FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Nobody dies of overpopulatioin. Deaths in Pakistan you cited were caused by flood, not by population explosion. Monsoon rain caused the flood. Monsoon rain did not cause poor people to move to dangerous areas. Here, torrential rain causing flood could kill, but not overpopulation. You don't get it, dude. Wake up. Your dots don't connect!

Once again I like to give our readers the opportunity to read my comments to wake you up from this stupor as follows:

Here we are again! You wrote this rebuttal "Hancock vs Wooldridge Radio Debate: Bakadu, Romantics, Overpopulation, LaLa Land" with a grain of salt.

You inundated space with verbosity or long-windedness readers hardly had air to breath. Because there is an information-overload in your rebuttal, you expurgated all the comments against your faulty Malthusian exponential arithmetic – knowledgeable critics that described your "population expertise" as rubbish [see the mess at the end of your rebuttal -- at this submission it appears the mess have been cleaned up].

It now appears that only your mind should appear in writing in this difficult task of yours to win the public to your side. This is evident when at the end of your refutation or negation of the truth that there is no way you are winning this debate, readers are looking at some kind of a computer collapse, where critiques against your writings were totally wiped out. You only want readers to see your monolithic view, which reminds me of the Mark of the Beast, in a Syfy movie I just viewed. Only those with the marks of the demon must live! Everything must be wiped out, especially any sign of the Holy Cross that terrifies the Devil.

I read nothing new in your rebuttal except an overload of citations which was a reference overkill. You can cite all the references in the world that Malthus was NOT a scientist of failure, but there are a thousand more references that are available which proved that Malthus’ exponential addition of population leading to the collapse of society and eventually to the end of the world, is so limited that it is not only erroneous but also a total misunderstanding of human beings in the animal kingdom. Against your truckload of irrelevant or extraneous "authorities", I can only cite probably three or so of my own that would bring down yours to naught. Why Malthus is wrong? It’s because of his "poor" understanding of the human specie. It’s here:

As your bogeyman, resource depletion due to population increase is discredited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_theory. Let me quote it for you:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_theoryLet me quote it for you: "Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus' 1798 predictions about approaching famines in Europe [1227] The Population Bomb (1968). [237/247/25] Limits to Growth (1972). [23/24/24] and the Simon–Ehrlich wager (1980)[26] HAVE PROVEN FALSE, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized more economically."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_theoryLet me quote it for you:."

You talked about your "lectures" across the country as a "teacher", and you printed all your works ready for readers to download. None of these recycled views that have already been read had changed. The same old repeated bad appreciation of the discredited Malthusian indoctrinating theory that tire the readers to boredom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_theoryLet me quote it for you:."

Why what you espoused has been poorly considered, senseless if not crazy: You hooked up to Malthus whose critics described him as a total failure. "The Malthusian Exponential Growth Model Is A Total Failure" [a terrible theory of a madman who suggested "infanticide" if not murder to curb population growth … Malthus also explained why he does not donate – the rich should not donate -- to the millions of poor people around the world – he wanted them to die to stop the arithmetical increase of human beings that live in a finite space and limited food supply]. Believe it nor, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus#Early_responses.

So that we can carry out this debate honestly and squarely, I will restore back the contrary views I wrote which you deleted. Let the general public understand this issue clearly, don’t hide the weakness [shortcomings] of your position from the American readers. In a capsule, your position is the world will end due to population explosion. Your view is married to the Malthusian Population Growth Theory till death will you part – no separation, no divorce, no compromise. My view is, I say it’s all bullcrap, a nutbag.

Let the public know what I wrote, that you mouthpiece Malthus – a disgraced Misanthropist. It is here: http://www.Starvation Not Due To Overpopulation -- See Highlighted Paragraph. No recorded deaths by hunger are caused by overpopulation.

You cannot hide this proof from the public against your one-sided view that population only increase, not decline. I proved it here: http://www. Proof of Population Decline You Shouldn't Ignore.

Your juvenile arithmetic makes you an "innumerate" [your word, not mine] because you cannot do advance mathematics on more scientific analysis of growth rates. This is where I made it clear enough to make you understand: http://www. 2+2 Not Necessarily =4 In Your Juvenile Math.

Although there are more of them, I will stop here, for fear of information-overload.

I still want you to be a model of endurance and perseverance over time to those who want to save the world. Opposite to your endearing quality of a man that you are, are those who want to destroy the world we live. In that sense to me you are a very welcomed rarity. The fact that your obsession is to save the world from them, makes me take off my hat and bow to you.

Finally, your passion in writing like mine, makes us inseparable friends since the beginning. Go back a few years and you will recall and know who I am. Complimenting me as a "lady" is gracious on your part, although you will soon discover that I am not… just a friendly correction.

 

 

 

Make a Comment