Snoopy contraception bet

[Ben Kenobi]

Damn if only those ignorant foreigners realized that the thousands of children around the world who starve every day just needed to be taken to "the local convent".

Still waiting for a [[citation needed]] gribbler. You say there are 'children no one wants'. I contest this.

[kentonio]

[[citation needed]]

There's this place you might of heard of called Africa..

So what you're saying is that there's no populationcrisis, there's never been a population crisis and fearmongering and demogoguery on this topic proved to be wrong.

There isn't an immediate population crisis in the first world (although there is in other parts of the world) but a crisis in future would be inevitable if populations continue to rise. This is utterly obvious to anyone who knows what the word 'finite' means.

Yes, it is a bad thing. Aging population is also a bad thing because it's an inflection in the second derivative of growth. We're just starting to see the effects since 2000, in essentially flat market growth and drops in real value.

These things only matter in the short term. Old people die off, and if you have a smaller population you do not need an ever expanding economy to support that smaller population. The idea that economy and population have to keep expanding is stupid and short sighted.

I firmly believe that if you can have children and choose to get married that you should have children with your spouse. If you don't want to have children but can, don't get married. It's not fair to the other partner.

Please stop talking out of your ass. Whether or not to have children is a conversation that most couples have when they're discussing staying together long term, and its not at all uncommon for both people to not want children. Sometimes they change their minds over time but sometimes they don't. That is and should always be a choice for them as a partnership to make, and the idea that your 'firm beliefs' should be more important than theirs is pretty mindbogglingly arrogant of you.

[snoopy369]

OK, Jaguar agreed to act as escrow agent. I do want to state the bet explicitly, as you left out some wording from my previous post.

As of 10 years (6/25/2023), the Catholic Church will reverse its position on Contraception; specifically, will permit its members to use contraception in some form (one or more forms is sufficient), or otherwise removes the prohibition to do so [such as by choosing to not comment either for or against contraception]. This is subject to the following terms:
A) The bet will be judged in favor of Snoopy, if the Church clearly reverses its position, or clearly changes its position to be neutral. This may occur at any time. This must occur via a Papal Bull or some other similar statement made on behalf of the entire Church, not solely based on a single bishop or similar, unless a particular bishop is permitted to speak on behalf of the Church explicitly.
B) The bet will be judged in favor of Ben, if the Church on 6/25/2023 maintains a position substantially similar to its current position, that contraception is not permitted, and has not during the intervening time taken a position contrary.
C) If Pope Francis dies prior to the completion of either A) or B), the bet is cancelled and all funds reimbursed to both parties (even if the position is later changed). Further, if the Church implicitly reverses its position (by allowing the various dioceses to tell their members contraception is permitted, and does not explicitly condemn that, but also does not explicitly support it or permit it) then the bet is cancelled as ambiguous and the funds are reimbursed to both parties.
D) The adjudicator for this will be Jaguar, who may ask others more versed in the Catholic Church to assist in interpreting anything that is not clear.

Let me know if those terms are sufficient to you, or if you want anything added or changed. I do specifically want C) in there, as it was clearly worded in my original post that this will happen subject to Francis living long enough to see it done.

[-Jrabbit]

Yup, this thread is every bit as stupid as its title suggested it would be.

[Ben Kenobi]

As of 10 years (6/25/2023), the Catholic Church will reverse its position on Contraception; specifically, will permit its members to use contraception in some form (one or more forms is sufficient), or otherwise removes the prohibition to do so [such as by choosing to not comment either for or against contraception]. This is subject to the following terms:

Nope. I'm willing to agree to this:

As of 10 years (6/25/2023), the Catholic Church will reverse its position on Contraception; in that it will explicitly change the teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to permit Contraception. Specifically section 2366

Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

Will be removed/changed/altered in such a way as the Church affirms the use of contraception within marriage.

C) If Pope Francis dies prior to the completion of either A) or B), the bet is cancelled and all funds reimbursed to both parties (even if the position is later changed).

Fine by me.

D) The adjudicator for this will be Jaguar, who may ask others more versed in the Catholic Church to assist in interpreting anything that is not clear.

Don't agree with this either.

Let me know if those terms are sufficient to you, or if you want anything added or changed. I do specifically want C) in there, as it was clearly worded in my original post that this will happen subject to Francis living long enough to see it done.

I'm fine with C. The terms need to be revised so that it is unambiguous. If the Catechism changes, that satisfies your condition of a change in the teachings of the Catholic church. If we're going to have an ajudicator since I'm the Catholic, I'll select someone that Jag can consult.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's this place you might of heard of called Africa..

Wow. that's, almost an actual citation!

There isn't an immediate population crisis in the first world

Actually, there is a forthcoming population crisis in the first world. Not *enough* people. There is an immediate crisis in Russia, Japan and China.

but a crisis in future would be inevitable if populations continue to rise. This is utterly obvious to anyone who knows what the word 'finite' means.

Even the UN refuses to make this claim, indicating it is likely for population to decline by 2050. Long term - there is no population crisis.

These things only matter in the short term.

Long term, you get death spiral. See "Japan".

Old people die off, and if you have a smaller population you do not need an ever expanding economy to support that smaller population.

Just the opposite. Old people tend to be more expensive than younger people. Insofar as you have social security, you have a smaller taxbase and larger debts and obligations. Hence Death Spiral, once the ratios get bad enough.

The idea that economy and population have to keep expanding is stupid and short sighted.

The idea that killing off a third of a generation has no long term economic effects is short sighted. The idea that market economies work with an increase in demand isn't short sighted, it's right there in the theory.

Please stop talking out of your ass. Whether or not to have children is a conversation that most couples have when they're discussing staying together long term, and its not at all uncommon for both people to not want children.

Again, if both are able then both ought to have children. If one is unable then there is nothing wrong with getting married and not having children. My experience is that people often *don't* talk about this, find themselves in the relationship, get married and then one of the parties says, "no, I don't want kids".

In this circumstance, would you say that divorce is warranted?

Sometimes they change their minds over time but sometimes they don't. That is and should always be a choice for them as a partnership to make, and the idea that your 'firm beliefs' should be more important than theirs is pretty mindbogglingly arrogant of you.

The law actually backs me up on this, as differences as to whether to have or not have children is considered grounds for divorce. If, as you believe, this is irrelevant, than the fact that one partner changes their mind and wants children would not be considered grounds for divorce.

[giblets]

Still waiting for a [[citation needed]] gribbler. You say there are 'children no one wants'. I contest this.

18,000 children die every day of hunger, U.N. says
I guess those lazy nuns had better get off their asses and start feeding these children.

[Ben Kenobi]

So Gribbler - do the children die because they are unwanted or because their parents are unable to feed them?

[giblets]

So Gribbler - do the children die because they are unwanted or because their parents are unable to feed them?

Both. If either condition wasn't met they would be alive. For the people who can't afford children I would suggest not having them in the first place.

[kentonio]

Wow. that's, almost an actual citation!

You need a citation about there having been large scale famines in Africa in recent times? Seriously? Are you actually retarded?

Actually, there is a forthcoming population crisis in the first world. Not *enough* people.

This only matters if we insist that continually growing the overall size of the economy matters. It doesn't.

Even the UN refuses to make this claim, indicating it is likely for population to decline by 2050. Long term - there is no population crisis.

Please learn to read. I said IF populations continue to rise. You in this very thread are advocating for something that would cause exactly that to happen.

Just the opposite. Old people tend to be more expensive than younger people. Insofar as you have social security, you have a smaller taxbase and larger debts and obligations. Hence Death Spiral, once the ratios get bad enough.

Again, learn to read. Old people die, meaning this is a short term problem.

The idea that killing off a third of a generation has no long term economic effects is short sighted. The idea that market economies work with an increase in demand isn't short sighted, it's right there in the theory.

Yes it has long term effects. The idiocy is in thinking that those effects have to be detrimental. If the world had a smaller population in 50 years, why would we need the economy to keep growing? What exactly is it that we're expecting to do with those resources?

Again, if both are able then both ought to have children. If one is unable then there is nothing wrong with getting married and not having children. My experience is that people often *don't* talk about this, find themselves in the relationship, get married and then one of the parties says, "no, I don't want kids".

You have no experience. You're a religious fanatic virgin who has never been in a serious relationship with a woman. Please don't insult the normal human beings in the room by pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

In this circumstance, would you say that divorce is warranted?

This is a not uncommon reason for divorce. It is not as a result of the question never having been posed however, but usually as a result of one partner changing their mind. I know of several couples this has happened to.

The law actually backs me up on this, as differences as to whether to have or not have children is considered grounds for divorce. If, as you believe, this is irrelevant, than the fact that one partner changes their mind and wants children would not be considered grounds for divorce.

Please for once in your life actually discuss something honestly and openly, rather than indulging in your pathetic little word games. Just once. Try it, you might actually find that people treat you with a little more respect and a little less contempt.

[kentonio]

DP

[Ben Kenobi]

You need a citation about there having been large scale famines in Africa in recent times? Seriously? Are you actually retarded?

Yes, yes, I do.

This only matters if we insist that continually growing the overall size of the economy matters. It doesn't.

Actually, yes, growing the economy matters because debt is growing faster than the growth of the economy. If the economy doesn't grow then debt will crush it.

Please learn to read. I said IF populations continue to rise. You in this very thread are advocating for something that would cause exactly that to happen.

You're asserting the problem at present *does* exist. I am arguing, long term, that the problem does not exist.

Again, learn to read. Old people die, meaning this is a short term problem.

No, it's not a short term problem.

2 people have one child. Only child marries another only child. 4 grandparents 2 children, one grandchild. Even if the four grandparents die, you've still got an inverted population pyramid.

Yes it has long term effects. The idiocy is in thinking that those effects have to be detrimental. If the world had a smaller population in 50 years, why would we need the economy to keep growing? What exactly is it that we're expecting to do with those resources?

Debt. Debt doesn't go away.

You have no experience. You're a religious fanatic virgin who has never been in a serious relationship with a woman. Please don't insult the normal human beings in the room by pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

Umm, I know people in my family who have done just this. And yes, I was as incredulous as you - but yes, both said they never discussed it prior to getting married and then split up later on.

This is a not uncommon reason for divorce. It is not as a result of the question never having been posed however, but usually as a result of one partner changing their mind. I know of several couples this has happened to.

As have I. The point being the understanding that marriage is supposed to bring about children. That is why it's considered grounds for divorce.

Please for once in your life actually discuss something honestly and openly, rather than indulging in your pathetic little word games. Just once. Try it, you might actually find that people treat you with a little more respect and a little less contempt.

I'm sorry you don't like the argument. But, it is logical. If there is no expectation of children in marriage than a disagreement between husband and wife over having children would not be considered grounds for divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the people who can't afford children I would suggest not having them in the first place.

So, by logic, you believe food stamps should only be granted to single people.

[kentonio]

I can't really be bothered with the rest of your nonsense (and I can't believe I got lured into it in the first place), but I'll respond to this one point.

As have I. The point being the understanding that marriage is supposed to bring about children. That is why it's considered grounds for divorce.

This is wrong. The expectation is that both partners want the same things out of life. If one partner wants children and one does not, that represents a potentially disastrous blow to the relationship. It has nothing to do with any supposition of marriage = children, it's simply about compatible expectations.

[kentonio]

Jon Miller