# Pitting the attitude, not necessarily Evil Captor. Personal Responsibility- extinct? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 5, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866 "2005-04-05T17:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/21 "2005-04-05T18:55:36Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > My point is not about this. I strongly disagree with the Church’s statement that condoms don’t necessarily prevent HIV transmission. > My point is that blaming the Catholic Church for the spread of HIV in Africa because it does not endorse the use of condoms, when it is universally accepted that the spread is caused, to the main, by other practices to which the Church objects even MORE strongly, is stupid. Well, even if you grant that the Church is being _consistent_ in withholding information, it is still possible to attach _blame_ to the actions (or inaction.) Whosr fault is it if a child dies because a parent refuses medical attention, on the grounds that medical attention is against that parent’s religion? Surely the child would have lived had the doctors been allowed to do their work. I agree it is foolish to expect the Church to _accept_ the blame, or even acknowledge that there is any. This seems to me to be a weakness on the part of the Church. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/22 "2005-04-05T18:55:39Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > Again, sure. People are going to have sex. But that doesn’t make it right or moral. In fact, the Church says that it is not right, that it is immoral. The idea behind religion is to transcend human nature, to approach the divine. The Church has its interest in furthering this transcendence. So what do you think it will do? What it has always done: keep the blinders on, forge ahead with programs and ideas that were bad to begin with and that are getting worse as time goes by, promote irresponsible and endless procreation regardless of economic ability, availability of food, or land to support a burgeoning population, meanwhile tut-tutting about the plight of the poor and expecting everyone of means to contribute to that plight when the Church is as responsible as anyone for creating it. Whew! ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/23 "2005-04-05T19:18:23Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > promote irresponsible and endless procreation regardless of economic ability, availability of food, or land to support a burgeoning population, Where are you getting this from the argument? > [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > My point is that blaming the Catholic Church for the spread of HIV in Africa because it does not endorse the use of condoms, when it is universally accepted that the spread is caused, to the main, by other practices to which the Church objects even MORE strongly, is stupid. If I tell you that you should only eat vegetables, you really can’t blame me if you get trichinosis from bad pork, can you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/24 "2005-04-05T19:23:47Z")
Could I please have a cite for the Church teaching that condoms do not prevent AIDS? I’d be very interested in the context and the specifics of that claim. As for **Anaamika** and her ilk, I’m simply going to point out that while you may feel the Church should teach certain lessons, you are not in charge of the Church. It’s their money, their labor, and they are thus entitled to teach what they please. Is their teaching _harmful_? No, sez I, for the precise reasons articulated ably above: they are teaching that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is wrong. If people follow those teachings, AIDS is not a threat. Their teaching about the use of condoms may properly be considered only in the context of those other rules. Now, if in fact the Church has been claiming that condoms are useless for the protection of the body against disease, then THAT teaching is, I agree, harmful. I’d like to see the specifics of this claim, though, before I concede its reality. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![markdiscordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@markdiscordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdiscordia)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/25 "2005-04-05T19:26:54Z")
1. Personal responsibility is dependent on making a choice based on available information. When institutions of authority are defrauding people, they bear some of the responsibility for ill-informed choices. 2. At the very least, the Church is guilty of hypocrisy and lying when they assert that “nothing is more important than the preservation of life” in the Schiavo matter. Apparently it’s more important to avoid using a condom than to use one and continue living. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/26 "2005-04-05T19:32:26Z")
[Bricker asked so he shall receive](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/27 "2005-04-05T19:34:31Z")
> [@markdiscordia](#): > > 1. Personal responsibility is dependent on making a choice based on available information. When institutions of authority are defrauding people, they bear some of the responsibility for ill-informed choices. Agreed. > [@](#): > > 1. At the very least, the Church is guilty of hypocrisy and lying when they assert that “nothing is more important than the preservation of life” in the Schiavo matter. Apparently it’s more important to avoid using a condom than to use one and continue living. If, indeed, the Church said, “Nothing is more important than the preservation of life,” with respect to the Schiavo case, it’s unclear to me what, precisely, this has to do with condom use. The statement “Nothing is more important than the preservation of life,” if issued with respect to Schiavo, was clearly in the context of Terry Schiavo’s fight for life, and had nothing to do with condom use. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/28 "2005-04-05T19:36:14Z")
Here’s [another citation](http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/29 "2005-04-05T19:51:35Z")
> [@anu-la1979](#): > > [Bricker asked so he shall receive](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm) That link is from the BBC. In it, the BBC reports on a TV program that makes the claims in question. The BBC does not cite another source, nor does it endorse the claims. > [@](#): > > The Catholic Church has been accused of telling people in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus. > The claims are made in a Panorama programme called Sex and the Holy City to be screened on BBC One on Sunday. That’s the extent of it. Apparently, several religious are interviewed in the program, making statements of dubious medical accuracy. The problem is that when a nun makes a statement, it’s not “the Church” speaking – although I can understand how some might believe this is so. But there are a billion Catholics in the world, and they are not all authorized to commit the Church to particular points of view. By way of analogy, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, went on record several years ago with the pronouncement that Bill Clinton could run for a third term – because the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. I trust you see the problem with taking that statement and proclaiming: “Democrats Hold That Twenty-Second is Unconstitutional!” Now, what is true that if someone with APPARENT authority makes a statement that he or she is not entitled to make, and, further, is in error, then I agree it’s incumbent upon the organization to work on correcting the misapprehension. If a senior cardinal is making absolutely incorrect statements of fact, as was alleged here, then the Church DOES have a responsibility to correct those – not because the cardinal in question actually has the authority to promulgate doctrine or teach infalliably – he does not – but because such action creates the false _appearance_ that he is teaching doctrine, and it is a reasonable mistake for an observer to make. So – to the extent that the Church is being criticized above for promulgating false medical information, I agree they have some responsibility in this area, assuming the Panorama program’s report is accurate. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/30 "2005-04-05T19:52:37Z")
> [@Ferret Herder](#): > > You missed a point that previous posters brought up - I don’t think the issue is their message of “condoms are immoral so don’t wear them!” but rather “condoms don’t really prevent HIV!” My apologies if I missed it, but has this been cited yet? I ask because I want to be sure it isn’t the Church saying, “Condoms don’t work as well as chastity”, which, AFAICT, is true. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Er, **Shodan** , I’m sure many of the Africans would wear condoms if they could. The problem is that they don’t have access to them, maybe because they can’t afford them, or maybe because the Church owns the local stores and doesn’t sell them, and they don’t exactly have access to online pharmacies. I don’t think all these people are willfully not using a condom, given the option and a free or cheap supply of condoms, the vast majority probably would. I don’t know that this is true, but I am not sure how you could prove it. But I don’t believe that the Church is responsible for the fact that Africans are often too poor to buy condoms. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Except for abstinence, condoms are the cheapest method of birth and disease control out there. And like **Colibri** said, sometimes abstinence isn’t an option. Remember, it’s easy to talk about personal responsibility when you’re a Westerner who grew up knowing about AIDS and how it was transmitted. There are probably lots of Africans for whom it’s new information. It’s probably true that lots of Africans don’t know about condoms, but that is at least as much the fault of their own “leaders” as it is the Catholic church. I think where we disagree is on the notion that “abstinence isn’t an option”. I suspect the Catholics believe chastity is never optional. It’s obligatory, even for poor people. I expect it could even be considered demeaning to treat the Africans as if they were so low on the scale that they cannot be expected to act responsibly or chastely. “No sense in expecting - well, _those_ people - to behave like civilized folks. They simply don’t have it in them.” If you see what I mean. Not that I am accusing you of saying this, but it could be considered a tendency in this line of thought. Thus it becomes the White Man’s Burden to provide the benighted heathen with the condoms that will save them from themselves. You could even make the argument that, in an environment where condoms are **not** widely available, it makes even more sense than usual to limit yourself to mutual monogamy with an uninfected partner. That seems to be most of the reason that AIDS is not particularly common among Americans who live monogamously (and don’t use IV drugs). I hasten to add that of course it is true that AIDS is transmitted in other ways besides sex, especially (apparently) in Africa, but then the increased use of condoms isn’t going to interrupt those ways, either. Regards, Shodan PS - On preview, I suppose it is possible to interpret my post such that the next three pages will be The Usual Idiots frothing that “You said people who aren’t monogamous deserved to die of AIDS! You evil nasty etc., etc.” Oh well, probably unavoidable. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/31 "2005-04-05T19:52:50Z")
> [@anu-la1979](#): > > Here’s [another citation](http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) Which says: “The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.” So the catholic church is _warning_ people against using condoms, because they might spread AIDS. So the catholic church is, in fact, very much guilty of spreading AIDS to epidemic proportions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/32 "2005-04-05T19:52:56Z")
> [@anu-la1979](#): > > Here’s [another citation](http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) That news article refers back to the same BBC program, Panorama. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/33 "2005-04-05T19:54:42Z")
Another [cite](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3237358.stm) taking a direct quote from a Vatican official. > [@Shodan](#): > > I have no brief for the Catholic position on birth control, but I wonder why there are so many Africans who say, “By golly, the Church tells me not to wear a condom so I don’t, but only when I am having sex the Church also tells me not to have”. If you see my point. I see your point, but what I haven’t seen is a single African person saying what you say they say, which rather makes it moot. What I _have_ seen is a lot of Western people accusing the Church and other irresponsible organisations deliberately misinforming said Africans. Your point also erroneously assumes that everyone contracting HIV is doing so through extramarital sex, which is plainly not the case. The wife whose philandering husband comes home most certainly should be using a condom, and is breaking no other Catholic teaching, yet the Church’s concern for her life is such that it prefers she contract HIV than let her husband spill his seed. And, as demonstrated, it is prepared to disseminate blatant lies to perpetuate its stance. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/34 "2005-04-05T19:59:26Z")
I actually gave you a second link from the Guardian where a senior Vatican spokesman > [@](#): > > A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue. Here’s an [interview](http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488) with the individual featured in my apparently baseless citations where he says > [@](#): > > One cannot really speak of “safe sex,” leading people to believe that the use of condoms is the formula to avoid the risk of HIV and thus to overcome the AIDS pandemic. Nor should people be led to believe that condoms provide absolute safety. They do not mention that there is a percentage of grave risk, not only of AIDS, but also of the different sexually transmitted diseases, and that the rate of failure is quite high. I consider these comments disingenuous and I have yet to see a condom labelled “100% AIDS prevention.” Finally, here’s a [citation](http://www.christiantoday.com/news/eur/436.htm) where a Cardinal states that the Fight against Fornication is more important than the fight against AIDS i.e. > [@](#): > > Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the President of the Vatican department for health morals, in an interview published by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica echoed, “The use of prophylactics is unacceptable even as a solution to the problem of AIDS, because the objective is the fight against fornication.” ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/35 "2005-04-05T20:01:03Z")
**Bricker** , from the Guardian article, a direct quote: > [@](#): > > The church’s claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. > > “These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.” To me, it doesn’t get plainer than that. A Cardinal stated that the AIDS virus can pass through the condom, directly to the BBC. Don’t get me wrong, there is vociferous debate in the Church on this matter - apparently a lot of dissent amongst Brazilian clergy, and this is a good thing. From my earlier link: > [@](#): > > Father Valeriano Paitoni, an Italian priest who works with Aids patients in Sao Paulo, is one of the Vatican’s fiercest critics. > > “Aids is a world epidemic, a public health problem that must be confronted with scientific advances and methods that have proven effective,” he says. > > “Rejecting condom use is to oppose the fight for life.” However it surely can not be disputed that the lie represents the official position of the Vatican at present. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/36 "2005-04-05T20:06:13Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Another [cite](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3237358.stm) taking a direct quote from a Vatican official. Yes. It says: > [@](#): > > And there is no doubt that the policy comes from the top. In October, a senior Vatican official told the BBC’s Panorama programme that the latex rubber used to make condoms contained “pores” that would not stop the transmission of the HIV virus. So this, too, is not original, but simply reports on the content of “Panorama.” Apparently, the Vatican has decided to suspend its other methods of communication, and promulgate its official policy soley by means of the BBC program “Panorama.” Is there some reference to this that does NOT rely on “Panorama?” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/37 "2005-04-05T20:07:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is their teaching harmful? No, sez I, for the precise reasons articulated ably above: they are teaching that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is wrong. If people follow those teachings, AIDS is not a threat. Their teaching about the use of condoms may properly be considered only in the context of those other rules. > [@Shodan](#): > > I think where we disagree is on the notion that “abstinence isn’t an option”. I suspect the Catholics believe chastity is never optional. It’s obligatory, even for poor people. I expect it could even be considered demeaning to treat the Africans as if they were so low on the scale that they cannot be expected to act responsibly or chastely. “No sense in expecting - well, those people - to behave like civilized folks. They simply don’t have it in them.” If you see what I mean. Yes and yes. We’re getting somewhere now. And, **anu-la1979** , you’re helping to make the point, although you might wish you weren’t. > [@](#): > > Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the President of the Vatican department for health morals, in an interview published by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica echoed, “The use of prophylactics is unacceptable even as a solution to the problem of AIDS, because the objective is the fight against fornication.” The fight against fornication \*\*IS \*\* the fight against AIDS. The Catholic solution to the spread of AIDS is more foolproof than the condom solution. Therefore, if you’re going to make a choice as to how to limit the spread of the disease, why not pick the more efficient and spiritually superior one? That’s the Church’s stand, and, numerically and philosophically, it’s hard to argue with it. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/38 "2005-04-05T20:11:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is their teaching _harmful_? No, sez I, for the precise reasons articulated ably above: they are teaching that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is wrong. If people follow those teachings, AIDS is not a threat. What about the case of the wife who is monogamous, but whose husband isn’t? That’s not an isolated or hypothetical case; it’s apparently quite common in Africa (much as it was here before the discovery of AIDS). You can’t exactly blame the wife for catching AIDS that way. True, if everyone followed the teachings to the absolute letter there would be no new infectees, but that’s never going to happen. Why should so many people suffer because the Church doesn’t want to admit that humanity isn’t ideal? **Shodan** : I was mostly referring to the marriage possibility, where a woman might feel obligated to have sex with her husband even if he’s been screwing around. Yeah, she could say no, but then she might be subject to abandonment or beatings. Of course, a guy who would beat his wife for not having sex with him probably wouldn’t wear a condom either, but I think there are some legit cases where abstinence isn’t an option. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/39 "2005-04-05T20:12:54Z")
[QUOTE=anu-la1979] Here’s an [interview](http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488) with the individual featured in my apparently baseless citations where he says > [@](#): > > Here’s an interview with the individual featured in my apparently baseless citations where he says > > > [@](#): > > > > One cannot really speak of “safe sex,” leading people to believe that the use of condoms is the formula to avoid the risk of HIV and thus to overcome the AIDS pandemic. Nor should people be led to believe that condoms provide absolute safety. They do not mention that there is a percentage of grave risk, not only of AIDS, but also of the different sexually transmitted diseases, and that the rate of failure is quite high. > > I consider these comments disingenuous and I have yet to see a condom labelled “100% AIDS prevention.” But those comments are true, are they not? While condoms are effective in _reducing_ the spread of HIV, they do not ELIMINATE it. There IS a percentage of grave risk. The only area with which you can possibly quibble is the last phrase: “…and that the rate of failure is quite high.” “Quite high,” when talking about a deadly disease, means - what, exactly? 0.5% ? One half of one percent is a low rate… or is it, when the consequence is lingering death? In the interests of accuracy, I might have said “Therate of failure is UNACCEPTABLY high,” rather than “quite high,” because “quite high” is vague and “unacceptably high” correctly communicates the issue: that even a small failure rate, when talking about serious consequences, can be an unacceptabel risk. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866/40 "2005-04-05T20:17:09Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] > [@anu-la1979](#): > > In the interests of accuracy, I might have said “Therate of failure is UNACCEPTABLY high,” rather than “quite high,” because “quite high” is vague and “unacceptably high” correctly communicates the issue: that even a small failure rate, when talking about serious consequences, can be an unacceptabel risk. If you think about it for a moment, you might realize that while there is an insignificant yet still extant chance of transmission of HIV with a condom, the chance of trnasmission without one is many orders hgher. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-attitude-not-necessarily-evil-captor-personal-responsibility-extinct/297866.md?page=3)