Transgender kids should allowed to play sports like all other children!!!

[jknowgood]

All this amounts to horrific child abuse in my opinion. Trans individuals have extremely high rates of suicide and much lower life expectancies than straight individuals. While there are certainly children that are legitimately experiencing a genetic or physical abnormality, the large majority of trans people are not. I believe that we have created an environment where kids who want or need attention can say they feel funny and next thing you know, Billy is wearing a dress.

Child abuse? Child abuse is when a child is rejected, shamed and told that it is all in their head as opposed to being taken seriously, listen to and helped to navigate the issue that they are dealing with. The failure to do that is what results in the suicides

The real question is why are small children being taught about sexual matters at such a young age? Heck when I was 10 I was worried about when I would get my next treat. Liberalism destroys everything it touches.

 

[jc456]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

 

[jknowgood]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Abortion on demand proves that, but once they are born, they can preform their sexual perversions on them. Truly sick people.

 

[jc456]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Abortion on demand proves that, but once they are born, they can preform their sexual perversions on them. Truly sick people.

many of them are pedophiles. human traffickers' as well.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

Purple hair? Is that the depth of you intellectual ability to comment on this issue? Do you think that this is a big fucking joke? Is is possible that you do not understand that these trans children are human beings who are struggling with their gender identity and are desperate to fit in and to be accepted?

This whole issue about trans girls in women's sports is hysterical and bigoted bullshit just like the bathroom issue is hysterical and bigoted bullshit. In both cases, it is not about protecting anyone. It is about marginalizing and excluding those who are different.
Consider the fact that there is a wide variation in the size and physical abilities among both boys and girls. Consider the fact that some girls are larger and stronger than some boys. A trans girl will not necessarily have an advantage over a cisgender girl. If a trans girl cannot do sports with the girls because of fear of an unfair advantage, and cannot do sports with the boys.....because SHE is not a boy, where does she go?
If you people were really concerned about children, you would try to find solutions, How about considering weight classes as is already done in boxing and wrestling? Kids on a team, of any gender could be required to fall within certain physical parameters. But no, you don’t want to hear that shit because it undermines the basis of your bigotry. You just want too bitch and complain and make life as difficult as possible for these kids. Shame, shame, shame

LOLOL.....You typed all that for me. Fuck you and drop dead.LOLOLOLOL

God Damned purple haired freaks...............LOLOLOLOLOL

And don't flatter yourself in thinking that I wrote that for you. I wrote in what is proboblt a hopeless attempt to raise the level of discourse to something above that of a special ed. grade

when the team realizes they have to compete against boys, just get back on the bus and go home...enough schools do that and the issue goes away

Megan Rapinoe and the US Womens National soccer team got destroyed by a group of 15 year old boys. The teenage boys beat the best American women by 5 to 2:

"In preparation for two upcoming friendlies against Russia, the U.S. women’s national team played the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team on Sunday and fell 5-2, according to FC Dallas’ official website."

FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage

The match was in preparation for Thursday's USWNT friendly versus Russia

www.cbssports.com

.

“John McEnroe Says Serena Williams Would Be the 700th Best Men’s Tennis Player”

John McEnroe: Serena Would Be the 700th Best Men’s Player

"If she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world"

time.com

​

I did make one slight mistake in my post. I said that the US women's national team was beaten by a team of 15 year old boys. The boys team is a local Dallas team for boys under the age of 15. It would be more accurate to say that the best national women's team was in fact crushed 5 to 2 by a local group of 14 and 13 year old boys.

The simple fact is that women cannot compete against men in sports that demand physical effort. Men have a clear physiological advantage.

.

I bet that was a punch in the gut to that angry lesbo with the ridiculous hair

Well you see her brain has been pickled so she is a natural purple haired head oozing through .Only its hairdresser knows for sure.......

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

Purple hair? Is that the depth of you intellectual ability to comment on this issue? Do you think that this is a big fucking joke? Is is possible that you do not understand that these trans children are human beings who are struggling with their gender identity and are desperate to fit in and to be accepted?

This whole issue about trans girls in women's sports is hysterical and bigoted bullshit just like the bathroom issue is hysterical and bigoted bullshit. In both cases, it is not about protecting anyone. It is about marginalizing and excluding those who are different.
Consider the fact that there is a wide variation in the size and physical abilities among both boys and girls. Consider the fact that some girls are larger and stronger than some boys. A trans girl will not necessarily have an advantage over a cisgender girl. If a trans girl cannot do sports with the girls because of fear of an unfair advantage, and cannot do sports with the boys.....because SHE is not a boy, where does she go?
If you people were really concerned about children, you would try to find solutions, How about considering weight classes as is already done in boxing and wrestling? Kids on a team, of any gender could be required to fall within certain physical parameters. But no, you don’t want to hear that shit because it undermines the basis of your bigotry. You just want too bitch and complain and make life as difficult as possible for these kids. Shame, shame, shame

LOLOL.....You typed all that for me. Fuck you and drop dead.LOLOLOLOL

God Damned purple haired freaks...............LOLOLOLOLOL

And don't flatter yourself in thinking that I wrote that for you. I wrote in what is proboblt a hopeless attempt to raise the level of discourse to something above that of a special ed. grade

when the team realizes they have to compete against boys, just get back on the bus and go home...enough schools do that and the issue goes away

Megan Rapinoe and the US Womens National soccer team got destroyed by a group of 15 year old boys. The teenage boys beat the best American women by 5 to 2:

"In preparation for two upcoming friendlies against Russia, the U.S. women’s national team played the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team on Sunday and fell 5-2, according to FC Dallas’ official website."

FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage

The match was in preparation for Thursday's USWNT friendly versus Russia

www.cbssports.com

.

“John McEnroe Says Serena Williams Would Be the 700th Best Men’s Tennis Player”

John McEnroe: Serena Would Be the 700th Best Men’s Player

"If she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world"

time.com

​

I did make one slight mistake in my post. I said that the US women's national team was beaten by a team of 15 year old boys. The boys team is a local Dallas team for boys under the age of 15. It would be more accurate to say that the best national women's team was in fact crushed 5 to 2 by a local group of 14 and 13 year old boys.

The simple fact is that women cannot compete against men in sports that demand physical effort. Men have a clear physiological advantage.

.

I would be OK if David Hogg played for the wimmens team. At least that is pretty gender accurate..........jest sayin.........................

 

[Papageorgio]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

Purple hair? Is that the depth of you intellectual ability to comment on this issue? Do you think that this is a big fucking joke? Is is possible that you do not understand that these trans children are human beings who are struggling with their gender identity and are desperate to fit in and to be accepted?

This whole issue about trans girls in women's sports is hysterical and bigoted bullshit just like the bathroom issue is hysterical and bigoted bullshit. In both cases, it is not about protecting anyone. It is about marginalizing and excluding those who are different.
Consider the fact that there is a wide variation in the size and physical abilities among both boys and girls. Consider the fact that some girls are larger and stronger than some boys. A trans girl will not necessarily have an advantage over a cisgender girl. If a trans girl cannot do sports with the girls because of fear of an unfair advantage, and cannot do sports with the boys.....because SHE is not a boy, where does she go?
If you people were really concerned about children, you would try to find solutions, How about considering weight classes as is already done in boxing and wrestling? Kids on a team, of any gender could be required to fall within certain physical parameters. But no, you don’t want to hear that shit because it undermines the basis of your bigotry. You just want too bitch and complain and make life as difficult as possible for these kids. Shame, shame, shame

I thought you commies were all about science. The fact is a boy has a larger lung capacity and larger bone structure than a girl of a similar height and weight. That's a scientific fact, and it gives boys a physical advantaged over girls.

So take you commie propaganda and shove it.

.

I am absolutly amazed at how willfully ignorant people like you are.

And we are likewise amazed at what a moron you are.

You can call me a moron all you want but the fact is that ihave offered a solution to a complex problem and all that you people do is riddicule and demean trans kids and set them up for self destructive behavior. You have blood on your hands

Your solution is ignoring basic human science. You are disadvantaging biological females and not taking in to consideration their emotional and mental needs.

 

[Burgermeister]

Whenever the worst team on their schedule plays the US women's national team, I wish they would field a team of dudes dressed like women and kick our team's ass.

 

[harmonica]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

she is a HATER and a b%^&h......
....her hatred warps her thinking....she can't even understand basic economics/business

 

[Burgermeister]

How can any child know their inherent gender proclivities until puberty?
No one has any sexual orientation until puberty, so then nothing should ever be done until after puberty and a counter orientation was discovered.

I'm sure the vast majority of people know their sexual orientation well before puberty. That isn't an argument for this stupid trans crap on a kid.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.

Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.

Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.

"Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain."


I have rarely seen anyone validate Reagan's statement about Liberals better than you do:







Here is the math that proves you a dunce:. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!

The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.



So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...



Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.



The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.



But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?



Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.



With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!



To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.



But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.



The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!



So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.



Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.



Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

 

[Rigby5]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

Purple hair? Is that the depth of you intellectual ability to comment on this issue? Do you think that this is a big fucking joke? Is is possible that you do not understand that these trans children are human beings who are struggling with their gender identity and are desperate to fit in and to be accepted?

This whole issue about trans girls in women's sports is hysterical and bigoted bullshit just like the bathroom issue is hysterical and bigoted bullshit. In both cases, it is not about protecting anyone. It is about marginalizing and excluding those who are different.
Consider the fact that there is a wide variation in the size and physical abilities among both boys and girls. Consider the fact that some girls are larger and stronger than some boys. A trans girl will not necessarily have an advantage over a cisgender girl. If a trans girl cannot do sports with the girls because of fear of an unfair advantage, and cannot do sports with the boys.....because SHE is not a boy, where does she go?
If you people were really concerned about children, you would try to find solutions, How about considering weight classes as is already done in boxing and wrestling? Kids on a team, of any gender could be required to fall within certain physical parameters. But no, you don’t want to hear that shit because it undermines the basis of your bigotry. You just want too bitch and complain and make life as difficult as possible for these kids. Shame, shame, shame

Wrong.
First of all, we are not talking about elementary school, where females sometimes are larger than males due to a natural accelerated growth.
In elementary school, likely there should not even be any sports competition since it can be very harmful at that age.

By high school, where competitive sports starts, males definitely have huge advantages due to over a decade of male steroids that changes muscle, bone, lungs, etc.
When you say that transgender will not have an inherent advantage, that is just wrong.
The only women that will not be greatly outclassed unfairly by a transgender females would be if the transgender female was not an athlete. And if that were the case, then there would not be any point to the discussion at all since they would not be unfairly competing.

Sure it is a shame there is no way a transgender can then compete in sports, but so what?
Most people do not compete in sports.
There are plenty of other things a transgender or anyone can do instead.
For example, they can instead try to excel in art, dance, science, debate, writing, verbal skills, design clothing, etc.

It is very simple.
Allowing a few trans females to compete in sports ignores their decades of steroid advantage, and totally ruins sports for ALL women.
That obviously is selfish and wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

By Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe Says Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are 'Political Assaults' on LGBTQ Community

U.S. Women's National Team star Megan Rapinoe says a slew of new bills banning transgender athletes are "political assaults" on the LGBTQ community

people.com

Can't ever recall a person with purple hair normal or stable.

Purple hair? Is that the depth of you intellectual ability to comment on this issue? Do you think that this is a big fucking joke? Is is possible that you do not understand that these trans children are human beings who are struggling with their gender identity and are desperate to fit in and to be accepted?

This whole issue about trans girls in women's sports is hysterical and bigoted bullshit just like the bathroom issue is hysterical and bigoted bullshit. In both cases, it is not about protecting anyone. It is about marginalizing and excluding those who are different.
Consider the fact that there is a wide variation in the size and physical abilities among both boys and girls. Consider the fact that some girls are larger and stronger than some boys. A trans girl will not necessarily have an advantage over a cisgender girl. If a trans girl cannot do sports with the girls because of fear of an unfair advantage, and cannot do sports with the boys.....because SHE is not a boy, where does she go?
If you people were really concerned about children, you would try to find solutions, How about considering weight classes as is already done in boxing and wrestling? Kids on a team, of any gender could be required to fall within certain physical parameters. But no, you don’t want to hear that shit because it undermines the basis of your bigotry. You just want too bitch and complain and make life as difficult as possible for these kids. Shame, shame, shame

LOLOL.....You typed all that for me. Fuck you and drop dead.LOLOLOLOL

God Damned purple haired freaks...............LOLOLOLOLOL

And don't flatter yourself in thinking that I wrote that for you. I wrote in what is proboblt a hopeless attempt to raise the level of discourse to something above that of a special ed. grade

But your proposal makes no sense.
The reason some do better than others are due to physical parameters.
So if you separate by physical parameters, then you will prevent trans women from being allowed to compete with XX female women.

The mistake is to even assume sports competition is even a good idea for anyone?
It certainly is not necessary.

And the greatest harm would be if trans women would be allowed to compete with XX women, because no XX women then would ever have any chance of winning at all, and it would rob half the population of being able to compete in sports at all. Your solution would harm the greatest number of people, all XX women, in order to appease the smallest number of people, the trans women.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.

Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.

"Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain."


I have rarely seen anyone validate Reagan's statement about Liberals better than you do:







Here is the math that proves you a dunce:. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!

The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.



So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...



Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.



The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.



But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?



Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.



With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!



To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.



But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.



The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!



So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.



Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.



Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

Wrong.

When you say, " The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City! ", that ignores the fact most of the world can't be inhabited. It is too rocky, dry, hot, cold, etc. And we can't occupy it, because we need it, to grow food, to produce oxygen, etc.

If you look at historical populations, it did not rise very much until the industrial revolution. Starvation kept it low until then. And why did the industrial revolution change that? It was because we discovered fossil fuel can be used to greatly increase food production, artificially. We found we could not only artificially fertilize, but also ship food much greater distances. Fossil fuel has increased food production by more than a factor of 100. It was artificial fossil fuel use that allow populations to start increasing around 1800.
But that is not going to last. It is running out. It is not sustainable.

To make you think about how little you understand about it, just consider the oxygen we breath.
The planet has a large buffer, and if its production would stop, we still would have hundreds of years worth to breath.
But that really is not much. Oxygen has to constantly be recycled. And that is done mostly by forests. So if you cut down to many trees, then we run out of oxygen eventually. You did not take into account how complicated the world really is, and how dependent and unaware we really are. Its like ignoring the fact of pollinators like bees were to die off, our food production would drop by more than 50%.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.

Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.

"Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain."


I have rarely seen anyone validate Reagan's statement about Liberals better than you do:







Here is the math that proves you a dunce:. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!

The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.



So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...



Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.



The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.



But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?



Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.



With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!



To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.



But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.



The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!



So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.



Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.



Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

Wrong.

When you say, " The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City! ", that ignores the fact most of the world can't be inhabited. It is too rocky, dry, hot, cold, etc. And we can't occupy it, because we need it, to grow food, to produce oxygen, etc.

If you look at historical populations, it did not rise very much until the industrial revolution. Starvation kept it low until then. And why did the industrial revolution change that? It was because we discovered fossil fuel can be used to greatly increase food production, artificially. We found we could not only artificially fertilize, but also ship food much greater distances. Fossil fuel has increased food production by more than a factor of 100. It was artificial fossil fuel use that allow populations to start increasing around 1800.
But that is not going to last. It is running out. It is not sustainable.

To make you think about how little you understand about it, just consider the oxygen we breath.
The planet has a large buffer, and if its production would stop, we still would have hundreds of years worth to breath.
But that really is not much. Oxygen has to constantly be recycled. And that is done mostly by forests. So if you cut down to many trees, then we run out of oxygen eventually. You did not take into account how complicated the world really is, and how dependent and unaware we really are. Its like ignoring the fact of pollinators like bees were to die off, our food production would drop by more than 50%.

1. I'm never wrong....it's the main difference between the two of us

2. The math is provided in the post.
And all you can do is "is not, isssssssssssss noooooooootttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Now....you should immediately ask for a new avi....."MALTHUS"

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s a new limp wrist like offering from the aberrant. Boy cant compete against boys so “becomes” a girl and wipes them all out

 

[Rigby5]

Actually the harm is altering little kids bodies before they are an adult. All the while when these children grow up, they will realize they screwed up. That's the harm you support.

they hate children.

Here's proof:


"...Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds, as a GAO report indicated last year."
How Much of Your Tax Money Does Planned Parenthood Get? A New Report Will Tell You | LifeNews.com

Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain.
If we keep that up, species extinction is the only possible result eventually.
Humans have way too abnormally high of a reproduction rate.
It evolved when we were prey.
Like rabbits.
But now that we have enough technology so we are the predators instead of prey, we need a much lower rate of reproduction, like all other predators.
This is compounded by the increasing lifespan, and huge increase of the rate of consumption of each individual.

Just think about what we are doing.
It takes hundreds of millions of years for plants to concentrate sunlight into fossil fuels.
So then we are using up billions of years worth of concentrated solar energy, as if there was an unlimited supply.
People who say we should just switch over to wind and photovoltaic, just don't get it.
We would need to almost pave the entire planet with photovoltaic and batteries, in order to replace what we get out of fossil fuels.
We only have between 50 and 400 years of fossil fuels left, and a huge tragedy looms as that time approaches.
We really should reduce the population to put that off as long as possible.

"Well there is just no way to refute the simple fact this country probably has over twice the population we can sustain."


I have rarely seen anyone validate Reagan's statement about Liberals better than you do:







Here is the math that proves you a dunce:. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!

The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.



So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...



Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.



The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.



But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?



Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.



With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!



To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.



But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.



The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!



So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.



Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.



Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

Wrong.

When you say, " The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City! ", that ignores the fact most of the world can't be inhabited. It is too rocky, dry, hot, cold, etc. And we can't occupy it, because we need it, to grow food, to produce oxygen, etc.

If you look at historical populations, it did not rise very much until the industrial revolution. Starvation kept it low until then. And why did the industrial revolution change that? It was because we discovered fossil fuel can be used to greatly increase food production, artificially. We found we could not only artificially fertilize, but also ship food much greater distances. Fossil fuel has increased food production by more than a factor of 100. It was artificial fossil fuel use that allow populations to start increasing around 1800.
But that is not going to last. It is running out. It is not sustainable.

To make you think about how little you understand about it, just consider the oxygen we breath.
The planet has a large buffer, and if its production would stop, we still would have hundreds of years worth to breath.
But that really is not much. Oxygen has to constantly be recycled. And that is done mostly by forests. So if you cut down to many trees, then we run out of oxygen eventually. You did not take into account how complicated the world really is, and how dependent and unaware we really are. Its like ignoring the fact of pollinators like bees were to die off, our food production would drop by more than 50%.

1. I'm never wrong....it's the main difference between the two of us

2. The math is provided in the post.
And all you can do is "is not, isssssssssssss noooooooootttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Now....you should immediately ask for a new avi....."MALTHUS"

That is the point, Malthus did the numbers, and he was right.
The only avoidance we did was through the application of fossil fuels, to increase food production, TEMPORARILY.
We have not gotten around the scientific calculations of Malthus at all.
We just delayed the inevitable until after we run out of fossil fuel.
Fossil fuel is the only thing that changed the result of the Malthus math, and that is temporary.
Fossil fuels can not be replenished in less than hundreds of millions of years.

Go back and reconsider the fact fertilizers, tractors, trucks, ships, trains, food processing plants, etc., all depend on fossil fuels, and how much less food we would have if not for fossil fuels.
Go back to before we were able to process fossil fuels, and you will see that the majority then had to live on farms, not only to use manpower to produce foods, but so that we were near enough to where the food was.

 

[WEATHER53]

As far as US population the USA produces So Much Food that the government does and has for decades paid farmers to Not grow to avoid price dropping oversupply