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.
And they apparently now give loans to transsexuals to help start businesses
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.
I am not sure what you mean by "normal sex ed". It was a comparative study, 1 group received abstinence-only, 1 group received training on the proper use of condoms, 2 groups (and 8 hour and a 12 hour training) underwent an inclusive training (abstinence plus condoms), and a last group underwent no sexual education training but instead health training in other areas (this was the control group for the study).
Here is what one of the people in the article (not the study) said:
Even Wagoner, who charges that studies by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation advocating abstinence-only programs are akin to having "Santa Claus write something from the North Pole," found the federal study compelling. "This is a legitimate study from a legitimate researcher," he said. "So those of us who believe in legitimate research have to pay attention."
EDIT: I did want to point out one other thing from the study.
Results: The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
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.
I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.
And they apparently now give loans to transsexuals to help start businessesThe 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.
Whoa. Heavy.
I agree. Thank all that is good for Durex.\
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!
Now that they have the XXLs, I'm in. I'm glad we can all agree on SOMETHING.
I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.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.
Or its just another prison of a different color, when homosexuals feel compelled to have their sex altered to prevent a death sentence, or other societal factors.
Or its just another prison of a different color, when homosexuals feel compelled to have their sex altered to prevent a death sentence, or other societal factors.I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.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.
I'm not saying the practice isn't unfair in most respects(i.e. two if not more steps back). But it is an interesting way to be accepted in the society. I would be interested in following the lives of people who have undergone this procedure and seeing if they are discriminated against in any way.
Or its just another prison of a different color, when homosexuals feel compelled to have their sex altered to prevent a death sentence, or other societal factors.I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.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.
I agree with Freehold DM that in some cases it is indeed a huge leap forward, especially compared to many western countries, but Pathos also pointed out my caveat, that many gay people (transsexual =/= gay (automatically, some are, of course)) have to undergo it just to stay alive.
I am not sure what you mean by "normal sex ed". It was a comparative study, 1 group received abstinence-only, 1 group received training on the proper use of condoms, 2 groups (and 8 hour and a 12 hour training) underwent an inclusive training (abstinence plus condoms), and a last group underwent no sexual education training but instead health training in other areas (this was the control group for the study).
Great! Like I said, I didn't actually read the study.
I might not have expressed it, but make no mistake, I find the results very interesting too. However, when you have a study that sort of flies in the face of earlier results you have to do further studies to figure out how this outcome came to be. I'm just saying that a single study isn't all-conclusive to the subject matter and further (and longer, as Freehold DM suggests) studies should be done.I do still, however, contend that the study is irrelevant as is when compared to the situation in a lot of places in Africa.
I'm not saying the practice isn't unfair in most respects(i.e. two if not more steps back). But it is an interesting way to be accepted in the society. I would be interested in following the lives of people who have undergone this procedure and seeing if they are discriminated against in any way.Or its just another prison of a different color, when homosexuals feel compelled to have their sex altered to prevent a death sentence, or other societal factors.I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.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.
O,o?
So, tell me... just how would you feel being forced to go through a invasive surgery, only to live life as the opposite sex? A sex you most likely wouldn't identify with?
I am not sure what you mean by "normal sex ed". It was a comparative study, 1 group received abstinence-only, 1 group received training on the proper use of condoms, 2 groups (and 8 hour and a 12 hour training) underwent an inclusive training (abstinence plus condoms), and a last group underwent no sexual education training but instead health training in other areas (this was the control group for the study).
Great! Like I said, I didn't actually read the study.
I might not have expressed it, but make no mistake, I find the results very interesting too. However, when you have a study that sort of flies in the face of earlier results you have to do further studies to figure out how this outcome came to be. I'm just saying that a single study isn't all-conclusive to the subject matter and further (and longer, as Freehold DM suggests) studies should be done.I do still, however, contend that the study is irrelevant as is when compared to the situation in a lot of places in Africa.
Ok, but then so is every other study that shows that ABC is more effective than abstinence-only, when done in a different area of the world.
EDIT: I would also again point out that the study said that abstinence-only program had no effect on condom use.
I'm not saying the practice isn't unfair in most respects(i.e. two if not more steps back). But it is an interesting way to be accepted in the society. I would be interested in following the lives of people who have undergone this procedure and seeing if they are discriminated against in any way.Or its just another prison of a different color, when homosexuals feel compelled to have their sex altered to prevent a death sentence, or other societal factors.I agree with you for the most part but think about it from another point of view. Sex change operations. Offered for FREE. In IRAN. It may be one step forward, two steps back if not more, but that is one HELL of big step.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.O,o?
So, tell me... just how would you feel being forced to go through a invasive surgery, only to live life as the opposite sex? A sex you most likely wouldn't identify with?
Like I said, the practice is unfair in many respects- primarily if you don't want to go through with it and it is being forced upon you. I have met at least two people through my second job from Iran, and they thank God/Allah/Cthulhu that they were able to get out of there. However, it is arrogant to think that America corners the market on transgendered individuals, and it's silly to think that there are not some people who elect to undergo this surgery willingly.
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...
From memory, the aims of the LHC's experiments currently breaks down as 'see if we can find evidence of the higgs boson', try to start figuring out what happened to all the anti-matter, figure out why gravity is so weak, and see if we can observe dark matter's creation.
Like I said, the practice is unfair in many respects- primarily if you don't want to go through with it and it is being forced upon you. I have met at least two people through my second job from Iran, and they thank God/Allah/Cthulhu that they were able to get out of there. However, it is arrogant to think that America corners the market on transgendered individuals, and it's silly to think that there are not some people who elect to undergo this surgery willingly.
For those who truly are transsexuals, it's a "blessing" in disguise you could say. Some are also willing to undergo it "willingly" to be able to be left alone by the authorities (or mobs of religious vigilantes) - seeing it as the lesser of two evils.
Ok, but then so is every other study that shows that ABC is more effective than abstinence-only, when done in a different area of the world.Great! Like I said, I didn't actually read the study.
I might not have expressed it, but make no mistake, I find the results very interesting too. However, when you have a study that sort of flies in the face of earlier results you have to do further studies to figure out how this outcome came to be. I'm just saying that a single study isn't all-conclusive to the subject matter and further (and longer, as Freehold DM suggests) studies should be done.I do still, however, contend that the study is irrelevant as is when compared to the situation in a lot of places in Africa.
Almost, but not quite. Seeing that condoms do lower the risk of contracting STDs (that's a simple fact), it would be folly not to put them into the equation (along with proper instructions on their use).
Although some people will be able to abstain, a lot won't, so let those who don't have the option to protect themselves (and their partners).
Like I said, the practice is unfair in many respects- primarily if you don't want to go through with it and it is being forced upon you. I have met at least two people through my second job from Iran, and they thank God/Allah/Cthulhu that they were able to get out of there. However, it is arrogant to think that America corners the market on transgendered individuals, and it's silly to think that there are not some people who elect to undergo this surgery willingly.For those who truly are transsexuals, it's a "blessing" in disguise you could say. Some are also willing to undergo it "willingly" to be able to be left alone by the authorities (or mobs of religious vigilantes) - seeing it as the lesser of two evils.
Agh. I wasn't clear. To clarify, "..some people who elect to undergo this surgery willingly because they indeed wish to live life as a woman."
Ok, but then so is every other study that shows that ABC is more effective than abstinence-only, when done in a different area of the world.Great! Like I said, I didn't actually read the study.
I might not have expressed it, but make no mistake, I find the results very interesting too. However, when you have a study that sort of flies in the face of earlier results you have to do further studies to figure out how this outcome came to be. I'm just saying that a single study isn't all-conclusive to the subject matter and further (and longer, as Freehold DM suggests) studies should be done.I do still, however, contend that the study is irrelevant as is when compared to the situation in a lot of places in Africa.
Almost, but not quite. Seeing that condoms do lower the risk of contracting STDs (that's a simple fact), it would be folly not to put them into the equation (along with proper instructions on their use).
Although some people will be able to abstain, a lot won't, so let those who don't have the option to protect themselves (and their partners).
While the study does sound interesting, given the topic and disparity between it's results and previous work, not to mention of epidemiological concensus, my spider senses scream a big warning that is probably an example of the 'tabacco tactic'.
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?
By the same token, mutliple studies showing that abstinance-only programs do achieve inferior results disprove the "abstinence-only is always the only way to go" claims being made. So what we're left with is real life: no absolute statements or silver bullets, but just what works best -- since nothing works perfectly.
Logic is a two-way street.
I removed several posts.
Let's try to keep things civil, and not get personal.
|
I am still trying to figure out the relevance of this topic. I have repeatedly asked if there is any data that even suggests that Catholics are more likely to follow one Papal decree over another. After I asked the question several times houstonderek asked it repeatedly. Please help us establish relevancy.
If Catholics are already abstinant, then no worries. If they are not abstinant, are they worried about the condom rule or not?
If we can not even establish relevance then this is really just so much hot air at best.
I removed several posts.
Let's try to keep things civil, and not get personal.
<skitters away from the Gleemax clone>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If Catholics are already abstinant, then no worries. If they are not abstinant, are they worried about the condom rule or not?
Hi, Sigil, I'd like to consider myself a practicing Catholic.
I can't cite studies, and I imagine they would be hard to administer. I would also bet that different areas of Catholics find it easier to follow different Church teachings, based on the underlying culture. During the recent unpleasantness, Catholics in Ireland probably had a harder time following Church teachings on forgiveness than did Catholics in, say, Belgium.
It's my sense that young Catholics in America (a) are likely to move in together before marriage, and (b) are likely to practice artificial birth control. No prcentages, but those two practices seem pretty common. In neither case do the people involved feel a great deal of guilt, and in neither case do pastors go about trying to instill a sense of shame.
From memory, the aims of the LHC's experiments currently breaks down as 'see if we can find evidence of the higgs boson', try to start figuring out what happened to all the anti-matter, figure out why gravity is so weak, and see if we can observe dark matter's creation.
I'll take your word on this. Everything I've heard about the LHC (and I certainly haven't heard everything) comes from traditional news sources, and not technical journals.
Greg
From memory, the aims of the LHC's experiments currently breaks down as 'see if we can find evidence of the higgs boson', try to start figuring out what happened to all the anti-matter, figure out why gravity is so weak, and see if we can observe dark matter's creation.I'll take your word on this. Everything I've heard about the LHC (and I certainly haven't heard everything) comes from traditional news sources, and not technical journals.
Greg
Physics is distant, awe-inspiring and untouchable discipline as far as i am concerned. I do not have the head for maths that it requires so my knowledge of what the LHC is about is really isn't gathered from the literiture, but rather from science focused journalism and explinations of purposes from those involved. I am ofcause fascinated to find out what the LHC does uncover. The dark matter experiments sound especially cool, as it hypothetically only interacts with conventional matter through gravity. As such it is basically undetectable. So the methodology has had to designed to observe something that cannot be observed.
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?By the same token, mutliple studies showing that abstinance-only programs do achieve inferior results disprove the "abstinence-only is always the only way to go" claims being made. So what we're left with is real life: no absolute statements or silver bullets, but just what works best [for the particular situation]-- since nothing works perfectly.
Logic is a two-way street.
I have added a bit to your statement (the bolded text). You are right, absolutes are foolish. There is no "best" choice, each situation is different and unique. Each situation has its own particular issues and so we should not expect a one-size fits all approach to work for everyone. This goes for all sides.
I just wanted to point out that there was conflicting evidence to the claim that "always" in one direction was false (I think most have accept the always in the other direction was false as well). Also, if I remember right, the abstinence-only program I sited wasn't religious based and its goal wasn't "until marriage" but "until you can emotionally, financially, and physically deal with the possible consequences, i.e. years/decades down the road".
Ok, but then so is every other study that shows that ABC is more effective than abstinence-only, when done in a different area of the world.Great! Like I said, I didn't actually read the study.
I might not have expressed it, but make no mistake, I find the results very interesting too. However, when you have a study that sort of flies in the face of earlier results you have to do further studies to figure out how this outcome came to be. I'm just saying that a single study isn't all-conclusive to the subject matter and further (and longer, as Freehold DM suggests) studies should be done.I do still, however, contend that the study is irrelevant as is when compared to the situation in a lot of places in Africa.
Almost, but not quite. Seeing that condoms do lower the risk of contracting STDs (that's a simple fact), it would be folly not to put them into the equation (along with proper instructions on their use).
Although some people will be able to abstain, a lot won't, so let those who don't have the option to protect themselves (and their partners).
Only if they are used 100% correctly, 100% of the time. Now people aren't going to be perfect, and there are going to be errors made, especially in the heat of passion (I mean would you trust somebody to pack your parachute that was having sex at the same time? Not me.). A condom used incorrectly can possibly do more harm than good if it gives a false sense of security (Yeah, I'll have sex with my HIV partner, we're protected. Oops the condom broke, what the hell was I thinking?).
Also, again, I would point out at least in the program I cited, abstinence-only education had NO EFFECT ON CONDOM USE. That is pretty surprising. Not that it didn't increase the use (which would not be surprising in the least), but that it didn't decrease the use as well.
|
|
If Catholics are already abstinant, then no worries. If they are not abstinant, are they worried about the condom rule or not?Hi, Sigil, I'd like to consider myself a practicing Catholic.
I can't cite studies, and I imagine they would be hard to administer. I would also bet that different areas of Catholics find it easier to follow different Church teachings, based on the underlying culture. During the recent unpleasantness, Catholics in Ireland probably had a harder time following Church teachings on forgiveness than did Catholics in, say, Belgium.
It's my sense that young Catholics in America (a) are likely to move in together before marriage, and (b) are likely to practice artificial birth control. No prcentages, but those two practices seem pretty common. In neither case do the people involved feel a great deal of guilt, and in neither case do pastors go about trying to instill a sense of shame.
I would have to concur.
Also, to those of you who have written to me specifically I have been too busy at this time to respond.
Physics is distant, awe-inspiring and untouchable discipline as far as i am concerned. I do not have the head for maths that it requires so my knowledge of what the LHC is about is really isn't gathered from the literiture, but rather from science focused journalism and explinations of purposes from those involved. I am ofcause fascinated to find out what the LHC does uncover. The dark matter experiments sound especially cool, as it hypothetically only interacts with conventional matter through gravity. As such it is basically undetectable. So the methodology has had to designed to observe something that cannot be observed.
Well, then you're doing a heck of a lot better than I am, 'cause I'm what some would call a science nerd (2, count 'em, 2 degrees in physics) and I still am not as fully tuned in on it as you seem to be.
Science definitely is cool, I agree. It's the language we use to describe the universe around us. Which, in many ways, is turning out to be even more amazing than we thought possible.
Greg
Also, if I remember right, the abstinence-only program I sited wasn't religious based and its goal wasn't "until marriage" but "until you can emotionally, financially, and physically deal with the possible consequences, i.e. years/decades down the road".
This may be a very important point -- that appealing to a person's self-interest might very often be far more productive than appealing to a belief system that they may only be paying lip service to in the first place.
Also, if I remember right, the abstinence-only program I sited wasn't religious based and its goal wasn't "until marriage" but "until you can emotionally, financially, and physically deal with the possible consequences, i.e. years/decades down the road".This may be a very important point -- that appealing to a person's self-interest might very often be far more productive than appealing to a belief system that they may only be paying lip service to in the first place.
If pres man's abstinence-only program isn't a "no sex until marriage" program, then it's not an abstinence-only program of the type promoted by, for example, the Catholic church or evangelical Christianity. (With of course the corollary that if you do have sex before marriage, they'd rather you contract a disease since apparently you have it coming.) The kinds of programs those jokers do favor actually have a great track record...for increasing the incidence of STDs. I haven't checked his link, but is it the Jemmott study?
And then there's this on the effectiveness of A&C (doesn't talk about monogamy so far as I saw) education:
Nov. 6, 2009 -- There's no evidence that abstinence-only sexual education programs cut teens' risk of sexually transmitted disease, HIV, or pregnancy, a task force of public health experts finds.But the panel finds that sex ed that includes information about condoms and delaying sexual initiation does work by:
* Reducing the number of teens who have sex.
* Reducing the frequency of sexual activity in teens who have sex.
* Reducing the number of sex partners in teens who have sex.
* Reducing sexually transmitted infections.
* Increasing use of condoms and other methods of birth control.
I haven't checked his link, but is it the Jemmott study?
I didn't check your link, but two of the people involved do have the last name Jemmott, yes.
Atheists stake a reputation on what they don't believe. So the invoking of 'what atheists believe' is a syntax error.
And 2 + 2 can equal 5. Decimal base systems are overrated.
And 2 + 2 can equal 5. Decimal base systems are overrated.In what base does 2 + 2 = 5?
You mean you don't know?
Apparently, that makes two of us.You mean you don't know?And 2 + 2 can equal 5. Decimal base systems are overrated.In what base does 2 + 2 = 5?
0 = 0
0*4 = 0*50*4/0 = 0*5/0
ergo, 4 = 5
ergo, 2 + 2 = 5.
4/0 is undefined. Are you confident you're using mathematics?Apparently, that makes two of us.You mean you don't know?And 2 + 2 can equal 5. Decimal base systems are overrated.In what base does 2 + 2 = 5?0 = 0
0*4 = 0*5
0*4/0 = 0*5/0ergo, 4 = 5
ergo, 2 + 2 = 5.
Actually that would be 0/0 which is infinite on both sides and thus equal.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
We all stake a reputation on what we believe is not true, as well as what we believe to be true. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian god, or if you believe the universe works on physical principles apart, your belief requires you to deny the existence of, say, the god Odin.
0/0 is undefined, not infinite.
I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell's off-the-cuff proof that "If 2 + 2 = 5, then I'm Santa Claus."
- 2+2 = 5 (given)
- 2 = 3 (from step 1, subtracting 2 from equal quantities yields equal quantities)
- 1 = 2 (from step 2, subtracting 1 from equal quantities yields equal quantities)
- Santa Claus and I are two people.
- Santa Claus and I are one person. (from steps 3 and 4)
- Therefore I am Santa Claus.
--Chris
guy with credentials in number theory
Kinda like -
Demonization of Pope + Demonization of anyone that supports him (Catholics) = I'm in conformance with board standards of civility + non-offensive.
Oh, I get it. If you (OP) ignore the Pope's role in the Catholic Church then it's OK. And it helps if you (OP) slice and dice your words, then stray from the OP, into a spinoff of the often less-than-civil CRD (general posters)
This thread = offensive + pointless + inflammatory
- Catholic guy that actually agrees that condoms help
And again, you have failed to demonstrate how any of those deaths are the actual fault of the Catholic church, as opposed to the actions of individuals. You continue to bring in other issues about individual abuses in attempt to paint the entire religious organization by those abuses.
Let me ask you this serious question. If you were forced to choose which resources to send to a place of great need, like many parts of Africa, would you choose to send (a)food or (b)condoms. If you HAD to choose between them?
I know "false dilemma" blah blah, but in reality, there is only so many resources that can be shipped at a time, and given one of those choices is not in with the teachings of the organization and one is, can they really be blamed for doing one and not the other? Evidently they can.
And again, you have failed to demonstrate how any of those deaths are the actual fault of the Catholic church, as opposed to the actions of individuals. You continue to bring in other issues about individual abuses in attempt to paint the entire religious organization by those abuses.
By that reckoning, everything comes down to individual choices and actions and nothing can be attributed to anything other than individuals.
I don't see how that's effective. It can also lead to blame being given to individuals incorrectly, because of policies of "higher ups" in any given organization.We should then persecute every single soldier who have seen combat in the history of man, because they are, apparently, personally responsible for every single death on the other side? That's taking it to the extreme, but nevertheless the logical conclusion of "don't hold organizations accountable, only individuals."
EDIT: Should we not hold individual accountable for their actions? Of course we should, but it's not a black/white, either/or situation.
Let me ask you this serious question. If you were forced to choose which resources to send to a place of great need, like many parts of Africa, would you choose to send (a)food or (b)condoms. If you HAD to choose between them?
I know "false dilemma" blah blah, but in reality, there is only so many resources that can be shipped at a time, and given one of those choices is not in with the teachings of the organization and one is, can they really be blamed for doing one and not the other? Evidently they can.
When an organization actively works against (by either spreading falsehoods or by non-action) the very fight for humanity they claim to be fighting (stopping HIV/AIDS) and at the same time claim to be the arbitrators of morality, then yes, we need to call them out for it.
See Mother Teresa for another good "humanitarian" example where her methods needs to be called out.And the Catholic church missing resources??? Have you seen the opulent wealth they have, just in the Vatican? No, they don't lack resources, just the will to use what they have for what they actually preach.
The Catholic church could be the biggest force for good in this world, they just choose not to.
And again, you have failed to demonstrate how any of those deaths are the actual fault of the Catholic church, as opposed to the actions of individuals. You continue to bring in other issues about individual abuses in attempt to paint the entire religious organization by those abuses.
It's both, of course. If you give a person bad advice, then you share responsibility for the outcome if they follow it. This is doubly so if you knowingly give bad advice, and the Vatican has no reasonable claim to ignorance here. It's an insanely wealthy organization with easy access to scientific and epidemiological knowledge.
This is no different than telling a person dying of thirst that the transparent liquid in that pool is water when you know it's actually acid. Certainly that person erred in trusting you, and he might have died anyway, but you contributed to his death all the same.
And if my choices are to send food or condoms to Africa, and only those two choices, I send condoms. That's a no-brainer. But of course incredibly wealthy international corporations don't have those kinds of resource conflicts. They're quite capable of sending both.
|
|
And again, you have failed to demonstrate how any of those deaths are the actual fault of the Catholic church, as opposed to the actions of individuals. You continue to bring in other issues about individual abuses in attempt to paint the entire religious organization by those abuses.
Let me ask you this serious question. If you were forced to choose which resources to send to a place of great need, like many parts of Africa, would you choose to send (a)food or (b)condoms. If you HAD to choose between them?
I know "false dilemma" blah blah, but in reality, there is only so many resources that can be shipped at a time, and given one of those choices is not in with the teachings of the organization and one is, can they really be blamed for doing one and not the other? Evidently they can.
An equally false dilemma back at you. In the above situation, would you send condoms or bibles? because I know of many Christian groups who send shipm,ents of bibles rather than food. I do not know if the Catholic Church is amongst them, and do not believe it is as bible worship seems to be more common in evangelical organisations. (Although it is idolotry. Just saying. ;-) )
With respect to individuals and organizations as well as my philosophy stated in the (now closed) thread, I have to call the ratio as 60/40 Individuals to Organizations. I simply can't condemn an entire group for the actions of certain people within it.
|
|
Kinda like -
Demonization of Pope + Demonization of anyone that supports him (Catholics) = I'm in conformance with board standards of civility + non-offensive.
Oh, I get it. If you (OP) ignore the Pope's role in the Catholic Church then it's OK. And it helps if you (OP) slice and dice your words, then stray from the OP, into a spinoff of the often less-than-civil CRD (general posters)
This thread = offensive + pointless + inflammatory
- Catholic guy that actually agrees that condoms help
Once more, attacking a policy is not the same as attacking the person who holds the policy.
I do see how it could be taken that way - if the person holding the policy is deliberately holding it knowing that that policy is resulting in the needless and horrible deaths of millions of people, than it can be taken as an attack of that person. But never blame on malice what can be blamed on ignorance.
And I don't believe protesting the needless and awful deaths of millions of people is pointless. I'm saddened to hear that you do.
<cracks finger like a hacker about to go into the Pentagon LAN>
Okay, I'm getting involved in this because I'm sick of hearing from a good number of people that they don't want to come around to these fine boards because of attitudes like this.
LT, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to convince a bunch of random people on the internet that your outlook is the best for humanity? Or that we should "rise up and topple" the Pope to get policy changed in order that millions may live? What exactly is your purpose?
Yes, the AIDS epidemic in Africa and other third world nations is a horrible fact of life at this moment. But you know what's even WORSE? The fact that HIV/AIDS only accounts for 2% of child deaths in Africa. 14% of child deaths in Africa are caused by Diarrhoea.
If you're posting this information on the boards because you want to raise awareness of the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa, congratulations, you have done so and can claim a victory and move on. If you just want to attack the head of a religious organization or the policies of said organization, again, you've succeeded and can move on.
But, if you want to change the world, you don't do it by talking about it on an internet forum. Go out, go to school, travel to Africa, educate the people on how to prevent HIV/AIDS and (this part is really important) RESPECT their beliefs. Instead of trying to change what they believe, work with those beliefs to find a different solution. Because, the funny thing is, you wanting to change what they believe in is the same reason we're in this mess in the first place...