Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

1234579

Posts

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Propagating to the tune of each generation being 6 times larger than the last goes a little beyond continued existence of the species.

    But it's very effective at increasing your ancestry's allele frequency.
    Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.

    This is why I consider it selfish. Partially, at least. It's just that much worse when combined with everything else.

    Spoiler:
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Propagating to the tune of each generation being 6 times larger than the last goes a little beyond continued existence of the species.

    But it's very effective at increasing your ancestry's allele frequency.
    Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.

    This is why I consider it selfish. Partially, at least. It's just that much worse when combined with everything else.

    Well, of course it is. In fact, survival in general is selfish. Selfishness, though, isn't always immoral. Certain levels of it is.

    steam_sig.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Propagating to the tune of each generation being 6 times larger than the last goes a little beyond continued existence of the species.

    But it's very effective at increasing your ancestry's allele frequency.
    Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.

    This is why I consider it selfish. Partially, at least. It's just that much worse when combined with everything else.

    Well, of course it is. In fact, survival in general is selfish. Selfishness, though, isn't always immoral. Certain levels of it is.
    The point generally is we're knowledgeable enough now to know that we shouldn't be trying to perpetuate ourselves at all costs if we at any level believe in an equitable and sustainable world, going more so if you live in the first world (but oh hey, that self-regulates pretty well it turns out which is pretty damn awesome).

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Propagating to the tune of each generation being 6 times larger than the last goes a little beyond continued existence of the species.

    But it's very effective at increasing your ancestry's allele frequency.
    Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.

    This is why I consider it selfish. Partially, at least. It's just that much worse when combined with everything else.

    Well, of course it is. In fact, survival in general is selfish. Selfishness, though, isn't always immoral. Certain levels of it is.
    The point generally is we're knowledgeable enough now to know that we shouldn't be trying to perpetuate ourselves at all costs if we at any level believe in an equitable and sustainable world, going more so if you live in the first world (but oh hey, that self-regulates pretty well it turns out which is pretty damn awesome).

    Agreed. I'm just saying that we should perpetuate ourselves, and ultimately it is a moral goal for human beings to pursue. The "at all costs" or "like bunny rabbits" is the problematic part of this equation.

    steam_sig.png
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I'm crossing my fingers that they have at least one lesbian daughter who has heard of financial aid.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    It's pretty clear that what they're doing is moral, though. I mean, if God had a problem with it, he'd just make mom infertile, right?

    QED.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It's pretty clear that what they're doing is moral, though. I mean, if God had a problem with it, he'd just make mom infertile, right?

    QED.

    fuck you're right.
    I always forget about that silly absolute morality directly controlled by a supreme being.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    I'm late here, but they're not sending their daughters to college? Just the boys? That's disgusting.

    What have you got against traditional male/female roles?!

    Since Ryu is still doing his deliberately-dense act, here's a restatement: It is irresponsible and selfish to treat the children you bring forth primarily as points you've scored on the heaven/hell tally. They're people, not trophies. If you're going to have a kid, the only legitimate reasons are that you want to and can care for it. For its own sake. Treating people as objects is evil.

    Maybe I should pull a Cat and quote myself on an issue you never answered; namely, where has it been said that their reasons for children are mutually exclusive? Instead, you responded with an insinuation that I'm racist by saying that if it were a black family I'd treat it differently.

    You can have MANY reasons for bearing children. One of them should be because you want to and can care for it, but it's hardly the sole reason, even if it's the most important.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    I'm crossing my fingers that they have at least one lesbian daughter who has heard of financial aid.
    Actually, statiistically speaking women from large families are highly likely to be childless themselves, or bear few children. Reason being that they spent most of their teens playing mum.

    Ryu: Please, I know the conservative line on this. if they weren't anglo christians, you wouldn't be supporting them. And quite frankly, all the ancillary reasons in the world don't compensate for the ones I condemned above.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't get the assumption that if they were "liberal" in any number of the 10,000 things that can mean that everyone here would in fact support them.

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Elkamil wrote: »
    I'm late here, but they're not sending their daughters to college? Just the boys? That's disgusting.

    What have you got against traditional male/female roles?!

    Since Ryu is still doing his deliberately-dense act, here's a restatement: It is irresponsible and selfish to treat the children you bring forth primarily as points you've scored on the heaven/hell tally. They're people, not trophies. If you're going to have a kid, the only legitimate reasons are that you want to and can care for it. For its own sake. Treating people as objects is evil.

    Maybe I should pull a Cat and quote myself on an issue you never answered; namely, where has it been said that their reasons for children are mutually exclusive? Instead, you responded with an insinuation that I'm racist by saying that if it were a black family I'd treat it differently.

    You can have MANY reasons for bearing children. One of them should be because you want to and can care for it, but it's hardly the sole reason, even if it's the most important.

    Yeah, you can want to have a kid for many reasons. You seem to agree that being able to and wanting to care for a child ought to be the number one reason to have one, though, and really the only reason that justifies a birth.

    And they don't want to care for their children, as evidenced by the fact that their children are mostly cared for by their other children.

    Nor are they able to, given dad's exceedingly demanding job and mom's constant state of pregnancy. Sure both could hope to care for one or two children in their state, but with as many as they currently have it's very clear to me that they simply aren't up to the task of parenting. Again, this is evidenced by the fact that they have their children handle most of the parenting duties.

    Home-1.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    tmsig.jpg
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people without extensive child labor.

    sierracrest.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited August 2007
    And hell, why not? Get all the wimmen-children raising babies. Good practice.

    tmkm.jpg
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Raise your own farm help.

    sierracrest.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gafoto wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people without extensive child labor.

    Speaking of. 19 babies is a lot of labor. Painful, that.

    steam_sig.png
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I don't get the assumption that if they were "liberal" in any number of the 10,000 things that can mean that everyone here would in fact support them.

    One thing you can say is that liberal is exclusive from ultra right wing fundy.
    Then again, if they weren't ultra right wing fundy then they wouldn't have had all those kids anyway.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Gafoto wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people without extensive child labor and lots of welfare.

  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited August 2007
    So what if her vagina was a clown car? Would you object to a clowning family having nineteen clown children?

    You bigots.

    Home-1.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Gafoto wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people without extensive child labor.

    Speaking of. 19 babies is a lot of labor. Painful, that.

    Only seventeen babies, parents have to take care of themselves too.
    They get lots of donations from retarded quiverfull churches and random fundies.
    Another aspect of the "If they were liberal you wouldn't be so mad." accusation is that those girls are probably going to want to be just like mom, and part of that is them being raised and taught as though it were 1890. If they actually understood how the actual world worked, or even what the bible actually said, then they would realize that what their parents are doing is completely nuts. If the parents were liberal, their kids would be taught that.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Gafoto wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people without extensive child labor.

    Speaking of. 19 babies is a lot of labor. Painful, that.

    Only seventeen babies, parents have to take care of themselves too.
    They get lots of donations from retarded quiverfull churches and random fundies.
    Another aspect of the "If they were liberal you wouldn't be so mad." accusation is that those girls are probably going to want to be just like mom, and part of that is them being raised and taught as though it were 1890. If they actually understood how the actual world worked, or even what the bible actually said, then they would realize that what their parents are doing is completely nuts. If the parents were liberal, their kids would be taught that.
    Mm - according to The Cat (because I haven't read the sociology research myself) it's apparently unlikely they will be.

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I know this all is sort of slippery-slopey.

    Yes, and Kilaminjaro is sort of a hill.

    I dunno, though. One of the arguments I see from Israeli friends against giving Palestinians voting rights in Israel is that, thanks to comparative birth rates, Palestinians would have a clear majority over Jews after a couple generations. This is obviously not palatable for them so they would prefer a two state solution over a single state solution if only to remain in control of their own nation.

    Population expansion is a political strategy in any democratic system. Even if this is inadvertent, you have to acknowledge that a thousand or more families having 10+ children for a few generations will have a significant impact on at least local politics.

    Fertility rates definitely correspond strongly to voting patterns, at least among whites. It's easier to focus on white fertility rates for a few reasons, mostly because I don't have fertility rates for non-whites on hand but mostly because white voters make up more than 75% of votes.

    Republicans generally do well in more rural, less densely populated areas. These areas also tend to have the highest fertility rates. In the 2004 election, Bush carried 25 of the 26 states with the highest white fertility rates (with the exception of Michigan). Kerry got the 16 states with the lowest white fertility rates.

    So yes, if you look long-term, this definitely amounts to significant shifts in the overall voting populace. If you have fertility rates tied very strongly to party affiliation, then the party with lower fertility rates is at a significant disadvantage over a significant period (2 generations or more).

    It would seem that having tons and tons of children would happen far more often in conservative families than in liberal families (and the statistics bear this out). I don't think it is far-fetched to say that these birth rates differentials will lead to a sea-change in American electoral politics if they continue for the next 50 years.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    The myth of a breeding takeover has been pretty soundly debunked a number of times. Leaving aside that combating another group by excessive breeding is the other main godawful reason to have children.

    tmsig.jpg
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't get the assumption that if they were "liberal" in any number of the 10,000 things that can mean that everyone here would in fact support them.
    Well I suppose it might not be quite as immediately offensive to my every sensibility if these people were not fucking fundamentalist idiots, and their sizeable contribution to the human gene pool were at all likely to further the intellectual and scientific development of the human race. Now I don't know about you guys, but when I look at that photo I see 18 ignorant, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart-shopping, Republican-voting, god-bothering homophobic and probably racist rednecks whose chief contribution to humanity will likely be the production of even more rednecks. I think Mark Mockford at the San Francisco Gate put it best:
    Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?

    Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

    Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

    Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?

    You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are, after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord, the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

    I am, of course, opposed to anyone breeding excessively, regardless of race, religion, or political leanings. If Michelle wants more kids she should employ of those Christian Values™ and fucking adopt some, rather than further infest the planet with human beings.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    The myth of a breeding takeover has been pretty soundly debunked a number of times. Leaving aside that combating another group by excessive breeding is the other main godawful reason to have children.

    I guess I missed that day? Because I don't see it as a complete takeover, more as a subtle shift in one direction simply due to moving the center.

    The fertility disparities are pretty stark, at least the numbers I'm seeing. One example is birth rates between Israeli Muslims and Israeli Jews. It's 3.6% to 1.8% (statistics from Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003) in favor of Israeli Muslims. It wouldn't be a huge takeover but they would have significantly more power. They currently comprise 15% of the overall population; at current rates, they would be 19% by 2020.

    That's a pretty significant shift in a fairly small period of time? True, I'd agree that fears are overblown by the media but it would still have an impact on politics, especially in a parliamentary system.

    Edit: I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, necessarily. Just that the effects would be felt in some significant ways.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    The myth of a breeding takeover has been pretty soundly debunked a number of times. Leaving aside that combating another group by excessive breeding is the other main godawful reason to have children.

    I guess I missed that day? Because I don't see it as a complete takeover, more as a subtle shift in one direction simply due to moving the center.

    The fertility disparities are pretty stark, at least the numbers I'm seeing. One example is birth rates between Israeli Muslims and Israeli Jews. It's 3.6% to 1.8% (statistics from Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003) in favor of Israeli Muslims. It wouldn't be a huge takeover but they would have significantly more power. They currently comprise 15% of the overall population; at current rates, they would be 19% by 2020.

    That's a pretty significant shift in a fairly small period of time? True, I'd agree that fears are overblown by the media but it would still have an impact on politics, especially in a parliamentary system.

    Voting patterns in the US don't reflect the birthing patterns - seems that the children of the right are more likely to be apathetic about politics and simply not vote, so the system remains fairly balanced between dems and repubs in raw number terms. The advantage is simply secured by gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of poor dem-heavy populations. In addition, each generation has been more 'liberal' by absolute measures over the course of the century. The theory doesn't add up.

    tmsig.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    I don't get the assumption that if they were "liberal" in any number of the 10,000 things that can mean that everyone here would in fact support them.
    Well I suppose it might not be quite as immediately offensive to my every sensibility if these people were not fucking fundamentalist idiots, and their sizeable contribution to the human gene pool were at all likely to further the intellectual and scientific development of the human race. Now I don't know about you guys, but when I look at that photo I see 18 ignorant, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart-shopping, Republican-voting, god-bothering homophobic and probably racist rednecks whose chief contribution to humanity will likely be the production of even more rednecks. I think Mark Mockford at the San Francisco Gate put it best:
    Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?

    Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

    Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

    Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?

    You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are, after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord, the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

    I am, of course, opposed to anyone breeding excessively, regardless of race, religion, or political leanings. If Michelle wants more kids she should employ of those Christian Values™ and fucking adopt some, rather than further infest the planet with human beings.

    I agree so hard. I'd lime the entire post, but it seems superfluous.

    Spoiler:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    The myth of a breeding takeover has been pretty soundly debunked a number of times. Leaving aside that combating another group by excessive breeding is the other main godawful reason to have children.

    ?

    Breeding combined with population movements sorta HAVE to have an effect eventually.

    It's happened over and over historically (there aren't exactly that many areas still run by indigenous peoples), and it's set to happen again in various areas. It's true that there is some degree of assimilation, but not to the point of wholly overriding it.

    In California, due to religion/culturally-inspired reproductive rates (Catholics, whee), vast amounts of migration ('cause they're breeding so much elsewhere), and the whole "White Flight" thing, the Hispanic population will be the majority in 2042.

    Whatever your opinion of that fact, good bad or neutral, I don't think it's unsafe to say that will change how things are there. Maybe not as much as the earlier takeovers by earlier European groups, but still significant.

    Obviously, when population density changes, population behavior changes, but there's still going to be some serious lag time until liberalization kicks in, especially with migrations OUT of an area.

    Breeding your way in to power may even be more popular than genociding your way in to power. Maybe.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    One of the more basic ways to influence the outcome of democratic elections is to stack the voting population in your favor. You can achieve this through gerry-mandering (already done by every party in every administration ever)
    Fixed that for you.

    sig.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Voting patterns in the US don't reflect the birthing patterns - seems that the children of the right are more likely to be apathetic about politics and simply not vote, so the system remains fairly balanced between dems and repubs in raw number terms. The advantage is simply secured by gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of poor dem-heavy populations. In addition, each generation has been more 'liberal' by absolute measures over the course of the century. The theory doesn't add up.

    Ok, I have a few questions then. because the fertility numbers I see make decent sense to me. Poor, white, rural areas vote largely Republican. They also have much higher than average birth rates than Democratic, urban centers. So I see a correlation there. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this holds true in the 2004 election as I noted in a post above.

    Sure, most of them probably don't vote but the pubbies did a great job of turning out their base in 2000 and 2004 (particularly in 2004). It wasn't really that the Democrats failed in turning out their base; actually, they did a great job. They simply didn't get as many, which seems to imply that you can get those apathetic conservative kids to vote in large numbers if you push the right buttons.

    I'm not sure if the pendulum is going to keep swinging toward "liberal." We've seen some significant changes to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts that imply that future rulings will be more conservative than the courts of recent decades. For example, recent abortion rulings and anti-diversity in public schools ruling. The youngest members of the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, are staunch conservatives. The oldest members of the court are the more liberal ones. So I see, at least from a legal standpoint, SCOTUS and Bush federal court appointees pushing a conservative agenda for the next few decades. These are people whose only oversight is, to quote, the icy scythe of Death.

    I agree that gerrymandering has a big part in it, as does disenfranchisement. But I did work, specifically on disenfranchisement, during the 2004 election (which was not gerrymandered, obviously, at least any more than the electoral system is broken). There were no seriously significant cases of voter fraud and disenfranchisement (unlike the ones in Florida and elsewhere in 2000 that handed Bush the election). I know that some people were crying foul in Ohio but, checking district voting records for the past 40 years, no one in the team found anything outside reasonable results.

    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    Again, I'm not really trying to point to past instances of this occurring. Rather, I'm trying to figure out what the future is going to hold.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    One of the more basic ways to influence the outcome of democratic elections is to stack the voting population in your favor. You can achieve this through gerry-mandering (already done by every party in every administration ever)
    Fixed that for you.

    Districts get changed every 10 years or so. The redistricting in 2003 and the redistricting in Georgia flouted that precedent.

    It was beyond the pale, Salvation. It was pretty unique.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • mugginnsmugginns Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    In California, due to religion/culturally-inspired reproductive rates (Catholics, whee), vast amounts of migration ('cause they're breeding so much elsewhere), and the whole "White Flight" thing, the Hispanic population will be the majority in 2042.

    That really only matters if Hispanics start voting in any number

    E26cO.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    One of the more basic ways to influence the outcome of democratic elections is to stack the voting population in your favor. You can achieve this through gerry-mandering (already done by every party in every administration ever)
    Fixed that for you.

    Districts get changed every 10 years or so. The redistricting in 2003 and the redistricting in Georgia flouted that precedent.

    It was beyond the pale, Salvation. It was pretty unique.

    Those instances, yes, but occurences of gerrymandering itself is about as rare and unique as a politician's rhetoric.

    Oh snap.

    tea-1.jpg
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    One of the more basic ways to influence the outcome of democratic elections is to stack the voting population in your favor. You can achieve this through gerry-mandering (already done by every party in every administration ever)
    Fixed that for you.

    Districts get changed every 10 years or so. The redistricting in 2003 and the redistricting in Georgia flouted that precedent.

    It was beyond the pale, Salvation. It was pretty unique.

    Those instances, yes, but occurences of gerrymandering itself is about as rare and unique as a politician's rhetoric.

    Oh snap.

    There was a good article in the New Yorker in 2004 I think that discussed how the gerrymandering done during the first Bush term was far more systematic and damaging than previous attempts by either party. It wasn't just surprising in terms of timing, it was surprising in terms of scope.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.

    There's something inherently dirty about that comment.

  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    The myth of a breeding takeover has been pretty soundly debunked a number of times. Leaving aside that combating another group by excessive breeding is the other main godawful reason to have children.

    I guess I missed that day? Because I don't see it as a complete takeover, more as a subtle shift in one direction simply due to moving the center.

    The fertility disparities are pretty stark, at least the numbers I'm seeing. One example is birth rates between Israeli Muslims and Israeli Jews. It's 3.6% to 1.8% (statistics from Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003) in favor of Israeli Muslims. It wouldn't be a huge takeover but they would have significantly more power. They currently comprise 15% of the overall population; at current rates, they would be 19% by 2020.

    That's a pretty significant shift in a fairly small period of time? True, I'd agree that fears are overblown by the media but it would still have an impact on politics, especially in a parliamentary system.

    Voting patterns in the US don't reflect the birthing patterns - seems that the children of the right are more likely to be apathetic about politics and simply not vote, so the system remains fairly balanced between dems and repubs in raw number terms. The advantage is simply secured by gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of poor dem-heavy populations. In addition, each generation has been more 'liberal' by absolute measures over the course of the century. The theory doesn't add up.

    Ah, I see. It's all a conspiracy by the conservatives to keep the liberals down! There's actually some studying going on right now on this type of topic re: birth rates and fertility rates. See here.

    In addition, I might challenge that each generation is more liberal. There's been a shift over the last 20 years towards conservatism as evidenced by Republican wins in politics, decrease in support of abortion and general distrust over large social programs (especially by the current young generation). In some countries, it has been more liberal, but I don't think it's a continued growth of liberalism.

  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    Areas with low cost of living typically have lower overall income levels as well.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.
    Even if the guy was making $100,000 a year, that's a little more than $5,000 a person. That isn't enough to survive without major charity work.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    Areas with low cost of living typically have lower overall income levels as well.
    ^ This. Prices will rise to what people will pay for.

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
Sign In or Register to comment.