🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <366495BA.8CF647FD@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> >

> Ah, the Mile High Madhouse. Do you people _still_ beat to death anyone who
> walks away from the bus-station on foot?

What? You live where? Want to compare murder rates?

>
> >
> > > Please don't presume to sit in Eden and taunt the rest of us who have to
live
> > > in the Real World.
> >
> > Where do you live, and why is it the "real world", and Colorado is not?
>
> Washington DC. Which is a city, much like any other city, like even Denver,
> with which it share many nastinesses. But our air at least is breathable; we
> don't get inversions. Just lots and lots of cancers.
>
> >
> > > In other words, "it's the world, the _whole world_, not your blessed
little
> > > half-acre of heaven or whatever.
> >
> > We'll, I've been all over Central and North America, and Asia, and have seen
> > lots of poor people, but the overpopulation stems from being poor and
> > undeveloped, not the other way around. Maybe you should open your eyes a
> > little, yourself.
>
> Give it time. Being poor and undeveloped means that there's little knowledge
> of, or access to, modern contraception. Birth control in many poor countries
> consists of a pregnant woman paying someone to kick her in the stomach.
>
> Being poor, underdeveloped, and overpopulated - it's a recipe for disaster.
> Thomans Malthus recognized this back in the late 1700s. Most literate
> societies realize this.

Sure it is, but the overpopulation is a result, not a cause.

> > > Hmmm. Africa.
> >
> > Thats right, how have Catholics caused Africa's problems?
>
> did _I_ say that Catholics caused Africa's problems?

That is the point of this thread, Catholic bashing.

> > > dogmas must change with the times or they get run over by karmas.
> >
> > Cute, but karma is not a Catholic term, although your embracing of a
religious
> > Ideals is heartening.
>
> I'm neither Catholic nor particularly christian, though I've read the Bible a
> time or two, and try to understand it.

> > I am only pointing out that Catholisism cannot be blamed for a problem that
> > is more prevelant in other religions, it is the unreasoning attack on
> > Catholisism that you are supporting that lacks attributions that can
> > withstand any scrutiny.
>
> I don't support unreasoning attacks on Catholicism; but even the most
> unreasoned attack may have some points which have sound reasons. I'll support
> what I believe are the sound reasons.
>
> Among the rest of the Judaeo-Christian panoply of religions, just about the
> only one that makes _all_ birth control out to be anathematic is Catholicism.

> > > > Actually, the only 100% sure method of birth control is OK with the
Pope, is
> > > > it not?

> > This is nature at work, and not Catholic only trait. Also I am puzzled by
your
> > claim that breeding causes stupidity.
>
> Actually, it's been rather endlessly hashed out in endless debates in
> countless journals - the general consensus seems to be that while nobody can
> tell where trrue genius will crop up, it's inarguable that stupidity breeds
> true (except for the fluke genius rising from the herd of the dullards) and
> it's also fairly evident that breeding will tell amongst the
> slightly-better-endowed (in terms of intelligence, and of course there's also
> the case of inbred upper-class twits). For the most part, it seems that the
> majority of the human race is a mix of the slightly-smarter and the
> slightly-dimmer and thus is average. But remember this: stupidity breeds true
> as does intelligence. It's the ends of the "bell curve" that are the
> statistical outliers, or flukes (excepting down's syndrome inbreedings, etc).

Actually, malnutrition during youth dumbs down the poor overpopulated people.

> > Not true at all, intelligence is not a factor in choosing priesthood, unless
> > you are claiming it is obvious to you that priests are more intelligent than
> > most?
>
> Better educated that are most, in developing countries! And in a place which
> has such scarce resources for education, no administrator would ever send a
> dunce to school while depriving brilliance of intellectual sustainance, all
> things being equal in terms of the faith of the two individuals.
>
> See, the best, most brilliant of the priests, the skilled ones, in terms of
> their sermons and studies and their ministries to their flocks, are those who
> get the most-choice positions, unless they feel called to mission work.
> (thankfully many do!) And a Church which is also an Empire needs people to
> fill those choice positions, as they are administrative as well as
> evangelistic/ministerial. And so a church which is also an empire must of
> course steer whoever can be identified as gifted into their management.
> Therefor bring forth the little children so that the governor/priest may
> discover his replacement, to the greater glory of the church <cough cough>
> ahem, God.

This proves nothing about the intelligence of the massively uneducated or the
priests in such countries, the priests may be better educated, thats all.

> On _this_ Pope? No! Again, you seem to misattribute my own opinions to be in
> complete solidarity with the statements of others.

No, just supportive of theirs.

>
> >
> > > what the hell does Chris' past have to do with
> >
> > Chris likes to blame people today for the acts of the long dead, I was just
> > wondering what his heritage was that is so free of evil deeds? Or maybe he
> > just suffers guilt by association with his past. Either way, I just want to
> > know where he's comming from. Why does inquiring about someones heritage
> > offend you so?
>
> See following quote paragraph, part of the original sentence, "as in, like,
> duh!"
>
> >
> > > the fact that religious
> > > organizations (especially where linked to government) are essentially
control
> > > organizations, maintaining the place of the elite by keeping the poor
> > > barefoot, pregnant, deluded and impoverished?
> >
> > This is only a small part of what a some religious or political or cultural
> > groups do, even what ever ones you feel allegiance to. It is a natural rsult
> > of any group seeking to better itself. The fact that you veiw the Catholic
> > Church today through this very limited filter speaks volumes of your motives
> > here.
>
> I speak of most of the Church-State alliances since the fall of Rome!

Why do you exclude all the others?

> You say "...it is a natural rsult [sic] of any group seeking to better
> itself..." to suppress the masses by keeping them barefoot, pregnant, deluded
> and impoverished, but I ask you: is this not a tad _hypocritical_ of a
> religion which professes to enlighten, enrich, empower, and save? Over exactly
> such abuses did Christ overthrow the tables of the vendors in the Temple
> paraphrasing Jeremiah 7:11 -

Sure, the Catholic religion has its share of hypocrites, just like every
other group, from the democratic party today to the first parent who did the
do as I say, not as I do thing. You take a trait that is common to all humans
and attack the Catholics with it. That is my point.

> > > Obviously not, no Jesuit would have for a moment stood for any of your
> > > argumentative ploys.
> >
> > So you are a Jesuit, or you just blowing smoke? Argumentative ploys are a
part
> > of every political group, especially those seeking to increase their power.
>
> And what power do I seek? I am no Jesuit. You may think of me as one who seeks
> the truth, whatever that may be.

I never claimed you were seeking power, but the Jesuits did, and you claim to
speak for them.

> > It takes a certain kind of person to single out one group for attack, you
> > picked the Catholics. Why?
>
> I didn't pick the Catholics to attack. Why do you misattribute me so?

You just called them, and them alone hypocrites, did you not?

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

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own