Posted on 10/03/2015 7:53:33 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Yes, there are lots of open spaces that are open because no one wants to live in them.
You accuse me of "ranting" as a liberal yet I am the one defending liberty. I am the one saying the that your position runs contrary to liberty. I have offered numerous examples. You simply repeat the mantra that there are open spaces.
I will let your absence of factual rebuttal speak for itself
The most often cited reason for supporting birth control and euthanasia is the Lie that the world is overpopulated, and the second most cited reason is that cities are crowded- Those on thel eft make a hysterical appeal to the people that something must be doen before it’s too late (much the same way as they do about the LIE of ‘man-caused’ global climate change)
The liberals also are fond of pointing out that there is hunger and poverty, yet there needn’t be as the vast majority of land has never even been touched or sued for food growth- only a very tiny portion of our planet has been used for such purposes.
[[Liberal myths abound: the world is overpopulated, fossil fuels are heating the planet, abortion is a “right,” homosexuality is normal and healthy, all life “evolved,” marriage can be redefined, a nation can spend its way out of debt, and so on. Notice the similarities? Each of these is a relatively recent conclusion once unheard of or (even worse) thought absurd and wicked.]]
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/02/the_myth_of_overpopulation.html
Like I said, I’;ll let your liberal ant speak for itself- U
You hit all the liberal talking points like a pro- well done
Well said. Thanks, Bob434.
************************
You are not defending liberty. You are promoting abortion and birth control.
np
Just another point I ran across- back when there were 7 billion people In the world, the ingenuity of those folks produced enough food to feed 10 billion people- 3 billion more than there were at the time- when the population reaches 10 billion, we can expect that there will be enough food produced for approx. 14 or so billion people- The claim by the liberals that the world is ‘starving because of overpopulation’ is a complete lie- it’s another emotional hysterical claim meant to cause people to think the world really is over populated when nothing could be further from the truth
The liberal is fond of pointing to a crowded city and making the silly claim that they are ‘using up all the resources’ within that small section of the country- and making the silly continuation claim that this will spread to the rest of the country is nothing but pure propaganda (usually brought up to advocate for birth control and euthanasia and gay marriage etc)
The Fact is that while a small section might lose resources, due to over use, the rest of the country ships in more resources to these sections and will always continue to do so because there are such vast resources available throughout the country that we will never deplete them
IF people want to cram themselves into tiny sections of the earth, in inner cities, and live in cubicles, then let them- This does nothing to prove the US is ‘overpopulated’ and on the ‘brink of losing our freedoms’ as the liberals are fond of claiming-
You two have committed the following logical fallacy:
AD HOMINEM (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)
Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.
Logical Form:
Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
Example #1:
Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously — at least politically.
Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.
Example #2:
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.
Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.
Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that was inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be valid.
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/12-ad-hominem-guilt-by-association
lol- whatever liberal
Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven't you shown it to the people of Los Angeles and to the people of Las Vegas begging for water? Why haven't you shown it to the people who are sitting in traffic jams in New Jersey for hours in commutes? The truth is there is very little habitable and attractive land with good climate where people want to live. The idea that you're going to put 9 billion people in the wastes of West Texas is too absurd to debate.
But let us consider the idea of installing 9 billion people in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.
The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.
This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government. Double your population and halve your liberties
Feel free to explain how you are not advocating abortion and birth control.
you can call yerself whatever you like to call yerself, but when you constantly defend liberal positions, it’s probably time to reconsider your affiliation, because your claims are not consistent with republican ideology-
Like I said before, I’ll let your liberal rant against population numbers and in favor of abortion *(and who knows what other liberal ideology you might subscribe to?) speak for itself
Have a nice day
Whatever?
… Instead of name-calling how about reason, facts, logic?
I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
You ask, "Feel free to explain how you are not advocating abortion and birth control."
First, I am indeed advocating birth control, I am strongly in favor of birth control. We need not go into all of the problems that have led to abortion because of Griswold vs. Connecticut do we? The mindless law prohibiting sale of birth control to married couples created the perfect conditions for a sham case which established the power of the Supreme Court to set aside state laws on the grounds of privacy. This directly led to the Supreme Court legalizing abortion (Roe V Wade), homosexual sodomy (Lawrence V. Texas) and, now, homosexual marriage.
Yes I am advocating birth control both as a measure of population control which is acutely needed, and as a matter of natural human right. By what conservative principle do you, claiming to be conservative, believe that government should deprive us of birth control? When the state behaves mindlessly, as the anti-contraceptive law in Connecticut was, we invite liberals to intrude and we lose the power of the state to make legitimate laws promoting the general welfare or establishing the police powers. While I advocate birth control, I do not advocate denying a state the power to be wrong, which is the power to outlaw birth control. That is an entirely different matter from the wisdom of outlawing birth control.
So our ill advised and invasive laws on birth control have been exploited by the left to deny states the power to control abortion, at least in the first trimester. If you want to know about my credibility concerning abortion I refer you to a vanity,
Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart
posted as long ago as 2007. I invite you to read that vanity and tell me that I support abortion.
Further, I invite you to read the quoted portion above and tell me why in logic that implies that I support abortion? Merely because I site others disapprovingly who support population growth because they oppose abortion does not mean that all people who oppose population growth support abortion.
I support birth control in principle but not as a matter to be legislated for or against. I oppose abortion as a matter that should be prohibited by legislation. Both of those positions are entirely compatible with the quoted portion above and are entirely conservative positions.
Let me ask you a question, is it logical, that is, is it appropriate for me to allege that you are for open borders and unrestrained illegal immigration because you see no problem with population doubling every half-century? I will tell you my answer, for me to make that allegation would be illogical. It does not follow that you want unrestrained immigration simply because you do not fear growing population. That is because there are other considerations which might come into your thinking.
So it is with population and abortion.
Let us stop this name-calling and get down to arguing on the merits.
No, it’s impossible to have a discussion with someone who does not stand behind his claims.
Why do I have to repeatedly ask you to explain your cryptic remarks?
My remarks are perfectly clear.
If you have a personal attack to make, man up and make it.
I am no man.
Nice!
I lived in Durango when all I could see from the house was a horse ranch, the river, and grass all the way to Lake Vallicito and the mountains. It’s all houses now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.