Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country

[mafiajoey]

Manny's a devoted Catholic isn't he?

Of course being a lousy one myself? You know what you call people who practice the rhythm method?

Parents.

And BTW, oh yes you did!

Yes devoted catholic


So does this mean he gives the raw dawg to his mistresses?

[Gandalf]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

[marbleheadmaui]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

[Gandalf]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

[marbleheadmaui]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

[Gandalf]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

So tell me how one income can provide for 10 children when such an amount leaves most families living pay check to pay check with only 2.

If every family in the Philipines had 10 children, I have little doubt that it would make a poor country even poorer. More food needed, more clothes to buy and no jobs for those children when they get older. And then those children go and have 10 children each. It is hopeless and pointless.

But if you believe that this is a positive thing and actually makes society a better place, I am curious to know how.

[generalbulldog]

I don't usually agree with Miles, hell it's a rarity, but the guy is right on about poverty and large families.

If a family's income is like say 20k per year and they have 5 kids to feed and raise compared to say having no kids at all on the same income, what is the better situation? I mean it's just common sense.

[marbleheadmaui]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

So tell me how one income can provide for 10 children when such an amount leaves most families living pay check to pay check with only 2.

If every family in the Philipines had 10 children, I have little doubt that it would make a poor country even poorer. More food needed, more clothes to buy and no jobs for those children when they get older. And then those children go and have 10 children each. It is hopeless and pointless.

But if you believe that this is a positive thing and actually makes society a better place, I am curious to know how.

The mistake you are making is assuming the ONLY thing that can be changed is the number of kids. The causes of Poverty are far more complex. If it were as you described? A family with ten kids would be noticably wealthier than the family next door with only nine than the family next door with eight in a linear progression. But there is obviously no such correlation.

Again if you were correct a declining Russia should have seen a significant increase in national prosperity over the last decade. It hasn't happened.

[No Contest]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

[mafiajoey]

This site is so much for the Pac nut huggers....

If I would have posted this thread it would be moved to the "Other" section


But I guess the mods feel like this is real "Boxing Talk"

[marbleheadmaui]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

[No Contest]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

Basically I'm talking about resources, there are only so much natural resources. We may not be anywhere near the threshold of being able to sustain the population, but if the population continues to grow at the current rate we will eventually get there. Look at population growth charts just over the last few centuries and development that has taken place. We will eventually run out of of room.

[Kev]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

Basically I'm talking about resources, there are only so much natural resources. We may not be anywhere near the threshold of being able to sustain the population, but if the population continues to grow at the current rate we will eventually get there. Look at population growth charts just over the last few centuries and development that has taken place. We will eventually run out of of room.

What resources do you think we are running out of exactly?

Food is infinite. We need some, we grow some. We need more we grow more.

You are confusing the affluence and greed of the Western world that wants unlimited fossil fuel to power their SUV's and bloated infrastructure and thinking that these things are essential to humanity.

But of course they are not.