Incorrect. One cannot suppress one's phenotype, and humans living in deserts do not build cities or cars. Now, because i don't consider humankind kind separate from nature, you can see wherei got my definition from, The very existence of the words artificial and natural show your argument to be nonsensical. Ya, your right. No, plants are not combusted hydrogen. "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." At least i see from both sides. Accepting both extremes of inaccuracy is not a laudable trait. Yes we are, what an astute observation. Let me try to dumb it down for ya, shall i. We have the prescience to realise the consequences of our actions, therefore we can either act like a cancer growing on the natural environment, or we can act like its nervous system, and protect it. What actually happens remains to be seen, in my opinion it doesn't really matter, i dont think we have the power to destroy nature, we'll just destroy the current planetary ecology and ourselves, obviously. Very good. Now, if nature is polluting itself, does it not mean that nature is by its very nature self-destructive, thus rendering any argument about overpopulation moot? However, nature is inherently not self-destructive. Life seeks to grow across every single stretch of habitable territory and to consume as many resources as it possibly can. Man, being the only creature that consciously attempts to mitigate its effect on its own territory and resources, must therefore be set apart form every other life form and hence cannot be one with nature. I'm glad your narrow mind has finally managed to catagorise me, ive had you pigeon holed from your first message. It is patent that you understand very little of me. No, it makes sense. An idiot makes sense to himself. Side: No
1
point
"I would refute this, but there is a 1460 beside my name, so you may be correct." Well im glad to see your actually capable of conceeding something. "Obviously only half of what you have written here is correct, else we would not be having this discussion." No we would be having this discussion if you were capable of admitting you were wrong. "Including scientific data in your argument does not make it scientific." I know that, but the argument is a scientific one because i beleive the scientific data supports the argument i am putting forward. It may not be perfect, it may need to be greatly refined but it is a scientific argument. "Telling somebody that they are wrong does not make them wrong" I'm well aware of that. "That is not the hypothesis. That is an observation." A hypothesis is based on observations, therefore it cannot exsit without them, and the observations form part of the hyothesis. "Your hypothesis is that the population will at some point exceed our ability to produce adequate resources." For the entire world population, please get that straight. "And telling me to keep up when you don't even know what your own hypothesis is is quite hypocritical." I know exactly what my hyothesis is, your the one who hasn't got it worked out. The population will increase if there are adequate space and resources to allow it to do so, the last 100 yrs proves that, your article only proves how ignorant you are. "So you're forming a conclusion based on an extrapolation and then calling it an opinion? And you call this a scientific standpoint? " No, i never called that scientific, and trying to put words in my mouth really weakens your position. "Unless you think the population will pose an imminent threat to resources within the next 30 years" No, i think it will probably be more in the next 100 yrs maybe 200 before things really start going belly up. "Technology doesn't just stop advancing as time goes on" i'm well aware of that but technology has very real physical limitations. "If the worst comes to the worst we can synthesise fuels in bioreactors." Please my friend, i come to this site to get a break from my technical work. Stop acting like you know anything about buioreactors, i acknowledge they are a promsing technology but saying they will solve all fuel problems is a ridiculous assumption, why not try backing that up with scientific data. "Your argument is in support of sexual reproduction being restricted to conserve resources." No, my argument is that our population will continue to expand. We live on a planet with finite resources and space, therefore people will inevitably perish when the population reaches unsustainbly high levels. This is the argument you've been quizzing me on.I dont want to restrict sexual reproduction, im merely gave 2 reasons in supoprt of it, i said that in my original post, do try to keep up. "One prefers Jack Daniels" Ya, nothing but the best for you. "Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Religious philosophy does not deal in concrete knowledge, which is why I am interested in natural philosophy." You have no conception of what concrete knowledge is. Go lookup the philospher i told you about. "It's a big planet" Ya i know, but not infinitely big, how does that refute anything. "Leave irony to the witty." Well, that excludes you. "We are not spiritually at one with nature. Nature has no spirituality; it is an artificial concept invented by man" Ya, thats exactly what i expected you to say. "I find that highly unlikely." I really don't care what you think, i have the proof hanging on the wall at home. "Look up and smile" At what, your pathetic attempts to discredit me, Pffft!!!!!!!!! "Artifice is by definition artificial regardless of what species engineers it" I already told you i disagree with that, that definition was conceived by man. "The very existence of the words artificial and natural show your argument to be nonsensical" You think so, i dont. "No, plants are not combusted hydrogen. "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."" A hahahhhahahahah, are you happy, you caught me in your little conundrum. Your a sad little man. "Now, if nature is polluting itself, does it not mean that nature is by its very nature self-destructive, thus rendering any argument about overpopulation moot?" No, we need to act, as we are nature. "It is patent that you understand very little of me." No, take my word for it my friend, ive encountered your type before, i even have friends like you. Your young, you'll realise eventually (i hope, although some of you people are very stubborn.) giving your level of intelligence what i mean. "An idiot makes sense to himself" Well i guess that renders all your arguments moot, doesnt it? Side: yes
1
point
No we would be having this discussion if you were capable of admitting you were wrong. And so we are. I know that, but the argument is a scientific one because i beleive the scientific data supports the argument i am putting forward. It may not be perfect, it may need to be greatly refined but it is a scientific argument. You are clearly not amenable to reason and you've ignored the majority of what I said, so I think we'll leave it at that. A hypothesis is based on observations, therefore it cannot exsit without them, and the observations form part of the hyothesis. That is irrelevant. You mislabelled an observation a hypothesis and attempting to mitigate your mistake is futile. For the entire world population, please get that straight. The entire world does not consume a uniform amount of resources, so we cannot treat an increase in one part the same as an increase in another. I can't see where you're having trouble with this. I know exactly what my hyothesis is, your the one who hasn't got it worked out. I have already demonstrated you to be wrong and an empty assertion to the contrary does not change that. The population will increase if there are adequate space and resources to allow it to do so, the last 100 yrs proves that I have not contended this issue. I have stated, however, that wealth slows down the process and in some cases actually creates pockets of population decline. This is one of the most basic of demographic principles. See the Demographic Transition graph. your article only proves how ignorant you are. The article proves that Europe is experiencing population decline, which is what it was intended to prove. Insulting me does not dodge the fact that you were wrong. No, i never called that scientific, and trying to put words in my mouth really weakens your position. Somebody has to weaken my position, you're doing an appalling job at it. No, i think it will probably be more in the next 100 yrs maybe 200 before things really start going belly up. So you are faithful that we will be entirely unable to switch to another fuel source in 100-200 years? i'm well aware of that but technology has very real physical limitations. They said it was impossible to fly once. Please my friend, i come to this site to get a break from my technical work. Stop acting like you know anything about buioreactors, i acknowledge they are a promsing technology but saying they will solve all fuel problems is a ridiculous assumption, why not try backing that up with scientific data. I am not your friend Mr.77777. I'm waiting for the point in time when you actually provide one reason that bioreactors can't be used to produce the bulk of our fuel and lubricant needs. No, my argument is that our population will continue to expand. Then you are in the wrong debate. We live on a planet with finite resources and space, therefore people will inevitably perish when the population reaches unsustainbly high levels. And I have provided the relevant demographics which indicate that the best defence against population increase is eradicating poverty. This is the argument you've been quizzing me on.I dont want to restrict sexual reproduction, im merely gave 2 reasons in supoprt of it, i said that in my original post, do try to keep up. If your argument was in support of sexual restriction, then that is your position in the context of this debate. Do try to remain consistent. And I mean besides being consistently stupid. Ya, nothing but the best for you. "How smart a lash that doth give my conscience." You have no conception of what concrete knowledge is. Go lookup the philospher i told you about. Empty words. Make your own arguments, I have heard enough from Mr. Watt. Ya i know, but not infinitely big, how does that refute anything. There is still room for expansion. Well, that excludes you. 2. Ya, thats exactly what i expected you to say. I confess I had expected you to say something by way of refutation but it seems my powers of foresight have failed me. I really don't care what you think, i have the proof hanging on the wall at home. Then you give me more cause for despair than can possibly be garnered from any semblance of an argument you have thus far been able to produce. At what, your pathetic attempts to discredit me, Pffft!!!!!!!!! No, at the big black print at the top of the page. I already told you i disagree with that, that definition was conceived by man. Are you calling that an artificial definition? That's the point. You think so, i dont. You are supposed to provide reasoning. hahahhhahahahah, are you happy, you caught me in your little conundrum. For somebody who is so apparently interested in philosophy, you have little comprehension of it. There was no conundrum, as I did not think you could possible disagree with such a basic premise. Once again, I was wrong. Your a sad little man. Thank you. And it's spelt "you're". No, we need to act, as we are nature. Please render that sentence again in a way that makes it apropos to the point it contended. Or at least a little more explicit and detailed. No, take my word for it my friend, ive encountered your type before, i even have friends like you. This could be amusing. What is my type? Your young, you'll realise eventually (i hope, although some of you people are very stubborn.) giving your level of intelligence what i mean. If it ever comes to that point I'll put a .357 through the realisation. Well i guess that renders all your arguments moot, doesnt it? 2. Side: No
1
point
"You are clearly not amenable to reason and you've ignored the majority of what I said, so I think we'll leave it at that." A scientific argument is an argument supported by scientific data, im sorry you too arrogant to admit your wrong. BTW ive taken everything you've written into consdieration, im quite amenable to reason, im just sorry your incapble of listening to it. "That is irrelevant. You mislabelled an observation a hypothesis and attempting to mitigate your mistake is futile" It's not futile, im sorry you think so. It's perfectly acceptable actually, and i just provided you with the reason why. "The entire world does not consume a uniform amount of resources, so we cannot treat an increase in one part the same as an increase in another. I can't see where you're having trouble with this." I cannot understand why you insist on taking them separately, thats makes no sense to me. "I have already demonstrated you to be wrong and an empty assertion to the contrary does not change that" You've demonstrated nothing except how arrogant and egotisticl you are, im sorry you cannot see that. " I have stated, however, that wealth slows down the process and in some cases actually creates pockets of population decline." Well my friend ive never contended this issue either. "They said it was impossible to fly once." Again, this proves nothing. "I am not your friend Mr.77777" You've really hurt my feelings, does this mean you won't come to my birthday party? "I'm waiting for the point in time when you actually provide one reason that bioreactors can't be used to produce the bulk of our fuel and lubricant needs." Hold on just one second now. Your the one who has made the grandiose claim that bioreactors will solve all fuel problems. Why don't you try backing that up with something that resembles a valid reason, then ill tell you why it's absolute poppy cock. "And I have provided the relevant demographics which indicate that the best defence against population increase is eradicating poverty." Ya, id like to do that as well my friend but i don't think it will happen anmytime time soon. Got any grand "silver bullet" plans for this, you know like your magnificance bioreactors plan. "If your argument was in support of sexual restriction, then that is your position in the context of this debate. Do try to remain consistent." Ya i know exactly what my postion is in the context of this debate, but i still don't like being told what it is i think. "And I mean besides being consistently stupid." Im so sorry you feel it's necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks just cause your losing. "There is still room for expansion" This is another very stupid statement, there maybe more physical space but the particular environment necessary to sustain us isnt that big anymore my friend, and were making sure it gets smaller and smaller by the day. "Are you calling that an artificial definition? That's the point." No, im saying i disagree with that definition, theres a difference, please try to keep up. "Once again, I was wrong." Ya, you've been wrong for most of this debate, i glad your starting to see that now. "Thank you. And it's spelt "you're". " I feel sorry for you my friend, i mean the only way you can effectively criticise me is by poitning out minor grammar and spelling mistakes. "This could be amusing. What is my type?" A person who has built a gigantic ego based on his intellect that he thinks somehow makes him better than other people "If it ever comes to that point I'll put a .357 through the realisation." Whatever floats your boat. Side: yes
1
point
A scientific argument is an argument supported by scientific data Your argument mentions scientific data, but that data is not a basis by which to initiate a plan, which is what we are debating: the worthiness of a plan. Any argument can include scientific data, but that is a separate matter. If you were trying to prove that the Earth's population was increasing, then your argument would be scientific. However, that has been accepted and has been since the onset of the debate. We have moved into the realm of conjecture and philosophy. Another reason I dislike your label is that your argument completely ignored a basic demographic principle, which is about as unscientific as you can get. It's not futile, im sorry you think so. It's perfectly acceptable actually, and i just provided you with the reason why. I have seen 100 black rats ≠ All rats are black. Observation ≠ Hypothesis. I cannot understand why you insist on taking them separately, thats makes no sense to me. If we have an increase of 1,000,000 in the United States of America, and an increase of 3,000,000 in Kenya, which do you think will have a heavier impact on the world's food oil and electricity supplies? That is why. You've demonstrated nothing except how arrogant and egotisticl you are, im sorry you cannot see that. 1. Well my friend ive never contended this issue either. You have blatantly ignored its implications for your projections. Again, this proves nothing. It is not a proof, it is an illustration. You've really hurt my feelings, does this mean you won't come to my birthday party? 2. Hold on just one second now. Your the one who has made the grandiose claim that bioreactors will solve all fuel problems. Why don't you try backing that up with something that resembles a valid reason, then ill tell you why it's absolute poppy cock. Because algae can be used to produce biofuels. http://www.ibvf.cartuja.csic.es/ I recommend opening it in Google Chrome unless you speak Spanish. I think you simply want to believe that we are doomed to satisfy your philosophy. Ya i know exactly what my postion is in the context of this debate, but i still don't like being told what it is i think. Then could you please keep it in mind when I contradict it? Im so sorry you feel it's necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks just cause your losing. The mouth of hypocrisy opens! This is another very stupid statement, there maybe more physical space but the particular environment necessary for us isn't that big anymore my friend. Most people will live in urban environments which will leave the bulk of habitable land open for agriculture. That too is a fairly simple demographic principle. No, im saying i disagree with that definition, theres a difference, please try to keep up. I notice that your arguments are getting shorter and shorter as you concede more and more points, or pretend they meant different things and call me an idiot. Ya, you've been wrong for most of this debate, i glad your starting to see that now. As expected. 0. I feel sorry for you my friend, i mean the only way you can effectively criticise me is by poitning out minor grammar and spelling mistakes. I've pointed put many flaws in your argument. You have consistently ignored them, said that they were beyond my comprehension, or have used them as a platform from which to launch an attack on me. You're only fooling yourself, sir. A person who has built a gigantic ego based on his intellect. Uninspired and mostly unfounded. You can do better. Side: No
1
point
"I have seen 100 black rats ≠ All rats are black. Observation ≠ Hypothesis." I'll concede this, you were right, i did mistake the hypthesis for an observation, and i did try to cover it up. I only did so because the two are intrinsically linked, therefore i didn't really view them as being separate, but you were correct, i was wrong. "You have blatantly ignored its implications for your projections." That is unbeleivably arrogant given that you don't know what my projections are. "It is not a proof, it is an illustration." I know, thats why i said it. "Because algae can be used to produce biofuels. http://www.ibvf.cartuja.csic.es/ I recommend opening it in Google Chrome unless you speak Spanish." I don't have google chrome on this computer, and i don't understand spanish, (BTW being able to speak it and read are not the same thing) so ill have to get back to you on this "I think you simply want to believe that we are doomed to satisfy your philosophy." This is proof that you haven't understood what my hypothesis is from the very beginning, yet you still arrogantly thought you were capable of scruntinsing it. I don't beleive we are doomed, nor did i eve say such a thing. I said that population increase will lead to large scale famine and death, "Another reason I dislike your label is that your argument completely ignored a basic demographic principle, which is about as unscientific as you can get" That principle was implicit in my original argument (you just couldn't see that), which was a scietific one as it only proposes that the level of stravation and death will increase with population, the data scientific supports this argument. Im sorry you thought i meant something different, and im sorry your too arrogant to admit your wrong. "The mouth of hypocrisy opens!" Your right im being completely hypocritical (and a complete ass), im only treating you this way becasue you refused to give me any respect. I expected no less from your type though. "Most people will live in urban environments which will leave the bulk of habitable land open for agriculture. That too is a fairly simple demographic principle." I know, please stop insulting my intelligence, i admit it is a potential solution but it hasn't happened. The point im making is that our natural environment is being destabilised from it's current piont of equilibrium, the consequence may make large parts if this planet uninhabitable. "I've pointed put many flaws in your argument." Now who's the one who can't spell.I admit you did piont out many flaws i did not acknowledge but you haven't understood exactly what it is you've been trying to criticise since the start of this debate, so really who do you think is more wrong? "Uninspired and mostly unfounded." It is most definitely not unfounded, that is something any impartial observer of this argument will agree with profusely. I never meant for it to be inspired. "You can do better." Thanks for the support, ill try my best. Side: yes
1
point
Sir, I wish to tender unto you my profuse and sincere apologies for the outrageous conduct by which I have slandered, insulted and wounded you. It was unacceptable and I can scarcely remember it without abhorrence. That is unbeleivably arrogant given that you don't know what my projections are. As I recall, your projections are that the human population will eventually exceed the planet's ability to sustain it, and thus the population will, through famine and death, be reduced to a point of equilibrium. I don't have google chrome on this computer, and i don't understand spanish That is a pity. The institute which is conducting the relevant research (and is hence the best source of information) is Spanish. (BTW being able to speak it and read are not the same thing) Correct, but it is rare that an education should not include both faculties. I don't beleive we are doomed, nor did i eve say such a thing. I said that population increase will lead to large scale famine and death, My apologies, a revision is required: we are not doomed, most of us are doomed. That principle was implicit in my original argument (you just couldn't see that) If it was, why does your suggestion not explicitly include an advocacy of policies which aim to combat and eradicate poverty as a means of mitigating the purportedly imminent disaster? And why does your argument not take into consideration the unbalanced consumption of resources which is observed across the spectra of wealth and development? And why does the argument not include the possibility of technological salvation or suggest relevant avenues of research? Im sorry you thought i meant something different, and im sorry your too arrogant to admit your wrong. If your argument equates to: "The observation of accelerating growth in the population of humans across the globe, coupled with the limitation of the Earth's finite resources such as petroleum et alia, leads me to the conclusion that unless preventative measures are taken, the Earth's human population will eventually exceed its ability to sustain that population and will hence necessitate its dramatic and violent reduction" Then I concede that the argument is, if somewhat unconventionally, a fundamentally scientific one. I am puzzled, however, as to why the argument is not specifically intended to support the imposition of sex-regulation laws, which I assumed, due to the debate's title, was in fact its purpose. im only treating you this way becasue you refused to give me any respect. For this, my apologies have been tendered. This was probably carried-over rage; the result of my argument with Nuclearfish who capitalises letters incessantly, a practice which I find to be highly offensive. I know, please stop insulting my intelligence, i admit it is a potential solution but it hasn't happened. The principle describes an ongoing process. The point im making is that our natural environment is being destabilised from it's current piont of equilibrium, the consequence may make large parts if this planet uninhabitable. We shall have to hope that we can utilise the more efficient methods of food production. I don't relish the notion of subsisting on protein cultures, but if it is necessary... Now who's the one who can't spell. Please contact an administrator. It is most definitely not unfounded, that is something any impartial observer of this argument will agree with profusely If not unfounded, base on misconstrued quotations. Side: No
1
point
"As I recall, your projections are that the human population will eventually exceed the planet's ability to sustain it, and thus the population will, through famine and death, be reduced to a point of equilibrium." Yes, thats exactly what my projections are. I gathered from you previous comment that you thought i meant all human life would be extinguished. "If it was, why does your suggestion not explicitly include an advocacy of policies which aim to combat and eradicate poverty as a means of mitigating the purportedly imminent disaster?" I cannot advocate any policies that would work without a drastic change to the way humans currently live. "And why does your argument not take into consideration the unbalanced consumption of resources which is observed across the spectra of wealth and development?" I don't consider it relevant for my projections, i mean taking the current siutation as it is, and assuming business as usual, which i beleive to be a fair assumption. The distribution of wealth isn't going to change significantly, therefore i don't feel it has any relevance. "And why does the argument not include the possibility of technological salvation or suggest relevant avenues of research?" I do beleive technology will provide some abatement, especially in the West, in fact thats the main reason i feel people in he West will suffer the least due to our wealth and level of technological advancement. Global warming will also prove to be much less of a problem in most Western countries. "If your argument equates to:" Yes, that is exactly and precisely whay my argument amounts to. I do feel i deserve a fair portion of the blame for not making it more easily discernible. I must admit you articulated better than I. In my defense i wasn't expecting to subjected to such scrutiny. "I am puzzled, however, as to why the argument is not specifically intended to support the imposition of sex-regulation laws, which I assumed, due to the debate's title, was in fact its purpose" I admit it does not directly support the impostion of sex-regulation laws. I knew originally the piont i was making was a little vague. Side: No
1
point
I cannot advocate any policies that would work without a drastic change to the way humans currently live. And what, specifically and for clarity's sake, is so abhorrent to you about modern lifestyles? I don't consider it relevant for my projections, i mean taking the current siutation as it is, and assuming business as usual, which i beleive to be a fair assumption. The distribution of wealth isn't going to change significantly, therefore i don't feel it has any relevance. Your premise relies on the growth of resource-consuming populations, correct? However, as already observed, growth is inversely proportional, in most cases, to wealth and development, so no matter how fast the population of the third world, as it is called, grows, it will have a relatively minor impact on our resources when compared to growth in industrialised countries. For this reason, you cannot deal with an overall increase without noting where the increase occurs. I do beleive technology will provide some abatement, especially in the West, in fact thats the main reason i feel people in he West will suffer the least due to our wealth and level of technological advancement. Global warming will also prove to be much less of a problem in most Western countries. Which is why it is so important to develop the rest of the world. I don't personally believe that our resources are in great peril, and it weighs heavily on my conscience that we allow other human beings to live in such uncivilized circumstances. And I am ambivalent on the matter of global warming. In my defense i wasn't expecting to subjected to such scrutiny. You should always be on the watch for pedantic Englishmen. I admit it does not directly support the impostion of sex-regulation laws. I knew originally the piont i was making was a little vague. Perhaps you would like to create a relevant debate, and see what the others think? Side: yes
1
point
"And what, specifically and for clarity's sake, is so abhorrent to you about modern lifestyles?" Abhorrent is a strong word. I think society has become very wasteful, i also think the culture has become centred around materialism and ego worship. I don't beleive this will lead to happiness and prosperity in the loang term. "For this reason, you cannot deal with an overall increase without noting where the increase occurs." Your entirely correct, but my predcition or hypthesis is that over population in third world countries will lead to massive starvation in those countries. I think that large scale unheavel in those countries will eventually lead to problems for the West due to how reliant the West is on them.I suppose i should not have originally isolated the third world from the West but i dont like to spearate them (even though i know i should have for the sake of my argument). "And I am ambivalent on the matter of global warming." Is this an admission that you are uncertain about the international scientific concensus reached on manmade global warming? "Perhaps you would like to create a relevant debate, and see what the others think?" I admit, i am frequently guilty giving opinions on topics sometimes completely unrealted to the debate topic. Side: No
1
point
I think society has become very wasteful That is natural in times of abundance. i also think the culture has become centred around materialism and ego worship. Become is perhaps not so accurate as remained. I understand that the United States of America is a particularly bad example, but I view that den of inequity as the worst possible side of western civilization, just as India and what was Mesopotamia are the worst of the East. But the brighter aspects are also there: Europe, Japan and, somewhere in the middle, Russia, which epitomise the best of those nations. I have noticed in my perusal of history that, no matter what happens, those three always survive and eventually prosper. I think that large scale unheavel in those countries will eventually lead to problems for the West due to how reliant the West is on them. Well, that said, the United States does have its uses. They usually just fly in and butcher many thousands of innocents, raise their flag and secure what they want. I think they are one of the greatest plagues of the modern world. Is this an admission that you are uncertain about the international scientific concensus reached on manmade global warming? I observe no such consensus outside of media reports, and believe that any such consensus would be retrograde to the principles of science in the context of what is still a mysterious phenomenon. I have seen data which contradicts both sides of what is still very much an argument, but am not convinced that human activity has, either way, much effect on global temperatures. And regardless, the problem can, it seems, easily be solved by planting trees (and I'm convinced that we can utilise some of the chemical processes of plants to convert our Carbon Dioxide emissions into oxygen). Unless you belong to the school of thought which thinks that bovine flatulence will doom us all. Side: yes
1
point
"That is natural in times of abundance" I have my doubts about whether that adundance is sustainble. "Well, that said, the United States does have its uses. They usually just fly in and butcher many thousands of innocents, raise their flag and secure what they want. I think they are one of the greatest plagues of the modern world." It's really refreshing to read the truth for once on this site. Thank you. "I have seen data which contradicts both sides of what is still very much an argument, but am not convinced that human activity has, either way, much effect on global temperatures." The information on the side opposed to it has intentionally distorted the scientific data, the evidence is quite irrefutable. I attended on a seminar given by the head of the philosophy deparment in my college (Professor Graham Parkes) recently, his presentation outlined just how much irrefutable evidence there is in support of manmade global warming.He recently debated the politician Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and one of the world leading defenders of the side opposed to manmade global warming. Although i didnt attend the debate i heard he slaughtered him. The man (Mockton) recently gave evidence in america on the subject which was refuted by top scientists from all over the country. Professer Graham Parkes simply read the report before the debate and quoted from it during the debate, asking Mockton for responses. The reason i am saying all this is because this man is one of the world leading scpetics on manmade global warming,and he was compltely trounced in the ebate as he distirts facts, he doesnt present them. "And regardless, the problem can, it seems, easily be solved by planting trees" Not at the rate were cutting them down. I think we both know its not as simple as that, forestry needs to grow naturally in order to ensure a long lifetime for the trees. "Unless you belong to the school of thought which thinks that bovine flatulence will doom us all." Thats definitely a major contributor, in fact belching cattle is one of the leading contributors to global warming in my country (Ireland) as we export roughly 95% of the beef we produce, as we have the 3rd highest level of bovinity in the world (per head of population). Side: No
1
point
I have my doubts about whether that adundance is sustainble. It's mostly a problem of efficiency and what resources we actually use. The barrier to this is that at the moment it is far cheaper to use easily extracted (well, no to disparage the scale of the operations) resources such as oil, gas and coal, than to invest in technologies for which the requisite infrastructure is not already present (exempli gratia, deuterium) or those which require a great deal of capital expenditure, such as nuclear fission (and I hear they managed to build a fusion reactor in England, which is interesting). In addition, catastrophic failures of outdated (Fukushima) and poorly designed (Chernobyl) reactors create a great deal of negative publicity, when the fact is that technology exists that makes nuclear fission aobut as safe as any other means of electricity generation. I suspect that as the economic viability of easy fuels decreases, corporations will begin to take alternatives seriously (so long as it's not bloody wind turbines, which are possibly the worst idea I have ever heard of). It's observable now, BP is, as I recall the third largest producer of renewable energy (which is, on the long term, misleading) in the world. Publicity, as always, plays a part. It's really refreshing to read the truth for once on this site. Thank you. De rien, monsieur. The information on the side opposed to it has intentionally distorted the scientific data, the evidence is quite irrefutable. That's what is said, but I've heard exactly the same said of the other side. He recently debated the politician Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and one of the world leading defenders of the side opposed to manmade global warming. I wonder what happened to that man's eyes. Although i didnt attend the debate i heard he slaughtered him. I'd be cautious in making such a statement. When people have already chosen their side, they'll always say that their proponent won. Doubtless sceptics say that Lord Monckton evicerated Mr. Parkes. The man (Mockton) recently gave evidence in america on the subject which was refuted by top scientists from all over the country. I saw that. I can't say that either side was compelling, the opposition spent more time making ad hominem attacks against his title than refuting his mathematical competency. What I did observe, however, was that the slope of the graph he gave, when taken as a whole, showed no acceleration in warming. It was also purported that the last decade (2000-2010 C.E) witnessed no increase whatsoever, and constituted the peak of a previous warming trend. I think both sides are guilty of exaggeration. Not at the rate were cutting them down. Well, naturally, but implicit in the increase of the tree population, which is the proposed solution, is the adoption of good practices, such as planting two for every one taken. In fact most western corporate interests already practice this, as far as I'm aware it's governments which do not. I think we both know its not as simple as that, forestry needs to grow naturally in order to ensure a long lifetime for the trees. I think we could do a little better than that. I'm currently conceiving a way to produce artificial soil. My reasoning is that we could terraform suitable parts of Russia and use that. The problem is that one needs plant matter in order to create soil, so I think it expedient that we design facilities capable of mass-producing plant life, which may actually free up agricultural land for use in forestry. Of course, all of that would be redundant if we could design a good automobile that ran on something other than petroleum. Hydrogen is a perfect candidate, or would be if it didn't come mostly from chlorine manufacture and coal reserves. It's something I may have to work on myself when I have my Ph.D. Thats definitely a major contributor I think not. the amount of methane in the atmosphere is negligible in every sense of the word when compared to carbon dioxide, and it breaks down too quickly to be a major forcer. I think it's a vegetarian conspiracy. Besides which, the rise in methane concentration has purportedly levelled off. Ireland Shudder. You have my sympathies. Nine years of my life, stolen by that hellhole! Side: yes
2
points
No. First off, you spelled illegal wrong. There's a spell check for a reason. Anyway, without sex, no one would be here. It's called reproduction. When you choose to have sex with an individual, you take the chance of there being consequences. Before you even make the decision to have it, you should ask yourself if this is the right person to do it with...But no, sex should NOT be illegal. You can always use protection, and you could always be on birth control if you're the female. Even though, sometimes when using a condum, it can break. But as I said previously, you take the chance of there being consequences. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sex is an act of showing love and affection. It is giving ones self to another to hold and have, to protect and love back. Sex is not also for lovers, it also healthy and can be greatly enjoyable. I agree that sex should only be between two lovers, but some people need loving too. That is why there are protitutes. I honestly have no problem with Prostitutes, I know a couple, most are nice women, making a living, like you or me. Sex should not be illegal, there would be no love between couples, and many more divorces. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
|