Abortion

[palerider]

Oh, Brother!

Again, no answer. Have you traveled much? Have you lifted the rocks on beaches where oil spills have never happened? Oil is there as well. Again, more oil bubbles up from the ocean floor every day than any 5 tankers could hold. Where do you suppose it goes?

 

[palerider]

Abortions aren't even making a dent in the growth of population.

Research mare. Negative population growth is the real worry now for people who have kept up with the curve.

I did like Pale's comment that oil spontaneously bubbling up was causing the pollution rather than the Exxon Valdez. I remember Ronald Reagan saying that trees caused air pollution too, but I can excuse him because he had Alzheimers, what's the excuse for the silliness you post? Early onset dementia so you can follow in your hero's footsteps?

In addition to the valdez, not instead of mare. Mischaracterizing an argument is a lie. Has there been a study done to determine how much oil was laready under those rocks and how much was from the spill? If there has been, kindly post a link.

Are you arguing that oil doesn't bubble up from the ocean floors in quantities that exceed any oil spill? If that isn't your argument, and you are aware of the fact, maybe you can tell me where it goes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219101658.htm

clip:

" About half of the oil in the ocean bubbles up naturally from the seafloor, with Earth giving it up freely like it was of no value. "

http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/submarine-oil-seep-study/submarine-seeps.htm

clip:

"We also want to know whether we can tell the difference between oil found seeping naturally from the ocean floor and oil being produced from offshore platforms. Since both the seeping oil and the oil production mostly come from the same Monterey formation, up to now, chemists haven’t been able to reliably tell them apart. But this study may let us do that."

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2441

clip:

"The other half of the residual oil leaks upward and out of the sediments into ocean bottom waters. Remarkable satellite photographs of the Gulf of Mexico and other regions reveal slicks extending for miles in areas where no oil production is occurring. Similar photographs are now being used to locate new oil and gas accumulations."


http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/02/local/me-oil2

clip:

"Oil has been seeping at a rapid rate over the last three weeks from the ocean floor off Santa Barbara, offering tantalizing clues into the mystery oil patches that have injured or killed 1,500 birds.

Scientists at UC Santa Barbara discovered the leakage at the Coal Oil Point seep field, known for its rich oil deposits that continually seep to the surface. Oil emissions appear to have more than doubled the normal flow of 4,200 gallons a day since the powerful storms of early January."

As always mare, research on your part is in order. Claiming your opponent's dementia in an effort to compensate for your own ignorance is never a viable strategy in a debate. Unless you have done your research, you can't have any idea of what your opponent may or may not know and as a result, you are prone to getting slapped down with a deluge of fact that you were unaware of as seen above. I do my research and therefore am perfectly aware of what my opponent may or may not know and therefore rarely lose a debate. I never walk into a debate on any topic in a state of ignorance or feeling like what I believe is sufficient to support my position.

 

[Gipper]

Abortions aren't even making a dent in the growth of population.

What???????

Where pray tell do you have proof for such a conclusion? You really do not know WTH you are talking about.

Over 50 million American babies have been murdered in the womb since 1973.

50 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many of the murdered would have produced child had they not been killed by their "mothers?"

The toll of abortion murder in Europe and China is even higher. Russia aborts more babies than are birthed and has negative population growth.

Yet you fools believe the crap of overpopulation promoted by the Marxist left.

USEFUL IDIOTS!!!!


http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042

 

[dahermit]

Do you believe that stating your age in support of your flawed premise helps your argument or makes you sound grown up?

No, a.w., it was in response to your thinly veiled "maturity" comment.

Again, confusing cause and effect. If every place that had a large population had turned its environment into an unlivable cespool you could make the argument but that is not the case. If it is your argument that we should kill off the population to reflect the population 500 years ago, you are a sociopath.

There is no place on earth where there is a large human population that has zero pollution. You use the extrema (unlivable cesspool) to try and give the impression that there are large populations of humans that have somehow not contributed to pollution.
I do not have the clinical symptoms of a sociopath (I know what they are, I was trained as a nuero-psychiatric technician in the army), but I would view a virus that killed off 3/4 of the worlds population as an advantageous to continuing a world that had a sustainable environment. Nor, would I mourn the loss of a few million mindless embryos and a huge population of conservatives.

Sorry but management of resources is the problem, not population. Every argument you have made can be traced directly back to poor management, not the population of the particular area where the pollution took place. Were any of the perpetrators you named producing a product used only by the residents of that area and was the product required because of the population numbers?

There is no effective way of managing all the pollution to zero. The best that management can take credit for is reducing it. Nevertheless, the effects are cumulative.

Again, flawed premise. Management does not always fail. It failed in the areas you name, but an indefensible statement like management always fails reduces your reading on the adult-o-meter by several points.

Name one place on earth(city) with a large human population where management has stopped/controlled/eliminated all human based pollution.

Again, flawed thinking. There were no problems before the pollution, not before the population. The pollution was a result of poor management, not the population as evidenced by places with far greater populations which don't have the environmental problems. (Emphasis by dahermit)
Again, no matter how many ways you spin a logical fallacy, you can't make a rational argument out of it.

Name one place on earth (city) with a large human population where management has stopped/controlled/eliminated all human based pollution.

For the Gipper: You are on my ignore list so I am not aware of anything that you post, if you are posting.

 

[palerider]

Still waiting for you to prove overpopulation. Can you do it or not. My bet is not as you have shifted your argument to management of polution.

 

[dahermit]

Still waiting for you to prove overpopulation. Can you do it or not. My bet is not as you have shifted your argument to management of polution.

Still rolling on the floor laughing about how the oil under the rocks at the scene of the Exxon Valdez spill is the result of "natural oil seepage".

 

[Gipper]

Still rolling on the floor laughing about how the oil under the rocks at the scene of the Exxon Valdez spill is the result of "natural oil seepage".

You digress.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Research mare. Negative population growth is the real worry now for people who have kept up with the curve.
In addition to the valdez, not instead of mare. Mischaracterizing an argument is a lie. Has there been a study done to determine how much oil was laready under those rocks and how much was from the spill? If there has been, kindly post a link.
Are you arguing that oil doesn't bubble up from the ocean floors in quantities that exceed any oil spill? If that isn't your argument, and you are aware of the fact, maybe you can tell me where it goes.As always mare, research on your part is in order. Claiming your opponent's dementia in an effort to compensate for your own ignorance is never a viable strategy in a debate. Unless you have done your research, you can't have any idea of what your opponent may or may not know and as a result, you are prone to getting slapped down with a deluge of fact that you were unaware of as seen above. I do my research and therefore am perfectly aware of what my opponent may or may not know and therefore rarely lose a debate. I never walk into a debate on any topic in a state of ignorance or feeling like what I believe is sufficient to support my position.

The sad thing is that you use all that research to argue instead of doing something useful with it. The area where the Exxon Valdez dumped all that oil was pristine and it had a vast and complex ecosystem producing fish, fowl, and wildlife. Now if all that oil bubbling up on it's own was coming up in that one little place on the coast of Alaska, then you'd have a point, but since that oil is spread out all over the planet it doesn't destroy the ecosystems.

Negative population growth is only an issue for some people who are concerned about being populated out of existence. The total number of humans continues to grow. Your statement that population is important to those following the curve. I am, but I'm not worried, why are you?

I know your sense of superiority is pumped up by pretending to be better educated the rest of us and pontificating loudly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What???????

Where pray tell do you have proof for such a conclusion? You really do not know WTH you are talking about.

Over 50 million American babies have been murdered in the womb since 1973.

50 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many of the murdered would have produced child had they not been killed by their "mothers?"

The toll of abortion murder in Europe and China is even higher. Russia aborts more babies than are birthed and has negative population growth.

Yet you fools believe the crap of overpopulation promoted by the Marxist left.

USEFUL IDIOTS!!!!


http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042

Your histrionics are misplaced. World population is expanding dramatically and the abortions have not had a noticable impact on that.

 

[palerider]

Still rolling on the floor laughing about how the oil under the rocks at the scene of the Exxon Valdez spill is the result of "natural oil seepage".

Still waiting for some evidence that it is all from the exxon valdez. Clearly you were unaware that more oil seeps from the ocean bottom that has ever been spilled.

 

[palerider]

The area where the Exxon Valdez dumped all that oil was pristine and it had a vast and complex ecosystem producing fish, fowl, and wildlife.

So the oil bubbling up from the ocean floor and washing ashore is part of the "pristine" environment? Good one.

Now if all that oil bubbling up on it's own was coming up in that one little place on the coast of Alaska, then you'd have a point, but since that oil is spread out all over the planet it doesn't destroy the ecosystems.

The oil has been bubbling up for millions of years and it is everywhere. And the exxon valdez didn't destroy any eco system. The eco system is still there and as healthy as ever.

I know your sense of superiority is pumped up by pretending to be better educated the rest of us and pontificating loudly.

Nah. My sense of superiority is the result of being better educated as evidenced by the lack of any rational argument on your part.

 

[palerider]

Your histrionics are misplaced. World population is expanding dramatically and the abortions have not had a noticable impact on that.

42 million per year does not have a noticeable impact?

129 million births per year worldwide and 42 million aborted. I look at those two numbers and see a very noticeable impact. What sort of math are you using that suggests that the difference between 129 million and 171 million is not noticeable? Or as I suspect, were you using no math and no data at all and simply making it up as you go?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So the oil bubbling up from the ocean floor and washing ashore is part of the "pristine" environment? Good one.

What's really weird is that there was a pristine ecosystem there before the Exxon Valdez and then suddenly there were thousands of birds, animals, and fish dying because they were covered in oil. Now you, the superior intellect is telling us that it was just bubbled up oil? Superior, my ass, you are an apologist for Exxon. I hope they pay you well--thirty pieces of silver perhaps?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

42 million per year does not have a noticeable impact?

129 million births per year worldwide and 42 million aborted. I look at those two numbers and see a very noticeable impact. What sort of math are you using that suggests that the difference between 129 million and 171 million is not noticeable? Or as I suspect, were you using no math and no data at all and simply making it up as you go?

You post a bunch of numbers but don't bother tell us what they represent. We were discussing the 50 million abortions that had taken place in the US since 1973, I was very clear in dividing them up to show that it was not statistically significant in the population increase of the US--numerically speaking.

What were you trying to say? Only 129 million births per year in the whole world? And 42 million abortions worldwide per year? Sources, Mr. Superior, then maybe we'll discuss it.

I guess it's good that there are "superior" people like you to tell the rest of us how to live our lives or the world would be a real mess, right? Wait, the world IS a real mess and the loudmouth "superiors" haven't made it any better. Maybe you aren't as superior as you seem to think.

 

[Gipper]

You post a bunch of numbers but don't bother tell us what they represent. We were discussing the 50 million abortions that had taken place in the US since 1973, I was very clear in dividing them up to show that it was not statistically significant in the population increase of the US--numerically speaking.

What were you trying to say? Only 129 million births per year in the whole world? And 42 million abortions worldwide per year? Sources, Mr. Superior, then maybe we'll discuss it.

I guess it's good that there are "superior" people like you to tell the rest of us how to live our lives or the world would be a real mess, right? Wait, the world IS a real mess and the loudmouth "superiors" haven't made it any better. Maybe you aren't as superior as you seem to think.

Mare, Mare, Mare...your tone is so malicious and vicious. No need for that.