Originally posted by Conrau KYou are a biased ignoramus.
You are a disgusting cretin.
All you do here is try to defend the sickening behaviour of Catholics.
The most ill-informed person knows that birth control is one the most effective longterm methods of fighting poverty IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED.
Originally posted by ZahlanziHe is blindly supporting Catholics. You understand?
mention you didn't mean to generalize to all catholic clergy.
also i don't see how this is a logic reply to him claiming birth control is not an effective measure to combat poverty. i don't agree with conrau but still i don't know how cases of pedophilia in catholic clergy is related.
Originally posted by Rajk999oh now i understand your reason.
He is blindly supporting Catholics. You understand?
still doesn't make it right. you used someone's background to respond to a statement that in itself has nothing to do with religion and if you heard the exact words from any other person, an atheist for example you would have given an entirely different response.
and still you should clarify your remark doesn't extend to all catholic clergy.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Rajk999I think there are better measures to combat poverty. Families depend on a large number of children to generate sufficient income to support themselves. While contraception might ensure better distribution of wealth over future years, it is unlikely to help domestic economies.
You are a biased ignoramus.
All you do here is try to defend the sickening behaviour of Catholics.
The most ill-informed person knows that birth control is one the most effective longterm methods of fighting poverty IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED.
My arguments have nothing to do with supporting the behaviour of Catholics. And you are a disgusting cretin to think that because someone believes that contraception is a myopic solution to poverty they must somehow believe that pedophilia is justified. I really do think that I need to tell you how to live your life.
Originally posted by Rajk999You are a biased ignoramus.
You are a biased ignoramus.
All you do here is try to defend the sickening behaviour of Catholics.
The most ill-informed person knows that birth control is one the most effective longterm methods of fighting poverty IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED.
All you do here is try to defend the sickening behaviour of [some] Catholics.
The most ill-informed person knows that birth control is one the most effective longterm methods of fighting poverty IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALREADY OVERPOPULATED.
as i claimed before, using birth control without other measures like more jobs, health care and food is very dangerous.
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo if Mother Theresa had influenced a few thousand Indians use birth control and to have 2 kids instead 8, that would have been very dangerous ? Exactly how ?
.....as i claimed before, using birth control without other measures like more jobs, health care and food is very dangerous.
Originally posted by Rajk999in the case of indians not at all. i think they are over a billion now there are enough of them.
So if Mother Theresa had influenced a few thousand Indians use birth control and to have 2 kids instead 8, that would have been very dangerous ? Exactly how ?
in the case of african nations yes. malaria kills by the thousands, famine too. not having a high birth rate would be very dangerous for the population.
and consider that in a rural family, children mean workforce. only two children mean less agriculture and much less probability of survival. and having fewer children doesn't mean jobs will be created or cheaper medicine will become available to the population. it helps but it is not the most important.
EDIT: why not bash on mother theresa for not asking for jobs as well? there is a lot we could have done better, a lot more we could have done extra. are you gonna stand there and minimize what she did do and only mention what she did wrong and what she didn't do? a person's life is measured by all her actions and my opinion is that she did a lot more than the passive you and me who don't do anything but complain.
edit: "but if a suicider jumps in front of his car how is it the driver responsible?"
He is not responsible, however even at this case he will still face a trial and he will be oblidged to prove jis inoccence; but I see your point and I agree.
Regarding Hitler and his opinion about the Jews, maybe we agree that he was one of the best orators ever. Anybody aquaint with his style easily understands that Hitler used by far stronger and sophisticated reasoning instead of a simple "Let's kill the Jews". Here I post some of the most reknown opinions of that famous mass-killer reported in "Mein Kampf":
“I was repelled by the conglomeration of races which the capital showed me, repelled by this whole mixture of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs, and Croats, and everywhere, the eternal mushroom of humanity-Jews and more Jews.”
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
“If we pass all the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive remains the failure to recognize the racialproblem and especially the Jewish menace.”
“All really significant symptoms of decay of the pre-War periodcan in the last analysis be reduced to racial causes.”
“Though the best state and the best state form are not able to extract from a people abilities which are simply lacking and never did exist, a bad state is assuredly able to kill originally existing abilities by permitting or even promoting the destruction of the racial culture-bearer.”
“The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position.”
“If physical beauty were today not forced entirely into the background by our foppish fashions, the seduction of hundreds of thousands of girls by bow-legged, repulsive Jewish bastards would not be possible.”
“And assuredly this world is moving toward a great revolution. The question can only be whether it will redound to the benefit of Aryan humanity or to the profit of the eternal Jew.”
“No boy and no girl must leave school without having been led to an ultimate realization of the necessity and essence of blood purity.”
Surely Hitler knew in detail everything how good time had the Jews in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Belzec, Sobobor etc. due to his policy. If you still disagree that Hitler did not wanted all the Jews annihilated kindly please let me know;
Originally posted by black beetleyou perhaps are under the impression that i think mein kampf should be taught in schools. or perhaps are under the impression that i believe hitler was a great man, and the jews had it comming. what else do you think? that i aprove pol pot? stalin? that i kick little bunnies and puppies? that i drink the blood of the young?
edit: "but if a suicider jumps in front of his car how is it the driver responsible?"
He is not responsible, however even at this case he will still face a trial and he will be oblidged to prove jis inoccence; but I see your point and I agree.
Regarding Hitler and his opinion about the Jews, maybe we agree that he was one of the best orators ever. ...[text shortened]... l disagree that Hitler did not wanted all the Jews annihilated kindly please let me know;
i said, and let me repeat i for the 3rd time. it is irrelevant how idiotic, murderous, bigot, narrow a person is. each of its statements must be judged objectively. so if hitler says "don't kick puppies and kill all the jews" you shouldn't go kicking puppies just because he said kill the jews. if you still don't get it "kindly please let me know"
I understand your point allright. I just say that there are many colours beyond black and white, and that the people are judged mainly for their actions instead of the rhetoric means they use in order to gain whatever they want to gain. For example, nobody cares if Hitler stated clearly or indirectly that the Jews must die as long as he urged his administration to proceed forcing these well known and historically prooven facts;
Originally posted by 667joeNot all religions is dangerous, but some are.
Religion is dangerous because it makes it easier to believe in the irrational. that is, if you can believe in one thing with no proof such as the virgin birth, it makes it easier to believe in other nonsense as well. George Bush, for example, believes you can prevent pregnancy by not handing out condoms.
I would certainly consider Islam with its doctrine of jihad to be dangerous (since I'm an 'infidal'😉, but Islam occupies a distant second place in the list of dangerous religions.
The most dangerous religion ever seems to be atheism. More people have been killed in the name of atheism and motivated by atheism then by any other religion. If you believe in no higher power that you are accountable to you are apparently free to kill as many people as you like, e.g. Mao, Stalin, et. al.
Originally posted by Henry23You are way off base here! Hitler and Stalin were both Catholics. Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. In th US, 14% of the population are atheists, but less that 2% of the prison population are atheists. Furthermore, I find it sad to think that people would require belief in a higher power to do what's right. Surely you know the difference between right and wrong and you would know it even if there were no god. In fact, the bible says slavery is OK and gay people should be stoned as well as any one who works on the sabbath or talks back to his parents. If you are a Muslim and decide to leave the faith, the Koran requires your execution. I doubt that you think that's good. No, you, my friend are way off base.
Not all religions is dangerous, but some are.
I would certainly consider Islam with its doctrine of jihad to be dangerous (since I'm an 'infidal'😉, but Islam occupies a distant second place in the list of dangerous religions.
The most dangerous religion ever seems to be atheism. More people have been killed in the name of atheism and motivated by athei ...[text shortened]... able to you are apparently free to kill as many people as you like, e.g. Mao, Stalin, et. al.
Originally posted by Henry23*sigh*
Not all religions is dangerous, but some are.
I would certainly consider Islam with its doctrine of jihad to be dangerous (since I'm an 'infidal'😉, but Islam occupies a distant second place in the list of dangerous religions.
The most dangerous religion ever seems to be atheism. More people have been killed in the name of atheism and motivated by athei ...[text shortened]... able to you are apparently free to kill as many people as you like, e.g. Mao, Stalin, et. al.
Atheism is not a religion. If you claim otherwise, you're simply misusing a term for propagandistic ends. It is, at most, a component of an ideology. Further, you will not find within atheism itself any injunctions. It is the surrounding ideology that yields the terrors you mention. I know this runs contrary to the ludicrous online talking-points you're regurgitating here, but it is true nonetheless.