1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should race matter to Christians?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
White conservatives, per your data, are at only 61% of the replacement rate (and falling every year).
Why do you think that every woman surveyed in an 18-54 year old study cannot have any more children and adjust that stat?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:07 am to Azkiger
quote:
That 1.4 number included women under 25/30. I've already told you this.
The 2.3 number also includes this cohort
This has already been explained to you
quote:
. Conservatives are easily our reproducing liberals.
Below replacement rates
Below Hispanics
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:08 am to Azkiger
quote:
Why do you think that every woman surveyed in an 18-54 year old study cannot have any more children and adjust that stat?
Why do you think these exact women, in that current status, are not calculated in birth rates?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The 2.3 number also includes this cohort
And the 2.3 number is above replacement rate.
quote:
Below replacement rates
Below Hispanics
Yet still high enough to prevent demographic collapse within 2 generations.
White liberals like yourself support mass illegal migration and are having so few children that we're able to watch our own demographic disappear before our eyes, not rely on some 200 year graph to show it to us.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think these exact women, in that current status, are not calculated in birth rates?
They are, but I'm responding to you repeatedly saying 1.4 over and over again.
That 1.4 number is just a snapshot in time. Time moves forward. Those conservative women will have more children.
The 1.4 to 1.09 just shows the gap in ideology.
If you want to talk about over all rates, the 1975-1979 is the best data I could find. And it showed that conservative women were reproducing enough.
You liberal fricks are the problem.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:13 am to UtahCajun
quote:Could be. They would do well to seek to improve the countries they see in currently, and to evangelize where they are.
There are still many Christians in the countries that was listed.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:15 am to 4cubbies
Did not read this Thread as the answer is obvious. MLK nailed it re “judged by the content of one’s character “.
In the ‘real’ world, Genes run the show re predictable character particulars and likely behaviors. Anomalies nws. Intellect matters as the ability to comprehend abstract (think Spiritual Love) ideas and embrace and discipline oneself to serve said Ideas is overriding. The stats will bear that out as true. Tribalist instincts will always affect human perception and behavior.
For real Christians of the which “many are called but FEW are chosen “ (I’m not one of the “Few”) we simply labor to move forward to our relative Judgement and ultimately that which we worship and intend some day to be. With Jesus’s Mercy and the Holy Spirit factoring in.
In the ‘real’ world, Genes run the show re predictable character particulars and likely behaviors. Anomalies nws. Intellect matters as the ability to comprehend abstract (think Spiritual Love) ideas and embrace and discipline oneself to serve said Ideas is overriding. The stats will bear that out as true. Tribalist instincts will always affect human perception and behavior.
For real Christians of the which “many are called but FEW are chosen “ (I’m not one of the “Few”) we simply labor to move forward to our relative Judgement and ultimately that which we worship and intend some day to be. With Jesus’s Mercy and the Holy Spirit factoring in.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:15 am to Azkiger
quote:
And the 2.3 number is above replacement rate.
That IS the replacement rate
quote:
Yet still high enough to prevent demographic collapse within 2 generations.
Do you understand what "replacement rate" is?
If the birthrates are below replacement rate, then demographic collapse is inevitable
Hispanic birthrates are at the replacement rate (and falling due to increasing SES), but still significantly higher than white birth rates
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:17 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You will need to explain what you mean by this. I’m not following you. Christianity teaches that we should obey God and we should obey the civil laws of the land so far as they do not command us to sin. That also leaves room for civil penalties for disobedience.
Encouraging people to not be responsible for their own actions - a substitutionary death cult? No thanks.
quote:I actually think we should promote changing the Constitution to clarify that the 1st amendment should be interpreted in light of Jesus Christ being the highest authority over the nation.
How about we promote the constitution instead.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:18 am to Azkiger
quote:
They are, but I'm responding to you repeatedly saying 1.4 over and over again.
That's your data.
You're trying this weird crawfish where you ignore your data somehow differs from the general birthrate data, by claiming we can imagine a higher birthrate for a cohort specifically included in the larger birthrate data, while treating that exact population differently in the general birthrate data.
You're being inconsistent.
This has been pointed out to you about 10x in this thread.
quote:
That 1.4 number is just a snapshot in time. Time moves forward. Those conservative women will have more children.
This applies to every level of the discussion.
You don't get to say we can pretend fake data for this group only in your scenario, while not doing the same for all scenarios equally.
quote:
The 1.4 to 1.09 just shows the gap in ideology.
Which is an irrelevant hill you keep trying to die on.
quote:
, the 1975-1979 is the best data I could find. And it showed that conservative women were reproducing enough.
All birthrates are significantly lower than in that time period.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are too narrowly focused. Atheism isn’t benign. It comes with its own worldviews that impact how people speak, act, and vote, which impacts societies.
You ignored everything I posted.
An insular non-Christian population who isn't trying to convert Christians will not do this in terms of religion.
If you're arguing that non-Christians engaging in non-religious behavior is somehow a bad influence, then you're making Christians into the mentally weakest population in the history of the earth. Secular behavior is not relevant to this discussion.
If a Hindu or Muslim teaches your child that 2 + 2 = 4, they're transmitting secular, objective facts. It matters not what religion they are. That information is not somehow tainted because it flowed from a non-believer.
Even for you, this take is insane.
I think you are still under the delusion that atheism is neutral. It isn’t.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:22 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Atheism isn’t benign. It comes with its own worldviews that impact how people speak, act, and vote, which impacts societies.
I think you are still under the delusion that atheism is neutral. It isn’t.
I didn't think you were actually going to try to defend your point.
Thank you for confirming.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
1.) 2.1 is replacement rate. Therefore 2.3 is above replacement rate.
2.) The falling birth rate/demographic collapse is the fault of liberals. They've pushed anti-family ideologies (which unfortunately have had an effect on conservative women/families), they themselves reproduce less, they promote mass illegal immigration.
Forget the unextrapolatable effects of liberal anti-family ideologies in media and education, just looking at birth rates and illegal immigration, even if we accept we'd still be below replacement rates, it would be barely below.
I'd rather be at a 2.0 and have plenty of time to attempt corrective measures than be at a 1.5/1.6 and both need to implement fast corrective measures while also convincing SFPLC-types that there even is a problem that needs correcting.
2.) The falling birth rate/demographic collapse is the fault of liberals. They've pushed anti-family ideologies (which unfortunately have had an effect on conservative women/families), they themselves reproduce less, they promote mass illegal immigration.
Forget the unextrapolatable effects of liberal anti-family ideologies in media and education, just looking at birth rates and illegal immigration, even if we accept we'd still be below replacement rates, it would be barely below.
I'd rather be at a 2.0 and have plenty of time to attempt corrective measures than be at a 1.5/1.6 and both need to implement fast corrective measures while also convincing SFPLC-types that there even is a problem that needs correcting.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:29 am to Azkiger
quote:
1.) 2.1 is replacement rate. Therefore 2.3 is above replacement rate.
2.1 - 2.3 is considered the replacement rate
quote:
2.) The falling birth rate/demographic collapse is the fault of liberals.
It tracks SES/SOL, actually.
I don't think you want to be making the argument that liberals are responsible for our SES/SOL increasing so rapidly.
quote:
I'd rather be at a 2.0 and have plenty of time to attempt corrective measures than be at a 1.5/1.6 and both need to implement fast corrective measures while also convincing SFPLC-types that there even is a problem that needs correcting.
The only corrective measure is decrease in SES/SOL
IF YOU WANT TO GET THEORETICAL, there are some leftist policies that would probably help incentivize professionals having more children. Things like longer maternity/paternity leave, free child care, etc. I don't know if these would actually increase birth rates or would fail like Hungary's attempts
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's your data.
Yes, and your use of it is illogical.
quote:
You're trying this weird crawfish where you ignore your data somehow differs from the general birthrate data
The general birth rate for conservatives, as I've shown, is at replacement rate. The 1975-1979 stats show conservative women at 2.1.
So the general birth rate is not reflective of the conservative birth rate.
quote:
Which is an irrelevant hill you keep trying to die on.
"Hur dur, show me how conservative women are overwhelmingly out reproducing liberals."
quote:
All birthrates are significantly lower than in that time period.
Because of liberals.
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Things like longer maternity/paternity leave
Longer than zero minutes?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:34 am to Azkiger
quote:
Because of liberals.
Ok, liberals did it. Now what?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:34 am to Azkiger
quote:
Yes, and your use of it is illogical.
No
quote:
The general birth rate for conservatives, as I've shown, is at replacement rate.
1.4 is 66.7% of the lowest replacement rate (2.1)
quote:
The 1975-1979 stats show conservative women at 2.1.
It's not 1975-1979
You do realize you should be understanding conservatives were at the lowest acceptable replacement rate (below, to some) 45-50 years ago, right?
This should be illuminating for you for the larger picture
quote:
So the general birth rate is not reflective of the conservative birth rate.
All white birth rates are below replacement rate. As I have said over and over again
quote:
Because of liberals.
SES/SOL
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2.1 - 2.3 is considered the replacement rate
Okay, yet we still see a demographic collapse, not stability.
Did you already forget the topic of conversation?
Posted on 9/20/26 at 9:36 am to Azkiger
Your topic is to own the libs by blaming them for everything even when it accomplishes nothing.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News