School help
Moderator:Moderators
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.
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.
Re: School help
you selfish jackass!...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.
and yet we think along the same lines...
- RockNRoll!
- Posts:154
- Joined:Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:00 pm
- Location:on the toilet
- CronoTriggerfan
- Moderator
- Posts:4131
- Joined:Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 pm
- Location:University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
- Contact:
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?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.
-
- Posts:1212
- Joined:Sat May 21, 2005 9:06 pm
@ 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.
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.
- SpongeBuell
- Senior Member
- Posts:5190
- Joined:Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:52 am
- Location:Colorado
- Contact:
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.CronoTriggerfan wrote: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?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.
Edit: And, for the sake of the thread, Yes/No
Life of Brian wrote:I'll be honest with you - I would have never guessed that.RYW wrote:RYW:
Rare
Yellow
Weasel
- CronoTriggerfan
- Moderator
- Posts:4131
- Joined:Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 pm
- Location:University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
- Contact:
Well seeing as the point of the thread was to spark discussion, as teraflop said, I figure I'd start some.
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.
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.
- Kurt_
- Portablizer
- Posts:5748
- Joined:Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 am
- Steam ID:kurbert
- Location:Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
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
So...how about number three? Any child-slaughtering insights?
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.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.
So...how about number three? Any child-slaughtering insights?
Hey, sup?
- SpongeBuell
- Senior Member
- Posts:5190
- Joined:Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:52 am
- Location:Colorado
- Contact:
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 failureCronoTriggerfan wrote:Well seeing as the point of the thread was to spark discussion, as teraflop said, I figure I'd start some.
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.
Life of Brian wrote:I'll be honest with you - I would have never guessed that.RYW wrote:RYW:
Rare
Yellow
Weasel
- project_failure
- Posts:812
- Joined:Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:04 pm
- Contact:
Re: School help
I'm doing ecology at Uni, so my answer for 1 has to be Yes.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.
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.
- Kurt_
- Portablizer
- Posts:5748
- Joined:Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 am
- Steam ID:kurbert
- Location:Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
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?
-
- Posts:1212
- Joined:Sat May 21, 2005 9:06 pm
Truer words never spokenKurt_ 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.