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

[treis]

@Bricker

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.

He is not misinformed nor is he ignorant. The WHO issued a statement in response to him detailing the effectiveness of condoms. He can no longer claim to be ignorant or misinformed on the topic. He is flat out lying.

[furt]

@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.

Hey, when ya whip your dick out, ya can’t act surprised when someone laughs at it.

[Scott_Plaid]

::Sigh.:: Everyone “has their dicks out”, in this thread, until proven otherwise. but when you are in the shower, you are not supposed to look. If you look, you aren’t supposed to acknowledge the fact. Now, stop lying about peoples sizes, when you know different, least I reveal your own size.

::Sigh::

You know, this was once a semi-legitimate example of showing holes in logic.

[Shodan]

@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.

Reminiscent of the old joke:

A guy goes to a psychiatrist for testing.

The psychiatrist shows the guy an inkblot.

“That is a man and an woman making love.”

Next inkblot:

“That is a man and two women making love.”

Next inkblot:

“That’s a man, a woman, and a sheep making love.”

“Well, I can see your problem,” says the psychiatrist. “You’re clearly obsessed with sex.”

“You think I’m obsessed?” says the guy. “You’re the one with all the dirty pictures!”

Regards,
Shodan

[RedFury]

@furt

Hey, when ya whip your dick out, ya can’t act surprised when someone laughs at it.

Yet another tighty righty obsessing over my dick. Hmmm…

A few more and I’ll be able to open my own congregation: The Order of The Red Phallus – use of condoms encouraged.

[Bricker]

@treis

He is not misinformed nor is he ignorant. The WHO issued a statement in response to him detailing the effectiveness of condoms. He can no longer claim to be ignorant or misinformed on the topic. He is flat out lying.

I believe the WHO on this issue. If I said something contrary, I’d be lying.

If Cardinal Trujillo does not believe the WHO, then he’s misinformed, and ignorant, but not lying.

[Scott_Plaid]

10 post about RedFury’s dick, and now a post about the WHO. (Weird Happenings Organization) I hope this new topic catches peoples eyes more than a certain piece of anatomy.

[treis]

The Cardinal can not be misinformed as he has recieved the correct information from the WHO. When every legitimate scientist in the world agrees that HIV can not pass through a condom it is impossible to be misinformed.

The Cardinal also can not be ignorant when the WHO responds directly to a statement of yours with factual information. You certainly can’t claim to be ignorant of the truth when you respond to that statement.

The Cardinal is lying.

[Bricker]

@treis

The Cardinal can not be misinformed as he has recieved the correct information from the WHO. When every legitimate scientist in the world agrees that HIV can not pass through a condom it is impossible to be misinformed.

The Cardinal also can not be ignorant when the WHO responds directly to a statement of yours with factual information. You certainly can’t claim to be ignorant of the truth when you respond to that statement.

The Cardinal is lying.

The Cardinal is obviously not a man of science.

Suppose he has a friend, one who he respects. That friend is learned in science, or so he appears to the Cardinal. (For obvious reasons, the Cardinal is not the sharpest observer on this score).

Suppose this friend told the Cardinal, “The WHO is deliberately concealing facts. Look here - an electron microscope printed image of the AIDS virus, and of the microscopic holes in latex.” The friend was using latex for gloves, or maybe that friend was using Photoshop and made the whole image up – but of course the Cardinal doesn’t know this.

So - is the Cardinal lying, assuming that happened?

[Yeticus_Rex]

@continuity eror

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!

That is a different can of worms altogether, but since you brought it up and since this is the Dope, it wasn’t until 1632-1633 that he was inquistitioned about his printing of Dialogue, less than 400 years ago, and the ban on Copernicanism was rescinded in 1820 , informally relieving Galileo of condemnation by accepting Copernican theories that Galileo based his Dialogue on. The condemnation was formally abrogated by the recently departed Pope John Paul II in 1992…so informally, 187 years elapsed…formally, 359 years… not 500 years…an error rate of 167% informally and 39% formally…both higher than the church’s stance on failure rates on condom use.

But then again, we’re talking about a different can of worms here. I see a shorter time span occuring when lives are at stake for the Vatican to come around…maybe a generation or less.

“Until every African is dead?” Seriously, is the Church really routing for this? Cite?

[holmes]

· Every 25 seconds another person in Africa is infected with HIV.

Waiting a generation for the Vatican, means a lot dead people. Maybe that’s the way it’s going to play out; but that’s a lot of dead people.

Cite or no cite.

[treis]

@Bricker

The Cardinal is obviously not a man of science.

Suppose he has a friend, one who he respects. That friend is learned in science, or so he appears to the Cardinal. (For obvious reasons, the Cardinal is not the sharpest observer on this score).

Suppose this friend told the Cardinal, “The WHO is deliberately concealing facts. Look here - an electron microscope printed image of the AIDS virus, and of the microscopic holes in latex.” The friend was using latex for gloves, or maybe that friend was using Photoshop and made the whole image up – but of course the Cardinal doesn’t know this.

So - is the Cardinal lying, assuming that happened?

It is not just the WHO that is stating the fact that condoms stop the HIV virus it is every single health orginization, scientist and government. Any reasonable man in the Cardinal’s position would conclude that condoms stop the HIV virus. The Cardinal stating otherwise is a bald faced lie.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

So - is the Cardinal lying, assuming that happened?

Trusting a lying friend? Well, I recall called something like “Is, it lyiif you don’t realize.” I cannot find it, No, INHO, it’s just a horrible thing to do, as per continuity eror’s scenario. It doesn’t matter if he has been lied to, creating"policy" baised on the word of one man, is a horrible thing to do.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@holmes

· Every 25 seconds another person in Africa is infected with HIV.

Waiting a generation for the Vatican, means a lot dead people. Maybe that’s the way it’s going to play out; but that’s a lot of dead people.

Cite or no cite.

No doubt about that. That’s why I advocate other and/or more secular organizations to go into Africa to do the educating and providing of materials to reduce HIV. Don’t wait for the Church to change it’s mind. Like I said before, it’s like trying to get a cat to do a guard dog’s duty…ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

[Bricker]

@treis

It is not just the WHO that is stating the fact that condoms stop the HIV virus it is every single health orginization, scientist and government. Any reasonable man in the Cardinal’s position would conclude that condoms stop the HIV virus. The Cardinal stating otherwise is a bald faced lie.

We’ve already established that he’s not a reasonable man. A reasonable man would have eduated himself on the issue.

That makes him ignorant and misinformed. It’s a lie if he knows it to be false, and says it anyway.

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

The Cardinal is obviously not a man of science.

In that case, he should yield to the greater knowledge of those who are.

@Bricker

Suppose he has a friend, one who he respects. That friend is learned in science, or so he appears to the Cardinal. (For obvious reasons, the Cardinal is not the sharpest observer on this score).

Not the sharpest observer? If he is making grand pronouncments that affect the very lives of other people, he damn well better be observing. Observation number ONE would be why is the “expert” friend so at odds with all the other REAL experts on the planet.

@Bricker

Suppose this friend told the Cardinal, “The WHO is deliberately concealing facts. Look here - an electron microscope printed image of the AIDS virus, and of the microscopic holes in latex.” The friend was using latex for gloves, or maybe that friend was using Photoshop and made the whole image up – but of course the Cardinal doesn’t know this.

So Cardinal Notthesharpestobserver chooses to take as “evidence”, doctored images he knows nothing about, and supporting words from a damn liar. No excuse. Like the police would say during an arrest, “Ignorance is no excuse”. Neither is gross stupidity an excuse on the part of Cardinal Notthesharpestobserver.

In fact, it would be even more justification to completely ignore him and do what you KNOW is the right thing to do.

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

So Cardinal Notthesharpestobserver chooses to take as “evidence”, doctored images he knows nothing about, and supporting words from a damn liar. No excuse. Like the police would say during an arrest, “Ignorance is no excuse”. Neither is gross stupidity an excuse on the part of Cardinal Notthesharpestobserver.

I agree it’s no excuse.

I’m asking if he’s a liar.

[treis]

I see three possibilities:

a) Cardinal Trujillo the man responsible for writing the Guidelines for Families on Sexual Education for the Vatican did not consult any reputable University, government health orginization, the WHO, the UN or any number of private orginizations on the effectiveness of condoms. We can discount this scenario becuase the WHO explicitly told him the effectiveness of condoms.

b) The Cardinal did consult one of the aforementioned orginizations and in good faith came to the conclusion that the HIV virus can penetrate condoms.

c) The Cardinal did consult one of the aforementioned orginizations and was told the effectiveness of condoms but decided to lie about their effectiveness becuase he though them to be against Church teachings.

If you believe a or b you are stretching the cloak of plausible deniability to epic new bounds. In fact I dare say that you might have * just * a smidgen of bias towards the Church if you do believe a or b.

[RedFury]

Well, glad to see talk about my dick has abated – interesting topic, no doubt, yet I fail to see the relevance to the OP.

The following rant, however, is quite pertinent:

Lying for God

Richard Dawkins, a distinguished evolutionary biologist, refers to religion as a “virus of the mind.” Now, ironically, the Catholic Church seems to be doing what it can to help the spread of another virus, namely, HIV.

The Roman Catholic Church is telling people in countries suffering through a HIV/Aids crisis not to use condoms. The BBC program “Sex and the Holy City,” reports, “cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.”

Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a senior Vatican cardinal, has argued that the HIV virus moves - without difficulty - directly through condoms. He stated, “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.”

One individual, interviewed for the BBC report, alleged, “Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids.”

This behavior of the Church, and Church officials, is beyond negligent, ignorant, and reckless. In areas of the world facing a HIV/Aids pandemic, this form of outrageously irresponsible proselytization and ethical nearsightedness will get people killed. The Church, yet again, has blood on its hands.

Cardinal Trujillo, perhaps informed in matters of theology, doesn’t appear to know much about condoms. Obviously, though, he’s not one to let a profound ignorance about a subject prevent him speaking as an authority. Despite Trujillo’s claim, when condoms fail (an unusual occurrence) it is not because lucky sperm manage to squeeze through the latex “net.” Condom failure rates are usually attributable to a damaged condom, or improper use, and these rates can be reduced through education.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report on condom use states, “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,” and “laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of sexually transmitted disease pathogens.”

It’s one thing for the church to encourage belief in the resurrection, virgin birth, the devil, hell and other comparatively harmless drivel. However, it’s altogether different to spread a message of morally derived lies concealed in the guise of scientific terminology when real lives are at stake. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates HIV/Aids has already “killed more than 20 million people and currently affects around 42 million.”

The Church’s actions are a particularly egregious example of what Dawkins would call “religion stepping on science’s turf.” Religion thrives on inventing irrational and unverifiable explanations to the “why” questions, whereas science excels at answering the “how” questions with evidence, facts and logic. Clearly, determining the effectiveness of condoms falls neatly into the realm of science.

Although it’s easy to characterize the Church’s claims as ignorant ravings, their underlying motives are far more damning. The Vatican’s argument can be traced to their narrowly defined view of morality and human sexuality. According to the WHO, condoms “can be used as a dual-purpose method, both for prevention of pregnancy and protection against STIs.”

There’s the rub. If condoms merely provided protection against STIs the Church would be less willing to lie, distort, and sacrifice lives to prevent usage. In reality, the Church is far more offended by the fact condoms are highly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy. From the Vatican’s perspective, condom use immorally perverts the sexual act into one of pleasure rather than procreation. To them, therefore, contraception represents a deplorable and unjustifiable sin.

The Church believes contraception is morally wrong because “it disrupts loving intimacy and separates the unitive sexual act from the procreative sexual act in marriage.” Thus, in the language of the Church, condoms are horribly immoral because they allow individuals to “seek sexual pleasure” by “intervening in the conjugal act to avoid conception.”

The Church’s blinding hatred of contraceptives motivated them to tell bald-faced lies about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of HIV. The Church knowingly judged the loss of human lives to HIV/Aids to be a lesser evil than allowing individuals to enjoy sexual pleasure without a resulting pregnancy. In their reckless desire to prevent “immoral behavior,” the Church has again proven itself immensely capable of evil on a grand scale. Sure, this policy may lack the dramatic flare of the Inquisition and Crusades, but it has the potential to kill even more people.

Indeed.

[Scott_Plaid]

This is extremely frustrating. How am I suppose to argue against such circular minds. Hmmmmmm…

WWJD? (Who wants jelly donuts?) The guy at the store gave me a bnch, even though I asked for Boston Creams, and it takes to long to get back.

No wait, that wasn’t it. WWJJD? (What would Joan Jett do?) Hold on, that’s not aplicable.

WWXD (What would Xena do?) Well, it’s a good idea, but it isn’t legal.

I GOT IT! WWSD!

Here is a question for all of you out there who supports the church and its policy of celibacy of unmarried people. Do you believe that jesus was a good person?