Biological Capacity And The Land Question

[Kingoffrogs]

Once mankind reaches biological capacity, likely after a massive loss of population due to our overshoot of biological capacity (like all other organism's populations do at some point.) there will be an enormous demand for land. In fact, it is quite easy to see that the price of land is contingent upon those who demand it (duh), but also by proxy the amount of people that are alive.

Even if we are able to increase our biological capacity by resorting to higher residential skyscrapers, subterranean dwellings, and perhaps aquatic dwellings as well, the resources on this planet are finite, and cannot support an indefinitely growing human population. Land is also not only finite, but has a fixed supply.

Therefore, my question is 2 pronged.

Firstly: Will the price of land increase until the human population "flatlines"?

Secondly: Once biological capacity is reached, will the price of land be far less volatile than it is now?

 

[TheFiend]

Once mankind reaches biological capacity, likely after a massive loss of population due to our overshoot of biological capacity (like all other organism's populations do at some point.) there will be an enormous demand for land. In fact, it is quite easy to see that the price of land is contingent upon those who demand it (duh), but also by proxy the amount of people that are alive.

~8billion people squished into a single ball would be roughly the width of central park NY.
Example:


Seems we've artificially enabled unsustainable population growth as a result of agricultural industrialization... primarily motivated by profiteering.

So now all in the pursuit of money we've foolishly ignored the consequences of seemingly unlimited population growth well past 8 billion, which is simply unjustified just so some of the tiny number of privileged parasites among us can hoard as much value as can be siphoned off the rest.

China & India are the most obvious examples of already exceeding maximum sustainable population density relative to the land area of each country.

These populations will only increasingly depend on less populated countries.
Sure some will see profiteering opportunities from this as is currently the "norm" everywhere already, and it'll be profitable....until demand inevitably outstrips supply.

At which point there's little chance the uber wealthy who've profited the most and been the primary drivers for the disastrous inevitability ... would ever willingly take any responsibility. They'd more likely expect a huge number of people to simple not exist, as in die....and perhaps that'd be a possible outcome in the future. Of course the same opportunistic profiteering will repeat, again and again.

This is why it is insane to allow financial gain to dictate what is best for anything in the real world. Hoarding wealth is an affliction of the greedy, and the greedy prioritize themselves above all else at the expense of anything and everything other than themselves. Like children with no capacity for delayed gratification.

The price of land isn't really contingent on those who demand it nor by total population.

The price is simply controlled directly by those who control the value and availability of currency.

Eg: If a square kilometer of average quality land is valued at say: $10,000, but the currency controllers feel like deliberately causing devaluation of the currency so we'll say $1 suddenly become worth $0.10, then the previously $10,000 square kilometer of land also loses 90% of its value, so now its merely valued at $1000 for absolutely no justifiable reason but greedy manipulation of artificial value tokens.

Even if we are able to increase our biological capacity by resorting to higher residential skyscrapers, subterranean dwellings, and perhaps aquatic dwellings as well, the resources on this planet are finite, and cannot support an indefinitely growing human population. Land is also not only finite, but has a fixed supply.

Therefore, my question is 2 pronged.

Firstly: Will the price of land increase until the human population "flatlines"?

Secondly: Once biological capacity is reached, will the price of land be far less volatile than it is now?

Honestly I think financial value as a gauge of anything is at best completely useless and at worst extremely detrimental/insanity as briefly touched on above.

Population density will certainly be a major factor motivating currency controllers schemery in any scenario, but population density = reasonably sustainable productivity from available land should be a primary dictator of maximum population allowances.

This would allow indefinite relative prosperity for all of the population (so long as wealth hoarding parasite people are removed from the equation)

It is not possible with the current population excesses and would also require drastic societal redevelop from the ground up.

Tbh it sorta seems like what the globalist NWO types are aiming for but they appear to include the weath hoarders as a priority for their ideal world when they're simply an unnecessary burden that'll inevitably ruin everything.

All people would need to become producers, suppliers, distributors, consumers and so forth in such a way that functions harmoniously with neighboring peoples and accounts for specialist fields beyond essential resources, like the sciences, medical professions, mechanical & engineering, construction, software development, teachers, peace keepers, etcetera, etc, yadda yadda and so on.

We'd only need to produce adequate levels of everything to consistently maintain our maximum population limits, along with reasonable emergency supplies of course.

Perhaps the population limit might be 1 billion.
In this case, there would be far more than enough land for every single individual.

Obviously I'm mostly just stoner spitballing here, so definitely don't interpret any of this as more than that.

Should also add that "western" nations current lifestyles, particularly in the US, UK, Europe, Aus, NZ, etc, are an unsustainable pit of wasted potential already.
A sustainable world wouldn't have insatiable fatasses with excess toys and useless/unused shit.

Hopefully this is sorta what the OP was looking for in a response....

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Firstly: Will the price of land increase until the human population "flatlines"?

Secondly: Once biological capacity is reached, will the price of land be far less volatile than it is now?

Both of these question propose that things would be as they are today in your hypothetical future......

Price? In this hypothetical world, it is unlikely that land would have any "price" so to speak. It would be likely that at such a point as you propose, money would also not be a thing. "Work credits" would likely be the object of buying power. Land would likely be on allotment rather than purchased, and individual ownership would not likely be the normal situation, as it is now. Currently, at least in the USA, land is by in large "personal'' property. In your hypothetical, it is likely that land would be tightly controlled and quickly repurposed (if possible).

Capacity? Well now, what is that capacity exactly? What percentage of land to humans would be considered "max"? Are we talking Soylent Green levels? PArt of the issue with this idea in your hypothetical, is the translation of "norms" from the current world as we know it, into the proposed hypothetical. Water-borne neighborhoods? Endless metropolises? Both of these examples are inherently impossible, and completely unrealistic.

This would allow indefinite relative prosperity for all of the population (so long as wealth hoarding parasite people are removed from the equation)

which would never happen

Tbh it sorta seems like what the globalist NWO types are aiming for but they appear to include the weath hoarders as a priority for their ideal world when they're simply an unnecessary burden that'll inevitably ruin everything.

It is and would be doomed to failure, one would think that "they" would know or realize this, unless of course, another force or person was controlling them, "or else". Which is what I think is going on.

All people would need to become producers, suppliers, distributors, consumers and so forth in such a way that functions harmoniously

which does not even happen today, and certainly not happen in this hypothetical world.


God commanded for his creation to go forth and multiply. He did not say, "well, stop when you think you should". The Earth will support until the end. Can you imagine: everyone who ever lived, resurrected from the dead? Wow, what a notion!

 

[TheFiend]

which would never happen

Perhaps.

It is and would be doomed to failure, one would think that "they" would know or realize this, unless of course, another force or person was controlling them, "or else". Which is what I think is going on.

I suspect so too.
It should also be noted that the higher up the artificial social status ladder people climb = the less capable of accurately perceiving reality on the ground they become.
There are hundreds of studies proving this as well as that the more money, power, control and other shit people attain = the more morally corrupted they become. The "haves" are significantly moreso inclined towards selfishness, greed, arrogance, pride, etc, while the "have-nots" are moreso inclined towards the opposite.

I suspect the asswipes currently pulling the strings, are far more ignorant of the real world than they otherwise likely believe.

"he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

which does not even happen today, and certainly not happen in this hypothetical world.

Well I dunno how/why you would assume this the case because its simply not true at all mate.
Plenty of off-grid types are already doing this sort of thing.
Shit, to a certain extent I'm doing it myself by producing, supplying and trading rather than playing along the banksters rigged fiat system.
Of course it is not easy to do when the vast majority are mere wage slave consumers who've unwittingly surrendered their existence to—and in exchange for dependence upon corporations.
Thus I am only able to trade with a limited number of independent others and most aren't local, whereas if everyone was independent then I'd have the option for trading with any of at least 500 immediate locals.

You have chickens right?
Coz even just selling free range eggs would be a good starting point.

Or maybe even something like discreetly providing a firearms training service for locals-(*Admittedly I'm assuming you'd already have various training areas and a gun range set-up.) Ultimately we have infinite potentials available, we just need to figure out and then realize whatever they may be.
The corporate governments didn't create nor give us our brief living experience on Earth.
We've been indoctrinated to basically see gubmint as near equivalent to an earth-bound god and that we have to do whatever gubmint sez...butt fuck that's retarded.
Its always solely up to each of us what we choose to do with our own life, whether that be choosing slavish subservience to gubmint, or instead liberty.

God commanded for his creation to go forth and multiply. He did not say, "well, stop when you think you should". The Earth will support until the end. Can you imagine: everyone who ever lived, resurrected from the dead? Wow, what a notion!

I respect your opinion and maybe you're right.
However as ya know I ain't an adherent of any of the desert cults. Yet that isn't to suggest absolute rejection of the natural principles of life these cults have hijacked, claimed as their own to virtue signal and wield over everyone.
So my view is that whether or not any god commanded anything, or even exists at all as the desert cults narratives would have us believe, is entirely questionable at the very least.

Does "Go forth and multiply" apply to man-kind & hueman-kind only...or does it apply to any other or all other creatures?
If the latter two, then we'd be guilty of denying the god's command.
If only the former, then that'd imply the god regards all other living creatures irrelevant by comparison.


Now I'm probably missing something here, but check this out:

If we have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so on.

Meaning the number simply doubles with every generation.

The trouble is that this doubling soon gives improbable results.

Just 22 generations ago we would all have had around 4 million ancestors.

Now that would only be about 700 years ago, or 1300AD (allowing 30 years per generation) and according to official estimates, is when the total world population was roughly 4 million.

Ffs, that suggests everyone alive ~700 years ago was an ancestor of each and every one of us today.

Then if we go further by calculating back another 22 generations and 700 years, to about 600AD...then according to basic math, we each would have had 8,796,093,022,208 ancestors....wtf?
Some of the official estimates for the total world population around 600AD is only about ~213million.

Yet continuing on calculating back 63 generations to around 1AD...according to math, we each would have had 4,611,686,018,427,387,904 ancestors...while some official estimates assert the total world population in the year 1AD was only at around ~170 million.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

It should also be noted that the higher up the artificial social status ladder people climb

and the least useful you are

doing this sort of thing.

What? You dont live in a endless city controlled by a never ending system of government and informers. You do not live anywhere near the hypothetical that the OP proposes, so I do not understand where you are coming from.

Yet continuing on calculating back 63 generations to around 1AD...according to math, we each would have had 4,611,686,018,427,387,904 ancestors...while some official estimates assert the total world population in the year 1AD was only at around ~170 million.

weird huh, I will take your world on the math, but not "each of us". Each generation. If you had a brother, he would be the exact same as you, by the same parents, so you would not count you parents twice.

 

[TheFiend]

and the least useful you are

Probably a motivating factor behind why uber wealthy snivelers like Gates are fond of their "philanthropy" hobby.
Otherwise uselessness would be way more apparent to everyone aye.

What? You dont live in a endless city controlled by a never ending system of government and informers. You do not live anywhere near the hypothetical that the OP proposes, so I do not understand where you are coming from.

Yeah nah, there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding going on here.

weird huh, I will take your world on the math, but not "each of us". Each generation. If you had a brother, he would be the exact same as you, by the same parents, so you would not count you parents twice.

Weird af alright.
Fyi, I borrowed this particular math formula from another guy and I'd of course encourage testing it out for one's-self. Coz something ain't adding up right.
Also there's numerous other formulas by different people as well. Oddly the ones I looked at all show similarly peculiar results too.

And regarding counting siblings as multipliers of single generations. Honestly I'm not sure what you mean aye. I could possibly be misinterpreting your words maybe(?)
Pretty sure this formula only counts each generation once.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

And regarding counting siblings as multipliers of single generations. Honestly I'm not sure what you mean aye. I could possibly be misinterpreting your words maybe(?)
Pretty sure this formula only counts each generation once.

Hypothetical:

two people, came from the same mother, they both do the math you spoke of, then add them together to get a total. This would be in error, since they have the same lineage. the math would be right, but the factors wrong.

 

[TheFiend]

Hypothetical:

two people, came from the same mother, they both do the math you spoke of, then add them together to get a total. This would be in error, since they have the same lineage. the math would be right, but the factors wrong.

Ahh right, I think that'd be what's theorized as generational collapse in the 'Diamond Theory' which attempts to estimate potential generational overlaps.

Eg:


As opposed to the basic 'Inverted Triangle Theory' model which doesn't account for possible crossovers at all.

Eg:

(*This is the model of the formula used in my earlier post.)

•Here's a couple of interesting opinions I found below an article explaining the differences between the two theories:

•(#1)

---

"Actually, there is a hitch in the math."

"The claim "... by the time we are back 10 generations, we have the potential for 1024 ancestors" is not quite correct."

"Yes, at the 10th generation you have 1,024 ancestors:"

"2^10 = 1.024 (said in English, 2 raised to the 10th power = 1,024)"

"But, you forgot to count ancestors in the intervening generations."

"2 parents + 4 grandparents + 8 great grandparents and so on."

"The correct statement is that, at the 10th generation, you have "1,024 ancestor LINES", one for each 10th generation ancestor. (It could be less if some of the 10th generation are the same person because cousins married cousins.)"

"You have almost twice as many "total ancestors" as you do ancestor LINES at any generation level."

"If you count all of the people between you and the 10th generation you have:"

"(2^(n+1) - 2) = 2,046 ancestors, or (2 to the 11th power) minus 22.048-2 = 2,046"

"Check it out at the 2nd generation level (grandparents):"

"(2^(2+1)) = (2 raised to the 3rd power) = 2 cubed = 8 8-2=6=2 parents plus 4 grandparents"

"In my grandparent level there is the case where two sisters married two brothers. In each family all of the children have the same four grandparents."

"Legally they are cousins but genetically they are essentially siblings. Comparing these two groups, they have essentially lost a whole DNA generation level between the cousins all of the way back."

"There is also a peculiarity in the size of you generation gene pools. Some generations may have reproduced in 20 years; others may have taken 50 years. In one ancestor case, the father is 22 years older than the wife. My wife's aunt is a year younger than she is. The 10th generation gene pool from the youngest to the oldest -- is smeared out over some period of time."

[Posted by: Randy Wheeler | August 08, 2016 at 04:05 PM]

---

•And (#2)

---

"I liked Lynn's reference to "collapses" in her tree. I've always thought of it more as a tapestry than a pyramid, which implies a solid structure (as does "diamond". I am a weaver, and it is easy for me to visualize the many smaller population groups whose DNA "collapsed" and then expanded again when they came into contact with other groups."

"There is even a kind of weaving that is called "collapsed weave", as threads wrap around one another in some areas, and left open in others. The connecting areas hold the all together, and when washed the weaving reveals a lovely lace. I like this ← way of thinking of my ancestors, and of my mashup of a family. I have found quite a number of cousin marriages, especially in early New England, followed by an amazing convergence in one part of the western US in the mid-1800s. Now we are again spreading and interlinking with other groups. It is so interesting to see it happen."

[Posted by: Annie Stratton | August 08, 2016 at 05:28 PM]

---

I think the 'Diamond Theory' would be more accurate than the 'Inverted Triangle Theory', although obviously both fundamentally amount to guestimations.
Annie Stratton seems to present a reasonable argument for an alternative.


*Article link:

https://news.legacyfamilytree.com/legacy_news/2016/08/how-many-ancestors-do-we-have.html

 

[Joe King]

Once mankind reaches biological capacity, likely after a massive loss of population due to our overshoot of biological capacity (like all other organism's populations do at some point.) there will be an enormous demand for land.

Define "massive" in loss of population. IMHO, massive would be more than half.

If there is massive population loss to that degree, why wouldn't the price of land plummet due to loss of demand?

If we have a relatively quick loss of a large portion of the population, why wouldn't the survivors be able to just find a place to live and claim it for their own? Who will be there to argue about it if the ones who had lived there, were among the dead?

Worst you'd have to do, is dig some graves and maybe clean the place up.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

Define "massive" in loss of population. IMHO, massive would be more than half.

If there is massive population loss to that degree, why wouldn't the price of land plummet due to loss of demand?

If we have a relatively quick loss of a large portion of the population, why wouldn't the survivors be able to just find a place to live and claim it for their own? Who will be there to argue about it if the ones who had lived there, were among the dead?

Worst you'd have to do, is dig some graves and maybe clean the place up.

The loss in population would depend on a few factors, but mainly on 2, those being:

1: How far mankind shoots past it's biological capacity before it levels out once again?
2: How quickly can mankind increase it's biological capacity?

On another note, when someone dies, their assets go to their family/ whoever inherits it according to their will. It isn't just left there for someone to plant a flag on and claim...

 

[Kingoffrogs]

Price? In this hypothetical world, it is unlikely that land would have any "price" so to speak. It would be likely that at such a point as you propose, money would also not be a thing. "Work credits" would likely be the object of buying power.

What are you basing this supposition on? Using currency as a means of exchange has been the norm worldwide for millennia now.

Capacity? Well now, what is that capacity exactly?

I'm referring to the carrying capacity of the human race. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that a given environment/ecosystem can sustain indefinitely. In this case, because Humans are a global species ( from the Sahara desert to the north and south poles, humans inhabit the earth), the ecosystem in question is the entire planet.

 

[Joe King]

On another note, when someone dies, their assets go to their family/ whoever inherits it according to their will. It isn't just left there for someone to plant a flag on and claim...

With a mass die off you would be able to. Assuming of course, that you are a survivor, and that the population loss isn't concentrated in one area of the Earth. If the loss is from some new disease, for example, that wiped out half to two thirds, the World would be in utter chaos. Virtually everything would be up for grabs.

 

[Joe King]

I'm referring to the carrying capacity of the human race. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that a given environment/ecosystem can sustain indefinitely.

There's no way to really know what that capacity is for Earth.

People 150 years ago woulda told you there's no way the Earth could support 8 billion people, yet here we are.

 

[TheFiend]

With a mass die off you would be able to. Assuming of course, that you are a survivor, and that the population loss isn't concentrated in one area of the Earth. If the loss is from some new disease, for example, that wiped out half to two thirds, the World would be in utter chaos. Virtually everything would be up for grabs.

Except for any number of potential scenarios where available land were drastically altered, or made inhospitable. eg: shit like radiation, chemicals, geological or climactic changes, etcetera.
And any remaining functional government corporations would likely assume/impose authority over any free shit up for grabs, probably under the guise of "being the most responsible & trustworthy ones to reallocate the booty"...

 

[TheFiend]

There's no way to really know what that capacity is for Earth.

People 150 years ago woulda told you there's no way the Earth could support 8 billion people, yet here we are.

And we're doing a undeniably superb job of it...

 

[Golbez]

I'm with Elon on this one. Globalist propaganda. And there are two schools of thought here. One that wants to expand into space, where we would need many more people, and those who want to restrict humanity to only the Earth. Lower population is easier to control.

Elon Musk believes Earth can sustain a global population higher than current figures

www.republicworld.com

 

[TheFiend]

I'm with Elon on this one. Globalist propaganda.

Jfc I really just don't get it with everyone eagerly idolizing this particularly retarded American Clown.

Shit even the Hollyweirdos proudly admit old Robert Downsey Jr's cheesy Tony Stark character was influenced by Elon's cheesy "hero" character.

Elon:
Brainchips✓
Transhumanism✓
Satanism✓
Pro-"Green Energism"✓
Pro-"climate changism"✓
E.V.✓
A.I.✓
etcetera...✓

The face of secret proxy NASA and pseudo-"free speech".

•Thesis
↓
•Antithesis
↓
•Synthesis

or

•Problem
↓
•Reaction
↓
•Solution

or

•Muh censorships
↓
•Muh free speakies
↓
•Muh free censorspeakies Elon

And there are two schools of thought here. One that wants to expand into space, where we would need many more people, and those who want to restrict humanity to only the Earth. Lower population is easier to control.

Well we'll certainly see soon enough.

Dunno but seems more like lower population would not necessarily be easier to control.
Cheaper, definitely.

Elon Musk believes Earth can sustain a global population higher than current figures

www.republicworld.com

 

[Golbez]

I don't agree with him on everything, but I do here on this topic. I also commend him on freeing up speech on X, but at the same time there have been some weird, censored things over there recently too. He's hit or miss on about 50% of things that help people overall, but at least that's far better than most billionaires, so I'll give credit where it's due and he has a good analysis with data on the global population topic.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

What are you basing this supposition on?

Your hypothetical. You a supposing that the systems that we have in this world at this time, would be the same, even though the population to be massively increased. I am saying than it would be much different if the population was increased to the point of apocalypse.

I'm referring to the carrying capacity of the human race

I understand, can you define a number from which this might be? And Why?

 

[Kingoffrogs]

I understand, can you define a number from which this might be? And Why?

I think you misunderstand the concept of carrying capacity. It is not a set number. It is forever changing in all ecosystems, due to the variation of producer and consumer populations, climate change, natural disasters, change in soil contents, etc. However, carrying capacity tends to fall within a certain range.

For the human race, the number varies widely, from 2 billion to 40+ billion. That is in part why my question is hypothetical.

https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf

Check the chart on page 3.

There is no ecosystem that I could analyze and find an exact, fixed carrying capacity for. There are far too many independent variables to possibly account for in any ecosystem.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

Your hypothetical. You a supposing that the systems that we have in this world at this time, would be the same, even though the population to be massively increased. I am saying than it would be much different if the population was increased to the point of apocalypse.

The burden of proof lies on the accuser...

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The burden of proof lies on the accuser...

There is no proof in a hypothetical you fucking moron.

Furthermore if you really think the burden lies with the accuser, you are even more of a moron than I previously stated

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I think you misunderstand the concept of carrying capacity. It is not a set number. It is forever changing in all ecosystems, due to the variation of producer and consumer populations, climate change, natural disasters, change in soil contents, etc. However, carrying capacity tends to fall within a certain range.

For the human race, the number varies widely, from 2 billion to 40+ billion. That is in part why my question is hypothetical.

https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf

Check the chart on page 3.

There is no ecosystem that I could analyze and find an exact, fixed carrying capacity for. There are far too many independent variables to possibly account for in any ecosystem

Ok, it is clear you have no real understanding of the facts of the question you pose.

There is no ecosystem that I could analyze and find an exact, fixed carrying capacity for

Took me about 5 minutes to look this up:

1 pack of wolves requires 50 square miles of territory, but depending on the size, this number can be up to 1000 miles. So, 50 square miles per pack, with an average of 7 wolves per pack.
There is your range.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

Ok, it is clear you have no real understanding of the facts of the question you pose.


Took me about 5 minutes to look this up:

1 pack of wolves requires 50 square miles of territory, but depending on the size, this number can be up to 1000 miles. So, 50 square miles per pack, with an average of 7 wolves per pack.
There is your range.

Source?

Also, carrying capacity per pack is far different from the carrying capacity throughout an entire ecosystem, which is what I was originally talking about.

I'll go along woth your wolf example and add that furthermore, because Wolves are often times either Secondary consumers or Tertiary consumers within an ecosystem, their carrying capacity is heavily contingent upon not only the population of primary and secondary consumers, but also of producers.

Thus, for example, if there is a drought in an ecosystem that causes producers to die, this will in turn cause primary consumers to die, which will in turn cause secondary consumers to die. The death of producers lowers the carrying capacity for almost all animals in this ecosystem (except for some detritivores, who may have a short lived population increase) by decreasing the amount of food available for primary and secondary consumers.

Ecology is a lot like Economics in that a large portion of the subject matter is easily deduced with the rationality of a 5th grader.

If the carrying capacity of spring peepers in an ecosystem is 1000/ square mile, and a drought hits the ecosystem, Do you still think that the carrying capacity will remain at 1000/ square mile? Of course not, because resources are scarce, and due to the drought, water becomes more scarce and also generally less common per square mile.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Source?

For what?

Ecology is a lot like Economics in that a large portion of the subject matter is easily deduced with the rationality of a 5th grader.

Right, which is even funnier that you are looking for a source, for above.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

For what?

Right, which is even funnier that you are looking for a source, for above.

Well you said it took you 5 minutes to look it up, then states what seems to be an "empirical fact", so what's your source for the carrying capacity of wolves?

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Well you said it took you 5 minutes to look it up, then states what seems to be an "empirical fact", so what's your source for the carrying capacity of wolves?

Right......earlier you said it was the "accuser" who had the burden of proof, in this case that is you, libtard.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

Right......earlier you said it was the "accuser" who had the burden of proof, in this case that is you, libtard.

You didn't answer my question.

Furthermore, you have provided little to no evidence to back your claims. While I have provided evidence to back a goodly portion of mine.