Yzermandius19

having the will has nothing to do with Vietnam or Korea where America did not have the will to continue those wars until they won and instead packed up and went home after not winning those wars were a waste of time and set America back in the Cold War just as Afghanistan set the Soviets back America overcame those setbacks, but that doesn't magically make them victories

those two wars emboldened the Soviets and showed America wasn't good at picking it's battles they prolonged the Cold War and slowed America down those were setbacks, not victories America won the Cold War in spite of those wars, not because of them

the earth isn't running out of resources, they are finding more everyday the actual carrying capacity even with today's technology is well beyond where the population will before it begins to shrink Malthus was wrong, get over it

when the math says what you want it to say, then it's trustworthy when the math doesn't say what you want it to say, then it's not trustworthy you argue in bad faith NPC City

the math disagrees and your feelings are of no consequence you told me to present the data and I did the data didn't fit your narrative so naturally cognitive dissonance set in and you moved the goal posts because you cannot let go of your Malthusian bias just as I predicted facts don't care about your feelings and your feelings don't care about facts

underpopulation will be the problem overpopulation is a myth so enough of the anti-human Malthusian bullshit already

again current population projections have the world population beginning to shrink prior to reaching 10 billion the population is not going to double in fifty years time you can cling to the belief that it will all you want the facts do not back up that belief though the boomers are going to die off not too long from now and subsequent generations haven't had nearly as many kids to replace them there is a lag before the population begins to decline but that lag is nowhere near as long as you suggest the worldwide fertility rate is already 2.4 children per woman 2.1 children per woman is the replacement rate in 1950 the world fertility rate was 4.7 children per woman that growth rate has been nearly halved in 70 years and that trend is accelerating, not reversing Japan is the perfect example of it not taking that long after dropping below replacement rate reproduction before population decline sets in the same is true of the world Japan is just ahead of the curve Japanification of the world population is a coming, ya hear?

growing for now it will not too long in the future be shrinking that's a fact

2.1 children per woman is replacement rate if there are more parents than children, the population shrinks when the parents die there is a lag, as you point out, before the parents die, but the long term trend is a shrinking population if it is below 2.1 see Japan as a prime example , they have been below replacement for a while and now the population is shrinking, they are just ahead of the curve Japanification is coming to rest of the world soon, if it hasn't already

I put it on a Malthusian Doomsday Cult brainwashing people because that data doesn't fit their narrative, it is either ignored or actively covered up, to keep selling the lie the media are part of that cult, and so is cougar, though they are mostly naive, and don't realize the environmental movement has long been taken over by far left extremists who seek to cloak their radical ideology in environmentalism, to better sell their bullshit they hijacked the brand and discredit the real environmentalists, many of whom now think the only way to protect the environment is through far left extremism, because all the major environmental groups tell them so unfortunately most of the real environmentalists haven't caught on to this obvious scam and have been turned into useful idiots for the far left ideologues masquerading as environmentalists they've been grifted it's a shame

China is below replacement rate at 1.7 children per woman and dropping India is just above replacement rate at 2.2 children per woman and dropping as for countries in Africa and the Middle East, children per woman is dropping fast and will follow the pattern of India and China all major western European nations are below replacement rate and dropping the only major western country that is above replacement rate is America due mostly to immigrants having more kids than those born in America, but even that won't last fertility rates around the world are plummeting as standards of living improve your info is completely out of date, the world population will not get out of single digit billions before it starts dropping immigration will not save the west, when the rest of the world stops having kids too, many places already are, and everyone else is to follow if anything underpopulation will be the issue not overpopulation, given the current trends and likely future trends it's not hard to look up the fertility rates of countries and see the world population will be in decline soon enough you simply haven't done so, so you can continue to cling to your overpopulation myth it's not 1968 anymore, your views on world population growth are over 50 years out of date your boy Paul Ehrlich was wrong, get over it already

that's Canada for you

people aren't having enough kids for the population to get beyond 10 billion and that trend is accelerating, not reversing your understanding of population growth is vastly out of date your doomsday prophecies do not line up with the facts there will be no great culling

stop buying into the overpopulation myth the population will actually start to decrease according to the long term trends before we even reach 10 billion it's not 1968 anymore, the population bomb never panned out, time to update your thinking accordingly, instead of clinging to an old doomsday trope that has long since been disproven there will be no great culling due to overpopulation, Cougar Malthus simmer down

1)yes I gave British governance a compliment you can separate the British from the Canadian because the British parts are present in more countries than just Canada, and they didn't get those parts from Canada, they got them from Britain the countries that share that British governance are well off as a result, including Canada countries that share the political peculiarities that separate Canada from Britain, and don't have the similarities with the British that Canada does, aren't fairing as well as Canada it is not Canada's Canadianess that is responsible for it's successes, quite the opposite Canada is not the model to emulate Canada is successful only when that it emulates the most successful models and has close ties with those models to prop them up, and compensate for it's staggering incompetence Canada is not successful in trying to blaze it's own path, it's a follower country, not a leader country it sucks innovating, much better at copycating copycatting is a double-edged sword though as Canada copies the bad as well as the good as seen with how quickly the woke have conquered Canada, despite it being a recent importation from America

if the status quo is desirable than little difference can be a benefit to keep that locked in and keep that from changing if the status quo is not desirable than little difference keeps that locked in and keeps that from changing Canada is the latter, not the former, change is required and a lack of choice hinders that greatly

there is little difference between the two when it comes to governance what is the point of throwing the red liberals out, if they are merely making way for the blue liberals? O'Toole vs Trudeau that's a mirror match whoever wins, Canada gets more of the same whether you prefer blue liberal style rhetoric and pandering to red liberal style rhetoric and pandering, is of no actual relevance to how the parties govern once in power

Mexico and Cuba are former Spanish colonies Haiti is a former French colony Spanish and French colonies were run worse than British colonies the disparity between them is no surprise it's a British thing, not a Canadian thing the credit goes to Britain Canada simply draws a bullseye around an arrow and falsely takes credit for someone else's shot besides being more successful than Haiti isn't exactly a major feather in the cap

3)accurate 4)to the extent that Canada is a success, that is in spite of it's political leadership, not because of it Canada had some success because of other nations successes, if it's success or failure was based only on it's own merits and no one else's, then it would be a miserable failure Canada is propped up by it's betters, yet the Canadians give the credit to the federal government holding them back, instead of who actually deserves the credit while maligning those who deserve the credit for it's successes as the scapegoats for it's failures, instead of looking in the mirror and seeing that the problem is Confederation itself as for the utopians, their utopia will never come to pass and trying to achieve it is a fool's errand, but there is still room for a lot of improvement in Canada, on that they are correct

you say that as if the Liberals losing didn't result in continued Liberal governance Harper is a prime example of you can't vote the bastards out, even when you vote them out, it's still more of the same the biggest difference between the major parties is simply the colors they rock would you like the Red Liberals or Blue Liberals today? such a variety of choice for people to choose between

if he didn't put the serpent in the garden, there would have been no choice and you would claim he was evil for not putting him there

there is clearly a choice to be made there, with dire consequences regardless of the choice God did not make the decision for them, they made it for themselves your contention that they were mere dolls and God made all their choices for them is obviously wrong

There comes a point when the children are grown and they have to ensure their own survival if they don't that's on them and not the parents God is not a helicopter parent and helicopter parents aren't helping their kids with the helicoptering they are infantilizing them and hurting their survival skills, in fact it is not God's job to ensure nothing bad ever happened to Adam and Eve, nor should it have been

god did not murder them they had to learn to take care of themselves like baby birds leaving the nest just because they might hurt themselves in the process doesn't mean God should coddle them and take care of their every need so they never become independent from cradle to grave god didn't want to prevent them from becoming aware of evil he just thought it would be better if they found out in a different way at a different time so they'd be more ready to handle it once they ate the forbidden fruit, God no longer had that luxury and had to switch up the strategy due to the genie being let out of the bottle the kids have to grow up sometime, and allowing them the chance to grow up is not evil basically you are pretending God is evil for not giving them the knowledge sooner while saying he is also evil for not saving them from the consequences of that knowledge after the fact God is evil if he gives them the knowledge or if he withholds it from them your conclusion no matter how he handled the situation is that diety must be malevolent, with no good basis for that assumption your basis for that assumption is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning derived from your confirmation bias alone

being good means nothing if it isn't of your own free will the bad exists to contrast with the good, so you willingly seek out the light and avoid the darkness, because it's possible to tell the difference if there is no evil, how would you even know what good is? there would simply be what is and there would be no choice, you'd simply be a doll you wouldn't even know what good is, now that would be shunning knowledge to avoid any hardship whatsoever there is your garden of eden metaphor in a nutshell it isn't meant to be taken literally, it's a powerful story with useful lessons