DaveDodo007 wrote:Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Tyrannical wrote:No one ever seems to consider the negatives of granting equality to women, such as when women are given a choice the birthrate falls dangerously close to non replacement levels.
It's almost like granting them equality leads to the destruction of societies that do.
Oh really?
So you would consider a society that barely replaced its population to be destructive but not one that over-populated itself into starvation and poverty? Interesting? Or, as I prefer to call it, more of the same ill-thought-through garbage from our resident say-all-know-nothing.
Tyrannical does have a point even if it is not PC. Over population is not a cause of poverty just their corrupt governments, you can't deny woman's rights just because it may have a negative impact on society as everybody deserves equal rights but why can't you point out that you think it has had a negative impact on society?
If you go out of your way to quack and waddle like a duck, you shouldn't be too offended if someone calls you a duck.
By definition, "overpopulation" causes problems. It means there are too many people for the situation. It might mean too many people for the available resources, or it could also mean that the government, culture, and/or infrastructure cannot deal with the reproductive rate.
And you can't really expect a great reaction from saying "Things would be better if you didn't have reproductive rights" any more than I could expect a good reaction from you if I said "Things would be better if apostates like you were taken out and shot" and I was doing so in a nation where your apostate status was well known and there were a frightening number of elected hardcore religious assholes in the government working hard to pass legislation to have people like you taken out and shot.
You might very well respond warmly to that argument and initiate a friendly debate on the merits of it, but I'd have no reasonable basis to expect a friendly reaction from apostates in general.
Further, you cannot, even in principle, prove high reproductive rates do not cause poverty anywhere and that the sole cause of poverty in "overpopulated" areas is corruption. You might argue that there is no good evidence that they do cause poverty and you also can try to make the case that known levels government corruption are sufficient to to explain all of that poverty.
But then you also have to make the case that "dangerously close to non-replacement levels" is actually a bad thing. That is, what great danger is there in a slight decline in population, (one that is dangerously close to exceeding replacement levels for example) especially in resource hungry industrialised urban areas? That's a hard case to make I think.
After you do all that you still haven't established that, if needed, enough women couldn't be persuaded to have more children by an appeal to the greater good or through incentives to bear whatever increased levels of children are necessary to carry on civilisation.
It seems to me that there are a lot of hoops to jump through before you can talk about whether or not women's reproductive freedom is a bad thing without quacking and waddling suspiciously like the kind of duck that is just resentful about women having the right to limit the number of children they bear.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
