Justice Kennedy Retiring

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you

What do you consider an assault?
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you

What do you consider an assault?
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.

Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring. 

Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you

What do you consider an assault?
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.

Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring. 

Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?

When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns?
Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns.
But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you

What do you consider an assault?
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.

Mace, honestly, in one thread, Democrats are waging assaults on gun rights, and want to seize them all, and you support that notion. Over here, Republicans who have voiced support for the abolishment of Roe v. Wade are in control, and yet in your eyes, Democrats are probably worrying too much about that occurring. 

Do you see that as inconsistent logic, given the parallels between the two scenarios?

When have I ever supported the notion that dems want to take all guns?
Ive said many times that’s just a paranoia from the far right. And pretty much what I think this is too. Republicans have been in control several times since R v W, and it’s never been repealed. Just like dems have been in control before and I still own guns.
But like I said, only time will tell so it’s just my opinion at this point. None of us really know

has the supreme court ever had a potential for such a dramatic tipping of the scale towards the right?

I don't see this as the big swing that warrants all this hysteria I've seen everywhere. There are currently 5 judges appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats. After Kennedy it will still be 5 and 4. My understanding is he's the most liberal of the "republican" judges, but still the type of swing that is not uncommon. If Trump only serves 1 term it will likely not change more (assuming Ruth can stay alive 3 more years), and if the next president is democrat, it will probably be 5-4 in favor of democrats by the end of his (or her) term.

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

my2hands said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

my2hands said:

flywallyfly said:

jerparker20 said:

flywallyfly said:

dignin said:

flywallyfly said:

MAGA

Exactly, we need to go back to when women and minorities couldn't vote. When your wife stayed at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. When you could just dump your trash in the nearest river. When you could send the boy to go work in the coal mine to earn support the family. The good old days when america was great!

Not that far back, how about say, the 80's ? MAGA

The 80's really sucked ass for an awful lot of people. 

That was when wages began to stagnate, the "middle class" started to disappear, and the area we now call the Rust Belt started to get really rusty and then decay.  America has never really been great unless you are/were a wealthy (wealthy, not rich, there is a difference) white man.

OK, the 70's work for you? The 60's ? Let me guess, it has always sucked in this nation.. MSCGA (Make the Supreme Court Great Again)

Pretty obvious you're 100% white male

Hey what’s wrong with being a white guy?

Nothing, unless you have zero understanding of history and lack empathy for others. 

The obvious point is America was NEVER great... not the 60's or 70's, not now, not ever. Maybe one day, but that seems to be a very distant future right now

Don’t be so negative.  It’s not just America, it’s the world.  The world is an awful place, but it’s gotten amazingly better in just the last 50 years.  If everyone was as negative as you’re being right now there wouldn’t be many people who cared to live their lives at all.  Here’s a cool article that made me think about overpopulation and the world as a whole a bit more:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know

Stay positive, nothing gets achieved when you’re grumpy and negative.
dont fall into the “I’m a liberal so I’m mad at everything” bullshit.  You can have hopes and be positive regardless of political leanings.

It looks to me like Bill Gates is rather naive when it comes to population.  Let's look at the "facts":

Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year.

The natural mortality rate for humans is 40%.  I recently was told this by a science professor who teaches at a large, well known university on the east coast.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing anyone's child to die but the reality is, our wonderful medical advances have done little to stem over-population.

Fact #2: Since 1960, the fertility rate has fallen by half.

Gates says, "When the fertility rate is close to 2 children per woman, so that every couple is on average replaced by about two children, population growth is slow."   First of all, the key word here is "when".  It hasn't happened.  And secondly, since when does women having 2 children reduce population?  This is naive in the extreme.  Think about it.  A twenty five year old woman has two children.  When they turn twenty five, they have two children making 4 total.  The first mother is still alive.  Now we have a population of 7 (from one). When the 4 children have two children, that makes 8 new children and, at 75, the original mother is probably still alive- totally population, 12 to 13.  See what I mean?  Totally naive.

Fact #3: 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty every day between 1990 and 2015.

That's great!  OH, but wait.  That's 25 years.  How many people have been born into poverty in that amount of time.  Over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day.  In the last 25 years, imagine how many people became trapped by poverty.  Far more than the mere 137,000 who escaped.

The world is getting better?  Wishful thinking.

Now that I’m thinking about it, I must be reading #3 wrong. 137,000 escaped every day? That’s 1.25 billion over 25 years. One, that seems to be way too high of a numbered be accurate to me,  and if that is correct, how is that not great?

mace1229 said:

my2hands said:

Anybody that thinks an outright assault on Roe v Wade and abortion rights isnt about to happen, I have a bridge to sell you

What do you consider an assault?
Placing restrictions such as term limits on abortions I can see happening, but every poll I’ve seen says most people are in favor of that, so I wouldn’t consider it an assault. Maybe stricter requirements of minors too, I can’t legally give a 16 year old a Tylenol without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? So I could see changes like that, but I wouldn’t call that an assault.
But an all out ban on abortions I just don’t see happening.
But only time will tell who’s right. Can’t realy I say I’m right until 7 years from now.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven. 

I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap.  If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.

But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!

well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2. 

I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:

2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total

Further...

This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).

This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven. 

I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap.  If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.

But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!

well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2. 

I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:

2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total

Further...

This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).

This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.

Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not.  But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually.  And again, there's the key word:  eventually.  When will it slow down the population?  Will that be enough, soon enough?

Our fate is sealed.

It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

every set of parents will eventually die off. they all cancel each other out. it is just a matter of time. it doesn't matter that in a 100 year span they multiply, eventually it will even. the only way it's not even is if they have more or less than 2. we only had 2. so i'm Even Freaking Steven. 

I don't think you're factoring in that the generations overlap.  If the average life span were the same as the age at which people reproduce, and no one died of unnatural cause, that is the only way the number would stay the same.

But I don't know how to precisely explain this. Dammit, where's a mathematician when we need one!

well I thought I was. Because if every set of parents in every generation started with 2 people, had 2 kids, and then those parents die off, the end result is a net 2. Overlap is moot. Because of course there will be fluctuations with that overlap, but it will always be a net average of 2. 

I guess I'm not getting it. My simple mind is using this equation:

2 (current parents) + 2 (new kids) -2 (current parents when they eventually die) = 2 people total

Further...

This equation doesn't account for several things such as premature deaths (kids will not always grow old and procreate) and choices (kids will not always grow into adults and choose to procreate).

This formula will not create equilibrium- it will result in a declining population.

Maybe and maybe not, I'm still trying to track down the book that explains how it may not.  But for argument's sake, lets assume that it does lower the population eventually.  And again, there's the key word:  eventually.  When will it slow down the population?  Will that be enough, soon enough?

Our fate is sealed.

It's only a question of when. To which I'd ask again: is the goal to squeeze out a few more generations? If so... then exactly how much do we balance living with conservation?

I'd say not so much to squeeze out a few more generations but rather, as much as possible, to make life more equitable, rewarding, pleasant, useful etc. as possible for the ones living.  And we can balance conservation and living if we learn that life can be good without having to consume as much.  In fact, I would argue it could be better/more rewarding  by consuming less.

I'd agree with you; however, it would take a massive mindset shift to achieve this.

I don't think we can pull it off. Admittedly, I'm a pessimist though.