It's not the # of meatbags thats the problem. It's their distribution and quality. Quantity is not really a factor here. Unless you think decreasing Quantity will some how magically increase quality and stop meatbags from distributing themselves poorly again.
Nope
Well yes, it's those other low-quallity people over there that has to reduce their population, not us high-quality people here!
That piece is kind of crap. The main reason is that the summer holidays are over. The kids are in school (and busy with clubs, homework and so on on the weekends) and the parents are working. And as most bathers are gone, so are the drink vendors, the equipment renters and so on.You'll still find people on beaches, just not many.
Watch how I don't, despite the fact I "need" to.
And then instead I suggest you acquire a sense of humor.
Hmm... but this is a boon -for lawyers-.
I stand by my original statement. There is no limit to how negative this could go.
Sure it does. Because in that case the overlap of the set of actual people that is being referred to by the term "humanity" is then almost 100% (excluding those who die today), rather than 0%.
Most ethical considerations work much better when we are referring to actual, existing people.
Well, to slightly modify from "stupid", it's instead absolute fact that a theoretical future possibility is not equivalent to actual present reality and the expenditures we can make toward it with verifiable beneficial results.
Don't try to false dichotomy this. I am not taking the position that the future is valueless or non-existent. I am simply stating when choices affecting "then" are being considered in contrast to choices affecting "now", we should use valid notions of how "then" is related to "now".
I didn't say "humanity" will be dead in 200 years. I said every member of "humanity" will be dead in 200 years.
It's this equivocation that "humanity" is "us", when in fact there is no intersection at all between the future humanity that is being discussed, and us, that is the basis for much of what I have said in this thread.
We can aid a "humanity" that does in fact coincide with "us" (that is, now), or we can make equivalent expenditures for a "humanity" that is theoretical, and definitely not "us". That's an important part of the question here that is being obscured by language and the human psychological tendency to implicitly think as if "we" endure beyond our lifespan. I have no issue with the second notion, but only if it's acknowledged, whereas the context of the proposal indicates a belief this is not true. You can have it one way or the other, logically, but not both.
I'm considering jailbreaking my iPhone to be able to run git. Otherwise... I just haven't had the need.
Android's a different story. You need to root your phone so that you can firewall your flashlight app.
Reduce the police department and arm the citizens.
So... you've got nothing in terms of the difference between the two, to us, then. And when and if those distant-future people exist, you'd similarly have no answer for them relative to the distant future from that point in time.
And yes, the future matters. That's exactly why I'm making my argument.
Wow, made up facts! (almost all are untrue)
1) http://rense.com/general76/uni... Refuted
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... Refuted (Compare Great Britain vs USA)
3) Chicago - Refuted.
3b) How about we issue Parenting Licenses then? Nonsensical
Suicide by gun, doesn't raise the suicide rates. Great Britain has a similar suicide rate to the US (virtually identical), but almost none by gun. People who want to kill themselves, will kill themselves. It simply a anti-gun progressive lie to included suicides by gun in any anti gun debate.
First Battleship, now this.
Hey, what ever happened to that Asteroids movie that they were supposed to be making?
I think they may have hit the hyperspace button... never a good idea.
Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.
