Have you heard of the various many worlds models?The chance of flipping a coin and getting 100 heads in a row is equal to 1 in (2 (the number of sides) raised to the 100th power (the number of tosses)). That is, 2^100 = 1.2676506 × 10^30, or 1 in 126,765,060,000,000,000,000,000.
I think i have the following right.
There are some infinaties which are larger than other.
If an imagainary tea cup is set in motion, and accelerates at a rate of twice as fast, in half as long, it's speed and acceleration effectively becomes infinate, yet if an identical imagainary tea cup is set in motion and accelerates at a rate of four times as fast, in a quarter of the time, it's speed and acceleration is effectively infinate. Both are infinate, yet one is going faster than the other.
If there are an infinate number of universes, then there are also infinate numbers of worlds on which joe flips one hundred heads in a row, and an infinate number of worlds on which joe flips each of the other, but the infinities in which joe doesn't flip all heads are 126,765,060,000,000,000,000,000 more common. As such the chances of 'our world' being the one where it occures is still less likely than than our world being one where it doesn't occure.
I don't have a stone in my heart for people with HIV. My point is the disease has been in Africa for a while now, and relief workers have been combating it for most of that time, and, at some point, people should just know what risky behavior is.
And blaming the Pope for being Catholic is like blaming the manatee for being wet.
There are condoms all over Africa. That the Catholic charities just recently started distributing them is irrelevant. Bob Geldof has been giving away condoms there for nearly two decades now.
So, after nearly 25 years of fighting HIV in Africa, the blame game needs to be focused on the behavior and not outsiders. And people who cry the church isn't doing what they want them to do should take things into their own hands.
I wonder how many cases of condoms an annual Paizo subscription would buy?
Regardless of how many condoms are distributed, there are still heavy societal issues that need to be overcome also. In particular in areas far away from industrial areas/cities. One that comes to mind is Uganda: Child Sacrifice as a Cure. Or how about Lizard Blood, or Soil as cures. You have to keep in mind that these people are not at our level of "development" with a preponderance of old folklore they still engage in.
However, if you like... I can find out the cost of a box/case of condoms for ya when I next go in for my volunteer work in the Food Pantry.
EDIT: Of course I use the term "development" in quotations, because we certainly are not above our own oddities. Now if one is feeling realy funky, you can try Cow Urine, Camel Urine, or better yet, the Urine from a Pregnant Female.
Every class should start with "The ONLY 100% effective way to not catch an STD or get pregnant in not to have sex. Period. Every other method is less effective."
No it shouldn't because it isn't even remotely true.
Bacterial Vaginosis - can be caused by high stress levels, some anti-biotics and some forms of birth control.
Chlamydia - through contact between hands(which have been incontact with infected genetials) and face(specifically eyes).
Genital Herpes- can be spread through kissing
Hepatitis B - spread to others by contact with infected blood or body fluids -- semen, vaginal fluids and saliva. The infected blood or fluid has to enter a break in the skin or be absorbed through a mucous membrane like the eyes, mouth, vagina and anus in order to be passed onto another person.
Sharing toothbrushes, razors, nail files or other personal items that may have tiny amounts of blood on them can also spread the infection. In fact, the virus can live in dry blood for up to seven days!
Sharing needles and syringes that may have tiny amounts of blood in them can spread the virus to others. Which also means that tattooing or ear/body piercing can be a source of Hep B if the equipment is not new or not sterilized.
A pregnant woman who has Hepatitis B can pass it on to her baby before it's born so it's critical that all pregnant women be screened for Hepatitis B as part of their prenatal care.
Hepatitis B is not spread by water, food, kissing, sneezing or coughing.
Hepatitis C - HCV is spread when people share blood or body fluids containing the virus during such activities like:
1.Sharing needles, spoons, straws and other drug related equipment.
2.Getting tattoos or body parts pierced with used or non-sterile needles.
If you received a blood transfusion or blood products before 1992, you may also have been infected. A pregnant woman who has HCV can pass it on to her baby before or at the time of birth.
Although HCV is not usually spread by sexual intercourse, there's still a risk of being infected if you have open sores on your genitals or through contact with an infected woman's menstrual blood.
Pubic Lice (Crabs) - can be aquired by sharing bedding, clothing or towels.
Scabies Skin-to-skin contact, such as shaking hands, dancing, sharing clothes, bedding or towels
yeast infection - Antibiotics, Birth control pills, Menstruation, Pregnancy.
HIV Contact with infected body fluids.
You could live your entire life, without sexual contact with another human being and still catch every one of the above diseases. But sure, lets lie to kids, rather than saying, 'No method of STI prevention is 100% effective against all diseases, however your best option is to remain abstinant. However, if you do choose not be abstinate, it is best to have as few sexual partners as possible and always, use a condom. Here are the facts, so that you can make informed decisions for yourself.
|
I don't have a stone in my heart for people with HIV. My point is the disease has been in Africa for a while now, and relief workers have been combating it for most of that time, and, at some point, people should just know what risky behavior is.
And blaming the Pope for being Catholic is like blaming the manatee for being wet.
There are condoms all over Africa. That the Catholic charities just recently started distributing them is irrelevant. Bob Geldof has been giving away condoms there for nearly two decades now.
So, after nearly 25 years of fighting HIV in Africa, the blame game needs to be focused on the behavior and not outsiders. And people who cry the church isn't doing what they want them to do should take things into their own hands.
I wonder how many cases of condoms an annual Paizo subscription would buy?
Regardless of how many condoms are distributed, there are still heavy societal issues that need to be overcome also. In particular in areas far away from industrial areas/cities. One that comes to mind is Uganda: Child Sacrifice as a Cure. Or how about Lizard Blood, or Soil as cures. You have to keep in mind that these people are not at our level of "development" with a preponderance of old folklore they still engage in.
However, if you like... I can find out the cost of a box/case of condoms for ya when I next go in for my volunteer work in the Food Pantry.
Keep in mind, none of that you mention has anything to do with the Catholic church. And the biggest problem with getting African men to wrap up isn't the Pope, it's unrelated to religion cultural macho b!#%$$+#.
Again, the OP just wants to b+!+& about Catholics and the Pope. He doesn't really care why Africa has the problems it has, he wants an easy, unpopular scapegoat.
|
|
Every class should start with "The ONLY 100% effective way to not catch an STD or get pregnant in not to have sex. Period. Every other method is less effective."
No it shouldn't because it isn't even remotely true.
Bacterial Vaginosis - can be caused by high stress levels, some anti-biotics and some forms of birth control.
Chlamydia - through contact between hands(which have been incontact with infected genetials) and face(specifically eyes).
Genital Herpes- can be spread through kissing
Hepatitis B - spread to others by contact with infected blood or body fluids -- semen, vaginal fluids and saliva. The infected blood or fluid has to enter a break in the skin or be absorbed through a mucous membrane like the eyes, mouth, vagina and anus in order to be passed onto another person.
Sharing toothbrushes, razors, nail files or other personal items that may have tiny amounts of blood on them can also spread the infection. In fact, the virus can live in dry blood for up to seven days!
Sharing needles and syringes that may have tiny amounts of blood in them can spread the virus to others. Which also means that tattooing or ear/body piercing can be a source of Hep B if the equipment is not new or not sterilized.
A pregnant woman who has Hepatitis B can pass it on to her baby before it's born so it's critical that all pregnant women be screened for Hepatitis B as part of their prenatal care.
Hepatitis B is not spread by water, food, kissing, sneezing or coughing.
Hepatitis C - HCV is spread when people share blood or body fluids containing the virus during such activities like:
1.Sharing needles, spoons, straws and other drug related equipment.
2.Getting tattoos or body parts pierced with used or non-sterile needles.
If you received a blood transfusion or blood products before 1992, you may also have been infected. A pregnant woman who has HCV can pass it on to her baby before or at the time of birth....
How does a condom prevent any of this again? We were discussing the Catholic church and condoms.
And, sure, you can get herpes from a toilet seat, right?
Only three things you listed are an STD primarily. And it is VERY hard to catch them outside of sexual contact.
I agree with the last part, though. Problem is, most of the ABC programs just give out condoms and grab a banana to demonstrate. The "A" is largely ignored.
Keep in mind, none of that you mention has anything to do with the Catholic church. And the biggest problem with getting African men to wrap up isn't the Pope, it's unrelated to religion cultural macho b@!@@#%@.Again, the OP just wants to b%#&! about Catholics and the Pope. He doesn't really care why Africa has the problems it has, he wants an easy, unpopular scapegoat.
I'm inclined to agree with the OP on that matter though, in the sense that the Catholic Church hierarchy, including the Pope, are not on any real moral ground with their own discretions (The molestation of children by pedophiles, with attempts to cover it up. The abuse/r@pe of nuns, up to and including seeking abortions for those who end up pregnant).
Then, only to have them stand back with their "Do as I say, Not as I do" stance of abstinence/monogamy over the use of condoms. Sure, he now claims it may be OK to use then in certain situations (such as a male prostitute). But then, that is probably only to protect his own people.
Yes, I'm a cynic when it comes to these "people". Do they do good? Yeah. Often , though, that cloud of scandal/uncertainty will always be over their heads. And, for me, I will reserve my own judgment on a case by case basis.
*snip* ... Problem is, most of the ABC programs just give out condoms and grab a banana to demonstrate. The "A" is largely ignored.
And just where is this?
|
|
Keep in mind, none of that you mention has anything to do with the Catholic church. And the biggest problem with getting African men to wrap up isn't the Pope, it's unrelated to religion cultural macho b@!@@#%@.Again, the OP just wants to b%#&! about Catholics and the Pope. He doesn't really care why Africa has the problems it has, he wants an easy, unpopular scapegoat.
I'm inclined to agree with the OP on that matter though, in the sense that the Catholic Church hierarchy, including the Pope, are not on any real moral ground with their own discretions (The molestation of children by pedophiles, with attempts to cover it up. The abuse/r@pe of nuns, up to and including seeking abortions for those who end up pregnant).
Then, only to have them stand back with their "Do as I say, Not as I do" stance of abstinence/monogamy over the use of condoms. Sure, he now claims it may be OK to use then in certain situations (such as a male prostitute). But then, that is probably only to protect his own people.
Yes, I'm a cynic when it comes to these "people". Do they do good? Yeah. Often , though, that cloud of scandal/uncertainty will always be over their heads. And, for me, I will reserve my own judgment on a case by case basis.
Yeah, they're human, with all of the foibles and problems humans have. Hypocrisy is one of our species traits, along with rationalizing our b&*$~%$~.
Can't be avoided.
Don't like the Pope? Don't be Catholic. Worked for me. I am 100% Catholic free now. 100% god free, actually. Yay me.
Now, like I said, if people really feel that strongly about it, they should do something about it, instead of complaining that an institution that claims to represent a higher power (and has a set of dogmatic rules to coincide) doesn't do things the way they like.
I don't know. There are people good at doing stuff and people good at complaining about stuff. The complainers will always be second fiddle in my mind even if the doers are flawed in their approach (or dogma or whatever). B$$@*ing that someone who is trying to do something isn't doing it right accomplished exactly zero.
And if a complainer has a specific agenda, I have even less respect for them.
|
|
*snip* ... Problem is, most of the ABC programs just give out condoms and grab a banana to demonstrate. The "A" is largely ignored.And just where is this?
Mostly just anecdotal observations from my volunteer days, to be honest. and conversations with people in the Peace Corps and other relief type groups. Nothing I can prove.
Mostly just anecdotal observations from my volunteer days, to be honest. and conversations with people in the Peace Corps and other relief type groups. Nothing I can prove.*snip* ... Problem is, most of the ABC programs just give out condoms and grab a banana to demonstrate. The "A" is largely ignored.And just where is this?
I'm just going to quote myself from a couple of pages back here, regarding this:
You have that right... With Bush's failed "Abstinence" policies, there has been a spike in teen pregnancies and STD infections.
And the ramifications of these policies are still being felt today. In WI here, ARCW (Aids Resource Center), has found it more and more difficult to get a positive ABC approach in schools where they are not allowed to discus condom use as a means of preventing infection. Simply because of these "abstinence only" hurdles.
It also doesn't help either that as some of their federal funding also stipulate that they cannot use their education monies to promote a full ABC approach, but focus primarily on abstinence. If they fail to do so, they risk losing their federal monies.
EDIT: So, this isn't just a Pope deal. This is the previous administrations stance also, getting in the way a well rounded approach towards HIV/STD prevention.
How does a condom prevent any of this again?
It doesn't. But I am not claiming that any method is 100% effective.(Edit: That is ofcause leaving out one important detail. Not all people are or should be abstinant, after all the result of that would be no human race. Sex is part of a long term coupling behaviour...no sex = no marrage, what condoms do do in many of these cases is reduce risk to partners of unknowingly infected individuals(especially those in high risk professions such as police officers, medics and carers))
We were discussing the Catholic church and condoms.
I thought you got the memo, this thread isn't about the catholic church and condoms, it is about me proving how smart i am, and arguing about statistics.
And, sure, you can get herpes from a toilet seat, right?
It is still pretty early, so my fact checking might be off, but the information was from a reputable source.
Only three things you listed are an STD primarily.
Funny that the WHO list four of them amongst the most common STI's then isn't it. They all meet either caritable, scientific or governmental criteria for being STIs.
And it is VERY hard to catch them outside of sexual contact.
So yeah...abstinance not 100% effective, even by your own admittance
I agree with the last part, though. Problem is, most of the ABC programs just give out condoms and grab a banana to demonstrate. The "A" is largely ignored.
I support ABC because it is a methodolgy that has better outcomes. if the methodology is not followed, it does not work. That means Abstinance needs to be included as an important part. If it doesn't include the A and the B, it ain't ABC.
All I want is a powerful institution to support the most effective approach and use its resources and influence to spread best practice, rather than spreading miss information such as condoms contain the HIV virus .
This has nothing to do with bashing the Catholic Church. Hell, i don't need this as an oppitunity to do that, it gives me oppitunities to do that every day on almost everything else it does.
The funny thing? I really don't care.Wanna know a good sign someone cares about something? When they tell you they don't.
You know what I care about? I care that my daughter is going to wind up in a s#*! school run by s#*! people who have more interest in protecting their job than educating her. I care that people in America are too stupid to realize that their political leaders (both sides of the aisle) don't give a rat's ass about them.
I don't really care what people think about me. Especially some Danish dude an entire ocean away. I'm not going to lose sleep over his post towards me.
I also really don't care much about what the Pope says. You know what? If most of the charities in Africa are Catholic, and follow Catholic practices, perhaps the solution isn't to castigate them for doing something for free, maybe all the Catholic haters should band together and open their own clinics and stop b*#*%ing.
Or, maybe they just care about b*#*%ing because actually getting something done takes time, resources and work. You know, the stuff that actually shows you care.
Yeah, they're human, with all of the foibles and problems humans have. Hypocrisy is one of our species traits, along with rationalizing our b!%!%#!@.
Can't be avoided.
Don't like the Pope? Don't be Catholic. Worked for me. I am 100% Catholic free now. 100% god free, actually. Yay me.
Now, like I said, if people really feel that strongly about it, they should do something about it, instead of complaining that an institution that claims to represent a higher power (and has a set of dogmatic rules to coincide) doesn't do things the way they like.
I don't know. There are people good at doing stuff and people good at complaining about stuff. The complainers will always be second fiddle in my mind even if the doers are flawed in their approach (or dogma or whatever). b%&!~ing that someone who is trying to do something isn't doing it right accomplished exactly zero.
And if a complainer has a specific agenda, I have even less respect for them.
Yet, we're supposed to care about what you think about all this? If we're not, how come you're posting in the first place?
Thanks for proving what you also wrote, that hypocrisy is indeed a fine human virtue.You like to b$*~* and moan about e.g. unions, especially the teachers union... how about you get off your high horse, follow your own advice and actually do something about it. What's that? You're just one guy fighting the system? Hey, join the f*%*ing club!
If "we" can open our own health clinics in Africa, surely you can open your own schools too or create your own government which actually cares about the people. Shouldn't be a problem, right? I'm sure you have the "time, resources and work" to get it done...
I sincerely hope you see the irony and hypocrisy at play here.
So, again, how are your postings here any different than what everybody else is doing?
|
|
The funny thing? I really don't care.Wanna know a good sign someone cares about something? When they tell you they don't.
You know what I care about? I care that my daughter is going to wind up in a s#*! school run by s#*! people who have more interest in protecting their job than educating her. I care that people in America are too stupid to realize that their political leaders (both sides of the aisle) don't give a rat's ass about them.
I don't really care what people think about me. Especially some Danish dude an entire ocean away. I'm not going to lose sleep over his post towards me.
I also really don't care much about what the Pope says. You know what? If most of the charities in Africa are Catholic, and follow Catholic practices, perhaps the solution isn't to castigate them for doing something for free, maybe all the Catholic haters should band together and open their own clinics and stop b*#*%ing.
Or, maybe they just care about b*#*%ing because actually getting something done takes time, resources and work. You know, the stuff that actually shows you care.
...Yeah, they're human, with all of the foibles and problems humans have. Hypocrisy is one of our species traits, along with rationalizing our b!%!%#!@.
Can't be avoided.
Don't like the Pope? Don't be Catholic. Worked for me. I am 100% Catholic free now. 100% god free, actually. Yay me.
Now, like I said, if people really feel that strongly about it, they should do something about it, instead of complaining that an institution that claims to represent a higher power (and has a set of dogmatic rules to coincide) doesn't do things the way they like.
I don't know. There are people good at doing stuff and people good at complaining about stuff. The complainers will always be second fiddle in my mind even if the doers are flawed in their approach (or dogma or whatever). b%&!~ing that someone who
I don't really care if you even read what I post. Doesn't matter to me. This is just free entertainment for me, I highly doubt a bunch of geeks on a gamer forum are going to affect anything in the world. I get to shake a few trees and annoy people who are oh so certain they are correct about everything. Difference between me and you? I don't even believe half the stuff I type, I just like seeing lefties get their panties in a wad because someone doesn't see how correct they are and how much smarter they are than everyone else.
It's like this: I don't have to be Catholic. Nothing in the universe makes it so. I also don't care if the Catholic church attaches a bunch of strings to their help. It's their money, they get to set the conditions of its dispersal.
The Catholic church is doing something. Maybe it's ineffective, maybe it's misguided, but they're doing something. As far as "if you don't like what the Church is doing, do it yourself" attitude? Buying a bunch of condoms and teaching people how to use them isn't "fighting the system". It's putting your money where your mouth is. No one is keeping anyone from doing so.
Bob Geldoff is one guy. He persuaded a bunch of people to help out in Africa. The Boomtown Rats weren't that wildly successful, so it isn't like he's Bono running around looking like he's doing something, he's just out there doing it. Well, I might add.
As far as the teacher's union thing, I already am doing something about it. I'm saving money to send my daughter to a private school. Americans apparently like that kids are less literate than they were 40 years ago, less knowledgeable about the world around them, less aware of history, less capable of doing a simple algebra problem without a calculator, and passed through because if they get a failing grade it may hurt their self esteem.
There is no irony or hypocrisy here. I don't give a flip about Africa any more than I give a flip about Denmark. Neither impacts my life in any tangible way.
I b#%%@ about things that have a direct impact on my life. I do what I can to combat these things or avoid them if I can (like public schools. They take money for me and do not provide a service worth that money. It's sad that universities here have to provide remedial classes to teach kids stuff they should have mastered in ninth grade). As far as unions go, I support politicians who want to curb them. I don't just whine about them.
The OP doesn't care as much about HIV sufferers in Africa as he does about pointing out the Catholic church's shortcomings.
Furthermore, I really don't care what my government does. It's failing, like Rome on fast forward. Things end, and ours will end the same way most nations wind up ending: they'll keep bribing the people with goodies until the goodies run out. Or Canada will invade us and enslave us. One of the two.
Difference between me and most? I really don't think the universe owes me anything. I certainly don't think you or anyone else owes me anything. I think if I want something, I need to make it happen.
See, here's the reality: if there is no god, nothing matters. I have my average 79 years to do stuff then I'm gone. Poof. The only proper philosophy in a godless world is nihilism (maybe a more cynical existentialism would work as well, haven't completely decided yet). So, really, all of this means squat in the long run. People are going to be effed up long after you and I are gone, because, despite some people's insistence that we are somehow "special", we're really just animals who developed the ability to rationalize our b#~~&$@+. I do it, you do it, it's the only tangible thing that separates us from the "lower" animals.
So, ultimately, y'all can whine about the Catholic church not doing things how you'd do them, which is fine, but don't pretend you're powerless to go buy someone a box of condoms. Because no one is preventing you from doing so. You don't have to fight anything to get people to put together some money and do it on a larger scale. If you have better things to do, fine. If the sport of capping on the church gets your rocks off, go for it. I really don't care. Seriously. What you do or don't do is ultimately meaningless anyway.
But it is a lot of fun to rattle your cage.
|
|
Nothing I can prove.We all realized that the moment you started posting in this thread.
Difference between me and you? I don't even believe half the stuff I type,So, basically, you're posting on and on about stuff you can't prove and don't believe just so that you can try to provoke an emotiional reaction? That's called 'trolling'.
And, btw, I'm not a leftie.
a) I'm aware of what it's called.
b) You sure sound like one. Got the indignation down pat.
|
|
Yes, I'm indignant about millions of people dying needless and awful deaths. That doesn't make me a troll, it makes me human.a) I'm aware of what it's called.
b) You sure sound like one. Got the indignation down pat.
Yep. And Pope Benedict could have prevented them all.
Let me guess, you're pissed they don't have a cure yet, too.
Yep. And Pope Benedict could have prevented them all.The Catholic church could have prevented a lot of them. But, instead, they chose to focus on policies which don't work.
What is "a lot", proportion-wise?
I'm upset that there's no cure, yet. But I know that there are a lot of researchers actively engaged in finding one. Some times, things take time.
Let me guess, you're pissed they don't have a cure yet, too.
What do you mean there is no cure? Everyone knows that there is one, but the pope is keeping it under his hat, so to speak.
Yep. And Pope Benedict could have prevented them all.The Catholic church could have prevented a lot of them. But, instead, they chose to focus on policies which don't work.What is "a lot", proportion-wise?
What do you mean there is no cure? Everyone knows that there is one, but the pope is keeping it under his hat, so to speak.I'm upset that there's no cure, yet. But I know that there are a lot of researchers actively engaged in finding one. Some times, things take time.
Let me guess, you're pissed they don't have a cure yet, too.
And yeah..I'm upset there isn't a cure yet either. As are many, regardless of their political affiliation. Still, the vaccine shows some promise.
|
|
Yep. And Pope Benedict could have prevented them all.The Catholic church could have prevented a lot of them. But, instead, they chose to focus on policies which don't work.
I'm upset that there's no cure, yet. But I know that there are a lot of researchers actively engaged in finding one. Some times, things take time.
Let me guess, you're pissed they don't have a cure yet, too.
Yep, the Catholic church could have shut down the bath houses before they were, the Catholic church could have outlawed hypodermic needles, the Catholic church could have forced the Red Cross to do HIV screening in the 80s, the Catholic church has mighty and mystical powers I guess.
No, the Church couldn't have prevented anything. Ok, they could have said "you can use jimmy hats". That would have affected whatever percentage were Catholic. Now, tell me how many HIV sufferers in Africa are Catholic. Because the rest? They don't care what the Pope says.
Then explain to me why, other than Brazil, this epidemic wasn't nearly as bad in fully Catholic countries as it was in Africa.
Thailand isn't Catholic, yet they have a huge issue with HIV. What gives there? Maybe Buddha should be blamed as well?
Did I mention most of the African HIV sufferers aren't Catholic?
So the pope may have influenced a small percentage of the HIV cases in Africa. But he can do nothing about the b!&!#++% macho cultural stigma attached to condoms in quite a bit of Africa, nor could he insist on everyone getting circumcised (which also factors in to at least males being less likely to get infected).
As to the cure, name me the viruses we have cures for. Not vaccines, cures. HIV isn't even one of the simpler viruses. It mutates much faster than "normal" viruses, which is one of the reasons they're having problems even coming up with a vaccine.
|
|
Then explain to me why, other than Brazil, this epidemic wasn't nearly as bad in fully Catholic countries as it was in Africa.You really should educate yourself on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I thought everyone knew that HIV/AIDS originated in Africa - it's a mutation of a virus which used to target monkeys.
Oh, I understand where it originated. I'm just wondering, since apparently Catholics don't use condoms, it didn't take off Catholic countries like wildfire. Because, guess what? They ignore the whole "no premarital sex" thing too.
Once something gets out of its little box (in this case, Africa), it's out. so, according to your "the Pope is the reason HIV is so prevalent" argument, it would stand to reason that majority Catholic countries would be looking at some serious epidemics.
But they're not. Must be some reason for it.
Oh, yeah. In those countries, they ignore all of the Church's rules, they don't just pick and chose.
|
|
Yep. And Pope Benedict could have prevented them all.The Catholic church could have prevented a lot of them. But, instead, they chose to focus on policies which don't work.What is "a lot", proportion-wise?
What do you mean there is no cure? Everyone knows that there is one, but the pope is keeping it under his hat, so to speak.I'm upset that there's no cure, yet. But I know that there are a lot of researchers actively engaged in finding one. Some times, things take time.
Let me guess, you're pissed they don't have a cure yet, too.And yeah..I'm upset there isn't a cure yet either. As are many, regardless of their political affiliation. Still, the vaccine shows some promise.
They have this thing called LJ001 that looks promising. Kind of a cure for all viruses with membranes, apparently.
It would be the first cure for a virus ever known. Cool stuff.
You really should educate yourself on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I thought everyone knew that HIV/AIDS originated in Africa - it's a mutation of a virus which used to target monkeys.
Then explain to me why, other than Brazil, this epidemic wasn't nearly as bad in fully Catholic countries as it was in Africa.
I think it has been some time since Thailand has been part of Africa. When did the continents actually start breaking up? Anyone?
|
|
What we're discussing is -policy-. The best defense you've been able to level against that policy is that it should be ignored. That's really not much of a defense.
Then explain to me why, other than Brazil, this epidemic wasn't nearly as bad in fully Catholic countries as it was in Africa.You really should educate yourself on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I thought everyone knew that HIV/AIDS originated in Africa - it's a mutation of a virus which used to target monkeys.
Oh, I understand where it originated. I'm just wondering, since apparently Catholics don't use condoms, it didn't take off Catholic countries like wildfire. Because, guess what? They ignore the whole "no premarital sex" thing too.
Once something gets out of its little box (in this case, Africa), it's out. so, according to your "the Pope is the reason HIV is so prevalent" argument, it would stand to reason that majority Catholic countries would be looking at some serious epidemics.
But they're not. Must be some reason for it.
Oh, yeah. In those countries, they ignore all of the Church's rules, they don't just pick and chose.
The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.
So, why are all of these good Catholics in Africa picking and choosing which policies they follow?
If they aren't following the premarital sex thing, why does it stand to reason they are following the no condom thing because they're Catholic?
You can't have it both ways. And, still, a vast majority of HIV sufferers aren't Catholic.
|
|
I think it has been some time since Thailand has been part of Africa. When did the continents actually start breaking up? Anyone?You really should educate yourself on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I thought everyone knew that HIV/AIDS originated in Africa - it's a mutation of a virus which used to target monkeys.
Then explain to me why, other than Brazil, this epidemic wasn't nearly as bad in fully Catholic countries as it was in Africa.
It was last Tuesday.
Lots of strawman arguments.
No one has claimed that the Catholic church could have prevented the spread of HIV/AIDS all together. What people are saying is that their stance on condoms could have prevented a certain percentage. Isn't that percentage worth fighting for?
And, again, you keep harping on about it only affecting practicing Catholics, when I explained above why that is a non-issue, since they're spreading their "knowledge" to non-Catholics via their health clinics.|
|
Lots of strawman arguments.No one has claimed that the Catholic church could have prevented the spread of HIV/AIDS all together. What people are saying is that their stance on condoms could have prevented a certain percentage. Isn't that percentage worth fighting for?
And, again, you keep harping on about it only affecting practicing Catholics, when I explained above why that is a non-issue, since they're spreading their "knowledge" to non-Catholics via their health clinics.
Again, if the Church "teachings" are the issue, why isn't HIV a huge problem in majority Catholic countries? Most Latin American nations rank around or below the U.S. in HIV rates.
Again, if the Church "teachings" are the issue, why isn't HIV a huge problem in majority Catholic countries? Most Latin American nations rank around or below the U.S. in HIV rates.Lots of strawman arguments.No one has claimed that the Catholic church could have prevented the spread of HIV/AIDS all together. What people are saying is that their stance on condoms could have prevented a certain percentage. Isn't that percentage worth fighting for?
And, again, you keep harping on about it only affecting practicing Catholics, when I explained above why that is a non-issue, since they're spreading their "knowledge" to non-Catholics via their health clinics.
Still, we aren't exactly an entirely HIV free country. I don't think a drawing parallels to the US is a good starting point from your argument, although I do see where you are coming from.
The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.Abstinence-only policies which has been shown not to work.
I posted a link to an article talking about a study actually showed this wasn't always the case.
Again, even Catholic leadership can't adhere to them.
Exactly what percent of the leadership? Or are you claiming 100% of the leadership can't?
And, again, nobody is against abstinence. You're trying to construct a staw man here. Everyone in this thread is for abstinence. What we're pointing out is that, while abstinence is the first part of ABC, condom use is part of the ABC policy as well.
Since abstinence is not realistic, why not just eliminate from the teaching? How about doing BC? Also, being faithful isn't likely in many cases, so let's just reduce this down to the only part that actually works, part C?
You've argued that abstinence isn't portrayed as a REAL option - while refusing to clarify what you mean by "REAL option" and admitting that you're talking out of your ass anyway on that point.
If it is a "real option", why is it so ineffective?
Which does not stop the current theory of Gravitons as a hypothetical elementary particle.As I understand it, gravity is just a side effect of the way the rest of the universe works. I will try to find the articles again and get you a link.Going back 20 some odd years to my General Relativity courses in university, but Einstein postulated that gravity was not a force, per se, but rather a warping of space time that is caused by anything with mass.
Not quite sure where you are going here, but nothing stops any theory from being correct, except experimental evidence.
Einstein postulated that light could be affected by large enough masses, first and then it was observed. If I remember correctly, it was specifically observed by watching Io being eclipsed by Jupiter. When Io was observed emerging from behind Jupiter, it was actually seen earlier than expected, given the known orbit of the moon. The only possible explanation is that the Io was actually being observed while behind Jupiter due to a deflection of the light by Jupiter's gravity well.
It is the current theory, despite lack of evidence.
That would make it "a" current "hypothesis". Without evidence, its actually not a theory, yet.
Many physicists are convinced that it is about to be found we just need to crash enough of the right particles together in an accelerator enough times to find it.
While I haven't kept up on much technical literature since leaving grad school, I'd be surprised if there are physicists that are "convinced". But I'm probably nit picking.
Of course due to all the current laws of physics we should have found tachyons by now and detect radio waves from the future. Yet we have not.
I think you are stretching here a bit.
The last law of physics that was incorporated was the law of thermodynamics back in the 19th century. Scientists have deliberately stopped from calling anything a "law" due to things like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity which pretty much took our "established" view of the universe and turned it on its head. We as a people have learned in the last 100+ years. That's why even established ideas that are repeatedly shown to be valid in experiment after experiment are still "only" labeled as "theories". We don't make laws anymore.
So there are no laws which indicate that tachyons should exist. And I don't actually think there are any legitimate scientists who actually think that tachyons exist. But I may be wrong about that. Again, I haven't been reading the technical literature for a long time. But my understanding of the purpose of the LHC is not, generally, to search for tachyons, but rather to re-create the initial conditions of the universe to better understand how it came into being.
Greg
I posted a link to an article talking about a study actually showed this wasn't always the case.The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.Abstinence-only policies which has been shown not to work.
A single (!) short term study dealing with U.S. middle/high school students. Hardly a comparative study basis when we're dealing with large parts of (often very, very poor parts of) Africa.
A single (!) short term study dealing with U.S. middle/high school students. Hardly a comparative study basis when we're dealing with large parts of (often very, very poor parts of) Africa.I posted a link to an article talking about a study actually showed this wasn't always the case.The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.Abstinence-only policies which has been shown not to work.
Agreed, but this study flies in the face of conventional thought. I'm fairly anti-abstinence, but even I want to see more longitudinal data from this study.
|
|
Still, we aren't exactly an entirely HIV free country. I don't think a drawing parallels to the US is a good starting point from your argument, although I do see where you are coming from.Again, if the Church "teachings" are the issue, why isn't HIV a huge problem in majority Catholic countries? Most Latin American nations rank around or below the U.S. in HIV rates.Lots of strawman arguments.No one has claimed that the Catholic church could have prevented the spread of HIV/AIDS all together. What people are saying is that their stance on condoms could have prevented a certain percentage. Isn't that percentage worth fighting for?
And, again, you keep harping on about it only affecting practicing Catholics, when I explained above why that is a non-issue, since they're spreading their "knowledge" to non-Catholics via their health clinics.
No country is entirely HIV free, unless you believe Ahmindinejad. Or the Saudis.
All I'm saying is, if it were the Pope's fault, it would stand to reason that nations that are nearly 100% Catholic should have pretty high rates, since no one would be using condoms, apparently. Which doesn't even come close to jibing with my experience in Latin America.
So, to me, it comes back to personal responsibility. I've been reading a lot about this topic all night, and I still keep coming across the same thing over and over: the people on the ground with no anti-religion axe to grind blame non-religious cultural factors for the non-use of condoms than any influence the Pope has.
But, instead of opening up the cultural can of worms (someone may get offended if it is suggested that perhaps African men are too "macho" for condoms - even though that seems to be the prevalent opinion of many of the people on the ground rendering aid over there), it's easier to blame the dude in the funny hat.
Because a nice religious bogeyman is more palatable to the intellectual heavyweights than the possibility the problem isn't with the Catholic church, per se.
A single (!) short term study dealing with U.S. middle/high school students. Hardly a comparative study basis when we're dealing with large parts of (often very, very poor parts of) Africa.I posted a link to an article talking about a study actually showed this wasn't always the case.The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.Abstinence-only policies which has been shown not to work.
To prove a claim is false (such as abstinence-only education is always inferior), it only requires one contradicting example. Or are we now turning our backs on logic in order to maintain our desired paradigm?
Still, we aren't exactly an entirely HIV free country. I don't think a drawing parallels to the US is a good starting point from your argument, although I do see where you are coming from.Again, if the Church "teachings" are the issue, why isn't HIV a huge problem in majority Catholic countries? Most Latin American nations rank around or below the U.S. in HIV rates.Lots of strawman arguments.No one has claimed that the Catholic church could have prevented the spread of HIV/AIDS all together. What people are saying is that their stance on condoms could have prevented a certain percentage. Isn't that percentage worth fighting for?
And, again, you keep harping on about it only affecting practicing Catholics, when I explained above why that is a non-issue, since they're spreading their "knowledge" to non-Catholics via their health clinics.No country is entirely HIV free, unless you believe Ahmindinejad. Or the Saudis.
All I'm saying is, if it were the Pope's fault, it would stand to reason that nations that are nearly 100% Catholic should have pretty high rates, since no one would be using condoms, apparently. Which doesn't even come close to jibing with my experience in Latin America.
So, to me, it comes back to personal responsibility. I've been reading a lot about this topic all night, and I still keep coming across the same thing over and over: the people on the ground with no anti-religion axe to grind blame non-religious cultural factors for the non-use of condoms than any influence the Pope has.
But, instead of opening up the cultural can of worms (someone may get offended if it is suggested that perhaps African men are too "macho" for condoms - even though that seems to be the prevalent opinion of many of the people on the ground rendering aid over there), it's easier to blame the dude in the funny hat.
Because a nice religious bogeyman is more...
It's interesting you should bring up Ahmajinadad. A friend of mine is doing a paper and did some research on homosexuality in Iran and discovered some kind of writ that encouraged full sex change operations and permission to get a burka afterwards or SOMETHING like that. English is my friend's second language and while she can communicate fine for the most part, the article or source she was referencing was complicated, so we missed a few lines of communication, but this strikes me as an interesting practice. Is this was he was referring to when he said Iran didn't have homosexuality or that it wasn't the same as it was in America?
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.
This is great!!!
However, I don't think athiests "seem" to believe this; it's pretty much documented fact that this is exactly what we believe.
And I don't think it's sad at all.
|
|
Considering that Iran and every other Middle East nation (except Israel) voted (successfully) to have homosexuality removed from the U.N. Human Commission "civilized nations do not execute people for these things" list, I have no idea what to make of quite a bit of what he says about homosexuality. I honestly assumed when he said that he meant they just round gay people up and shoot them publicly in a soccer stadium. Hence, no homosexuals in Iran.
I don't know about the "sex change and a burqa" thing, this is the first I've heard of it. But considering the dude is a couple cigs short of a pack, who knows what's going on between his ears.
I do find it funny that the Saudis and Jordan (according to the latest wikileaks leaks) are pushing us to bomb the crap out of Iran before they get the bomb. Anyone that can scare the Wahhabi nutjobs in Saudi that badly...
|
|
Athiests seem to believe that man is a hopped up monkey with delusions of grandure, and they have to attack anyone who says differently.This is great!!!
However, I don't think athiests "seem" to believe this; it's pretty much documented fact that this is exactly what we believe.
And I don't think it's sad at all.
I think I said we're just hopped up monkeys with delusions of grandeur in an earlier post in this thread. Just not as succinctly.
Considering that Iran and every other Middle East nation (except Israel) voted (successfully) to have homosexuality removed from the U.N. Human Commission "civilized nations do not execute people for these things" list, I have no idea what to make of quite a bit of what he says about homosexuality. I honestly assumed when he said that he meant they just round gay people up and shoot them publicly in a soccer stadium. Hence, no homosexuals in Iran.
I don't know about the "sex change and a burqa" thing, this is the first I've heard of it. But considering the dude is a couple cigs short of a pack, who knows what's going on between his ears.
I do find it funny that the Saudis and Jordan (according to the latest wikileaks leaks) are pushing us to bomb the crap out of Iran before they get the bomb. Anyone that can scare the Wahhabi nutjobs in Saudi that badly...
Oh make no mistake- few people like Ahmajinadad. I'm not for Yo Joing Iran into becoming the 51st state or anything like that, but I do think he's dangerous and the world would be better off without him.
To prove a claim is false (such as abstinence-only education is always inferior), it only requires one contradicting example. Or are we now turning our backs on logic in order to maintain our desired paradigm?A single (!) short term study dealing with U.S. middle/high school students. Hardly a comparative study basis when we're dealing with large parts of (often very, very poor parts of) Africa.I posted a link to an article talking about a study actually showed this wasn't always the case.The Church's policy is also no premarital sex and no extramarital sex.Abstinence-only policies which has been shown not to work.
Again, comparing a study from the U.S. on social matters with the situation in rural Africa isn't conclusive of anything. The parameters of the two places are so wildly different that a 1:1 comparison isn't possible.
I admit to not reading the study, so the question might have been answered therein, but how would the study have turned out if it had included 'normal' sex ed. too? Unless subsequent studies back up this one study, it can be seen as an anomoly.
The thing about sex changes for homosexuals in Iran is true. They are even offered free of charge. That's how bad the government there wants to stick to their 'no homosexuals in Iran' spiel.
It also shows a profound lack of knowledge of human sexuality.
\
NOBODY in this thread has said anything against abstinence. What we've been pointing out is that a policy of ABC (abstain, be monogamous, use condoms) has proven, dramatic effectiveness in fighting HIV/AIDS. A policy of preaching abstinence only doesn't.
Abstinence sucks!
Promiscuity rules!
|
|
\
NOBODY in this thread has said anything against abstinence. What we've been pointing out is that a policy of ABC (abstain, be monogamous, use condoms) has proven, dramatic effectiveness in fighting HIV/AIDS. A policy of preaching abstinence only doesn't.Abstinence sucks!
Promiscuity rules!
I agree. Thank all that is good for Durex.