fm's pick - fruitcake POTD 1-8-04

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Sealeaf

can you people count?

The republicans are in power now, why has abortion not stopped? Instead our republican Christian president and his congressional toadies have exported death to Iraq. A dead Iraqi baby is just as dead as an American aborted baby. And that is the point! Death is the object of the game not just a side line.

There are six billion SIX BILLION Humans on this planet. That is approximately 5 Billion more than it can sustain. That means 5 out of six humans alive today need to die and not be replaced if global civilization is to not collapse. The population took from whenever till the mid nineteenth century to reach one billion. About a hundred years later, in the 1950's it hit 2 billion. Just 40 years later it is at 6 billion. That is not just growth it is exponential growth. The global population is doubling every 33 years.

At the current rate this tired globe will be trying to support 12 billion people in 2035. There is no possible way it can.

Since there is no Global government, every responsible national government is making efforts to slow the population growth curve. In a democracy these efforts have to be covert. No one will vote for "death". But you can legalize abortion. Then at least people who don't want or can't support their children will kill them voluntarily. you can cut back on health care and tell people it is too expensive. People will believe something is too expensive. But reality is that this nation has less hospital beds than it did 30 years ago even though the national population is half again as large. Our population is aging but we are not making provision for medical care for those older people. Instead we have manipulated "free market forces" to make less care available. Do you know the average age of a registered nurse in the US? She is in her mid fourties! Who do you think will care for you when you need medical care?

If you are a rich republican then you will may be able to buy health care. But if you don't happen to be rich, you are in trouble.

Our government, Democrat and Republican has done this to us. Consistently these policies have been followed, regardless of the party in power. And they will continue to be followed because our government is trying to see to it that American civilization and world civilization do not perish. America needs abortion, America needs healthcare to be poor and expensive. America needs dead Iraqi children. Dead American soldiers are a plus. Every soldier killed in Iraq or Afgahanistan is one less parent having kids. What is at stake is civilization. What needs to be avoided is a new, global, dark age. That most of the world will be swept under is almost certain. We are working to see to it that our nation will be one of the places that can maintain order, maybe even the rule of law can be saved. To do that we have to hold our population steady or if possible push it back a little.
We are not alone in this fight. Scandanavia, Switzerland, and Europe are making quiet efforts. China being closer to the edge, is making much more vigorus efforts.
The methods being used are not pretty. Death is not pretty. But death is the friend of civilization. Civilization has aways been a tool humans used to make sure that death was controled. It is a division of labor. Some of us rule and prosper, some of us die. It is the job of those chosen not to die to keep up and pass on civilization so that their children can have a chance not to be the ones that die.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but why should you not know? It will not make any difference. We are behaving as a nation the way we must. If we succeed we will have a civilized nation a hundred years from now. If we fail the waring tribes of savages that roam our land eating each other will have legends about a things called "law", "justice" and "voting".

Found here http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11904&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

:kookoo: :down: :kookoo:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

frugalmom... LOL... great job!!! - what a total knucklehead!

 

[frugalmom]

It's bad enough to buy into the overpopulation myth, but to say something like this:

Originally posted by Sealeaf
But you can legalize abortion. Then at least people who don't want or can't support their children will kill them voluntarily.

America needs abortion, America needs healthcare to be poor and expensive. America needs dead Iraqi children. Dead American soldiers are a plus. Every soldier killed in Iraq or Afgahanistan is one less parent having kids.

is beyond repulsive.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sounds like :troll: material!

 

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Knight

Sounds like :troll: material!

Yep :kookoo: :freak: :down:

 

[Poly]

FM, you certainly picked a doozy! :freak:

 

[frugalmom]

It's ridiculous that some people think like that! :kookoo: AND claim to be a Christian.

 

[frostmanj]

Every soldier killed in Iraq or Afgahanistan is one less parent having kids.

I wonder if he's brave enough to say that to the child who just lost a father?

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by frugalmom

It's ridiculous that some people think like that! :kookoo: AND claim to be a Christian.

:up: Agreed.

 

[Nineveh]

Great fruitcake, frugalmom

"5 out of six humans alive today need to die " I always hear this kind of argument, but those that promote this idea never seem to include themselves in the number that needs eliminated.

 

[Duder]

I agree - Sealief's comments are repulsive and I vehemently oppose his solutions to overpopulation. . . . .

But his comments are well reasoned. Words like "fruitcake" and "knucklehead" do not always apply to those who say things with which you seriously disagree, and to throw these epithets around when they don't apply damages the cridibility of the one casting them.

How about just saying, "Wrong, terrible idea, I disagree, you should change your mind, and here's why . . ."

Sielief - if humanity survives by killing off most of humanity, then humanity does not deserve to survive.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Duder

How about just saying, "Wrong, terrible idea, I disagree, you should change your mind, and here's why . . ."

We all know that is the way Jesus spoke to the Pharisees

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?"

"O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come"

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.' "You fools and blind men; which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold?"

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. "Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."


Are you nicer than God, Duder?

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Duder


How about just saying, "Wrong, terrible idea, I disagree, you should change your mind, and here's why . . ."

Nawwww...that's no fun! :nono:

Besides, some people are obviously incapable of reasonable thought, so there is no point trying to reason with a moronic toad like Sealeaf. Instead, we'll have fun ridiculing and deriding him.

 

[Duder]

Sozo -

I've seen the words you apply to people who would do you the service of challenging your positions - so I suffer no illusion that I could convince you - but something should be said for the benefit of others.

Notice that Jesus did not call the pharisees stupid (fruitcake, knucklehead, etc.). He knew that they were not stupid, so he did not resort to to this easy epithet. He would have been guilty of a lie if He had - so He didn't. Instead, He called them vipers and hypocrites, which is what he really thought about them, based on the evidence of their behaviour and their utterences.

I think you know that Sielief's missive is not stupid. He states a clear thesis and then makes a strong argument to back it up. His writing skill is at least up the university undergraduate level. He is coherent and focused. So he isn't stupid. He is wrong. If you want to apply emotional epithets, perhaps "heartless" or "cruel" would be appropriate. But "knucklehead" demostrates a lack of effort on the part on the one saying it.
_____________

No. I am not nicer than God. Any "niceness" I have comes to me courtesy of the grace of God.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Duder

Sozo -

I've seen the words you apply to people who would do you the service of challenging your positions - so I suffer no illusion that I could convince you - but something should be said for the benefit of others.

Notice that Jesus did not call the pharisees stupid (fruitcake, knucklehead, etc.). He knew that they were not stupid, so he did not resort to to this easy epithet. He would have been guilty of a lie if He had - so He didn't. Instead, He called them vipers and hypocrites, which is what he really thought about them, based on the evidence of their behaviour and their utterences.

I think you know that Sielief's missive is not stupid. He states a clear thesis and then makes a strong argument to back it up. His writing skill is at least up the university undergraduate level. He is coherent and focused. So he isn't stupid. He is wrong. If you want to apply emotional epithets, perhaps "heartless" or "cruel" would be appropriate. But "knucklehead" demostrates a lack of effort on the part on the one saying it.
_____________

No. I am not nicer than God. Any "niceness" I have comes to me courtesy of the grace of God.

Fair enough. I will try and call people exactly what they are, rather than just making generalizations.

 

[Duder]

Well said and well done!!

 

[BillyBob]

Duder;
I think you know that Sielief's missive is not stupid. He states a clear thesis and then makes a strong argument to back it up.

:BillyBob:
Huh????? He does no such thing! Here is a most outrageous, unsupported bit of sophistry by someone who is either a misguided Liberal or a raving lunatic:

Quote [Sealeaf]: "There are six billion SIX BILLION Humans on this planet. That is approximately 5 Billion more than it can sustain".

:BillyBob:
That is an unfounded statement lacking any reasonable evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

Quote [Sealeaf]:
"That means 5 out of six humans alive today need to die and not be replaced if global civilization is to not collapse."

:BillyBob:
Uh....sure....sounds perfectly reasonable...:kookoo:

Quote [Sealeaf]:
At the current rate this tired globe will be trying to support 12 billion people in 2035. There is no possible way it can. "

:BillyBob:
Oh, well I'm convinced!

Duder, are you sure you want to maintain that this imbecile "states a clear thesis and then makes a strong argument to back it up"?

 

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Duder

I agree - Sealief's comments are repulsive and I vehemently oppose his solutions to overpopulation. . . . .

But his comments are well reasoned. Words like "fruitcake" and "knucklehead" do not always apply to those who say things with which you seriously disagree, and to throw these epithets around when they don't apply damages the cridibility of the one casting them.

How about just saying, "Wrong, terrible idea, I disagree, you should change your mind, and here's why . . ."

Duder - I stand by my post. If any post ever achieved "fruitcake" status, it was Sealeaf's. It's OK to call a spade a spade. (funny how you read Sealeaf's post and then said my credibility was damaged)

BTW your first two sentences contradict each other - unless your point is that repulsive comments are well reasoned.

 

[frugalmom]

Originally posted by Duder
His writing skill is at least up the university undergraduate level.

When I read this I scrolled back up to the fruitcake post and began counting writing errors. I stopped counting his errors at number 12, and I wasn't even halfway through his post! (the fruitcake post) I guess he skipped remedial English.

 

[Duder]

Frugalmom -

BTW your first two sentences contradict each other - unless your point is that repulsive comments are well reasoned.

I did not say that "repulsive comments are well reasoned". I said that this particular argument was both repulsive and well-reasoned.

"Repulsive" and "well-reasoned" are not mutually exclusive terms. An argument can be well reasoned and yet reach repulsive conclusions, in the same way that an argument can be poorly reasoned but reach attractive conclusions.

For example, I love to read the work of philosopher Bertrand Russel. I like his literary style and his tight logical arguments. Yet at the end of the day, I very strongly disagree with his materialist, reductionist and atheist conclusions.

A good habit to lose when you get into these rhetorical arguments is a blindness to your opponents strengths. To put it another way - a good habit to develop is to look for his strengths and give him credit for them. In this way, the people you hope to convince can see that you are a very reasonable and objective person who deserves their attention.