discrimination of atheists

[eppie]

France is an example for us all. And for scared religious people; there are loads of religious people in France....and they are free to practice their faith.....they are just not allowed to tell other people what to do because of the God they believe in.

Of course it doesn't mean that there are no religion related problems in France but the discussion in the public space can be held on basis of facts on not based on sentiments....and this is very important I think.

Whereas, we have the Bill of Rights, which as the 1st one states, people in the US have the right to express their "sentiments" regardless of who or how many are offended. Whatever the government suppresses, just goes underground whether that be drugs, guns, or self expression.

The big difference is that the US bill of rights stems from a time in which the US was populated by religious extremists that had fled other countries (European) because they were persecuted because of their religion.
While that was a very logical thing to do in that place and time, it doesn't have much to do with basic and fundamental human rights. As is clear it is in most places, mainly the religious masses that try and take rights away from people that have other ideas than theirs.

Also it stems from a time when women, and people of any other colour than white where considered lesser human beings.
So making it illegal for women to wear Burqa's or Niqaabs is in France seen as a correct measure to counter religious extremist men who force their wives to behave in a certain way, while in the US you don't mind so much that e.g. mormons use 1 men/ more women polygamy.
You think the right of a religious person goes above that off a woman.

Although I personally think banning women wearing Burqa's will not help a lot, I agree much more with the French system than the US system.

[kandrathe]

The big difference is that the US bill of rights stems from a time in which the US was populated by religious extremists that had fled other countries (European) because they were persecuted because of their religion.

Hardly. The freedom of expression and thought can be directly drawn back to Socrates, and then the Roman Republic. More contemporary in 1644, Milton argued "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." Against a Catholic Church which censored his writing Areopagitica. Then, there is the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

While that was a very logical thing to do in that place and time, it doesn't have much to do with basic and fundamental human rights. As is clear it is in most places, mainly the religious masses that try and take rights away from people that have other ideas than theirs.

Whenever the State sides with religion, and then uses its monopoly on force to repress the masses... You mean. Religions, in their rituals, places of worship, and philosophies have very little effect when not connected to the power of the State.

Also it stems from a time when women, and people of any other colour than white where considered lesser human beings. So making it illegal for women to wear Burqa's or Niqaabs is in France seen as a correct measure to counter religious extremist men who force their wives to behave in a certain way, while in the US you don't mind so much that e.g. mormons use 1 men/ more women polygamy. You think the right of a religious person goes above that off a woman.

Although I personally think banning women wearing Burqa's will not help a lot, I agree much more with the French system than the US system.

Our rights are human rights, not white rights, or Christian rights, or mens rights. I think a Muslim woman has the right to wear a Burqa or a bikini as she sees fit. No man, or state should control her garb. Her arguments may be with her families views, but that is no concern of mine, or my governments. I also don't think the State should be involved in sanctioning or de-sanctioning our relationships, whether that be Christian marriage, polygamous marriage, or any other legal unions. The State should be concerned with the legality of the contract between adults, not the gender, religion, or whatever else the union involves (as long as it is otherwise legal).

[eppie]

Our rights are human rights, not white rights, or Christian rights, or mens rights. I think a Muslim woman has the right to wear a Burqa or a bikini as she sees fit. No man, or state should control her garb. Her arguments may be with her families views, but that is no concern of mine, or my governments. I also don't think the State should be involved in sanctioning or de-sanctioning our relationships, whether that be Christian marriage, polygamous marriage, or any other legal unions. The State should be concerned with the legality of the contract between adults, not the gender, religion, or whatever else the union involves (as long as it is otherwise legal).

You make this seem as a very clear thing but it isn't.

Wearing a Burqa often is not done because of liberty but it is forced upon someone. So by giving people the liberty to dress according to what they think their religion tells them to, you take away a liberty of for example a woman who doesn't want this at all.
The same goes for a woman who together with 6 others is married to one man.

But apart from what you and I think it is important what a government thinks. Being completely objective they should also allow gays to get married, underaged people to get married etc.

I guess you see here that it is not very easy to make a 'one rule' that fits all here.

In France it has been decided that you are not allowed to wear a burqa in public because it is considered to go against rights of women. In this case this law also doesn't really go against human rights.....I mean a Burqa is not necesarry for living a full life.

The Phelps family is allowed to go to funerals of killed soldiers and it is known that this is incredeibly hurtful to the relatives and friends of these killed men but still it allowed. On the other hand it is no allowed to use swear words in video clips.

[kandrathe]

You make this seem as a very clear thing but it isn't.

It is clear to me. Where is the harm?

Wearing a Burqa often is not done because of liberty but it is forced upon someone. So by giving people the liberty to dress according to what they think their religion tells them to, you take away a liberty of for example a woman who doesn't want this at all.

The harm is that the woman is forced by others to wear the burqa, and so those who are doing the forcing are in the wrong. That is the wrong we should right.

The same goes for a woman who together with 6 others is married to one man.

The harm is that the woman or women are not legally old enough, or do not willingly enter into the "contract", and cannot willing exit the "contract". It is the State who adjudicates the validity of contracts. If people, under-aged women in forced marriages in this case, are held against their will this is the harm we should right.

But apart from what you and I think, it is important what a government thinks. Being completely objective they should also allow gays to get married, under aged people to get married etc.

Theoretically, we are the government, right? The State should have laws to protect the person and property of the vulnerable (those deemed mentally incapable including youth, the mentally ill, and those too senile).

I guess you see here that it is not very easy to make a 'one rule' that fits all here.

Not one rule, sure. But, if we followed the principles of "harms", and focused the power of the State on the appropriate adjudication of legal contracts, the protection of property, and people from harms, then we'd stop needlessly wasting time and money meddling in peoples personal lives.

In France it has been decided that you are not allowed to wear a burqa in public because it is considered to go against rights of women. In this case this law also doesn't really go against human rights.....I mean a Burqa is not necesarry for living a full life.

Neither is drinking wine, or going to the discotheque. Women have the right to wear whatever they like, and France is wrong to meddle in determining a dress code for it's citizens. It is as wrong to deny them their right to wear it, as it is to force it upon them.

The Phelps family is allowed to go to funerals of killed soldiers and it is known that this is incredibly hurtful to the relatives and friends of these killed men but still it allowed. On the other hand it is no allowed to use swear words in video clips.

As much as I hate... really hate what the Phelps family does, and as much as I believe it to be wrong headed, and results in emotional blow back, if one believes in the rights of people to voice their free speech and conscience, then we must suffer the idiots in the town square along with the savants. Much like the obviously confrontational marches by white supremacist, hate filled bigots, if we believe in freedom, then we must allow them to parade their wrong- headedness for us to then justly oppose in the arena of ideas. No one wants that fight to be rigged, except perhaps the tyrannical State.

[shoju]

Count me as one of the people who do not agree with the France ruling to outlaw Burqas. And for once, I agree with kandrathe about the reasoning.

I... almost completely agree with his post.

The world is really ending.

[eppie]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-ma...53418.html

I think the US should win a few spots on this discrimination list.
There is now 1 person in congress who has the courage to admit she is not religious. (another 10 keep it a bit in the dark).

[kandrathe]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-ma...53418.html

I think the US should win a few spots on this discrimination list.
There is now 1 person in congress who has the courage to admit she is not religious. (another 10 keep it a bit in the dark).

For a person to be unwilling to admit they are a member of a minority group is not discrimination. Politicians are elected by popular votes, and as a politician you hope to sway a majority of people to give you their vote. The more you are different than your potential constituency, the less likely that constituency will be in identifying you as a representative. I really have no sympathy since no one can tell what you believe until you feel the need to announce it. If pressed by media for a stance on God, they have the ability to tell them to jump in the lake, or more politely that their personal beliefs are personal and not relevant to their public service. Politicians who proclaim advocacy for one side or another are doing it to pander to a block of potential voters.

In that respect, we all practice discrimination in our daily decisions. Big D discrimination requires there to be an enforceable policy or law. If Walmart requires all employees to be Baptists, that is a discriminatory policy that should be challenged in a court. If the Congress required all members to believe in God, that would be a discriminatory policy or law. Even racial quota's to give minorities advantages in applications are discriminatory, and only are warranted by order of courts as reparations for prior evidence of discrimination. As a former employer, and current college administrator, I would say we endeavor to be aware of the mix of various minority groups and to do the best we can to reflect the mix within the population we serve. Differences can expose discrimination, but sometimes that discrimination (little d discrimination) is done by the individual rather than (big D) the provider of the service. (example: http://health-equity.pitt.edu/469/ - although targeted marketing will also affect consumer choices )

This is the case also with elections, each individual practices small d discrimination in choosing which person should represent them. Sometimes that decision is bigoted, based on that persons gender, race, creed, sexual orientation. If someone votes for (or against) Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she is a woman, or Barney Frank because his is gay, or Kyrsten Sinema because she is unaffiliated religiously, then they are probably a bigot, yes. How do you determine the intentions of the voters? Maybe the voters really thought that person expressed in their campaign the best solutions to the issues facing government. Or, more often, that candidate is your guess at who may advance your legislative priorities.

[Bun-Bun]

As to Western Europe, the decadent culture there hates itself enough to stop breeding. That is a curious sort of nihilism, to pursue deliberate negative population growth as a matter of cultural imperative.

It seems that that particular cultural imperative is not restricted to Western Europe. For reference.

[Occhidiangela]

The US constitution is also a bourgeois document that once stated slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Like any other instrument of the State, it changes as necessary to adjust to the current needs of its creators (white ruling class males), but hypocrisies still exist, or result nonetheless.

Anyways, I am a little bit surprised you have such a draconian law to begin with in your country, eppie - since the U.S. tends to be more politically backwards than most of Western Europe, and is a very decadent and apathetic society overall due to its heavy culture of anti-reason, anti-science, and overall, anti-human attitudes.

Religion is mental slavery, and needs to be put into the dustbin of history along with feudalism. I don't need some deity, real or perceived, telling me how to live my life according to his/her will, and if I don't, I am going to very bad place after I die.

Karl Marx just phoned, and asked you to stop trying to make an arse out of him with your inane tossing about of Marxist sound bytes.

Thanks, and Merry Christmas. Don't worry, Santa Claus is on your side: he wears red.

Edited to add:

As to Western Europe, the decadent culture there hates itself enough to stop breeding. That is a curious sort of nihilism, to pursue deliberate negative population growth as a matter of cultural imperative. Leaving Europe in the rear view mirror was one of the best things the Americans did, and the return to authoritarian European values, and trivial nonsense like espresso and latte, is an enormous mistake, culturally. The anti science society developed the computer chips that make it possible for fools like yourself to post on the internet.

You are welcome. Thanks for being yet another data point in support of an idea I've seen running about here and there: the internet is the most effective means of spreading idiocy and stupidity known to man.

You need to take a very long, hard look at yourself before calling anyone else out on having a lack of intelligence, or reducing people to "data points".

When you call someone else (me) a Mindless Patriot you affirm once again, for me, both your deliberate stupidity and your willful ignorance. Both are self inflicted wounds. I've been hearing the brand of tripe you spew for about four decades. It wasn't very sensible when I first heard it, and is less so now. It may be new to you, but it is tired old crap to me. Marx did some interesting work on understanding economic theory, but his political assumptions have been proven wrong again and again.

Thanks for not disappointing. I could almost set my watch to your foolishness.

Bun Bun: thank you for the link. The Mao era initiative "single child" policy is slowly eroding. We shall see, in the next generation, what choices people in China make when there are fewer restrictions. India had two thirds of the population of China in the late 60's, about 400 million to about 600 million. They have passed China.

Note: Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia ... significant numbers of large population nations are still at positive population growth numbers.

We'll see if the predictions and assumption in that article come to pass.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

It seems that that particular cultural imperative is not restricted to Western Europe.

I've read that for places like India, or Africa, having a large number of children correlates with poverty. It is not necessarily a birth control affordability issue, so much as a means to ensure greater family wealth and insurance for parents to have care givers in their "retirement". More children can help gather, or grow food, tend livestock, or work for the family in other ways. In more affluent places, people don't need to rely on their children to care for them when they get old. But, as we shall soon experience the downside in the US, and China will soon also. In the US in 2010, there are 5 workers for each retiree (although with progressiveness that is more like 1 rich person paying 55% of the old persons way, and 4 middle class people paying 22.5% each) . In 2020, that goes to 4 to 1, and in 2030 it goes to 3 to 1. Our current government services consumes about 20% of GDP much of which goes into medicare, and social security (they are combined about 41% of the federal budget).

[eppie]

When you call someone else (me) a Mindless Patriot you affirm once again, for me, both your deliberate stupidity and your willful ignorance. Both are self inflicted wounds. I've been hearing the brand of tripe you spew for about four decades. It wasn't very sensible when I first heard it, and is less so now. It may be new to you, but it is tired old crap to me. Marx did some interesting work on understanding economic theory, but his political assumptions have been proven wrong again and again.

Thanks for not disappointing. I could almost set my watch to your foolishness.

Bun Bun: thank you for the link. The Mao era initiative "single child" policy is slowly eroding. We shall see, in the next generation, what choices people in China make when there are fewer restrictions. India had two thirds of the population of China in the late 60's, about 400 million to about 600 million. They have passed China.

Note: Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia ... significant numbers of large population nations are still at positive population growth numbers.

We'll see if the predictions and assumption in that article come to pass.

Occhi

But this is a known phenomenon for years isn't it. People in poorer coutries reproduce more. If the country is poor enough many of the children will not reach adulthood but if such a country starts developing there will indeed be a huge poplation growth.

In rich western countries there is no need for getting 4 or 5 children or even more, and because we have time to think about things we also think it is better not to have so many children. (even though overpopulation is not influenced much by birthrates in the west).

But I mean saying were stupid because we don't reproduce enough seems to me a bit strange.

---

In 2020, that goes to 4 to 1, and in 2030 it goes to 3 to 1. Our current government services consumes about 20% of GDP much of which goes into medicare, and social security (they are combined about 41% of the federal budget).

But just reproducing more is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

[kandrathe]

But just reproducing more is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

I think you misunderstand... both what I was saying, and the nature of Ponzi schemes.

First, Ponzi; I tell you and 19 of your friends that if they invest $5000 in my entity (we'll call it Get Rich Quick Enterprises -- GRQE) that I can guarantee 20% ROI per year over five years. So, they you and your friends combined give me $100,000 of which I need to pay back to the investors $20,000 the first year leaving $80,000 for my extravagant lifestyle less operating costs which are mostly zero. Since I'm inventing the operating ledgers anyway, I might as well show that GRQE is growing exponentially, and pay the government taxes accordingly (unless I can find some tax credit loopholes -- wind energy for example). With my investor base, my cooked books, and whopping profits, I convince 100 new investors the next year, which yields $500,000 of which, I need to pay the original 20 another $20,000, and the new batch, $100,000 leaving $380,000 for my extravagant lifestyle. Rinse repeat the same process every year until the pool of suckers dries up, I get caught and sent to jail.

Our social security system IS a ponzi scheme in a way, since it relies on the current workers to pay for the benefits of the retired. This works until the pool of suckers workers shrinks where there are too few workers to pay for the extravagant comfortable lifestyles of the retired. While the number of workers is growing, the scheme works -- when the pool of workers shrinks -- the buden of the increasing outlays falls on a smaller and smaller number of workers to pay (or the government goes into higher and higher debt with no feasible way to pay back that debt). So, it is similar in that the government does not create any wealth, it only redistributes it, and 2nd it requires an every growing pool of investors to keep the pyramid scheme going. It all crashes once the population stops growing, the "rich" people are all poor or have left, and the workers pockets we've been taking from all this time are now empty or have gone. Then crafty people, like my own governor Dayton (of the Dayton's Department Store family fortune), hide their income in off shore investments -- while advocating massive tax hikes "on the wealthy". What they really mean is that they want to suck more money from the working classes by pitting the lower paid blue collar class, against the higher paid middle class white collar workers. (The basis of government support is not based on wealth, only on income tax on workers and sales taxes made by us all.) Mind you, this payment made to pensioners is not based on their wealth, assets, or other pensions. We treat every retiree the same, whether they have zero net worth, or billions. Granted, it's not the same amount I bring home while working, but it is more than half -- and my expenses would be vastly reduced.

If you disagree that it is a Ponzi scheme, consider if our Social Security system were an optional private enterprise that you could choose to "invest" in. You give me 15% of your gross pay (currently the government forces the employer to pay half), and once you've contributed for 10 or more years (40 quarters) you qualify for some payout based on the age you retire and the amount you contributed. If you retire at 62 you get 30% (of your average salary for the last 10 years you contributed). At 65, you get 45%. If you wait till 70, you can get 60%. Also, if at anytime you become disabled, and you've contributed for at least 10 years, then you can also claim the 30% rate. But, I didn't save the money, or invest it anywhere. I just spent it on other things. I've always just banked on the proposition that inflows would exceed outflows. How does the government do it? Well, they can go over to the US Treasury, and have them mint up a $1 Trillion dollar coin anytime they need it. They give that coin to the Federal Reserve Bank, and then borrow $1 Trillion dollars against that minted coin and it can't cause inflation since that coin is never circulated right? For added irony, I'd ensure the coin were minted with the image of Mr. Ponzi as heads.

2nd, then; Having more than 2 children is not a ponzi scheme. It is population. We must assume that each individual (mostly) pays their own way -- and also contributes (In the US, 20% federal, 3-10% State, 5-8% Local ) a portion of their effort to their governments. In places with no or low services, and no or low taxes, the people must rely on their circumstances to cover their life needs, including that time when they are too old to care for themselves. Now, you bring up mortality rates. The worst in the world is about 34 per 1000, including adults and old people. Even if youth and infant mortality accounted for 2/3rds of that death rate it wouldn't justify a large family (by large I mean > 4). Population and Poverty Nexus: Does Family Size Matter?

A society grows or shrinks based upon it's population. So, if the population of a town shrinks by half, there are fewer needs for services (police, fire, roads, schools, government, and infrastructures). The expenses need to shrink to be within the means of the people remaining to pay for them. This means that schools consolidate, and some close. Some roads may be abandoned, or reverted to unpaved if few people live there.

Or, you drive the taxes so high that only the working, semi-wealthy people can afford to live there, and not young people starting out, or pensioners. In my State, where we try to be pretty progressive, it is still property tax that determines where you can afford to live. Why do northerners move to southern States at retirement? It's not just the cold winters, its the level of property taxes on a fixed pension. Historically, the largest outflows are from New York, and California. The property taxes are such that you cannot live there on a fixed or unsubsidized income. If you are willing to live far away from cities, then the property taxes are low, but the isolation level is pretty high. Most pensioners aren't really thinking of homesteading in Alaska.

[LochnarITB]

This works until the pool of suckers workers shrinks where there are too few workers to pay for the extravagant comfortable lifestyles of the retired.

That is an awfully broad stroke you're painting with. There are those of us that have worked long hours for many years. For whatever reason (medical, tanked investments, etc.) we have gone through strong retirement savings, finally being forced to grab the lifeline of SS or SSD. The lifestyle is anything but comfortable. Many have to choose which "necessity" is not quite as necessary. Call for need based reform, but do not paint all beneficiaries as taking advantage of a government created scheme.

[Hammerskjold]

This works until the pool of suckers workers shrinks where there are too few workers to pay for the extravagant comfortable lifestyles of the retired.

That is an awfully broad stroke you're painting with.

Oh give it up man, the truthiness hurts! Geritol and early bird specials = Champagne and Caviar dreams.

And what the hell is this I hear about something called 'Meals on Wheels'? These 'people' (read: societal parasites) get food, delivered to their house, free of charge? Probably by a limousine too I bet. No such thing as a free lunch buddy, someone is paying and I bet it's out of mine, and your pockets when we're not looking!

It -is- extravagant dammit. I haven't heard this much truthiness since this man bravely spoke out against this shameful highway robbery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

[FireIceTalon]

When you call someone else (me) a Mindless Patriot you affirm once again, for me, both your deliberate stupidity and your willful ignorance. Both are self inflicted wounds. I've been hearing the brand of tripe you spew for about four decades. It wasn't very sensible when I first heard it, and is less so now. It may be new to you, but it is tired old crap to me. Marx did some interesting work on understanding economic theory, but his political assumptions have been proven wrong again and again.

Thanks for not disappointing. I could almost set my watch to your foolishness.

Bun Bun: thank you for the link. The Mao era initiative "single child" policy is slowly eroding. We shall see, in the next generation, what choices people in China make when there are fewer restrictions. India had two thirds of the population of China in the late 60's, about 400 million to about 600 million. They have passed China.

Note: Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia ... significant numbers of large population nations are still at positive population growth numbers.

We'll see if the predictions and assumption in that article come to pass.

Occhi

Again, you calling anyone else stupid or willfully ignorant is just laughable, considering your posts are a self-reflection that you are dumber than a rock, as well as naive. You are a mindless patriotic drone that can't think for himself, because mass media does all your thinking for you. It's much easier that way, right? I don't hate you though. I actually pity you. Perhaps one day you will come out of Plato's Cave.

As for Marx, he's actually been proved RIGHT for the most part, time and again, and I've already explained why countless times. Then again, the shoddiness and inefficiency of the capitalist mode of production, on a DAILY basis at both an economic and social level, does far more justice to proving Marx right than I could ever hope to. The fact you even call his work on economics "theories" shows you have little understanding on what he wrote, but moreover you have little knowledge about the fundamental and inseparable relationship between economics and politics in general. They aren't theories - they are objective sociological phenomena and structural processes that have an actual functionality. The only thing Marx got "wrong" (if you can even call it that) was that he underestimated or overlooked the ability and power of the State to protect and enforce capitalist social relations - for example he didn't consider the fact the State could or would make concessions (such as the 8-hour work day) to preserve its long-term hegemony and larger interests by giving table scraps to the workers and thus discouraging revolution. Besides such concessions, it also uses ideological dominance through its institutions, as well as direct coercion. But this hardly even puts a dent in, let alone invalidates, his critiques and scientific analysis of how capitalism works - and in light of recent events, I'd say Marxism is more relevant today than it perhaps has ever been (even if leftist movements today are practically non-existent). Guys like Gramsci and Althusser took the framework of Marxism and further built upon it by analyzing the relationship of the State to culture and ideology, and how they function as a sociological process that maintains the relationships between classes under capitalism that Marx and Engels observed and described. Be as it may, so long as capitalism exists, so will Marxism.

Of course what I say isn't sensible to you. There is no getting through to people who use circular reasoning to justify their points or world views. To people like you, black is white and white is black, tall is short, short is tall. So yea, no surprise that what I say doesn't seem sensible to you. If I dropped a sack of bricks in a swimming pool, you'd probably tell me it was an act of God after it sunk to the bottom. Go figure.

The only tripe being spewed forth here is by YOU, with your nationalistic, flag-waving, crowd-following nonsense. Keep saluting those stars and stripes thinking you are some kind of fucking hero or that your "country" cares about you, in your little rainbow land of false consciousness and Stockholm Syndrome. Your ignorance speaks for itself. Grow up, go get an education, and learn to think critically. Your little city on the hill doesn't give a rats ass about you or anyone here, beyond being good little consumers/wage slaves and law abiding cattle to keep the capitalistic war machine going. It never has, and it never will. Think long and hard about that.

[FireIceTalon]

Our social security system IS a ponzi scheme in a way, since it relies on the current workers to pay for the benefits of the retired. This works until the pool of suckers workers shrinks where there are too few workers to pay for the extravagant comfortable lifestyles of the retired.

Libertarians say some wild ass shit.

[kandrathe]

That is an awfully broad stroke you're painting with. There are those of us that have worked long hours for many years. For whatever reason (medical, tanked investments, etc.) we have gone through strong retirement savings, finally being forced to grab the lifeline of SS or SSD. The lifestyle is anything but comfortable. Many have to choose which "necessity" is not quite as necessary. Call for need based reform, but do not paint all beneficiaries as taking advantage of a government created scheme.

Yes, you are right. Broadly, the most assets are held by those who have worked, saved, invested and paid off their mortgages. But, you and I are probably less well off than many. The recent crash has toppled many retirement plans.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulle.../scf12.pdf

[Occhidiangela]

Again, you calling anyone else stupid or willfully ignorant is just laughable, considering your posts are a self-reflection that you are dumber than a rock, as well as naive. You are a mindless patriotic drone that can't think for himself, because mass media does all your thinking for you. It's much easier that way, right? I don't hate you though. I actually pity you. Perhaps one day you will come out of Plato's Cave.

When your IQ hits 50, sell.

Name calling is your style. Labels are your style. Thought? Not so much. The consistent use and overuse of the terms bourgeoisie and bourgeois are clues to the tunnel vision which is your PoV.
I was paying union dues long before you figured out to do with your private parts.

But don't let me stop you from wallowing in your tunnel vision. It must be comfortable in there. Does it come with a meal plan?

[Occhidiangela]

But this is a known phenomenon for years isn't it. People in poorer coutries reproduce more. If the country is poor enough many of the children will not reach adulthood but if such a country starts developing there will indeed be a huge poplation growth.

Some of the studies I have read over the past ten years show a correlation between child per fertile woman and education. As the latter grows, the former tends to shrink.

In rich western countries there is no need for getting 4 or 5 children or even more, and because we have time to think about things we also think it is better not to have so many children. (even though overpopulation is not influenced much by birthrates in the west).

I think you are using post hoc reasoning there, eppie.

But I mean saying were stupid because we don't reproduce enough seems to me a bit strange.

I didn't say stupid. What I question is the cultural norms and assumptions that that do not look further into the future than the current generation.

But just reproducing more is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

It appears to be a standard behavior of life forms. Not sure what you are getting at there.

[FireIceTalon]

When your IQ hits 50, sell.

Oh really now? Last IQ test I took, I scored 126. My current GPA is 3.85. Not that these things are important in measuring intelligence (they really aren't), but you might want to quit while you aren't too far behind.

Name calling is your style. Labels are your style. Thought? Not so much.

Hypocrisy is your style. With a little bit of irony thrown in.

I was paying union dues long before you figured out to do with your private parts.

Now you are guilty of ageism - typical conservative, you have to discriminate SOMEHOW when you are backed into a corner, and then your true colors show. Only problem is, age is hardly a factor of measuring intelligence or knowledge. I don't care if you were paying union dues before MY PARENTS were born - you are clearly dumber than a fucking rock, and are the typical Glen Beck spoon-fed, flag saluting good ol' boy whose heros are people like David Duke and John C. Calhoon. I have cousins who are in their teens and 20's that are clearly smarter than you (and no, they aren't Marxists). Tell me, when you aren't calling people who are younger than you stupid (ironically when they are clearly more intelligent than you), are you telling women what to do with their bodies and that their place is in the kitchen, and saying that marriage is between one man and one woman? What race do you hate the most and think is the biggest threat to white superiority and privilege? What is more of a threat to American jobs, Mexican immigrants or overseas Chinese factory workers? Did you dress up as a KKK last halloween? I take back what I said earlier: I do dislike you, and I don't feel sorry for you. Thanks for revealing who you truly are.

And at least I've figured out what to do with my "private parts". You're probably still using your hand after all these years, and probably to Fox News and Sarah Palin chanting "I'm a Maverick!". How sad.....

But don't let me stop you from wallowing in your tunnel vision. It must be comfortable in there. Does it come with a meal plan?

I'd rather have my "tunnel vision" than your Stockholm Syndrome, which in itself is the ultimate form of tunnel vision. That last question is one you should be asking to yourself. Nothing funnier than some self-loathing union idiot that will ask "how high" when his corporate masters ask him to jump, telling someone like me that I have tunnel vision. I can see you now: just screaming, in your best Rush take, about how America is crumbling, and Obama is a Muslim socialist, in the middle of a your little dark, musty room with Confederate flags hung everywhere and a King James Bible in your hand. In short, you suck, and sucky people are no fun to talk to so I'm done with you.