Last login: Friday, January 18, 2013
@born2bme, save me the rain forest. Since when does human life have to abuse mother nature. Remember, I am do not support Big Waste anyway. Destroying mother nature is not a good thing; I just don't think increased population harms it. Bad decisions waste it.
@Writein, I never said it was the only problem. I merely mentioned recent articles that peeked my interest which included a secular source talking about population implosion (which I have said before), a person who survived abortion, and eating human remains in the form of a pill. The latter, though disgusting, is hot off the press. If Mr. Tasin agrees with the blog, so be it. Did I write anything false?
Flag this comment
PatB, just those recent headlines. The thought of taking a pill filled with dried human remains kind of creeped me out. The fact that we still, and I am one of them, buy goods from China disappoints me.
born2Bme, I think history would disagree with you. Innovation has kept pace with human growth. We can now feed more people than ever before on less land than in the past. Regardless of the earth resources, I would never end your life for the sake of natural resources. Why should we end a baby's life?
OLDRUSTYBUCKET1, Having children is a natural right and natural end of marriage, I don't have the ability to read any hearts to know if a couple will one day harm a child or the ability to mind read to know if a couple is smart enough to raise a child. If abuse happens, then arrest, detain, imprison the abusers but don't kill a child in the false sense of security that you save a child from distress that has yet to happen by ripping apart the limbs or burning them with chemicals. Though "Argumentum ad Misericordiam" works in the advertising TV industry, it doesn't prove something true.
Observer, very good. I agree.
Tophat, I agree with you and wrote the post in more general terms. People can change, and there are many examples, but in general people have what is called Petrine conversions if I use a slang theology to describe it. What I mean is most are formed by the day-to-day grind cementing their moral choices as each one is made.
"We're going down a slippery slope. How many other rights are going to be chipped away?"
Did I miss the section in the Bill of Rights that says the citizen must pay for abortions and contraceptives? Let's not confuse words here, abortion is not reproductive rights because reproduction has already happened. It should properly be called "birthing rights" but that sounds really awful.
Observer, I just found this HBR article posted today. As Hazlitt writes, economic policy needs to consider all the possibilities, not just the parts that receive. Anyway, just an example of a good post from HBR.
Out of the mouth of babes: http://youtu.be/5LFPTwVMUVE
Simply another proof that Victoria has the brightest and best commentators, thanks Observer.
I read HBR mainly to keep up with leadership thoughts. Sometimes articles like this peek my interest. I have to admit, these type of articles don't impress me much, especially coming from an Ivy League school.
Like adding water to milk:
"The money rate can, indeed, be kept artificially low only by continuousnew injections of currency or bank credit in place of real savings.This can create the illusion of more capital just as the additionof water can create the illusion of more milk. But it is a policy of continuousinflation. It is obviously a process involving cumulative danger.The money rate will rise and a crisis will develop if the inflationis reversed, or merely brought to a halt, or even continued at a diminishedrate. Cheap money policies, in short, eventually bring about farmore violent oscillations in business than those they are designed toremedy or prevent. If no effort is made to tamper with money ratesthrough inflationary governmental policies, increased savings createtheir own demand by lowering interest rates in a natural manner. Thegreater supply of savings seeking investment forces savers to acceptlower rates. But lower rates also mean that more enterprises can affordto borrow because their prospective profit on the new machines orplants they buy with the proceeds seems likely to exceed what theyhave to pay for the borrowed funds." Hazlitt
EA, I have been using invisible ink ;)