|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
What you describe is certainly a conspiracy. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but you do assert that a conspiracy is taking place.
Why do you seem to believe conspiracy is synonymous with "untrue"? I'm not saying you're wrong about this, simply that, to be honest, I feel it's at best very remotely related to the topic of this thread. |
Yeah well... obviously it's disingenuous to treat the word "conspiracy" as anything other than a loaded term. It's a word used to brush ideas aside which are considered to have little or no evidence, and makes me out to be some kind of nutjob who believes in UFOs and supernatural phenomenon...
Anyway, I don't consider much of what I've posted to be a conspiracy; it just seems that way to people have no idea about the reality they are living in. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking cartel: fact. David Rockefeller is the patriarch of his family, which controls all supermajor oil companies, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase: fact. Think tanks like the CFR (of which nearly everyone from both parties is a member, unbeknownst to the common public), Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg group exist and hold secret meetings: fact. David Rockefeller is the founder and/or chairman of nearly all these groups: fact.
Seriously, I'm just presenting the facts, straight up. Not much of a "conspiracy", if you simply take the time to confirm the evidence on your own (much has been provided for you in links in various threads). Some of what I post is admittedly conjecture, but most of it is me just connecting the dots, which are are factual (even though most people have no clue about it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mises wrote:
| Quote: |
| Population growth in the EU, UK, Canada, AUS and United States is almost entirely coming from immigration. These nations would contract without mass immigration (less maybe the USA). Yet the article makes no reference to this. Instead, the people already living there are to have fewer babies, though they're already doing that. |
Yeah, the neo-Malthusians always seem to think that it's still 1967 and the whole world is India(or at least India as the neo-Malthusians viewed it in 1967, which was supposed to be totally wiped out by famine in 1975.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Yeah well... obviously it's disingenuous to treat the word "conspiracy" as anything other than a loaded term. |
No, it's not. I'm sorry if my usage of the term bothers you; hurting your feelings isn't my intention. None the less, it's the correct term to use in this case, so I'm going to use it.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It's a word used to brush ideas aside which are considered to have little or no evidence ... |
So when someone is on trial for conspiracy to commit murder, you'd say the prosecution attourney is merely trying to brush aside their crime, for which he considers there to be little to no evidence? I don't feel that way.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Seriously, I'm just presenting the facts, straight up. Not much of a "conspiracy", if you simply take the time to confirm the evidence on your own (much has been provided for you in links in various threads). Some of what I post is admittedly conjecture, but most of it is me just connecting the dots, which are are factual (even though most people have no clue about it). |
Again, something being a conspiracy has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. If everything you've posted is factual, you've merely found a real conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Population growth in the EU, UK, Canada, AUS and United States is almost entirely coming from immigration. These nations would contract without mass immigration (less maybe the USA). Yet the article makes no reference to this. Instead, the people already living there are to have fewer babies, though they're already doing that. |
I don't think this is an unreasonable point; it's definitely true that many people in the West all ready voluntarily limit themselves as the article suggests to 2 children or less (though in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure the environment has nothing to do with their choice). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Great point, Mises. This is further evidence that the writer simply has an anti-Western agenda and probably couldn't give two hoots about the climate. He or she is simply a faithful leftist awaiting the socialist, multiculturalist utopia to be. Then, and only then, will we love one another, and Mother Earth, like we did a long, long time ago in a century far, far away - before the calamity of capitalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wealthier, more developed, more educated countries have less babies. After Africa's developed to European standards the world will basically be at 'maximum population for current resource consumption'. Further growth will reduce available resources, and yes, imperil humans' future here.. Western population decline actually shows that legal limits on childbirth will be unnecessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Africa's development to European standards would be, I assume, on the back of a cheap carbon economy.
If the IPCC are right, by then the climate will be a fully-fledged catastrophe.
Africa doesn't have the infrastructure to make it big, anyway. Doing that requires democracy and markets as opposed to Islam, tyrants and socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| This is further evidence that the writer simply has an anti-Western agenda and probably couldn't give two hoots about the climate. |
No, it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Babies have an intrinsic value that goes well beyond nebulous concerns for environmental sustainability. |
Why? He didn't have a solid answer for that. Do you? |
Babies are human life. They thus have intrinsic value. Thus starts every moral system that I know of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
A baby that will never exist has no value. They're not talking about killing human life.
Anyway, the welfare of a child will reduce the more humans there are on the planet. Or what if you brought a baby into a world torn by global conflict over oil, or a planet that will provide the baby with a stunted, terrible existence; there's no intrinsic value in that. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
