Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 19, 2022, 10:38 am

Poll: Do you believe in human rights?
This poll is closed.
Yes
57.14%
16 57.14%
No
42.86%
12 42.86%
Total 28 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Human Rights?
RE: What Human Rights?
(August 31, 2015 at 5:11 pm)IATIA Wrote:
(August 31, 2015 at 12:13 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: if the first article he posted was accurate in terms of some people having intentionally lied, then those people need to be reprimanded. I just didn't put too much stalk into it because it was an extremely biased work.

Google "AIDS Vatican condoms" and you will get similar stories from 'Huffington Post', 'New York Times', 'CBS News', 'PBS', 'USA Today' and more.

Quote:In December 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lòpez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, wrote that “condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.”

Those are also all pretty liberal sources. Neim already posted a couple other articles that were much more objective. It was blown out of proportion in the way it was presented in the guardian.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
RE: What Human Rights?
quote='Catholic_Lady' pid='1037232' dateline='1441055820']


Those are also all pretty liberal sources. Neim already posted a couple other articles that were much more objective. It was blown out of proportion in the way it was presented in the guardian.
[/quote]

Do you consider the BBC, presenting an exact quote, a liberal source too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/pa...180236.stm
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
RE: What Human Rights?
(August 31, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Those are also all pretty liberal sources. Neim already posted a couple other articles that were much more objective. It was blown out of proportion in the way it was presented in the guardian.

Regardless of your dislike of the sources, it does not change the facts of the position of the church stated by Cardinal Alfonso Lòpez Trujillo.

BBC Wrote:The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass.

I tried some catholic sites and they repeat the same information, but of course with their apologetic nonsense..

As far as abstinence, even the fucking catholic priests cannot keep their dicks in their pants.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson

God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders

Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Reply
RE: What Human Rights?
(August 31, 2015 at 5:36 pm)abaris Wrote: quote='Catholic_Lady' pid='1037232' dateline='1441055820']


Those are also all pretty liberal sources. Neim already posted a couple other articles that were much more objective. It was blown out of proportion in the way it was presented in the guardian.

Do you consider the BBC, presenting an exact quote, a liberal source too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/pa...180236.stm
[/quote]

I don't know much about bbc, but I read the article just now and it seemed objective as well.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
RE: What Human Rights?
(August 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't know much about bbc, but I read the article just now and it seemed objective as well.

Truth is, they all are. There's no tabloid among the sources presented. They know the system of check, recheck, double check.

The BBC is counted among the most reputable sources in the world. I also could present a lot of German sources, but it probably wouldn't help you.

One of the articles I browsed also presented reactions by religious organisations. One actually was critical about the Cardinal's words. The others, the Catholic league among them, just rambled on about the scientific value of abstinence only. Which, of course, in lights of everything we know, is pure agenda.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
RE: What Human Rights?
(August 31, 2015 at 5:47 pm)abaris Wrote: the Catholic league among them, just rambled on about the scientific value of abstinence only.

One of the catholic sources I browsed, said that even their doctors stand by the cardinal's words.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson

God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders

Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Legitimate women's rights issues Lemonvariable72 50 6560 October 30, 2015 at 7:01 am
Last Post: Lemonvariable72
  Why do Children not Have Human Rights? Koolay 58 11728 September 23, 2013 at 9:42 am
Last Post: genkaus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)