Pope OKs condoms

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Castout

One who has to rely on fear to keep ruling has their days numbered.
It's not a sustainable method of ruling and it destroys the fabric of civilized society. It is a sign of desperation and brutish low level inspiration and intellect. Fear is primal and it means the regime is the one which is afraid the most which points they have been reduced to existential thing where their purpose of ruling is just to keep existing instead of bringing progress and good to society. It's decay and not mere stagnation.

Only fools govern with fear but a fool is a fool. Fear works as long as it destroys the most able segment of society because only the inferior would tolerate tyranny. And this means the society will have to do with less than desirable competence and character who are bringing more problems than solution. Sooner or later civilization will grind to a halt for these inferior people to continue ruling. Give man his freedom and he will fight and contribute like no other. This is the reason why Israelis kept winning their biggest wars IMO(1948, 1967 and 1973) and why America is what it is(until some fools think otherwise that is).

On the other hand the Vatican is a prime example of sustainable ruling even when they abuse their power from time to time....simply because they have successfully created an image of ruling by rights of moral authority. Moral authority is the foundation of every kind of authority. As the Vatican has proved it doesn't even have to be REAL all the time or right all the time.

Mind you moral authority doesn't stem from the non existent of the perception of vice on the part of the ruling party. It has to go more than that and able to project and demonstrate good, positive and benevolent and just actions .Most dictatorial regime on the other hand such as in Singapore are only concerned to abolish the image of vice to their ruling elite which is not enough and which is countered by their own corrupt deeds(a fool can't help themselves) even when those are not published by mainstream media or carefully hid.

Send a team of green berets to a country which depends on the climate of fear to maintain control and you'll have an armed revolution. Well as long as they are well supplied and time is of no essence. A country which is run mostly by fear will collapse at the intervention of foreign powers who are able to play this fear card well to their advantage. This is also why my country lost East Timor in a ballot. They had a few decades and they screwed it up.

Good post

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Castout

One who has to rely on fear to keep ruling has their days numbered.

That may be, but it can be a rather large number sometimes.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Castout

One who has to rely on fear to keep ruling has their days numbered.
It's not a sustainable method of ruling and it destroys the fabric of civilized society. It is a sign of desperation and brutish low level inspiration and intellect. Fear is primal and it means the regime is the one which is afraid the most which points they have been reduced to existential thing where their purpose of ruling is just to keep existing instead of bringing progress and good to society. It's decay and not mere stagnation.

Only fools govern with fear but a fool is a fool. Fear works as long as it destroys the most able segment of society because only the inferior would tolerate tyranny. And this means the society will have to do with less than desirable competence and character who are bringing more problems than solution. Sooner or later civilization will grind to a halt for these inferior people to continue ruling. Give man his freedom and he will fight and contribute like no other. This is the reason why Israelis kept winning their biggest wars IMO(1948, 1967 and 1973) and why America is what it is(until some fools think otherwise that is).

On the other hand the Vatican is a prime example of sustainable ruling even when they abuse their power from time to time....simply because they have successfully created an image of ruling by rights of moral authority. Moral authority is the foundation of every kind of authority. As the Vatican has proved it doesn't even have to be REAL all the time or right all the time.

Mind you moral authority doesn't stem from the non existent of the perception of vice on the part of the ruling party. It has to go more than that and able to project and demonstrate good, positive and benevolent and just actions .Most dictatorial regime on the other hand such as in Singapore are only concerned to abolish the image of vice to their ruling elite which is not enough and which is countered by their own corrupt deeds(a fool can't help themselves) even when those are not published by mainstream media or carefully hid.

Send a team of green berets to a country which depends on the climate of fear to maintain control and you'll have an armed revolution. Well as long as they are well supplied and time is of no essence. A country which is run mostly by fear will collapse at the intervention of foreign powers who are able to play this fear card well to their advantage. This is also why my country lost East Timor in a ballot. They had a few decades and they screwed it up.

Great post
But i still have to disagree with you about 1 thing though,
moral authority is losing its influence. Every few years, someone like Marilyn Manson comes along and pushes the boundaries about what society deems "acceptable"

you said that "Mind you moral authority doesn't stem from the non existent of the perception of vice on the part of the ruling party. It has to go more than that and able to project and demonstrate good, positive and benevolent and just actions ."

Its sad but now days an increasing amount of young people no longer cares about good, positive and benevolent and just when making decisions

And anyways, the bible uses scare tactics quite a lot,

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Bring on the whores!

So wait... so in the past, I could have been with a hooker (not a sin), but if I used a condom, that would have been a sin?

So now...wait, I'm confused



WWDD?
(what would dowly do?)

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

So wait... so in the past, I could have been with a hooker (not a sin), but if I used a condom, that would have been a sin?

So now...wait, I'm confused

I think when the Pope means "Male Prostitutes" he means Homosexual Male Prostitutes. Which is a sin according to them.

Heterosexual male prostitutes don't exist, after all everyone knows that you don't need to pay a man money to sleep with a women.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

WWDD?
(what would dowly do?)

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

WWDD?
(what would dowly do?)

Something along the lines of "Good that Pope Benedict is saying condoms are ok. But really, who goes to an 83 year old German virgin for advice on sex?"