Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[vsedriver]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

Society denies certain people access to marriage on the grounds that they don’t fit the criteria for marriage. Homosexuals are free to marry under the same criteria as Heterosexuals.

First you must define the criteria for marriage. I believe this is the current standard. Hopefully I haven’t left anything out:

Limited to one man and one woman
Limited to adults of legal age and mentally competent
Limited to adults not already married
Limited to adults not closely related

The only sexual criteria for marriage is that there is only one of each gender in the marriage. Sexual orientation is not part of the criteria of marriage. Otherwise it would be illegal for homosexuals to participate in a marriage within these criteria. Since there are many homosexuals in two gendered marriages there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Should the state decide to change the criteria of marriage it should be up to the people to make that choice. Since the above criteria does not discriminate based on race, religion, place of origin, gender or sexual orientation, there is no need for courts to impose a criteria change on the people.

Should the people vote for a criteria change then there should be an exclusion for religious organizations. Churches should not be forced to hold homosexual marriages, receptions, nor should Church run adoption agencies be forced to adopt out to homosexuals.

Should the courts force a change in the criteria of one man and one woman for marriage then I think it would be very easy for the courts to change the number criteria and make polygamy a legal form of marriage. As there would be no justification for limiting the number of people in a marriage.

Also there would be no justification for limiting any form of marriage. Ultimately, the state will get out of the marriage business. People will be allowed to draw up a contract or not as they please. Children will be overseen by the state to ensure proper care.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes, “Science Speaks”, it was cited in the quote.

Indeed it was but the work that you claim this mathematician did was not quoted in the article you posted and I am not going to read a book because you can’t be bothered sourcing the information required to support your claims.

That’s just Manhattan. But it doesn’t make a difference to the argument. I didn’t say everyone would live on a ranch.

They don’t have to live on a ranch but they would still have to live in apartment buildings or otherwise cram people into smaller living areas.

Except I showed you the math. It is clearly possible. Your cherished belief that the world is overpopulated is demonstrably false.

Many, many people disagree with you. If you want to go through some of the info, feel free to check out some of these sites:
cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm
overpopulation.org/
sevenwords.org/human-overpopulation-causes-effects-and-solutions/

None of this has anything to do with the bare fact everyone on the planet could live in Texas quite comfortably. Food isn’t grow locally, my kitchen is full of stuff from thousands of miles away. People can work close to their home in large cities without a problem. In NYC average people work and live within an easy commuting distance. You are making stuff up.

You seem to have misunderstood, our food might be grown and harvested thousands of miles away but if everybody lived in Texas, there wouldn’t be any room for the agriculture, mining or almost any production capabilities within the state, it would simply be one big city because of the population density. To make up for this the production facilities would have to surround the city and with the amount of production required the facilities would have to spread for hundreds of miles. Effectively not allowing everyone to live in Texas because it would take over a day to get to and from work and an extremely long time to send the resources back to the city, subsequently we would abuse the resources surrounding Texas so much that we would have to spread out further in order to attain the required resources. That is what is required for everybody to live in such a confined space and it is unattainable because the production requirements could not be met in any kind of reasonable manner. The metropolitan area of this city would be several hundred miles on it’s own and the suburban areas surrounding would have to be very restricted or otherwise have apartment buildings outside of the metropolis. The people that live in NYC metropolis do not go to work in production facilities though, there would be plenty of schools, hospitals, office buildings, banks and other metropolitan work places but the production facilities, especially the agriculture would be spread way too far from the city.

I am right and I proved it with the math. Everyone could live in Texas just like NYC, LA or other large American cities. If you cannot admit you are wrong even when the math proves it, then why should we take anything you say seriously? You simply believe what you want, no evidence necessary. The math doesn’t lie, you are demonstrably wrong. There is no room for disagreement. The world is not overpopulated nor in any immediate danger of it.

The reason you’re wrong is because the density of populations in those areas are due to the metropolis which has an extremely high population density but New York city is 345 times smaller than the city you are proposing could exist in a state the size of Texas. Subsequently the metropolis is not hundreds of miles away from the production facilities which would be required if a city the size of Texas did exist. The worlds resources are stretched thin as it is let alone having to focus the entire worlds production capabilities into a fraction of the size it currently is and then forcing everyone to live in a dense area when the places they need to work are located so far away.

What you propose is impossible, we could definitely fit the worlds population into a state the size of Texas but they could not possibly live there.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hinduismis a false faith.

According to you but about 900,000,000 people would disagree with you on that point. Care to support your assertion with some evidence?

Christianity is verified as true mathematically.

You have claimed this several times but I am yet to see the work I’ve requested. Vague references to books will not be enough, you need to post the specific work showing everyone how the mathematician reached his conclusions to support that claim.

If Christianity is true then all other conflicting faiths are false by definition.

True but I hope you know that when discussing the supernatural no matter how many fulfilled prophecies you give me, the Bible’s claims of God could still be false. The nature of the supernatural removes confidence from any statement because a malevolent supernatural being who intends to deceive could just as easily influence these people throughout history. That’s the problem with believing in the supernatural, by it’s very nature it is capable of anything including ‘perfect’ deception.

Yet billions of others have. From your inability to admit a mathematical truth contrary to your cherished beliefs in the over population argument. I suspect that it wouldn’t matter if you had or not. That’s the problem with ignoring it when someone proves your position wrong beyond any doubt. Now we know that things like mathematical proof, logic, and evidence do not really matter to you.

You misunderstood my objections in that discussion.

 

[Kelley_Green]

I hope this is a joke. Do you really want the government making laws involving the internal practices of religions?

They already do to an extent, which is why ‘honor killing’ or depriving a child of medical care is not a legitimate legal defense.

Homosexual couples can’t actually have children - it is physically impossible. Any question of how they treat other people’s children is outside the range of whether or not they can successfully reproduce within marriage.

They haven’t lost their ability to reproduce by virtue of being gay. They do at times resort to using surrogates within the gay community. Nearly every gay child historically came from a hetero pairing, so that does tend to diminish the theory that it’s all nurture. Gay couples have also yielded hetero children that aren’t confused about their identity. There’s an element of random chance going on in genetics.

A girl recounts her experience from being brought up under a same-sex attracted father.
ncregister.com/site/article/191…
At this point, the discussion is about the harm done to children of same-sex people… Until the homosexual movement can prove their parenting is safe and is as good as heterosexual parents, then children should not be endangered in such an experiment…We have conflicting studies.

1. These are stories that reinforce confirmation bias within society. Truth: hetero’s have no clue what it means to be gay.
2. Many of the fears of gay trace to leviticus. The more I’ve listened to over the top reactions the more I realized it has to do with males who struggle coming to terms with their own sexual feelings. Not to my personal standard imposed upon them, mind you, but to civilization and religious standards. I feel a good deal of empathy for males today because there seems to be 2 extremes as role model, neither of which are healthy for the vast majority of males. Ultra chastity denying all sexual feelings, and wanton abandon pursing vice in free society; a multi billion $ porn industry. What’s most needful for these young men are healthy male role models getting legitimate platform whereas our culture tends to fixate on extremes & attention seeking of sensationalism. Normal is ‘boring’, and that has more to do with what we as a society value or fail to value.

Throughout history there’s no shortage of males blurring lines linking sexuality with violence and/or predatory behavior. Although leviticus does not command that I as a woman abstain, my natural proclivity for hetero orientation makes that command obsolete. Sacrificing lima beans for lent has no meaning to me when I care not for lima beans.

I do not feel that any meaningful conversation can take place until hetero males quit being bashful & tight lipped about their own feelings that have nothing to do with the outside world around them. To resurrect the 50’s or puritan austerity will yield another round of repression and backlash we saw in the 60’s. First Adam hid. Then Adam pointed his bony finger of denial at Eve (and single mothers, and liberals, and gays, and blacks, and mexicans, and all others failing to be ‘like minded’). Then Adam blamed God. Adam has many thorns in his heart that I endeavor to help heal. How is it possible to heal him when the devil whispers in his ear against his doctor? The defense of marriage act is a misnomer for the defense of denial act. No sacred union is realized in any marriage until both parties involved comprehend the sacredness of their lives and their reproductive capacity. It’s best articulated by long time happily married couples, having mastered the art of honoring the beloved.

1. The posits you posted are a catch 22. Would gays have the stigma of being unchaste & licentious if social norms & legalized oppression were not steering them into the behavior in the first place? How is it possible that gays can aspire for a lifelong commitment to one partner if the law prohibits them? Are the troubles children of gay couples originating from the couples, or are they originating from social assaults persecuting them? Similar to interracial children getting abused by racist attitudes from both races. High suicide rates among gays has more to do with their feelings of persecution inflicted by hetero population.
2. Healthy separation of church and state: I would hope the Church would use this opportunity to exercise it’s religious right to be selective about who they join in holy matrimony. The proper defense of marriage is not “do you, alcoholic, take schizophrenic, to be your lawfully wedded”. The authority vested in the church being abused by manipulating secular law is inconsistent with scripture. It’s not the worlds job to uphold my faith. It’s my job to uphold my own faith, willingly, with full consent and graciously accepting the consequence of those sacrifices I make in practice of my faith. Lashing at protestants for failing to uphold my standard of lent betrays my own lack of faith. Protesting a steak house on friday demanding legislation be declared to observe my faith properly only betrays my own weakness/ lack of faith/ self discipline.
3. Pure legal boundary issues alone, it’s secular & religious law inflicting itself on gays, and not the other way around. It’s hetero’s intrusion into their lives, not homosexual intrusion into the personal lives of hetero’s.

 

[Kelley_Green]

But religion cannot dictate science. If the church teaches that homosexuality has some real world harm that is not borne out by the evidence

Therein lies the problem with the Church. They aren’t actually teaching, they’ve only laid down mandates based upon “because I’m the daddy and I said so” which truly is NOT teaching. If I understood comprehensively why a given thing was wrong, I wouldn’t do it for conscientious reasoning and would be empowered as an individual to identify ‘evil’ no matter which cloak it may be wearing. I’d know it by sight, scent, sound-- my full senses employed. If the last instruction my father gave me as a child were to sit still, then he passed away, am I to sit still forever? Creating empty minded mandates that the flock must blindly follow in obedience is negating the job of teaching, only to turn around blaming the flock for why they fail to obey resorting to authoritarian posturing at inappropriate times.

This same argument happens with frustrated parents of teen agers, however, the rest of us are grown consenting adults paying the consequences for being misled with our very lives (and souls). SO… in the spirit of blessed are the peacemakers I’d wish for all parties concerned to focus their attention on what it is they’re intending to protect. Each party at the table has a legitimate concern but all too often resorts to puffery and false suppositions to ‘prove’ their case pandering to the baser nature of populist sentiment. We need to rise above this and remember the higher calling in the tradition of our founders, both secular and religious.

 

[wanner47]

Therein lies the problem with the Church. They aren’t actually teaching, they’ve only laid down mandates based upon “because I’m the daddy and I said so” which truly is NOT teaching. If I understood comprehensively why a given thing was wrong, I wouldn’t do it for conscientious reasoning and would be empowered as an individual to identify ‘evil’ no matter which cloak it may be wearing. I’d know it by sight, scent, sound-- my full senses employed. If the last instruction my father gave me as a child were to sit still, then he passed away, am I to sit still forever? Creating empty minded mandates that the flock must blindly follow in obedience is negating the job of teaching, only to turn around blaming the flock for why they fail to obey resorting to authoritarian posturing at inappropriate times.

This same argument happens with frustrated parents of teen agers, however, the rest of us are grown consenting adults paying the consequences for being misled with our very lives (and souls). SO… in the spirit of blessed are the peacemakers I’d wish for all parties concerned to focus their attention on what it is they’re intending to protect. Each party at the table has a legitimate concern but all too often resorts to puffery and false suppositions to ‘prove’ their case pandering to the baser nature of populist sentiment. We need to rise above this and remember the higher calling in the tradition of our founders, both secular and religious.

You are *profoundly *ignorant of Church teaching. There is a WEALTH of teaching about the fallacy of same sex marriage from the Vatican as well as respected Catholic theologians. Merely one example: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The Church does NOT say, “This is wrong because we said so.” She says, “This is wrong, and here is why.”

Please educate yourself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed it was but the work that you claim this mathematician did was not quoted in the article you posted and I am not going to read a book because you can’t be bothered sourcing the information required to support your claims.

Why would you need to read the book to understand the methodology? Its basic probability. We can set the particular odds of any variable after we agree on the epistemic issues, after all. it won’t happen at all until then.

They don’t have to live on a ranch but they would still have to live in apartment buildings or otherwise cram people into smaller living areas.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

According to you but about 900,000,000 …

I have already answered these in various posts.

 

[Ana_v]

The Eucharist is something within a religious group. Gay marriage is a civil issue and encompasses society. This is comparing apples and oranges.

(emphasis mine)

TheTrueCentrist, the above is the answer – to the issue you brought up – in very straightforward terms. Allowing civil gay marriage does NOT just affect the parties entering the marriage. All in the society are affected, because it radically alters the definition of marriage by making it genderless,
and a genderless definition is what future generations will be born exposed to and be pressured into accepting.

As homosexual romance relationships and sexual behavior become more and more widespread, defended, applauded, etc, the easier it is for the next generation, and generation after that, etc, to embrace these as morally legitimate expressions of sexual diversity (or at the very least, view these as morally neutral, if not morally good).

I explained to a secularist in the past, with whom I had a long online conversation with on this topic that … This is how a moral judgement (e.g. homosexual behavior is wrong) towards a particular practice can become shunned: increase the frequency of the practice.

Homosexual couples know fully well the connotation of the word “marriage”, and the way to catalyze acceptance of their particular brand of sexuality is to grant them marriage.

Did anyone read about the psychologists at a Canadian Parliament session, that argued pedophilia to be a sexual orientation? (The article contains a link to the transcript of the session).

When it came out, I had posted the news as status on FB, and a friend of mine responded by mocking the comments on the article page, and I responded by saying : “if pedophilia were to become officially recognized as a “sexual orientation”, given employment policies that prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation, what is to happen if a person who is open about his/her sexual attraction to prepubscent children, is applying for a job that involves working with or close-proximity exposure to such children? discrimination then on the basis of perceived potential threat, or would that be intolerant in the eyes of society?”

Though this thread is isn’t about pedophilia, I bring up the above article and my comment to my friend, to show how when we apply critical thinking, we can indeed outline the implications, of relaxing traditional morals towards sexuality.

 

[Kelley_Green]

Apparently A’s and P’s are running together tonight…my point still stands that supposed neutral organizations can and do have a political agenda. It is unfair and illogical to discard religious back studies simply because they are related religious. One must criticize the study. I don’t care what the ASA said about Cameron. I care about the critique of his study.

Are we in service to the truth or not? When every position of the Church and right wing agenda has made habit of instigating malevolence, then follow through denying the offense with accusations of persecution when it is they out of control with themselves, my ear is being abused too often with false cries about wolves every which way.

Next comes the accusation of disloyalty, as if it is Eve’s job to be loyal to something OTHER than the truth. Something OTHER than God? :compcoff:
How truthful is this?
youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM

If it is unclear to hetero’s why God made gays and too many are unwilling to do the homework, shouldn’t we just resign ourselves to the fact they exist and refrain from partaking in the behavior? Why is that insufficient? What’s more, how prepared are you (through policy) to remove a gay child from the care of their biological hetero parents contributing to their suicidal feelings? No clear cut lines of law can parse hetero from homosexual, but the needs of the children must come first.

Before another 17 month old boy is beaten to death for ‘acting like a girl’, I think it wise that men examine the darkness in their own hearts more intensely. Whatever it is you’re afraid of, I’ll listen, I’ll roll up my sleeves, get my hands dirty wrestling that demon to the ground with you. I can stand by your side for that, but not the rest of this insanity posing as manhood. When men are in the act of blindly swinging punches at ghosts, it’s not the rest of the world with the problem. We need you (collectively) well.

 

[jmcrae]

Somehow, civilization has managed to progress these ten thousand years without legalized gay marriage.

I really see no advantage to society, or to homosexual persons themselves (since they can do anything they want in the privacy of their own homes without the need of legal marriage) to legalizing “gay marriage.”

It’s kind of like painting black people’s skin white to make them equal with whites - marriage has nothing to do with what homosexual people do or are - all it is is an “ape-ing” of heterosexual society. There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that requires any kind of pairing off, let alone the permanency of a marital relationship.

 

[Kelley_Green]

Because G-d said so. He also rejected bestiality, necrophilia, incest, adultery, interfamilial sex (mothers and daughters), or sex with the in-laws.

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 5:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Hosea 3:1[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 18:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 6:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Does God change God’s mind, do people change God’s mind, or perhaps it is we who fail to understand again and again? New Covenant. Not old.

 

[Kelley_Green]

Somehow, civilization has managed to progress these ten thousand years without legalized gay marriage.

I really see no advantage to society, or to homosexual persons themselves (since they can do anything they want in the privacy of their own homes without the need of legal marriage) to legalizing “gay marriage.”

It’s kind of like painting black people’s skin white to make them equal with whites - marriage has nothing to do with what homosexual people do or are - all it is is an “ape-ing” of heterosexual society. There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that requires any kind of pairing off, let alone the permanency of a marital relationship.

What it is in you makes you feel entitled to play God with others lives? You’re unwelcome. It is you who are intruding through writ.

nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
They state their case fully on the right hand column… couples-national.org/
It has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with managing their own lives without interference (from you).

 

[OpenSource]

So then why don’t Catholics fight for a law which defines Eucharist in the Catholic manner and prohibits non-Catholics from receiving it?

Because receiving the Eucharist is between the recipient and God.

Catholics aren’t nannies like you crazy liberals who want to control every aspect of everyone’s lives and in turn have made the country bankruput because of it. It costs money we don’t have to enforce your crazy laws.

The church has laid down rules. Those who don’t follow it are between them and God. Don’t blame the church and don’t blame the rules. Blame your own disobedience.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Why would you need to read the book to understand the methodology? Its basic probability. We can set the particular odds of any variable after we agree on the epistemic issues, after all. it won’t happen at all until then.

I realise this but the population density would have to be large on the outskirts of the city in order to maintain a reasonable production level within all of the production requirements needed by the cities inhabitants. Even with the entire thing being a focused metropolis in order to Maximilien the population capable of working on the outskirts of the city this would still for well short of production requirements for almost seven billion people.

I don’t care.

I’ve noticed as you chose not to respond to the objections I raised to your position.

The math proves me right.

The math suggests that if 7 billion people lived in a state the size of Texas we would be looking at a city similar to the NYC only 345 times larger. My problem is that a city that size is not sustainable as the location of it’s production facilities would have to spread extremely far from that city in order to maintain the needs of the city and even then, it might not be possible to maintain the needs of that city, it’s requirements would be massive and without an even spread of the population over areas with large quantities of natural resources it seems that such an expectation is faulty.

The entire population of the worrld could live in Texas just like people live in New York City or hundreds of other cities around the planet. If these people disagree with the basic math then they are wrong as well. BTW, your making an ad populam…

I was merely allowing you to realise that the problem of over population is well recognized, I was not suggesting I was right because others agreed with me.

I completely understand, your position is not complicated.As I pointed out, I have food from South America and I am using consumer goods from China, and the average American commutes only 16 miles. None of what you are saying is true.

Are you even paying attention to what you are writing? If everybody lived in a city the size of Texas then there wouldn’t be any ‘China’ because all of the Chinese would be living in this city. There’s no such thing as exported and imported goods when everybody lives in one giant city. Because of the strain on resources such a city would place upon the immediate area surrounding, life would not be sustainable for such a large population in such a small place.

Your story contradicts the reality that we already experience. I am clearly correct when I say that the entire population of the world could live in Texas. Just as comfortably as they live in NYC. You are clearly wrong when you deny it. The only reason this is becoming a big deal is because you cannot seem to admit that you are demonstrably wrong.

You have not demonstrated that I am wrong, you have largely ignored my objections and instead suggested that life for a city 345 times the size of New York would be the exact same as life within New York.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I have already answered these in various posts.

No, you have claimed that Christianity is correct and subsequently inferred that every other religion is wrong. I am yet to see you support the original claim though, we have the other thread to analyze the prophecies and I’m still waiting for you to present the methodologies used to support your claims of mathematical support for Christianity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All i’m asking is for you to quote the methodology used by the individual you quoted, why are you refusing?

I have told you twice now that his methodology is mathematical. Its basic probability. As I have already stated. What are you not understanding about that?

I realise this but the population density would have to be large on the outskirts of the city in order to maintain a reasonable production level within all of the production requirements needed by the cities inhabitants. Even with the entire thing being a focused metropolis in order to Maximilien the population capable of working on the outskirts of the city this would still for well short of production requirements for almost seven billion people.

You will make up anything not to admit being wrong won’t you? This is a completely made up story. It has no basis in reality except the one where you cannot admit being wrong. Show me the math.

I’ve noticed as you chose not to respond to the objections I raised to your position.

I have responded. Its an argument from ad popularam. I need no objection to a fallacy except that it is a fallacy.

The math suggests that if 7 billion people lived in a state the size of Texas we would be looking at a city similar to the NYC only 345 times larger. My problem is that a city that size is not sustainable as the location of it’s production facilities would have to spread extremely far from that city in order to maintain the needs of the city and even then, it might not be possible to maintain the needs of that city, it’s requirements would be massive and without an even spread of the population over areas with large quantities of natural resources it seems that such an expectation is faulty.

This is a complete fairly tale. Show me the math.

I was merely allowing you to realise that the problem of over population is well recognized, I was not suggesting I was right because others agreed with me.

I already knew that the overpopulation myth is widespread.

Are you even paying attention to what you are writing? If everybody lived in a city the size of Texas then there wouldn’t be any ‘China’ because all of the Chinese would be living in this city. There’s no such thing as exported and imported goods when everybody lives in one giant city. Because of the strain on resources such a city would place upon the immediate area surrounding, life would not be sustainable for such a large population in such a small place.

Of course no one would be living in China if everyone lived in Texas by definition. I have no idea why you are stating obvious facts.

You have not demonstrated that I am wrong, you have largely ignored my objections and instead suggested that life for a city 345 times the size of New York would be the exact same as life within New York.

I demonstrated you were wrong mathematically. That’s why this conversation continues. I have answered every objection. Not because I needed to, after all, the math proved my point off the bat. Nothing you have yet said alters the basic facts of the math.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, you have claimed that Christianity is correct and subsequently inferred that every other religion is wrong. I am yet to see you support the original claim though, we have the other thread to analyze the prophecies and I’m still waiting for you to present the methodologies used to support your claims of mathematical support for Christianity.

I already have several times now.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Somehow, civilization has managed to progress these ten thousand years without legalized gay marriage.

Then what does it hurt to legalize it now?

I really see no advantage to society, or to homosexual persons themselves (since they can do anything they want in the privacy of their own homes without the need of legal marriage) to legalizing “gay marriage.”

Of course, but you are not the one who is told you cannot marry the person you love. Heterosexual people can do the same and do same often, yet can marry if they see fit.

It’s kind of like painting black people’s skin white to make them equal with whites - marriage has nothing to do with what homosexual people do or are - all it is is an “ape-ing” of heterosexual society. There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that requires any kind of pairing off, let alone the permanency of a marital relationship.

Really? Anything inherent about heterosexuality that requires marriage? Straight people can live chaste lives too and are called to do so outside of marriage anyway-as are gay people are called to do period. I think this is rather a good description of what repairative therapy attempts to do.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I have told you twice now that his methodology is mathematical. Its basic probability. As I have already stated. What are you not understanding about that?

You don’t seem to understand what the term ‘methodology’ means.

The branch of philosophy that analyzes the principles and procedures of inquiry in a particular discipline.
The system of methods followed in a particular discipline.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A collection of methods, practices, procedures and rules used by those who work in some field; The study of such methods etc; The implementation of such methods etc.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/methodology

Mathematics is not a methodology, it is a discipline, as is Probabilities. There are many different types of methodologies used within mathematics and within probabilities, which methodology did the mathematician that reached these conclusions use? What work did he draw his conclusions from? That is what I am asking you for, not just what disciplines he used.

This is a completely made up story. It has no basis in reality except the one where you cannot admit being wrong. Show me the math.

Are you suggesting that if everybody was living locally in a city the size of Texas that has a similar structure to New York that agriculture would not have to spread for hundreds of miles around the city? What about other industries like mining? The current world requirements have thousands of mines all around the world, how could we fit our mining needs if everybody was to live in one city the size of Texas?

I have responded. Its an argument from ad popularam. I need no objection to a fallacy except that it is a fallacy.

My argument has nothing to do with an argumentum ad populum, I presented you with information that the concept of human overpopulation is being seriously considered, I never suggested I was right because people agree with me. I clarified this last post, why are you ignoring these things?

This is a complete fairly tale. Show me the math.

NYC has a population of around 20,000,000 people, there are currently 6,900,000,000 people in the world, if we cram them all into the state of Texas the resulting City would be 345 times the size of NYC. 6.9 billion divided by 20 million is 345. Those are both estimations of the population in NYC and of the world but both are fairly accurate.

“More and more data are indicating that humans are not living within the carrying capacity of the planet. The Ecological footprint measures human consumption in terms of the biologically productive land needed to provide the resources, and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008 it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares (assuming no provision for other organisms).”
-World Wide Fund for Nature (2008). Living Planet Report 2008.

For more information, feel free to check this out.

2.7 hectares per person, 18.63 billion hectares is the amount of space required for production for the worlds population needs. 2.1 hectares per person is required to maintain sustainability and even if we were operating at that level we would still require around 14 billion hectares. The entire USA only has 916 193 013.09 hectares. SO we would have to operate at .3 or .4 hectares per person if we were to use the entire united states as production for this city in Texas and we would still be operating at a fraction of the populations requirements.

I already knew that the overpopulation myth is widespread.

It’s not a myth, humans are using more resources than is sustainable, we are taking more from the environment than is being replenished, eventually the environment will be depleted, hopefully we will have realized our mistakes before then. The problem is not only to do with overpopulation but overconsumption, limiting both is ideal.

Of course no one would be living in China if everyone lived in Texas by definition. I have no idea why you are stating obvious facts.

Because you keep saying things like this, “As I pointed out, I have food from South America and I am using consumer goods from China, and the average American commutes only 16 miles.” The existence of imported goods is irrelevant to this debate.

I demonstrated you were wrong mathematically.

You demonstrated that The worlds population could fit into Texas and the state would be a similar in population density to that of NYC, I have agreed with you on this point this entire debate. The problem is The city would be 345 times the size and the USA does not have the resources available to supply a city that large and that’s neglecting the fact that nobody would live near many of the production facilities. Mining towns wouldn’t exist because everybody would live in Texas, country towns wouldn’t exist because everybody would live in Texas, agriculture communities wouldn’t exist because everybody would live in Texas. Everything that people do to bring themselves closer to these lines of work would not exist.

That’s why this conversation continues. I have answered every objection. Not because I needed to, after all, the math proved my point off the bat. Nothing you have yet said alters the basic facts of the math.

I just presented you with the math that shows why everybody living in the USA, a larger land mass is impossible, it is even further from practicality for everybody to live in Texas.