The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

That's low man. Saying that you don't hold grudges against anyone for needing things implies that I was holding just such a grudge. I made no such remark nor was it implied.

Well, your remark about 7 billion people using resources and polluting would seem to be a jab as well, it;s not like all 7 billion of them are actually doing a whole hell of alot of polluting, and a pronounced lack of resources characterizes large swathes of that seven billion. If I wanted to take a jab at you Cin...I would have been a tad more explicative -you've watched me post for a good year now-. Calling my objections dishonest rather than addressing them isn't exactly putting the toe on the line and taking manly shots at each others chins is it? Nevertheless, I didn't intend to imply that you did. Perhaps I could rephrase. A certain level of pollution per capita is acceptable to me as the cost of a human life.

Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion.

Obviously, if two people dispute what the other considers to be fact than both people have to run on the assumption that his opponent is being dishonest, if at the very least, only with himself. You sir, may consider me to be dishonest because I dispute what you consider to be fact just as I do the same. Don't take it as such the great insult. If I felt that you were being completely honest with yourself, we would have absolutely nothing to contest. I don't feel your point is at ALL fair, therefore I find it to be (not you personally, only your point) "dishonest."

Explain what isn't fair about it? What I consider to be a fact is that a disproportionately small number of us contributes a disproportionately large amount to the overall shit pie. What I consider to be a fact is that the overall population of society doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in it's ability to pollute. Is this what we have a disagreement about? You and I personally could bang our heads together and find a way to pollute at a greater rate than a number of small countries, and judging by the numbers we see, it almost seems as though somewhere, at some time, people actually did this....

I have answered the questions that I have deemed fair. You have answered my questions, most often, with only more questions. If out of the two of us, someone has avoided more direct questions - it has been you sir.

I'm sorry, let me address that, ask again, bullet points maybe. I'll try to answer as directly as possible. I'll even repeat myself...if it;s absolutely neccessarry. Let me just add this, since it seems important to you...I've answered questions that I have deemed unfair. I'm not trying to avoid a god-damned thing in this discussion. I suggested that we kill all the marmosets......remember?

and? It was simply a question not an implication, as you made above.

As you interpreted above, but that's okay, i suppose i could have worded it differently and that wouldn't have been an issue.

I wanted to know where the man I was debating stood on the issue. Now I know. Also, I did indeed read the link of the emission numbers you sent.

And? After reading that link you still feel that my objections or my questions in support of those objections are unfair? I would really like to know why. How am I supposed to offer you sdupport for my position if it's going to be dismissed as "unfair"? How are we going to have a discussion about this?