Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Population Control

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:06:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The situation is simple, black & white.

1. Earth's population is growing
2. The Earth is only so big
3. Earth population is going to eventually hit a roof that affects everybodies' QOL, if we haven't reached that point already

The issue is blurred because we are in the middle of the most rapid technological development we are ever likely to have in human history, which has allowed for larger populations to be fed, fuelled & resourced. But similarly to how moores law cannot hold ad infinitum, neither can our progress in eveything else.

Therefore we are going to eventually require population control of some measure at some point.

So my question to the board is, what is your stance on what I said, and if you agree, what types of measures would be the most ethical/morally acceptable?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:28:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"We need to be a two-planet species." - Carl Sagan

That's probably the best solution that's not immoral. However, perhaps the encouraging the use birth control can help prevent it. But some won't listen.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:47:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:28:02 AM, n7 wrote:
"We need to be a two-planet species." - Carl Sagan

That's probably the best solution that's not immoral. However, perhaps the encouraging the use birth control can help prevent it. But some won't listen.

This just pushes the problem back another notch... And makes it such we HAVE to keep expanding to survive... like a virus.. as depicted in the matrix.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.

Hm, that's not something I have considered before, could you explain your reasoning?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:19:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:48:28 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.

Hm, that's not something I have considered before, could you explain your reasoning?

I think it's probably the case that if monogamous relationships and eventually a family were not socially expected 'accomplishments' that fewer people would have children.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's a bit interesting we're looking at this as a theoretical future scenario, when I'd argue that in reality, we've already reached that point--however, our solution has been to essentially let a third of the world starve and suffer so that the rest can keep their comfort.

I argue a lot of this simply comes from government either a) putting up roadblocks to technological developments that might be able to help provide for everyone/otherwise get off the rock or b) working in partnership with businesses to oppress and exploit the third world such that we still get to live in a high quality of life.

Thus, my solution would be to severely draw back the powers of government and allow private enterprise to take over. This is particularly critical with GMOs, which could very well provide the key to utilizing ALL of Earth's potential resources and space to provide for more people.

Beyond that? Well, I still maintain the same idea--we already see leaps and bounds being made by companies like SpaceX, and operating and advancing at a greater clip than agencies like NASA. So, beyond utilizing all of Earth's resources and terraforming, the only other option I see is, like what was previously mentioned, to get off the rock.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:51:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:06:48 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
The situation is simple, black & white.

1. Earth's population is growing
2. The Earth is only so big
3. Earth population is going to eventually hit a roof that affects everybodies' QOL, if we haven't reached that point already

The issue is blurred because we are in the middle of the most rapid technological development we are ever likely to have in human history, which has allowed for larger populations to be fed, fuelled & resourced. But similarly to how moores law cannot hold ad infinitum, neither can our progress in eveything else.

Therefore we are going to eventually require population control of some measure at some point.

Who are the "we" you're referring to? First world countries? Their birth rates are declining almost across the board. Third world countries? Check out their life expectancies.

So my question to the board is, what is your stance on what I said, and if you agree, what types of measures would be the most ethical/morally acceptable?

Theoretically, I have no problem restricting birth rates as a matter of public health. There were many countries at the turn of the 20th century that practiced a form of eugenics which "managed" reproduction in a way that -arguably- resulted in some net benefits, but they were ethically precarious at the very least. The ethical challenge for managing populations, carrying capacities, etc. resonates in how society could make individuals chose the most socially beneficial reproductive habits for themselves. As a matter of practice, the answer to that question comes in readily accessible contraception and social incentives to have children only when doing so benefits society. But, individuals must make that choice for themselves for society to be ethically unscathed.
Tsar of DDO
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with n7 (it feels weird calling you that). We need to find a way to inhabit other planets as well, ultimately increasing the amount of resources we have access to drastically.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:08:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:06:48 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
The situation is simple, black & white.

1. Earth's population is growing
2. The Earth is only so big
3. Earth population is going to eventually hit a roof that affects everybodies' QOL, if we haven't reached that point already

The issue is blurred because we are in the middle of the most rapid technological development we are ever likely to have in human history, which has allowed for larger populations to be fed, fuelled & resourced. But similarly to how moores law cannot hold ad infinitum, neither can our progress in eveything else.

Probably depends upon what exactly you mean by "human history" and whether or not you see an end to it.

If whatever happens at this end is simply an evolution of what we know as humanity, then I would say that our technological development is only beginning, and that what seems like exponential growth now will seem like a snail's pace to future generations.

An example of this is the trend towards miniaturization. Imagine if our very beings were subject to this....that you could fit one billion human-equivalents into something the size of a cup.

Therefore we are going to eventually require population control of some measure at some point.

So my question to the board is, what is your stance on what I said, and if you agree, what types of measures would be the most ethical/morally acceptable?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We don't need population control, we need to stop entitlement mined, stupid people from procreating so they don't pass on their sense of entitlement and stupidity to future generations thus preventing them from destroying the entire planet.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:23:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 6:33:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
We don't need population control, we need to stop entitlement mined, stupid people from procreating so they don't pass on their sense of entitlement and stupidity to future generations thus preventing them from destroying the entire planet.

Isn't that population control?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:31:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:06:48 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
The situation is simple, black & white.

1. Earth's population is growing
2. The Earth is only so big
3. Earth population is going to eventually hit a roof that affects everybodies' QOL, if we haven't reached that point already

The issue is blurred because we are in the middle of the most rapid technological development we are ever likely to have in human history, which has allowed for larger populations to be fed, fuelled & resourced. But similarly to how moores law cannot hold ad infinitum, neither can our progress in eveything else.

Therefore we are going to eventually require population control of some measure at some point.

So my question to the board is, what is your stance on what I said, and if you agree, what types of measures would be the most ethical/morally acceptable?

1. Growth is slowing, at about the middle UN estimate I believe. It appears to peak at about 9bn in 2050 and possibly start falling according to some estimates. This is because birthrates may possibly fall below replacement rates soon, but rising longevity may counteract that trend somewhat.
2. True, we may need to look to space or manage Earth better.
3. We need more research to ascertain a value. It also depends on what you classify as affecting everyone's QOL. People have different interpretations of the Earth's carrying capacity.

I haven't put much thought into population control, because I know some of the negatives and it doesn't seem like it's necessary. Figuring out a workable system may be a good (while possibly being terrible) back up plan if things go down hill.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 6:07:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:23:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:33:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
We don't need population control, we need to stop entitlement mined, stupid people from procreating so they don't pass on their sense of entitlement and stupidity to future generations thus preventing them from destroying the entire planet.

Isn't that population control?

It certainly sounds like eugenics, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 8:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:23:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/18/2014 6:33:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
We don't need population control, we need to stop entitlement mined, stupid people from procreating so they don't pass on their sense of entitlement and stupidity to future generations thus preventing them from destroying the entire planet.

Isn't that population control?

Ya I guess so, but with that said the planet can sustain more people if the aforementioned are not allowed to procreate. Thus there would be no need to control the growth of a good productive population, as a good productive population does not procreate because it's "neato" or it can collect a subsidy for doing so.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 2:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.

Destroying the importance of monogamy would seem a little counterproductive. Polygamy expands the possibility of having kids, and monogamy obviously has a limit. Honestly, to stop the population growth, it would seem more effective to establish monogamy as important.

Summarized:

1+1=3

1+3=7

If you understand what I mean by this :P

Maybe I'm not catching your reasoning, but those are my thoughts right off the bat.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Population control as a whole should never exist. It takes away basic human rights in addition to giving the government far too much power. Either humans make it a form of personal responsibility, we find some technological way to inhabit another planet, form man made land across the ocean, inhabit areas of the Earth that have not yet been inhabited fully, or we suffer the consequences.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 5:13:58 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I agree with n7 (it feels weird calling you that). We need to find a way to inhabit other planets as well, ultimately increasing the amount of resources we have access to drastically.

Why do we have to go as far as to inhabit other planets when there is still plenty of room on this planet? The problem is how large societies are growing, not the lack of space on Earth itself.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:03:58 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:13:58 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I agree with n7 (it feels weird calling you that). We need to find a way to inhabit other planets as well, ultimately increasing the amount of resources we have access to drastically.

Why do we have to go as far as to inhabit other planets when there is still plenty of room on this planet? The problem is how large societies are growing, not the lack of space on Earth itself.

Because space isn't what people are talking about when we're talking about overpopulation. We're talking about the eventual reality of there not being enough resources for the current population to deal with. With other planets, we have increased amounts of resources available to us.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:14:10 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/20/2014 3:03:58 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:13:58 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I agree with n7 (it feels weird calling you that). We need to find a way to inhabit other planets as well, ultimately increasing the amount of resources we have access to drastically.

Why do we have to go as far as to inhabit other planets when there is still plenty of room on this planet? The problem is how large societies are growing, not the lack of space on Earth itself.

Because space isn't what people are talking about when we're talking about overpopulation. We're talking about the eventual reality of there not being enough resources for the current population to deal with. With other planets, we have increased amounts of resources available to us.

The question is though, what percentage of Earth's resources are we actually using? Also, it may not be the lack of resources that is the problem, but that we need new innovative ideas on how to reach said resources.

Also, what resources can we accumulate from other planets? Is it possible to grow food on other planets? Can we get resources such as oil from certain planets?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:28:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:18:07 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/20/2014 3:14:10 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/20/2014 3:03:58 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/18/2014 5:13:58 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I agree with n7 (it feels weird calling you that). We need to find a way to inhabit other planets as well, ultimately increasing the amount of resources we have access to drastically.

Why do we have to go as far as to inhabit other planets when there is still plenty of room on this planet? The problem is how large societies are growing, not the lack of space on Earth itself.

Because space isn't what people are talking about when we're talking about overpopulation. We're talking about the eventual reality of there not being enough resources for the current population to deal with. With other planets, we have increased amounts of resources available to us.

The question is though, what percentage of Earth's resources are we actually using? Also, it may not be the lack of resources that is the problem, but that we need new innovative ideas on how to reach said resources.

I don't personally care to look that up at the moment. The issue is that many of the resources that are necessary are not renewable, and regardless of the level of efficiency we can get in output, there will come a point where it is literally impossible to have the output necessary to sustain a population. At that point, the only option we will have is to increase the amount of resources we have access to.

Also, what resources can we accumulate from other planets? Is it possible to grow food on other planets? Can we get resources such as oil from certain planets?

Yes, and if not, terraforming.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:31:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:28:12 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I don't personally care to look that up at the moment. The issue is that many of the resources that are necessary are not renewable, and regardless of the level of efficiency we can get in output, there will come a point where it is literally impossible to have the output necessary to sustain a population. At that point, the only option we will have is to increase the amount of resources we have access to.

Good. So not let's relate this back to population control. Since our some of our necessary resources are not renewable, the solution is not to post pone the inevitable via population control, but to find a new way to accumulate nonrenewable resources through other means. Now some my argue that while finding this solution, population control should be used as a means to "give humanity more time" in order to achieve a way to find new resources, which would bring us back to whether or not population control is ethical.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 2:22:31 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.

Destroying the importance of monogamy would seem a little counterproductive. Polygamy expands the possibility of having kids, and monogamy obviously has a limit. Honestly, to stop the population growth, it would seem more effective to establish monogamy as important.

Summarized:

1+1=3

1+3=7

If you understand what I mean by this :P

Maybe I'm not catching your reasoning, but those are my thoughts right off the bat.

I understand the point you're making, but I think that would only be the case where it is a man with many wives living in the same household, like some kind of tribal situation, but I'm not arguing for the idea of men taking more wives, rather the abandonment of marriage and such exclusive relationships, which I see as constructs that encourage or make easier having children.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 3:39:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:31:48 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/20/2014 3:28:12 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I don't personally care to look that up at the moment. The issue is that many of the resources that are necessary are not renewable, and regardless of the level of efficiency we can get in output, there will come a point where it is literally impossible to have the output necessary to sustain a population. At that point, the only option we will have is to increase the amount of resources we have access to.

Good. So not let's relate this back to population control. Since our some of our necessary resources are not renewable, the solution is not to post pone the inevitable via population control, but to find a new way to accumulate nonrenewable resources through other means. Now some my argue that while finding this solution, population control should be used as a means to "give humanity more time" in order to achieve a way to find new resources, which would bring us back to whether or not population control is ethical.

I agree that population control measures shouldn't be taken. The issue of how to deal with overpopulation is, as you said, to give humanity more time. One of the only ways I see to do this is to expand to other planets.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 3:38:15 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/20/2014 2:22:31 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 4/18/2014 10:33:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
Massively improve living conditions, make contraception available to all, destroy the societal importance of monogamy and the family. That would be a start.

Destroying the importance of monogamy would seem a little counterproductive. Polygamy expands the possibility of having kids, and monogamy obviously has a limit. Honestly, to stop the population growth, it would seem more effective to establish monogamy as important.

Summarized:

1+1=3

1+3=7

If you understand what I mean by this :P

Maybe I'm not catching your reasoning, but those are my thoughts right off the bat.

I understand the point you're making, but I think that would only be the case where it is a man with many wives living in the same household, like some kind of tribal situation, but I'm not arguing for the idea of men taking more wives, rather the abandonment of marriage and such exclusive relationships, which I see as constructs that encourage or make easier having children.

Then I guess we mainly disagree on the outcome. From my personal observation, doing away with the idea of marriage would lead to greater sexual activity (protected and unprotected). I guess in that situation it depends on how much contraceptives are used. Since the consequences are hard to determine, I'd become an anti-consequentialist at the point and not resort to something that could very possibly lead to a growth of what we were trying to stop.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:53:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:17:36 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:

I'd argue there are largely unrelated reasons why monogamy, marriage, exclusive relationships in general are 'undesirable' features of a society, and that's due to a sense of moral 'purity' by the way... Let's say there are planned and unplanned pregnancies.

I don't see why it would lead to some kind of gigantic increase increase in sexual activity. Are people going to spend more time socialising if that change occured? Perhaps, but that time would come at the expense of time spent with one's monogamous partner, who you are more likely (I presume...) to have sex with than a friend or stranger. Even if this change did lead to more 'unplanned' pregnancies, such pregnancies are obviously far more likely than planned pregnancies to be aborted, so...

What we should really be trying to reduce is how many 'planned' (or somewhat planned...) pregnancies we have, since these are very unlikely to be aborted, and to the best of my knowledge most children are not born from non-committal sex. Planned pregnancies, to my knowledge, almost certainly will occur in a shared household with a long-term, monogamous partner. Therefore, destroying these conditions, mostly because they're the result of bullsh*t beliefs and institutions, will lead to less planned pregnancies, and so likely result in a decrease in the overall birthrate.

I'm sorry if this betrays me as some hideous middle-class idiot, but I am pretty damn sure that all over the world children grow up in families, or at the very least do not result from casual or non-committal sex (is that the correct word?), which is presumably the only kind of sex that would increase by what I am proposing.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:53:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:

Ah, that helps me understand your reasoning more. Thank you for that explanation.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 5:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 5:58:41 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 4/20/2014 5:53:12 PM, Wocambs wrote:

Ah, that helps me understand your reasoning more. Thank you for that explanation.

Thanks for listening haha.