View Single Post
      10-05-2012, 02:20 PM   #43
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
21
Rep
326
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolinp78 View Post
In b4 someone comes in and claims what you are saying is wrong and inapplicable because you are a horrible person for comparing people to wild animals.
Full points to you sir !

Yes, it's horrible to say. There is no useful lesson or correlation at all one could possibly extrude from ANY of that.

I'm sure if you tried, you could find no data at all that even remotely suggests that people who rely on entitlements are more likely to have children who then also rely on entitlements, and they have more children, and so on, as the cycle continues and is really hard to break out of. As they have more children, the group of affected people get larger and larger.

Of course, there's no data at all to suggest that those who do contribute most are choosing to have less children than ever before, wheras the birth rate for the other group isnt really going down at all. Hell, that would just make matters worse, so the ratio of contributors to consumers of "society's well" would become more lopsided in an exponential way, thus accelerating the rate at which the well will become empty, to the disadvantage of everyone.

The harsh way animals are left to fend for themselves cannot be applied to people. I mean, it's not as if there are any sort of animal rescue or rehabilitation organizations which take wild creatures out of their natural habitat and care for them when they are physically injured and genuinely unable to feed themselves, thus leaving only the healthy wild animals to stand on their own 2 feet in a cruel darwinian way.

Yes, the biologists are a mean and crazy lot..... thank God none of that is applied to people, that would only bring misery to the world.