🚀 go-pugleaf

a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> In article <36631D76.D143F0AA@clark.net>,
>   klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> 
> >
> > > And your proof that overpopulation is bad for the world?
> >
> > The oceans are dying,
> 
> snip
> 
> > _That_ is what overpopulaiton can do, and there is your proof.
> >
> > Either you don't pay any attention to the news or you're incapable of reading
> > between the lines.
> 
> No, it sounds more like you can't put things in proper perspective. The Earth
> has a long history of disasters and strains on local ecologies, even when
> human population was much less than today. The ecosystem can, and will
> recover from these little disasters, as it has for millinium. 

These disasters are not, as you put it, "little" and indeed the Homeworld
shall adapt: by eliminating the infection. 


> Populations,
> human or otherwise, have a certain point where they will stop increasing, to
> the detriment of that population. 

In what way will the population of _survivors_ be debilitated by the decrease
of competition for vanishing resources?

BTW, you're pretty good at pontificating. Can you provide even the least
smidgen of science to support your platform? Or even a plank of your platform?

> We have not reached that point yet, and
> will not reach it here in Colorado for centuries, if ever.

You're out of your mind. If Colorado remains the last bastion of open-spaces,
either it will be overrun, or will (having successfully built a wall around
itself) find itself obstructed from receiving supplies from the outside,
including advancing technology. But if the world kills itsel, no matter how
strong your defenses, your air will still reek with the death of the planet
even as it grows stale and incapable of supporting life. Fool.

> It is true that in
> some countries, overpopulation has outgrown food sources, but the majority of
> those populations are not Catholic,

what the fuck have the Catholics to do with global population explosion, other
than preaching to their limited and decreasing audiences, the insanity that
all birth control is bad?

> nor are they under my control, nor are
> they adversly effecting my life in a physical sense. The ecological problems
> that you cite as proof of the evils of overpopulation are instead the evils
> of poor managment, many caused not by undeveloped overpopulated nations, but
> instead by developed nations with much more managable populations. Get some
> perspective.

I've got some perspective, do you think my words are reaching anyone in those
overpopulated and destitute developing nations? Hell no. They are essentially
lost, passengers on a massive and interia-loaded train that hurtles off-track
to inevitable doom; nothing can be done for them in any case but we must be
aware that when they see lots of living room and fresh skies in the US, they
will come here in droves by whatever means are available. 

They're doing it already, and the population, for what it's worth, which _is_
making it here, happens to be staunch Catholics for the most part and
according to US Census data have a reproductive rate (once in-country) of 4.8
times the protestant caucasian majority. 

So batten down the hatches and lock up the borders, the same assholes as
burned down the rain-forests are coming here to do to the US what they've
already done to Latin America, which is to say to breed and breed until they
have no option to actually start destroying the long-term replenishment of the
planet's very air-supply in a foolish short-term bid to feed their innumerable
offspring... when all they have to do is to abandon their Papacy and in the
name of Earth, Nature and Humanity, get on the damned Pill like everyone else
with any damned sense.

> 
> > > Thats why India has no overpopulation or misery, no Catholics?
> >
> > Actually, the predominant religion of India also does not approve of birth
> > control.
> 
> And in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing populations,

Bah humbug. In the US, last year there were 40,000 new cases of AIDS. In
subsaharan Africa (thanks for the figures, Mr. Jennings! scooped ya didn't I!
<grin>) this year they had 40,000,000 new cases of AIDS. Africa may have the
highest growth rate for now, but you do the math: Africa will be depopulated
over the next score of years just like Europe was during the Black Death.

> how is the Catholic
> Church causing that increase? Remember, that is the point of this thread, to
> blame the Catholics for the world population growth.

No it's not the point of the thread, you blithering imbecile.

> 
> > > Actually, it has been increasing at a rate that is lower than India, lower
> > > than Africa, lower than Asia, so it must be doing some good, right?
> >
> > Quiet-possibly because, interestingly enough, in Europe at least the countries
> > which are predominantly catholic have excellent education systems,
> 
> Ah, so maybe the Catholics are not the problem after all, maybe the
> faith-haters just want to think they are.
> 
> > in
> > other words it is not the Church which writes the secular laws. In the New
> > World, this is not so much the case.
> 
> Really? In what countries does the Curch write the secular laws?

Every single European nation. Read some history, dimbulb.

> 
> > > > Did it ever occur to you that just maybe, perhaps, you're acting as an
> > > > apologist for a theocracy?
> > >
> > > Did it ever occur to you that you are acting as an knee-jerk reactionary for
> > > an anti-religious liberal agenda?
> >
> > Bud, I'm liberal as hell (according to the right-wingers; to the liberals I'm
> > a knee-jerk Republican)
> 
> So what, if you blame the Catholics

Ah, I am not blaming the Cahtolics, I am blaming one particular policy of
theirs, which massively needs to be revoked or reworded.

> instead of blaming the low level of
> development,

The low level of development is a result of a combination of exploitational
factors, governmental corruption, and the fact that there are too many people
competing for the same increasingly-scarce resources.


> then you are a knee jerk reactionary, and a fool, since
> overpopulation is tied across the board to developmental levels and not any
> particular religion.

Failure to overpopulate is tied to one particular religion, Secular Humanism.
Note that Secular Humanism is most prevalent in those countries which have the
highest levels of education and industrial development, and is in fact the
most prevalent in the nations which are moving into post-industrial economies
and which are at either Zero Population Growth or which are in fact
experiencing declines in population concurrent with massive economic upswings.
Your argument is unhinged, and you stand revealed as a poor logician. 

> 
> > - but the fact of the matter is that it's nearly
> > impossible to discern between a bona-fide religious experience and a
> > full-blown psychosis with hallucinatory episodes and persistent delusional
> > ideation, poverty and coloring of thought, with occasional manic and
> > megalomaniacal episodes. (to use the langauge of the emerging State Religion,
> > "Infallible Scientism", as expressed by the emerging State Priest class,
> > "psychiatrists".)
> 
> Not true, and off point, but you can call psycotics "religious" if you want,
> it is not me you are deluding.

No. I call anyone who can base their life on the basis of something which, by
definition, cannot be demonstrated to exist ("god"), deluded. Perhaps not
delusional, I cannot presume to say that there is no deity, neither the
existence nor absence can be rigorously confirmed. 

BTW, you seem to have a poor understanding of English, after all, I didn't
call psychotics religious, I simply pointed out that according to many of the
tenets of modern psychiatry, religiousness is by definition a delusional
psychosis.  

> 
> > Melissa here might or might not be knee-jerking, but _I_ try to not knee-jerk.
> > but much of classical religion is all about maintenance of power and
> > caste-structures.
> 
> Just like all social entities, governments, political parties, social clubs,
> ect... Gather people togather with any common bond and they seek to advance
> themselves, always at a cost to others.

Really? You have a pessimistic and juandiced worldview.

> Some are worse than others, but to
> single out one and blame it out of proportion to its impact is agenda driven
> knee jerk reactionism, whether you want to admit it or not.

Nice bald assertion there, supported solely by a spate of nicely-assembled
buzzwords in an appeal to, interestingly, knee-jerk reactions. Please
rigorously demonstrate why this is so!

> 
> > One of hte best ways to keep your class in power is to make
> > sure that the suppressed/governed classes cannot get ahead, the classic way to
> > do that is to keep the barefoot, pregnant, and deluded.
> 
> The classical way is to kill or enslave them, as all almost all groups have
> done. The Catholic church has its bad history, just like everyone else.
> What is your agenda here?

What makes you think I have an agenda?

> 
> > "Freedom can never be absolute until the last king has been strangled with the
> > guts of the last priest."
> 
> Freedom can never be absolute, period.

Why is this so?

> 
> > Real Christian, so rare though they be, return love for hatred. "Do good to
> > those that despise you, thereby shall you heap coals of fire upon their
> > conscience." Unfortunately, all too many of the Xtians I've encountered care
> > more for their Church Organization than they care for the words of the Jesus.
> 
> "Judge others so that you are not judged", is that your creed?

Where have I said that? I would rather say, "if it harms none, do as you
will," and "love thy neighbor as thyself". 

How do I thus evade judgement? I seek strongly to dislodge the plank from my
own eye before I seek to pluck the speck from that of my neighbor. I am not
faultless nor are my people nor is my country. We must seek to agitate for all
changes which increase everyone's access to opportunity for peace, prosperity
and beauty, no matter for whom and no matter where. But no global solutions
may be reached without realizing that across the whole range from global
macroscale to the slightest interaction between three people, "all politics is
local" (for whatever scale you're presently considering as "local"). We often
cannot see our own problems for we are too close to them, it is easier to
discern the faults of another, when one has no proper optics. But we have a
better looking glass here in America, and less of a plank in our eye, that
many countries and peoples and cultures have, when they are mired in
overpopulation, low technology, resource depletion, the specter of AIDS and
eternal governmental corruption. We have but a speck in our eye. They've got
the whole damned sawmill stuck in their eyesocket.


> 
> > I have to take some issue here with your statement "The other fact is that you
> > are so fanatically anti-Judaeo-Christian that you will never look at any
> > religious issue without bias."... - you are aware aren't you that there are a
> > large number of people for whom religion and Judaeo-Christianity (or Islam or
> > even Hinduism) aren't even remotely related?
> 
> But Melissa is not one of them, is she? So keep your perspective, and my
> context, intact, and you'll do better next time.

I don't give a _fuck_ about _your_ context. Topics drift. And this one's
drifting, since all you seem to be concerned with is attacking Melissa and
anyone you see as being anti-catholic.

BTW your posting style seems exceptionally familiar. May I call you Joe?


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