🚀 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, they are India, most of Asia, and parts of Africa.
> BHut you knew that, you just want to blame the Pope for something, to pump
> yourself up, don't you, Chris?

Not really - lifting weights serves that function quite nicely. But to
reply to the point made, a fact and a statistic share the same ground.
And overpopulation, whether enabled by lack of education, societal
mores, or religious edicts, will eventually ruin all of our collective
chances for survival - a point the Pope conveniently avoids. But as
leader of a massive pyramid scheme, that is not surprising.
 
> > > > > 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, but the numbers mean nothing
> without knowing the largest stable population the Earth will support with
> proper managment. My guess is 50 billion.

So you want to quibble over exact numbers? Or whose lifespan?  I was
referring to yours and mine - say the next 50 years, give or take. And
if you really believe that this planet can support 50 bil people - under
any management program short of closed loop pods you're absolutely
crackers!
 
> > > > > 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.

You are aware that we have let this topic cover the globe - so if Africa
is brought up we'll discuss it in turn.
 
> > > 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?

Beats me - my affiliation is Rep. party. My analysis is issue by issue.
My vote is almost never on party lines.
 
> > If my diversity of policy endorsements confuses you
> 
> Your opinions amuse me more than confuse me, Chris.

Glad you derive some pleasure then!

> > 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.
> 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?

It fits into the portion that says that any leader of any type ought not
discourage the use of condoms. That's it - simple isn't it? Less people
= better quality of life.
 
> > > > 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.

I said "unpracticable" - that means not possible to practice. If it were
we'd surely see that sex isn't the number one human bonding activity.
 
> > > 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?

Generally yes - occasionally no. It depends on the subject matter.

> > > > 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? 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".

I didn't say I'd limit it. I just noted that it was absurd,
counterproductive to maintaining a decent planetary quality of life, and
that they really ought to join the 20 th century before it elapses. I
find their philosophy to be paradoxically self destructive, yet claiming
to offer the dispensation of eternal life.
 
> > > > 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?

Just noting the goofiness of most religions.
 
> > 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?

Fair question. I won't claim any single faith. I was raised with the
Episcoplaian faith, eschewed church as soon as possible, read and
dabbled in TM, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on. I currently pick and choose
as to what seems relevant. My leaning, as a product of this society, is
toward Christ's actual words - not so much the disciple's reportage.
Which is not to say that I minimize all of it. Just that ancient texts
contain numerous political revisions and that core philosophies are
often stronger and more accurate when reduced to the initial message.
 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own