I'm not going to re-write a very succinct explanation of Catholic doctrine which you would do well to read before spouting off some juvenile rants against the Pontiff - here's the first three sections from an article on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
-------------------------------------


>> ^WaterDweller:
Same gal as last year: http://www.videosift.com/video/Person-charges-the-pope
Apparently she hasn't changed her clothes for a whole year. Or she just really likes red


In response to this comment below - yeah, it's like becoming an annual tradition or something.

Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.

I've heard it all so far.

Carbon nanotubes genetically marked to target cancer cells which, once bonded, are heated by IR radiation which causes the cells to die.

A cheap industrial chemical easily manufactured when dosed in to cancer cells causes them to reactivate the genetic 'flag' which causes the bodies immune system to destroy them.

etc etc

These annoucements are, sad to say, a dime a dozen. Until the theory and promising animal trials convert to successful human trials, we are stuck with what we currently have.

Which sucks, I'd like to know where some of these promising treatments ended up. Funny how all mention of them tends to disappear weeks after they make it on to a news show...

you're a resister huh? no, yer a fucking bitch ass punk who has not a fucking clue. Just like the other dipshits who take a press release to tell everyone how they served their time and theyre not goin back now that they've been reactivated via the IRR. Fucking tards have no idea what they signed. Shit heads

Well, off the top of my head, how about Computer City, Packard Bell, Circuit City, SCO, SGI, DIVX (not the codec), Commodore, Amiga, XM Radio (with Sirius XM following closely behind), Atari, 3DO... most of these are companies who were once dominant until their consumers took their dollars to greener fields.

Oh, wait... You didn't want me to answer that, did you? You just wanted me to concede the point? My bad.

As for building schools and bridges; that's a different topic and one which I think is totally suited to government. I'm not anti-government across the board, I just think it ought to be kept in check and that it's not the miracle cure to all problems.

The federal government is too big for my tastes at the moment. I have an infinitesimally small influence on the federal government because my one vote is a molecule in a drop in the bucket. I have no real choice or say in any matter. All I can do is pick the preselected candidate whose lies I find most comforting. They're going to do whatever they want once the election is over.

If the local governments were the focus of power, at least the people would have more influence. There my one vote is a far bigger portion of the pie and it's not even unrealistic for me to run for office myself if I really don't feel represented. If power were more distributed it would be more difficult for lobbyists to buy power.

I like the idea of moving an hour away and having a drastically different government if I'm unhappy with how things are run where I live. Moving from state to state can give you a little bit of that nowadays, but I think it ought to be taken further.

I agree that neither smaller == better and larger == better are universal truths and that there's a happy medium to be found, but it sounds like my happy medium is smaller than yours. I guess that's why you're so popular with the ladies.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Can you give me a meaningful example of consumers bringing down a corporation by "wallet voting"? Of course not, because it is a ridiculous notion. Consumerism doesn't challenge corporate power, it increases it. At best, consumerism has the power to stop Coca-Cola from marketing a new cola that tastes like ass. Consumerism doesn't build schools or bridges. Consumerism is reactive, not proactive.

In a democracy, the power rests in the hands of the people, by way of 1 person: 1 vote. It was a populist response to older forms of government based around wealth, power and nobility. It is a testament to the success of democracy that so many now can take it for granted. Government power is people power (read=your power). Limiting the power of government limits the power of the people, and if you are interested in stopping corrupt corporations, public government is the only thing big enough and powerful enough to get that done.

It is very true that our democracy has been subverted in many ways, but through democracy, we can change this. I agree with you that apathy is one of the big enemies here, but I see much reason for hope. With increased access to information, the public has become much more aware of corporate abuse, and has become much more politically involved. Despite what Obama may or may not do in his 4-8 years in office, I think it is significant that he was able to break through the corporate propaganda and win on a very pro-people platform.

Last point, one of the great red herrings in this debate is that of 'size'. Notions about 'big' or 'small' government are completely arbitrary and meant to distract you from the more important qualities that you wisely mentioned: efficiency and effectiveness.

Government should not be shoehorned into some arbitrary concept of big or small. Government should be just the right size in needs to be, to be both efficient and effective. Getting rid of valuable social services in order to make the government smaller only makes the it less efficient and less effective.

Can you give me a meaningful example of consumers bringing down a corporation by "wallet voting"? Of course not, because it is a ridiculous notion. Consumerism doesn't challenge corporate power, it increases it. At best, consumerism has the power to stop Coca-Cola from marketing a new cola that tastes like ass. Consumerism doesn't build schools or bridges. Consumerism is reactive, not proactive.

In a democracy, the power rests in the hands of the people, by way of 1 person: 1 vote. It was a populist response to older forms of government based around wealth, power and nobility. It is a testament to the success of democracy that so many now can take it for granted. Government power is people power (read=your power). Limiting the power of government limits the power of the people, and if you are interested in stopping corrupt corporations, public government is the only thing big enough and powerful enough to get that done.

It is very true that our democracy has been subverted in many ways, but through democracy, we can change this. I agree with you that apathy is one of the big enemies here, but I see much reason for hope. With increased access to information, the public has become much more aware of corporate abuse, and has become much more politically involved. Despite what Obama may or may not do in his 4-8 years in office, I think it is significant that he was able to break through the corporate propaganda and win on a very pro-people platform.

Last point, one of the great red herrings in this debate is that of 'size'. Notions about 'big' or 'small' government are completely arbitrary and meant to distract you from the more important qualities that you wisely mentioned: efficiency and effectiveness.

Government should not be shoehorned into some arbitrary concept of big or small. Government should be just the right size in needs to be, to be both efficient and effective. Getting rid of valuable social services in order to make the government smaller only makes the it less efficient and less effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

"natural rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity."

It's a stretch to believe the right to life means the government guarantees medical care. And, just because the Constitution or Declaration says you have a right to something doesn't mean the government has carte blanche to make it so; it means the government must protect that right, not enforce it*.

*[edit] On second thought, I don't want to say that, because I'm sure people will crucify me through a technicality. Sure, the courts can enforce laws, etc etc, but what I mean is that the Federal government shouldn't be in the business of seeking out every instance where life can be protected and then acting on it, such is the case of abortion. I think of the government being more reactive than proactive. I'll belay it only because I'm sure it will take us on a tangent.

>> ^rasch187
I would like to see some objective sources for your claims, imstellar.


How much are you paying me for the pleasure of being your personal research assistant?

If you are honestly interested in the validity of any of the claims I made, I'm sure you'll be able to pick out a few terms from what I presented and turn them into a couple Google searches.

Heres a start:

"THE METABOLISM OF TUMORS IN THE BODY. Otto Warbug. Kaiser Wilhelm Institut fur Biologic, 1926"

"On respiratory impairment in cancer cells."

"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1931"

"My life with the Eskimo: Vilhjalmur Stefansson"

"Oncogenes in Tumor Metabolism, Tumorigenesis, and Apoptosis"

"Saccharine Disease"

"Good Calories Bad Calories"

"Elevated Insulin-like Growth Factor I Receptor Autophosphorylation and Kinase Activity in Human Breast Cancer"

"Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease1"

"Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment"

"Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study1"

"A HISTORY OF SUGAR MF.RKETING THROUGH 1974, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS. STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 382"

"Glycemic Index and Serum High-Density Lipoprotein
Cholesterol Concentration Among US Adults"

"Relation between a diet with a high glycemic load and plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in middle-aged women1"

"Studies on the Metabolism of Eskimos - Journal of Biological Chemistry"

"Dietary protein intake and renal function"

"Advanced glycation end products and the absence of premature
atherosclerosis in glycogen storage disease Ia"

"Chemical Calorimetry. XLV. Prolonged Meat Diets with a study of Kidney function and Ketosis"

"Diabetes Mellitus - Japan 1950-2004"

"Diabetic Mortality rate and the amount of sugar consumed per capital in England and Wales"

"Pounds per sugar per head per year from 1800 to 1960"

"Fasting insulin and incident dementia in an elderly population of Japanese-American men"

"Diabetes mellitus and the risk of dementia "

"Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Among US Adults"

"Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality Associated With the Metabolic Syndrome"

"C-Reactive Protein, the Metabolic Syndrome, and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Events "

"Obesity and the Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents"

"NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and prevalence of coronary heart disease"

"Coronary-heart-disease risk and impaired glucose tolerance. The Whitehall study."

Late term abortions are not doe frivolously, only if there are big health risks involved to the mother. And the argument from "being able to live" is not a strong one - we can keep brain dead people alive indefinitely, but they still have to be kept alive - same thing with babies, they cannot in any shape or form take care of themselves. I would rather a baby/fetus was aborted at 3 months, than dumped in an alley to freeze to death, for instance. If people has made the choice, they should be able to exercise that choice easily, quickly and safely.

There's not a choice to get an abortion in the last period - if a mother says "i want an abortion" in the eigth month, she won't get it. In those cases there has to be serious reasons.

>> ^nadabu:
I'm with Xax. Pro-life personally and politically, and quite consistent about it. If we outlaw one murder, we should outlaw them all: abortion, the regular kind, the death penalty, suicide and absolute lunacies like pre-emptive war. Violence against humans (and imho, the higher animals) is only permissible in sports with safety measures taken and in reactive, clear and restrained self-defense, both personally and militarily.
That's only the general rule, of course. There MUST be room for exceptions, which either void conviction or provide ample latitude for judges when deciding punishments. The typical "mother at risk of dying" example is the clearest exception. Likewise, i currently think it unwise to outlaw abortions performed prior to 8 weeks, as the studies showing brain functions prior to that are not thorough. Similar exceptions should be made for withholding care to persons already born, but lacking brain function. And so on...
But the general rule of "thou shalt not kill" seems like damn good public policy to me. It's hard to see how abortion is justifiable, especially after 5 mos, when many babies can live outside the mother with the amazing preemie care possible these days. How long do you need to make your choice? Even in rape, where there was no choice about birth control, you still have around 2 mos before brain function is detectable (thus far). I'm ok with choice. But i think it is totally irrational and willfully ignorant to advocate giving 9 months for that decision. Maybe that made some sort of sense in the 60s or 70s, when most people had never seen an ultrasound or heard of things EEG, but that's just stupid nowadays. Get out of the dark ages. Don't kill people.

I'm with Xax. Pro-life personally and politically, and quite consistent about it. If we outlaw one murder, we should outlaw them all: abortion, the regular kind, the death penalty, suicide and absolute lunacies like pre-emptive war. Violence against humans (and imho, the higher animals) is only permissible in sports with safety measures taken and in reactive, clear and restrained self-defense, both personally and militarily.

That's only the general rule, of course. There MUST be room for exceptions, which either void conviction or provide ample latitude for judges when deciding punishments. The typical "mother at risk of dying" example is the clearest exception. Likewise, i currently think it unwise to outlaw abortions performed prior to 8 weeks, as the studies showing brain functions prior to that are not thorough. Similar exceptions should be made for withholding care to persons already born, but lacking brain function. And so on...

But the general rule of "thou shalt not kill" seems like damn good public policy to me. It's hard to see how abortion is justifiable, especially after 5 mos, when many babies can live outside the mother with the amazing preemie care possible these days. How long do you need to make your choice? Even in rape, where there was no choice about birth control, you still have around 2 mos before brain function is detectable (thus far). I'm ok with choice. But i think it is totally irrational and willfully ignorant to advocate giving 9 months for that decision. Maybe that made some sort of sense in the 60s or 70s, when most people had never seen an ultrasound or heard of things EEG, but that's just stupid nowadays. Get out of the dark ages. Don't kill people.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
So, ahhh, that's just rust and aluminum? Like rust and aluminum? Like a rusty soda can? Somehow, this does not compute.


Iron (Fe) is less reactive than Aluminium (Al), so with enough starting energy, you can persuade Aluminium to steal the oxygen from rust, Iron Oxide (Fe2O3), to make Aluminium Oxide (Al203) and pure molten Iron. The equation is:

Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat
Rust + Aluminium -> Iron + Aluminium Oxide + Heat

And yes, it's very easy to make some of this out of everyday materials - if you can find a way of finely powdering an Aluminium can or baseball bat and mixing it up with some powdered rust you have the ability to cut through Steel =)

While very cool it would have been better with black light reactive coolant you can get for a water cooled PC and of course a black light.

$10 plug? IIRC this show is shot near SF, which means he could have headed over to 16th/Mission (it's even got a BART station) and picked up stereo-miniplug jumpers (two plugs) for $1 at no fewer than 2 dollar stores that sit at that intersection. So I've got problems with their information to start.

Secondly, this myth is bustable on paper. A cone speaker requires, at minimum, three things: coil, cone, magnet. If we assume that the penny is somehow functioning as a coil (major stretch) and that the foil is acting as a cone (it lacks sufficient rigidity), we still need something for the coil to resist against, and their is nothing else magnetically reactive in the "speaker".

If this was an attempt to "prove" that it didn't work, then they need to pull out an amp (that they don't mind destroying) and run some juice through it, battery powered CD player, not even a real test.

>> ^Janus:
Seems a bit similar to Greasemonkey, but with more typing involved.


Not really. Greasemonkey only works after you install a specific script to handle a specific task on a specific webpage. For example, the De-ad Facebook strips ads from Facebook feeds. You, the user need to be proactive to use it.

Ubiquity has a list of commands you can use (which can be auto-updated) to handle useful things. Email this to someone. Map this place. Translate this. Calculate 339/108. Ubiquity is reactive to what you, the user, want at that moment.

The key is that it combines webpages or webpage actions together.

>> ^chilaxe:
Rougy, how's being the far left equivalent of Fox News working out for you?
It seems more reactive than proactive.


Fuck you.

Steller will never have enough money. He thinks he's the only person in the world who pays taxes.

You? You actually have your moments, but that was a stupid ass thing to say to me.

I am so tired of you cry baby sons of bitches who act like you don't need anybody else and for that reason you shouldn't contribute your fair share to making this world a better place.

Your world is a selfish, shallow, mean little place.

"It seems like if Thomas Sowell believed he was a helpless victim in the way that liberals believe he was...."

That's not what liberals believe, you god damn idiot.

And Sowell is a right-wing ass kisser.

Rougy, how's being the far left equivalent of Fox News working out for you?

It seems more reactive than proactive.