Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on April 02, 2005, 04:57:23 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4399715.stm
discuss.
-
Said it before...he was a tough old Pollock. Rest in peace.
-
Great. Now whenever I want to watch some good TV, I'm going to get a bunch of useless horse**** regarding his death for days at a time. It'll be just as bad as when Princess Diana died. That's all I have to say about it.
EDIT: For what it's worth, it's good he died on his own terms. He will be missed.
-
This shows he really was against Euthanasia.
R.I.P.
John Paul II
-
We all knew he was going to die sometime. I mean, look at all the medical problems the guy had been having. Oh well, looks like the popees are going to ellect a replacement...
-
In theory, I'm catholic. At least on the papers. But though I'm not exactly religious, his death does somehow make me sad.
I sense some discussions on that matter for tonight. My gf's from Poland, and she sure as hell will want to hear my opinion on that.
-
Keep it civil guys or I'm just going to start deleting posts. There's already two here that I'm finding inappropriate and we've only had 6 posts.
-
I don't see anything that's uncivil yet. :blah:
As for the Pope, don't really care much for the religeon, but he did quite a few good things for the world, or tried to. RIP old man.
-
Kode's post is pretty low. I don't see the second one though. It's a sad day for the church; love him or hate him as a pope, it's a shame to see him go.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Kode's post is pretty low.
And the status-quo is maintained. :D
Sad to see the pope go, even though I'd never even heard of him until this thread. What all did he accomplish during his carear?
-
Meh.
-
This really sucks. I'm not even Catholic, and I still miss him badly.
:(
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
Sad to see the pope go, even though I'd never even heard of him until this thread. What all did he accomplish during his carear?
Uh? Where do you live? The Moon?
I´m atheist, so i don´t care much for religion, but this pope was an ok guy, even though he endorsed somwe views that i don´t. I have nothing but respect for the man. Let´s hope they don´t elect someone less worthy to his place. Like one of those child molestors that abund in the church. Wich reminds me of one of the things i think the pope should have been clearer with. He should have never allowed those pedophiles to stay in church.
But that´s another story.
-
so remind me, what is the procedure going to be?
for the new guy.
-
The Cardinals elect a new pope, and when they pick him, they change a fire to burn from black to white smoke.
As for my opinion on it... I'm not Christian, much less Catholic, but it's kind of sad.. he did a lot of good for the world. And it's the first day in my life without Pope John Paul II being alive, so it might feel different... although I doubt it.
-
Offending posts removed....don't make us babysit.
-
Originally posted by idiom, on MSN
Like a billion catholics are all sad n stuff
-
A bit sad, but as he was suffering, it's good that the suffering is over.
My question is who the next Pope will be. Also, why does no one ever mention the other Catholic Patriarchs? Only the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) ever gets mentioned.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Offending posts removed....don't make us babysit.
puh-lease. I wasn't even close to offending, imho.
thing is, I'm lutheran, and my country has been for 500 years. As such, we have nothing to do with the pope and therefore I couldn't care less about him.
-
John Paul II (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/pope/bio/papal/) was a great man. For whole his life, he was gloryfying peace all over the world. He visited more countries than any other Pope. Many historians are saying that he had serious input in defeating communism in Europe. John Paul II was strong and charismatic person, it's sure that we never forget about him. For all the Catholics in Poland and in the world, he is the man of the century.
-
The Pope was teh pwn.
:(
-
Everyone dies...
-
Originally posted by Ghost
The Cardinals elect a new pope, and when they pick him, they change a fire to burn from black to white smoke.
The voting procedure itself is quite interesting. There are no official "candidates". The "delegates" - i.e. selected cardinals - each write the name of whoever they want to give their votes on a piece of paper. In case no majority is reached, the papers are collected and burnt with a small amount of pitch, thus making the smoke turn black. The procedure repeats until a 'new' pope is found - then they leave the pitch away, resulting in ordinary light grey smoke, thus signalling the election of a new pope.
-
All those people who now have HIV & AIDS after he told 'em not to use condoms appreciate your effort IceFire.
-
I find it somewhat annoying that a dead person becomes unimpeachable, to be honest. For me that's the time to best question, when you have the 'whole' story.
I mean.... the first post is effectively 'The Pope is Dead - discuss'... and some people, whilst not wishing to offend Catholics or others, simply don't hold the Pope in particularly special regard.
-
....yeah...he is dead...finally
but he could have waited another hour or so, so i would have been able to watch that saturday night movie to full lenght....anyway religion is a thing for fanatics...some desperately want to die others want to live forever...."you pray to another god? than you shall die"....you get the point i guess...always a good excuse to wage war (e.g. G.W.B. aka TheChosenOne *lol*)
stop praying, start working...there´s enough to do on this planet
-
Originally posted by kode
thing is, I'm lutheran, and my country has been for 500 years. As such, we have nothing to do with the pope and therefore I couldn't care less about him.
Same here.
Not that I had anything against him, but can't say that he was a saint either, just because he is dead now.
And what did Kode post originally, since it got deleted?
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
Same here.
Not that I had anything against him, but can't say that he was a saint either, just because he is dead now.
And what did Kode post originally, since it got deleted?
I made a reference to a recent event. I don't know exactly how much I can say about it, since icefire seems to be in a pissy mood.
-
Rest In Peace John Paul II
-
The greatest man in the world has passed away...
Alltough his death is a immesurable loss to the humanity, in theory, people should not weap for him. He is in a better place and will continue to watch after us.
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
Same here.
Not that I had anything against him, but can't say that he was a saint either, just because he is dead now.
And what did Kode post originally, since it got deleted?
He prolly will be proclaimed a saint by the next Pope.
He has done more good than you'll ever know....
It's funny how people allways focus on condoms, abortion and euthanaisa, as if they are the only isseues there are.
I for one mostly agree with him (except for eutanasia), but I respect his decisions and understand where they come from.
-
It doesn't make much sense to zero in on the pope regarding issues of birth control and abortion. Those things are against Catholic dogma, so one would sort of expect the pope to oppose them. The cardinals would never in a million years choose a pope who would chip away at their monolithic traditions, (however stale they may be.)
-
Ya' know...they did change some of their policies...*cough* Vatican II. That included admitting Jesus wasn't the only way to get to heaven among many other various changes (they made things not as stale/boring..I've been to high masses or whatever that still run like pre-Vatican II, boring as hell (ironically)).
The thing with birth control being outlawed stems from some verse in the Bible (...I ain't gonna quote it, 'cause I'm not THAT religious). Something about a guy pulling out before he blew and spilling his "seed" upon the ground. God proceeded to smite him or whatever He does when He's pissed...
The reason it shouldn't be a problem to Catholics (if you're not Catholic...why listen to him on that?) is because Catholics aren't allowed to have sex outside of marriage...now...if everyone only has sex with one partner, then it's impossible to get AIDs...So there is a bit of logic in it.:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It doesn't make much sense to zero in on the pope regarding issues of birth control and abortion. Those things are against Catholic dogma, so one would sort of expect the pope to oppose them. The cardinals would never in a million years choose a pope who would chip away at their monolithic traditions, (however stale they may be.)
I know... it's not so much the policy over contraception that I oppose - I understand their position & why they have it - it's the lying (about the effectiveness of condoms) that they did to support it that IMO is unconscionable. That, I realise, is a policy decision of the Vatican as a whole, but it still sours my opinion of their supreme 'leader' somewhat.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
He has done more good than you'll ever know....
Well, thank you. :doubt:
Originally posted by TrashMan
It's funny how people allways focus on condoms, abortion and euthanaisa, as if they are the only isseues there are.
And they aren't important? You don't consider condoms to be important at all to prevent the spread of STDs?
And this of course:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Teachings
"A controversial point of the John Paul II papacy was his October 1, 1986 letter to all bishops that described homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil" and "an objective disorder." His book Memory and Identity claimed that the push for homosexual marriage may be part of a "new ideology of evil ... which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.""
-
Condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that.
There are countries where peeople breed like rabbits, alltough they allready have 11 children they cannot feed.
So I say, yes, in cases like that apstinency (or an operation) is the way to go.
Sadly, most people lack the willpower or common sense to do so.
And as far as homosexuality goes...scientificly, it is surrently most likely it is a gene disorder. I'm strongly opposed to homosexual marriage in the church.
He did very, very much good. On the issues you described the choices he made are not evil, nor can be called that.
-
Can I call him ^^^ ignorant, uninformed and a pain in the arse without being a problem for this thread?
Good. Consider it done.
I meant Trashman, this fricking time delay kicked in again
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that.
There are countries where peeople breed like rabbits, alltough they allready have 11 children they cannot feed.
So I say, yes, in cases like that apstinency (or an operation) is the way to go.
Sadly, most people lack the willpower or common sense to do so.
This is probably the only point over which I totally disagree with the church. Condoms may not be 100% effective, but even 1% effective would be better than not doing anything at all. Never mind that they are on the order of 99% effective, so long as they are used properly. The underlying issue I can see, but there's a fine line between teaching about something and actually doing something about it. Operations are drastic, and don't do much about the spread of disease. Never mind that some cultures are inherently opposed to the loss of fertility, no matter what good it may do in the long run. Teaching abstinance and providing an operation are fine, but there's absolutely no reason not to make a proven reliable short term solution (condoms) available.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that.
There are countries where peeople breed like rabbits, alltough they allready have 11 children they cannot feed.
So I say, yes, in cases like that apstinency (or an operation) is the way to go.
Sadly, most people lack the willpower or common sense to do so.
And as far as homosexuality goes...scientificly, it is surrently most likely it is a gene disorder. I'm strongly opposed to homosexual marriage in the church.
He did very, very much good. On the issues you described the choices he made are not evil, nor can be called that.
I don't wish to get involved in an argument justnow, so I'll just say this & no more;
- the effectiveness of condoms is not the key issue (AFAIK it's around 99.9%), the fact that the Vatican lied about it is
- you can't just revoke thousands of years of instinctual behaviour; abstinance is not and probably never will be a solution on its own
- blaming the people for the conditions they live in and using emotive terms such as 'breed like rabbits' (reducing them to animal status) is IMHO the wrong way to address a problem, as it seeks to abdicate responsibility rather than look at solutions.
- your opinion of homosexualty is just that; an opinion. Whilst I believe the Catholic church should be free to have that opinion, IMO using terms such as 'evil' is only inciting hate; to me that's not a very tolerant or dare-I-say Christian attitude. The issue of homosexual marriage goes beyond the issue of church weddings - as private institutions IMO they should be free to deny access or service - and into the issue of equal rights vis-a-vis heterosexual marriage or even the 'life partner' status accorded to unmarried, stable couples.
Having disagreed with so many of the Catholic churches policies in these areas and others, I can't hold the Pope in the unimpeachable, unquestionable position which dead 'celebrities' in general and him in particular seem to now be placed in. IMO, he has done 'bad', and history should remember and analyze that alongside the good..
-
Originally posted by vyper
Can I call him ^^^ ignorant, uninformed and a pain in the arse without being a problem for this thread?
Good. Consider it done.
Call me whatever you want, I don't give a damn what an idiot thinks of me:D
-
Which one of us essentially called an entire race of people animals, implied condoms were ineffective against STDs and... oh **** it you're one of them there's no point.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that.
Yes. In the developing world they "know" that they are 30% effective and no barrier at all against AIDS thanks to the teachings of the Vatican.
Can you not see the kind of damage that kind of deliberate misinformation caused? You're claiming that these people lack the self control to stop having sex and then thinking that removing the one form of contraception and AIDS prevention they do have access to is a waste of time.
The rest is a matter of opinion and the pope has the right to think whatever he likes in the matter but I'm not prepared to forgive outright blatant lies from someone who is supposedly above that sort of thing.
-
For reference; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
edit;
also-
http://www.libchrist.com/std/vaticanlies.html
http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3843797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3237358.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
First 2 are, incidentally, from Christian (don't know denomination) and Catholic sources respectively.
-
We go from remorsing the Pope's death and you guys wanna talk about condoms...
It really IS the only issue interesting anymore isnt it?
-
*Stops blowing into a "baloon"*
Condoms? What are those?
-
No one seems to be touching on the fact that John Paul II was vocal in opposition to America's invasion of Iraq.
And yes, condoms are the only issue that anyone finds interesting anymore. Starting tomorrow, television and radio will be all condom channels, all the time. Big ones, small ones, glow-in-the-dark, flavored. Condoms are the new iPods.
-
Glow in the dark? That's an insult...like you need runway lights to find it or something...
I've noticed that people around here love criticising people. Oh well, it IS an internet forum afterall...who cares.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Starting tomorrow, television and radio will be all condom channels, all the time. Big ones, small ones, glow-in-the-dark, flavored. Condoms are the new iPods.
There's no money in small condoms, on TV at least.
-
I must resist the urge to take a Kazan quote and make fun of Asia.
-
What Raa would have posted:
"From a purely statistical standpoint, Japanese men do have smaller penii on average." -Kazan
-
No, actually, I was going to post something witty about there being a large market for small condoms in asia. But it would have been better had you not quoted Kazan.
-
I just remembered seeing that quote in someone's sig so I figured it was what you were talking about.
EDIT: Grrrr... TIMEWARP!
-
yeah, you killed the joke.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
A bit sad, but as he was suffering, it's good that the suffering is over.
My question is who the next Pope will be. Also, why does no one ever mention the other Catholic Patriarchs? Only the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) ever gets mentioned.
I think the next pope should be called Aken I:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
No one seems to be touching on the fact that John Paul II was vocal in opposition to America's invasion of Iraq.
And yes, condoms are the only issue that anyone finds interesting anymore. Starting tomorrow, television and radio will be all condom channels, all the time. Big ones, small ones, glow-in-the-dark, flavored. Condoms are the new iPods.
Hopefully not sequined. I'd imagine that would chafe.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
No one seems to be touching on the fact that John Paul II was vocal in opposition to America's invasion of Iraq.
He wasn´t particularly loud in his vocalization.
People only choose to follow the directives that suit them individually.You think Bush would have halted the invasion just because the Pope would ask him to do so? I think not. Just as any ordinary man will not heed his word when it comes to sexual practices, political views, or even the most ordinary of opinions, if it suits him not.
It is somewhat hypocrit to hear half the planet now saying "he was a great man", and "he was the wisest of men", when so few actually did as he preeched and professed. Like saying "he was a wise man, and he is right on (much of) what he says, but i prefer to do things my way and bugger all".
Out of +200 million christians in America, how many heed his words and spoke against the war? I mean, if you take your religion seriously, shouldn´t you behave according to its teachings? Why embrace some and disregard others?
Uh, nevermind. This is getting way too philosofical...
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by vyper
Which one of us essentially called an entire race of people animals, implied condoms were ineffective against STDs and... oh **** it you're one of them there's no point.
Are you blind or just can't read?
Who the hell called people animals? I used the term "breeds" and it fits given the rate of procreation. That does not apply they are animals tough.
And again, I didn't say they are innefective, I said they aren' 100% effective, which is true. I never said forget the condoms, I said (and this is true) that the only 100% effective way to stop such deseases and other issues of over-population is abstinency.
It is clear that people in these lands need help in any from - from edutaction to housing and food. However, I find education the most important, as sending them tons of food isn't gonna solve the problem.
-----------
It official now, pope John Paul II has been called "The Great", which means the Cruch ackgnowledges him as a saint.
And let's not forget that he is only a man, he's not perfect.
Even the apostols (and the first pope and first apostole, Peter) were human. Peter denied christ three times and he STILL made him head of church.
In worst case, you might call a few of the popes decisions debatable or questionable, but not evil or wrong.
So before you judge him so quickly, maby you should look on yoursef with a microscope first. You won't like what you find.
-
[q] Peter... he STILL made him head of church.[/q]
Should I or shouldn't I mention Magdelene here? ;)
[q]Who the hell called people animals? I used the term "breeds" and it fits given the rate of procreation.[/q]
Actually it doesn't,. you said "breed like rabbits". Essentially implying they're no more than animals when it comes to sex.
[q] I find education the most important[/q]
And like all the suicidal missionaries who went before you, you seem to think that education should include a decidedly biased PoV purporting a solution completely against human nature. Instead of helping the people, you want to shame them into stopping - whether you realize it or not.
[q]issues of over-population is abstinency.[/q]
Is that why priests in my country encouraged their married followers to have children more and more often for many years? We're talking about days when slum living was standard.
Not to digress of course: the people you refer to have less of a problem with over-population and more of a problem with being hung out to dry by the european empires that abandoned them after changing their entire lifestyles to match our own ideas.
[q]
So before you judge him so quickly, maby you should look on yoursef with a microscope first. You won't like what you find.[/q]
I don't pretend to be anything other than (a) Mortal and (b) imperfect. However, I will not stand by and watch a man who was the voice-piece for an organisation purporting lies to the weak to be raised to the state of untouchable saint in the minds of the population.
He helped purport a lie. Just like you do. A lie that kills, injures and destroys lives.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
In worst case, you might call a few of the popes decisions debatable or questionable, but not evil or wrong.
I'd call the decision to lie about condoms effectiveness (as a specific example) as being wrong and perhaps even evil (due to the inevitable consequences).
So IMO your 'worst case' isn't a worst case.
Incidentally, all decisions are questionable; that's how people understand them. I don't think even religion wants their edicts to be regarded as undebatable or unquestionable; surely they'd want people to examine them and understand them (or even dissent), in order to explore their own faith?
EDIt; i.e. I disagree. My nature is to question everything & explore the options, rather than settling on a singular edict as truth. As such, my personality runs contrary to the 'ideal' personality for the Catholic - or any - church.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
He wasn´t particularly loud in his vocalization.
People only choose to follow the directives that suit them individually.You think Bush would have halted the invasion just because the Pope would ask him to do so? I think not. Just as any ordinary man will not heed his word when it comes to sexual practices, political views, or even the most ordinary of opinions, if it suits him not.
It is somewhat hypocrit to hear half the planet now saying "he was a great man", and "he was the wisest of men", when so few actually did as he preeched and professed. Like saying "he was a wise man, and he is right on (much of) what he says, but i prefer to do things my way and bugger all".
Out of +200 million christians in America, how many heed his words and spoke against the war? I mean, if you take your religion seriously, shouldn´t you behave according to its teachings? Why embrace some and disregard other others?
I don't expect his voice to alter the course of political events, and I certainly don't expect all Catholics to do everything he says. I was actually speaking more in the direction of the religious conservatives who raise him up to sainthood, conveniently overlooking the fact that he was anti-war.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I don't expect his voice to alter the course of political events, and I certainly don't expect all Catholics to do everything he says. I was actually speaking more in the direction of the religious conservatives who raise him up to sainthood, conveniently overlooking the fact that he was anti-war.
People tend to ignore what they disagree with when they feel it is necessary; I'm well aware my previous comments might sound like the converse of that, BTW, but it's true that history - or rather 'media history' - takes a one sided view of dead people, and it's something I really hate.
-
Must admit, I'm getting fed up with seeing a dead Pope everywhere I look, it's like the Media Finally got permission to show pictures of someone who was dead!
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Must admit, I'm getting fed up with seeing a dead Pope everywhere I look, it's like the Media Finally got permission to show pictures of someone who was dead!
rejoice. he isn't dead... (http://www.users.on.net/~chris22/imnotcrazyyet/103279_papelolled9vp.jpg) (got the link from dm)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Actually it doesn't,. you said "breed like rabbits". Essentially implying they're no more than animals when it comes to sex.
Unless you suddenly aquired some mind readinbg abilities I fail to see how you can know what I wanted to say or what I was implying.
I'll use any damn term I like.
[q]And like all the suicidal missionaries who went before you, you seem to think that education should include a decidedly biased PoV purporting a solution completely against human nature. Instead of helping the people, you want to shame them into stopping - whether you realize it or not.[/q]
What are you talking about? I was talking about general education - how to make better use of land, how to get cleaner water, how to read & write, sexual education and stuff like that...
You can send them food, but without educating them, without changing their life style a bit, you won't get far.
Instead of 11 hungry childern you're gonna have 14.
[q]Is that why priests in my country encouraged their married followers to have children more and more often for many years? We're talking about days when slum living was standard.
Not to digress of course: the people you refer to have less of a problem with over-population and more of a problem with being hung out to dry by the european empires that abandoned them after changing their entire lifestyles to match our own ideas.
[/q]
The western world suffers from the opposite problem - they have abdundant resources and can afford more childen, but do to the hectic lifestyle, they don't have the time or will for more childen.
It's sad actually when you think of it. - there are so many hungry childern that could use a good home, and so many empty homes in he west. Natality rate in the west is very low, and overall the population is only increasing becouse of immigrants...
In point two you are utterly wrong. You cna't blame the european empires from the sexual habbits of other people.
You see, the logic behind so many children is - the more I have, the bigger the chances that at least one will survive. A flawed logic..but it's not only that.
My father was a ship captain and he saled all over the world. And as he said it - those poor people have nothing. Sex is practicly the only entartainment.
[q]I don't pretend to be anything other than (a) Mortal and (b) imperfect. However, I will not stand by and watch a man who was the voice-piece for an organisation purporting lies to the weak to be raised to the state of untouchable saint in the minds of the population.
He helped purport a lie. Just like you do. A lie that kills, injures and destroys lives.[/q]
I wonder if they get the same condoms the west uses, or some factory line by-products.
Whatever the case, you can't blame the pope for the sexual habbits of the people that died. No one forced them to have sex.
Think of it this way - I can sell you a gun, but if you shoot yourself don't blame me...Not the best analogy, ut it works.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'll use any damn term I like.
well, sure. you can call them niggers and what-not, just expect to see reactions.
-
Let me re-phrase that:
I'll use any damn term I like, as long as it fits.
And yes, people tend to be so overly sensitive these days...
-
Trashman, it all boils down to that; you can have anysort of opinions about anything, as long as you do not cause harm to other people when trying to realise and achive them.
Same goes for the policies of the Vatican.
And I think I would be quite offended if you would call me "breeding like a rabbit" and having "nothing else to do (then to **** around all day)". Why won't you call them savage animals the next? :rolleyes: Sounds very Victorian-fashioned.
-
What would you like me to call someone like that?
Highly reproductive?
Sexually overactive?
It's the same candy only wrapped up in a nicer paper.
Breeding like rabbits does not mean people are animals...
And frankly, people should not be offened when comapred to animals...animals are better than us in many ways..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Unless you suddenly aquired some mind readinbg abilities I fail to see how you can know what I wanted to say or what I was implying.
I'll use any damn term I like.
Then be prepared for it to be analysed.
Originally posted by TrashMan
What are you talking about? I was talking about general education - how to make better use of land, how to get cleaner water, how to read & write, sexual education and stuff like that...
You can send them food, but without educating them, without changing their life style a bit, you won't get far.
Instead of 11 hungry childern you're gonna have 14.
The Vatican opposes sexual education; to quote "abuse occurs whenever sex education is given to children by teaching them all the intimate details of genital relationships".
(hmm....Vatican lecturing on how to avoid child abuse....)
You should also consider that education can only take place over a long period of economic and infrastructure (re?)construction in the poorest places; it's simply not viable to sit around doing **** all until you can work on 'westernising' places like Africa. Part of the reason for condoms is that they offer a working solution to massively reduce infection rates, and it's a solution which can be implemented now.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What would you like me to call someone like that?
Highly reproductive?
Sexually overactive?
It's the same candy only wrapped up in a nicer paper.
Breeding like rabbits does not mean people are animals...
And frankly, people should not be offened when comapred to animals...animals are better than us in many ways..
I never said humans weren't animals; we are, that is obvious. What I meant to say is that by calling the people in 3rd world countries "breeding like rabbits" is offensive, and diminishes their human value, as if they have no other interests then to **** everything in sight. By specifically referring to a group of people, and saying that, I find it offensive. That doesn't make me "soft" or "overly sensitive".
And I suppose you then are above all "immoral" practices like that?
That is what I meant.
-
You're asking something of humanity that is not possible. We're never going to stop thinking with our sexual organs, and the results of repressing that tendency are ugly. A healthy society acknowledges the inevitable, and makes sex a matter of personal responisbility, rather than trying to legislate away everyone's erection. People must be given the freedom to destroy ourselves, because without that breathing space, we will pop. Our instincts just aren't going away.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You're asking something of humanity that is not possible. We're never going to stop thinking with our sexual organs, and the results of repressing that tendency are ugly. A healthy society acknowledges the inevitable, and makes sex a matter of personal responisbility, rather than trying to legislate away everyone's erection. People must be given the freedom to destroy ourselves, because without that breathing space, we will pop. Our instincts just aren't going away.
Really?
I for one am not thinking with my balls, thank you very much.
As to clarify things - the Pope is a saint, and nothing anyone here saz or does will change that. Him being a saint doesn't mean he was perfect or infalible - far from that.
But being so accusational against him is ...well..wrong. I don't know why the church made that decision, I don't have all the facts - neither do you. But there's one thing I do know, and that's that this pope was not prone to bring hasty decisions, and wasa very open to science.
Now, it's clear that the situatin in those third world countries will not improve without the overall improvement of the living conditions there. and that takes time..lot's of it.
However, you can't blame the pope for other people getting sexual deseases. He didn't force anyone to do anything.
@Aldo - sexual education, weather you like it or not, IS a double edged sword. When you expose childern to sex, they are more likely to think about it, and act about it.
Look at it this way - in the western countries, where there is sexual education from early on, tehre is a astoounding number of rapes and sexual intercourse at a VERY young age.
In those therd world countries, where they have no sexual education, sex happens at a normal age.
You see, the problem is todays modern society, that litteraly pushes kids to "grow up" faster, by sticking content not suitqble for them in their face.
Let kids be kids and have their fun. Childhod happens only once.
-
[q]But being so accusational against him is ...well..wrong[/q]
Why? His viewpoints were part of the problem, not the solution.
[q]In those therd world countries, where they have no sexual education, sex happens at a normal age.[/q]
1) What's an exact normal age (after marriage perhaps? :p)
2) In western countries, historically we had disturbingly young brides for royal and landed classes. No sex ed then.
Can you prove what you're saying about those other countries?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Aldo - sexual education, weather you like it or not, IS a double edged sword. When you expose childern to sex, they are more likely to think about it, and act about it.
Look at it this way - in the western countries, where there is sexual education from early on, tehre is a astoounding number of rapes and sexual intercourse at a VERY young age.
In those therd world countries, where they have no sexual education, sex happens at a normal age.
You see, the problem is todays modern society, that litteraly pushes kids to "grow up" faster, by sticking content not suitqble for them in their face.
Let kids be kids and have their fun. Childhod happens only once.
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Firstly, the age of sex has varied hugely across time; before the idea of sexual education was conceived, pediastry was commonplace in Ancient Greece, and it was equally common for grown men to marry young teenage girls in europe much later on (In Romeo and Juliet, for example, Juliet was 14-15).
Secondly, there is a significant problem with child abuse and child trafficking in Africa (for example). One singular example - directly caused by a lack of sexual education - is that having sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDs. A second cause is different gender roles. You assume to be basing an assumption that child abuse is less prevalent in poor, uneducated areas because less is (perhaps) reported; truth is that there are simply no facilities to report (or treat) abuse in many of these places.
Another example - a 1997 study found that child abuse in Harare was 3 times higher than in the rest of the world. Part of this was due to cultural notions that marriage with a 12-year old was acceptable, rape is condoned as a more serious form of seduction, and that it is encouraged for maternal uncles to fondle girls as a form of socialisation.
In fact, western studies have shown that sex education raises the age of first sexual encounter (i.e. in Holland, it is taught earlier than the UK, yet the sex occurs on average at a later age); and that children who leave school early prior to sex education in the UK are more likely to have sex - and unprotected at that - earlier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1683271.stm
The study found that those who received sex education at school were less likely to have intercourse before they were 16 and were more likely to use contraception.
Similarly, those who left school with a qualification were less likely to have sex early, practise unsafe sex or become pregnant.
Thirdly, you're making a completely pointless link between the media and sex education. Sex education is not, and has never been about 'encouraging' sex; you'd be an idiot if you thought that was the point of it. The point of it is to explain sex - the physical purpose of it, the consequences, and the possible risks. The protective use of contraceptives is described, as is the dangers of STDs and casual sex.
Again, none of this is of a purpose to 'sexualise' the pupils; the development of - for lack of a better term - sexuality is a societal issue, not educatory. If you removed sex education altogether, you'd end up with more under-age sex without protection, and more STDs, as has been scientifically proven in studies.
If you want to attack under-age sexuality, then criticise the medias role; but don't relate sexual education to it, because it bears no relation - if anything, it's a specific response to that problem, to allow people to make more educated decisions.
-
*applause*
Aldo, you saved me some typing there...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
*text*
hear, hear!
-
Aldo: :yes:
-
Aye :yes:
-
Originally posted by High Max
God gave us the most powerful brain of all the creatures on earth so that we can think with it
I guess he skipped the bit that makes people use paragraphs when making you then?
Originally posted by TrashMan
But being so accusational against him is ...well..wrong. I don't know why the church made that decision, I don't have all the facts - neither do you. But there's one thing I do know, and that's that this pope was not prone to bring hasty decisions, and wasa very open to science.
That's a really pathetic answer. I don't know why the church lied but it was a well thought out lie so it must have been justified.
Can you not accept the fact that the Vatican got it wrong? Plain and simple.
-
I think there is a distinct possibility that the Vatican's years are numbered. Either it's going to move with the current of social reform, or it's going to split along all of its numerous cracks.
-
Bottom line is that it's best to wait until marriage before going all the way. That way you can make sure that you stay with the person that you do that with. This will liken the chances that the person that you have sex with will be the only person that you do that with in all your life.
And you are free to hold to those principles. However, some of us do not consider sex sacred. I for one, see it as simply a Dionysian celebration of being human, and have no objections to promiscuity on the part of either sex. All that people of my school of thought ask is that people of your school of thought refrain from imposing your values on us.
-
'sides which, (as a minor comment) some people just don't want to get married. They (a couple) might stay together their entire life, doesn't mean they have to get married to do so.
EDIT; adjunct comment to Ford Prefects post. Damn timewarp.
-
Great... this thread is sexing its way down the ****ter.
-
Are you allergic to civil debate? Because this thread is doing far better than most of the socially charged persuasion.
-
I've seen far, far worse myself.
-
I don't understand why people here care about heated debates, really.
-
I prefer to see sex as a very very very very good method of exercise.
Did I say how very good it was?
-
:wtf: I'm all for your standpoint, but what is it doing in here? Art thou seeking divine intervention?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Firstly, the age of sex has varied hugely across time; before the idea of sexual education was conceived, pediastry was commonplace in Ancient Greece, and it was equally common for grown men to marry young teenage girls in europe much later on (In Romeo and Juliet, for example, Juliet was 14-15).
Yes, they were totaly f*/** up in those ages. But there is a difference here. A young heir to the thornoe being promissed to a old geezer is wrong, but it's not the sam as two 12 year-old doing it.
Secondly, there is a significant problem with child abuse and child trafficking in Africa (for example). One singular example - directly caused by a lack of sexual education - is that having sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDs. A second cause is different gender roles. You assume to be basing an assumption that child abuse is less prevalent in poor, uneducated areas because less is (perhaps) reported; truth is that there are simply no facilities to report (or treat) abuse in many of these places.
Another example - a 1997 study found that child abuse in Harare was 3 times higher than in the rest of the world. Part of this was due to cultural notions that marriage with a 12-year old was acceptable, rape is condoned as a more serious form of seduction, and that it is encouraged for maternal uncles to fondle girls as a form of socialisation.
And that's why I said that education is paramount, or else people wn't abandon the old practices and myths.
In fact, western studies have shown that sex education raises the age of first sexual encounter (i.e. in Holland, it is taught earlier than the UK, yet the sex occurs on average at a later age); and that children who leave school early prior to sex education in the UK are more likely to have sex - and unprotected at that - earlier.
Similarly, those who left school with a qualification were less likely to have sex early, practise unsafe sex or become pregnant. [/i]
I'm not against sex education - quite the contrary. What I was trying to say is that there is a time, place and way for everything.
The age at which you teach sex education, exactly what you tech and the y way you teach it are of immense importance.
Unless all 3 are done correctly, more damage then good can be done..
Thirdly, you're making a completely pointless link between the media and sex education. Sex education is not, and has never been about 'encouraging' sex; you'd be an idiot if you thought that was the point of it. The point of it is to explain sex - the physical purpose of it, the consequences, and the possible risks. The protective use of contraceptives is described, as is the dangers of STDs and casual sex.
Again, none of this is of a purpose to 'sexualise' the pupils; the development of - for lack of a better term - sexuality is a societal issue, not educatory. If you removed sex education altogether, you'd end up with more under-age sex without protection, and more STDs, as has been scientifically proven in studies.
If you want to attack under-age sexuality, then criticise the medias role; but don't relate sexual education to it, because it bears no relation - if anything, it's a specific response to that problem, to allow people to make more educated decisions. [/B]
Yes, youre completely right, the media and society itself are the root of the problem.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Yes, they were totaly f*/** up in those ages. But there is a difference here. A young heir to the thornoe being promissed to a old geezer is wrong, but it's not the sam as two 12 year-old doing it.
It's a similar paradigm; the age of sexual attractivness and consent is something that has demonstratably changed throughout time; it's scarcely something that can be blamed upon modern society or education.
The side aspect is that two 12 year olds are doing it consensually (actually, I'm not entirely sure if it's physically possible to have true sex at that age, or at least in the majority of children); the purpose of sex education is to inform of the consequences of that decision. Children are aware of sex from a very early age; possibly due to a societal factor; but most (all in fact, I think) formal sex education actually teaches abstinance at that age, until the person/s involved can be considered competent to understand what is involved (at which point the decision is left up to them).
And, of course, there is a trend for the age of puberty to decrease - it's not clear why - this drop has been occuring since the 1840s, so it's not confined to current society. As a result, we'll inevitably have to deal with the issue of sex at a younger and younger age to address this.
And that's why I said that education is paramount, or else people wn't abandon the old practices and myths.
And part of that education has to cover the consequences of sex, both physical and psychological. aka sex education
I'm not against sex education - quite the contrary. What I was trying to say is that there is a time, place and way for everything.
The age at which you teach sex education, exactly what you tech and the y way you teach it are of immense importance.
Unless all 3 are done correctly, more damage then good can be done..
So what exactly are you against?
Because it's already been shown that earlier/any sex education actually helps to increase the age of first having sex; I don't think any post here has advocated it in a specific way or programme, but rather pointed out the effectiveness in response to an unfounded claim that "abuse occurs whenever sex education is given to children by teaching them all the intimate details of genital relationships".
Now, to address that specific claim; sex education is shown not to increase but decrease under-age sex when taught earlier (if you regard 'abuse' as being same-age, underage premarital sex). In terms of abuse, there's simply no logic to the statement I can find; it would seem to imply that teaching children what sex is, somehow a) encourages adults to abuse children and b) encourages children to accept(?) abuse. Either way i can't make any sensible basis for it; especially as abuse is highly prevalent in areas with little or no sex education (such as the aforementioned Africa example/s); bearing in mind, of course, that sex education includes tackling the customs and attitudes that create said problem, as well as the biological details.
Yes, youre completely right, the media and society itself are the root of the problem.
I'm always somewhat wary of blaming 'media' and 'society'; to me it is usually accompanied with a call for a return to Victorian style 'good old fashioned values'.
What exactly is the problem, anyway? How would you define it?