overpopulation? What is the answer?

[david dissadent]

You ignored this DD. Why?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6605900&postcount=26

it was a reply to one of your posts on that thread. It seems to me that you want all discussion to conform to your terms.

I'm sure you can take the arrogance philosophically. But if you want Ill resart the debate with you.

 

[gorski]

The ad hominems are a tad tedious but do carry on if it entertains yourself.

So, why do you do it yourself. Indeed, you started it [in my case], in your arrogance. Now you're starting to ask for peace... Hmmm...

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm sure you can take the arrogance philosophically. But if you want Ill resart the debate with you.

Wtf are you talking about? You ignored my reply on that thread, did you not? I think you'll find that the two threads have concurrent themes.

Oh and what is there to "debate" when you've decided to limit the parameters for discussion?

 

[david dissadent]

So, why do you do it yourself. Indeed, you started it [in my case], in your arrogance. Now you're starting to ask for peace... Hmmm...

so far you have not offered a single opinion on topic.

 

[david dissadent]

Oh and what is there to "debate" when you've decided to limit the parameters for discussion?

God you sound so hard done by.

 

[nino_savatte]

God you sound so hard done by.

And you still sound like an arrogant fool. Touché!

Oh, you have limited the terms of discussion. This is known as "controlling discourse". People do it for fear that a hidden discourse may be revealed or because they are pursuing a particular agenda. In your case, you appear to defend the current form of capitalism from its many critics.

 

[gorski]

so far you have not offered a single opinion on topic.

So, why did you attack me as if I did?

What gives you the right to jump to far reaching conclusions before you do know what I think on the topic?

Why do you allow yourself to shoot first and ask no questions whatsoever?

You're a miserable sod...

 

[david dissadent]

Oh, you have limited the terms of discussion. This is known as "controlling discourse". People do it for fear that a hidden discourse may be revealed or because they are pursuing a particular agenda. In your case, you appear to defend the current form of capitalism from its many critics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[nino_savatte]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Nice try but I'm not projecting and it is obvious that you don't understand what "projection" actually is. This is nothing less than an attempt to sidetrack and to try and blame the other person for your discursive limitations.

 

[david dissadent]

Nice try but I'm not projecting and it is obvious that you don't understand what "projection" actually is. This is nothing less than an attempt to sidetrack and to try and blame the other person for your discursive limitations.

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"[1][2]

You have your own 'discursive limitations'.

 

[nino_savatte]

You have your own 'discursive limitations'.

This only serves to prove to the rest of the world just how thick you are. Well done!

 

[david dissadent]

This only serves to prove to the rest of the world just how thick you are. Well done!

Gutted. Or something.

 

[nino_savatte]

Gutted. Or something.

This wasn't entirely unexpected: another piss poor attempt at a comeback.

 

[Kizmet]

 

[ViolentPanda]

Treatment is availible. Financing it is not.

Exactly, which is why I'd like to see something new, something affordable by anyone, found, rather than the pumping of funds into "big pharma".

For whom?

For the poor. I'd have thought that was so obvious from the context that it didn't need saying.

Those with large economies will continue to be able to afford fertilisers, oils, machinary and labour to produce food long after those who cant have died off. The people at risk of dying first are the ones who have the least room to change.

It is unlikely that Europe or North America will experiance widespread malnutrition in the next 50 years yet countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh may face it this year.

Perhaps "change or poor people will die" would more accuaretely reflect the problem.

Pedant.