How would you control the world population?

[Nick_A]

Greta

Ah, now I understand why you are so anti abortion.

I am not anti abortion. I am FOR respect for life. You are always fighting this or that. You simply have forgotten what it means to be for rather than against. You don’t know what respect FOR life means because you are always AGAINST what often happens during a person’s life.

No no, silly, abortions aren't for food. They are about being able to live a life without having it destroyed by a moment of immaturity, carelessness or bad luck. They are also about women telling moronic meddling misogynists like you to mind your own business.

Yes, the question of abortion is part of two larger questions: the right to kill and the value of the life cycle. For you the question of abortion is decided by convenience. Those with your mindset will never appreciate the two larger questions. They just get in the way of convenience

Meanwhile you have no response to the thread. It's clear that you simply lack the chops, incapable of thinking clearly enough to do any kind of philosophy or meditation, so you try to compensate with political style gaming.

As I said, the lust to kill for convenience will solve part of the problem. Also, nature has a way of solving the problem through wars, disease, and natural catastrophes. Nature will take care of her problem. I just wonder what has happened to the collective human psych that respect for the life cycle now only exists in a small minority.

[Greta]

Greta

Ah, now I understand why you are so anti abortion.

I am not anti abortion. I am FOR respect for life. You are always fighting this or that. You simply have forgotten what it means to be for rather than against. You don’t know what respect FOR life means because you are always AGAINST what often happens during a person’s life.

Lies and projecting again. You are wildly against abortions, one of the more vehement serial complainers over many years. All forum regulars know this - why pretend that you can fool us? It's like when you claimed that you did not complain about secularists.

If your views were about respect for life then you would have a different idea about chewing on cow carcass - which you completely disregard. But it's not about life at all, just your hatred of most women.

Meanwhile you have no response to the thread. It's clear that you simply lack the chops, incapable of thinking clearly enough to do any kind of philosophy or meditation, so you try to compensate with political style gaming.

As I said, the lust to kill for convenience will solve part of the problem. Also, nature has a way of solving the problem through wars, disease, and natural catastrophes. Nature will take care of her problem. I just wonder what has happened to the collective human psych that respect for the life cycle now only exists in a small minority.

Putting aside your inordinate focus on an incredibly trivial percentage of total deaths to service your hatred of women, you are just parroting what I said earlier - that nature will provide the hard landing if we are unprepared to work for a soft one.

I have not met anyone with less respect and regard for life than you. You have complete contempt for most single women and most of humanity in general, which you dismiss as "secularized". Plus you completely disregard other life forms. Pure hypocrisy and projection from you, as usual.

Could you please go to some other forum? Why not go to a religious forum where you can find others who think that blobs of insensate protoplasm are more valuable than adult women or other species? Oh, that's right, you can't because they kept banning you too.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Ah, now I understand why you are so anti abortion.

I am not anti abortion. I am FOR respect for life. You are always fighting this or that. You simply have forgotten what it means to be for rather than against. You don’t know what respect FOR life means because you are always AGAINST what often happens during a person’s life.

Lies and projecting again. You are wildly against abortions, one of the more vehement serial complainers over many years. All forum regulars know this - why pretend that you can fool us? It's like when you claimed that you did not complain about secularists.

If your views were about respect for life then you would have a different idea about chewing on cow carcass - which you completely disregard. But it's not about life at all, just your hatred of most women. A disgrace.

Meanwhile you have no response to the thread. It's clear that you simply lack the chops, incapable of thinking clearly enough to do any kind of philosophy or meditation, so you try to compensate with political style gaming.

As I said, the lust to kill for convenience will solve part of the problem. Also, nature has a way of solving the problem through wars, disease, and natural catastrophes. Nature will take care of her problem. I just wonder what has happened to the collective human psych that respect for the life cycle now only exists in a small minority.

Putting aside your inordinate focus on an incredibly trivial percentage of total deaths to service your hatred of women, you are just parroting what I said earlier - that nature will provide the hard landing if we are unprepared to work for a soft one.

I have not met anyone with less respect and regard for life than you. You have complete contempt for most single women and most of humanity in general, which you dismiss as "secularized". Plus you completely disregard other life forms. Pure hypocrisy and projection from you, as usual.

Could you please go to some other forum? Why not go to a religious forum where you can find others who think that blobs of insensate protoplasm are more valuable than adult women or other species? Oh, that's right, you can't because they kept banning you too.

The bottom line is that you have no idea what respect for life means. As a result you have totally perverted the purpose of philosophy which is to pursue the love of wisdom into furthering political agendas.

[Greta]

The bottom line is that you have no idea what respect for life means. As a result you have totally perverted the purpose of philosophy which is to pursue the love of wisdom into furthering political agendas.

According to you, anyone who does not vehemently and obsessively oppose abortion and loathe women as you do has no respect for life and a perverter of philosophy.

The bottom line is you are pervert who thinks philosophy is politics. Further, your ideas of morality and wisdom are epitomised in your beloved hero and saviour from those evil secularists - Trump.

[Nick_A]

The bottom line is that you have no idea what respect for life means. As a result you have totally perverted the purpose of philosophy which is to pursue the love of wisdom into furthering political agendas.

According to you, anyone who does not vehemently and obsessively oppose abortion and loathe women as you do has no respect for life and a perverter of philosophy.

The bottom line is you are pervert who thinks philosophy is politics. Further, your ideas of morality and wisdom are epitomised in your beloved hero and saviour from those evil secularists - Trump.

This is just utter nonsense. Nothing but an obsession with politics and denial

[Dalek Prime]

As an antinatalist, population must be about informed choice. Which also brings up the question of creating new life that has no part in the decision process, and doesn't have an opinion on the matter until it actually exists. Eugenics and eugenic its are the opposite, believing that people should be controlled in either direction eg. To breed or not.

[Greta]

The bottom line is that you have no idea what respect for life means. As a result you have totally perverted the purpose of philosophy which is to pursue the love of wisdom into furthering political agendas.

According to you, anyone who does not vehemently and obsessively oppose abortion and loathe women as you do has no respect for life and a perverter of philosophy.

The bottom line is you are pervert who thinks philosophy is politics. Further, your ideas of morality and wisdom are epitomised in your beloved hero and saviour from those evil secularists - Trump.

This is just utter nonsense. Nothing but an obsession with politics and denial

Attacking women who have abortions in a thread about controlling the world's population is not political? Or a denial of the science?

Nobody cares what you say, Nick. Your snide abortion comments were pure trolling on a thread with this subject matter. If you had the same obsession with euthanasia you would have trolled with that as bait. If you had the same obsession with gang crime you'd troll with that.

This fighting is an embarrassment. You come across as an attention seeking and lying troll and borderline lunatic while I look like a self righteous grump and a bloody idiot for replying and thus feeding your trolling. Alas, if people judged us as such, they would probably be right.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Attacking women who have abortions in a thread about controlling the world's population is not political? Or a denial of the science?

You do not appreciate the purpose of philosophy as the love of wisdom. If you did you would know what respect for life means Philosophy doesn’t attack. Secularists attack.

Women have a unique ability and natural obligation men do not have. Where men serve to expand the quantity of the population, women have the potential to better the emotional quality of a population. A woman is drawn to the quality of being which matches her own. The being of both men and women can differ a great deal. Women of greater being feel higher values. They feel respect for the cycle of life beginning with conception and ending in death. Such a woman doesn’t feel the need to be a super c_nt and define herself by her sex appeal. She feels the value of sex with a quality of man who matches her own being.

The point I’m making is that young girls are influenced by society to be super c_nts. Women should be as ignorant as men and then the will be feminists.

The bottom line is that I am the one supporting a woman’s quality and you are the one encouraging a young woman’s gullibility even to the extent of justifying abortion as something good. You are encouraging a woman to sacrifice her feelings for quality, her ability for discrimination in order to fit in.

Of course if women were enabled to feel as women there would be less abortions and a natural check on population. But women as a whole do not feel as women anymore than men feel as men. They have sacrificed these feelings to social conditioning. It is a natural result of the human condition.

A basic question of philosophy is “Who am I?” It is obvious we don’t know. It is precisely because we don’t know that we lack respect for life. Yet for you philosophy is unimportant. Just screw and abort if necessary. It is the modern way. Contemplating respect for the cycle of life just gets in the way of self esteem so why bother?

[Greta]

[irrelevant self-indulgent stupidity]

Thickhead.

The thread is about population control, not removing women's rights for religious purposes.

[Nick_A]

[irrelevant self-indulgent stupidity]

Thickhead.

The thread is about population control, not removing women's rights for religious purposes.

"There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them." ~ Emile Chartier

A perfect description of Greta. Why hate ideas with such a passion? It is more common with secularism. She can argue about women's rights but the idea of women's obligation is simply intolerable so it is hated.

It is so tough for students being confronted with educators who have become conditioned to hate ideas and contaminate young minds with this same hatred. There simply is no way to intelligently discuss the question of over population with the secular mind. The hatred of ideas prevents it.

[Belinda]

The way to stop exponential increase in the number of humans is to banish poverty.

[Nick_A]

The way to stop exponential increase in the number of humans is to banish poverty.

I guess if people are less in poverty with more money and leisure time it will lead to more random screwing for pleasure and more abortions for convenience. I can see how abortions for convenience can decrease population by definition. It is why it would be a secular value but would the practice express a human value?

[Skip]

It is why it would be a secular value but would the practice express a human value?

That depends on how you define 'value'. Humans invented all the values - superstitious, spiritual, secular, intelligent, stupid, patriarchal, progressive, egalitarian, archaic, self-defeating, repressive, liberating, generous, punitive - all are human, and most have not worked well in practice, so far. There isn't much more time to waste.

[Nick_A]

It is why it would be a secular value but would the practice express a human value?

That depends on how you define 'value'. Humans invented all the values - superstitious, spiritual, secular, intelligent, stupid, patriarchal, progressive, egalitarian, archaic, self-defeating, repressive, liberating, generous, punitive - all are human, and most have not worked well in practice, so far. There isn't much more time to waste.

You write that humans invented values. Would you agree that people value beauty? Why? Who invented it? It doesn't serve nature's needs so no reason why it would be the result of animal evolution. If we didn't invent the experience of beauty and the ability to experience beauty wasn't taught, why do we experience it.

[Skip]

You write that humans invented values. Would you agree that people value beauty?

Most do, probably. Not all.

Why?

Originally, because they identified it with health, vitality, fertility, freshness, ripeness, edibility.
Like all animals, humans choose a ripe fruit, a nubile female, a strong tree or clean water over their less desirable versions, and we tell which is more desirable by their appearance. We are attracted to the desirable and repelled by the undesirable. It's that visceral response which gave rise to the idea of beauty and ugliness.

Who invented it?

Early humans, after the invention of language. Don't know how far back the concept goes, or the ability to convey one's reaction to a thing that one finds beautiful, but I'd guess about 30,000 years, because people started decorating themselves about then.

It doesn't serve nature's needs

Of course it does! Butterflies are attracted to flowers and fertilize them; female jumping spiders are attracted to the male's dance and get fertilized.

so no reason why it would be the result of animal evolution.

All the best reasons in the world: to find wholesome food and viable mates; survive and reproduce.

If we didn't invent the experience of beauty and the ability to experience beauty wasn't taught, why do we experience it.

We don't invent experience; it just happens. We invent language to describe experience. Experience itself isn't taught, but the full appreciation of subtle experiences is - thus theater, food, music and art critics.