WHAMCO says Happy Fun Ball is the bestest toy for Christmas.
The Master says time really is irrelevant.
Buckaroo Banzai et al, you have the ability to create your own threads if you want to discuss Ben Affleck.
This thread is about a different topic.
My apologies. I took this thread as being a farcical attempt to reopen a thread that admin had closed due to a troll inciting arguments.
It's not that then?
...a farcical attempt...
Naah, that's the Clorox-2 thread!
...a farcical attempt...Naah, that's the Clorox-2 thread!
Ah. So sorry then. I'll go back to ignoring this thread.
Ah. So sorry then. I'll go back to ignoring this thread....a farcical attempt...Naah, that's the Clorox-2 thread!
You could come join our farce frenzy. We're way more fun, but no where near as regenerative.
|
I am not implying anything. I am trying to understand the question and evidence so I can further the discussion, and share an opinion if indeed I have one.Can we agree on the following facts
1.) It is possible for a professional who works with blood (whether it be a nurse, a police officer, etc.) to contract HIV/AIDS through exposure to contaminated blood?
2.) It is possible for someone with HIV/AIDS to pass that virus on to someone else via sex
?
If we can agree on that, then what exactly are you having trouble with in understanding the question?
We could add to that list:
3.) It is possible for HIV/AIDS to be transmitted via an unclean needle.
4.) It is possible that if an HIV/AIDS positive person with a sore uses a public toilet and then a non-infected person with a similar open wound uses the same public toilet immediately after the first person does that they could become infected.
But grouping these 4 together is not entirely honest. So far as I know, number 4 is an urban myth, though it is technically possible. I am simply asking you to establish that number 1 is not in the same category.
Also, have you had a chance to consider whether people are any more likely to follow one Papal decree over another?
|
And Ambrosia Slaad pointed out and gave several references which supported that condom use is very effective in preventing the spread of AIDS.Abstinence is 100% effective against sexually transmitted HIV. Just sayin.Abstinence is a good idea, and will stop the majority of cases.
Unfortunately, the science does not completely support you on the 100% idea. HIV can be transmitted through other methods then Sex.
Whatever the incredibly small percentage of cases come from other means of infection, a little self control would go pretty darn far in stopping the disease cold.
|
|
Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Really?
You simply posit that your (church based) solution is 100% ok, and people should just accept it on the chin, regardless of the human death toll that comes from such reckless indifferece.
I find that pretty morally bankrupt; it goes beyond mere indifference and enters the territory of malice.
Besides please point to the Anti-Condom clause in the 10 Commandments RAW? Its just Papal fiat and you know it.
Not having sex outside of a monogamous long term (preferably lifelong) relationship is morally bankrupt? Really?
|
|
Again, abstinence is 100% fool proof vs STDs.Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?If people actually where abstinent, you might have a point. But the evidence is that abstinence only policies do not work. To sum up the point, i will hand over to John Santelli, M.D., M.P.H.a, Mary A. Ott, M.D.b, Maureen Lyon, Ph.D.c, Jennifer Rogers, M.P.H.d, Daniel Summers, M.D.e, Rebecca Schleifer, J.D., M.P.H.f, and the abstract to their paper Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs
Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents. Many adolescents, including most younger adolescents, have not initiated sexual intercourse and many sexually experienced adolescents and young adults are abstinent for varying periods of time. There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot...
My God. At least someone has the sense to argue facts and logic instead of emotions and 'but I wanna...'
You are right. Reality is different, but it hasn't always been so. As a whole wouldn't it be far more responsible to encourage abstinence and fully educate people from a young age than to give a wink and nod saying, 'It's ok. I know you're gonna, just be careful'. When 'being careful' still carries the risk of death?
|
|
Not having sex outside of a monogamous long term (preferably lifelong) relationship is morally bankrupt? Really?Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Really?
You simply posit that your (church based) solution is 100% ok, and people should just accept it on the chin, regardless of the human death toll that comes from such reckless indifferece.
I find that pretty morally bankrupt; it goes beyond mere indifference and enters the territory of malice.
Besides please point to the Anti-Condom clause in the 10 Commandments RAW? Its just Papal fiat and you know it.
No, but please feel free to willfully misunderstand to make your position sound better.
Abstinence is absolutely the best way to stop any sexually transmitted disease. The problem is that most human beings are simply not capable of it. That's why most STD programs have three components (ABC) not 1.
Abstinence. If you can't abstain, Be faithful to one partner. If you can't be faithful, for the FSM's sake, wear a Condom. The trouble with the Catholic Church's position (and other religious positions as it's not just the Holy C) is that it ignores the C, not because they wouldn't prevent the vast majority of transmissions (they would. All the evidence backs this up) but because the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.
Clearer now?
|
|
So the question about secondary infection vectors and marital relations can be answered, could you provide statistics about the prevalence of these transmissions?
Thanks.
Does it matter?
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that the incidence is "1". If that's not enough, let's say it's "2". When does it become "enough"? When do the number of painful and needless deaths become significant enough to address?
Eliminate the larger source and the secondary cases will diminish automatically.
|
|
Not having sex outside of a monogamous long term (preferably lifelong) relationship is morally bankrupt? Really?Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Really?
You simply posit that your (church based) solution is 100% ok, and people should just accept it on the chin, regardless of the human death toll that comes from such reckless indifferece.
I find that pretty morally bankrupt; it goes beyond mere indifference and enters the territory of malice.
Besides please point to the Anti-Condom clause in the 10 Commandments RAW? Its just Papal fiat and you know it.
No, but please feel free to willfully misunderstand to make your position sound better.
Abstinence is absolutely the best way to stop any sexually transmitted disease. The problem is that most human beings are simply not capable of it. That's why most STD programs have three components (ABC) not 1.
Abstinence. If you can't abstain, Be faithful to one partner. If you can't be faithful, for the FSM's sake, wear a Condom. The trouble with the Catholic Church's position (and other religious positions as it's not just the Holy C) is that it ignores the C, not because they wouldn't prevent the vast majority of transmissions (they would. All the evidence backs this up) but because the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.
Clearer now?
Hm, really. See, I give 'most human beings' more credit than being simple animals who mate purely on instinct.
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on. They are just too self indulgent to do so.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hm, really. See, I give 'most human beings' more credit than being simple animals who mate purely on instinct.
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on. They are just too self indulgent to do so.
You give humanity more credit than I do, that's for certain. Should, and do are far apart. If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed
(I should stop posting in the thread, I do keep getting sucked in by intelligent conversation though. Perfect example.)
Not sure why I'm about to point out some obvious OP shortfalls, but here goes -
The thread title doesn't help make your desired 'discussion' very neutral. It makes the Pope a poster boy for criticism, as well a catholics in general. If you wanted a broader context, you could have chosen better.
Sensationalization, inflammatory, and pointless.
That said, under the context of your title, what is the percentage of catholics that suffer from HIV/AIDS as a result of the Pope's stance? What percentage of them actually follow his beliefs to the letter? More pointlessness.
In the African continent, where this is pandemic, condom uses campaigns have been in place for years. Has this FAILED (for years now) because of the Pope's POV?
Did the Pope outline the transference instances outside of condom use? The VALID points of blood/needle transference have little bearing on his POV. Seriously, do you expect the guy to endorse condoms? He doesn't even 'approve' them for married couples.
Does debating this on these forums really change anything? Does it really raise awareness amongst Paizo posters? Or, does it just justify the anger against a non-secular POV?
The CONTEXT of this thread is sad. The TOPIC is not.
My above questions are rhetorical. I won't be adding anything more.
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on.
While agree that they should be able to, as a mentally competent individual I'm also capable of seeing that 99% of them won't. No matter how you brainwash them, and not even if they can die from it. Now, if the point is that AIDS is God "smiting" them for not obeying, well, I see no way to argue against anyone who claims to know the mind of God. But in the realm of pure logic, I can accept that "should be" is not the same as "is."
EDIT: Ninja's by Matthew. Good show.
You said, "If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed." When I taught high school, the county switched from comprehensive sex ed to an abstinence-only class, and they brought out the "purity rings." Of the many girls who subsequently became pregnant in the epidemic that followed the next year, all but one of them were "purity ring" wearers from very religious households. Anecdote only? Yes, that's true. But it did make me stop and think that maybe abstinence + monogamy + condom is a better scheme overall.
|
|
You give humanity more credit than I do, that's for certain. Should, and do are far apart. If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed.Hm, really. See, I give 'most human beings' more credit than being simple animals who mate purely on instinct.
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on. They are just too self indulgent to do so.
That's pretty much my entire point.
That's pretty much my entire point.
See above. You might also contrast teen pregnancy and STD rates in different places, e.g. the Netherlands (very sexually permissive, comprehensive ABC campaign from a young age) vs. Iran, for example (sex is very rigidly controlled, is illegal outside of marriage and often punishable by death). I'll cite no numbers, lest I be claimed to be making them up, but if you're interested in the topic you might check them out and see what you think.
|
|
Statistics suggest that Catholic parts of Africa have lower incidence of HIV, and so do Muslim regions.
Some analysts have suggested that this is skewed by low reporting amongst Catholic and Muslim communities.
Good general health and nutrition helps to protect from developing HIV/Aids. Some analysts suggest that the statistics are skewed by varied poverty levels.
However, nutrition is not enough, despite what some viscious individuals might say.
So, what I am getting at is that statistics are a waste of time in an area which combines incredible statistical complexity with incredibly unreliable statistics.
While I am aware that some people are incapable of discussion or thought on the internet without statistics. This kind of discussion will benefit from a preponderance of sweet reason and a limit on calls for, or use of, statistics.
Lie, Damn Lies, Statistics.
It seems to me that The Pope sincerely believes that he is doing the right thing, as do many other Catholics.
I may not agree, and I may seek to dissuade them, but if I wish to do so usefully then I must look more widely to the source of their conviction.
While condom use may be effective in preventing/limiting the spread of HIV/Aids, the idea that the most important thing you can do for someone is protect them from this disease must contend with the idea that the most important thing you can do for someone is ensure that they spend eternity amongst the celestial host.
This is the real argument, surely?
And it is too vast and fraught to be brought to a positive conclusion on an internet message board.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
...the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.
Paul,
I'm a Catholic man who's gone through marriage preparation in the Church. Your claim doesn't square with the Church doctrine as it was presented to us.
Could you cite your sources?
|
|
That's pretty much my entire point.You give humanity more credit than I do, that's for certain. Should, and do are far apart. If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed.Hm, really. See, I give 'most human beings' more credit than being simple animals who mate purely on instinct.
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on. They are just too self indulgent to do so.
If people would be abstinent and faithful to their partner, would the world be better? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that we condemn the ones that aren't to a slow painful death to satisfy our moral outrage?
Condom use is a classic case of the perfect being an enemy of the good. The perfect situation is that people are abstinent and faithful. But if that isn't achieved, condoms are better than nothing.
|
|
While there are exceptions, most mentally competent individuals are absolutely capable of keeping their pants on.While agree that they should be able to, as a mentally competent individual I'm also capable of seeing that 99% of them won't. No matter how you brainwash them, and not even if they can die from it. Now, if the point is that AIDS is God "smiting" them for not obeying, well, I see no way to argue against anyone who claims to know the mind of God. But in the realm of pure logic, I can accept that "should be" is not the same as "is."
And where the hell does that come from? Anyone in this thread make that comment? Nope. Just you.
EDIT: Ninja's by Matthew. Good show.
You said, "If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed." When I taught high school, the county switched from comprehensive sex ed to an abstinence-only class, and they brought out the "purity rings." Of the many girls who subsequently became pregnant in the epidemic that followed the next year, all but one of them were "purity ring" wearers from very religious households. Anecdote only? Yes, that's true. But it did make me stop and think that maybe abstinence + monogamy + condom is a better scheme overall.
It's naive to think the issue could be fixed in one nine month school year. It's a societal problem, not entirely an educational one.
|
|
...the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.Paul,
I'm a Catholic man who's gone through marriage preparation in the Church. Your claim doesn't square with the Church doctrine as it was presented to us.
Could you cite your sources?
No, I can't. In the discussions around the issue on the radio in the UK, that was one of the things being said. If it's not true, what is the real reason for the opposition to using condoms?
EDIT: Sounds way more accusatory than I mean. I accept what you're saying as, being a Catholic, you know far more about your religion than I do. I'm just very curious why there is such opposition to condoms as that explanation made sense to me.
|
|
...the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.Paul,
I'm a Catholic man who's gone through marriage preparation in the Church. Your claim doesn't square with the Church doctrine as it was presented to us.
Could you cite your sources?
+1 please, and let me further point out that I'm a non-Catholic man who went through marriage preparation in the Catholic church. And let me further point out that my own religious views make Catholicism out to be one of the least desirable ecclesiastical solutions (no offense, Chris or anyone else). And your claim still doesn't square with the Catholic Church doctrine, as Chris stated above.
Edit: since you ninja'd me admitting a lack of knowledge on the topic - The Catholic church approves of married individuals having sex just for random enjoyment. They simply recommend the rhythm method. Which, coincidentally, if you're cautious about it, actually does work. People just aren't nearly cautious enough.
I have no idea why the Pope doesn't approve of condom use, other than to suggest that teens using condoms oftentimes equates to teens using condoms incorrectly, with out of wedlock babies being the result. I think the Pope is against this. That's my best guess.
|
|
Statistics suggest that Catholic parts of Africa have lower incidence of HIV, and so do Muslim regions.
Some analysts have suggested that this is skewed by low reporting amongst Catholic and Muslim communities.
Good general health and nutrition helps to protect from developing HIV/Aids. Some analysts suggest that the statistics are skewed by varied poverty levels.
However, nutrition is not enough, despite what some viscious individuals might say.So, what I am getting at is that statistics are a waste of time in an area which combines incredible statistical complexity with incredibly unreliable statistics.
While I am aware that some people are incapable of discussion or thought on the internet without statistics. This kind of discussion will benefit from a preponderance of sweet reason and a limit on calls for, or use of, statistics.
Lie, Damn Lies, Statistics.
It seems to me that The Pope sincerely believes that he is doing the right thing, as do many other Catholics.
I may not agree, and I may seek to dissuade them, but if I wish to do so usefully then I must look more widely to the source of their conviction.
While condom use may be effective in preventing/limiting the spread of HIV/Aids, the idea that the most important thing you can do for someone is protect them from this disease must contend with the idea that the most important thing you can do for someone is ensure that they spend eternity amongst the celestial host.This is the real argument, surely?
And it is too vast and fraught to be brought to a positive conclusion on an internet message board.
I wish we could have stopped here... Brilliantly stated.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[EDIT: Ninja's by Matthew. Good show.
You said, "If that's a matter of society and upbringing, that needs to be changed." When I taught high school, the county switched from comprehensive sex ed to an abstinence-only class, and they brought out the "purity rings." Of the many girls who subsequently became pregnant in the epidemic that followed the next year, all but one of them were "purity ring" wearers from very religious households. Anecdote only? Yes, that's true. But it did make me stop and think that maybe abstinence + monogamy + condom is a better scheme overall.
It's always seemed a catch 22 to me.
A, or A + M is 'you should do this' and needs an education of 'what if I don't?'
AMC (above, not the auto brand) can be seen as 'You should do A and/or M, but you're not going to, so here' The first doesn't define what happens if you fail, the second just assumes you'll fail. I don't 'know' what the answer is. The Pope (and church hiearchy) do claim to know what's 'best' for their flock. All I know is what I think is best for my nieces and nephews and (hypothetical) children.
And Kirth, I've seen no evidence you'd stoop to 'making up numbers' to bolster your argument.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have no idea why the Pope doesn't approve of condom use, other than to suggest that teens using condoms oftentimes equates to teens using condoms incorrectly, with out of wedlock babies being the result. I think the Pope is against this. That's my best guess.
Went digging and found this link H/T NRO.
The part that seems most topic related:
"The Pope doesn’t specifically address the often-asked question of whether it would be moral for a married couple to use a condom to engage in sexual activity when one of the spouses has AIDS. The answer, however, should be obvious: it is absolutely incompatible with love and “making love” for one with AIDS to risk passing on a fatal disease to a loved one by engaging in sexual activity with or without a condom (since the condom may fail). In the tragic and not uncommon context of marital rape in Africa, when husbands with AIDS insist on their supposed “marital rights” to sexual activity with their uninfected wife, the wife’s insistence on her husband’s using a condom while he forces himself upon her would not be sinful on her part, since we would not be dealing with a true conjugal act."
And from here the Pope in his own words:
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
Excuse the long quotes, but it does help to explain the Holy C's POV, agree with it or not.
If people would be abstinent and faithful to their partner, would the world be better? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that we condemn the ones that aren't to a slow painful death to satisfy our moral outrage?
Condom use is a classic case of the perfect being an enemy of the good. The perfect situation is that people are abstinent and faithful. But if that isn't achieved, condoms are better than nothing.
I know many people who would disagree with you. Not everyone is monagomous, and not everyone wants to be. Your assertion that the world would be better if they were is insulting. There are significant polyamorous communities throughout the US. Just because it is not your lifestyle does not mean that there is anything wrong with it being others.
|
|
I know many people who would disagree with you. Not everyone is monagomous, and not everyone wants to be. Your assertion that the world would be better if they were is insulting. There are significant polyamorous communities throughout the US. Just because it is not your lifestyle does not mean that there is anything wrong with it being others.If people would be abstinent and faithful to their partner, would the world be better? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that we condemn the ones that aren't to a slow painful death to satisfy our moral outrage?
Condom use is a classic case of the perfect being an enemy of the good. The perfect situation is that people are abstinent and faithful. But if that isn't achieved, condoms are better than nothing.
At the same time, just because it is your lifestyle (Not yours specifically. I don't know what your sexual proclivities are, nor do I care to learn.) doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with it. Especially when it can spread a life threatening disease. Which is what we are talking about.
And where the hell does that come from? Anyone in this thread make that comment? Nope. Just you.
To quote Hamelet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
|
And where the hell does that come from? Anyone in this thread make that comment? Nope. Just you.To quote Hamelet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Are you using the quote in its proper context, Kirth? I can't remember. I'd hate to see you using the words in their contemporary meaning rather than the way the original author understood it. :)
Caineach, with respect, the teachings of the Church apply to those who have accepted the authority of that teaching.
Polyamorous communities have more fundamental fish to fry with Catholic teaching about sexuality than the particular methods of birth control.
There are catholics in those communities. Nothing in the Bible goes against their way of life. But my comment was more directed at the part I quoted, and not to the discussion as a whole, which implied the world would be better if everyone was monogamous. I was trying to be informative in teling him that other styles of life exist. I came accross more combatative than I wanted though (and still am, its just my style).
As to the discussion on birth control, I think that the Pope is willfully doing something that is harmful to the world by promoting abstinence only policy. It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy. By villifying condom use, he promotes the spread of disease, especially in areas where he is most influential, like Africa, where many of the aid workers will no longer give out condoms or teach their use as an alternative because of his stance.
Are you using the quote in its proper context, Kirth? I can't remember. I'd hate to see you using the words in their contemporary meaning rather than the way the original author understood it. :)
Ah! A literate gamer! So you'll agree that, much like with a double negative vs. a single one, the final implication ends up being the same.
At the same time, just because it is your lifestyle (Not yours specifically. I don't know what your sexual proclivities are, nor do I care to learn.) doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with it. Especially when it can spread a life threatening disease. Which is what we are talking about.I know many people who would disagree with you. Not everyone is monagomous, and not everyone wants to be. Your assertion that the world would be better if they were is insulting. There are significant polyamorous communities throughout the US. Just because it is not your lifestyle does not mean that there is anything wrong with it being others.If people would be abstinent and faithful to their partner, would the world be better? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that we condemn the ones that aren't to a slow painful death to satisfy our moral outrage?
Condom use is a classic case of the perfect being an enemy of the good. The perfect situation is that people are abstinent and faithful. But if that isn't achieved, condoms are better than nothing.
Without condom use, disease would likely spread quite rampantly throughout many those communities. But disease does not spread significantly more in them than the general population, so they must be doing something right.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As to the discussion on birth control, I think that the Pope is willfully doing something that is harmful to the world by promoting abstinence only policy. It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy. By villifying condom use, he promotes the spread of disease, especially in areas where he is most influential, like Africa, where many of the aid workers will no longer give out condoms or teach their use as an alternative because of his stance.
(I'm posting two links discussing the studies of one group, since as GeraintElberion posted, data collection in Africa isn't the greatest.)
I find it useful to not make up numbers when having a debate.
|
|
Yet educational and social policies which they know do not work, did play a major part in the causation of this pandemic.Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
That is your opinion, and not fact. People spread this disease through unsafe practices. While not every person did take drugs or choose to have unsafe sex. Others did and this is what caused the disease to spread.
|
|
Not having sex outside of a monogamous long term (preferably lifelong) relationship is morally bankrupt? Really?Kidding aside, your comparison make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Really?
You simply posit that your (church based) solution is 100% ok, and people should just accept it on the chin, regardless of the human death toll that comes from such reckless indifferece.
I find that pretty morally bankrupt; it goes beyond mere indifference and enters the territory of malice.
Besides please point to the Anti-Condom clause in the 10 Commandments RAW? Its just Papal fiat and you know it.
No, but please feel free to willfully misunderstand to make your position sound better.
Abstinence is absolutely the best way to stop any sexually transmitted disease. The problem is that most human beings are simply not capable of it. That's why most STD programs have three components (ABC) not 1.
Abstinence. If you can't abstain, Be faithful to one partner. If you can't be faithful, for the FSM's sake, wear a Condom. The trouble with the Catholic Church's position (and other religious positions as it's not just the Holy C) is that it ignores the C, not because they wouldn't prevent the vast majority of transmissions (they would. All the evidence backs this up) but because the church doesn't like the idea of people having sex without trying to have children. The church has decided that it's dogma that the only reason to have sex is to have children is more important than the lives of it's faithful. That's the moral bankruptcy, at least in the eyes of people who think that sex is something that isn't just for spurting out babies.
Clearer now?
No.
Your opinion is that, as I am reading it, is that most people are unable to abstain. My opinion is rather most people choose not to. Our ability to choose is what makes us human. Every human being is physically capable of abstinence.
I also feel that you miss understood C) and the Churches position. Especially Benedicts. Why, because the entire article and interview was about C) and how he made a distinction between a)b) and C) and said yes for the safety of your fellow man there are times when C) should happen.
That is your opinion, and not fact. People spread this disease through unsafe practices. While not every person did take drugs or choose to have unsafe sex. Others did and this is what caused the disease to spread.Yet educational and social policies which they know do not work, did play a major part in the causation of this pandemic.Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
Ah, much better.
I must disagree with you here, friend. There is an entire HIV+ population that is missing in most conversations on the topic- people who were either born with HIV or those who recieved them from blood transfusions. With respect to the latter, a lot of people assume that people don't get HIV through blood transfusions because we test our blood nowadays, right? Yes, that is true- nowadays. Someone who has certain forms of cancer or is a hemophiliac(low chance of either, but these people ARE a part of our population) within a certain age group are still considered to be high risk(I believe). Not all of them have tested positive or even gotten tested, but there would be a portion of HIV positive individuals who fall into this category.
More heartbreaking would be those who were born wih HIV, who are a portion of HIV positive individuals today. These young men and women are doubly damned in a sense, as they often hear the negative stereotypes(whether or not they are based in reality is another story) regarding HIV positive individuals and often feel ostracized. Sometimes they get over these feelings and attempt to live their lives the best way they know how, others lean towards strict abstinence, still others go in other directions, sometimes including suicide(I would like to believe this is rare, but again, I lack evidence to back this up). Still, these are two vectors that are often ignored, and should be given more attention, sympathy and respect.
In terms of abstinence, I have no problem with it overall. However, I must say that it is not for me, and as a result, I would have a problem suggesting it as an option to someone else, particularly if they were younger than myself. I personally believe the greatest problem with this philosophy is that almost 100% of the people preaching it have never seen it through(i.e. virgins until marriage), and that kids(or perhaps on these messageboards, those who feel it is being preached to them) pick up on that and are ready to condemn the percieved hypocrisy. In terms of religious viewpoints...well, at least in the Catholic faith there are those who DO see it through and without including the marriage caveat, however there is something of a disconnect there with the speaker and the listener(i.e. those who preach the importance of abstinence will never be in the same situation as those who must hear and obey the message unless they leave the cloth- which has happened before). Finally, as an aside in terms of reporting, both in religious and non-religous communities..yeah, there's a problem there. I've encountered some interesting stories through my second job that I wont' go into here. But yes...reporting is an issue, and I would suggest that all consider that on some level, even when quoting statistics that back up ones own evidence.
As to the discussion on birth control, I think that the Pope is willfully doing something that is harmful to the world by promoting abstinence only policy. It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy. By villifying condom use, he promotes the spread of disease, especially in areas where he is most influential, like Africa, where many of the aid workers will no longer give out condoms or teach their use as an alternative because of his stance.(I'm posting two links discussing the studies of one group, since as GeraintElberion posted, data collection in Africa isn't the greatest.)
I find it useful to not make up numbers when having a debate.
Well, I'm not going to do a significant search, but a quick one finds this article which says aid workers have been fearing losing their jobs if they give out or promote condoms to sexually active people because of the Pope's previous remarks. Its a poor source though I admit, but I don't really feel like finding a better one right now.
In all honesty, it does not matter what the pope actually said, or that he may be factually correct, as your sources say he may be. What matters is how people reacted to his comment, and how he handled their reaction. In this case, people who have wanted to give aid are prevented from doing so because of what people believe his policy to be.
As for the Abstinence only policy outside of Africa, there has already been at least 1 study sighted earlier by zombie neighbor in the thread showing that abstinence only policies in US high schools do not work. This study is not atypical at all.
|
|
That is your opinion, and not fact. People spread this disease through unsafe practices. While not every person did take drugs or choose to have unsafe sex. Others did and this is what caused the disease to spread.Yet educational and social policies which they know do not work, did play a major part in the causation of this pandemic.Sweep under the rug, no. Blame a group that did nothing to cause it, no.Let me rephrase, it is not worth the time it takes to debate this because you have your view and most of the rest of the world has it's own. Learn to pick your fights and drop it so we can all get on with life. I feel, that it seems you are unwilling or perhaps unable to drop a topic.More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. I don't think the topic of millions of people dying painful and avoidable deaths is a topic that -should- be avoided, do you?
If this were breast cancer would it be something you'd happily sweep under the rug?
Ah, much better.
I must disagree with you here, friend. There is an entire HIV+ population that is missing in most conversations on the topic- people who were either born with HIV or those who recieved them from blood transfusions. With respect to the latter, a lot of people assume that people don't get HIV through blood transfusions because we test our blood nowadays, right? Yes, that is true- nowadays. Someone who has certain forms of cancer or is a hemophiliac(low chance of either, but these people ARE a part of our population) within a certain age group are still considered to be high risk(I believe). Not all of them have tested positive or even gotten tested, but there would be a portion of HIV positive individuals who fall into this category.
More...
Please understand that I am not disagreeing with you, my friend. However someone at some point had to have done something irresponsible to have caused the child to become infected.
Does this mean I expect everyone to follow my practice of monogamy? Not in the least. Just understand I do not agree and that I do not have to agree.
Ambrosia Slaad, thanks for the link in previous thread. I had never seen that before. :) And who could not agree with "lawyers" (sorry Sebastian) Of course politicians should have had a place there too. :)
Good stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.
In all honesty, it does not matter what the pope actually said, or that he may be factually correct, as your sources say he may be.
(Emphasis mine)
One of these things is not like the other.
My question is... If when the Pope says to be abstinent, it can be demonstrated that people do not listen (though I am not sure we have established that it is Catholics that have been studied in info so far presented, apologizes if I am wrong on that), then do we have any evidence that Catholics are more inclined to listen when he says to not use condoms?
I'd think it'd be more likely in any case. Can't use a condom if you don't have one on you and your less likely to either get one in the first place or keep it on you if your really uncomfortable with buying them and/or fearful that some one will find out you have one.
It is a proven fact that areas that try to use this method have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.In all honesty, it does not matter what the pope actually said, or that he may be factually correct, as your sources say he may be.(Emphasis mine)
One of these things is not like the other.
Actually, they do not contradict eachother. The areas that the Pope is refering to do not promote an abstinence only policy, but a community involvement policy that teaches the dangers of STDs and raises their awareness within the community, and encourages monogamy instead of polyamory. This is not the same as an abstinence only policy. All it is saying is that areas that promote condoms are not seeing significant reductions like those that promote monogamy. It says nothing about a theoretical area which promototes both, or an area that takes a similar community-based approach to condom use. Abstinence only policies do not work, as other studies have shown, because the vast majority of people do not stay abstinent until they are married.
CJ: No offense taken, man. As much as we strive to keep our noses out of each other's bedrooms(no kinky pun intended), the more we find that decisions made behind closed doors affect us all in our day to day lives.
In terms of the promise ring fiasco...I'd like to do a study determining not only the incidence of pregnancy around those who participate, but also the rates of STDs(not necessarily HIV, more focusing on strains of herpes). Just because vaginal intercourse was not had doesn't mean people were enjoying each other's company in other ways.