ABORTION.......

Bartikus wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

And your point is what exactly:
a) That there is no such thing as a very serious overpopulation problem today?

No,there isnt.
If you gave everyone on earth 6 square feet to stand in,the entire population of earth would fit into the Dallas city limits.

There is no worldwide overpopulation problem right now.

Is there enough food mysteryman?

YES,
But distribution is the problem.
The San Joaquin valley in central Ca grows enough produce every year to feed the majority of the world.
The problem is in getting it to the people in the third world that need it.

There you go Bartikus, that was not so bad was it?

I'll get back to you with my assessments of your scenario and we can discuss it's implications. After that I will consider any other scenario or questions you may have.

I will not however put up with my posts being ignored or my questions not properly addressed, naughty Bartikus!

Chumly wrote:

Mysteryman believes that food is the answer to overpopulation.

That's a new high in lowdown-ness!

Mysteryman never said he believed food was the answer to overpopulation.

Did he?

MM claims there is no overpopulation problem I disagree and argue there is.
MM claims there is enough food to feed everyone and the problem of starvation is simply a lack of distribution, I disagree and argue that improved food distribution will only exacerbate the overpopulation problem.
Therefore based on my perspective that there is an overpopulation problem MM is imputing that food will solve it.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Did we every find out who Larry is?

So, you haven't found out yet?

Uh, no. You haven't told us.

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Mysteryman believes that food is the answer to overpopulation.

That's a new high in lowdown-ness!

Mysteryman never said he believed food was the answer to overpopulation.

Did he?

NO,I did not.
You asked if there was an overpopulation problem,and I said no.

You then asked if there was enough food,and I said yes.
You asked 2 different questions,and I gave my answer to each question.

You DID NOT ASK if I thought that food was the answer to overpopulation.
If you had, I would have said no,it wasnt.

How can you hold a decent coonversation when you refuse to see what the answer to your question is?

If you choose to put words in other peoples mouths,if you choose to ignore answers to your questions when you dont like the answers,then dont be surprised when people choose to ignore you.

Intrepid wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Did we every find out who Larry is?

So, you haven't found out yet?

Uh, no. You haven't told us.

Does he have brothers named Darrell?

I can


FEEL




the love on this thread!!!!!

Is Momma going to have to start making everyone go to their rooms again? Can't you boys learn to play nice?

We'll have to ask Jason, but he suddenly has gone mute.

Is Momma going to have to start making everyone go to their rooms again? Can't you boys learn to play nice?

The same should not be tolerated from you either.

Since I gave the information you asked and did finally address your questions...of course you would be happy to answer my question as to whether the unborn can ever be murdered and under what criteria.

If it's easier you can answer said question with your assessments.

Should you not first substantiate your claim that the world is overpopulated and try to stay away from circular reasoning in order to do so?

Bartikus wrote:

The same should not be tolerated from you either.

In what way have I been inattentive to your original premises? You have still completely ignored my initial responses to your claims prior to your initial scenario to me! As to your initial scenario, of which I have tried to answer, you kept obfuscating, and trying to change the subject, and until now you have not even been given the info I have asked for!

Bartikus wrote:

Since I gave the information you asked and did finally address your questions...of course you would be happy to answer my question as to whether the unborn can ever be murdered and under what criteria.

Complete drivel, I am pleased because at least for that moment in time you dropped the pretenses, obfuscations, and topic changes and replied directly.

Bartikus wrote:

If it's easier you can answer said question with your assessments.

Complete drivel, you provided the scenario and all the details not me.

Don't go playing holier than thou with me, you made as series of mistakes centered around pretenses, obfuscations, and topic changes and you don't want to own up to them, and now you are trying to cover them up by accusing me of the same.

I see you are going back to you earlier ways too bad. Do you seriously expect me to try and have an intelligent dialogue when you act this way?

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Mysteryman believes that food is the answer to overpopulation.

That's a new high in lowdown-ness!

Mysteryman never said he believed food was the answer to overpopulation.

Did he?

NO,I did not.
You asked if there was an overpopulation problem,and I said no.

You then asked if there was enough food,and I said yes.
You asked 2 different questions,and I gave my answer to each question.

You DID NOT ASK if I thought that food was the answer to overpopulation.
If you had, I would have said no,it wasnt.

How can you hold a decent coonversation when you refuse to see what the answer to your question is?

If you choose to put words in other peoples mouths,if you choose to ignore answers to your questions when you dont like the answers,then dont be surprised when people choose to ignore you.