🚀 go-pugleaf

a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> In article <36637634.9D310230@earthlink.net>,
>   Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <366228CA.5FBCB89B@earthlink.net>,
> > >   Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > > That's what you consider a statistic?
> >
> > Just a fact - is that not statistically accurate?
> 
> But not a statistic, You can research the latest projections of the Bureau of
> the Census on the web, and find the worst countries for overpopulation are not
> Catholic, 

Possibly because, as a side effect of education - and the explosion of
rationality, scientism and common sense - people of conscience are deserting
the Mother Church in literal droves?

>they are India, most of Asia, and parts of Africa.

You left out the region with the greatest and most explosive potentials for
growth, all on the worst agricultural terrain on earth outside of Antarctica,
to wit, the Middle East?

> BHut you knew that, you just want to blame the Pope for something, to pump
> yourself up, don't you, Chris?

Actually, I find Chris, while a bit flippant, to be a lot more in tune with
reality and sensibility than yourself.

> 
> > > > > And your proof that overpopulation is bad for the world?
> > > >
> > > > Er...our current environment?
> > >
> > > My current enviroment seems great, so what is your proof?
> >
> > Well we're at 6 bil planetary pop. now - projections are for 10 bil in
> > our lifespan...should we see it.
> 
> In our lifespan? Is that our two total lifespans added, or what? And we are
> not 6billion, we are an estimated 5,951,297,626,

And with the present rates of growth, 6 billion will be achieved before the
end of the millenium.

Note that humanity didn't achieve its first billion until the start of this
century. 

you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between raw numbers,
and statistical history, nor do you seem to have a concept of the difference
between linear and geometric growth, nor have you much of a concept or
"reproductive inertia" or the simple fucking fact that as more people waste
more energy in competing for less resources we see:

- increases in conflict

- decreases in potential remediations of conflict; depletion of non-renewable
resources

- degradation of renewable-resource renewal processes with concurrent increase
in politically-motivated assaults on renewable-resource renewal processes

"just for starters."

> but the numbers mean nothing
> without knowing the largest stable population the Earth will support with
> proper managment. My guess is 50 billion.
>

You are either trolling, or you need to be pilloried in the public stocks
beneath a sign that says "I am a senseless boob who likes to grossly
misrepresent the planetary ecology's carrying capacity".
 
> > > > > Thats why India has no overpopulation or misery, no Catholics?
> > > >
> > > > No common sense - cow worship is best left to cattlemen...
> > >
> > > Yes, thats great. What about Africa and Asia?
> >
> > Sure clitorodectomy, fattening women for marriage, male domination,
> > trading daughters for cows and such...nah..no problem there...
> 
> But none of it caused by Catholics, Chris. Try to stay on topic.

The topic hasn't been Catholics for the last three iterations of the thread
here. 

Try to attune yourself to topic-drift.

> 
> > > Who, you? You are a hard core liberal, aren't you Chris?
> >
> > Er, sorry..nope...I'm a capitalist stock picking machine.
> 
> Yes, a hard core Liberal one. Or is it against the code of Liberals to own
> stock?

You pretend to be the master of the unsubstantiated allegation as a prelude to
a diversion into interminable and pointless debate over a strawman attack?

Jeeze, you _are_ a newbie to the net, aren't you?

> 
> > If my diversity of policy endorsements confuses you
> 
> Your opinions amuse me more than confuse me, Chris.
> 
> > You may have felt at a loss due to your inability to equate human
> > ecosystems to animal ones. Don't worry. A basic course in urban ecology,
> > buffered with some biology and meteorology will get you there. It's all
> > wave theory and food chain. Once you understand survival, greed( a
> > component thereof), and random numbers you'll be fine!
> 
> I'm fine right now, Chris, and so is Colorado. We're living high on the hog.

Not if I can help it. Um, how ya like the radioactive water supply courtesy of
that nifty little outfit west of Denver that dumped all of their
plutonium-refining sludge into surface ponds on your uphill slope?

Judging from your rhetoric and the shapes of most of the people living out
there, I'd say that that there ol nuke-juice must be damned near making you
glow in the dark.

Oh, BTW, I'll stop saying how bad Denver sucks when the earth opens and
swallows it up.

> So where does Catholicism fit in to your ecosystem model, and why is its
> impact on population and development not as bad as non Catholic ones?
> 
> > > > Actually what is up for grabs is the papal decrees against birth control
> > > > (how smart is that as we careen to 10 bil pop on the globe?)
> > >
> > > Actually, the only 100% sure method of birth control is OK with the Pope, is
> > > it not?
> 
> > And most provably unpracticable - eh?
> 
> It's very practical, just not practiced, especially in less developed
> countries where people have nothing.

See? they've already bred chastity out of their populations. Population
explosion, crash, explosion, crash, explosion, crash <etc etc ad nauseum> here
we come!

> 
> > > Ah, yes. You like to blame people for the sins of the past, tell me, Chris,
> > > what is your past?
> >
> > I dunno - some good, some bad, and a lot of learning. I keep trying,
> > keep reading...you?
> 
> Mostly the same, only I am looking past my own prejudices. You?

You're barking up the wrong tree and have been for the last few posts.

> 
> > > > I'm all for prayer in the home or church - just keep it
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > So you are against free speech? You must be a liberal.
> >
> > No I'm a centrist on domestic issues, a radical on personal liberties,
> > and a conglommerist when it comes to group think...
> 
> But how can you really mean it when you would limit free speech of a
> religious nature? 

Strawman argument, "where the hell did e say that?"

> You are just like the Church was hundreds of years ago,
> ready to limit the rights of those you don't agree with, hardly what I would
> call a "radical on personal liberties".
> 
> > > > You lot scare me when you organize for more than a picnic - even then
> > > > the potato salad may be toxic!
> > >
> > > Me lot? What are you talking about? I'm not Catholic, Chris.
> >
> > Religious right'ers in general - born agains, Morons, Cat-lckers,
> > Baptists, etc.
> 
> Being a radical on personal liberties again?

I dunno. what about religious freaks who think they have the right to kill
anyone they label a witch "cause thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?"

> 
> > Shiny happy people having fun - their fun only please!
> >
> > Didn't mean to imply you were any one of the above or others not listed
> > - just a general thought about religions at large.
> 
> Everybody has a religion, even if it is agnostic. What is your religion,
> Chris?

Agnostic isn't a religion. Nor is atheism. 

You do like to trot out strawman arguments, don't you? Combining strawman
arguments with presuppositive ad-hominem attacks is generally considered the
premiere indicator that you've no real arguments in support of your own
(obviously ill-chosen) position.

> 
> -----------== 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/