Almost 1/3 of all homicides in my county 2010-16 were police killings

Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
When did I say that? You said Criminal Justice reform would be a good place to start for reversing institutionalized racism and then when asked how you would go about doing that you simply dodged the question. How can you offer a solution to a problem without also showing the process when asked? You didn't do that well in school did you? I'm betting you've simply heard other people say Criminal Justice reform will help slow down/reverse racism and when asked how you would combat racism you simply repeated what you've heard without knowing how it could work and without having the slightest idea of ho to go about it.
Click to expand...
Yet you offer no ideas of you own, daf.
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
When did I say that? You said Criminal Justice reform would be a good place to start for reversing institutionalized racism and then when asked how you would go about doing that you simply dodged the question. How can you offer a solution to a problem without also showing the process when asked? You didn't do that well in school did you? I'm betting you've simply heard other people say Criminal Justice reform will help slow down/reverse racism and when asked how you would combat racism you simply repeated what you've heard without knowing how it could work and without having the slightest idea of ho to go about it.
Click to expand...
You can assume all you want, DF. I'm not here to hold your hand through the process. If you so strongly disagree you must have some ideas of your own, or are you just here to critique other's views?
 
Last edited:
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Totally irrelevant to the basic point that reproduction drops below replacement when the society is stable, safe and resources are sufficient.
Click to expand...
It is not irrelevant. Poor country's have difficulties with education, contraception, mortality and various other complex issues that often contradict each other. Lack of hope being the strangest one.

You are correct that society drops once stable, but it's not the ''drop'' you think. All successful society's during the rise to fame under go some form of revolution in food production or work methods etc. The boom of those areas also leads to the boom of population, it's inherently tied since the begging of mankind. What has also been a constant shadow is that such society's also over reach, over populate. In a nut shell, once the boom slows or stops that over spend in population, just as if it were lending money can no longer be maintained, thus drops to a more sustainable level. What you then witness is that it will level out over generations, or drop to a point where more work/food is available thus some family's will inevitably have more children with in that stable society, again over generations.

Some contradictions between poor countries over populating compared to wealthier ones do exist. Career choices play a part, many couples in better off country's choose not to have children. Education is also to a far higher standard as is the availability of contraception. You also can not rule out the fact that poor country's have more crime (including rape) less police and less hospital infrastructure. You have the ability to figure out what that means. It's not nice reading though.. many cultures in the poor country's are so male dominated it's not considered an issue.

Anyway. Renewable natural energy will result in a more equally distributed wealth across the world. This means better basic education and infrastructure that would reduce or increase populations to a sustainable level across the world (aside from mans inability to refrain from over reaching). But it also comes at a high cost. The amount of planes we have in the sky right now for example is a huge over reach made possible by the short lived boom that is oil. That can not be sustained and is NOT the bench mark of civilization.. although many would struggle to let it go.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Flowki said:
It is not irrelevant. Poor country's have difficulties with education, contraception, mortality and various other complex issues that often contradict each other. Lack of hope being the strangest one.

You are correct that society drops once stable, but it's not the ''drop'' you think. All successful society's during the rise to fame under go some form of revolution in food production or work methods etc. The boom of those areas also leads to the boom of population, it's inherently tied since the begging of mankind. What has also been a constant shadow is that such society's also over reach, over populate. In a nut shell, once the boom slows or stops that over spend in population, just as if it were lending money can no longer be maintained, thus drops to a more sustainable level. What you then witness is that it will level out over generations, or drop to a point where more work/food is available thus some family's will inevitably have more children with in that stable society, again over generations.

Some contradictions between poor countries over populating compared to wealthier ones do exist. Career choices play a part, many couples in better off country's choose not to have children. Education is also to a far higher standard as is the availability of contraception. You also can not rule out the fact that poor country's have more crime (including rape) less police and less hospital infrastructure. You have the ability to figure out what that means. It's not nice reading though.. many cultures in the poor country's are so male dominated it's not considered an issue.

Anyway. Renewable natural energy will result in a more equally distributed wealth across the world. This means better basic education and infrastructure that would reduce or increase populations to a sustainable level across the world (aside from mans inability to refrain from over reaching). But it also comes at a high cost. The amount of planes we have in the sky right now for example is a huge over reach made possible by the short lived boom that is oil. That can not be sustained and is NOT the bench mark of civilization.. although many would struggle to let it go.
Click to expand...
You contradicted yourself.

Stability is the cause of the drop in birth rates.

It's an excellent reason to raise the living standards of poor people everywhere to a stable middle class.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You contradicted yourself.

Stability is the cause of the drop in birth rates.

It's an excellent reason to raise the living standards of poor people everywhere to a stable middle class.
Click to expand...
With stability/prosperity come easy access to contraception and education.

It's not because people are more wealthy that they decide not to have children, usually the inverse happens.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
With stability/prosperity come easy access to contraception and education.

It's not because people are more wealthy that they decide not to have children, usually the inverse happens.
Click to expand...
Once again, the actual data says you're flat wrong. America's own population would be shrinking if not for immigration. The same can be said for most developed countries.

You've been so wrong so often about so many things here that if you said the sun rises in the East, I'd get up at dawn to see for myself!

It's time you actually started doing some homework. Your stupid is showing.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You contradicted yourself.

Stability is the cause of the drop in birth rates.

It's an excellent reason to raise the living standards of poor people everywhere to a stable middle class.
Click to expand...
Because a lot of it is a contradiction, to logic and rationality. But to simply answer, England has been a steady, wealthy nation (perspective) for hundreds of years but the country is far from void of ''natives''. The number of what you may dare to consider native have declined but that's more to do with the complexity of mixed race couples, excess work/food/goods and the attraction it has for immigration. For the record, I am not saying mixed couples or skilled workers is a bad thing, just a point. But, if immigration is not taking up the excess resources then the ''natives'' most certainly will by means of being able to afford to have more children. This is very evident by the fact the avg family now has 2 children, where as 30-60 years ago 5+ was common.

What also ties into this reduction in family size is the end of the boom phase. Coal, steel and a huge docking industry that provided for and sustained such family's has been removed over those years.. and the effects are still hitting today. That's back to my original point that relying on none renewable industry makes a country over reach in population and standard of life.
 
Last edited:
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Could it be that Birth rates are typically higher in third world countries because they tend to have higher infant death rates hence they have more kids to make up the difference? This probably does not hold as much weight now as in the past but it's hard to change habits.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
Or, life is so dismal, and contraception is either so expensive/unavailable or restricted by religious laws, that sex is one of the of the few pleasures men can participate in. I would have said people, but women in third world countries don't often have a choice of when to have sex or when to have children. It's usually up to men. But that is a different hole in the internet to dive down.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Once again, the actual data says you're flat wrong. America's own population would be shrinking if not for immigration. The same can be said for most developed countries.

You've been so wrong so often about so many things here that if you said the sun rises in the East, I'd get up at dawn to see for myself!

It's time you actually started doing some homework. Your stupid is showing.
Click to expand...
In western countries wealthy families tend to have more children than poor/middle class families.

Are you going to try deny this?

Again you're just too fucking retarded to actually read what's being said to you.

No, there are not enough wealthy families to replace the poorer/middle class people not having children (due to lack of resources, sex education and ready access to contraception) so there is still a net population loss, but it's not for the reasons you suggest.

And finally yes, in some parts of Africa they have lots of children as a way to support themselves in later years. It cannot be applied to the world as a whole though, it's a localized and "traditional" way of thinking.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
It's not because people are more wealthy that they decide not to have children, usually the inverse happens.
Click to expand...
Wealthier people tend to have less children because wealthier people have greater access to education, greater access to education generally leads to fewer children. See the American documentary; Idiocracy, by Mike Judge

 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
In western countries wealthy families tend to have more children than poor/middle class families.

Are you going to try deny this?

Again you're just too fucking retarded to actually read what's being said to you.

No, there are not enough wealthy families to replace the poorer/middle class people not having children (due to lack of resources, sex education and ready access to contraception) so there is still a net population loss, but it's not for the reasons you suggest.

And finally yes, in some parts of Africa they have lots of children as a way to support themselves in later years. It cannot be applied to the world as a whole though, it's a localized and "traditional" way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about the wealthy having more kids, I have no clue statistically but my gut says your wrong. I see lots of lower income families popping them out here where middle and upper class have 1-3 kids. This is only a personal observation for where I am located. Do you have any studies that show what you say is true?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
Could it be that Birth rates are typically higher in third world countries because they tend to have higher infant death rates hence they have more kids to make up the difference? This probably does not hold as much weight now as in the past but it's hard to change habits.
Click to expand...
rkymtnman said:
I'd say they are still agriculture based so more kids = more help on the farm
Click to expand...
Kids are a third world family's retirement plan because no one else will be there for you when you get old.

As that changes with the increased prosperity and stability of a developed nation, kids become less of an asset and more of a liability, so families have fewer of them. This is all well documented, in spite of @Flowki's bullshit assertions to the contrary.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Kids are a third world family's retirement plan because no one else will be there for you when you get old.

As that changes with the increased prosperity and stability of a developed nation, kids become less of an asset and more of a liability, so families have fewer of them. This is all well documented, in spite of @Flowki's bullshit assertions to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I've been surrounded by western poverty and the mentality's of the most poor people here most of my life yet the more educated rich and poor people alike in this country are having two children on avg. Some poor people did have more kids but at a time when the benefit system was set up very bad to the point having more kids was a career choice for the under educated/lazy. I'm sorry to say it but most poor people (many are my friends) who have large family's are actually very under educated and have low IQ. They don't make calculated choices or think about the life they can't provide for their children, they just live by the day in an almost selfish state.

This Idea you have that people in genuine 3rd world country's only have children as a retirement fund is crackers on a few levels. The hard truths is that people have sexual desires. Mix that up with poor education/contraception, lack of hope yada yada. Having children is about the only ''good'' thing those people can hope to achieve in life. But they are blinded by the fact they are unable to provide for them. On another angle, remove the ready availability of contraception, the morning after pill etc from America today. You're an absolute idiot if you bet against a large spike in births by the same day next year. And I bet a lot of those would be under age parents.

In the west we choose not to have more kids because we have the luxury of giving 2 a good life. We can then concentrate on more self indulgence like driving a nice car, buying a nice house.. splashing out on nice clothes/food, new phone every year, etc.

Theirs a reason many of the best sportsmen come from third world or poor back grounds. They have very little else to do thus have no distractions other than the bare necessity's. Sex is one of those.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top