What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[SteelCurtain]

A completely useless question. Randy. Let's get it through our head. Humans are going to have sex. Doesn't matter what you tell them, what you preach to them, what your doctrine is, what you threaten them with. Sex is among the strongest instincts we have. We know this. Can we stipulate this? Or are you going to pretend that they'll stop if only you just threaten them the right way?

So, it is your view that throughout the course of human history, in all places and at all times, humans had sex without self-control? Or would you say that it is possible for people to be chaste/celibate until marriage?

I never said humans have never had self control. You know, Randy, when you know you are defending a lost bit of territory, you behave a lot like Huggy. Black and white thinking and quibbling over inanities.

I am saying that people will objectively choose to have sex, because it is an extremely strong desire that we are ingrained with. It's why most teenagers will still have sex regardless of all the dogmatic fear and shame your despicable lot instills in them.

The point is received, Randy. Abstinence would be great and have wonderful effects if people would follow through. I am not saying abstinence is bad. I am saying it is woefully unrealistic. It is infantile to pretend otherwise. If you think that it works in practice on populations, then you are as stupid as you are making yourself look here. People are going to have sex no matter what you threaten them with, or how much you shame them. Even unending torture in your imaginary lake of fire will not turn off hormones.

Knowing they will have sex, spreading "lies" about how condoms make things worse is just plain evil.

If I told you that the airplane you are about to get on was probably safe, would you get aboard?
If I told you that the roller coaster ride at the county fair is usually safe, would you buy a ticket?
If I told you that the taxi driver in the cab you just hailed is sober most of time, would you get in?

All completely avoiding the point, and awful analogies. I never asked if condoms would eradicate AIDS. They won't. I asked you if the rate of infection spread would be stemmed with condom use. I am asking you if less people would die if Catholics stopped telling people that condoms are evil. That condoms will kill you. That condoms come pre-packaged with AIDS/HIV. If Catholics stopped erecting billboards with skeletons on them that intimate that if you use condoms, this is how you'll end up. I know you are having trouble with answering this question without referring to what Catholics want to happen rather than what is happening, but please try.

Let's make it personal.

Do you think if more people used condoms in Africa that the spread of AIDS would be stemmed?

Not 100%. Which is what would happen if people in Africa stopped having sex with people who are infected altogether.

Again, Randy. I think you know how duplicitous you're being here. You know what I'm getting at, and you won't allow yourself to even consider the ramifications. Please answer the question that was asked rather than the question that you want to answer. Abstinence would work better than condoms. But abstinence is not happening. It is not even trending that way at all. The message of abstinence would be fine, if it were joined with education about being safe if you are going to have sex. But your ilk are teaching that abstinence is the only way, and people are dying as a result.

So, I'll ask the question again:
Do you think less people would die in Africa if Catholics stopped preaching that condoms are evil?
I suppose you'll avoid that question as well, but it's worth a try.

Let's make this personal, okay? Just to test your resolve.

You meet a nice girl and you go out a few times. Things are progressing nicely on many levels, and intimacy is a possibility. Then she tells you she has AIDS. "But it's okay," she says. "If you use a condom, you probably won't become infected."

Kind of a show-stopper, isn't it?

Nope. Not at all. If I liked her enough, and there was enough of a connection there to warrant a further relationship where I make sacrifices, I would continue dating her. We wouldn't have sex until I could verify her viral load. If it was zero, I would get prescribed PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis), which is covered under my insurance. My chances of contracting with PrEP and a condom are effectively zero. The only thing I would have to verify is that she is serious about her cocktail and also that she checks and monitors her viral load regularly. Not a show stopper at all.

Suuuuuure you would, Mike. Sure you would. Cause all that is a lot easier than simply finding another cute girl.

Are people just livestock in your brain, Randy? How callous are you? Just throw this one away, she's got AIDS, there's plenty of other women out there. She might as well be a leper, huh? The more you reveal about yourself here, Randy, the more I am glad I've never met you. You don't seem to have a lick of empathy in your bones. I specifically said that if there was a connection there, I would weigh my options. It's not automatically a "show stopper" for me. If you are calling me a liar for not playing into your perceived "gotcha," then have at it. I know like 90% of what you post here is cookie cutter, so when someone doesn't play along, you get butthurt. Sorry 'bout your luck.

(Can you imagine the comments folks in this forum would be hurling at me if I had written a paragraph like that?)

What, saying that you wouldn't automatically discard a human being for something that is a big deal but completely manageable in this day and age? I think you're projecting, Randy. There's that lack of empathy again.