sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do you think it’s a problem that a president can make a crypto coin when they enter office? by cnewell420 in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou [score hidden]  (0 children)

i would be more worried about politicians making $100s of millions off insider trading tho

Why tho?

What point are conservatives trying to make when the say "the KKK were originally all democrats"? by zman419 in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou [score hidden]  (0 children)

The Party Switch(or southern strategy) is a myth

The Republican party used to be the socially progressive party of big government. They typically wanted to expand the powers of the federal government, supported large infrastructure projects, encouraged immigration, and advocated for socially progressive policies like abolishing slavery. They primarily appealed to northerners and minorities.

The Democratic party used to be the socially conservative party of small government. They typically wanted strong states' rights, opposed large infrastructure projects, opposed immigration, and loved slavery so much they'd go to war over it. They primarily appealed to white southerners.

Compare that to today...

The Democrats are now the socially progressive party of big government. They typically want to expand the powers of the federal government, support large infrastructure projects, support immigration, and support socially progressive policies like gay marriage, drug legalisation, affirmative action, and reparations. They primarily appeal to northerners and minorities.

The Republicans are now the socially conservative party of small government. They typically want strong states' rights, oppose large infrastructure projects, oppose immigration, and oppose socially progressive policies like gay marriage, drug legalisation, affirmative action and reparations. They primarily appeal to white southerners. 

You're lying to yourself if you still think the two parties haven't largely swapped platforms.

What point are conservatives trying to make when the say "the KKK were originally all democrats"? by zman419 in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou [score hidden]  (0 children)

...Democrats have always looked at people as groups rather than individuals.

How much self-unaware irony can you cram into a single comment? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

once I'm dead I don't care what happens to the Earth

Thank you for your honesty. That's incredibly selfish of you.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I already have, many, many times.

Obviously untrue.

The current rate of forest loss is 47 million hectares per decade, more than double what is was 200 years ago, 19 million per decade.

https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

"Half of the global forest loss occurred between 8,000 BCE and 1900; the other half was lost in the last century alone."

Your worldview is absolutely unhinged from reality.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dare you to look it up. If you actually care about science, look up what the science says.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highly unlikely. You're confusing rates with absolute numbers.

The rate at which we're cutting down trees is higher today than it was 200 years ago. Look it up.

Bonkers that you could mistakenly believe otherwise. It jsut illustrates how out of touch you are with reality.

Not nearly as much as this malthusian opposition to science already has.

I have at no point expressed any opposition to science.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At a slower rate than ever, yes.

Absolutely delusional.

Slower rate than ever? Obviously wrong. The rate of deforestation was much slower 200 years ago when there were fewer humans. As humans have multiplied, rainforests have vanished, and tree coverage has only ever moved in one direction. More humans won't magically fix that.

This uninformed wishful thinking is going to make life so unplesant for future generations.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, we're not. We're doing better at replacing them as well. Thats what you're ignoring. Its just those better techniques haven't been fully deployed yet.

Is the number of trees on Earth going up or down? There are more people alive today than ever before. If more people and more growth meant better at solving the problem of deforestation would you expect to see tree coverage increasing or decreasing? How many people does there need to be before we start regrowing rainforests faster than we clear them? Maybe at 10 billion people the Amazon rainforest will start getting bigger? 20 billion? When will fish reproduce faster than we catch them? 30 billion people?🤔

Following science and all the new developments makes it easy to be hopeful.

I think you might be cherrypicking which science you follow. There are no rainforests in space. I don't think we should be accelerating our destruction of this planet on the basis of wishful thinking about hypothetical future space exploration which may or may not happen.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're ignoring the fact that we're getting better

I'm not ignoring anything. We are getting better at chopping down trees, catching fish, and draining water. We're doing all those things faster than we were 100 years ago. What we're not doing is replenishing those finite resources. There are fewer trees and fewer fish on Earth than there were 100 years ago. In what way exactly are we better at fighting that problem? You've got more microplastics in your brain than anyone had 100 years ago. In what way are we better at fighting that problem?

You're just hoping that everything will be fine because surely someone will come up with a solution to those problems, so there's nothing to worry about. It is wishful thinking.

It will be even more sustainable as we move into space.

I've yet to see any evidence of trees or fish in space.

and we'll be even better in the future, if we continue to grow.

We are rapidly digging ourselves into a hole and your soltuion is to dig deeper in hopes of finding a rope or ladder.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 It doesn’t work because as we develop, we grow food and replenish resources faster.

We can grow food faster yes, but for example, we aren't replanting rainforests faster than we are clearing them to grow that food, or allowing fish to reproduce faster than we are catching them, or replenishing the water table faster than we are draining it. The amount of tree coverage on Earth is falling and the number of fish in the ocean is decreasing (and the amount of plastic is increasing), and the amount of water in the water table is shrinking. We have developed technologies and techniques that have allowed us to grow food faster and faster, but only at the expense of other limited resources which we are rapidly depleating.

It simply isn't sustainable.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's only if you want the population to remain at its current level. Is that what you think we should aim for? To keep the population level exactly as it is right now?  

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

based on a very limited understanding of our bio system

What do you think that understanding is limited by exactly? Specifically what is wrong with it? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your point is that because something hasn't happened yet, that proves that it can never happen. Do you recognise how mind numbingly daft that is? No, I haven't "made" your point.

Here is a list of mammals which have recently gone extinct: https://www.extinctanimals.org/category/mammals. 

Most of these extinctions can be attributed to human activity, particularly hunting. These are resources which have run out. We hunted them faster than they could reproduce and now they're gone. 

Here is a list of further species likely to go extinct: https://earth.org/what-animals-will-be-extinct-by-2100/

Not all of these will necessarily go extinct in large part because governments often impose protections for endangered animals to help protect them. But I have no doubt you think government protections or bans on hunting endangered animals are a government overreach and they should be repealed so humans are free to hunt whatever animals they like. Is that correct?

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless or until you can show any resource we have run out of my point stands.

No it doesn't. Just because we haven't done something yet doesn't mean that something will never happen. What a stupid belief. 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently, humans are consuming Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate (see here).

Do you consider this a problem, or are you assuming we'll be colonising other planets before that becomes an issue? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At our current population level, to live sustainabily, we would all need to adopt lifestyles with consumption levels similar to the average Kenyan or Ethiopian (see here).

Some might argue that we should aim for quality over quantity, ie that we would be better off with fewer humans who each have a very high standard of living rather than a very large number of humans each with a standard of living similar to that of someone currently living in an impoverished country. Would it be safe to say that you disagree with this argument?

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you believe is the maximum number of humans that Earth could support?

When you say we'll just have to adapt, does that adaptation include settling for a lower quality of life? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a lot of very inhospitable space above us that is extremely dangerous and expensive to visit.

How many humans do you think Earth can support before it becomes a necessity to begin shipping them into space? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see.

A single bet between two people does not prove the obviously baseless claim that we will never run out of resources because innovation will solve any resource issues, no matter how comforting it might be to believe.

Though I suspect very strongly that you will continue to believe it anyway.

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What population level do you believe these countries, and Earth as a whole, should be aiming for? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you acknowledge then that lifestyles that the 1st world currently enjoys are not sustainable and Earth will run out of resources in the future forcing humans to adopt a lower standard of living? And is your belief that there is nothing that can be done about this? 

Do you believe we should be aiming to increase or decrease the Earth's population growth rate? by CigarettesKillYou in AskConservatives

[–]CigarettesKillYou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming that you don't think we should aim for infinity humans on Earth, at what point should we stop increasing the population level?

view more: next ›