🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3664393E.1D143C9A@earthlink.net>,
  Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:

> > 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.

But a fact cannot be used to blame the Pope without statistics to back up your
alligations. So prove the Pope is responsable for overpopulation.

> And overpopulation, whether enabled by lack of education, societal
> mores, or religious edicts, will eventually ruin all of our collective
> chances for survival

Probably not, It bodes ill for the overpopulated area, but the effects remain
localized.

> a point the Pope conveniently avoids. But as
> leader of a massive pyramid scheme, that is not surprising.

More Catholic bashing. The Pope has no power in the areas that are most
populated.

> > > > > > 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 just prefer that you be more precise.

> 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!

Not at all. It would take the elimination of most animals, and a skimpy
vegitarian diet, but it is mathmatically possible.

> > 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.
The main point being that the catholic countries are not the problem ones, so
the Catholic bashing on the overpopulation issue is based in you rather than
fact.

>
> > > > 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.

> It fits into the portion that says that any leader of any type ought not
> discourage the use of condoms.

Why not? Should he pervert his beliefs because chris doesn't agree with them?

> That's it - simple isn't it? Less people
> = better quality of life.

Not in all cases, but the Pope has little effect on the problem areas at any
rate.



>
> > > > > 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.

So keeping it in the home and Church is not limiting 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.

This is a somewhat limited take on Catholicism. It has its good points and
bad, depending on your point of view, like any faith or politically based
system. It certainly makes as much sense as some of the things even our own
government does.

>
> > > > > 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.

That is a reflection of people. Knock on wood lately? A goofy thing to do.

> > 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.

Churches can be limiting, yet there is a strong movement in the Christian
church to do just what you are doing as it pertains to the Christ's words.
Most modern Christians find the Catholic practices somewhat strange and
hypocritical, and they were dangerous to many in the past, but they are
hardly the causes of the worlds ills.

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

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