Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pope UK visit mega discussion thread.

Options
1…1213151718…20

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    Can anyone justify a guy going around and saying that condoms actually SPREAD HIV/AIDS?! I mean... what century is it?

    I can justify what the Pope actually did say. Your hatchet-job interpretation above is not what was said. If you want to criticise people please base it on relevant issues as opposed to fabricated controversies.


  • Options
    #423
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    dvpower wrote: »
    Are you saying that the pope is smug?:confused:
    He seems fairly certain that (his) God exists.
    BOOM! You just blew my mind.


  • Options
    #424
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    I can justify what the Pope actually did say. Your hatchet-job interpretation above is not what was said. If you want to criticise people please base it on relevant issues as opposed to fabricated controversies.
    I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help, the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering.

    Yeah, some "hatchet-job" :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #425
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    Yeah, some "hatchet-job" :rolleyes:

    Yup, bad translation. What was said was that distributing condoms alone could actually lead to an increase. You also need behavioural changes and education. The context of it was made clear, better to just ignore all that though and stick with the controverisal.


  • Options
    #426
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    Yup, bad translation. What was said was that distributing condoms alone could actually lead to an increase. You also need behavioural changes and education. The context of it was made clear, better to just ignore all that though and stick with the controverisal.
    Source?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Yup, bad translation. What was said was that distributing condoms alone could actually lead to an increase. You also need behavioural changes and education. The context of it was made clear, better to just ignore all that though and stick with the controverisal.

    Well that is controversial prinz. You're not suggesting that the pope is in favour of condom use when part of a programme that includes behavioural changes and education, are you?


  • Options
    #428
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    Source?

    To put it in better context..

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what_the_pope_really_said_about_aids_and_condoms/


  • Options
    #429
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    Well that is controversial prinz. You're not suggesting that the pope is in favour of condom use when part of a programme that includes behavioural changes and education, are you?

    The Church is in favour of their suggestions with regard to behavioural changes and education. Various charity organisations etc are in favour of distributing condoms. The best system to fight HIV/AIDS is a mixture. Then again we are going off topic, the point being it's disengenuous to take an extract out of context, you could do that with anyone to basically paint them in any light whatsoever. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have condoned condom use in certain circumstances on a personal level.


  • Options
    #430
    brummytom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,572 ✭✭✭✭brummytom


    I don't see the problem with what he said, tbph.

    He said that offering contraception encourages promiscuity; which is probably true. As the condoms aren't always effective, this increased promiscuity could lead to further spreads.

    Sorry, and I fully accept I may be ignorant, but I fail to see how you can attack someone for saying that abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of a Sexually Transmitted Disease.. of course it is. :confused:



    The church do an awful lot of good in the world, it's a shame only the negative things are focused on.


  • Options
    #431
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    The Church is in favour of their suggestions. Various charity organisations etc are in favour of distributing condoms. The best system to fight HIV/AIDS is a mixture.

    Just to be clear. The Church's suggestions do not advocate condom use in any circumstances whatsoever.

    The view that "The best system to fight HIV/AIDS is a mixture" is your view. The Church don't support your view in this.
    prinz wrote: »
    Then again we are going off topic, the point being it's disengenuous to take an extract out of context, you could do that with anyone to basically paint them in any light whatsoever.
    You're rebuttal tended to suggest that the Church would advocate condoms in some circumstances. That's equally disengenuous, no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    You're rebuttal tended to suggest that the Church would advocate condoms in some circumstances. That's equally disengenuous, no?

    Certain members of the RCC hierarchy have done just that. Anything suggested by my rebuttal to you, is just that, whatever you took out of it. I never claimed to be giving the Church view, I am not a Vatican spokesman, just countering an oft-repeated claim based on words taken out of context.


  • Options
    #433
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    brummytom wrote: »
    He said that offering contraception encourages promiscuity; which is probably true. As the condoms aren't always effective, this increased promiscuity could lead to further spreads.
    I couldn't disagree with that. If the only message being put out was that condoms alone will save you (so you don't need to be concerned about your own behaviour), then, sure, that would be disastrous.

    But nobody advocates this line. Most people advocate a multi faceted approach that includes condoms where appropriate, abstinence where appropriate and education.
    brummytom wrote: »
    Sorry, and I fully accept I may be ignorant, but I fail to see how you can attack someone for saying that abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of a Sexually Transmitted Disease.. of course it is. :confused:
    There's no point in selling a message that people aren't buying.
    We can tell people to drive slowly, pull over when their tired and never drink and drive, but we should probably continue to wear seat belts.


  • Options
    #434
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    smokedeels wrote: »


    It's not an over-the-top thing to say that he has killed millions of people (in terms of his opposition to condoms, abortion and stem cell research alone)

    The Catholicism causes Aids in Largely protestant Africa meme will never die.


  • Options
    #435
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    To put it in better context..

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what_the_pope_really_said_about_aids_and_condoms/
    Ah the Catholic News Agency... bastions of neutrality!


  • Options
    #436
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    Ah the Catholic News Agency... bastions of neutrality!

    Well there you go.... that wasn't forseeable at all.


  • Options
    #437
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    brummytom wrote: »
    I don't see the problem with what he said, tbph.

    He said that offering contraception encourages promiscuity; which is probably true. As the condoms aren't always effective, this increased promiscuity could lead to further spreads.

    Sorry, and I fully accept I may be ignorant, but I fail to see how you can attack someone for saying that abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of a Sexually Transmitted Disease.. of course it is. :confused:



    The church do an awful lot of good in the world, it's a shame only the negative things are focused on.

    Which do you think is more realistic, getting people to wear condoms or getting people to stop having sex altogether?

    The pope saying that condoms don't help the situation is absolutely, unforgivably, retarded.


  • Options
    #438
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    Well there you go.... that wasn't forseeable at all.
    Oh come on! You're telling me that every translation reported bar this one is incorrect. No one but the CNA can speak proper Italian?
    It's possible, but HIGHLY improbable.

    That articles doesn't even make much sense tbh. Seems the CNA hardly has a handle on the English language, let alone Italian!

    What is foreseeable is that the religious people on this forum refuse to accept anything that goes against their talking points even when presented with a mountain of information. They will always have one link or source that is obscure and states the opposite. Whereas if I posted a link from an organisation called Athiests News Agency that said the exact opposite, and in fact the pope said he wanted to infect everyone with AIDS and it's all a big mistranslation - you'd be saying the exact same thing I said.


  • Options
    #439
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    Oh come on! You're telling me that every translation reported bar this one is incorrect. No one but the CNA can speak proper Italian? It's possible, but HIGHLY improbable..

    The translation/interpretation/selective quoting out of context etc. The 'reputable' news sources want to stir up controversy, 'Pope says condoms spread AIDS' is a quick and easy soundbite to sell papers... as opposed to just repeating the actual stance of the RCC, people get bored of that. Who wants to know what the Pope actually said, much better to appease what some people want him to have said.

    Much better to artificially construct some issue or other for sales.


  • Options
    #440
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Which do you think is more realistic, getting people to wear condoms or getting people to stop having sex altogether?

    Whether or not it's realistic for the vast majority of people or not is a red herring. The pope gives his suggestion and that's it. He is correct in saying that abstaining from sex is a better prevention from AIDS, in the same way as advising people not to drive is a better prevention from dying in a road accident than driving carefully. It's not totally stupid, if I had a daughter that was living there I would give her the same advice.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    The pope saying that condoms don't help the situation is absolutely, unforgivably, retarded.

    Agreed.


  • Options
    #441
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    The translation/interpretation/selective quoting out of context etc. The 'reputable' news sources want to stir up controversy, 'Pope says condoms spread AIDS' is a quick and easy soundbite to sell papers... as opposed to just repeating the actual stance of the RCC, people get bored of that. Who wants to know what the Pope actually said, much better to appease what some people want him to have said.

    Much better to artificially construct some issue or other for sales.
    OK, you're entitled to your opinion.

    But if this is the case why has the Vatican not come out themselves and refuted the quote, saying it was a misquote and not the stance of the church?
    If what you're saying is correct (and I believe it isn't) then where is the correction?
    This has caused controversy and helped a lot of people make that final decision to leave the church - this is not what the Vatican and the pope wants (or are you going to tell me now the re-evangelisation of the west is a mistranslation and misquote too now?).
    So tell me why the Vatican/pope has not issued a statement along these lines?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    So tell me why the Vatican/pope has not issued a statement along these lines?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5934912.ece

    The Times good enough? ;)
    Vatican Spokesman Federico Lombardi is defending the church's approach to AIDS. He says Pope Benedict is putting the emphasis on education. Lombardi told reporters in Yaounde that developing an ideology of confidence in condoms is not correct because it fails to focus on personal responsibility.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-03-18-voa33-68678107.html

    On a broader level..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/23/catholicism.topstories3


  • Options
    #443
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Down with this sort of thing!


  • Options
    #444
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    prinz wrote: »
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5934912.ece

    The Times good enough? ;)
    That article mentions that the word “risked” was introduced by the Vatican, not that the pope actually said “risked” in the interview.

    It clearly states that:
    In addition he had not said that reliance on condoms “risked” aggravating the problem, as the amended version had it, but rather that it “even aggravated it” or, as some media translated the word, “increased” it.
    I would certainly argue that translating aggravated as increased is accurate. The Vatican merely backtracking and introducing the word “risked” is hardly standing up and renouncing the statement.

    Fair enough if he actually meant that reliance on condoms alone “risked” increasing AIDS, but it's still a bit of a bull**** statement though.
    Sure, other methods ought to be used but the implication is still that the church frowns on the use of prophylactics


  • Options
    #445
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    OisinT wrote: »
    That article mentions that the word “risked” was introduced by the Vatican, not that the pope actually said “risked” in the interview. It clearly states that:
    The Pope’s speeches and homilies as released by the Vatican are usually regarded as sacrosanct. He is deemed to have delivered the officially released written version even if he does not do so for any reason, or if he omits parts of the written text.

    The man is in his 80's, switching between two languages (neither of which are his mother tongue) while conducting a question and answer session with journalists in the air on the way to Cameroon. What you have is hundreds of people hanging on every word desperate to drum up a bit of controversy.

    Reliance on providing condoms alone does risk aggravating the problem.


  • Options
    #446
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Whether or not it's realistic for the vast majority of people or not is a red herring. The pope gives his suggestion and that's it.

    God's representative on earth gives his suggestion and that's it?. It isn't just a simple suggestion. He carries a lot of clout, including with legislators so he has a responsibility to take into account the wider effect of his pronouncements.


  • Options
    #447
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Reliance on providing condoms alone does risk aggravating the problem.

    NOBODY advocates this.


  • Options
    #448
    ravendude
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭ravendude


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galvasean View Post
    The health service is getting loads of flak in the media at the moment in realtion to child abuse.
    veritable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, Mod, but BS. Compare this level of "flak" against the flak the church has gotten and continues to get. Respectfully, they don't compare.

    Although the authorities share culpability, there are some very material differences:
    - Unlike members of the catholic clergy, it wasn't members of the health service or gardai that were perpetuating child rape and torture
    - Unlike the catholic institution, members of the health service and gardai do not pontificate to people day in day out on how they should live every aspect of their lives
    - The pope specifically and personally covered up child rape as a matter of policy unlike present leaders of other insititutions (as far as we know). If they did the same, they should go too.

    IMO, an apology isn't even good enough, he should resign and nothing less is good enough. This man has no place preaching to others about ethics and morality.


  • Options
    #449
    ravendude
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭ravendude


    OisinT wrote: »
    Prove to me that God isn't a delusion.

    There is far more evidence supporting there being no god than evidence supporting there being a god.

    That's because there is no evidence that there is a god, at least other than the hearsay, chinese whisper kind.


  • Options
    #450
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ravendude wrote: »
    That's because there is no evidence that there is a god, at least other than the hearsay, chinese whisper kind.
    I've yet to meet the person/thing or whatever started all this off though or the man that can make a planet.
    Show me him her or it,what was there at the very beginning of everything...the very start now and not some science about the ongoing.

    Untill then I'll not be an atheist thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've yet to meet the person/thing or whatever started all this off though or the man that can make a planet.
    Show me him her or it,what was there at the very beginning of everything...the very start now and not some science about the ongoing.

    Untill then I'll not be an atheist thanks.
    Erm.... what?


Advertisement