Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Population Control - can it ever work?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Originally posted by budski
But who would get the licenses?

Can anyone apply? or just the rich folks?


I think that the licenses should be at least a little cost prohibitive. You would also have to set up designated hunting areas and seasons. We couldn't have a year round season cause that would just be chaotic. Have different seasons for the hunt. One would be primitive weapons and then you got the rifles. black powder season etc. That way it would be more fair.

Hey this would create a new survival of the fittest, and make mankind just that much better. I mean people have gotten way to complacent, there is no skill at survival anymore. Nothing hunts us down. There is no natural predator of man. So we are forced to control our own population. There is no way your going to stop people from pro creating so the only other logical solution would be to cull the herd

Set up specific rules and regulate it and televise it. I guarantee it would be a hit show that would make American Idol look like crap.



So setting up designated area's as hunting preserves could also be marketed as "Hunting Holidays" like it


Yes, by all means make them cost prohibitive, but what about some kind of lottery so the poor folks could join in!

And for the hard-core hunters, bows only at certain times of year - perhaps the old Indian tradition of "counting coup" could be revived, but in a deadlier way.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
And don't call me stupid, by implication or inferrence.

What?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
It's satire, budski.

No one is that stupid.


You posted this?

Is that not calling me stupid by inference or implication?

The implication being that I was too stupid to understand the satirical nautre of the post I had previously replied to.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
No, not at all. It wasn't accusing you of anything, or implying, or whatever else.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Why not offer breeders incentive to have few if any children... instead of subsidizing people for having more kids than they can afford.

zero kids = big tax break
1-2 kids = "normal" tax break (population replacement)
3+ kids = NO tax break. And you pay a "child tax" on top of it for each child after you have 2.

(here's where my idea gets touchy though):
Poverty level/Federally assisted parents having more than 4 children while knowingly being unable to provide for them or pay the "additional child tax" are steralized in addition to being fined. It's not like they never got to have kids...

..just shooting from the hip here.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
No, not at all. It wasn't accusing you of anything, or implying, or whatever else.


Then perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, because that's how it read.

I accept that you meant nothing by it though.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
JohnMike: Just browsed the thread.

I didn't gain the remotest impression that you were attempting to 'patronise' or insult anyone's intelligence.

What I gained from your comments was that you were attempting to pour oil upon potentially troubled waters. In other words, it seemed to me that you were attempting to be helpful.

Then, you showed once again that you're a reasonable and peaceable person, via your immediate (although unnecessary, imo) apology to that individual who seemed determined to find 'offence' in your prior, INoffensive, brief post.

Hope you won't judge all ATS members by this experience and hope to find your pleasant presence in many other threads in the future



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6

What I gained from your comments was that you were attempting to pour oil upon potentially troubled waters. In other words, it seemed to me that you were attempting to be helpful.



Oil on troubled waters?

Sorry, but the conversation was exactly the opposite. It was a joke between two members who understand satire and irony.

And



It's satire, budski.
No one is that stupid.


Patronising and insulting sounding - even if not meant that way.

Sounds to me like you two know each other and are trying a set-up.

You're barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Know each other?

No. We don't know each other.

Why would it be necessary for one poster to 'know' another, in order for that poster to offer sympathy and encouragement to a new poster who, in the first poster's opinon, has been less than fairly dealt with by another ?

In a real world, people actually do spontaneously offer assistance and encouragement to others.

I do it all the time. In buses, on trains, in the street, etc.

And people do the same for me.

ATS is merely a reflection of real people who inhabit a real world.

In my opinion (and that of many others, I'm sure) Johnmike was behaving the way normal people do in a real world.

And in offering him a word of support, I am also behaving normally.

The real world's an interesting place, Budski.

As evidence, I invite you to walk into your local pub. Walk up to the biggest, meanest looking guy in the place. Wait until he says something -- something innocuous, something inoffensive (like Johnmike).

Then --- just as you were so anxious to do in this thread --- why don't you mouth off and accuse him of 'patronizing' you ? Go on. Put your backside where your mouth is.

Then, afterwards, when you're dusting yourself off in the gutter and trying to stick your jaw back in place --- ask yourself if you might have handled the situation differently ? And ask yourself if you'd handle it differently if the same situation arose again ?

No ?

You're not game to try that ?

Why not?

Oh --- because the big guy in the pub could hurt you in 'real life' --- is that what you just said?

Right. Then please don't pull that nonsense on unassuming, pleasant new (or old) members on ATS, just-because you think you can get away with it.

And *IF* you do for whatever reason (incipient paranoia or just plain bad mood) then deal with the results, as per above. Ok?

Great. That's terrific. Now we can all have a nice day, if that's ok with you.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
So you like patronising as well - thats nice.

I'm so glad that you're morally superior to the rest of us poor, imperfect humans.

I recognise someone patronising when they do it.

If you percieve my defence of myself as an attack on someone else, thats very nice for you.

BTW, how do you know I'm not the big guy in the pub?

I will conduct a rational non judgemental conversation with anyone who wants one.

If you want to set yourself up as some kind of lone ranger, riding to the rescue, or some kind of saint, thats your prerogative

But you should remember, that a persons perception is their reality, and to me his statement was patronising, arrogant and insulting.

Don't like it? up to you, but I retain the right to defend myself against perceived insults, both here and in the real world of which I have a lot of experience.

[edit on 28/6/2007 by budski]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I know you're not the 'big guy in the pub' because of how you behave and react.

Big guys in pubs don't derail their own threads in a virtual world/ATS --- in order to slam into a new poster for no reason other than they want to throw their weight around and play big-shot at someone else's expense.


Another example? let's replace the 'big guy in the pub' with one of the moderators, or an ATS poster with several thousand points to their name. You don't leap on them and falsely accuse them of 'patronising' you --- DO you ?

And as further evidence that you are NOT a 'big guy' of any description is your (1) *first* choosing to bully some poor new member --- followed by (2) *whining* and playing victim (and accusing people of colluding) when your game falls flat.

Anyway, I'm sure get the picture now, so that's it and I hope you can get your thread back up -- the thread you derailed because you couldn't resist having a shot at someone you believed was less 'powerful' than you, based on the mere fact they have been member of ATS only a brief time.

Finitio



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
I know you're not the 'big guy in the pub' because of how you behave and react.

Big guys in pubs don't derail their own threads in a virtual world/ATS --- in order to slam into a new poster for no reason other than they want to throw their weight around and play big-shot at someone else's expense.


Another example? let's replace the 'big guy in the pub' with one of the moderators, or an ATS poster with several thousand points to their name. You don't leap on them and falsely accuse them of 'patronising' you --- DO you ?

And as further evidence that you are NOT a 'big guy' of any description is your (1) *first* choosing to bully some poor new member --- followed by (2) *whining* and playing victim (and accusing people of colluding) when your game falls flat.

Anyway, I'm sure get the picture now, so that's it and I hope you can get your thread back up -- the thread you derailed because you couldn't resist having a shot at someone you believed was less 'powerful' than you, based on the mere fact they have been member of ATS only a brief time.

Finitio



Hey if thats what you believe, I'm glad I don't live in your world.

I'll take a shot at anyone who is patronising me, and that includes anyone you care to mention.

In the real world you seem so insistent on referring to, I have been a student of various martial arts, mostly muy thai, for over 25 years and am more than capable of defending myself.

I believe it is you who is the bully, trying to make it into something it's not - I've never said anything to someone new, just for being new - and for the record, sanctimonious, self righteous hypocrites rarely last long in the real world - is that why you attack people on here?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Christ, budski. Give it a rest.

You don't need to prove your ego here. Keep it mature, we'll all have fun.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Christ, budski. Give it a rest.

You don't need to prove your ego here. Keep it mature, we'll all have fun.


Well I had already said to you that if I'd taken what you said the wrong way then apologies, and this guy comes wading in, thinking he's some kind of knight in shining armour.

Sorry, but I'm not taking that crap from anyone.

It's not about ego, it's about defending myself against an unfair accusation from someone who wasn't even part of the discussion, and obviously had no idea what was going on.

However I would like to get back on topic and discuss, whether that be through humour or serious points.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join