Thought I would respond to a series of "challenging questions" from the Ruth Institute in place of Dante Atkins in his ongoing exchange with the Ruth Institute.
Here is their crap. Their questions and my response below the fold.
Dante evidently got all confused reading the responses of the Ruth Institute to his post entitled Ruthless. So confused, in fact, that he was unable to respond to the challenges I put to him. I can understand. Dante’s original post contained lots of error. Had he made only a couple of errors, only a couple of posts would have sufficed to dispute them. But Dante emitted a vast avalanche of error. It took more than a couple of posts to set him straight.
This post will solve that. It will collect, into one place, several of the challenges I made to him in my series of posts refuting his argument. If Dante is able to respond adequately to the challenge, I will admit my mistake and I’ll even send him a certificate of apology suitable for framing. Let’s see how he does:
The economics of Demographic Winter:
Could Dante Atkins please explain how either population or productivity will increase enough to pay for the benefits we promised to our citizens in their old age?
Could he please explain how businesses will remain profitable if there are not enough people born to maintain sufficiently high demand?
Human Rights and Gay Rights during a Demographic Winter:
Could he explain what happens to human rights when people begin to fear declining population, and come up with a reason as to why those abuses would not happen if the population of the West declines in future? (For examples of gay rights in retreat during a demographic winter, please see Latvia and Lithuania. Both of these countries are losing population. In both of these countries, gay rights are being rolled back. Could he explain how things would be different if the population begins to decrease in the West and people begin to feel the effects?)
Does Marriage Redefinition have any benefit?
Could Dante explain what benefit society would have if we redefined marriage? Could he do it under the conditions described in this post?
Extra credit
Could Dante please enlighten me as to any mathematical error I made in this post?
Hey,
The questions posted above are kind of silly so I’ll answer in place of Dante Atkins.
Q: Could Dante Atkins please explain how either population or productivity will increase enough to pay for the benefits we promised to our citizens in their old age?
A: Our population is already increasing. It’s called immigration. If you support a sane immigration policy that allows for people to become citizens then they could pay taxes.
Also, that would include comprehensive healthcare insurance reform beyond what was passed and raising the cap on payroll tax earnings for Social Security.
But if your just interested in targeting gay folks and keeping women at home making babies then keep talking about the scary "Demographic Winter".
Q: Could he please explain how businesses will remain profitable if there are not enough people born to maintain sufficiently high demand?
A: Oh, you mean not enough "Western European" (i.e. not enough white people)? In case you haven’t noticed other people work and buy stuff too.
Q: Could he explain what happens to human rights when people begin to fear declining population, and come up with a reason as to why those abuses would not happen if the population of the West declines in future? (For examples of gay rights in retreat during a demographic winter, please see Latvia and Lithuania. Both of these countries are losing population. In both of these countries, gay rights are being rolled back. Could he explain how things would be different if the population begins to decrease in the West and people begin to feel the effects?)
A: This question doesn’t even make sense. Are you suggesting that gays or certain ethnic groups will be targeted if there are fewer whites? Sounds like a case of homophobia/racism to me.
P.S. Hitching women to men and telling them to stay at home to make babies is not the answer.
Q: Could Dante explain what benefit society would have if we redefined marriage? Could he do it under the conditions described in this post?
How about letting people choose what they want to do with their lives? Just like how I can’t redefine what God means to you due to that pesky thing called the First Amendment you shouldn’t be able to define what marriage means to me.
So society benefits because people are free. What a concept!
And your extra credit question!
Q: Could Dante please enlighten me as to any mathematical error I made in this post?
A: Equating population growth and decline to poker? Question FAIL.
But perhaps a better thing to do would be to accept other cultures and not worry about people of color. Being that America is a melting pot and all.