Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Excited Penguin]

---

 -and if the government did the whole population control thing -right-...no fuck ups, no corruption, it would -still- be an immense violation.

---

Please, explain to me, how come?

Do you even understand the meaning of the words, as per definition takes you:
violation, means, the, action, of, violating, someone, or, something.
Or, of, the, words:
To, violate, means, to, break, or, fail, to, comply, (, with, a, rule, or, formal, agreement, ). 
Fail, to, respect, (, someone's, peace, privacy, or, rights, ).
Treat, (, something, sacred, ), with, irreverence, or, disrespect.

---

---

That's what makes it a sticky issue, not an issue of efficiency and accurate accounting.

---

 

Nope. What makes it a sticky issue, in your case at least, is not comprehending the meaning of one's own used words, such as violation. You might be drunk or drugged out of your poor old rassoodocks, so don't worry, I get it, really.

---

  If the government were a bunch of good guys in white hats, population control itself, as an idea, won't have moved an inch from where it is now.  It's just a better class of bullies at the wheel of the -same- idea, lol.

---

You sound like a redneck. Yes, population control would have moved an inch from where it is now, seeing how a bunch of good guys in white hats would'nt be bullies, by definition:
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

Population control isn't about what it actually is. It's about implementing it. Therein lies the apparent problem. Practice makes perfect, though.

---

---

But the idea that only a trained geneticist can comment on genetic matters is retarded. By your own logic, you shouldn't be posting on this topic because you're not a trained sociologist.

---

No, not by my own logic, maybe by yours though.

Here's what I actually wrote:

Yes, one need be, at least if one is sure as hell he's right about something, like you are, for one.

I, unlike you, don't really claim to know much about anything, at least not for sure, and especially not when called on it.

---

I sure don't expect that to happen, and I wouldn't ask you to stop posting because -- get this -- we're having a discussion. We're not actually formulating policy.

You should learn how to embrace differences as a learning tool. Your insistence on didactic formality is unrealistic.

---

'DIfferences', as used here, by yourself, is just an excuse for stupidity. It's not called difference of opinion anymore when one's whole argument for something is shattered by someone else's.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. Seriously? You think I'm being too formal? Get a grip on what's really happening, would you? You're just trying to back away from the rabbits I just pulled from my magician's hat.
You're not fooling anybody, least of all me. Unless you'll either aknowledge or otherwise address the mistakes I already pointed out, so far, and not attack by use of various logical fallacies, I won't pay any more attention to you, and you could die ignorant for all I care, literally.