[aldo_14]

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.

[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!

[kode]

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... (got the link from dm)

[TrashMan]

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.

[kode]

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.

[TrashMan]

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...

[Andreas]

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? Sounds very Victorian-fashioned.

[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..

[aldo_14]

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.

[Andreas]

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.

[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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[vyper]

[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? )
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?

[aldo_14]

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.

[Clave]

*applause*

Aldo, you saved me some typing there...

[kode]

Originally posted by aldo_14
*text*
 

hear, hear!

[Andreas]

Aldo:

[vyper]

Aye

[karajorma]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.