XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
      
   On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:40:36 -0200, dh@. pointed out:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:05:52 -0200, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:41:20 -0200, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Declining population means   
   >>>>>>>declining productivity, because the distribution of population changes:   
   >>>>>>>  you have too many old people and not enough young working people.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>But you're an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you can't possibly   
   >>>>>>>understand that kind of issue.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    If you're right, Goo, I can see how it would have a bad impact.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I am right.  You are an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you do not   
   >>>>>understand that kind of issue.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It's an easy enough concept Goober. You don't know if it's   
   >>>>correct or if there's more to it though Goob...you can't think in   
   >>>>depth about anything, and surely there are arguments the other   
   >>>>way that you're not aware of.   
   >>>   
   >>>You   
   >>   
   >>    You're not aware of other possibilities, Goo.   
   >   
   >I am aware   
      
       Then try explaining what they are Goober. Go:   
      
   (prediction: Goo has no clue, and therefore can't back up   
   his claim)   
      
   >>>>>>I'm sure there's a lot more to it than just that though.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Thirty years ago people were worried that there were   
   >>>>>>>>already too many people on the planet. Now I'm guessing there   
   >>>>>>>>are more, and you're suggesting we're in danger of there becoming   
   >>>>>>>>too few?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>The UN is concerned enough about this that they've pegged   
   >>>>>>>>>2050 as roughly the year in which the tipping point occurs.  Remember   
   >>>>>>>>>-- it only takes a few generations (all other things being equal) of   
   >>>>>>>>>low birth rates for this to happen.  As a rule, demographers agree   
   >>>>>>>>>this would NOT be a good thing for anybody.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    It would have to be good for some people.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>No, it would not "have" to be good for anyone.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    If not then it would almost certainly be a first, Goob, so it's   
   >>>>>>almost certain you're badly mistaken about that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>It would not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It would be good for some people Goober but as I pointed out   
   >>>>you can't think in depth enough to get a clue when it would be,   
   >>>>meaning you even suck at the basics of economics.   
   >>>   
   >>>It would not.   
   >>   
   >>    You're only demonstrating your complete ignorance about   
   >>economics, Goober.   
   >   
   >It would not be good for any people.   
      
       You demonstrated your ignorance about economics again, Goo.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)