Your polio analogy is not relevant. The Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology reports about a 16.6% failure rate for condoms on average. It seems silly to argue that people cannot be expected always to abstain from sex while at the same time arguing that people will always use condoms appropriately and correctly. When used perfectly, they still fail. And when used incorrectly, they fail a lot.
Your argument that condoms do not stop AIDS is idiotic. They are a useful tool in fighting the spread of the disease. Eating less and exercising does not guarantee that you won’t have a heart attack, so people should stop exercising and eat big macs all day?
Here’s a dollar, buy a clue at the logic store.
P.S. Fred Phelps is a religious nutjob.
[Libertarian hat: ON]Why this obsession with nutjobs? Why do you persist in singling out that part of the population? I’m sure that for every example you dish out, I can find someone that’s not a nutjob that has advocated something stupid or dangerous. If you were not blinded by your hatred of nutjobs you would see that you are being unfair.
Your politically correct exercise for the day: find example of non-nutjob criminal or discriminatory statements, post them in this thread, and include a hearty apology to nutjobs everywhere.
FTR: We have no statement from the pope that indicates that this is his position.
We may choose to infer that it might be his position from other positions he has taken, but based on the article supplied, we have exactly one member of the Catholic hierarchy, Cardinal Trujillo, and one second-hand report of one priest in Africa who is supposed to have made anti-condom statements.
I have no doubt that many members of the RCC have bought into the “failing condom” line of thinking. However, a specific charge against a specific individual should generally be accompanied by actual evidence that that individual has actually taken that position.
Fred Phelps is also a Democrat. In fact, he has been active with the Democrat Party in Kansas for quite some time. He and his son were fundraisers for Gore during the '88 campaign, when Gore visited Fred Jr at his home. Phelps was invited to (and attended) both inaugurations of Bill Clinton. So I guess it’s only fair that we should nominate Gore and Clinton as well.
Because, in this thread, their “nutjobness” is related to their religious beliefs…The thread seems to be about those who have strange religious beliefs, or have done strange things due to their religious beliefs.
Latex condoms obviously work quite well when used properly in conjunction with an effective condom maker in preventing the transmission of STD’s including aids, because if they didn’t, the Nevada brothels would have had most if not all of their prostitutes infected by now if the failure rate was anything near the 16.6% figure that Lib used in one of his links. And it may very well be that high for stupid people having sex. But obviously many do know what they are doing. If anyone knows how to use a condom properly, it should be the prostitutes working these brothels. They sure have a hell of a lot more field experience than the Pope! From this cite:
Even at 1-2% failure rate, it still seems a bit risky to me if you were seeking out a risky partner that was quite active, when we are talking about something that could cost you your life. But I’ve seen cites where there were studies when one partner was infected with the aids virus, and the other wasn’t, and the couples were using latex condoms and didn’t stop having intercourse. Years later, many of the uninfected partners still didn’t have it. After doing some google searches, it looks like many of the Catholics don’t seem to take too much seriously about what the church says about birth control since they always seem to speak out against any form of artificial birth control. Even if there was a method X that prevented 99.999999 of STD’s, you think they would still recommend it? Even with a failure rate of .000001, they could still say that method X doesn’t stop aids. And they would be right. It wouldn‘t stop it for or .000001% of the users that used that particular method. Let ‘em pray about it, and see how effective that is.
JZ
Does anyone here see any point in arguing Libertarian? His responses are now so calculatingly dishonest and at the same time tremendously arrogant that it seems best to ignore him.
Religious sane people can see that the OP is not in any sense bigoted, prejudiced, or hate speecherific. Nutjobs seem incapable of seeing that.
Daniel
Actually, John, I’ve given several cites — all of them from expert medical sources.
I just don’t think there’s any point in calling people “nutjobs” just because they happen to be religious and hold a particular opinion on a topic that is controversial and about which no one has a monopoly of knowledge.
Oh, for the ability to draw a Venn diagram right about now. We could have one big circle for “religious people”, another big circle for “nutjobs”, and a little shaded area where they overlap.
In short, we’re not calling these people “nutjobs” because they’re religious (that would be the other circle); we’re calling them “nutjobs” because, IOHO, they’re nutjobs.
While my dictionary doesn’t happen to provide a definition for “nutjob”, I’m going on the assumption that it implies a certain level of both obstinate irrationality and a tendency to act based on that irrationality (like, IMHO, Fred Phelps).
Whether or not atheists should be included in the “religious” circle or should have a circle of their own (also overlapping the “nutjob” circle, indubitably) is a tangential argument.
Clear?
I do understand that this is about the intersection of religious people and nutjob people. That point I’m making is that the “religious” circle is unnecessary, and is not unlike having a discussion about black nutjobs, or gay nutjobs, or liberal nutjobs. Why aim your bashing at nutjobs from one and only one group?
You can go to Stormfront and read all sorts of discussions that bash nutjobs identified by race, religion, or sexual orientation. Why do we need to do that at Straight Dope?
If you understand that religious people and nutjobs are two different (albeit overlapping) groups, why claim that we’re calling them nutjobs “just because they happen to be religious”? It seems a tad disingenuous to me.
However, in answer to your question:
A) Because bashing religious nutjobs is fun;
B) Because the atheist left (to borrow a phrase) rules the Straight Dope and likes to flex its muscles every now and then;
C) Because religious nutjobs exert far more influence over society than other kinds of nutjobs do, and the atheist left who most often come out the worse for that influence need to continue to remind people that these particular nutjobs are, in fact, nutjobs; or
D) All of the above.
Your choice.
Liberal nutjobs? A fine discussion, as there are people who take being liberal to a nutjob extreme.
Gay nutjobs? Unless we’re talking about someone who literally tries to fuck everyone of the same gender, I don’t know how you could take being gay to a nutjob level. A thread about gay activist nutjobs, OTOH, would be fine, I’d think: there are certainly people who advocate on behalf of gay people who do so in a nutjob fashion.
Black nutjobs? You can’t take a physical attribute to a nutjob level: that doesn’t make sense. A thread about black separatist nutjobs, on the other hand, would be appropriate.
Daniel
I seen most of your cites, Lib, they seem legitimate to me, although they concentrated mostly on the higher percentages. I can get quite a bit more cites of lower breakage rates too from equally credible sources, but the important thing is what are we to make of all of it? It appears to me that some are just more educated and responsible with condoms than others.
I just don’t think there’s any point in calling people “nutjobs” just because they happen to be religious and hold a particular opinion on a topic that is controversial and about which no one has a monopoly of knowledge.
It depends on the religious opinion they hold. I don’t automatically put them in the “nutjob” category because of some religious opinon though. But I do find a great of the opinions they hold at least subject to ridicule. If it’s just “nutjobs” we are looking for, we need look no further than the Bible to find plenty of characters that fit that description. And you don’t need to have a monopoly on knowledge to know that radical fundamentalist Muslims who are of the religious opinion that if they blow themselves up, taking many with them, and are going to heaven to be with their god and prophet Muhammad, are “nutjobs.”
JZ
That still doesn’t explain what you think the plain meaning is, or how it avoids my objection to your comment. Your comment, even in repitition, is ambiguous, and ambiguity that you seem determined to let stand, not making it at all clear which religious people both feel tweaked and are (in this case) being called nutjobs. I’m not desperate for something to bitch about. And I don’t get you. You have are treating someone who is essentially agreeing with you (but just isn’t willing to go as far as you) as an enemy.
NO gay nutjobs…let’s see:
A) Being a practising homosexual lowers your life expectancy almost 20 years (smoking’s only 13)
B) Homosexual women have, in general, had sex with more men (that’s right MEN) than heterosexual women (man, they don’t even get the gay thing straight)
c) Several homesexual women still call themselves lesbian (and refuse the bisexua label) even when they are married to and have sex with men
d) (This was tru in 1990) 50 percent chance of becoming HIV+ by 55 years of age
After this, just let me have my triple-burger with cheese and bacon while you laugh watching Will and Grace.
<This breaking news just in: we’ve just received word of a massive derailment in the “Religious Nutjob” thread. No word yet of the damage, but casualties are expected to be in the hundreds…>
Gyrate
I think your “B” is pretty much the ticket.
Apos
The plain meaning is that people of faith feel a tweak when they are called nutjobs. In retrospect, that’s what I should have said. Oh, wait…
I don’t know what you mean.
As you know, I can’t compliment you. It makes you ill at ease.
Somehow I thought you might. Whereas I would have chosen A (with a very small bit of C thrown in). My way only requires for people to be expressing petty malice rather than full-blown persecution.
Ah, the favored excuse of bigots everywhere: he has a persecution complex; therefore, he merits ridicule.