|
|
sufiandy
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1453
|
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Not sure I am following what you said. A current birth rate is not the problem, in fact it can drop a bit more and still be fine...
Sure, if you don't want entitlements paid for. Or, young people to drive an economy.
If a increasing population is required to pay entitlements or drive the economy then the system is broke.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
 |
|
|
Sloth
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 11295
|
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Not sure I am following what you said. A current birth rate is not the problem, in fact it can drop a bit more and still be fine...
Sure, if you don't want entitlements paid for. Or, young people to drive an economy.
If a increasing population is required to pay entitlements or drive the economy then the system is broke.
No, it just exists in reality. That growing number of elderly, how do you think their entitlements are paid for? Young, working, productive, tax producers.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
sufiandy
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1453
|
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Not sure I am following what you said. A current birth rate is not the problem, in fact it can drop a bit more and still be fine...
Sure, if you don't want entitlements paid for. Or, young people to drive an economy.
If a increasing population is required to pay entitlements or drive the economy then the system is broke.
No, it just exists in reality. That growing number of elderly, how do you think their entitlements are paid for? Young, working, productive, tax producers.
So the solution for growing number of elderly, is a growing number of workers which in turn creates an even larger group of elderly the next generation? And this is maintainable forever in an area with finite space and resources?
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Sloth
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 11295
|
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Not sure I am following what you said. A current birth rate is not the problem, in fact it can drop a bit more and still be fine...
Sure, if you don't want entitlements paid for. Or, young people to drive an economy.
If a increasing population is required to pay entitlements or drive the economy then the system is broke.
No, it just exists in reality. That growing number of elderly, how do you think their entitlements are paid for? Young, working, productive, tax producers.
So the solution for growing number of elderly, is a growing number of workers which in turn creates an even larger group of elderly the next generation? And this is maintainable forever in an area with finite space and resources?
We've been playing the overpopulation game for how long now? The reality is, entitlement obligations are unsustainable NOW.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Sloth
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 11295
|
|
I like how the implication is thatm in the name of overpopulation, westerners should depopulate, and replace themselves with higher fertility peoples.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
sufiandy
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1453
|
|
Sloth wrote:
I like how the implication is thatm in the name of overpopulation, westerners should depopulate, and replace themselves with higher fertility peoples.
Why is replacing with higher fertility people implied?
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Sloth
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 11295
|
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I like how the implication is thatm in the name of overpopulation, westerners should depopulate, and replace themselves with higher fertility peoples.
Why is replacing with higher fertility people implied?
Because someone has to pay for the entitlements of the elderly. Someone has to change the sheets in the nursing homes.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
sufiandy
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1453
|
Sloth wrote:
sufiandy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I like how the implication is thatm in the name of overpopulation, westerners should depopulate, and replace themselves with higher fertility peoples.
Why is replacing with higher fertility people implied?
Because someone has to pay for the entitlements of the elderly. Someone has to change the sheets in the nursing homes.
Are you talking about what is currently being done, or what you think should be done? Or both?
I was trying to say we should try to maintain population, if birth rates match or exceed death rates then importing people is counter productive to that goal.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Sloth
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 11295
|
|
Below replacement fertility means below replacement fertility. Meanwhile, more and more of the population moves outside of fertile age. And they need either a well-funded nanny state to see them through 1st world lengthened golden years, or a number of children to care for and support them.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Chris
Level 2
Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 15030
|
|
Just call you Vlad the Impaler. Just slaying people.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
Sloth wrote:
therajraj wrote:
The Changes needed to preserve the culture you are referring to would require changes just as drastic as preserving racial demographics
Or, replacement fertility within the population...
And that's why you have immigration...
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
|
Sloth wrote:
I like how the implication is thatm in the name of overpopulation, westerners should depopulate, and replace themselves with higher fertility peoples.
Nope.
Again no one is telling people NOT to have kids or they "should depopulate." People's preferences here are to have less kids, that decision was made on their own accord.
It is actually you who is trying to force people to have more kids by taking away their options.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
|
therajraj wrote:
No one is arguing they should be forced to supply contraception.
Sloth wrote:
In reality, they are.
Nope.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
|
Brother Chris wrote:
Just call you Vlad the Impaler. Just slaying people.
You think so?
Ask him if he think there's good evidence for a god (as you and I discussed in another thread).
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
|
Lastly, do you care at all about sustainability?
You know at the rate we're repopulating there will be worldwide famine right?
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
|
Sloth wrote:
Below replacement fertility means below replacement fertility. Meanwhile, more and more of the population moves outside of fertile age. And they need either a well-funded nanny state to see them through 1st world lengthened golden years, or a number of children to care for and support them.
If you're anti-immigration, what's your solution?
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
thunderbolt23
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 7207
|
|
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
thunderbolt23 wrote:
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
...
Pat and I are discussing birth control in general and whether it is good for society or not.
I am saying the church is within it's rights to not provide birth control, but the church's stance in general is WRONG.
For some reason Sloth keeps attempting to steer the conversation back to the OP even though we're already in agreement.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Chris
Level 2
Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 15030
|
thunderbolt23 wrote:
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
Brother Chris wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.
...
You should consider reading the thread.
I have stated the CC is within it's right to deny birth control. There's nothing left to discuss on that front.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Chris
Level 2
Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 15030
|
therajraj wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.
...
You should consider reading the thread.
I have stated the CC is within it's right to deny birth control. There's nothing left to discuss on that front.
Okay.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tiribulus
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 13599
|
Brother Chris wrote:
therajraj wrote:
I have stated the CC is within it's right to deny birth control. There's nothing left to discuss on that front.
Okay.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
therajraj
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 7726
|
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
therajraj wrote:
I have stated the CC is within it's right to deny birth control. There's nothing left to discuss on that front.
Okay. Apparently you haven't been paying attention Chris. Once Raj has spoken on something? "There's nothing left to discuss on that front."
They were under the impression that I supported the decision of forcing the CC to supply birth control. I am not.
If you guys want to discuss the OP got nuts... But you won't get any disagreement from me.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
pat
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 12537
|
therajraj wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
therajraj wrote:
Nope.
Yep. I'll repost:
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn't - that's why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don't keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee's compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
...
Pat and I are discussing birth control in general and whether it is good for society or not.
I am saying the church is within it's rights to not provide birth control, but the church's stance in general is WRONG.
For some reason Sloth keeps attempting to steer the conversation back to the OP even though we're already in agreement.
Well in that case, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. I have gone back and forth on the issue itself, I can see the arguments on both sides. The method is the big question. Methods that prevent fertilization are better that those that can be abortive. Those that prevent implantation are bad and I am totally against those methods. Those prevent the connection between the sperm and the egg are ok. But it's a fuzzy line.
If you can take yourself out and put yourself in the church's shoes for a minute, perhaps you can see the hesitation on making a move. In 2000 years, they've never had this problem. So it's new territory.
You got this new stuff designed for preventing pregnancy, but you have a lot of different ways and a lot of different outcomes. The church's job is to guide you to get to heaven according to the scriptures. So the rules they set are always going to error on the side of caution.
For instance, I can see perhaps in the future after much examination, the tolerance of say rubbers. The are low risk and prevent conception. The church already approves of 'Natural Family Planning' so no matter your take on 'artificial' contraception, the church already does approve of having sex without the intention of conception. So the precedence is already set there. But some thing like the pill is far more complicated. If it works as intended, then it's job is to prevent conception, but it doesn't always work that way, sometimes it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. That puts it on far shakier ground. A male contraception, like TRT (testosterone replacement, in case you didn't know what that means) would be a better method because it prevents sperm from even being produced. Now things like the nor-plant and all that shit that prevents implantation will never be approved because it's an abortificant purely.
What you have to understand about the church is this is a current stance. This is not in the realm of dogma, that gets the ol' infallibility stamp. This is a stance that could change someday.
We also against most artificial pregnancy methods. If a pill or something helps you get pregnant that's ok, but you start messing with in vitro fertalization and crap like that and it's a big no-no. We don't believe in creating life in a petri dish.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
