anyone who believes in overpopulation should go through with their conviction and top themselves first.
This is typically one of the very first signs of someone who hasn't actually devoted a great deal of thought before sounding off, but is comfortable enough to just regurgitate a cliche someone else has fed them. Let me guess: the other fantastic argument against any sort of objection to the mindless mass-breeding is "Y'all, we could fit all of the world's population in Memphis, I tell you h-what". Completely, obliviously ignoring the actual core issue at hand, which is
quality of life.
This is what natalists and "pro-overpopulation-ists" do. First, they poison the well and strawman anyone who might have any kind of concern about the relationship between the amount of people on Earth and the amount of resources we have, then they make overpopulation into a third-rail issue and childishly shut down all conversation with ad hominems. Because obviously, anybody who thinks maybe the amount of breeding we do relative to the resources we have could be...I dunno,
sort of problematic?...is some cartoonish eugenicist Nazi who thinks mass murder and suicide is the solution. No, it's never anybody who thinks in reasonable terms about how best to take care of the population we
do have while encouraging preventative measures to see that things don't get worse, for example, knocking this reactionary "abstinence" crap out of schools and teaching safe sex. No, anybody who's concerned about the issue is just an ubermensch Hitler-Nazi.
the poorest people in the world live on so little and they are the majority of the world's population.
...that's precisely the problem. One necessarily has to do with the other.
or a lack of resources, it's greed as it always has been.
While greed is an issue to be reckoned with, you're missing the point that lack of resources
is a concern. Likely, if you actually listened to most reasonable people who talk about overpopulation instead of distorting and strawmanning like some Fox News junkie, you'll see that that's what their contention is, not how many or few people there are.
Your whole spiel about the oil industry, while dubious, is just a total non-sequitur that doesn't warrant discussion because it's irrelevant.
I'm bored and thought I'd bore everyone with my thoughts
Hmm...."thoughts".
The bitter thinkers buy their tickets to go find God like a piggy in a fair
reply
share
purpleprinc3
10 years ago
Well I made one ad-hominem attack in jest, "anyone who believes in overpopulation should go through with their conviction and top themselves first." Here are you ad-hominem attacks. Seems I hit a nerve.
1) This is typically one of the very first signs of someone who hasn't actually devoted a great deal of thought before sounding off, but is comfortable enough to just regurgitate a cliche someone else has fed them. Let me guess: the other fantastic argument against any sort of objection to the mindless mass-breeding is "Y'all, we could fit all of the world's population in Memphis, I tell you h-what".
Thanks for associating me with that kind of steretype, not sure I can find a more fitting definition of ad-hominem.
2) First, they poison the well and strawman anyone who might have any kind of concern about the relationship between the amount of people on Earth and the amount of resources we have, then they make overpopulation into a third-rail issue and childishly shut down all conversation with ad hominems.
Just to make doubly sure you get the point in I'm venomous as well as deceitful.
3) ...is some cartoonish eugenicist Nazi who thinks mass murder and suicide is the solution.
Did I mention Nazism or eugenicists or compare you to them? It would appear you wish to associate me with this point of view in order to discredit me. But no, I don't think you're a nazi fundamentalist who thinks mass genocide is the answer, glad we could clear that up. Any other unfounded presumptions you have?
4)...No, it's never anybody who thinks in reasonable terms about how best to take care of the population.
Oh I'm unreasonable too! Lucky me.
5) Likely, if you actually listened to most reasonable people who talk about overpopulation instead of distorting and strawmanning like some Fox News junkie.
So I don't listen to reasonable people and I'm a distorted fox news junkie, I can sense no ad-hominem attacks there.
You say my argument is full of holes, but you offer no evidence to the contrary. As I said, what about the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex? Think a ferrari V12 6 litre is a beast? Try a T-54 V48 38 litre tank, that's an old WW2 tank, there are tenfold more tanks than there are ferrari's.
Or let's try an aircraft carrier, or a nuclear site, or the logistics behind that to maintain it. It's odd you don't bash the arms industry when it's the biggest waste of resources in the world, nothing beats it at it's efficiency to destroy.
You mention quality of life, some of the poorest people are happier, because wealth doesn't equate to happiness as modern suicide rates clearly demonstrate, not to mention the sheer number of people suffering from depression.
How is my 'spiel about the oil industry' a total non-sequitur? I can equally say the same, your rebuke about the oil industry is a total non-sequitur that doesn't warrant discussion because it's irrelevant.
Explain things with reason, not personal attacks that others are illogical because they happen to disagree with you.
For example.
Oil industry has grown, odd for a fuel that is supposedly running out to increase it's output. (http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production) Care to explain? There are more and more oil sources being found each year.
Furthermore, from a business point of view it would be completely illogical and downright financial suicide for major industries to base their fortunes on a fuel substance that is running out and then base their products on it for the next couple of decades. Ever heard of the term 'artificial scarcity?'
reply
share