Catholic Church : immoral daw ang pag spray sa saging

[AmorsoloX]

---

Before unta ani, naa jud unta concrete study sa effect ana areal spraying, kana naa jud tarung result ba, nya anha na dayun mu decide if unsa an buhaton. dapat an govt jud daku papel ani.

sakto si mr. gikapoy.. unsaon man ni mga pari.. moingon jud daun nga immoral.. wala pa gani scientific basis ila claims..

if naa concrete evidence ang ila claim na immoral jud ang pag spray then ill take back what i said about the church. but so far, its going against their favor..

the immoral here is they are promoting misinformation.. dba ang simbahan man tana nag promote anang thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor? another form of hypocrisy..

[vanix09]

wow.. karon pa lage ko ani.. XD

[cebulifer]

basta contra gani sa simbahan... immoral! period!

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ AMORSOLOX ...

Lisod lage mo buhi ug storya na kita mismo walay basis why it is like that . Who are we to judge ? In the case of the church , they are there to witness it , experience it and protect the people . Sayop man na ang abi ni reklamo ang simbahan , sila pod ang mo provide sa solution sa problem . Its their right to voice out as long as naay basis and its up to the LGU's to act on the issue .

You always use the word IMMORAL as your leverage , look for the definition for it . It is like the words IGNORANT and INUTILE when applied as something to describe on something or someone , that someone would react and feels offended because we misinterpret it not knowing the real definition of it .

Now that you waged you are gonna take back what you said against the church , whats good in it for the church since you already bad mouthed them ? I want something very interesting , how about if it favots them because indeed AERIAL SPRAYING is the culprit , would you go to church with me , the very church you HATED so much ? Lol !!

[mannyamador]

In the case of the church , they are there to witness it , experience it and protect the people . Sayop man na ang abi ni reklamo ang simbahan , sila pod ang mo provide sa solution sa problem . Its their right to voice out as long as naay basis and its up to the LGU's to act on the issue.

Good point, sir!

It's obvious that the threadstarter was just engaging in ignorant and prejudiced ranting. Now that the facts have come out, he has egg on his face. That's what happens when prejudice takes the place of reason.

His sad example ought not to be followed.

[AmorsoloX]

@ AMORSOLOX ...

Lisod lage mo buhi ug storya na kita mismo walay basis why it is like that . Who are we to judge ? In the case of the church , they are there to witness it , experience it and protect the people . Sayop man na ang abi ni reklamo ang simbahan , sila pod ang mo provide sa solution sa problem . Its their right to voice out as long as naay basis and its up to the LGU's to act on the issue .

my basis is the economic impact of such action.. what the priests are proposing will do more harm than good.. people will lose their jobs, the community will lose an industry, and worse health problems will not be solved.. what they see is only one side of the coin.

sa masuko lang gud. naa man jud church fanatics diri who believe that the church is always right. such outdated thinking. i stand my ground on saying the church is immoral on its misinformation. it used studies that were not reliable.. and its arguments are too simplistic.. the church had bear false witness against the plantations by using a biased report...

many have failed to see the big picture here.. therefore, many are too simplistic when it comes to affairs like these.. even if mag stop aerial spraying, even iapil pa nato stop ang plantations, do you think mo stop ang pag spread sa sakit? as long as their is agriculture, there is always pollution..

you might as well propose to stop all agriculture.. a do hope naa mo makaon.. as for me.. i can always go somewhere where there is food.. i hope ok ra ninu ang cannibalism.. dont say i didnt warn you... kung gusto mo magutom, cge go.. and also, ayaw mo reklamo kung modaghan napud mag NPA ha (except siguro mao na inu goal).. magunsa nman lang diay mga farmers..

that is the problem here.. there is no solid evidence... no solid study.. based on assumptions ra tanan ang claims sa simbahan.. i agree nga contributor sa pollution ang aerial spraying. but thats not the only one.. all agricultural lands contribute to the pollution.. why are the plantations being singled out? how about the subsistence farmers, who are more ineffecient due to lack of proper organization.. mao ni nka sakit sa simbahan.. pro-poor.. maski naa sayop ang poor, kay poor man lage, mo panig daun ang simbahan. there is bias...

[raski]

^^ korek gyud ka sir..

The problem really with the way some fanatical devotees of the church debate, both in this thread and in the 'abortion' thread is that they seem to think quoting a 'source' or even a number of 'sources' is in and of itself sufficient to already prove that their position is 100% correct. They never bother to check whether the source is reliable or not and are not even aware that biased sources should never be relied upon when making arguments.

There are studies that say microwave ovens and mobile phones cause brain cancer. Sunlight, as we all know, causes skin cancer. Milk has now been linked to vastly increased risk of heart disease. Flying on a plane is said to bombard the body with greater amounts of radiation than normal, increasing the risk of a wide variety of cancers. Given all these studies, are we prepared to give up text messaging, stop going to the beach and quit drinking milk? Of course not. The fact of the matter is, we live with a wide variety of potential carcinogens as part of our modern lifestyle. We could avoid all these things, but in reality we just have to live with these risks.

It's even more absurd when you consider the fact that these fears are all based on unverified or biased studies. I sincerely hope that people will do the responsible thing and not jump to conclusions based merely on a single study. Even man-made global warming is not yet a universally held truth as the studies are still rather inconclusive at this point and there is debate as to whether or not the current warming is caused by man or part of natural cyclical trends. The point is, a study on its own and without scrutiny on its merits is meaningless as a tool for strengthening one's position in an argument...

[mannyamador]

The REAL problem here and the threads where there are pro-RH fanatics and religion-haters is that they think that by simply claiming a source is "unreliable", that they have refuted evidence. That is, of course, irrational. One has to actually REFUTE the evidence with counter-evidence or show that the methods used were faulty. Simply attacking a source as unreliable does not make the evidence itself unreliable since it could very well be true or used by other other reliable sources.

Sadly, instead of relying on evidence, what we see here is mostly childish rants by people who hate religion or the Church,. They automatically assume the Church was wrong on the issue based only on their hatred of the Church. Even the original title was so irrational -- and so obviously based on an unfounded assumption -- that it was changed.

Again, that's what happens when prejudice takes the place of reason. Something so very common in the Church-hating fanatics we have around here. One of them is so far gone that he actually needs professional help.

[gikapoy]

The REAL problem here and the threads where there are pro-RH fanatics and religion-haters is that they think that by simply claiming a source is "unreliable", that they have refuted evidence. That is, of course, irrational. One has to actually REFUTE the evidence with counter-evidence or show that the methods used were faulty. Simply attacking a source as unreliable does not make the evidence itself unreliable since it could very well be true or used by other other reliable sources.

Sadly, instead of relying on evidence, what we see here is mostly childish rants by people who hate religion or the Church,. They automatically assume the Church was wrong on the issue based only on their hatred of the Church. Even the original title was so irrational -- and so obviously based on an unfounded assumption -- that it was changed.

Again, that's what happens when prejudice takes the place of reason. Something so very common in the Church-hating fanatics we have around here. One of them is so far gone that he actually needs professional help.

agree
dili religion.. dapat kining mga pari ug mga ordinaryo nga katawhan nga mo derecho ra react
dili mo tan aw sa mga evidence ug facts

[raski]

Samoka sad aning tiguwang nga magsigi og sunod sunod nako oi ngano dili man ni siya mobalik sa iyahang thread nga 'legalize abortion' buwisit na kaayo ni iyahang harassment, wura na gyud og obsession sa bayote nga mogukod og laki. Kung mo post gali ko regarding relihiyon maghuna-huna dayon siya nga siya na akong gipasabot, imbis wala na nako tag-da kay klaro kaayo nga kulang sa pansin... buang gyud!

AD HOMINEM ! Please attack the post and not the poster .