Fighting “climate change”…with free condoms
Population control has always been behind the green agenda:
The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: “Women with access to reproductive health services … have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions.”
“As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth’s capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic,” the report said.
The world’s population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. “The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect,” the report said.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Other McCain: I'm sure there's a 'raincoat in the shower' punchline here somewhere . . .
- The Snooper Report
- The American Pundit :: We’re Now Fighting Global Warming With Free Condoms
- UN: Free condoms for global warming! : Stop The ACLU
- Jim Inhofe to Barbara Boxer We won You Lost Video
- Hadley Hacked: Hadly Science Bogus: East Anglia Cl
- Piano
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits, global warming
Conservatives4Palin
» Hey Crooks and Liars, It Appears that Josef Jarod Lied to You
Gates of Vienna
» How London Became a Terrorist HotbedDoug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their ownGreen Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismRedstate
» Michael Steele Plays the Race CardJustOneMinute
» He Played It Left Hand, But Took It Too Far
Moderates never cramp pop culture, they just go along like sheep.
jangar:
Are you honestly trying to compare moderates to sheep? Pot, kettle…
I see you completely ignored my point that I do not stereotype Christians by making blanket generalizations as you do with atheists.
You also failed to respond ref. our African prostitute.
Obama?
jangar:
Honestly, that was funny and kind of cute. I chuckled. However, it’s still a dodge.
Either have the intellectual courage to admit you don’t care about such a woman and maybe even she deserves to get HIV, or conceed my point.
Without spending a bunch of time I don’t have looking into the African prostitute you mention, give me the short story-
jangar:
Given your ideas about condoms being harmful and abstinence, consider the case of an African prostitute that refuses to find another job.
Should condoms be given to her as a backup?
Probably no other job to be found. It’s a sad part of the world that has precious few opportunities for people. A country filled with persecution and overpopulated with Islamic terror has lead to this. Sad reality that this woman has no other hope.
Tossing condoms at them will not solve the problem, just delay the inevitable.
jangar:
So you are basically saying that she’s dead anyway, so don’t bother. She has no chance, and there’s no hope that she will change her mind about her career, best not even bother. That shows some pretty callous disregard for her.
What about the philandering husband who goes to that prostitute and brings home HIV to his unsuspecting, innocent wife?
Wouldn’t giving condoms to the prostitute possibly prevent that?
That’s some pretty huge steps from what I said to what you thought you heard. Have I been stereotyped?
Go fight with God and quit pickin’ on his adopted kids…we get enough of that from the left.
jangar:
Dodge again! You missed this part:
If you have any intellectual courage at all you will address it. I have to take my son to the doctor, I’ll BBL.
Yes…what about that philandering husband? S’pose he’s got a moral problem as well?
Give ‘em all rubbers, but it still will not solve the problem with the wages of sin. Another bandaid…another death.
Wouldn’t offering more solutions than just condoms, and doing it thru anything other than the filthy UN, be more successful?
Condom distribution is a form of giving people fish instead of teaching them to fish.
If they are starving to death, and you have some other solution for the long term problem, then of course you supply the fish (condoms) so they can live long enough for the long term solution to take hold.
But if all you are doing is making people dependent on your largesse for their survival, you are only sowing the seeds of your own destruction, too.
And, btw, anyone with a grain of sense knows greater protection tends to lead to greater recklessness.
How could I favor the Pope’s opinion? I’ve never seen the data he’s mentioning.
What’s strange is that you oppose his opinion even though you haven’t indicated why he’s wrong about the data.
Ending The Free Airplane Rides Of Infants:
A Myopic Method Of Saving Lives
The money quote is:
“The point of this briefing paper is that in the name of child safety, advocates of the new FAA rule should consider the possibility that, although their hearts may be in the right place, their proposal is misguided.”
jangar:
Yes, of course, but you aren’t going to fix all those people. It just won’t happen.
Strawman. For the millionth time: let the Pope give his message, just provide condoms as a backup and admit they do HELP.
YES. Where did I say otherwise? So are you saying condoms DO help now?
Roland:
So, give them condoms and teach them about abstinence.
Of couurse! Unfortunately, the Pope claims that condoms are harmful!
Who said that’s all I am suggesting?
…and anyone with a grain of sense knows that condoms are incredibly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
corkie:
He doesn’t provide any data. Dr. Green tried, but as I have shown, he agrees with me, condoms should be provided.
The Pope doesn’t cite data, he is going purely on his dogma that condoms are wrong.
This airplane seat is really a side issue here and I was just curious about it. Do you mind telling me in your own words why they cause more deaths? For example, is it because they become projectiles in a crash?
Roland:
What’s your position on seatbelts and airbags?
And you’re sure those two don’t work at cross-purposes?
Blackstone:
This idea has been repeated many times.
Do providing seatbelts cause people to drive more recklessly?
I always used my seatbelt before it was required by law. I don’t think its use should be required for adults.
Airbags have led to greater recklessness. I am glad my car has them. I am inclined to think requiring auto manufacturers to put them in was not a good idea. More people who would have chosen to have an airbag have died due to the increased recklessness of those who would not have chosen to have an airbag yet have one there making them feel safer.
And there is the cost issue, too, of course. More cost for the airbags and more cost for more damaged vehicles.
Do providing seatbelts cause people to drive more recklessly?
Roland:
Do you have data to back that up? You are honestly saying we would be better off without airbags?
Besides, it’s still a different thing. People with airbags can have accidents with people that don’t have airbags.
However, with condoms, BOTH people involved gain the benefit of one condom.
Condoms have a failure rate of around 5%. Even if you assume that those that use condoms decide they can have more partners they are going to have to have a great many more partners to outstrip that benefit.
On top of that, prostitutes aren’t going to have any more customers because they are using condoms.
It is not just about the direct benefit of the condoms. If you encourage more dangerous behavior in general, there are other consequences.
If it is safer to use a hooker, more men will screw around, creating more demand for more hookers. Can I prove that? Of course not. It is common sense. That is the way people are. Or if the hooker is finding her business tailing off because she’s requiring her johns to use condoms, she’s going to start picking and choosing who she requires to wear one. The way things really work, she will inevitably choose poorly.
BTW, I am arguing the theory. The whole Catholic thing about birth control is just plain nuts. And give the poor hooker the condoms, just don’t kid yourself that it is a decision free of negative consequences.
Roland:
The problem is condoms are 95% effective!
Your hypothetical hookers and men screwing around will have to increase business by a factor of 20! Where is all this money for hookers coming from?
As far as hookers picking and choosing who wears one, so what? The net effect will still be that there are more then zero instances of condom use and that will be better.
I realize you are playing devil’s advocate but this is a very serious issue! The Pope’s position is hindering a real effort to save lives!
Maybe, but it’s very germane.
I never stated that child seats in airplanes cause more deaths.
I stated that requiring child seats in airplanes causes more deaths.
Analysis (which continues to be accepted as valid) contends that the requirement would only save a few lives from death due to aircraft travel, yet would cause 60x as many fatalities due to the increase in highway travel such requirement would cause (due to increased ticket prices for families).
Likewise, I think it’s also possible that condom distributions don’t reduce the spread of HIV at all (for whatever reason). I’d need to see an epidemiological study to determine whether or not this is true.
zeroangel said:
Actually, they’re not. You’re the one presenting them as EQUAL options to prevent AIDS. Or, would you like to take that back?
See, this is what I don’t get. As an atheist, do you really think you’re going to have any influence, AT ALL, on Christians and Muslims “alike?” Either you’re being presumptious or you’re being arrogant. This is the kind of attitude (let’s put social pressure on a religious organization) because they don’t ascribe to the same social policies (condoms) as I/we do that really irks people like EQ (who I agree with), the Pope (if he’s the irkable sort), and people like me who aren’t even that religious.
So, you have to be sane to accept condoms as a “fool proof” method? I see. So the rational people, of any religion, are the ones who compromise every principle of that religion to please others OUTSIDE that religion. And people wonder why not only the Catholic Church is being compromised by more Cafeteria Catholices but even the Protestant churches like the Presbysterian and Episcopal Churches are being hurt by those who’d like to liberalize them from within (both priests and parishioners).
Do you not understand that there are core principles that many Christians will NOT compromise? Ever. The Pope wants Catholics to think about what’s more important, a temporary sexual gratification, or the long-term, overall picture. I’m not sure if you understand that condoms cannot combat IGNORANCE. Yet, you’re saying that the Catholic Church’s doctrine and beliefs ARE ignorant.
Here’s a serious question: what will you teach your son? Will you teach him to look down on Christians or will you let him make up his own mind?
As someone contemplating parenthood myself, religion is a tricky subject for my husband and I. My husband is Catholic and I’m Presbyterian and we will have to find a workable way to present relgion to our kid that incorporates both sides. Interdenominational may be the way to go.
One more thought, people will always believe in SOMETHING. Whether or not you find it “dopey.” Perhaps, you will get your wish and outside pressure will convince the Pope to reverse years of teachings but I hope not. I’d rather people not compromise their beliefs to make others “happy.”
Would you like Christians to “pressure” you about your “beliefs.” Yes, I know they do on this blog, but ultimately, will you compromise your “beliefs” to make others “happy?” Of course not. And neither will Catholics.
We live in the here and now. Not in the land of possibilities. Perhaps, if Africans (especially African men) made wiser sexual choices we wouldn’t have so many African orphans right now. Hopefully, they will learn from their parents’ mistakes. Or not.
The 5% does her no good if she lets some of the infected go without it. It won’t stop her from becoming 100% infected.
Once she is infected she will likely infect fewer of her johns until she realizes she has it and stops bothering with the condoms. So there is a real window of ‘value’ there, although it is hard to see how the scourge can possibly be contained until males pretty much all realize screwing prostitutes without a condom is a really, really bad idea.
The level of death doesn’t seem to matter to males in Africa. So what keeps the scourge from continuing to kill millions more until the culture develops a bit of protestant prudery? Or a lot. Certainly not condoms in the hands of hungry prostitutes.
corkie:
I see what you are saying about airline seats. However, I don’t see how child seat in airlines relates to condoms. condoms don’t cause people to travel more.
I’m not sure if one exists for Africa. Perhaps one exists for the US, however, what is absolutely certain is that condom use prevents the spread of HIV between individuals. In order to use them, they need to be available.
Emjem24:
Ummm, no I am not. I am saying they should be used in conjunction.
What are you talking about? I never said that. You asked me why is it even up to me to tell them what to do? It is “up to me” for the same reason I would “tell” Muslims what to do if they want to (for example) cut out a girl’s clitoris. No one is saying there is going to be equal effect. It’s about pointing out things that are wrong.
That is not what I am saying I never said that!
What will I teach my son? I will certainly teach him that condoms protect against HIV! Obviously, since his mother is Christian I am not going to teach him to look down on his mother! Good god! Why can you not seperate my attitude toward fundamentalists and IDEAS with attitudes toward a group as a whole?
Let’s hope so! Let’s hope he finally admits condoms HELP.
What beliefs? I don’t have any religious beliefs!
Roland:
It will, however, protect some of her Johns and those John’s partners!
…and some of her John’s are going to insist on using them!
The point is, it can only HELP.
Emjem24:
Yes, arrogant presumtuous me when I say cutting out a girl’s clitoris is wrong. Arrogant and presumtuous me saying condoms help prevent the spread of HIV!
Emjem24:
Every principle? I’ll settle for just the ones that harm people.
Like the idea that the Bible shouldn’t be translated into English? How about the idea that witches or gays should be put to death? No, they never compromise “core” principles. So do you use birth control? If so, why? Isn’t it going to lead to your husband cheating on you? The Catholic chruch’s position is absurd!
Roland:
You said earlier you agree that condoms can at least help in the short term. Therefore, your position is opposed to the Pope’s. We are on the same side of this.
Emjem24:
One last thing, try to get this idea out of your head that I am all about free love and sex and condoms.
It’s stupid. I am not going to teach my son to sleep around as much as possible. Why do I even have to say this? How come this strawman keeps popping up again and again on this thread?
Another thing:
Regardless of how many partners you have, it is ALWAYS safer to use a condom.
ALWAYS. Even if you are in what you believe to be a monogamous relationship.
This is especially true if you are an African!
…this blog really needs an “edit” function.
So what?
Just because a condom can reduce the likelihood of HIV contamination doesn’t mean that the distribution of condoms reduces the spread.
Child seats, on an individual basis, is useful for preventing a child’s death. However, the implementation of the planned use of child seats on airlines can cause MORE child deaths.
For all you know, a program to distribute condoms may INCREASE the spread of HIV. You don’t know that such a program doesn’t have such effect, therefore, you don’t know if the Pope was right or wrong.
In order to use them, they need to be available.
Obviously that last statement (a paste of your statement) wasn’t intended to be included in my above comment.
That’s not the right analogy. You advocated abstinence from sex as part of the message to be sent. Unless you’re also advocating abstinence from driving, your analogy falls flat.
A better analogy would be telling a 12-year-old not to get any funny ideas about grabbing the keys to the family car and driving around in it, while at the same time telling him that if he does he should be sure to wear his seatbelt.
No new comments yet.
ALCON:
I want to lay out my position very clearly so as to avoid strawman and people going off on a tangent.
The Pope’s message of monogamy, self-control, and abstinence is a GOOD message and WILL HELP.
The sole problem is his contention that condom distribution will actually make things worse. There is no data to support that. However, there is data that supports that condoms help prevent transmission of the disease between individuals.
The Pope should stay on target with his message except he should concede that condoms have been shown to prevent the spread of HIV between individuals if used correctly. Or at the very least, avoid the topic entirely.
That’s it. That’s the whole idea. Try and stay on point with that.
corkie:
I can’t think of any other way to prove this one way or the other than to distribute condoms and see what happens. Do you object to this idea?
How? Do you think this idea of increased unsafe sex because of condom distribution has merit or are you not interested in speculating?
I am unsure if any study has actually been conducted. However, I also don’t know if the Pope is right or wrong about god. In the absence of evidence, I am taking a stand that’s rather reasonable based on how effective we know condoms are on an invidual basis. In any case, consider the Catholic Church stance on birth control, the Pope is obviously biased.
Come on corkie, why do you insist on being so pedantic? Do you demand empirical studies every time you assess whether or not it’s safe to cross a particular street?
BBL, need to go get junior from day care.
Blackstone:
I actually like that better. Perhaps it might be an even better analogy if it were an 18 yr old being told to only drive his clunky (yet big and safe) sedan (stay monogamous) and to stay away from Daddy’s Ferrari collection (go whoring). However, if he insists on joy riding when Dad’s not home, use the seat belt.
How’s that?
OK, going… again Blackstone. Very good post. Best one yet.
Your modification of the analogy isn’t better, because the difference between driving a clunker and driving a Ferrari isn’t anywhere near as wide as the difference between abstinence and promiscuity, or even monogamy and promiscuity. That’s more on the level of the difference between riding a bicycle and driving a Ferrari.
zeroangel said:
Ummm, what does it matter if neither penetrates cultural ignorance. It’s up to the individual African governments to educate their people, not any one church or religion.
Okay, let me get this straight. Atheists get so worked up about the belief systems of given religions and yet cannot seem to understand that it’s up to the given religions to decide their doctrine, not the atheists themselves. For a bunch of people vehemently opposted to religious beliefs, they seem awfully concerned with the inner workings of those religions.
This is interesting. You’re pointing out that Catholic Church doctrine opposing condoms is “wrong” yet you also admit you have no influence. It is up to those “within” to decide its course.
Ummm… it is what you said. It sounds “insane” just repeating it.
Condoms are a prophalactic and that’s all they are. Just like birth control. Just like the Pill. However, neither is full proof in preventing pregnancy. Just like the condoms have fail rates. Will you present those statistics to your son? How ’bout abstinence? Does he get to hear that?
A Christian/Atheist family. No tension there. I think you have problems with religion as a whole. I don’t think it’s just “fundamentalists” as a whole that you have problems with. Maybe I’m just confused because, atheists, as a group, have such diverse aims and opinions, it’s hard to get a good read on what they want.
Condoms are a prophalactic. Just as they were in the early 19th-20th centuries. They may be made of rubber now and lamb skin then but they didn’t always prevent STD’s. Do you know that in the 19th century there were large outbreak of syphilis (sp?) among British soldiers who visited prostitutes and it was encouraged that they use condoms (prophalactics) yet there was still a high incident rate of syphilis among this group even after they adopted condom use? Why is that? Failure of education? Heat of the moment? Failure of technology?
Yet, you do have core beliefs. Everybody does. I was making a larger point. How far would you stick to your “core beliefs” if you wanted to make people happy? That’s the thing. You want Christians to bend like pretzels but would you bend if given the shoe was on the other foot? Could you ever see things from their point of view?
zeroangel said:
So you’re not equating sexual mutulation with the Catholic Church’s stand on condoms? Pointing out everything that’s “wrong” with the world doesn’t always make you “right.” African cultural practices that have lasted longer than the existence of the US are not seen as wrong by those who practice them, no matter how you or any other outside entity point it out as such.
The thing is, sexual disfiguration is in an entirely different category than condom use. The thing about clitorial disfiguration is that it’s usually against the girl’s will and forced on her by her tribal elders. She doesn’t get to object or say no.
The thing about condoms is, they’re not the only option to stop the spread of HIV. People have choices when it comes to sex. Not so with clitoral disfiguation. I think you know that.
Such a comparison is disengenuous and false. Both are bad, in your view and entirely equal which isn’t the case.
For the record, I despise and do not support a girl, against her will, being sexually mutilated.
zeroangel said:
Actually, you’re pointing this whole free love, sex, and condoms thing not me. When did I EVER bring this up? I don’t think I did.
You’re either being “sensitive” or reading A LOT more than I wrote in my initial response to you. If anything, you should give your son ALL the information, not the information that suits your worldview. And I would hope this would be the case for any parent.
Ironically you created your own strawman. I never brought it up. Perhaps, some other poster?
Blackstone:
Works for me.
emjem24:
The African people that are Catholics, and Catholics outside of Africa decisions to donate to a particular program will be affected by the Pope’s message. The Pope is very likely, with his words alone, keeping some condoms from getting to people that may need them.
Obviously, because those religious beliefs either effect us, or other human beings, sometimes negatively. I care.
I never said, “fool proof.” I admit they have a %5 rate of failure. Please, please, please try and read carefully.
OF COURSE! Why wouldn’t I?
You know nothing about my family dynamics. Don’t even speculate.
Exactly! Because they aren’t a group anymore than a group of people who don’t collect stamps are a group. Dont you get that?
The 19th century is irrelevant and my only core belief is I don’t have core beliefs.
emjem24:
For god’s sake. The sexual multilation thing was brought up ONLY to ilustrate the idea of why I might have an opinion on another religion. I wasn’t putting it on the same level as condoms.
You seemed to imply it, if I was wrong I retract the statement. Certianly, people keep thinking that I mean we should ONLY give out condoms. I don’t mean that at all. Furthermore, it is another sterotype about atheists (free love et al.)
OK bathtime for junior.
Not necessarily. What would you say to couples using only birth control (the pill)? Who are in committed, monogamous relationships? There has to be a certain amount of trust between couples with any form of birth control, including condoms.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that there are a lot of couples who adhere to your “always” rule.
Cultural practices are a factor in African relationships. Until education lifts the veil on such cultural beliefs, that will “always” be the case.
emjem24:
How would wearing a condom be LESS safe? How do you know your mongamous partner didn’t get a bad blood transfusion or something?
But the evidence might only be absent to you. Are you sure there’s no study or analysis on the subject?
We know how effective child seats are on an individual basis, but it’s clearly insufficient to rely simply on that information to make a stand on airline regulations for them.
I don’t object to this if:
1. No good studies or analysis currently exist.
2. The study is nonpolitical (for either side) and adheres to pure scientific standards in its epidemiological approach. Frankly, I don’t think this requirement can be met in today’s world.
I haven’t given it much thought at all, however:
1. I don’t think it’s likely that a condom distribution program leads to an increased spread of HIV.
2. I think it’s very possible that there might be no statistically significant reduced spread of HIV associated with condom distributions.
Yes. He is. Are you?
No. But don’t think that I haven’t performed quick risk analysis of certain activities such as crossing sketchy intersections. When readily referenced (by memory or otherwise), I believe empirical studies are extremely valuable. However, I often conclude that it’s excessively impractical to seek out an empirical studies and rely, instead, on pure intuition/judgment. But one should never rely strictly on pure intuition/judgment as default.
There are too many counterintuitive truths in this world.
Then who’s purchasing those billboards in England?
Corkie:
No, I am not certain. EQ earlier tried to present the opinion of Dr. Green, but it turns out the data he based his opinion on was flawed and he agreed condoms should be used as a “backup.” Even if there were such studies, I highly doubt they would meet your requirement #2 below.
Yes, but we also know what the mitigating factors are. IMHO, I have yet to see a convincing theory of how condoms would actually increase the instances of unsafe sex. Also, if some charity were to buy child seats for airlines and pay for the offset in ticket price, that could only be a good thing.
I don’t think so either.
If you are talking about distributions in and of themselves, I agree.
I am unbiased. All I care about is AIDS prevention. It’s a horrible disease and needs to go away. We know condoms protect individuals. Do you think the Pope has a responsibility to admit his position is unfounded?
Of course not, however I think this particular situation (condoms in Africa) is one in which we can go on intuition/judgment initially and get the data later. After all, both you and I seem to agree, it’s unlikely that condom distribution will increase the spread of HIV.
I think the point I was making was that atheists only organize around the one idea (no belief in gods). Emjem24 seems to think that we have some set of common goals or ideas other than that. It’s just not true. I’ll bet you can even find atheists opposed to condom distribution in Africa. However, If non-stamp collectors were regularly regarded as evil, they would probably buy billboards too.
Good chat corkie. We can probably wrap this one up.
Blackstone, you’ve been edged out by corkie for best post. This is despite the “fact” that corkie is a pedantic a$$ wholly committed to breaking down any single argument to damn near mathematical logic.
There’s a spaceship somewhere with a missing pilot.
*smile*
And so telling that kid who doesn’t know how to drive not to try to drive the Ferrari, but if he does he should make sure he obeys the speed limit signs, isn’t at all sending him a mixed message?
And don’t do cocaine either. But if you do, try to do it in moderation.
Blackstone:
You don’t have to say, “If you do drive the Ferrari…”
You just give him the facts about how seatbelts save lives in all cars.
Stepping outside the analogy, you just give people classes on the facts about AIDS and condoms. The idea is to make them appreciate the dangers and either abstain, be monogamous, or, at least, use condoms.
What you do NOT do, is take all the seatbelts out of the cars, obviously.
NOT TRUE.
The program might not EVER save a single life, and it might have other negative effects which are more difficult to contemplate.
Ha ha. That was funny.
Sometimes I do that. However, I think my argument on this topic was kinda high level.
corkie:
Once again, pendantic. The issue was that extra travel. There might be other factors, there might not be. However, child seats have potential for some positive effect.
Condoms definately have a very real, very effective, postive effect on an individual basis. I think the analogy is not a good one.
It’s amazing to me that we are now disussing mainly the analogy and not the topic.
Do you think the Pope has a responsibility to admit his position is unfounded? Do you think he should admit that condoms protect against AIDS on an individual basis?
You’re an idiot if you think this is freaking pedantic.
Programs should be measured on effectiveness – not good intent – not potential for effectiveness. And heaven forbid if someone spends 10 man-hours conducting a cost-benefit analysis in order to…you know…determine the freaking cost. Or how about a risk-benefit analysis? Or how about any type of analysis other than a feel-good-benefit.
Not if it’s not unfounded – which you admit may be the case.
corkie:
I meant you were being pendantic in that you are fleshing out an anology (and not the best put forward) to the minute details that wasn’t even the topic. Maybe pendantic isn’t the right word? How about just plain ‘ole annoying in your non-conversation?
I admit anything is possible (even the Pope’s mythology). However, The Pope himself doesn’t cite anything.
If a person makes a statement that to their knowledge is unfounded are they being irresponsible?
That doesn’t mean that he can’t back up his statements.
It was definitely the best put forward.
corkie:
What is he waiting for? Isn’t it likely he doesn’t have anything to back them up? Isn’t it likely that, to his knowledge, it is unfounded?
Blackstone’s was better.