ST Alpha - "Not being the "strongest indicator" doesn't necessarily drain ALL validity of my theory, dammit. " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 171

In response to "Oh yes - but loosi's point was that the number of women relative to men is a far stronger indicator than the opposite way around." by Roger Morbid

Not being the "strongest indicator" doesn't necessarily drain ALL validity of my theory, dammit.

Posted by Dr.Vermin, being obnoxious (aka Dr.Vermin) Oct 30 '08, 14:46

Look how society is now embracing and all but encouraging homosexuality, while nobody is celebrating infertile women. It's the subtle insiduousness of the former that could make it all the more effective at reducing population in the long run, despite the immediate impact on birth cycles.

Responses:

Homosexuality isn't exactly encouraged and embraced in countries with high birth rates. -- nm - Roger Morbid Oct 30, 14:54 2
- Exactly!!! -- nm - Dr.Vermin, rests case Oct 30, 14:55 1
  - But aren't places with high birth rates where you would expect there to be some sort of insidious population control? -- nm - Roger Morbid Oct 30, 14:58

Post a message top

Not being the "strongest indicator" doesn't necessarily drain ALL validity of my theory, dammit.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.