School help

Want to just shoot the breeze? Forum 42 is the place!

Moderator: Moderators

Harshboy
Portablizer
Posts: 3610
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: School help

Post by Harshboy » Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:21 pm

1) Yes.
2) Yes.

Though there are certain circumstances for each question:

1) I'm assuming it doesn't cost billions of dollars. Whats more important? Animals or the greatness of your own life? (Sounds selfish, but that is Americas Problem...Why do we hand billions to other countries when we are already in debt and need that money for our own country? We aren't selfish enough [General America, Not Corporations])

2) I see kids as money wasters, why do you really need more than one?

Feel free to call me a rude selfish jackass, I don't care.

User avatar
grossaffe
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: School help

Post by grossaffe » Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:34 pm

Harshboy wrote:1) Yes.
2) Yes.

Though there are certain circumstances for each question:

1) I'm assuming it doesn't cost billions of dollars. Whats more important? Animals or the greatness of your own life? (Sounds selfish, but that is Americas Problem...Why do we hand billions to other countries when we are already in debt and need that money for our own country? We aren't selfish enough [General America, Not Corporations])

2) I see kids as money wasters, why do you really need more than one?

Feel free to call me a rude selfish jackass, I don't care.
you selfish jackass!...
and yet we think along the same lines...

User avatar
RockNRoll!
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: on the toilet

Post by RockNRoll! » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:13 pm

1) No. Screw the earth, it'll be around for a long time after we die. We need to take care of ourselves.

2) If it gets really bad, yes. But only if that's the only option left after other attempts of population control fail.

User avatar
CronoTriggerfan
Moderator
Posts: 4131
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Contact:

Post by CronoTriggerfan » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:20 pm

Kurt_ wrote:2) China allows couples to have just one child, with few exceptions, as a method of population control. Would you welcome such a policy in your government? (yes/no)

2 Yes, if it was an issue in Canada. It's better than future crises or war/killing due to overpopulation.
And the truth comes out. Canada is just a bunch of smiley-faced fascists anyways; seeing as you've already surrendered most of your liberties to the State, what's a few more? Just out of curiosity, what do you think they'd do with the leftover kids? By saying it's "better" than war/killing, you make it sound like there'd be no repercussions for multiple children, in which case there might as well not be population control in place at all. My point is, THEY'D KILL THEM. That's how it would be controlled. So how is the government running around killing off babies any better than a war? Better yet, how is killing not killing, under your definition?
Image

teraflop122
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by teraflop122 » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:11 am

@ Bacteria

The data set from this survey is really just one source out of many, including the standard books, encyclopedias, online sources and etc. By making the questions nice and simple I hoped to encourage more people to chime in.

I got your answer for question 1. As for question 2, I'm more interested in whether you think it's a good idea or not.

User avatar
SpongeBuell
Senior Member
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:52 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Post by SpongeBuell » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:49 am

CronoTriggerfan wrote:
Kurt_ wrote:2) China allows couples to have just one child, with few exceptions, as a method of population control. Would you welcome such a policy in your government? (yes/no)

2 Yes, if it was an issue in Canada. It's better than future crises or war/killing due to overpopulation.
And the truth comes out. Canada is just a bunch of smiley-faced fascists anyways; seeing as you've already surrendered most of your liberties to the State, what's a few more? Just out of curiosity, what do you think they'd do with the leftover kids? By saying it's "better" than war/killing, you make it sound like there'd be no repercussions for multiple children, in which case there might as well not be population control in place at all. My point is, THEY'D KILL THEM. That's how it would be controlled. So how is the government running around killing off babies any better than a war? Better yet, how is killing not killing, under your definition?
Not to make every thread here political, but keep in mind, this is all theoretical. You don't know that the government would kill any "excess" children. They could fine the families that have more than one, for instance. Not that that makes things right, but don't make further assumptions when it's completely hypothetical to begin with, especially when you try to present it as FACT in the end.

Edit: And, for the sake of the thread, Yes/No
Life of Brian wrote:
RYW wrote:RYW:

Rare
Yellow
Weasel
I'll be honest with you - I would have never guessed that.

User avatar
CronoTriggerfan
Moderator
Posts: 4131
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Contact:

Post by CronoTriggerfan » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:11 am

Well seeing as the point of the thread was to spark discussion, as teraflop said, I figure I'd start some. :wink:

And how else would they do it? There's no alternative. It's a law about how much you can procreate. Like I said before, if you broke that law and there were no repercussions for it, there would be no point in having the law in place at all.
Image

User avatar
Kurt_
Portablizer
Posts: 5748
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 am
Steam ID: kurbert
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Kurt_ » Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:22 am

This is second-hand information. This is a quote from some guy who got the information from the above site, and currently lives in China
http://www.china.org.cn/ wrote:Fact:
People in China, universally seem to agree that China is too crowded and even though they don't like the one child rule, they also understand and support it.

Fact:
The ones that are circumventing the law are the rich, who pay the huge fines, based on income, when the law is broken. Beijing has taken notice of this and started a campaign to ostracize them, in affect, shaming them into complying with the law.

Fact:
Some religious groups are exempt from the law altogether.

Fact:
I have never heard of anyone being forced into an abortion. I have heard of people who have two children and claim the second one belongs to a cousin.

Fact:
In cities and urban area's families are limited to one child. In the country side and farms, families are allowed two or three.
As you can see, the repercussion is a huge fine. Either you lose your house, or have another kid. It makes it an easy choice for most low to medium income families.


So...how about number three? Any child-slaughtering insights?
Hey, sup?

User avatar
SpongeBuell
Senior Member
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:52 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Post by SpongeBuell » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:15 pm

CronoTriggerfan wrote:Well seeing as the point of the thread was to spark discussion, as teraflop said, I figure I'd start some. :wink:

And how else would they do it? There's no alternative. It's a law about how much you can procreate. Like I said before, if you broke that law and there were no repercussions for it, there would be no point in having the law in place at all.
Like I said, there are fines/taxes and the whatnot as preventative measures which should help the nation's population as a whole go down. Are there bound to be some families with more than one kid? Sure. Will the population go down? Most likely. It's like speeding. People know that if they get caught speeding, they get fined. As a result, they stick to the speed limit, or something relatively close to it. If there were no speed limits, no fines, you can bet people would go faster than they do. So yes, people still speed, but the enforcements and the threat of the fine does keep things under control, and the goal isn't a complete failure
Life of Brian wrote:
RYW wrote:RYW:

Rare
Yellow
Weasel
I'll be honest with you - I would have never guessed that.

User avatar
project_failure
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:04 pm
Contact:

Post by project_failure » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:37 am

What do they do in the case of twins?
Sword_Gun wrote:Klef your asking a whole bunch of videogame players.. for girl advice.. Nice.
It is not junk! It is assorted goods with no current use.
-Project Failure

User avatar
Valium
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:08 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, I'm over from kurt

Post by Valium » Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:45 am

project_failure wrote:What do they do in the case of twins?
Move.
Image

User avatar
DK
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:00 am
Location: None of your business pedo nerds

Re: School help

Post by DK » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:06 am

teraflop122 wrote: 1) Is the protection of endangered species a cause worthy of our (the human species) attention and resources? (yes/no)

2) China allows couples to have just one child, with few exceptions, as a method of population control. Would you welcome such a policy in your government? (yes/no)


EDIT: Ive trashed question number 3. It was reduntant and presented an overly simplified theoretical world.
I'm doing ecology at Uni, so my answer for 1 has to be Yes.

For 2, not yet. We still have space for humans.

And for the hypothetical third question, I think humans are a scurge on this planet and we should protect our few remaining natural beauties at all costs.
Image

User avatar
Kurt_
Portablizer
Posts: 5748
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 am
Steam ID: kurbert
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Kurt_ » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:31 pm

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Hey, sup?

teraflop122
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by teraflop122 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:34 pm

Thanks for the help everyone. I have what I need, and so I once again leave you all to your benheckiness.

User avatar
DK
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:00 am
Location: None of your business pedo nerds

Post by DK » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:01 pm

Kurt_ wrote:
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Truer words never spoken :D
Image

Post Reply