Very... schoolyard, Ludwig.

>>Heeeheheheee! Very entertaining!<<

Unfortunately, that seems to reflect the level of maturity that you are bringing to the table these days.

And how about you answer the question:

>>Do tell, is there any aspect of our lives where you believe that we should be allowed to exercise free will?<<

Do you believe that the government should have the ability to tell us where we can and cannot live, for example. Or instruct us on the number of children we should produce?

This will put to rest all the doubts surrounding your stance, and enable us to "establish [your] position based on the answers [you] give"

Pericles, in response to your post of 17 May 2013 10:29:54 PM:

I make the simple point…AGAIN… that rapid population growth is OBVIOUSLY stressing infrastructure, services, resource-supply capability, environmental integrity and as a result; our future wellbeing, and neither the business community nor any sector of it nor any individual companies are lobbying the government to reduce this aspect of growth.

The business community is so obviously NOT tuned into the sustainability of our whole society!

They’re not tuned into the sustainability of water supplies. And for goodness sake, there even appears to be stark little genuine effort to address the sustainability of the key resources that particular industries rely on, eg forests and fisheries.

I don’t know how you can still be arguing against this. It’s just crackers!

You wrote:

<< If you can find any holes in that, to support your theory that they are all rapists and pillagers of our fair land, please identify them. >>

I replied:

>> There you go again with one of your frequent extremist statements. Show me where I have ever called ‘them’ rapists and pillagers. <<

You responded:

<< I'm happy to modify that accusation. What would you prefer to call them? >>

Thankyou for conceding that I have never called the business community, nor anyone, rapists and pillagers, nor alluded to anything of the sort. Thankyou for admitting that you pulled that out of thin air, as you have been doing a little too often lately.

continued

Now for goodness sake, the next time you feel the urge to deliberately misrepresent my position, stop, think… and don’t do it… because it WILL come back to bite you!

If you don’t fully understand my position, ask questions, and ye shall then know.

You and Jardine are good debaters with an excellent command of the English language. But this misrepresentation business, or defamation, of the views of your opponents is of extremely poor form. Any fool can do that sort of thing. It is at stark odds with your skills and intellect!

To answer your question; I’d prefer to call businesses utilisers or harvesters or perhaps exploiters of resources.

<< Do tell, is there any aspect of our lives where you believe that we should be allowed to exercise free will? >>

Er….ummm…….let me think about it for a couple of hours……

Oh….yes… the answer is…..

Yes, dear Pericles, the answer is………

YES !! !! !!

How about that eh?!?

.

.

What a stupid question! / :>\

continued

<< Do you believe that the government should have the ability to tell us where we can and cannot live, for example. Or instruct us on the number of children we should produce? >>

YES, The govt should be able to tell us where we can and cannot live. It should have the right to tell us that we can’t live in a national park, or in the middle of a busy city street or in someone else’s house if they don’t want us there, etc. And of course the govt approves or denies new residential developments, thus affecting where we can and can’t live. But apart from obvious restrictions like this, we should have as much freedom as possible to live where we want. However, if there are significant negative consequences to people living in a particular place, the govt should implement disincentives to slow down the rate of people moving in, or even laws to stop it entirely if the circumstances warrant it.

The govt should NOT tell us how many sprogs we can have. If our average family size was well above replacement level, then yes they could possibly implement laws to restrict us to three, or two. But we are nowhere near this situation in Australia.

So Pericles, now that you have the answers to your questions, can you do the right thing and retract this statement, with apologies, please:

<< It might have something to do with the fact that you believe the government should take charge of our entire existence, by regulating where we live, how many children we should have, where we should grow trees, every aspect of how businesses should behave etc. etc. >>

Thankyou.

You and Jardine are good debaters with an excellent command of the English language. But this misrepresentation business, or defamation, of the views of your opponents is of extremely poor form. Any fool can do that sort of thing. It is at stark odds with your skills and intellect!

Oh yeah, I said that didn’t I.

Well it was worth saying twice!

That is an odd request, Ludwig.

>>So Pericles, now that you have the answers to your questions, can you do the right thing and retract this statement, with apologies, please<<

Let's have a look.

>>YES, The govt should be able to tell us where we can and cannot live<<

That seems rather categoric.

>>If our average family size was well above replacement level, then yes they could possibly implement laws to restrict us to three, or two<<

And that is also a yes, they should have the right to do it.

So, on what grounds are you asking for a retraction?

But wait, there are two more to go.

Do you believe that the government should have the right to tell us where we should grow trees, and to govern every single aspect of running a business? We are fully aware that they do this, of course, but I'm only asking whether you support the concept. Just to round it out, you understand.

As for this...

>>Thankyou for conceding that I have never called the business community, nor anyone, rapists and pillagers, nor alluded to anything of the sort. Thankyou for admitting that you pulled that out of thin air, as you have been doing a little too often lately.<<

What a sensitive flower you must be, if you found that imagery a little strong. You can find it rampant on many anti-establishment, conspiracy and Greenie web sites, which is why I thought it reasonably appropriate here.

Oh, by the way, I don't mean that you are literally a flower, of course. That would be silly.

Well, how about that. You didn’t apologise!

Waaaaa!! I’m gonna tell my Mummy!!

As if you ever would have!

<< What a sensitive flower you must be, if you found that imagery a little strong. You can find it rampant on many anti-establishment, conspiracy and Greenie web sites, which is why I thought it reasonably appropriate here. >>

Haaaaa hahahaha!

It appears on some conspiracy or greenie websites, hahaha, so you thought it appropriate here!! Haaahahahaa, what a classic! What an amazing piece of logic! Hahahaheeee, the same sort of logic you use with some of your arguments eh? You read some utter bunkum on some wonky website, so you think it is alright to assert complete bunkum here!

Aaaaaaaaaah haaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeiiiii!

Ahh, you have made my day Pericleeheheheees!