Uh, sort of. I’m not qualified to blab about the Middle East off the top of my head, but if I have facts and cites then I’m free to use them, just as others are free to use facts and cites about Japan.
Blowero’s post was an example of blabbing without facts, cites, or deep background knowledge.
No, but there are low-IQ people there just as there are in the United States.
Hey, Aeschines - how many times are you going to say “good bye” to me and then continue to post replies? :rolleyes:
What a clever argument.
Please listen: OF COURSE Japan is overpopulated in relation to the amount of its resources. That’s the DEFINITION of overpopulated. It amazes me, how obtuse you would have to be to believe that that wasn’t my point. The point is so utterly obvious that I wrongly believed that everyone would immediately see it, and that I wouldn’t have to spell it out in excruciating detail. But I obviously overestimated your ability to comprehend.
The distinction you are attempting to draw does not exist in this thread.
Thank you, master of the obvious.
Oh, yes. I’m SO jealous of you. :rolleyes:
You’re deluded. What you did was agree with my point, and I’m not the only one who noticed. In fact, someone else mentioned it before I did. Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between the words “agree” and “disagree”?
Uh, that Japan is overpopulated, and that a slight decrease in population is not the catastrophe you believe it to be. Not sure what implication you read into it, nor do I care.
Great. Now you can’t even remember the points that you made. :rolleyes:
Wow, you are delusional. Nobody’s defending you, champ. Every one agreed with the sentiment, although a few thought better examples of your drivel could have been chosen. However, everyone agreed that you churn out a lot of drivel. If you think it was a victory for you, I guess you’ll never learn.
Uh, that usually means you are going to stop responding to me. Since you didn’t, I have no idea why you said that.
Ya, know, Aeschines - you strike me as one of those “everything is literal” guys where, if we were talking about someone who makes excuses all the time, for example, and I said “That guy’s got a million excuses” - you would probably say, “Well actually he has far fewer than exactly one million.” :rolleyes:
Three or four.
It wasn’t an argument; it was a statement: Your post was stupid.
Oh, I see: “Of course.” You could have said something like that instead of saying, “It’s wall-to-wall people,” followed by a non-sequitur. And I don’t consider Japan’s being overpopulated an “of course” kind of point. Many would debate it. In fact, I stated it as my own opinion without thinking that others necessarily agreed.
Your original post was just a few lines long. There was no point trying to make itself in there. It was a smart-alecky drive-by, nothing more.
No, I spelled it out and now you’re agreeing with me but trying to take the credit for the point I made. If that isn’t ass-backwards, I don’t know what is.
I was forced to make the distinction because of your original boneheaded post.
At least I have mastered the obvious, while some of us still seem to be struggling with it.
What are your accomplishments, blowero? Go ahead, spread some of that “jealousy” around (I think you mean “envy,” but I don’t want to nitpick you when you’re down).
Man, read your quote above. I think you just invented a new Marx Brothers routine.
No you said that it’s “wall-to-wall people” (not true) and that there is no danger of them dying out (not true). Not only do you have two falsehoods there, but you don’t have any logical connection between them.
My defenders quickly arrived, the pitters backed down, and the thread sank from sight in one day. Total vindication and sweet victory.
Why a duck?
Gibberish, my friend. Complete, utter gibberish. :rolleyes:
Point of Order: The line-by-line rebuttal posts (see #162, #164, and others) are a hindrance to meaningful discussion, annoying to the person to whom they are addressed, and boring to everyone else. I know it’s tempting to be ultra-snarky in that fashion when the other guy posts something that you think is wall-to-wall ridiculous (I’ve done it myself), but the only thing it’s good for is blowing off steam. Please desist, everyone.
Uh-oh, you said the wtw word. Hence, everything you say is stupid.
Anyhoo, isn’t it natural to expect stability in health care and prosperity to lead to stability in populations? In safe, wealthy Westernized nations, women can choose how many (if any) children to have. Sounds okay to me, loving individual freedom as I do.
You have a point, but I would say that my post (162) actually makes a couple of points, whereas Aeschines’ (164) is just utterly devoid of content. Of the parts that even make sense at all, it’s just a collection of grade-school level taunts. And the part where he claims I’m trying to “take credit” for his statement that Japan is overpopulated is completely divorced from reality. If you’re gonna try to throw that in with my posts as though there’s some sort of equivalency there - well, I just don’t know what to say…
I realize that it’s boring, which is exactly why I refrained from doing a line-by-line response to his last trainwreck of a post. Believe me, it took a great deal of self-control on my part not to respond seperately to all those childish insults, misstatements, and non-sequiturs of his, but I did not do so.
Let others be the judge of that “self-control,” my friend. Would that you had it in the first place and never made that first inane post. Then this whole series between us, which you seem to regret (wonder why?) would never have existed.
Catch you later, blowero. Next time, if you have the huevos, bendejo, take it straight to the Pit where it belongs. “Bitler” and all that shyte.
One thing I fail to adhere to is MORE governmental intervention.
How can you say you want the “choice” to abort a baby, yet in the very same sentence say that the all powerful government does not do enough to help parents?
If day care were made more affordable that would be cause for increased birth rate? Or better yet if the government decided for a private company that parental leave should be doubled (not to mention this is definitely an encroachment on my rights as a business owner), then the population would increase and abortion would stop?
Of course you didn’t mean either of those. What exactly did you mean? scratches head
TWEEEEEEET!!
Everyone step back and cool down.
Nobody has quite stepped over the line, yet, but when the “discussion” deteriorates to little more than attempts to “criticize” (actually, insult) the other guy’s posting style, you’ve pretty much lost the point of the thread.
Stick to the topic or take it to the Pit.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
But there is no point to the thread, and this is a criticism of content, not style. It’s ludicrous to cite Japan as an example of why people need to start having more babies. First of all, from every source I’ve seen, the population is NOT declining in Japan. If the birth rate is declining, but the population is not, I don’t see a problem. ESPECIALLY if the country is already overpopulated. The plain truth is that they just don’t NEED any more people there. Sorry if my plain language offends anyone, but it’s a plain truth, and plain language is appropriate. The immediate question that comes up when one reads the OP is, “What’s the problem?” He really doesn’t identify any problem that needs to be corrected. He admits that world population isn’t in any danger of dropping to an unsustainable level. No, the only “problem” that’s identified at all is this supposed dilution of the pure Japanese race (and ostensibly other races as well). But I submit that, rather than weakening it, diversity strengthens a society. If indeed Japan’s birthrate is slightly lower in favor of more immigration (although it appears to be a rather small percentage of decline, with no particular reason to believe that it’s indicative of any future trend), but even if it is, it’s simply a sign that they are gradually easing up on the xenophobia that has characterized their society in the past. Again, not a particularly bad thing.
Blowero, Japanese xenophobia is a **good ** thing. I have this on the authority of someone who Lived There Eight Years.
The only point I have to discuss that hasn’t been covered (often including gratuitious insults!) is that for a small portion of the population, the illegality of abortions would actually lead to a decrease in number of children people choose to have.
Example:
My family history includes a genetically-transmitted, hideously debilitating, untreatable, grossly painful and ultimately fatal disease. As it is a genetic disease and there is a possibility I, personally, am a carrier, without the reassurance the legality of abortion gives me, I would in all likelihood refrain from ever getting pregnant.
If I know there is a possibility I am a carrier, and there is a possibility my husband is a carrier, rather than risk children who are affected, we may very well decide NOT to play Russian roulette with the health and welfare of our offspring at stake. This does not seem to be to be an amoral choice.
Take an individual who has a parent who died from Huntington’s Disease. That person has a 50/50 shot of developing the disease herself. However, she might not actually develop noticeable symptoms until well into her 30’s - plenty of time to have children. The question is, does a person with Huntington’s cut themselves off from ever having children? Or do they just ensure that they have no children WITH THE GENE that causes the disease?
Additionally, consider that there are a few fatal genetic disorders associated with distinct cultural groups. Tay-Sach’s Disease, Machado-Joseph Disease, Familial Dysautonomia, Canavan Disease, to name a few. If all those people chose not to reproduce, that would spell disaster for the cultural groups they are associated with. If there is no safety net (and speaking as woman with a family history of a fatal genetic disease, in that situation an abortion, while hideous to contemplate and not something I want for myself ever, is definitely a safety net) in the form of an abortion if you discover your unborn child is afflicted, then how many of the people in those cultural groups will choose NOT to procreate at all?
There are hundreds of diseases that are genetic. (For a list of some of them, please see: http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Genetic_Disorders/ - pardon my technical ineptness if the link doesn’t work :P) Not all of them are fatal, but a goodly percentage of them are. In the cases of the fatal genetic disorders, a fair proportion of them are not IMMEDIATELY fatal. They are ultimately fatal - but in some cases not until the person affected is past childbearing age. The ones that are ultimately fatal are almost-inevitably fatal after an extended period of unbelievable suffering.
People with a family history of a fatal genetic disorder are faced with the decision of whether they would like to procreate and risk their child suffering that fate, or not procreate at all if the option of an abortion is removed from them. I personally would likely choose not to procreate. Some risks aren’t worth taking. Particularly if I’m taking them for someone other than myself.
Hee, hee. I stand corrected. I only lived there 9 months. 
Your Japan is weak. I challenge you!