How the wealthy constantly screw the poor

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I understand but sometime logic is crazy.

example: If we had more wars we would have a better handle of population control which would help the planet in the long run.
CRaZy
Click to expand...
That would be a readily apparent conclusion and I would never call it a a logical fallacy without investigation. However, it actually does not bear out. If you take the period in history that saw the greatest population booms and graph it, you would have a hockey stick.

At first glance, it is the industrial revolution that correlates. It you make a similar graph regarding large wars, it almost correlates as well. Since you worded the argument as population control, let's add famine and genocide to the second graph and what you should find is that it also correlates with the industrial revolution. Now, there could be an extremely interesting and nuanced argument to explain why these all appear to have some correlation but I will stick to your argument because I find it curious and fascinating. I have often pondered it.

If you take specific examples and actually examine them, look at population before a war in a specific place and generally quantify the scope of the violence and deaths as well as the population growth in the aftermath. You should clearly see that war causes population growth.

It is an oddity but it is true. Eg, Cambodia has over 30mil people. Iraq is an excellent example as well.

Look at nations dealing with population decline and you find high living standards, Eg Denmark and Japan.

I believe that it is biological. It is stress response.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That would be a readily apparent conclusion and I would never call it a a logical fallacy without investigation. However, it actually does not bear out. If you take the period in history that saw the greatest population booms and graph it, you would have a hockey stick.

At first glance, it is the industrial revolution that correlates. It you make a similar graph regarding large wars, it almost correlates as well. Since you worded the argument as population control, let's add famine and genocide to the second graph and what you should find is that it also correlates with the industrial revolution. Now, there could be an extremely interesting and nuanced argument to explain why these all appear to have some correlation but I will stick to your argument because I find it curious and fascinating. I have often pondered it.

If you take specific examples and actually examine them, look at population before a war in a specific place and generally quantify the scope of the violence and deaths as well as the population growth in the aftermath. You should clearly see that war causes population growth.

It is an oddity but it is true. Eg, Cambodia has over 30mil people. Iraq is an excellent example as well.

Look at nations dealing with population decline and you find high living standards, Eg Denmark and Japan.

I believe that it is biological. It is stress response.
Click to expand...
It's also the result of a very logical and fully conscious calculation by people in undeveloped, stressful and unstable conditions; they want to have lots of children so that A. Some will survive to adulthood and B. There will be enough kids to take care of them in their old age.

Since stable developed nations don't have these conditions, population growth isn't nearly as much of an issue.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
instead of "dishonored one", a better nickname for me would be "the one who exposed twopump as a neo-nazi retard".
Click to expand...
"liar" has already been covered. "dishonored one" is under the umbrella of liar specific to your bet.

why haven't you poor shamed me today, feeling ok?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
That would be a readily apparent conclusion and I would never call it a a logical fallacy without investigation. However, it actually does not bear out. If you take the period in history that saw the greatest population booms and graph it, you would have a hockey stick.

At first glance, it is the industrial revolution that correlates. It you make a similar graph regarding large wars, it almost correlates as well. Since you worded the argument as population control, let's add famine and genocide to the second graph and what you should find is that it also correlates with the industrial revolution. Now, there could be an extremely interesting and nuanced argument to explain why these all appear to have some correlation but I will stick to your argument because I find it curious and fascinating. I have often pondered it.

If you take specific examples and actually examine them, look at population before a war in a specific place and generally quantify the scope of the violence and deaths as well as the population growth in the aftermath. You should clearly see that war causes population growth.

It is an oddity but it is true. Eg, Cambodia has over 30mil people. Iraq is an excellent example as well.

Look at nations dealing with population decline and you find high living standards, Eg Denmark and Japan.

I believe that it is biological. It is stress response.
Click to expand...
Just checked the numbers of death in wars compared to births after and during period. Your argument holds a lot of weight
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
tell us what you think about civil rights laws that force you to serve purples, and please do it from the comfort of your trailer.
Click to expand...
When will our civil rights be respected by those in government, from Senators on down to beat cops? THAT'S a question worth asking.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
We should have switch to metrics long ago
Click to expand...
I remember being in grade school and learning the metric system because we were supposed to change over to it along with Britain and Australia in 1975-76, but we eventually scraped the plan for whatever reason.

I had always thought our changing to it was inevitable. I mean, it took Britain a decade after actually choosing the metric system before they actually changed to it, so I figured we'd be about the same.

By the time I was in Junior High / High School in the late 70's early 80's, the metric system was dropped completely and not even taught anymore.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
I remember being in grade school and learning the metric system because we were supposed to change over to it along with Britain and Australia in 1975-76, but we eventually scraped the plan for whatever reason.

I had always thought our changing to it was inevitable. I mean, it took Britain a decade after actually choosing the metric system before they actually changed to it, so I figured we'd be about the same.

By the time I was in Junior High / High School in the late 70's early 80's, the metric system was dropped completely and not even taught anymore.
Click to expand...
And yet here I am, still using it on the regular.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
I remember being in grade school and learning the metric system because we were supposed to change over to it along with Britain and Australia in 1975-76, but we eventually scraped the plan for whatever reason.

I had always thought our changing to it was inevitable. I mean, it took Britain a decade after actually choosing the metric system before they actually changed to it, so I figured we'd be about the same.

By the time I was in Junior High / High School in the late 70's early 80's, the metric system was dropped completely and not even taught anymore.
Click to expand...
I personally prefer it because it's SI and a base 1 numeric system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top