(August 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 8:44 am)Ace Wrote: I have a question. Why must a relationship be only among the consenting (legal)? We know many young people, even children engage with each other sexually, with some becoming pregnant in the process) but why only legal consenting? True, the issue of maturity can be argued however, many of those who engaged in sex at a young age (such as primary, middle and in high school) would say that it was their full right to do so and feel that it was their right to decide the issue of their own body. Many have no regrets and many want to start having children at a young age, (also forgo any argument to economic because not all have children)

hell, like many have argued sex is the most natural act of humans that  has been done the dawn of our existences, regardless of ones education, race, religion, nation, ect.
Why should such a natural act have any restrictions to it?


is it not natural to become desirable to become another, attracted to another, become aroused?

Why trying to stop or hinder such a natural effect/reaction that individuals just do?

I can see where your coming from, but the issue here is one of protecting young people from predators who take advantage.

Wait. I am not sure how that is an answer? That someone wants to be the other party to engage in the act with the child is expected. If the child feels they are mature enough to consent and the child subsequently does consent to engage in the act with the other person who are we to protect the child from their choice? And how do we make the determination that this particular child lacks the maturity for this particular choice?

I imagine we would do it by empathy (by which people greatly misunderstand the meaning of the word, but we shall use the common misunderstanding) and say, "I would not agree to engage in that act with that person if I were them." How is this not pushing our views or beliefs (not religious belief) upon the child?

The total number of resources used is directly linked to the total population. Allocation of supply is irrelevant. That the supply exists already suggests that the consumption has occurred. Anything unused represents wasted consumption. Poor people in one country can still work for pennies to increase the obscene consumption of another.
Scarcity of resources also does not simply curtail population growth. The opposite is generally true when you look at population dynamics. A resource scarce and poor countries typically have higher birth rates. Parents will literally accept that a number of their children might die, because the ones that survive will be able to increase their longevity after they grow to old to work. This is pretty much how it works in a lot of African areas today. In places like China and India, resource scarcity and survival represent two different topics. A child can still work and provide more than he consumes at a young age by working in factories that provide rich countries a greater opportunity to consume more per capita. Also your point only makes sense if populations are expected to stop growing anytime soon, since the concern is overconsumption leads to a tipping point in global warming which is irreversible and catastrophic. The global population trend has been an exponential increase of population. Population scientists predict that growth will continue well into the 21st century. It turns out that both you and malthus were wrong.



No I do not. You question is akin to asking why black people are better than white people in an attempt to defend segregation. Neither group of people is better or worse.

The difference between my scenario and your scenario is that there is a small concern that mine could happen. No one thinks your scenario will happen. I was, however, willing to accept both scenarios as ridiculously unlikely and leave it at that.

In addition, you don't get to argue with the scenario. Your previous rebuttals were bad even if they were at all true. This is, again, because we are not discussing how we would stop extinction via overpopulation or underpopulation from occurring, we are merely pointing out that they are plausible scenarios in some way shape or form. When I told you that homosexuals would have kids to save the world, you told me that they might not and we shouldn't rely on them. You ignored evidence to the contrary in favor of providing a plausible account, but then you attempted to provide evidence to the contrary when I presented my account.

I am sorry that you got "lost in the forest so quickly", I wasn't really expecting that.

(August 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: The difference between my scenario and your scenario is that there is a small concern that mine could happen.  No one thinks your scenario will happen.  I was, however, willing to accept both scenarios as ridiculously unlikely and leave it at that.

Please tell me that I am reading this argument wrong. But are you saying Anima's argument of population decreas is not occurring but that the population is increasing, your argument?

If so, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT POPULATION DECLINE IS HAPPING NOW!!! It is an issue now! IT IS A FACT!!!
I have provided information on this already!!!

Wrong.

Population is still growing. It is considered a possibility that it could start falling within our lifetimes. Consumption is expected to increase drastically during that time.
The issue taken with my argument is the tipping point of consumption with regards to global warming. An unknown variable that may have already happened.

(August 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:  When I told you that homosexuals would have kids to save the world, you told me that they might not and we shouldn't rely on them.  

Even so the fate of the world can not rest on a 10% of the population to repopulate! The math can not and dose not support that probability that such a small present can repopulate the world.

(August 3, 2015 at 2:48 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Wrong.

Population is still growing.  It is considered a possibility that it could start falling within our lifetimes.  Consumption is expected to increase drastically during that time.
The issue taken with my argument is the tipping point of consumption with regards to global warming.  An unknown variable that may have already happened.

Seen CNN one the issue.

Any fellow Europeans out there please tell me if I am wrong.

Many nations especially in Europe, the governments are actually paying the people to have more kids. Why because of a lack of population.
On tv right now and even in advertisement are asking the people to have sex more.
Please back me up here.

Repopulate from what? The imaginary asteroid that is on a crash course to earth 1000 years from now that is going to wipe out every heterosexual and somehow let all the gays live?

(August 3, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Ace Wrote:

(August 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: The difference between my scenario and your scenario is that there is a small concern that mine could happen.  No one thinks your scenario will happen.  I was, however, willing to accept both scenarios as ridiculously unlikely and leave it at that.

Please tell me that I am reading this argument wrong. But are you saying Anima's argument of population decreas is not occurring but that the population is increasing, your argument?

If so, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT POPULATION DECLINE IS HAPPING NOW!!! It is an issue now! IT IS A FACT!!!
I have provided information on this already!!!

You are raving. The US population has risen steadily by 2-3 million year on year since after the Second World War. Stop talking shit.
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

Yes many nations have a declining population. More nations however have a growing population. My argument rests on a time series that is well within the scope of the expected population decline some 50+ years from now.

You are confusing the issues that some countries are having with an issue that the world is having.

Also the time series is largely irrelevant. Since the exponential growth caused by all those heterosexuals could have already fucked us.

Rather than using extinction due to population as an argument for why a particular group of people is wrong, why don't we move on from it and find a real argument against the homosexuals. Or, you know, in absence of one just accept that they are human beings deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals.