CatholicBoard

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

Well, it all depends. (How deep do you want to go?) What is a metal? We normally consider something with good electrical conductivity as a metal. There is actually such a thing that is around the earth, although it's not technically solid. It's called the "Magnetosphere." It keeps the solar winds from reaching the earth. It also helps keep oxygen contained within the atmosphere. The death of the huge dinosaurs is attributed to a collapse of the field which allowed oxygen levels to significantly decline. Mars doesn't have one and, well, it doesn't have much oxygen or water for that matter.

Wow, that is really cool actually!

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

It gets even cooler when you start to look into the spoof on Star Wars, called "Space Balls" where a planet constructed a actual structure around their planet to keep in the oxygen and this evil oxygen depleted empire was trying to break into the structure to vacuum out all the oxygen. If I recall correctly, it even had "gates." P.S. the can of Perri-Air was a blast!

I looked up Perri-Air and it reminded me of vitality air, the real life equal. It is a huge hit in china. I will definitely watch spaceballs now.

The landlocked isles wrote:

One of my favorite NS issue effects is how religiousness is always equated with primitiveness, without fail. I just answered an issue allowing churches to keep their tax-exempt status. No "creationism in public schools," no "banning vaccines because they are against the will of God," just an issue about taxes. Religiousness went up, Scientific Advancement went down. Sorry, citizens, I just cast you all back into the Dark Ages.

To be honest, I tend to dismiss issues like that fairly often because they lack any real nuance. It really is a shame that the issue writers promote the hackneyed Science vs. Religion feud, which itself is a false dichotomy. Saint Albertus Magnus, patron of the natural sciences, pray for us.

I've posted a topic in NSG that may be of interest to some of you: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=392493

Frustrated Franciscans, I fully support your proposal but we will need to campaign to get something like that to queue. I will help you do so whenever you wish to try again.

-Best regards, The RCS
President of Right to Life

The landlocked isles wrote:

...and of course, the thread is packed with edgy teenagers, eugenics supporters, and shameless advocates of outright murder.

This reminds me of a sarcastic post that I recently saw in a comments section somewhere. It went something like this: "The Nazis weren't barbarians; they were just too far ahead of their time."

Oftentimes, it seems that the ideas haven't changed much, just the labels affixed to them. Lebensunwertes leben (life unworthy of life) becomes "compassionate death" or "death with dignity." Eugenics becomes "fertility research." Abortion becomes "women's rights," "reproductive rights," or "reproductive justice." Propaganda becomes "sensitivity training." Censorship becomes "combating hate speech." And so on.

Auralia wrote:

I've posted a topic in NSG that may be of interest to some of you: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=392493

With no response to good arguments the claim of being merciful is all they have.
Which reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw2CcZGkEG8&t=0m44s

Christian Democrats wrote:

This reminds me of a sarcastic post that I recently saw in a comments section somewhere. It went something like this: "The Nazis weren't barbarians; they were just too far ahead of their time."

They weren't even "ahead of their time." Their problem was that they were different. The mainstream of thought was based on class distinctions (although in America that was also tied to race, specifically that of African Americans who were kept in poverty by the growth of the original political party that had supported slavery). The easiest solution and generally considered the most humane was the elimination of the future problem through sterilization, and birth control. In the United States, Margaret Sanger led this movement.

Here is Sanger on sterilization in 1922, "STERILIZATION of the insane and feebleminded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him incapable of producing children."

And Gas Chambers were proposed by George Bernard Shaw back in 1910, "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment … A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

So there was really nothing that the Germans did that they didn't want to do themselves, only to a different class of people based on their pseudo-science as opposed to the Germans.

Christian Democrats wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how anyone can think that sterilization doesn't impinge on one's "sex expression." I guess I'm passé for believing that becoming the mother or father of a child is the highest expression of one's sexual faculties.

Not only that, if people were sterilized for being "insane and feebleminded," under these people's definitions, I could only imagine that many modern proponents of sexual freedom (specifically, those who believe in an indefinite number of genders and orientations) would be the first to go.

The landlocked isles wrote:

Not only that, if people were sterilized for being "insane and feebleminded," under these people's definitions, I could only imagine that many modern proponents of sexual freedom (specifically, those who believe in an indefinite number of genders and orientations) would be the first to go.

I have a feeling that people who say there is more to biology then XX and XY (XXY doesn't count) wouldn't be first to go but rather first on the list. This is because I am pretty sure when the stakes are high everybody sees the truth. My uncle, who just passed 50 YEARS(!) of ordination, explained that "there are no atheist in foxholes" meaning that when people are moved out of their comfort zone they will see what is true.

CD is a secretary now?
Milk no sugar please.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Yes.
Thank you.

What does that mean?

Christian Democrats wrote:

I'm now one of six players in charge of judging the legality of General Assembly proposals.

Well what do you think of my draft so far on the SC forum?