I fail to see the relevance of bringing up other methods of getting HIV. I mean if you get it from sharing needles or a blood transfusion, it isn't like if you were wearing a condom at the time you would have avoided getting it. Maybe we all need to be walking around with condoms on/in all the time.
By the way, not everyone who has contracted HIV/AIDs through sex has done so by mistake.
Many members of the Catholic leadership in Africa have deliberately targetted and raped nuns believing that since these women are abstinent, they are disease free.
It is the very definition of "hypocritical" for Catholic leadership to be pushing abstinence-only policies when that leadership has been involved in rape, pedophilia, and covering both of these things up.
This is the organzation you are aggressively defending, houstonderek.
And again, what is the portion of the entire population of those involved with the Catholic church that is involved in these things? Let's not punish everyone because of the actions of a few.
Frankly, it sounds like those religious wackos that blamed D&D for the suicide of a few gamers back in the 80's. Even though statistically D&D players were less likely to commit suicide. I am wondering when LT is going to put out some tracks for everyone.
I fail to see the relevance of bringing up other methods of getting HIV. I mean if you get it from sharing needles or a blood transfusion, it isn't like if you were wearing a condom at the time you would have avoided getting it. Maybe we all need to be walking around with condoms on/in all the time.What we were discussing is houstonderek's claim that a sex education program should tell students right at the beginning that the only 100% way to be sure not to get HIV/AIDS is to be abstinent.
That's a lie. People need to know that they can get HIV/AIDS while being abstinent.
And where a condom in those situations will do exactly Jack and Squat as well, and Jack left town. SO what's the point when discussing a comparison to abstinence and condoms?
Both are 0% effective in that situation. So obviously within the context of what is being discussed, those situations are irrelevant.
I'm not attacking all Catholics.
Many members of the Catholic leadership in Africa have deliberately targetted and raped nuns believing that since these women are abstinent, they are disease free.
It is the very definition of "hypocritical" for Catholic leadership to be pushing abstinence-only policies when that leadership has been involved in rape, pedophilia, and covering both of these things up.
This is the organzation you are aggressively defending, houstonderek.
Yes, you are. So get started on those tracks. Who will play the part of Blackleaf?
I'm not perfect. I just don't expect the universe to shed a tear if I screw up. I definitely don't expect someone to be total douche towards an entire religion because I screw up.
Does this mean it's okay to be a douche towards you, though?
Not trying to start anything(obviously, as you know me well enough by now), just asking. The main problem with this rather hardline view is that people usually hold themselves exempt from it. Would you have a problem if you found yourself HIV positive due to sexual relations(or suffering from some other STD or hell, even just locked yourself out of your house), and Nelson Muntz walked up to you and pulled his trademark ha-ha?
|
I fail to see the relevance of bringing up other methods of getting HIV. I mean if you get it from sharing needles or a blood transfusion, it isn't like if you were wearing a condom at the time you would have avoided getting it. Maybe we all need to be walking around with condoms on/in all the time.What we were discussing is houstonderek's claim that a sex education program should tell students right at the beginning that the only 100% way to be sure not to get HIV/AIDS is to be abstinent.
That's a lie. People need to know that they can get HIV/AIDS while being abstinent.
Let's see here. You start a thread about the Pope and condoms. I discuss the options that involve what condoms may be good for. You talk about shit condoms can't prevent.
When I say abstinence is 100% effective in preventing HIV and pregnancy, I mean in the context of this thread. Discussing condoms.
So, back to my original point. You can bloviate all you want about whatever it is you feel the need to bloviate about, but keep in mid that this thread was created by you solely to antagonize religious people. Really, I don;t care much, as Paizo has mad it abundantly clear the only protected species on these boards is homosexuality and Islam. (As an aside, it's funny those are the two, considering the Muslim nations in the UN successfully removed homosexuals as a "not to give the death penalty to" category in the human rights commission).
Apparently you have an issue with anyone who holds a different worldview than you, as evidenced by your completely douche-y posts in the popcorn thread. This thread is meant to attack/antagonize Catholics. Nothing in your posting style suggests otherwise.
|
|
I'm not perfect. I just don't expect the universe to shed a tear if I screw up. I definitely don't expect someone to be total douche towards an entire religion because I screw up.Does this mean it's okay to be a douche towards you, though?
Not trying to start anything(obviously, as you know me well enough by now), just asking. The main problem with this rather hardline view is that people usually hold themselves exempt from it. Would you have a problem if you found yourself HIV positive due to sexual relations(or suffering from some other STD or hell, even just locked yourself out of your house), and Nelson Muntz walked up to you and pulled his trademark ha-ha?
I wouldn't care, honestly. The DEA agent that busted me did that (seriously), and I kinda chuckled.
I don't care if people care, or they help out. I care when they blame someone who didn't cause the sufferer to do what the sufferer did.
You know who I feel bad for in Africa? The virgins who get raped because some douche told their rapist that rape cures HIV.
I wouldn't care, honestly. The DEA agent that busted me did that (seriously), and I kinda chuckled.I'm not perfect. I just don't expect the universe to shed a tear if I screw up. I definitely don't expect someone to be total douche towards an entire religion because I screw up.Does this mean it's okay to be a douche towards you, though?
Not trying to start anything(obviously, as you know me well enough by now), just asking. The main problem with this rather hardline view is that people usually hold themselves exempt from it. Would you have a problem if you found yourself HIV positive due to sexual relations(or suffering from some other STD or hell, even just locked yourself out of your house), and Nelson Muntz walked up to you and pulled his trademark ha-ha?
Power-tripping jerk. The DEA agent, not you.
You know who I feel bad for in Africa? The virgins who get raped because some douche told their rapist that rape cures HIV.
These people deserve our utmost sympathy and every iota of support we can muster. Their attackers should be gelded.
|
|
It wasn't that long ago that somebody was running a fund raiser on these boards for a known hate group against gays and, when I pointed that out, I was banned from the boards for three days. So, no, Paizo doesn't target gays for...I fail to see the relevance of bringing up other methods of getting HIV. I mean if you get it from sharing needles or a blood transfusion, it isn't like if you were wearing a condom at the time you would have avoided getting it. Maybe we all need to be walking around with condoms on/in all the time.What we were discussing is houstonderek's claim that a sex education program should tell students right at the beginning that the only 100% way to be sure not to get HIV/AIDS is to be abstinent.
That's a lie. People need to know that they can get HIV/AIDS while being abstinent.
Let's see here. You start a thread about the Pope and condoms. I discuss the options that involve what condoms may be good for. You talk about s@#! condoms can't prevent.
When I say abstinence is 100% effective in preventing HIV and pregnancy, I mean in the context of this thread. Discussing condoms.
So, back to my original point. You can bloviate all you want about whatever it is you feel the need to bloviate about, but keep in mid that this thread was created by you solely to antagonize religious people. Really, I don;t care much, as Paizo has mad it abundantly clear the only protected species on these boards is homosexuality and Islam. (As an aside, it's funny those are the two, considering the Muslim nations in the UN successfully removed homosexuals as a "not to give the death penalty to" category in the human rights commission).
Apparently you have an issue with anyone who holds a different worldview than you, as evidenced by your completely douche-y posts in the popcorn thread. This thread is meant to attack/antagonize Catholics. Nothing in your posting style suggests otherwise.
Ah, hyperbole, the refuge of someone with a chip on their shoulder.
That hyperbole would be characterizing the BSA as a "hate group".
Again, the term "hate group"? Leftie PC invention.
Again, the term "hate group"? Leftie PC invention.
The Klan and Neo-Nazis are out to dispense hugs and love. HUGS AND LOVE!!!!
[EDIT] I'll give you a point in that the left wing has certainly co-opted and misused the term several times over the years.
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior.
You know what people who live in those conditions every day would probably find patronizing? Your bluster about their "choices."
You are are assuming that everyone has access to the same information and opportunties that we enjoy. Believe it or not, many people don't know how HIV/AIDs is tranmitted (in part because the Catholic church bitterly opposes educating them -- but that's another story). Billions of people are screwed from the day they are born, and not because of any lack of "being held responsible for their own behavior."
Frankly, that's just something people tell themselves so they can sleep at night.
In the meantime, I'll take your talk about choices seriously when you've worked years in a diamond mine for $.25 a day, or watched one of your children die of dysentery for lack of basic medical care.
Again, the term "hate group"? Leftie PC invention.
What happened to you to make you this bitter?
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior.You are are assuming that everyone has access to the same information and opportunties that we enjoy. Believe it or not, many people don't know how HIV/AIDs is tranmitted (in part because the Catholic church bitterly opposes educating them -- but that's another story). Billions of people are screwed from the day they are born, and not because of any lack of "being held responsible for their own behavior." Frankly, that's just something people tell themselves so they can sleep at night. In the meantime, I'll take your talk about choices seriously when you've worked years in a diamond mine for $.25 a day, or watched one of your children die of dysentery for lack of basic medical care.
You know what people who live in those conditions every day would probably find patronizing? Your bluster about their "choices."
A fair enough question- what are your thoughts about people who are born with this disease? And what of the fact that there really is no way to tell by looking at someone who is HIV positive(or hell, maybe even born with herpes or some other STD transmitted in utero) how they acquired said disease?
I'm thinking STDs are a poor category for some of these diseases. People aren't exactly running around in fear of the common cold(which, in my experience, is the most insidious STD ever).
Really, I don;t care much, as Paizo has mad it abundantly clear the only protected species on these boards is homosexuality and Islam.
Bullshit Derek. Stop acting like a freaking victim when people express different views than you and they don't immediately get hit with the ban hammer.
Apparently you have an issue with anyone who holds a different worldview than you, as evidenced by your completely douche-y posts in the popcorn thread. [Snip] Nothing in your posting style suggests otherwise.
Pot, meet kettle.
Lots of your posts lately have been über douche-y just because you don't agree with the viewpoint being expressed. If you feel like it's your duty to call other people out on what you consider douchebag comments, don't be surprised when people do the same to you.
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior.You are are assuming that everyone has access to the same information and opportunties that we enjoy. Believe it or not, many people don't know how HIV/AIDs is tranmitted (in part because the Catholic church bitterly opposes educating them -- but that's another story). Billions of people are screwed from the day they are born, and not because of any lack of "being held responsible for their own behavior." Frankly, that's just something people tell themselves so they can sleep at night. In the meantime, I'll take your talk about choices seriously when you've worked years in a diamond mine for $.25 a day, or watched one of your children die of dysentery for lack of basic medical care.
You know what people who live in those conditions every day would probably find patronizing? Your bluster about their "choices."
A fair enough question- what are your thoughts about people who are born with this disease? And what of the fact that there really is no way to tell by looking at someone who is HIV positive(or hell, maybe even born with herpes or some other STD transmitted in utero) how they acquired said disease?
I'm thinking STDs are a poor category for some of these diseases. People aren't exactly running around in fear of the common cold(which, in my experience, is the most insidious STD ever).
I wonder if there is a Whedon-strain of the common cold?
I wonder if there is a Whedon-strain of the common cold?
Clearly, this strain must be eliminated, lest it ravage the face of the earth.
|
|
I'm not perfect. I just don't expect the universe to shed a tear if I screw up. I definitely don't expect someone to be total douche towards an entire religion because I screw up.We're discussing the fact that over 20,000,000 people have died horrible, needless deaths, while the Catholic church pushes a policy which doesn't work. And you're more upset if somebody says something to criticize that.
Your priorities are seriously out of whack.
The Catholic Church pushes a policy that is more effective than condom use for spreading HIV if it is followed in its entirety.
Furthermore, how many of those 20 mil were Catholic? And I mean practicing.
And, that 20 million figure includes people from the beginning of the knowledge of the disease.
I'd venture to say the Pope didn't tell anyone to rape a virgin, but obviously that's the Catholic Church's fault for ensuring there were virgins to rape.
|
|
Really, I don;t care much, as Paizo has mad it abundantly clear the only protected species on these boards is homosexuality and Islam.b!@#*~!! Derek. Stop acting like a freaking victim when people express different views than you and they don't immediately get hit with the ban hammer.
Apparently you have an issue with anyone who holds a different worldview than you, as evidenced by your completely douche-y posts in the popcorn thread. [Snip] Nothing in your posting style suggests otherwise.
Pot, meet kettle.
Lots of your posts lately have been über douche-y just because you don't agree with the viewpoint being expressed. If you feel like it's your duty to call other people out on what you consider douchebag comments, don't be surprised when people do the same to you.
The funny thing? I really don't care.
And my comment about the "protected species" has little to do with people not getting the ban hammer, and more to do with the deleting pattern that existed in the OTD boards for a while. I would prefer no one get banned, frankly. Nor posts deleted. Don't care. I only care when the admins claim they want civility, but allow a small group of people whom they agree with make statements patently designed to put down an entire group of people not covered under the PC Protection Plan.
As to the second part, why am I getting special treatment. Of all the douches on these boards, why me? Oh, wait, you and I do not agree politically. So better me than a douche on your side ;-)
It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').
The funny thing? I really don't care.
Wanna know a good sign someone cares about something? When they tell you they don't.
Study: Teaching Abstinence Works Better Than Sex Ed
Just under half of the students in the study who received sex-education classes that included information about contraceptives went on to have sex in the next two years. But only one out of three students in the study who received abstinence-only education did.
Researchers say the long-term study, which followed 662 African-American public middle school students between 2001 and 2004, is significant. John Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who headed the study, told The Washington Post, "I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence. Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."
|
|
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior.You know what people who live in those conditions every day would probably find patronizing? Your bluster about their "choices."
You are are assuming that everyone has access to the same information and opportunties that we enjoy. Believe it or not, many people don't know how HIV/AIDs is tranmitted (in part because the Catholic church bitterly opposes educating them -- but that's another story). Billions of people are screwed from the day they are born, and not because of any lack of "being held responsible for their own behavior."
Frankly, that's just something people tell themselves so they can sleep at night.
In the meantime, I'll take your talk about choices seriously when you've worked years in a diamond mine for $.25 a day, or watched one of your children die of dysentery for lack of basic medical care.
Let's see: there are maybe 800 million Catholics in the world. Most live in Europe and the Americas. The Philippines are a Catholic nation as well. Most of those people have access to all kinds of information, media and what not (been to the Philippines and Latin America, people know stuff there, and they sell and use condoms).
(And, funny thing: apparently the Pope backed off and has expressed "qualified backing" of condom use in the battle against HIV.)
|
|
It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').
That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.
Study: Teaching Abstinence Works Better Than Sex Ed
Just under half of the students in the study who received sex-education classes that included information about contraceptives went on to have sex in the next two years. But only one out of three students in the study who received abstinence-only education did.
Researchers say the long-term study, which followed 662 African-American public middle school students between 2001 and 2004, is significant. John Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who headed the study, told The Washington Post, "I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence. Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."
Interesting. I'm going to have to take a look at this study. I'd like to see more longitudinal data than the first 2 years though, going through to 4 and then 6 year marks. What you posted leans towards first one in loses, which may not be a relevant finding towards STD prevention.
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior. Like...I find it incredibly heartless to demand perfection from people on penalty of cruel death.
Maybe you were born perfect and have difficulty relating to the rest of us mortals.
I'm not quite sure who to back here... Is it patronizing to not hold someone accountable for their actions? Yeah.
"Awww, I'm so sorry this has happened to you." Which usually garners a response from me along the lines of "Why? It's my own damned fault."As someone who is living with this disease (10 1/2 years), I have no one to blame but MYSELF. Early on, yeah it was easy to blame the person I got this from. Though, he didn't make my choices for me. I did.
However, I also agree that perfection can not be expected either. One's life situation needs to be taken into account here. The people of Africa don't always have the resources that we do in the US. They don't always readily have access to condoms or medications. For them I do tend to hold a more tender spot.
It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.
The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.
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. It is why one can expect (and can measure) the distortion of a path of light due to sufficiently large gravity, when Newtonian physics simply postulates that gravity only acts on two objects with mass.
Newton:
F = GmM/r^2. If one of the two object has m = 0 (i.e. a photon) then F should be 0.
But astronomers have detected gravity lenses (large gravity wells which distort the path of light) and then there are black holes that are so strong they can stop light from exiting.
Think of a rubber mat with with a heavy ball bearing on it. Toss a smaller ball bearing near the larger one, and the smaller one's path will change due to the proximity of the larger one. That's the basic idea.
Greg
Which does not stop the current theory of Gravitons as a hypothetical elementary particle. It is the current theory, despite lack of evidence. 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.
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.
Do you actually have a point?
Gravatons may not have been directly observed, but that doesn't mean that we are without good reason to search for it. If i have a ball, and i roll it across the surface of a table, i am able to move to catch it before it hits the floor. In fact, if i have enough data, i can even tell you how fast it will be going when he catches it, all without having observed the ball rolling.
Science is very good at this, because it provides frame works called theories, which not only explain what we do see, but very often what we will see.
Gravatons are predicted by theory, yes, but the theory is based upon the available evidence. So just like the rolling ball that we can catch, we can look where we expect to find the gravaton, and have a relatively good chance of finding it.
In short, it isn't believing in something without evidence, but rather investigating a possiblity, based upon the evidence.
|
|
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 shit school run by shit 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.
|
|
The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.
Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
Wouldn't you say this is a practice similar to the sale of indulgences, however?
Wouldn't you say this is a practice similar to the sale of indulgences, however?The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
Why is the Catholic church getting into selling condoms. "Put a papal 'hat' on!"
Why is the Catholic church getting into selling condoms. "Put a papal 'hat' on!"Wouldn't you say this is a practice similar to the sale of indulgences, however?The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
HA!! I think there's a marketing windfall to be found here!!!!
But no, I think I messed up. I did a quick peek at the practice and there is no link. I still think there's a bit of a "do as I say, not as I do" thing going on here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
|
|
I just find it incredibly patronizing to not hold people responsible for their behavior. Like...I find it incredibly heartless to demand perfection from people on penalty of cruel death.
Maybe you were born perfect and have difficulty relating to the rest of us mortals.
I'm not quite sure who to back here... Is it patronizing to not hold someone accountable for their actions? Yeah.
"Awww, I'm so sorry this has happened to you." Which usually garners a response from me along the lines of "Why? It's my own damned fault."As someone who is living with this disease (10 1/2 years), I have no one to blame but MYSELF. Early on, yeah it was easy to blame the person I got this from. Though, he didn't make my choices for me. I did.
However, I also agree that perfection can not be expected either. One's life situation needs to be taken into account here. The people of Africa don't always have the resources that we do in the US. They don't always readily have access to condoms or medications. For them I do tend to hold a more tender spot.
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?
|
|
Wouldn't you say this is a practice similar to the sale of indulgences, however?The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
Hey, maybe we'll get an African Martin Luther out of this.
|
|
Why is the Catholic church getting into selling condoms. "Put a papal 'hat' on!"Wouldn't you say this is a practice similar to the sale of indulgences, however?The fact that there is an actual timeline on the Catholic Church's view on condoms disturbs me.It doesn't matter if they are practising Catholics or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the health clinics and volunteer organizations are Catholic run, thus their policies adhere to the Catholic church's and that means seeing condom use as 'evil/sinning' - thus leading to either no information or, even worse, wrong information (e.g. 'condoms help spread HIV/AIDS').That is so last year. Apparently condoms are A-OK now.Well, I guess after everyone knows they're supposed to use them, and they're commercially available, the church can go back to their "abstinence/no premarital sex" line.
*shrug*
HA!! I think there's a marketing windfall to be found here!!!!
But no, I think I messed up. I did a quick peek at the practice and there is no link. I still think there's a bit of a "do as I say, not as I do" thing going on here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Sounds like most "authority" figures to me, actually. And it's a staple in any parent's arsenal. Unless the parents never drink, drive a car, smoke a cigarette, have sex, do drugs, or any number of adult activities kids really shouldn't be doing that are perfectly ok for adults.
But, you know, one adult telling another that? Screw that noise.