🚀 go-pugleaf

a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> In article <3667286D.1E308A39@clark.net>,
>   klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36658C29.3241B509@earthlink.net>,
> > >   Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > All he needs is this much education: "This is your best protection against a
> > disease which absolutely will kill you if you get it. It also can prevent
> > pregnancy, and another mouth for you to feed."
> 
> In that case, it's so simple, even you could do it. So why hasen't it worked,
> especially in Africa and Asia?

Possibly because it's never really been tried on any suffciently-large scale?

> 
> > If he doesn't have someone feeding him delusions like "you will burn in hell
> > if you use the condom", rationality might commonly win out over the urge to
> > get laid without the condom.
> 
> You are really ignorant about the RCC, aren't you? Ever heard of pennance?
> Even the Pope will tell you that you can sin and still be saved.

how convenient. sin and be saved, sin again and be saved again. absolute
morality yet absolute forgiveness. Maybe there should be more stress on the
phrase "sin no more"?

> 
> > condoms are much more important to prevent the spread of HIV, much moreso than
> > or contraception. His Eminence should certainly know this.
> 
> Condoms alone will absolutly not prevent the spread of AIDs, they fail far too
> often. Faithful marriage will do far more to stop it.

That's absolutely true. Condoms will, however, greatly slow the spread of HIV.

> 
> > Possibly because people in developed countries have other sources of
> > instruction besides priests preaching hellfire and damnation. And as a rule,
> > science is a lot more convincing than some madman screeching about some
> > imagined afterlife.
> 
> The Pope is far less a screeching madman than you. 

Oh no! I do not at all accuse His Eminence of being a screeching madman, he
has made his life a self-sacrifice and has supported some of the most worthy
causes at great personal risk. I believe that if there is such a thing as a
truly holy man, he certainly would qualify. Except that he has not been
martyred, he might almost qualify as a saint. He is exceptionally educated and
a very aware-of-issues kind of guy.

But what of the lesser rabble-rousers we see fomenting revolution in
backwaters of rural nations? Undoubtedly political change is needed in such
places, but while I think that communism is equally mad, at least it
_pretends_ to be scientific. A haranguing demagogue is what s/he is, no matter
the ideology. But to convince ignorant peasants that their souls are in danger
if they don't overthrow the regime, that's pretty low in most cases. It's
probably worse in many cases to threaten the peasants with hellfile to
perpetuate the regime, which is likely if they are overburdened with children
and are told that they may not use birth-control, which might help them save
enough money to send at least one of the kids to a real school, to help break
the cycle of poverty.


> And science is not
> convincing to most of the third world citizens, the are uneducated.

Maybe if they were, instead of being deluded by the Church, educated by it? If
they've got time enough for Mass, they have time enough to learn to read. If
the children have time enough for catechism, they have time enough to learn to
read the Bible for themselves.

> 
> > They're only a jet-flight away you know. BTW how about the massive
> > near-epidemic of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis coming across the border
> > from Mexico?
> 
> Most are not "only a jet flight away", and the tuberculosis problem is hardly
> "massive", more of your "chicken little".

According to the Texas Department of Public Health, it's one of the greatest
public health threats, particularly to the poor, particularly to urban poor in
the barrios.

> 
> > You cannot possibly attribute a species-jumping virus originating in swine to
> > political causes! How so?
> 
> Because it was bred in the trenches of Europe, trenches born of politics.

Trenches born of some Balkan assassin, don't you mean?

> You
> need to learn more about disease, conditions cause epidemics, and such
> epidemics don't ussually sustain themselves in populations with clean water
> and good sanitation.

So why didn't a similar plague emerge in WWII or in Korea or in Vietnam?

BTW, the conditions that come with war or disaster which breed epidemics
traditionally mostly breed cholera.

Also BTW, the present theory about the 1917 Flu is that it may have been
caused by poorly-canned hams being shipped overseas. It's thus more of a
question of proper food preparation and canning than of anything else.

> 
> > Only through the greatest efforts of the greatest numbers can disaster be
> > averted, it has always been so and will always be so.
> 
> It has never been so. The greatest disasters cannot be avoided, as the
> dinosaurs attest to,

Sure, if you're talking about "the greatest disasters", which I was not. I was
talking about disasters created by mankind through lack of foresight, not
natural disasters of cosmic scale.

> the other ones run their course. They can be managed to
> minimize the impact, but they are a natural cycle, and will abate naturally.
> Otherwise the earth would be long dead.

I don't disagree. Thus we should use all diligence _in foresight_ and manage
to minimize the impact _before_ they occur. "An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure".

> 
> > > Your lack of precision does not affect my credability, sorry.
> >
> > Dodging questions with such remarks, however, definitely affects your
> > credibility.
> 
> Except I was not dodging anything, I was taking exception to the "chicken
> little" magnitude of exaggeration that was being employed. Your credability is
> the one that is affected if you rail so against accuracy in statistics.

Against precisely which statistics did I rail?

> 
> > They absolutely will _not_ in this scenario, mostly because the year 2050 is
> > the year when Census projects that the voting majority will have a Hispanic
> > surname and will have grown up speaking spanish in the home. they will not
> > close the borders, they will throw them wide open!
> 
> That is a pure crock, if the hispanic community reached a majority, they would
> treat the poor the same way that they treat the poor today. You do not see any
> hispanic community "throwing open" the doors to doom anywhere. In fact, in
> hispanic countries, you are far more likely to see big walls with guns
> behind them seperating those that have from those that have not than you do
> here. Get a clue.

All the more reason to lock down the borders, eh?

> 
> > You really aren't taking evrything into consideration, are you?
> 
> More than you it seems.
> 
> > Time alone, it would seem, will lay this argument to rest.
> 
> No, there has always been, and will always be "doom and gloomers" and
> "chicken littles", such as yourself, screaming and wringing their hands and
> claiming the end is just around the corner.

Oh no! That's just motivational technique! the best way to get people to avoid
stepping on a snake is to jump up and down and tell them what could happen to
them if they step on it. Probably if it does bite them they won't die, they'll
just get sick and be in horrible pain and maybe lose their leg. But if you
tell them they'll die for-sure, then they will be looking out for the snake
and won't step on it at _all_.

You, it would seem, don't believe in snakes, nor in telling people to beware
of them. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

> 
> > More to the point, it came from Rome, which eventually became merged with the
> > Church.
> 
> And Rome got a lot of it from Greece, ect... The fact remains that the Church
> made us what we are today.

Would you believe "historic forces" made us what we are today?

> 
> > We'd have all of that if everyone followed the Wiccan Rede too, or the simple
> > Golden rule for that matter, or even the first law of the doctor: "First, do
> > no harm".
> 
> Possably, possably not, but that does not change the good that comes from the
> RCC.
> 
> > Hey, if the Pope can help eliminate population growth in even a _part_ of the
> > world, it's a step in the right direction.
> 
> The church does what it can, remember Mother Teresa?
> 
> > > a) there will not be 1.9 billion in the US by 2050, this is simply a
> "chicken
> > > little" scare tactic. There may be half a billion people, but not more.
> 
> > What sources will you cite to back this up?
> 
> P25-1130 Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and
> Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050, published by the US census, and available on
> the web.

Ah, here's a little tidbit from one of those reports, PPL-47


0    The Hispanic origin population is projected to increase
rapidly over the 1995 to 2025 projection period, accounting for
44 percent of the growth in the Nation's population (32 million
Hispanics out of a total of 72 million persons added to the
Nation's population).  The Hispanic origin population is the
second fastest-growing population, after Asians, in every region
over the 30 year period.


> 
> Their projection is 400 million in 2050, read it and weep.

It's slightly higher than that, from:

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/npaltsrs.txt :
Resident Population Projections of the United States:  Middle,
Low, and High Series, 1996 - 2050

Source:  U.S. Bureau of the Census
Release date:  March 1996


(Numbers in thousands.  Consistent with the 1990 Census, as
enumerated.)

                         Projected Population Count

      Year       Middle Series     Low Series     High Series

      1996          265,253         264,869         265,646
      1997          267,645         266,733         268,577
      1998          270,002         268,396         271,647
      1999          272,330         269,861         274,865

[...]

      2047          386,522         284,057         499,900
      2048          388,962         283,538         506,142
      2049          391,431         283,027         512,475
      2050          393,931         282,524         518,903

---------------

I do stand corrected.


> 
> > In your arguments, you unilaterally support the Catholic Church. thus, you
> > support them, thus you support their beliefs and practices, thus you support
> > the results of those practices, thus you support overpopulation and ecological
> > destruction.
> 
> No, I support their right to determine their own policy, that is not
> unilateral support by any means. Really what I am doing is just disagreeing
> with your unsound logic and your overly pessimistic assertions and doom and
> gloom mentality.

See above. Actually, I evidently had bad data. From my base assumption, doom
and gloom seemed to be optomistic.

> 
> > Sorry, dimbulb, Separation of Church and State requires that no religious
> > function may be performed in any activity which is mandated by the State.
> > First Amendment you know.
> 
> First, seperation of church and state is not what the first amendment says,
> second free speech rights protect even religious speech,

Certainly. But when it says that the government shall make no law regarding
the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, it is interpreted
to mean that no activity mandated by the government may be of a religious
nature.

> third, many things
> happen outside of a house or church that are not mandated by the state, you
> know.

And in those places/functions/activities which are not mandated by the state,
be as religious as you want. but let's not have mandatory school prayer in a
state school.

> 
> > > Its the poor and uneducated, across the board, Chris. The Catholics in this
> > > country maintain low birth rates,
> >
> > Roughly the same as many Protestants.
> 
> > Many of those poor ignorant people would try to exercise more birth control if
> > the Pope told them it ws good for their souls, I bet.
> 
> In the first place, the Pope has a core set of beliefs that he would not
> violate on your whim, in the second place, there is no indication that the
> Pope would be able to change the practices and lifestyle of these people.

If these people quote the Pope as a justification for doing what they do, then
maybe if the Pope told them that he doesn't give them that justification,
maybe they will change.

> 
> > > Bad government, poor managment, ignorance and poverty. You can do a lot more
> > > good fighting these than you can fighting the Pope.
> >
> > At last, you give some good advice.
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
  Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
 Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/