(March 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: oh, burn.....

You have got to be the single most arrogant prick I have ever encountered. Your arguments on this board consist of "I was a druggie but then I found Jesus and now I am better than you because I know the TRUTH!"

Uh, you sure you got the right Christian in mind there, Spanky?

(March 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: oh, burn.....

You have got to be the single most arrogant prick I have ever encountered. Your arguments on this board consist of "I was a druggie but then I found Jesus and now I am better than you because I know the TRUTH!"

Uh, you sure you got the right Christian in mind there, Spanky?

My bad. I apologize. I had Strudel on the brain.

I still think you are being an arrogant prick though. You are making broad assumption and laying out rules for an ideal world that doesn't, and can't, exist. I understand your point about following the rules but I suspect that, while not outright banning the availability of condoms, the religious sector probably exerts a great deal of pressure on potential condom suppliers thereby significantly reducing the availability of condoms to both believers and non-believers alike. So this is not just about people following church rules. It is, at its root, about the church poking its nasty little nose in where it doesn't belong.

Something I would like to add, that others have touched upon, is that NOT ALL AIDS/HIV COMES FROM SEX. I know. Mind blown. I feel like SOME PEOPLE need that reminder.

(March 18, 2013 at 10:43 am)John V Wrote: And, they apparently don't care enough about sin to obey.

Unlike you, perhaps they don't consider themselves slaves.

What is considered sinful and immoral is often culturally relative. Simply because some people don't consider extra-marital sex a sin, doesn't make their views wrong and your's right. It just means they're different.

(March 18, 2013 at 5:42 pm)festive1 Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 10:43 am)John V Wrote: And, they apparently don't care enough about sin to obey.

Unlike you, perhaps they don't consider themselves slaves.

What is considered sinful and immoral is often culturally relative. Simply because some people don't consider extra-marital sex a sin, doesn't make their views wrong and your's right. It just means they're different.

But they disagree with Christianity! Blasphemy! *sarcasm*

(March 18, 2013 at 3:58 pm)John V Wrote: A saint with a past would get tested before putting others at risk.

Because that's something the average African pauper can either access readily or afford.

Quote:The problem wouldn't exist if people followed catholic doctrine.

If you assume that all cases of AIDS are transmitted via consensual sex or drug use, yes. That is, of course, entirely untrue. What does Catholic doctrine suggest we do with the two and a half million babies born with AIDS? 21st century leper colonies? What about the extraordinary prevalence of rape in sub-Saharan Africa, and the tens of thousands of young people and children infected in this manner? How does Catholic doctrine protect them?

I mean, it isn't as if the Catholic church possesses the moral authority to preach that child rape is wrong, do they?

Quote:So, no, they haven't blocked the sale of condoms.

What saints they are for not making the problem even worse than they have already made it.

Quote:And we're back to the beginning. Catholic doctrine isn't scary enough to stop people from extramarital sex, but it is strong enough to stop condom use? Completely idiotic position.

Resisting the human sex drive is as easy as resisting the use of condoms? And my position is idiotic?

Quote:Thousands and thousands die because they can't keep their pants on. If the church drops the ban tomorrow, thousands and thousands will still die, because they still won't keep their pants on.

Thousands and thousands fewer will die if the Church fucks off, stops preaching improbable solutions and stops fighting effective ones.

(March 18, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 8:40 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Well, if they didn't take the women during a time of war as their wives, they would have had to kill them.

Why?

Because if there are thouands of people around, the people can turn around and revolt and kill the occupiers. Look at how difficult it was for the US to subdue Iraq with all the weapons that it had.

---

Quote:If you assume that all cases of AIDS are transmitted via consensual sex or drug use, yes. That is, of course, entirely untrue. What does Catholic doctrine suggest we do with the two and a half million babies born with AIDS? 21st century leper colonies? What about the extraordinary prevalence of rape in sub-Saharan Africa, and the tens of thousands of young people and children infected in this manner? How does Catholic doctrine protect them?

It is not like condoms solve this problem. They are not 100% effective. A person who is HIV positive can't protect them-self with a condom. The ONLY safe thing for them to do is abstain from all sexual activity.

The cruelest thing in the world to do would be to suggest to someone that 95% effectiveness or 99% effectiveness was enough to stop something as dangerous as HIV.

---

It doesn't really seem like any of you really want to understand the issues surrounding HIV, you would rather blame the church for something that really isn't related. If people have sex before marriage, there is a high risk that they will contract some sort of STD or AIDs. It does matter if they use a condom, but it doesn't matter enough to make it some kind of magic bullet. The only kind of safe sex is sex between married people who are tested.

Mr. Epistemotology Wrote:The cruelest thing in the world to do would be to suggest to someone that 95% effectiveness or 99% effectiveness was enough to stop something as dangerous as HIV.

Quote:That would be cruel, but it is also a giant strawman. A device with 95-99% effectiveness would not stop HIV, it would just, you know, make it 95-99 times more likely to prevent it than not using one.

Instead, you guys introduce a standard you know that most people can't live up to, blame people for being people when your stupid idea doesn't work, and make it worse by disallowing effective alternatives. Which, when you get right down to it, is a very Christian6 way of doing things, isn't it?

This is the stupidest thing I have heard all day. You really think that a device with 95-99% effectiveness would make it 95-99% more likely to stop HIV? No, it would open people to having sexual intercourse.

Abstinence works. I have not been seriously tempted to have sex in years and years and years. God takes the desire away. You are the one who is deceiving people, telling them that if they are HIV positive they can have sex and it is ok because it is 95-99% effective.

You call the Christians position ideological, but this is the most ideological nonsense in the world. That is the way that young children count, the way that you just did. You think you compute probabilities based on a single instance and that condoms have no effect on psychological behavior? You are brainwashed. Either people are sexually active or they aren't. The probability of contracting AIDS is based on whether people are sexually active, it is not based on a single use. For someone who has HIV, the chance that they will give it to someone else, whatever kind of contraception they use is far, far too high to do anything than abstinence. But you would never accept that. You are much to comfortable in your politics and your advocacy of hedonism to step outside yourself and actually consider how what you advocate translates into the real world.

You are the one who is making HIV worst, not the Catholic church.