mil-ob wrote, "Good to see such recognition for a Stalingrad-style thumping against fascism."

Yeah, whatever, mil-ob.

I guess someone will have to take you aside one day and explain to you concepts such as sarcasm and irony.

mil-ob wrote, "he means rather that we didn't answer every silly leading question!"

Like asking where John Brumby stated that there were 'too many people' or your basis for labelling John Brumby a Malthusian rather than the irresponsible population growth pusher that he is?

Or taking exception to your idiotic inference that if one is critical in any way of someone such as Jared Diamond, that we necessarily concede that none of what he says is any good?

Or challenging your insistence that we place all our faith on unproven technologies instead of taking prudent precautions?

etc, etc, etc.

---

If you choose to avoid making your stances clear by not answering perfectly simple straightforward questions, then that's fine by me, mil-ob.

However, I think I am entitled to draw the attention of others to your silence and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

mo

The idea that you can use a person's stance on population as a measure of their morality is stupid. Look at the history of the RC Church in South America. An advocate of population growth, yet their mo was one of exterminating the intelligentsia and destroying records of culture: In short, a cultural genocide.

Perhaps you and Cheryl might provide me with some compelling evidence for believing that a person's morality correlates with his attitude toward population growth.

Speaking of "silly", what's "cultural genocide"?

A pretty rancid-tasting red herring, only with some pointedly anti-catholic bigotry to wash it down.

mil-ob asks, "what's 'cultural genocide'?"

I would have thought it referred to what colonial nations did to (usually ecologically sustainable) indigenous cultures so that the people from those cultures could be used as fodder (either as slaves or on low wages) in ecologically unsustainable monoculture agriculture or in factories to serve the needs of the colonial nation. The church hierarchies of the colonial nations, both Catholic and Protestant were used as a tool to destroy those native cultures.

I would have thought that all this would have been second nature to the outspoken opponent of injustice that mil-ob purports to be, but it would seem not.

Rather, it seems that mil-ob shares the colonial rulers' disdain for indigenous cultures and views their destruction (as is now threatened in the Peruvian Amazon (see http://www.rainforestportal.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=peru_amazon http://candobetter.org/node/1300)) as necessary for progress.

---

Perhaps, mil-ob was attempting to divert our attention from his own failure to substantiate anything he had written with documentary evidence or with any direct quotes from those he attacks by accusing Fester of using a term that may possibly be viewed by some anthropologists as less than rigorously scientific, namely "cultural genocide".

If so, it would be yet another example of someone in a glass house casting a stone.

---

It seems that this whole discussion is being re-run in the discussion forum "Anti-populationists - the new imperialists" by the same author, Malcolm King, at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8990&page=0 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8990&page=0

As yet mil-ob has not joined in. Let's hope this situation endures.

Yeah, the Dag would've thought that, because the Dag can't see through an implicit tautology even when one infects his mind and takes over the wheel for a while (sharing the driver's seat, of course, with other controlling entities).