Pitting the attitude, not necessarily Evil Captor. Personal Responsibility- extinct?

[Scott_Plaid]

It’s nice to see more people joining in, and I can’t see any way I disagree with the new posts, except for:

@treis

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.

Did you just invite Bricker to correct you? :eek:

[treis]

The man knows his mythology.

[RedFury]

@Scott_plaid

This is the pit, so I don’t see how being upset could case bricker to listen any less then he already has, or make RedFury concede a valid point. However, for RedFury’s benefit, let me try and translate his recent remarks and response to Bricker.

In post 166 RedFury said “You, Bricker, only pay attention to religion when you feel like it.” Bricker then ignores the claim. In post 167, RedFury once again puts forth the fact that condom uses has saved more lives then non use of condoms. Bricker acknowledges that RedFury has made a claim, but he dismisses it without reason.

I skipped this post the first time around. Just thought I’d point that I appreciate the backing/sentiment…and furthermore the recognition of the condoms/sex-ed argumnet VS safe-sex.

OTOH, I don’t understand why it doesn’t simply boil down to common sense.

Indoctrination appears to be the only plausible answer.

How does argue against that? I don’t think you can…unless you gat to them prior to the brain wash.

Harsh but true, IME.

[Bricker]

@treis

I freely admit its been a while since I have been in church but I am fairly certain that war is against church teachings. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.

You’re wrong.

[Bricker]

@treis

I can not accept and no one else should accept an argument based on your religion and your interpetation of that religion. It is a logically indefensible position. The position that a nation living their lives as they wish instead of dying is in any way wrong is also indefensible. Why don’t we go ahead and kill all the non-believers? That is exactly what the Catholic church is doing by spreading its lies about condoms around the world.

Listen carefully.

The thrust of this thread is what the Catholic Church should do.

The institution is RELIGION, pure and simple.

You are arrogating to yourself the right to dictate how a religious organization should interpret its religion. You don’t accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and teaches infalliably on matters of faith - should the Church stop claiming that? You don’t accept that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ - shoudl the Church stop claiming that it is?

What is your view about using government money to teach abstinence only education both abroad and in our schools?

Ahhh - we’ve switched subjects!!

Government action is quite different from church action.

To steal a line from Ronald Regan, there you go again. First off we aren’t talking about some podunk tv station we are talking about the BBC. Its amazing that you don’t find them credible enough. Hell the WHO found it credible enough to issue a statement and the Cardinal even responded to that. Perhaps even the Cardinal himself is involved in spreading lies about himself.

Reuters, The BBC, Guardian and The Washington Post all found it credible enough to print why don’t you believe it?

The program had a very clear anti-Catholic bias. And if what it’s saying is true, and widespread, why is it the only source?

[treis]

Care to elaborate?

[Scott_Plaid]

::Scott listens carefully.::

@Bricker

The institution is RELIGION, pure and simple.

[treis]

snuck in there on me

@Bricker

Listen carefully.

The thrust of this thread is what the Catholic Church should do.

The institution is RELIGION, pure and simple.

It is clear that the Catholic Church should stop spreading lies about condoms and stop impeding the progress of saving lives. They should do their damnest to save as many lives as they can and reduce as much suffering as they can. They should not say they are promoting a culture of life when their actions are killing millions. They should be more like Christ and help those that need it.

@Bricker

You are arrogating to yourself the right to dictate how a religious organization should interpret its religion. You don’t accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and teaches infalliably on matters of faith - should the Church stop claiming that? You don’t accept that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ - shoudl the Church stop claiming that it is?

I have not made any mention let alone tell anyone how they should interpet their scripture. I have merely pointed out that their actions are morally wrong and they should stop.

@Bricker

Ahhh - we’ve switched subjects!!

Government action is quite different from church action.

Twas merely a question and if you don’t want to answer I can not force you to.

@Bricker

The program had a very clear anti-Catholic bias. And if what it’s saying is true, and widespread, why is it the only source?

It is your contention that the BBC produced and aired a program filled with lies (other than those of the Catholic church of course), that reputable news orginizations like the Guardian, Reuters and The Washington Post among others ran incorrect stories, that the WHO responded to a fradulant claim, that the Cardinal did not respond to the WHOs statement and that in over a year and a half the Cardinal has not come out and said he was misquoted?

That my friend is a pretty hefty conspiracy.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

You are arrogating to yourself the right to dictate how a religious organization should interpret its religion. You don’t accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and teaches infalliably on matters of faith - should the Church stop claiming that? You don’t accept that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ - shoudl the Church stop claiming that it is?

Most likely he is lumping your comment in with mine. Do I preach what the church should do, out of my belief that individuals involved know what is right and wrong, and have not done so? This includes child abuse.

hmmmmm… Guilty! I am Guilty, as charged.

[holmes]

@Bricker

The program had a very clear anti-Catholic bias. And if what it’s saying is true, and widespread, why is it the only source?

Is this good enough, Bricker?

Q: What is your comment on the World Health Organization’s response?

Cardinal López Trujillo: I have not seen any response from the WHO, and this does not seem strange, also because the program has not yet been transmitted. At any rate, the WHO is meritorious in their work in the cure of many diseases.

But with regards to the condom, they should undertake serious scientific studies, and take a more effective path, rather than take risks. For example, the distribution of condoms to children and adolescents in their well-known campaigns is a grave irresponsibility.

I simply wished to remind the public, seconding the opinion of a good number of experts, that when the condom is employed as a contraceptive, it is not totally dependable, and that the cases of pregnancy is not rare.

In the case of the AIDS virus, which is around 450 times smaller than the sperm cell, the condom’s latex material obviously gives much less security. Some studies reveal permeability of condoms in 15% or even up to 20% of cases.

Thus, to talk of condom as “safe sex” is a form of Russian roulette! And this is even without considering other possible reasons for condom failure, such as degradation of latex due to exposure to sunlight and heat, rupture and breakdown.

Do we agree that he said this?

[holmes]

While I’m at it…

is it truew that the size of the pores in the latex condom is large enough to allow the thorough passage of the HIV virus?

Answer from Michael Fox, France, Researcher on 3/30/2004

Useful to learn of a seemingly plausible source of the “condoms have pores or holes and can let the tiny HIV virus though” allegation – but I think the answer (3/30/2004) to the original question (posted 6/25/2003) could have included a summary note on why the CM Rowland study is not accepted as valid for quality assured latex condoms – in short (and I admit in my possibly faulty memory and understanding), the latex referred to in this study was that used for rubber gloves and not condoms, which are made to much more exacting standards.

In addition, electron microscopy of condom latex has shown that there are NO pores (sources include The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions. Family Health International, 1998, pg 9, book distributed by WHO as part of the Male Latex Condom Manual) – this in effect also answers Dr B Z Avah’s question (3/30/2004) in that (a) there are no pores, their supposed existence is a dangerous myth or, worse, deliberate misinformation and (b) male latex condoms are extremely efficient barriers to HIV infection – on this last point, pls see also WHO/UNAIDS Information Note, Geneva, 16 August 2001- Effectiveness of Latex Condoms,
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html

[Shodan]

@RedFury

And Shodan? Blow me. That way we can measure how many inches you can swallow.

Nonsense, you silly person.

That would only work if you had more than an inch to swallow.

Regards,
Shodan

[BwanaBob]

@cuauhtemoc

But of course they’re free to promote their moral views, even though I may disagree with some of them.

How noble of you. :rolleyes:

Look, I’m not Catholic but their tenets say “no extra-marital sex” and “no birth control”. To expect them to contribute 1 penny towards any opposing views is assholish!

If people in that region have some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to fuck wrecklessly they do so at their own peril and cannot expect organizations that disagree with their “behaviors” to abandon their own belief system to help.

Say you’re an alcoholic with borderline cirrhosis. Now say I don’t believe in drinking. I tell you stop drinking to save yourself.

So you counter with - no, I can’t and won’t stop; provide me with a pill that let’s me drink and protects my liver too.

I don’t think so.

[Evil_Captor]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Fight my own igorance?

I had an argument from minute one. You’ve just been avoiding it.

My argument is that “100% effective” is better than "99% effective."

My argument is that saying you followed Church law and didn’t wear a condom is not an excuse to blame the Church when, if you had actually been following Church law, you wouldn’t have been fornicating.
Of course, you knew all this. You just want to fight for everyone’s right to indiscriminately take it out of their pants.

Go right ahead. Consider yourself ignored.
I’m done with this thread until we get a voice of reason.

Yes, and if human beings in general were AT ALL disposed toward celibacy, your argument would make something resembling sense. As it is, your argument does not make sense.

Did you entirely miss the cite of the study where the “abstinence only” youth were found much more likely to engage in oral and anal sex? Responding to real-world data with the equivalent of pious platitudes is only gonna get you in the “win” column with other True Believers, Pup.

[Bricker]

@holmes

Is this good enough, Bricker?

Do we agree that he said this?

Yes.

I now agree that Cardinal Trujillo is grossly misinformed, that his level of ignorance on this topic borders on the criminal, and that to the extent he is seen as ennunciating an official position of the Church, that position is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[RedFury]

@Shodan

Nonsense, you silly person.

That would only work if you had more than an inch to swallow.

Regards,
Shodan

Rather odd that you should be so obsessed with the size of my dick, but really, you should stop projecting your shortcomings unto me.

[RedFury]

@BwanaBob

Look, I’m not Catholic but their tenets say “no extra-marital sex” and “no birth control”.

And if that was any sort of guide as to who’s a Catholic or not, there wouldn’t be many/any left:

Catholics and Contraception: The Facts tell the Story

• 96% of all Catholic women who have ever had sex have used modern contraceptive methods at some point in their lives.

• 75% of Catholic women of childbearing age who are currently sexually active use a contraceptive method forbidden by the church.

• Sexually active Catholic women who attend church once a week or more use contraception at about the same rate as Catholic women who attend church less frequently (monthly)—73.5% vs. 75%.

• Less than 3% of sexually active Catholic women use church-approved family planning methods.

*Even among married Catholic women who attend church every week, less than 4% use church-approved family planning methods—about the same as the total population.

Seems like someone is out of step with the times.

[davenportavenger]

@Yeticus Rex

The reps of the Church are older people, and are set in their ways, much like my grandfather was and my father-in-law now…unmovable. The church is always lagging on accepting new ideas that conflict with policies set in stone, 10, 100, 1000+ years ago. It’s a matter of time when a young priest in Africa who sees a great loss of life now and wish he can do more will someday become an elder along with other priests/bishops/cardinals who will make the effort to bring the church up to speed on this matter. That’s the unfortunate part about church policy…it ain’t gonna turn on a dime, but will may take a large amount of time to examine, discuss and change.

And while they’re coming around, millions die. It took the Catholic Church five hundred years to admit that Galileo was right; I don’t see them budging here until every African is dead. Oops, too late!

[Shodan]

@RedFury

Rather odd that you should be so obsessed with the size of my dick, but really, you should stop projecting your shortcomings unto me.

That’s IT? That’s the best you can do?

Come ON. This is the Pit; you can’t get away with lameness like that.

“Oh yeah - well so’s your mother!” would have been better.

Try again, and this time put some effort into it.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - You crap-assed chomper of castrated crocodile crotch.

[Scott_Plaid]

I think you are confused. He wasn’t trying to insult you, but to question why, physiologically, you chose such an odd choice of insult. He’s got me wondering.