British Media Slander Pope Benedict

[Roadtoad]

Around here, we can pick up the Sun and the Daily Mirror. Near as I can tell, it hasn't changed that much since Robert Maxwell ran it, (and the bio I read about Maxwell, suggests to me this is just the sort of crap he'd pull just to bring in sales.)

If you read Ratzinger's bio on Wikipedia, you realize that ALL teenage boys were members of the Hitler Youth. In fact, when I was living in Germany, most of the German guys I worked with who were the age I am now were members of the Hitler Youth, and one of the engineers where I worked had been a Sergeant in the Third Reich's Wehrmacht. (He was honest with us about it: Of course he fought the Americans! He thought we were a bunch of smart assed kids. He didn't like us!)

This is slanderous, and regardless of what you believe, this is wrong.

BERLIN (AFP) - Germany's top-selling newspaper Bild was furious at the coverage of the new pope by British newspapers, which had accentuated Benedict XVI's past as a teenager in Nazi Germany.

"English insult the German pope," said the front-page headline, below the words "Hitler Youth".

The Sun, like Bild the highest-selling daily newspaper in its market, had headlined its coverage of the election of Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday with the words "From Hitler Youth to... Papa Ratzi."

"It is impertinent to reduce the German pope to a Hitler Youth on the day after his election," Bild fumed.

The new pope, known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election, has made no secret of his past in wartime Germany, saying he was an unwilling participant in Adolf Hitler's youth movement which he joined at the age of 14.

Bild was also unhappy with the front-page headline on Wednesday's Daily Telegraph broadsheet which described the pope as "God's Rottweiler", a reference to his role as the moral guardian of the Catholic Church's conservative wing.

A Bild editorial written by senior journalist Franz Josef Wagner said: "If you read the British tabloids yesterday, you would have thought Hitler had become pope.

"Only the devil could come up with such a thing. Or you English, with your complexes.

"It is like in football matches, we are always the Nazis."

The editorial added: "I do not hate in return. The pope in his goodness will include you idiots in his prayers. Yes you, the editors of The Sun and the Daily Mirror. Even idiots go to heaven."

The Daily Mirror tabloid was sharply criticised at home and abroad for a front page during the Euro 96 football championships which played on the countries' rivalry in World War II ahead of a match between the two countries.

Jewish groups around the world have generally acknowledged the new pontiff's earlier efforts to build links between Jews and Catholics.

[Tony]

Why is it wrong to slander a religious figure?

[Roadtoad]

Probably for the same reason it's wrong to slander a skeptic.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tony
Why is it wrong to slander a religious figure?

Same reason it's wrong to do it to anyone else.

[Tony]

That doesn't answer the question.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tony
That doesn't answer the question.


Are you trying to claim that slander isn't wrong?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tony
That doesn't answer the question.

Yeah, it does.

Jesus is a religious figure. Hotei is a religious figure.

'Pope' is a job title.

Ratzinger is a person, who can be harmed by slanderous statements..and what he does for a living doesn't excuse slander.

[Darat]

Did they slander him? It is a fact he was a member of Hitler Youth.

[shecky]

I agree with Darat. I must have missed the slander part. British media may be shocked and appalled that Ratz was a Hitler Youth, but being shocked and appalled isn't slander.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Darat
Did they slander him? It is a fact he was a member of Hitler Youth.

Well, first, written statements can never be "slander." If it's a written statement, it's "libel." In a legal sense, truth is an absolute defense to claims of either slander or libel -- a true statement, by definition, can never be slanderous or libelous.

In a moral or practical sense, it's easily possible to misrepresent the truth -- for example, by shifting emphasis or by quoting out of context -- to establish what is effectively slander or libel.

In this case, I would argue that that line has been crossed. I've seen and read more about what the new pope did between 1941 and 1946 (a five-year period) than I have over the entire twenty years between 1955 and 1975. I think this is a good example of how to present biographical information out of context and with misplaced emphasis.

[Tony]

Originally posted by geni
Are you trying to claim that slander isn't wrong?

Of religious and political figures, yes, I'm saying it isn't wrong.

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch
'Pope' is a job title.


I'm sure a couple million catholics would disagree with you.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Darat
Did they slander him? It is a fact he was a member of Hitler Youth.


Notice that they didn't put the word 'Hitler Youth' over a picture of a 14 year old boy...nor do 'Panzer Cardinal' or claims he could have avoided joining exactly paint an accurate or non-defamatory picture.


And anyway, I said that the individual named Ratzinger could be harmed.

Nobody is saying that the *office* of Pope IS a rank in the Nazi party, nor are they saying that he was an official of the Catholic Church when he went into the Hitler youth.

They are saying that the individual named Ratzinger is somehow unfit for his job, because of his Nazi affiliations...
so the ability to cause him harm is there, and I'm not so sure that they could claim truth as a defense, unless they can make a solid connection between his actions at 14, and his actions today.

As far as the element of intent goes, that will depend on how quickly they backpedal from their current rhetoric.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm sure a couple million catholics would disagree with you.

And I'm sure that 1inChrist and a large number of fundies agree with you about the Pope being an object of worship, or a deity.

Who cares?


This is a skeptic's forum, and people are people, not gods....take your prosletyzing elsewhere.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Notice that they didn't put the word 'Hitler Youth' over a picture of a 14 year old boy...nor do 'Panzer Cardinal' or claims he could have avoided joining exactly paint an accurate or non-defamatory picture.

And anyway, I said that the individual named Ratzinger could be harmed.

How? Ratzinger was a Hitler Youth.

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And I'm sure that 1inChrist and a large number of fundies agree with you about the Pope being an object of worship, or a deity.

Who cares?


This is a skeptic's forum, and people are people, not gods....take your prosletyzing elsewhere.

Thanks for showing your stupidity and hypocrisy. You can be counted on to not be a voice of reason.

[Cleon]

Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth. No getting around that.*

Are they libelling him by pointing it out? I don't think so. They're being overly sensationalistic, but not really dishonest. Just IMHO.




My own feelings on that are complex. As a Jew, it gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. I realize, though, that it wasn't exactly by choice. I'm far more worried by the fact that this guy was head of the renamed Inquisition.)

[Skeptic]

(Shrug) "Pope Ratzi" (obviously to rhime with "nazi"), like "panzer cardinal", has the same moral impliations--as far as the Sun is concerned--as "the people's princess" or "Jacko the Wako", etc.

It's simply a way to find something "shocking" about a celebrity's private life, in order to justify writing about their private lives as much as possible. It's the "angle" that makes it allowable to treat pernicious gossip as "news".

[Tony]

Looks like Pope Nazi I has gotten off to an early start. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4473001.stm).

[Orwell]

Well, he might not have been a nazi back then, but I'm pretty sure he's a fascist now! ;)

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Well, he might not have been a nazi back then, but I'm pretty sure he's a fascist now! ;)

slight lack of corporatism methinks

[geni]

Originally posted by Tony
Looks like Pope Nazi I has gotten off to an early start. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4473001.stm).

There is no evidence that Benedict XVI was a member of the Nazi party or that he shared it's belifes

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony
Looks like Pope Nazi I has gotten off to an early start. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4473001.stm).

Now calling him "Pope Nazi" is what I would consider slanderous (as the word slander was used in the OP) since there is no evidence he is a Nazi.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(Shrug) "Pope Ratzi" (obviously to rhime with "nazi"),

...snip...

I hadn't picked up on the Ratzi/Nazi thing but of course it's obvious now its been spelt out to me. (Yes OK I’m a bit slow today – yes OK I'm slower then normal today!)

[Orwell]

Originally posted by geni
slight lack of corporatism methinks

Well, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

To me, it sounds like how things are done in the catholic church and inside the Vatican...

"Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions made by these corporate groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions which were organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinning came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics."

Gotta love wikipedia!

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tony
Thanks for showing your stupidity and hypocrisy. You can be counted on to not be a voice of reason.

Outing you IS the voice of reason.

Claiming that Catholics worship the Pope as a religious figure like Jesus or Hotei, instead of as a man elected to the highest office in the organization, is fundy rhetoric, and you are the one spewing it here at JREF...
people with a lick of sense know better.

And if it bothers you to be identified with the garbage you post... again, who cares?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Well, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

To me, it sounds like how things are done in the catholic church and inside the Vatican...

"Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions made by these corporate groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions which were organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinning came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics."

Gotta love wikipedia!

A) you are not useing the contemopry defintion.

B) you missed out the previous paragraph wich makes corporatism inconsitact with the constant competion between groups like the jesuits and opus day (to chose two groups at random) for power within the system.

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch

Claiming that Catholics worship the Pope as a religious figure like Jesus or Hotei, instead of as a man elected to the highest office in the organization, is fundy rhetoric, and you are the one

I never claimed that. You're injecting your stupidity into my posts.

And if it bothers you to be identified with the garbage you post... again, who cares?

The only garbage here is you. Like I said:

You can be counted on to not be a voice of reason.

You've confirmed my assertion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by geni
There is no evidence that Benedict XVI was a member of the Nazi party or that he shared it's belifes

C'mon, you've got to allow me the odd cheap shot now and then. :p

[Orwell]

Originally posted by geni
A) you are not useing the contemopry defintion.


Well, why can't I use the contemporary definition of fascist (ie. an adherent of right-wing authoritarian views) then? The new pope certainly fits within this definition.


Originally posted by geni
B) you missed out the previous paragraph wich makes corporatism inconsitact with the constant competion between groups like the jesuits and opus day (to chose two groups at random) for power within the system. [/B]

Oh, and there wasn't infighting and competition inside fascist governments?

Anyway, my position is pretty much tongue in cheek (but barely). All I know is that the new pope is an old ultraconservative fart, and that the catholic church is a corrupt, rotten institution who unfortunately still has too much influence over too many people.

[Roadtoad]

According to the bios of the man that I've read, he not only was not a willing participant, (and ran a great risk in asking to be removed from the Hitler Youth rolls), he also was a deserter from the Wehrmacht, because he didn't support what the Nazis were doing, and ran a risk of being executed for being one.

So, no, likening Ratzinger to a Nazi is defamatory.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tony
C'mon, you've got to allow me the odd cheap shot now and then. :p

I don't view them as accepterble in the hands of Jack Chick.

[crimresearch]

"...I never claimed that. You're injecting your stupidity into my posts."

Not that it has ever had the least effect on your delusions before, but anyone else can easily scroll up and see *exactly* what was said.

You said the Pope was a religious figure...
I made a distinction between the job title of Pope, and being a religious figure of worship, like Jesus...

You came along and accused millions of Catholics of rejecting the 'job title' definition of Pope...
Which within the parameters given, means by default, that you are referencing the stereotype of Catholics worshipping the Pope as they worship Jesus.

You, not somebody else made the choice to type those words...and nobody but you has made the choice to refuse to clarify that you may have meant an out of context and irrlevant reference.

[wahrheit]

What Ratzinger has said and done recently, or after WW II, was way more harmful, and certainly killed more people, than whatever he did as a kid in Hitler Youth.

It would make more sense blaming that guy for what he did/does as an adult.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by shecky
I agree with Darat. I must have missed the slander part. British media may be shocked and appalled that Ratz was a Hitler Youth, but being shocked and appalled isn't slander.

Its unfair not to mention that he desserted the German army and other mitigating facts, but I don't think it rises to slander since it wouldn't be an outright lie to say that he was in the Hitler youth.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by wahrheit
What Ratzinger has said and done recently, or after WW II, was way more harmful, and certainly killed more people, than whatever he did as a kid in Hitler Youth.

It would make more sense blaming that guy for what he did/does as an adult.

I would agree. No need to bring his childhood into things in order to slam him. There are so many worthier things he should be attacked for.

[Vagabond]

As was said you can't slander or libel somebody with the truth regardless of how bad it is. If they really want to go after the pope they wouldn't bother with the hitler youth crap. He was too young then to have actually offed anybody. But, as the new pope he now becomes the one responsible for perhaps a million children starving to death in overpopulated countries, and for the perhaps tens of millions that have aids and will ultimately die from it because they won't allow birth control and condoms. The pope is directly responsible for more pain, suffering and death in the world by promoting their mindless dogma than Hitler himself ever even dreamed of.

[geni]

Originally posted by Vagabond
As was said you can't slander or libel somebody with the truth regardless of how bad it is. If they really want to go after the pope they wouldn't bother with the hitler youth crap. He was too young then to have actually offed anybody. But, as the new pope he now becomes the one responsible for perhaps a million children starving to death in overpopulated countries, and for the perhaps tens of millions that have aids and will ultimately die from it because they won't allow birth control and condoms. The pope is directly responsible for more pain, suffering and death in the world by promoting their mindless dogma than Hitler himself ever even dreamed of.

You are making the assumtion that overpopulation is the major cause of hunger and that sexual transmission is the main vector for aids in africa. Can you provide evidence for either of these claims

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Vagabond
As was said you can't slander or libel somebody with the truth regardless of how bad it is.

Yes, but a true statement can be presented in a way which implies a falsehood, and that's still actionable under UK law. If the fact (and it is a fact) that the current Pope was once a member of the Hitler Youth is reported in such a way that it implies he was an enthusiastic Nazi, he could well have a case for libel...

[Orwell]

Well, overpopulation isn't the main cause of hunger in Africa, poverty is. If high population density caused hunger, both Japan and the Netehrlands would be starving. But an increase in population is a direct consequence of poverty, and an increasing population makes escaping poverty much harder. Controlling population growth is absolutely necessary to improve living conditions in underdeveloped countries.

Now, in Africa, it is obvious that AIDS is mostly transmitted by sexual intercourse. Come on, do you believe that African get AIDs through intravenous drug injections or blood transfusions?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Well, overpopulation isn't the main cause of hunger in Africa, poverty is. If high population density caused hunger, both Japan and the Netehrlands would be starving. But an increase in population is a direct consequence of poverty, and an increasing population makes escaping poverty much harder. Controlling population growth is absolutely necessary to improve living conditions in underdeveloped countries.

Argument by assertion logical fallacy. The united kingdoms population explosion closely matched it's increaseing wealth.


Now, in Africa, it is obvious that AIDS is mostly transmitted by sexual intercourse. Come on, do you believe that African get AIDs through intravenous drug injections or blood transfusions?

Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. I don't follow reseach in this area as closely as I would like but there have been suggestions that non sexual vectors had been underestimated in their level of effect.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by geni
Argument by assertion logical fallacy. The united kingdoms population explosion closely matched it's increaseing wealth.

You're abusing those logical fallacies. And you're also being simplistic. Wealth increased because Britain underwent massive industrialisation. But nevertheless there were huge problems. Just read Dickens if you want a description of the consequences of rapid economical changes without population control: urban slums, disease, death and more poverty (exactly what's going on in Africa right now, minus the industrialisation and increased wealth). There might have been economical growth but it took almost one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution!

Originally posted by geni

Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. I don't follow reseach in this area as closely as I would like but there have been suggestions that non sexual vectors had been underestimated in their level of effect.

That's not the scientific consensus at this time! Show me the research!

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by geni
You are making the assumtion that overpopulation is the major cause of hunger and that sexual transmission is the main vector for aids in africa. Can you provide evidence for either of these claims

Would you also like some proof that oxygen is necessary for the breathing process while I am at it?

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Yes, but a true statement can be presented in a way which implies a falsehood, and that's still actionable under UK law. If the fact (and it is a fact) that the current Pope was once a member of the Hitler Youth is reported in such a way that it implies he was an enthusiastic Nazi, he could well have a case for libel...

Well, if you are a member of a Nazi organization, you are an enthusiatic member or otherwise you wouldn't be in it in the first place. He was only 14 so it's irrelevant in any event.

[Vagabond]

Poverty, hunger and overpopulation go hand in hand with each other. Bangledesh is the same size as Iowa and they both have rich farmland. People are poverty stricken and starving in Bangledesh because there are 35 million people there. If there were 35 million people in Iowa it would suck there too.

There have been severe famines in Japan many times and probably in the Netherlands too. Also the potato famine in Ireland. The reason they aren't starving now is because they can afford to import enough food to feed their current populations and there is enough surplus food in the world to import and the means to transport it for a reasonable price.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Oh simplistic ********. You're abusing those logical fallacies. Just read Dickens if you want a description of the consequences of rapid economical changes without population control: urban slums, disease, death and more poverty (exactly what's going on in Africa right now, minus the increased wealth). There might have been economical growth but it took almost one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution!

Which means that the problem is one of income dissturbution rather than wealth. So your claim shifts.



That's not the scientific consensus at this time! Show me the research!

certianly to quote:
Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in AfricaBrody S, Potterat JJ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS 14 (7): 431-436 JUL 2003

"Recent epidemiologic analyses suggest that the majority of HIV cases in sub-Saharan Africa may be due to non-sterile health care practices."

[geni]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Would you also like some proof that oxygen is necessary for the breathing process while I am at it?

Errr depends are you refuring to molecular oxygen or does oxygen as part of a compound count?

[Earthborn]

Well, if you are a member of a Nazi organization, you are an enthusiatic member or otherwise you wouldn't be in it in the first place.That's like saying that people in prisons must really like being there, because if they didn't they wouldn't be in it in the first place. Ratzi didn't have a free choice to join the Hitler Jugend, he was forced by law to join it.There have been severe famines in Japan many times and probably in the Netherlands too.With the exception of the 1945 Hunger Winter which was caused by war, not overpopulation, I like you to tell me exactly when that last famine was...The reason they aren't starving now is because they can afford to import enough food to feed their current populations and there is enough surplus food in the world to import and the means to transport it for a reasonable price.That would be a nice argument, if it wasn't for the fact that the Netherlands is a net exporter of food. Not only is it able to feed its own population, it is even able to largely feed Germany, other European countries and even some other countries around the world and still have areable land to spare to be the world's largest exporter of flowers.

[Skeptic]

Oh simplistic ********. You're abusing those logical fallacies. Just read Dickens if you want a description of the consequences of rapid economical changes without population control: urban slums, disease, death and more poverty

Dickens is all fine and good, but in reality, one of the reasons the industrial revolution succeeded is that, for the common man, life as a factory hand in the slums in the cities was BETTER than life as a peasant or farmer in the villages--slums and all.

The average British man in, say, 1870 lived a far better life due to industrialization than the average Briton in 1770 or 1670 (let alone, say, 1370 or 1070...) It was then that life expectancy and infant mortality began to fall, for example.

This is not, of course, to praise the workers' slums as some sort of heaven; but the romantic idea of the factories "destroying" some sort of pastoral, pre-industrial "healthy" life is simply fiction.

The reason that there is no previous Dickens to describe the plight of the poor is not that there were no unhappy poor before Dickens' time, but, more precisely, that they counted for nothing before his time.

It was only due to the increase in literacy brought about by the industrial revolution that common men learned to read and write--and a demand was created for stories about the common man, like Dickens' heroes.

it took almost one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution!

No. The British workers were not slaves. The workers in the first British factory already chose to work there. And why? Because it was better than the alternative, namely, being subsistance farmers, which 95% at least of humanity just HAD to be before the industrial revolution; not to mention the fact that, for the first time, factories made machine-made goods that brought previously-unaffordable goods into the range of, at least, the lower middle class, if not the working class.

The workers benefited from the industrial revolution immediately--just like the owners had.

Again, this is not to say they should--or did--just work there and shut up and be grateful; but it is ludicrous to say the British poor didn't benefit from the industrial revolution. Not AS MUCH as the rich, of course--but just about everything now taken for granted as the right of the poor, from literacy to welfare, had its origins in the industrial revolution.

(Yes, I KNOW I am oversimplifying here both the history of the industrial revolution and that of literature--but you see my point.)

[Orwell]

Originally posted by geni
Which means that the problem is one of income dissturbution rather than wealth. So your claim shifts.

No it doesn't: I claim that poverty is the main cause of hunger, and that population growth generally increases poverty (and therefore hunger). Unfair distribution of income doesn't contradict my claim.

Originally posted by geni

certianly to quote:
Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in AfricaBrody S, Potterat JJ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS 14 (7): 431-436 JUL 2003

"Recent epidemiologic analyses suggest that the majority of HIV cases in sub-Saharan Africa may be due to non-sterile health care practices."

Once again, you're over simplifying. Those articles were written three years ago by dissenting scientists that don't represent the opinion of the majority of the medical community.

Here's a balanced look at those claims:

Spread of AIDS in Africa driven by poor medical practice, report says (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7387/466/a)

[jay gw]

Since it was mandatory that all youths be in the Hitler Youth, Ratzinger did nothing wrong as an individual.

The wrong of World War II was what the adult politicians and military did, not a bunch of 14 year old boys.

What the British media are writing is in fact slander, because there is no purpose to it besides mocking Ratzinger. There is no substance to it at all.

The reputable journalists are looking at Ratzinger's politics, not his days as a teenager.

I hate everything Catholic, but what the hell does someone at 14 years old have to do with it?

What the media of the world should be focusing on is why:

* the Catholic Church is sexist
* the CC is racist
* the CC hates gays
* the CC advocates poor people never use contraception
* the CC promotes authoritarianism

That's what the media should be focusing on.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh simplistic ********. You're abusing those logical fallacies. Just read Dickens if you want a description of the consequences of rapid economical changes without population control: urban slums, disease, death and more poverty

Dickens is all fine and good, but in reality, one of the reasons the industrial revolution succeeded is that, for the common man, life as a factory hand in the slums in the cities was BETTER than life as a peasant or farmer in the villages--slums and all.

The average British man in, say, 1870 lived a far better life due to industrialization than the average Briton in 1770 or 1670 (let alone, say, 1370 or 1070...) It was then that life expectancy and infant mortality began to fall, for example.

This is not, of course, to praise the workers' slums as some sort of heaven; but the romantic idea of the factories "destroying" some sort of pastoral, pre-industrial "healthy" life is simply fiction.

The reason that there is no previous Dickens to describe the plight of the poor is not that there were no unhappy poor before Dickens' time, but, more precisely, that they counted for nothing before his time.

It was only due to the increase in literacy brought about by the industrial revolution that common men learned to read and write--and a demand was created for stories about the common man, like Dickens' heroes.

it took almost one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution!

No. The British workers were not slaves. The workers in the first British factory already chose to work there. And why? Because it was better than the alternative, namely, being subsistance farmers, which 95% at least of humanity just HAD to be before the industrial revolution; not to mention the fact that, for the first time, factories made machine-made goods that brought previously-unaffordable goods into the range of, at least, the lower middle class, if not the working class.

The workers benefited from the industrial revolution immediately--just like the owners had.

Again, this is not to say they should--or did--just work there and shut up and be grateful; but it is ludicrous to say the British poor didn't benefit from the industrial revolution. Not AS MUCH as the rich, of course--but just about everything now taken for granted as the right of the poor, from literacy to welfare, had its origins in the industrial revolution.

(Yes, I KNOW I am oversimplifying here both the history of the industrial revolution and that of literature--but you see my point.)

I said that it took one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution. That wasn't very clear, my bad! I've should have said "to benefit significantly" or "to benefit as much as the other classes".

Other than that, I mostly agree with you (by the way, I didn't claim that life in the country was any better). Does that invalidate my claim that fast population increase made things worse for Britain's urban poor? Wouldn't it have been better for them if at the time there was some reliable way to prevent pregnancies?

I know my argument is purely theoretical: they couldn't reliably and cheaply prevent pregnancies back then. But that's precisely the point! There are now reliable and cheap ways to prevent pregnancies, and I'm sure that in those poor countries where they have been widely employed (Bangladesh, Thailand, China for instance), they have contributed to a decrease in poverty!

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's like saying that people in prisons must really like being there, because if they didn't they wouldn't be in it in the first place. Ratzi didn't have a free choice to join the Hitler Jugend, he was forced by law to join it.With the exception of the 1945 Hunger Winter which was caused by war, not overpopulation, I like you to tell me exactly when that last famine was...That would be a nice argument, if it wasn't for the fact that the Netherlands is a net exporter of food. Not only is it able to feed its own population, it is even able to largely feed Germany, other European countries and even some other countries around the world and still have areable land to spare to be the world's largest exporter of flowers.

I am talking throughout history. In centuries past in Japan, most of the civil wars were at least partly due to famine.

You say the Netherlands is a net exporter of food, what does that mean? In monetary terms? In gross tonnage? It doesn't mean anything the way you put it. Also the Netherlands probably imports nearly all of it's beef and other meat products. They are far less productive per acre than just normal foodstuffs. Also, they can afford and have the best farm equipment, herbicides, insecticides and everything else. Not so a country like Bangledesh.

Also you are putting up a strawman arguement. Even if you are correct about the Netherlands it doesn't prove any point nor disprove anything I said. The fact there is one exception or even many doesn't mean what I said isn't a fact.

[Earthborn]

In monetary terms? In gross tonnage?In any measure you like.Also the Netherlands probably imports nearly all of it's beef and other meat products.Sorry to disappoint you, but it is the other way around. The vast amount of meat products used in the Netherlands are produced in the Netherlands, and we export a whole bunch of it as well. Dutch (or more correctly Frisian) cows are well known worldwide for their enormous productivity of both meat and milk.They are far less productive per acre than just normal foodstuffs.Not if you house them the way the Dutch do.Also, they can afford and have the best farm equipment, herbicides, insecticides and everything else.Which just shows how little wealth and poverty has to do with population density.Even if you are correct about the Netherlands it doesn't prove any point nor disprove anything I said. The fact there is one exception or even many doesn't mean what I said isn't a fact.It is your claim a 'over-population' leads to poverty and famine. I think it is highly relevant when the examples you give to supposedly prove that all suggest the opposite. If you want to show that it is a fact, then show the evidence that "if there were 35 million people in Iowa it would suck there too" and it wouldn't be another Japan.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"...I never claimed that. You're injecting your stupidity into my posts."

Not that it has ever had the least effect on your delusions before, but anyone else can easily scroll up and see *exactly* what was said.

You said the Pope was a religious figure...
I made a distinction between the job title of Pope, and being a religious figure of worship, like Jesus...

You came along and accused millions of Catholics of rejecting the 'job title' definition of Pope...
Which within the parameters given, means by default, that you are referencing the stereotype of Catholics worshipping the Pope as they worship Jesus.

You, not somebody else made the choice to type those words...and nobody but you has made the choice to refuse to clarify that you may have meant an out of context and irrlevant reference.
you know what crim...it always makes me giggle when I come across you lecturing people like a school teacher. As one of our resident fabricators and liars I don't really see you as being in any position to critisize anyone.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jay gw
The reputable journalists are looking at Ratzinger's politics, not his days as a teenager.

Should anyone have their actions as a teenager decide on how they were viewed as an adult?

I mean...we sure don't hear much about Jesus' teen years, do we? Apart from that stunt he pulled in the temple, when he was 12, and that can be explained as an hormonal outburst... :D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Not that it has ever had the least effect on your delusions before, but anyone else can easily scroll up and see *exactly* what was said. Yes, crim, we can.

I did.

And you are a pathetic little liar.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
No it doesn't: I claim that poverty is the main cause of hunger, and that population growth generally increases poverty (and therefore hunger). Unfair distribution of income doesn't contradict my claim.

No because it shows that there is enough money in the area to feed everyone. You are also discounting the role of the after effects of colinisation poor governence and war in the creation of poverty in africa.



Once again, you're over simplifying. Those articles were written three years ago by dissenting scientists that don't represent the opinion of the majority of the medical community.

Here's a balanced look at those claims:

Spread of AIDS in Africa driven by poor medical practice, report says (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7387/466/a) [/B]

Which boils down to:

a) this reseach risks makeing people less worried abouyt engageing in high risk behaviour (probably true but not a valid argument against the reseach)

b)things have changed (a stament for which no evidence is given)

c)lack of spread of hepatitis


Now I admit my area is chemistry rather than biology but the orginal papers look ok to me (other than the fact I have a hard time beliving the percentage of medical transmissions is that high).

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std144intro.pdf

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std148main.pdf

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std162stats.pdf

Now this is a transmission rout that we know from western expearence we can shut off. Yet if you look at the majory of anti HIV campains we don't seem to try.

[Skeptic]

I said that it took one hundred years for the British poor to really benefit from the industrial revolution. That wasn't very clear, my bad! I've should have said "to benefit significantly" or "to benefit as much as the other classes".

It depends what you mean by "really" benefit. I see your point; you are correct, if you use the word "really" in the sense that you meant it. It is pointless to quibble over what is the "right" way to use the word "really" here, of course.

Does that invalidate my claim that fast population increase made things worse for Britain's urban poor?

Somewhat.

You see, the population increase was only possible due to the fact that starvation and infant mortality dropped precipitously (sp?). It was not due to having less children--but to having 90%, instead of 40%, of your children survive into adulthood. And that was possible because conditions had greatly improved, not deteriorated, for the average British poor between, say, 1770 and 1870.

Wouldn't it have been better for them if at the time there was some reliable way to prevent pregnancies?

Yes, of course it would.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Not that it has ever had the least effect on your delusions before, but anyone else can easily scroll up and see *exactly* what was said.

You said the Pope was a religious figure...
I made a distinction between the job title of Pope, and being a religious figure of worship, like Jesus...

You came along and accused millions of Catholics of rejecting the 'job title' definition of Pope...
Which within the parameters given, means by default, that you are referencing the stereotype of Catholics worshipping the Pope as they worship Jesus.

You, not somebody else made the choice to type those words...and nobody but you has made the choice to refuse to clarify that you may have meant an out of context and irrlevant reference.

You are wrong.

A religious figure does not mean a deity.

Wikipedia has this list of "religious figures" in the Renaissance: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Renaissance_figures)
* Pope Nicholas V
* Pope Pius II
* Pope Sixtus IV
* Pope Alexander VI
* Pope Julius II
* Pope Leo X
* Girolamo Savonarola
* Martin Luther

None, I think, are considered deities.

Who2 has this list of "religious figures": (http://www.who2.com/job/religiousfigure.html)

* Arinze, Francis
* Asahara, Shoko
* Baha'u'llah
* Benedict XVI
* Buddha
* Dalai Lama
* Fox Sisters, The
* Hildegard von Bingen
* Hubbard, L. Ron
* John Paul I
* John Paul II
* Jones, Jim
* Koresh, David
* Moon, Sun Myung
* Mother Teresa
* Muhammad
* O'Hair, Madalyn Murray
* Pius IX
* Pope Joan
* Pope Julius II
* Prabhupada, Srila
* Raël
* Richelieu, Cardinal
* Rumi, Jalal Al-Din
* Russell, Charles T.
* Sadr, Muqtada al-
* Scola, Angelo
* Smith, Joseph
* Tettamanzi, Cardinal Dionigi
* White, Ellen G.
* X, Malcolm
* Young, Brigham
* Zoroaster

Some are deities, some are not. But a "religious figure" is not a deity.

You are factually wrong.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by geni
No because it shows that there is enough money in the area to feed everyone. You are also discounting the role of the after effects of colinisation poor governence and war in the creation of poverty in africa.

Uhhhh... No I'm not! It's you who isn't getting what I'm saying. Enough money in the area to feed everyone still means poverty for the majority if the money isn't fairly distributed among the population. See, I'm not talking about the causes of poverty. Yes, poverty is caused by a bunch of different factors, an important one being rapid increases in population. I'm talking about the main cause of hunger, which is poverty.

Why do I have to spend so much time defending the bloody obvious?

Originally posted by geni

Which boils down to:

a) this reseach risks makeing people less worried abouyt engageing in high risk behaviour (probably true but not a valid argument against the reseach)

b)things have changed (a stament for which no evidence is given)

c)lack of spread of hepatitis


Now I admit my area is chemistry rather than biology but the orginal papers look ok to me (other than the fact I have a hard time beliving the percentage of medical transmissions is that high).

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std144intro.pdf

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std148main.pdf

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std162stats.pdf

Now this is a transmission rout that we know from western expearence we can shut off. Yet if you look at the majory of anti HIV campains we don't seem to try.

You know, I had a lot of trouble finding a decent article talking about the research of those scientists you mentioned. I wonder how seriously their research is being taken by the medical community... However, that doesn't make them wrong. Maybe non-sexual routes play an important role in AIDS transmission in Africa. But those articles don't mention how important this route of infection is, for the most part. I remain sceptical. Also, that doesn't change the fact that once someone is infected (sexually or non-sexually), it is important, amongst other things, to use safe sex practices to avoid infecting other people through sexual transmission.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Does that invalidate my claim that fast population increase made things worse for Britain's urban poor?

Somewhat.

You see, the population increase was only possible due to the fact that starvation and infant mortality dropped precipitously (sp?). It was not due to having less children--but to having 90%, instead of 40%, of your children survive into adulthood. And that was possible because conditions had greatly improved, not deteriorated, for the average British poor between, say, 1770 and 1870.

Wouldn't it have been better for them if at the time there was some reliable way to prevent pregnancies?

Yes, of course it would.

We basically agree then. Yes, living conditions of the poor improved (no point in arguing about how much they improved), but they would have improved even more had there been some kind of control on the growth of the population.

[Orwell]

See, all I'm saying is that widely available cheap contraception and widespread usage of condoms in areas affected by endemic AIDS are good things, that they improve sanitary conditions, play an important role in decreasing poverty and that they increase life expectancy in poor countries.

Yet these simple elementary things are opposed by religious conservatives like the new pope and the current US administration.

[davefoc]

Does the current administration oppose the use of contraception in Africa?

I am not a big fan of the Bush administration but I didn't know they opposed contraception.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by davefoc
Does the current administration oppose the use of contraception in Africa?

I am not a big fan of the Bush administration but I didn't know they opposed contraception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060103.html

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0330/p03s01-usfp.html

http://www.planetwire.org/details/2211

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/22/roe.wade/

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Uhhhh... No I'm not! It's you who isn't getting what I'm saying. Enough money in the area to feed everyone still means poverty for the majority if the money isn't fairly distributed among the population. See, I'm not talking about the causes of poverty. Yes, poverty is caused by a bunch of different factors, an important one being rapid increases in population. I'm talking about the main cause of hunger, which is poverty.


This should be corrected to read: Yes, poverty is caused by a bunch of different factors, an important one being rapid increases in population together with an bad economical conditions (like in most of Africa).

What's with this dumb rule that we can't edit our own posts after 120 minutes?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Uhhhh... No I'm not! It's you who isn't getting what I'm saying. Enough money in the area to feed everyone still means poverty for the majority if the money isn't fairly distributed among the population. See, I'm not talking about the causes of poverty. Yes, poverty is caused by a bunch of different factors, an important one being rapid increases in population. I'm talking about the main cause of hunger, which is poverty.

Why do I have to spend so much time defending the bloody obvious?


Money doesn't feed people. Food does.

[jay gw]

Yet these simple elementary things are opposed by religious conservatives like the new pope and the current US administration.

The religious conservatives in the US are losing followers every day. So is the Catholic Church.

That's why I am making the prediction that by the end of the 21st century, 2099, the Catholic Church will have lost 50 percent of their following.

Perhaps more.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by jay gw:
The religious conservatives in the US are losing followers every day. So is the Catholic Church.

Really? Apparently the number of Catholics is growing, rather than contracting, and the reports I've read indicate that religious conservativism in the US is in rude good health. Contrast with wishy-washy variants like the Church of England, which is dead on it's feet.

Wahrheit wrote:
What Ratzinger has said and done recently, or after WW II, was way more harmful, and certainly killed more people, than whatever he did as a kid in Hitler Youth.

What did he say, exactly?

Vagabond wrote:
But, as the new pope he now becomes the one responsible for perhaps a million children starving to death in overpopulated countries, and for the perhaps tens of millions that have aids and will ultimately die from it because they won't allow birth control and condoms. The pope is directly responsible for more pain, suffering and death in the world by promoting their mindless dogma than Hitler himself ever even dreamed of.

Evidence? Is there a higher incidence of AIDS among Catholics than other denominations? Most of my immediate family adhere to the papal writ, yet none of them have contracted AIDS.

Originally posted by Ex-Lion Tamer:
Now, in Africa, it is obvious that AIDS is mostly transmitted by sexual intercourse. Come on, do you believe that African get AIDs through intravenous drug injections or blood transfusions?

How many Africans are Catholics? Are African Catholics more likely to contract AIDS than those Africans who subscribe to different faiths? Less so even?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Money doesn't feed people. Food does.

Do you produce your own food? With what do you finance irrigation systems? How do you get fertilisers and insecticides? In other words, how do you go beyond simple subsistence farming? If there's a drought, who do you think will starve, the poor or the rich?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Do you produce your own food? With what do you finance irrigation systems? How do you get fertilisers and insecticides? In other words, how do you go beyond simple subsistence farming? If there's a drought, who do you think will starve, the poor or the rich?

On balance I'm going for the group who's social norms prevent them constructing irrigation systems.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
This is slanderous, and regardless of what you believe, this is wrong.
Well, if he isn't prepared to take the heat, he can step down, I'm sure.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Well, if he isn't prepared to take the heat, he can step down, I'm sure.

I'm sure he's prepared to take the heat, but it's still wrong.

On another point, one problem I've had with the CC, (and my information could be wrong about this), is that there seems to be a lack of practical information being dispensed to the people they claim to be serving. I've yet to hear of a Catholic Priest, monk, nun, layman, who spends time building wells for those in African villages. The last time I checked, much of the starvation and misery in Africa was due to a lack of fresh water, (though not all.)

And if the truth be told, I've had the same argument with Protestant missionaries. In my encounters with them, I've had to fight with them over the physical necessities as opposed to the perceived spiritual ones. In one instance, I had a long drawn out fight with a guy who was prepared to take Bibles to Kenya, in an area with a literacy rate that was well below 50%. (You figure it out.) My argument to the man was that if you have people who can't read, what good is a Bible? It's not even good for wiping your @$$.

He was prepared to take Bibles, but no tools or pipe, or medical supplies, ("The Lord shall prepare the way"), or anything else which might have helped the people he was trying to "save" from HELLFIRE! (Just for you, 1in!)

Frankly, it would be my belief that if a Church were to tend to the basics first, such as making sure there were clean water, decent housing, medical assistance, basic education, crops in the ground, and the like, maybe then, they might have some room to preach. Until then, I don't think so.

[geni]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
On another point, one problem I've had with the CC, (and my information could be wrong about this), is that there seems to be a lack of practical information being dispensed to the people they claim to be serving. I've yet to hear of a Catholic Priest, monk, nun, layman, who spends time building wells for those in African villages. The last time I checked, much of the starvation and misery in Africa was due to a lack of fresh water, (though not all.)


http://www.cafod.org.uk/where_we_work/africa

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by geni
http://www.cafod.org.uk/where_we_work/africa

Thanks, Geni. That's good info to know.

Still, it's not really enough, is it? Will it ever be?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Tony
Why is it wrong to slander a religious figure?

Ask Cleopatra. Because if in Greece you can be jailed for it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are wrong.

A religious figure does not mean a deity.

Wikipedia has this list of "religious figures" in the Renaissance: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Renaissance_figures)
* Pope Nicholas V
* Pope Pius II
* Pope Sixtus IV
* Pope Alexander VI
* Pope Julius II
* Pope Leo X
* Girolamo Savonarola
* Martin Luther

None, I think, are considered deities.

Who2 has this list of "religious figures": (http://www.who2.com/job/religiousfigure.html)

* Arinze, Francis
* Asahara, Shoko
* Baha'u'llah
* Benedict XVI
* Buddha
* Dalai Lama
* Fox Sisters, The
* Hildegard von Bingen
* Hubbard, L. Ron
* John Paul I
* John Paul II
* Jones, Jim
* Koresh, David
* Moon, Sun Myung
* Mother Teresa
* Muhammad
* O'Hair, Madalyn Murray
* Pius IX
* Pope Joan
* Pope Julius II
* Prabhupada, Srila
* Raël
* Richelieu, Cardinal
* Rumi, Jalal Al-Din
* Russell, Charles T.
* Sadr, Muqtada al-
* Scola, Angelo
* Smith, Joseph
* Tettamanzi, Cardinal Dionigi
* White, Ellen G.
* X, Malcolm
* Young, Brigham
* Zoroaster

Some are deities, some are not. But a "religious figure" is not a deity.

You are factually wrong.

Thanks Claus, you've saved me the time and effort of debunking that guy's ignorance.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Do you produce your own food? With what do you finance irrigation systems? How do you get fertilisers and insecticides? In other words, how do you go beyond simple subsistence farming? If there's a drought, who do you think will starve, the poor or the rich?

If there isn't enough food to go around, people will starve no matter how much money is in the area. When food is plentiful, it will get to everyone, even those with very little money.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If there isn't enough food to go around, people will starve no matter how much money is in the area. When food is plentiful, it will get to everyone, even those with very little money.

Trickle down economics applied to food distribution! Hurrah!

Yeah, some people will get really fat and hoard large amounts of food to speculate with it, while others will not quite die of starvation but suffer from constant malnutrition!

:D

Efficient food production requires capital for machinery, irrigation, fertilisers, etc.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If there isn't enough food to go around, people will starve no matter how much money is in the area. When food is plentiful, it will get to everyone, even those with very little money.

What about those who don't have money at all?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Trickle down economics applied to food distribution! Hurrah!

Yeah, some people will get really fat and hoard large amounts of food to speculate with it, while others will not quite die of starvation but suffer from constant malnutrition!

:D

Efficient food production requires capital for machinery, irrigation, fertilisers, etc.

You've got your terms backwards. Trickle down economics refers to money. We're talking about the product you buy with money.

You see, the thing about money is its value is always variable. It's value depends on the goods and services available to be purchased with it.

It doesn't make sense to claim a region doesn't have enough money to feed its inhabitants. The inhabitants don't eat money. Rather, the region doesn't have enough food.

Your fantasy scenario where the wealthy hoard food for speculation makes no sense. If there is a shortage, then the time to sell while prices are high is at hand. A more sensible approach, and driven by profit, would be for your hypothetical wealthy hoarders to invest their wealth in the very machinery, irrigation, fertilizers, etc. that are required to create more food. This is far more profitable than hoarding the available food.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What about those who don't have money at all?

If there isn't enough food, people starve. No economic model can change that.

However, if the economy is healthy, there are no people that have no money.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If there isn't enough food, people starve. No economic model can change that.
In the absence of civil war or similar there will always be enough food if there's enough money. Denmark is not going to starve if our havest fail we'll simply import US corn.

Originally posted by Mycroft
However, if the economy is healthy, there are no people that have no money.
Ehh, Doh!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If there isn't enough food, people starve. No economic model can change that.

That wasn't what I asked.

Originally posted by Mycroft
However, if the economy is healthy, there are no people that have no money.

Then, no economy has ever been "healthy". It still doesn't solve the problem, though: What should people with no money do, then? Starve to death?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You've got your terms backwards. Trickle down economics refers to money. We're talking about the product you buy with money.

You see, the thing about money is its value is always variable. It's value depends on the goods and services available to be purchased with it.

It doesn't make sense to claim a region doesn't have enough money to feed its inhabitants. The inhabitants don't eat money. Rather, the region doesn't have enough food.

Your fantasy scenario where the wealthy hoard food for speculation makes no sense. If there is a shortage, then the time to sell while prices are high is at hand. A more sensible approach, and driven by profit, would be for your hypothetical wealthy hoarders to invest their wealth in the very machinery, irrigation, fertilizers, etc. that are required to create more food. This is far more profitable than hoarding the available food.

Uhhh, it was a half serious joke, designed to annoy a neocon. See, I used a smiley... But I'm glad you took the time to explain my joke in such great detail!

It still doesn't change the fat that you need money to finance an efficient agriculture capable of going beyond subsistence level production.

[Skeptic]

Your fantasy scenario where the wealthy hoard food for speculation makes no sense. If there is a shortage, then the time to sell while prices are high is at hand.

This, incidentally, is precisely Adam Smith's point about the hated and unpopular Corn (that is, wheat...) Merchant: it is not charity, but precisely his self-interest, that sets prices at a tolerable level.

Speaking of bread, I always liked Beirce's definition of the Ka'aba: "A large stone presented by the archangel Gabriel to the patriarch Abraham, and preserved at Mecca. The patriarch had perhaps asked the archangel for bread."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Kerberos
In the absence of civil war or similar there will always be enough food if there's enough money. Denmark is not going to starve if our havest fail we'll simply import US corn.


And the Danes will eat food, not money. :)