And obviously this should read “who doesn’t tell her how to take simple precautions” or “who tells her not to take simple precautions.” Yeah.
I would have to say it’s at the continuity eror. (not a real answer, but a ringing endorsement of continuity eror’s post.)
Sex-ed, dipshit. Saves lives unlike the RCC.
Two post in the last few second. :smack: I should have quoted Bricker. I hate it when this happens.
That’s the easy answer, but it’s not the whole story and that’s been my point. The Church has a method to prevent some death’s, they chose not to. Why? Because some people may use their “teachings” for their own base needs; so the Church not only doesn’t tell them, but uses double-speak to mislead them…all of them, the guilty and the innocent die the same.
You guys are some of the strangest guys I’ve met. I’ve never heard the excuse that if a person fails to follow some commandments, then what’s the proof he’ll listen to the Church in other matters? Can you imagine it? A thief has a gun to the head of a person, they call his family Priest to talk to him and the Priest says, '“Why bother? He didn’t listen when we told him not to steal…why would he listen when we tell him not to kill?” and then closes his door.
How did you phrase it, “The church can’t condone sin, even to prevent tragedy.”
So while you can stand there and pit Joe Dumbass, you also leave in the pit Joe Goodguy who loves his wife, obeys Church rules and will still die…because he got a transfusion. You see AIDS doesn’t care whether or not you’re a-fornicatin’ dumbass, or an IV user or some guy who needed an operation and received tainted blood; it’ll kill you just the same, and your wife and her children…if you follow the Church teachings.
But hey at least you die in knowledge that you’re not a dumbass.
Still you’re right, people should take responsibility for what they do or don’t do; I guess that gives you some comfort…
Do you believe you have advanced a cogent argument above?
Do you believe that you answered the question above?
I agree with you on how idiotic the whole thing is, but not the following:
Unless you are a serious devotee of Ayn Rand, then I don’t see what you are saying here. In real life, looking through a newspaper tells me that when a person has made the decision to violate the law, he will often change his actions as the result of being asked to, for example, ever notice how hostage negotiations between police and kidnappers often involve the victim’s parents, the family priest, the kidnappers parents, etc.?
** Scott_plaid** That’s cause I’m not saying what you think I am…just the opposite. I guess I wasn’t clear.
Well, it does seem a little unclear, but the fault was probley mine for getting caught up in the bolded words.
Dude, stick your interrogation techniques where the sun don’t shine. But in point of fact, yes, very much so – you’re a poster child for the hypocritical attitude I despise in conservos. Kill, invade, butcher, pillage, screw what the Pope says. Just don’t fuck out of wedlock, 'cause, see, that’s inmoral.
Don’t like my answer, get a lube job.
Make it a double, for it applies to your next query as well.
I am sorry Bricker but I simply can not believe someone as smart as you is advancing this argument in a debate between the effectiveness of abstinence education and a safe sex program. There is no doubt that more people will use condoms correctly than abstain from sex alltogether.
Suppling condoms and educating people about there use works much much better than abstinence programs. Period. End of discussion.
Your nit picking in this thread is dispicable. You picked and chose which quotes people supplied for you about the Catholic church’s lies on the flimsiest of technicalities. You ignored two posts that gave you absolutely clear and indisputable quotes. You did come out and say if the Church is lying that you would deplore it. However you left that “if” in there in my opinion to give you wiggle room which you are taking full advantage of.
Allow me to repeat the quote:
From Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family:
“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.”
An outright lie
The WHO deplored his comments and pointed out that he was incorrect.
The Cardinal replied with:
“They are wrong about that… this is an easily recognisable fact.”
A senior official in the Catholic church is lying about the effectiveness of condoms.
I won’t go into the reports of priests telling people that condoms carry the HIV virus and the various Bishops blaming condems for the spread of AIDS. You will just nitpick them to death and refuse to believe the truth.
You apparently have no problem breaking your moral code in supporting the Iraq war which caused the deaths of thousands of people not to mention endangered the moral status of the over 300,000 military personnel that killed them. But you don’t support breaking that code for saving millions of lives?
Sounds like you’re conceding your argument when you go 100% slur card. You had valid points (especially that there are Catholics out there who use condoms against Vatican policy), but your failure to see the other side of the coin and go Andrew Dice Clay on us isn’t helping your POV. I know it’s the Pit and all, but this thread has entered it’s own Godwin stage at this point.
If you think you can do better, Yeticus Rex, by all means, I cede the floor. But methinks you don’t realize exactly what/who you’re up against.
Belive you me, I’ve tried everything from the patience of Job to my current ADC impersonation with the likes of Shodan and Bricker. Truth be told, not only do arguments fail, but if at all possible, I dislike them both a bit more each time.
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.
Alright then.
As a catholic, I learned what being celibate and monogamous meant way before AIDS/HIV was discovered. When I learned about HIV and how it was transmitted, I felt confident in knowing that my wife and I who were celibate before we met and married and have been monogamous throughout our years have been fortunate to realize that we are safe from HIV barring any unforseen accidental needle sticking event. The same goes for other sexually transmitted diseases. Was it sex-ed or religion that made this happen? Religion primarily, but sex-ed reaffirmed that abstainance is 100%, monogamy with a partner that practiced abstainance like you (before you met) continues the 100% effective rate of not getting HIV. The sex-ed came in later and we learned to be careful about blood transfusions, accidental needle sticks and other methods of accidental transmissions. I also learned that no condom is 100% effective against HIV, pregnancy or other STDs, even when used properly. I thank the secular scientific community for those contributions. The church can’t take all the credit, nor all the blame.
Who to thank here? Both religion and the scientific community. But above all else, it was my self-control that is the primary reason. I know where Bricker, Shodan and HSHP are coming from; it’s not a holier than thou issue, it’s just following a set of priniciples that go back a few millenia, and benefitting from it.
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. But following the 10 commandments overall is pretty much a no-brainer to generally keep yourself out of trouble. For those that can’t resist having sex, then a condom is definitely better than no condom…just don’t expect the church to give the nod to that anytime soon. Leave that to the scientific community. I think the church policies (without the scare tactics or lies)with science (sex-ed with all facts up front…abstainance 100%, condoms slightly less than 100%) used as back up TOGETHER is probably the best way to combat the pandemic in Africa. Don’t throw one or the other policy away just because it’s religious/secular.
This is not a debate about the effectiveness of abstinence - it is about whether abstinence is the right thing to teach. Or, more accurately, whether condom use is the right thing to teach.
The only measurements of success you’re willing to accept have to do with rates of infection… in your view, there’s nothing wrong with a nation of adults routinely engaged in extra-martial sex, as long as they’re using condoms.
That’s not a crazy view. It’s absolutely rational and supportable.
My view, however, is that there’s something wrong with “winning” the battle like that.
You and I reach different conclusions on this matter because we accept different premises as true.
If he said it, it’s a lie. The only reason I hedge with “if” there is that the only souce for that quote is the BBC program - and they didn’t SHOW him saying that. Now, if there is another source that doesn’t depend on Panorama, I’ll concede without reservation that the cardinal is a liar on this matter.
In what way do you believe my support of the Iraq war breaks my moral code?
None whatsoever. After all, Bricker’s Moral Code®, has only himself to answer to.
Any inherent hypocrisy contained therein only need respond to Bricker’s Moral Code®, thus making making any criticism of same redundant by definition. AKA “buffet Catholics.” And they sleep very well at night, thank you very much.
Hey! As long as you don’t fuck outside of wedlock, who cares what his Church Fathers have to say about anything!
Funny thing is, I actually agree with Bricker, for I don’t believe in any other morality than one’s own. 'cept I don’t need a bunch of bullshit excuses in order to implement mine.
Yeticus, appreciate you jumping in. The more the merrier.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was both, born onto Catholism and raised by Jesuits till about the age of ten. Thhe great majority of my family are still practising Catholics and I currently reside in one of the last bastions of Catholicism – Central and South America. By and large, I have no beef with the large majority that sorrounds me, I respect them, they respect me – the less we talk about religion, the better.
However, when a topic like this one comes up, you bet your sweet bippy I’m going to chime in, for I think – and I have the facts to back me up – that the current Catholic official stand towards sex is misguided and intolerant at best, downright murderous at worst. And yes, just like here, I also get incensed IRL when hypocritical ideologues try to put up a “defense” of same.
Bottom line, yeah sure, let’s work together, but as you yourself mention, no need to wait for the “the church (that) is always lagging on accepting new ideas that conflict with policies set in stone” in order to save countless lives.
In that sense, I couldn’t agree more with your pronouncement “don’t throw one or the other policy away just because it’s religious/secular.”
Let’s just throw away the bullshit – such as the RCC’s stand vis-a-vis condoms.
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.
What is your view about using government money to teach abstinence only education both abroad and in our schools?
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?
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.