If you think abstinence programs are more effective than safe sex programs you are delusional.
You are also wrong about which society will experience the AIDS outbreak. A secular society with access to proper education and contraception is much less likely to have an AIDS epidemic than one that teaches that protection is evil.
I would also like to point out that acting in a tradional Catholic manner is not something to be proud of. Remember these are the people that brought us the Crusades and the Inquistion. Luckily for me I am not being treated in a tradional Catholic manner or I would be burning at the stake for this post.
Those people do not exist in large numbers, except for some child-raping priests. Certainly not anyone here. You are hearing what you want to hear, not what is said.
Yes, I suppose you are right, that fact that you think that basic logic is tired, in your opinion invalidates her argument. :dubious:
You do know that there is nothing you can do to stop semi-on-topic hi-jacking, don’t you?
You have made the claim that fornication is bad. Do you want people to stop answering you point-for-point? Go see a magician.
Am I mistaken, or was the above comment self contradictory? You seem to be claiming I don’t need to be civil, but I need to go, based on what your definition of brining something to the table is.
Yes, or the orphanage will burn down. :dubious: Convincing you that you are mistaken isn’t a life or dearth situation where harshly barked order are carried out immediately.
Place these in order of effectiveness in combating the spread of AIDS*: correct condom usage, nothin’
*
Place these societies in order of likelihood of AIDS epidemic*: secular society, our current society catholic society,
Place these actions in order of likelihood that the Roman Catholic Church will take them: all of those have been taken, slowly since the middle ages.
Those people do not exist in large numbers, except for some child-raping priests. Certainly not anyone here.
[/quote] RedFury says they do exist, in Africa.
Of course, IIRC he’s the one who has already announced that he is tired of debating in good faith, so you may be correct in discounting what he claims. I know I do.
But if that baby’s been baptized then it’s going to heaven, which is the only fucking thing that matters. If someone dies before they’re a year old that’s actually a good thing for them because it prevents them from accumulating any further sin. Don’t you know how religion works?
HSHP: You have still not addressed this point–what is a woman whose husband is infected with AIDS supposed to DO??? And don’t say not sleep with him, because you damn well know that’s not going to happen (and anyway, doesn’t catchetism teach you that sex between spouses is a natural and healthy thing that should be participated in whenever possible to bring about the miracle of life?). Is what Bricker said in an earlier post (using condoms in a marriage where one partner is infected is not a sin) valid under Catholic law; if so, why don’t they tell women or men in this situation about condoms and teach them how to use them? And in what way does a priest or nun who tells the woman of an AIDS-infected partner not to use a condom (not just not teaching them, but saying they shouldn’t) not violating “thou shalt not kill”? You keep on evading this.
Those people do not exist in large numbers, except for some child-raping priests. Certainly not anyone here.
[/quote] RedFury says they do exist, in Africa.
Of course, IIRC he’s the one who has already announced that he is tired of debating in good faith, so you may be correct in discounting what he claims. I know I do.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Might want to try for some semblance of coherence next time. Then again, if your religious views are anything like your political views, you’re plenty coherent: if you’re not the one getting fucked, it’s all good.
Inavde nations for the fuck of it: yay! screw what the old guy in the funny hat says!
Condoms as a deterrent to STD’s and unwanted pregnancy in Third Wolrd countires: Screw that! Listen to what the old man in the pointy hat says!
(For simplicity’s sake, I’m using incorrect chastity usage to cover both those who are faithful to a cheating spouse, those who intend to be chaste but fail due to no fault of their own (rape), and those who intend to be chaste but fail due to low willpower etc.)[/spoiler]
In the real world, these four alternatives will all exist, in differing proportions in the population, along with the “no chastity AND no comdom usage” alternative, which, we all agree, is really shitty from an AIDS perspective.
As an excercise for yourself, I suggest you order these alternatives in likelyhood of occuring [ul][li]among a population which has received the Church’s “information” on the subject[/li]among a population which has received factually correct information about condoms and AIDS[/ul]
HSHP you get we’re talking about countries where up to 50% of the population is ALREADY HIV positive, don’t you? It’s a bit late to tell people to keep it in their pants. The damage is done.
You need to tell people that if they do not know their status or that of their partner, they need to use condoms.
If one partner is positive and the other is negative, they need to use condoms.
If both partners are positive, they need to use condoms.
The only time it’s safe is when both partners have tested negative on at least 2 occasions over the previous 12 months. Additionally, neither has had a blood transfusion, any invasive medical procedure or been in ANY kind of contact with human blood or body fluids during the last 6 months, and since the last negative test.
Telling HIV positive women that it’s ok to get pregnant and give birth when neither they nor their babies will have access to anti-retrovirals is just not right.
Now, the RCC can choose to tell people the all extra-marital sex is immoral, BUT if it says that using a condom when you fornicate is MORE immoral than not using one, its got problems. If it tells wives to submit to their husbands, even when doing so puts them at risk of dying, its got problems. If it tells women that actively trying to prevent the conception of children who will most likely die before they reach the age of 5 will send them to hell, its got HUGE problems.
Of course, IIRC he’s the one who has already announced that he is tired of debating in good faith, so you may be correct in discounting what he claims. I know I do.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Might want to try for some semblance of coherence next time.
[/quote]
:snicker:
Emphasis added. And “invade”, not “inavde”, “countries”, not “countires”, “World”, not “Wolrd”.
Since we are trying for coherence here.
Cite, please, where I said it was “all good” that Africa has a serious AIDS problem.
Well, since I am not a Catholic, yes, screw what the Pope says, about condoms and about Iraq.
See above.
Probably “sleazeball”, not “sleazyball”, but thanks anyway.
Let’s address jsgodess’s point, since Evil Captor seems to think she’s “winning” when she’s not even playing in the same arena.
I have included, in brackets, the policies that are referenced by the idiots I was pitting in the first place. Remeber them? Remember the ACTUAL focus of the Pitting (I’ll give you some time to go back and look)? If you want to get up my ass about it, go back and read the OP.
The church has chastity as a policy and promotes it. It’s 100% effective as a block against AIDS transmisison in the context of relationships. It does not disparage use of condoms, it disparages the idea that the simple existence of condoms eliminates the threat of AIDS.
You are not right when you say promoting chastity is stupid or evil. It’s certainly not evil. Stupid? Is it stupid to overestimate the intelligence of people with a deadly disease with a known means of transmission?
The use of condoms is not against Church policy. Extramarital relationships are. You cannot expect the Church to promote responsible sinning. It’s much more responsible not to sin. That is the position of the Church, and it’s statistically superior to even the most responsible of sinning.
As far as the defense of chastity being in whether or not it’s working, why don’t you find the number of cases of sexually-transmitted AIDS that happened despite condom use, and compare that total against the total number of cases of sexually-transmitted AIDS that happened despite chastity. I think that will tell you whether or not chastity is working.
Don’t you get it? “People are gonna fuck” is an untrue statement.
And for all you whining about the “influence” of the Church, if the Church is so influential, how come it’s not stopping the adultery/premarital sex/forced-coerced intercourse that is contributing to the spread of AIDS?
And for all you worried about who I’m Pitting, could you PLEASE read the OP, or maybe posts 14 and 23? And please, before you jump down my throat, make sure that I’m actually defending a position before you accuse me of having truck with apologists.
This doesn’t directly address anything on this forum, save for an insult or two that I covered in post 122, but I think it is with mentioning. Seeing as how it just came out today, and is based on a computer age cliché, it does not seem tired yet. At least to me, that is. a comic strip about ad hominem attacks
P.S. H.S.H.P., will you condescend to address 122?
P.S.S. Please place the blame on the right person. in post 129, Shodan’s first quotes me, but accidentally attributes it to RedFury. Sure, it’s obvious, but at this point, I am not taking it for granted that you -know-who will actually read the posts in full.
Sure, Scott, but after this, you’ll have to post something defensible or coherent. I respond to your #122 to show you why this will be my last response to you.
First, I pointed out that there was only one Catholic President of the US because the argument here is about the Catholic Church, not the Christian community. The two are not interchangeable.
With regard to the subjects of the OP:
Cite?
I’m not Pitting anyone “here” on the SDMB. Reread the OP.
No, I’m staying on point. How do I know what’s on point? I wrote the OP.
At this point, I hadn’t even addressed the validity of her arguments. I asked her to say what she meant, because she was going after me based on assumptions about my position that were inaccurate. Where do I attempt to invalidate her argument? I told her to make sure she was addressing mine. Why is that important? Well, I did write the OP.
If it’s not on-topic, I don’t need to address it. If it draws attention away from the topic of discussion, then of what worth is it?
Where did I make the claim that fornication was bad? I made two claims about fornication- that the Catholic Church holds it to be sinful, and that it is statistically more likely to spread AIDS than chastity. WHERE did I make the claim that fornication is bad?
No, the above statement was NOT self-contradictory. I told you that you were incapable of being civil. And my opinion has not changed.
Especially since you then proceeded to dodge all my arguments by trying to make cutesy jokes out of them. You haven’t addressed one of my points, and I have given up on the idea that you ever will.
Listen, man, we all get it. You’re a rebel. You’re here to stir things up, you’re here to make sure everyone knows how ludicrous and evil organized religion is. And I don’t have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with the way you so hamhandedly go about it. Now, your money is as good as mine, and my opinion doesn’t make policy around here, so the only course of action I have available is to ignore you.
No prob, I’m just glad we sorted that whole confusion out.
I see no reason to post proof that many priests have rapped children. However, here is cite for the fact that hundreds of priest are know to have aids. I believe it would be too optimisitc to assume they found they had add, then went and stopped having aids. Such activy would constitute the kind of behavior you are asking about, but I dought you will find people with the same attitude here. Just incase you willfully deny the idea of reading the aritcle, I will quote a bit:
Oh, and my habit of making cutesy jokes out of things is a great tool, for it shows how absurd many arguments are, not dodging. Oh, and for the record, even I have wished that people would go back to the OP, so I explained myself better, not that it matters in a free discussion, for the creator does not own the thread.
No one seems to be addressing the point that the RCC doesn´t just try to convince people to be chaste and refrain from using condoms; it actively tries, (and has often succeeded), to use secular laws to prohibit any means of birth control from being sold. (Google GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, for instance.) It took years, here in Mexico, for the Pill to be legalized, and the guys with the funny hats fought tooth and nail, using lies, (Headline in the local paper: ¨BIRTH CONTROL CAUSES CANCER!!!¨ - in the body of the text ¨Archbishop denounces culture of Death, etc.etc.¨ and all the political pressure they could apply, including threats to excommunicate any politician or government employee who tried to implement a UNESCO program offering funds to encourage population control.
That is true, but kinda off the current topic, which is trying to convince Happy Scrappy Hero Pup that he is not some good able to say where a conversation should go and I— where are my manner?
That is an excellent point. I seemed to recall that I have heard about such things hapenning many, many times throughout history, but now, thanks to you, I have a modern day cite. Thanks, and hopefully, the levels of chest-beating around here will not stop you from contributing more.
I might also mention the director of the Mexican Red Cross, a few years back, who actually accepted the UNESCO funds for an AIDS prevention program, stole the money and spent it on first class travel and expensive hotels for himself and his family, and when caught tried to justify the theft by saying that he didn´t want to encourage homosexuality. Turned out he was a member of the Legionnaires of Christ, one of Wojtyla´s favorite ultra-right/fascist groups.
