|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 8, 2018 17:47:17 GMT
This commercial has been running in my area recently:
I don't how true it actually is or not, but that's not the point. For the sake of the argument, let's say that it is and the candidate question truly does believe in taxing larger families more. I know that I've also seen other individuals, mostly on social media and message boards, express similar views. Not necessarily about taxes, but usually something similar to what China used to do. Most people's reactions are that this is insane and the government has no business telling people how many children they can. My initial reaction is the same, but after recently seeing some stories about government sanctioned hunting/trapping of bears and horses, it got me thinking. Most people are generally okay with this, because of your population and had a negative effect on the local ecosystem. Why do we scoff at one, but not the other? There really is no natural predator keeping us in check. We decide that an intervention is needed when certain animal populations grow out of control, but we continue to expand our own stronghold on land. Why are we any different? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 8, 2018 18:19:38 GMT
I would have to know how the bears and horses are hurting the ecosystem.
That said, I think it is stupid to try to curb population controls by punishing families. It doesn't work any more than abortions curbing population works.
That said, there's no reason to give tax credits for each child.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 8, 2018 18:42:33 GMT
I would have to know how the bears and horses are hurting the ecosystem. That said, I think it is stupid to try to curb population controls by punishing families. It doesn't work any more than abortions curbing population works. That said, there's no reason to give tax credits for each child.
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 8, 2018 18:46:57 GMT
I would have to know how the bears and horses are hurting the ecosystem. That said, I think it is stupid to try to curb population controls by punishing families. It doesn't work any more than abortions curbing population works. That said, there's no reason to give tax credits for each child.
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
Well, I wanted to know why there is animal control. One cannot make a blanket statement regarding that. I would need to know the reasons. The obvious reason ones don't look at it the same is that humans do not compare themselves to other animals and there is no reason for them to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 19:03:45 GMT
I guess it's silly because it is not needed in the U.S. for humans? Our population growth rate is at its lowest since the 1930's.
Our fertility rate is 1.87. That is 1.87 children born to each woman. Where's the issue that needs legislation here?
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 8, 2018 20:46:05 GMT
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
The obvious reason ones don't look at it the same is that humans do not compare themselves to other animals and there is no reason for them to. This is one of humanity's biggest problems. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 8, 2018 21:00:23 GMT
The obvious reason ones don't look at it the same is that humans do not compare themselves to other animals and there is no reason for them to. This is one of humanity's biggest problems. Well, horse's don't care about humans either. It is a species basic nature to focus on their own and a horse is not going to weep if the entire human population died out. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 8, 2018 21:06:45 GMT
This is one of humanity's biggest problems. Well, horse's don't care about humans either. It is a species basic nature to focus on their own and a horse is not going to weep if the entire human population died out. My point is most humans refuse to realize that humans are just animals, with greed and lust for power having become the biggest differences between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 22:12:28 GMT
We decide that an intervention is needed when certain animal populations grow out of control, but we continue to expand our own stronghold on land. Why are we any different?
We treat humans differently from bears and other animals because we are humans, and not bears or other animals. I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude. As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 8, 2018 23:02:35 GMT
We decide that an intervention is needed when certain animal populations grow out of control, but we continue to expand our own stronghold on land. Why are we any different?
We treat humans differently from bears and other animals because we are humans, and not bears or other animals. I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude. As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing. its a thing. makes Thanos more of a good guy than i w’d like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 23:09:38 GMT
Notice how all of a sudden it is ok to have an all white family in an ad?
White people already don't have many kids. I think it is irresponsible to have more kids than you can afford to support on YOU OWN. Taxes shouldn't have to go to couples who have ludicrous amounts of children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 23:15:46 GMT
We treat humans differently from bears and other animals because we are humans, and not bears or other animals. I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude. As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing. its a thing. No. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 9, 2018 1:42:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 9, 2018 3:11:06 GMT
I would have to know how the bears and horses are hurting the ecosystem. That said, I think it is stupid to try to curb population controls by punishing families. It doesn't work any more than abortions curbing population works. That said, there's no reason to give tax credits for each child.
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
People like to think they're special. In every possible way. As a species, country, race, religion, whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 14:07:01 GMT
What does it matter how? Isn't the main issue if?
You're kind of avoiding my main point. Why is it stupid to try and control human population, but not stupid to try to control animal populations?
Well, I wanted to know why there is animal control. One cannot make a blanket statement regarding that. I would need to know the reasons. The obvious reason ones don't look at it the same is that humans do not compare themselves to other animals and there is no reason for them to. Why not? The specifics of each situation might vary, but the general idea is pretty much always the same: too many of one species in one area throws off the local ecosystem. You're still not answering the question. You haven't even attempted to. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 9, 2018 14:09:25 GMT
Well, I wanted to know why there is animal control. One cannot make a blanket statement regarding that. I would need to know the reasons. The obvious reason ones don't look at it the same is that humans do not compare themselves to other animals and there is no reason for them to. Why not? The specifics of each situation might vary, but the general idea is pretty much always the same: too many of one species in one area throws off the local ecosystem. You're still not answering the question. You haven't even attempted to. The specifics are important. If the animals are growing so much that they are eating away their own environment then it makes sense. If they are killing bears to protect farmers, I would have more empathy for the bear. I also answered the question, but you apparently want a particular format so just go ahead and tell me what my answer should be and put me out of my misery. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 14:13:58 GMT
We decide that an intervention is needed when certain animal populations grow out of control, but we continue to expand our own stronghold on land. Why are we any different?
I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude.As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing.A lack of objectivity seems reasonable to you?
There were reports released just yesterday warning us that if we don't do something about global warming, which can be tied to population and similar issues, that we are quickly approaching the point of becoming irreversible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Oct 9, 2018 14:17:52 GMT
We treat humans differently from bears and other animals because we are humans, and not bears or other animals. I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude. As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing. its a thing. makes Thanos more of a good guy than inwoyod like. I knew that you would show up on this thread – and understand it as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 14:28:42 GMT
We treat humans differently from bears and other animals because we are humans, and not bears or other animals.I'm sure bears put more importance on bears than they do on humans. That seems a perfectly reasonable attitude.As for overpopulation, I've never really believed that that's a thing. A lack of objectivity seems reasonable to you? I don't see that it is a lack of objectivity.[/div]
Nothing in those articles indicates that overpopulation is actually a thing.
[/quote]Global warming is not tied to population in any but the most general sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2018 14:33:07 GMT
Why do people scoff at it:
(1) Because a lot of people don't want the government to be able to dictate what they can choose to consensually do (some people don't want that wholesale, others are more selective and sometimes inconsistent about it, but nevertheless, there's a core belief about this in at least some arenas),
(2) Because a lot of people already have a problem with taxes as is, and government excuses to tax us even more, in different areas, aren't going to be met with open arms.
People don't have the same problem with the idea of population control of bears, say, because they're bears, they're not people. And most folks are concerned with bear population increases only because it leads to bears coming into suburban developments looking for food.
|
|
