Little girl's encounter with Pope a farce

[Rotobeast]

(09-28-2015, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If by good Germans you mean those who are going to hell for turning away from the one true faith as opposed to going to hell for genocide I guess you may be right.  

Yes. (not commenting on the "One True Faith", as I don't recognize one)
My family came over waaay before those bad Germans took over.
Like 1780's early.


Before I get hit with some immigrant propaganda/banter, I'm part Cherokee, so that balances things out.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2015, 01:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yes.
My family came over waaay before those bad Germans took over.
Like 1780's early.


Before I get hit with some immigrant propaganda/banter, I'm part Cherokee, so that balances things out.

Yeah, some of my family started over here around 1740, they were likely Mennonites/Amish. That was my father's side. Mother's side was in the late 18th, early 19th century (I know because of civil war era records of their oppression and murder) and were Dunkers/Dunkards.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2015, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If by good Germans you mean those who are going to hell for turning away from the one true faith as opposed to going to hell for genocide I guess you may be right.  

It's funny, in Germany there is a south/north divide as well. Much the same as in this country, the northerners consider the southerners religious nutjobs and the southerners consider the northerners godless heathens.

That may a bit hyperbolic, but it's just funny to me how a similar divide to what exists here exists over there.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-28-2015, 01:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yes. (not commenting on the "One True Faith", as I don't recognize one)
My family came over waaay before those bad Germans took over.
Like 1780's early.


Before I get hit with some immigrant propaganda/banter, I'm part Cherokee, so that balances things out.

So slaveholders. 

Good German:

1.Catholic
2.Came after 1865
3.Came before 1933.

Hey my ancestors fit all of those.  Weird.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2015, 02:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So slaveholders. 

Good German:

1.Catholic
2.Came after 1865
3.Came before 1933.

Hey my ancestors fit all of those.  Weird.

Actually, us Anabaptist types were all abolitionists. Not a slaveholder among them.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 10:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The catholic church told me that.  Since you disagree maybe you'd like to enlighten us then as to the reasoning behind the church's rabid anti-birth control stance?

Birth control is one of those things that takes the guard rails off of society, so to speak.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said, your argument is a semantic one.  I wonder why life support doesn't violate nature? 

When a caveman couldn't hunt his group would bring him or her food. It's not much different.

[Rotobeast]

(09-28-2015, 02:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So slaveholders. 

Good German:

1.Catholic
2.Came after 1865
3.Came before 1933.

Hey my ancestors fit all of those.  Weird.

No slaves that I've ever heard of.
Just farmers making a living across western PA, eastern OH, and the group I'm from being in Circleville, OH.
I've never known anything other than working for what I have.
I have more scars on one hand than 3 average people have on their entire bodies, added together.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 03:34 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Birth control is one of those things that takes the guard rails off of society, so to speak.

Do laws remove the guard rails, too?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 03:36 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: When a caveman couldn't hunt his group would bring him or her food. It's not much different.

1.  How do you know this?

2.  Eskimos would place the invalid on ice floes and float them into the ocean to die.

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 04:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1.  How do you know this?

2.  Eskimos would place the invalid on ice floes and float them into the ocean to die.

1. Some caveman documentary

2. All Eskimos? Or just one specific tribe?

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do laws remove the guard rails, too?

Depends on the law

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 05:17 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: 1. Some caveman documentary 

I'm going to need some evidence to support your claim other than "some caveman documentary."

Quote:2. All Eskimos? Or just one specific tribe?

Whether it was all or some, does it change the point?  No.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 05:20 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Depends on the law

Okay, explain how birth control removes the guard rails of society.

[Benton]

(09-28-2015, 03:36 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: When a caveman couldn't hunt his group would bring him or her food. It's not much different.

There's more evidence (as in some) cavemen ate those who couldn't hunt instead of went and did their work for them. Cannibalism wasn't uncommon according to fossil research, especially eating children.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/cannibalism-early-humans-bones-101213.htm

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 05:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm going to need some evidence to support your claim other than "some caveman documentary."

Whether it was all or some, does it change the point?  No.

Caveman cared enough about they're loved ones to bury them, with useful things like clothes and tools.

One can then assume they would help their loved ones enough to care for them when they are sick.

And yes it does change things. Your one example doesn't exactly demonstrate a trend

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 05:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, explain how birth control removes the guard rails of society.

First off, do you believe society should have gaurd rails?

[Naranja Tigre]

(09-28-2015, 05:31 PM)Benton Wrote:

There's more evidence (as in some) cavemen ate those who couldn't hunt instead of went and did their work for them. Cannibalism wasn't uncommon according to fossil research, especially eating children.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/cannibalism-early-humans-bones-101213.htm

Where does it say they would eat their own family members?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 07:19 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Caveman cared enough about they're loved ones to bury them, with useful things like clothes and tools.

One can then assume they would help their loved ones enough to care for them when they are sick.

And yes it does change things. Your one example doesn't exactly demonstrate a trend

1.  I would think you could be more specific than cavemen.  Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc.  "Caveman" seems a bit nonspecific for an electrical engineering major.

2.  That is a big assumption to assume cavemen would bring injured female cavemen food when they were too sick/injured/old to hunt because they would bury them with clothes.  (Hell, I didn't even know female cavemen participated in hunting parties.)  Again, I have trouble believing an electrical engineer major would make that type of assumption.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 07:31 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Where does it say they would eat their own family members?

Exactly.  Where did Benton write they would eat their own family members.  Electrical engineers are usually more anal . . . err . . . detail oriented.