The Vatican and Condoms

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Anti-vaccine groups, anti-GM food groups, climate change deniers, the catholic church on the subject of condom use...



In the case of the four I've mentioned, yes, huge.

Anti Vaccine groups dont have a huge influence just look at the fiigures for vacine take up among parents for thier children in Ireland.

You dont think there is an equally strong pro GM food groups who might want to hide the possible side effects of GM crops?? I think it would be nieve to suggest there could not be interference in the research.

Climate change deniers have had a impact Id aggree.

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

Anti Vaccine groups dont have a huge influence just look at the fiigures for vacine take up among parents for thier children in Ireland.

Look at them outside Ireland. There was an outbreak of whooping cough in the US last year, for goodness' sake.

You dont think there is an equally strong pro GM food groups who might want to hide the possible side effects of GM crops?? I think it would be nieve to suggest there could not be interference in the research.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. In any case, GM isn't really doing anything that isn't already being done in nature; it's just doing it faster. If there is evidence of side-effects, then it's absurdly well-hidden, and any of the groups I've seen complaining about GM food have had almost nothing substantial to say.

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

Then they should keep their mouths shut on the scientific side, and not, say, suggest that condoms have microscopic holes that let AIDS through.

rational

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Look at them outside Ireland. There was an outbreak of whooping cough in the US last year, for goodness' sake..

Can you give evidence that this outbreak was connected to peoples mistrust of the scientific method?

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I haven't seen anything to suggest that. In any case, GM isn't really doing anything that isn't already being done in nature; it's just doing it faster. If there is evidence of side-effects, then it's absurdly well-hidden, and any of the groups I've seen complaining about GM food have had almost nothing substantial to say

Scientific research can eb manipulated by people with thier own agenda. I was making the point that this could be the case with the Issue of GM research. Monsanto comes to mind as an example of a company with a less than perfect record.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Then they should keep their mouths shut on the scientific side, and not, say, suggest that condoms have microscopic holes that let AIDS through.

Agreed that would be stupid of them to suggest. Can you point me to where this is an offical catholic church position? Im not trying to catch you out just curious.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

Can you give evidence that this outbreak was connected to peoples mistrust of the scientific method?

Well, given that there is a vaccine available for the whooping cough, it's obvious people weren't using it because of anti-vaccination propaganda. Here is the whooping cough story, and here's a story about a recent outbreak of measles in LA. (Unfortunately the LA Times op-ed it links to is no longer available.)

Scientific research can eb manipulated by people with thier own agenda. I was making the point that this could be the case with the Issue of GM research. Monsanto comes to mind as an example of a company with a less than perfect record.

Monsanto isn't the extent of the scientific community. Anyone (in principle) can test GM food and see if it has any side-effects. No doubt scientific research can be manipulated (see, for instance, the industry-funded climate-change denial organisations), but usually there's evidence to the contrary. I haven't seen any presented in this case.

Agreed that would be stupid of them to suggest. Can you point me to where this is an offical catholic church position? Im not trying to catch you out just curious.

I don't think I said it's their official position, but it's certainly a rumour that high-level members of the church have felt free to spread.

robindch

rational wrote: »

The catholics churchs issues against condoms has got to do with the morality of there use.

The Vatican is still telling lies about condoms and this remains a fact regardless of how much they pretend that it's not them, but some invisible deity, who disagrees with condom use.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

the catholic church on the subject of condom use...

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method. Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science.

Case in point social scientists and their relativist notions like "coinstructivism" a pernicious deoctrine which has enveloped science education. For a read up on these opponents of reason do a search under "science wars" " sokal hoax" "postmodern science" or "constructivism" . Creationism aside, "loony doctrines" lilke constructivism ( term used by a historian of science Michael Matthews) are being taught in schools and teachers are being trained based oin these philosophies.

But this isn't the topic of this thread, well party isn't. There is also some criticism being directed at so called New Age Atheists for helping drive the wedge between Science and Public mistrust even deeper. In your opinion do you think such criticisms are valid?

If they are relativists yes. Atheists can however believe in natural law and in absolutes.

But is that opinion ideological, or practical? Scientists, are an minority, atheists are an even bigger minority, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

WE need balance of techne episteme and phronesis. The new agers have upset this balance and stressed phronesis which though essential does away with the rest of the trinity.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

Its not a strawman. The catholic churches offical position is the popes official position (infallible representative and all that) and the pope said:
HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem" (Source)

raah!

Dades wrote: »

If there is a problem, it's not the "New Age Atheists" to blame - it's their detractors conflating science with what they perceive to be aggressive secularism.

It's hardly accurate to say that it is only the detractors of secularism who would like to conflate it with science. There are many people on this very forum who would like us all to think that it is not possible to accept scientific methodology and be religious at the same time. See this forum/thread for evidence of such viewpoints.

The Mad Hatter

ISAW wrote: »

I dont want to single out an issue but the Catholic church position is that they oppose sex outside the loving relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman whether those people use a condom or not. This is what is causing AIDS in Africa - intergenerational sex usually between middle aged men and young girls.

Saying "people having sex outside marriage" is what they are against is a reasoned position and the condom issue does not make any difference to that if the Church are against sex outside marriage. It is a straw man.

I'm talking about their rumour-spinning that condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm talking about their rumour-spinning that condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through.

I'm talking about the actual issue of spreading AIDS and how the Church holds a reasonable position on it. I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

What "rumour spinning" by the way?

You probably source the Guardian and BBC who quote a nun and fair enough a Cardinal said something but his position isn't official policy. Above people said journalists report things in a way which is not fair. Here for example

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47769

The cardinal told reporters that the Church has not taken any formal position on the narrowly defined topic that is being studied. In April, Cardinal Lozano Barragan had suggested that conflicting statements on the question, issued by ranking Church officials, had caused some embarrassment at the Vatican, and he predicted that the Holy See would issue a teaching document on the topic. Pope Benedict evidently asked the Mexican prelate to be more circumspect in his public statements, and at the November 21 press conference the cardinal said that it is not certain when-- if at all-- a Vatican statement on the topic will be released.

If a statement does eventually appear, the cardinal added, it will not change the overall thrust of the Church teachings regarding contraception. The particular issue being studied, he repeated, involved married couples, whose use of condoms would not be for contraceptive purposes.

"No response from the Church," he said, "could be such that it allows for sexual license."

It isnt here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/index.htm
so I guess it is just a rumour you are spreading?

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

On his last trip to Africa, the pope has said that condoms help to spread AIDS.

That is a lie.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual issue of spreading AIDS and how the Church holds a reasonable position on it. I think saying "condoms don't protect against AIDS " is a straw man given that the church oppose sex with anyone other then one's spouse condom or none.

What "rumour spinning" by the way?

You probably source the Guardian and BBC who quote a nun and fair enough a Cardinal said something but his position isn't official policy. Above people said journalists report things in a way which is not fair. Here for example

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47769


It isnt here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/index.htm
so I guess it is just a rumour you are spreading?

Did you just ignore post 30? The beeb quoted the pope himself.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

On his last trip to Africa, the pope has said that condoms help to spread AIDS.

That is a lie.

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Stercus Accidit

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Swiss cheese has holes

The more cheese I have the more holes I have

The more holes I have the less cheese I have

The more cheese I have the less cheese I have


No.

MUSEIST

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

Condoms dont increase sexual promiscuity, people will be at that anyway because it just the natural thing. The sick part is that because the pope says that condoms spread aids and thus then people not useing them causes people to get aids and die. They died because of the pope and religious orders stance. How can the pope sleep at night, the imoral plank. That what disgusts me. Condoms WILL stop aids and people will live, how is that not a good thing. Whether condoms are avaliabe or not will not change the sexual promiscuity as that is completely natural and people have been at that for millions of years. Thats the natural normal way and thats not going to stop. The vatican are directly responcible for peoples deaths because of there stance on this. How ccan they claim to be moral and how can they be a source of good in the world.

raah!

Swiss cheese has holes

For analogies to work there must be similarities between the two arguments

raah!

MUSEIST wrote: »

Condoms dont increase sexual promiscuity, people will be at that anyway because it just the natural thing. The sick part is that because the pope says that condoms spread aids and thus then people not useing them causes people to get aids and die. They died because of the pope and religious orders stance. How can the pope sleep at night, the imoral plank. That what disgusts me. Condoms WILL stop aids and people will live, how is that not a good thing. Whether condoms are avaliabe or not will not change the sexual promiscuity as that is completely natural and people have been at that for millions of years. Thats the natural normal way and thats not going to stop. The vatican are directly responcible for peoples deaths because of there stance on this. How ccan they claim to be moral and how can they be a source of good in the world.

If we all looked at it from the point of view of abstract vector spaces we would all be much enlightened. This would be an example of an analogy, we are using the logic contained in one argument and using it in another. We are transferring meaning fromt he pope's statements, to linear algebra.

The pope is the pope, so everythign he says is as the pope, and from a catholic perspective. When the pope says "don't use condoms", he doesn't mean "don't use condoms in combination with those other non-catholic things", he means don't use condoms in combination with them.

All linear combinations of the pope's arguments will still be in the vector space of the popes arguments, the pope's arguments are arguments rooted in catholic doctrine.

So, in this pope-space, his criticisms of condoms are perfectly valid, as he condemns condoms as an abberation from catholic orthodoxy, and something which goes hand in hand with promiscuity.

As to people naturally liking sex, of course that's the case. But if they are catholics then this is not something they should be doing with more than one person or before they are married, if that is correct.

Morbert

raah! wrote: »

If we all looked at it from the point of view of abstract vector spaces we would all be much enlightened. This would be an example of an analogy, we are using the logic contained in one argument and using it in another. We are transferring meaning fromt he pope's statements, to linear algebra.

The pope is the pope, so everythign he says is as the pope, and from a catholic perspective. When the pope says "don't use condoms", he doesn't mean "don't use condoms in combination with those other non-catholic things", he means don't use condoms in combination with them.

All linear combinations of the pope's arguments will still be in the vector space of the popes arguments, the pope's arguments are arguments rooted in catholic doctrine.

So, in this pope-space, his criticisms of condoms are perfectly valid, as he condemns condoms as an abberation from catholic orthodoxy, and something which goes hand in hand with promiscuity.

As to people naturally liking sex, of course that's the case. But if they are catholics then this is not something they should be doing with more than one person or before they are married, if that is correct.

The vector "Condoms help spread aids" is not a member of the catholic vector space. It is imaginary, and does not belong to any real vector space.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

Of course, there is somethign to be said abotu the fact that condoms are condoms possibly counter balancing this, but the argument at least deserves a proper analysis.

It has had proper analysis. Condoms reduce HIV where there are large numbers of infected(see here and here) and condoms do not promote more sex or even initiate sex earlier (source):

RESULTS. Male respondents in the intervention city were less likely than those in the comparison city to initiate first sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08). Female respondents in the intervention city were less likely to have multiple partners (OR = 0.06). The program promoting and distributing condoms had no effect on the onset of sexual activity for females, the chances of multiple partners for males, or the frequency of sex for either males or females. CONCLUSIONS. An HIV prevention program that included the promotion and distribution of condoms did not increase sexual activity among the adolescents in this study.

raah!

Morbert wrote: »

The vector "Condoms help spread aids" is not a member of the catholic vector space. It is imaginary, and does not belong to any real vector space.

.

Well the vectors "condoms increase promiscuity" and "promiscuity increases sex" along with "sex increases aids" are all members of this vector space of arguments, and we can thus express "condoms help spread aids" in terms of them. So we can say it's contained in them.

I've always liked this idea though, of expressing arguments in terms of vectors, because linearly dependent arguments can be just arguments that can be derived from one another, and we'll have to have very large bases.

Obviously condoms can't be part of the commandents or anythign like that, as they weren't invented, but perhaps we should include some more vectors to describe them, vectors which aren't contradictory with catholic moral vectors. I guess we can have contradictory to mean ... in a different vector space, they couldn't be added or combined. But the pope-space has to contain vectors which describe the world, as well as his moral vectors

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It has had proper analysis. Condoms reduce HIV where there are large numbers of infected(see here and here) and condoms do not promote more sex or even initiate sex earlier (source):

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex. It doesn't make sense to give them condoms. If you give them condoms, it can only be for pre-marital sex.

You can make the argument that "it's natural for people to do this or that", but catholics are not supposed to. So, if the people are not catholics, then they need not listen to the pope, and if they are catholics, then listening to the pope should in no way increase the AIDS they get.

All the same, it seems silly to assume that those people understand fully catholic doctrine, and silly for anyone to say that for regular people condoms would cause more aids.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS.

The evidence from the USA -- where it's possible to collect any, since religious fundamentalists generally try to block such research -- is that people who've been lied to about condoms tend have sex with STD-infected people at roughly the same rate as people who have not been lied to. Unfortunately, if you've been lied to about the effectiveness of condoms, then you simply won't bother using them when you should, and you'll become infected. This is a straightforward link and it appears to be supported by the imperfect level of information that's currently available.

It's generally believed that this is why the bible belt states in the USA typically have rates of STD's, abortion, teenage pregnancy etc which are higher, and occasionally far, far, higher, than the states in which lying to clueless teenagers is thought to be a bad idea.

.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex. It doesn't make sense to give them condoms. If you give them condoms, it can only be for pre-marital sex.

You can make the argument that "it's natural for people to do this or that", but catholics are not supposed to. So, if the people are not catholics, then they need not listen to the pope, and if they are catholics, then listening to the pope should in no way increase the AIDS they get.

All the same, it seems silly to assume that those people understand fully catholic doctrine, and silly for anyone to say that for regular people condoms would cause more aids.

Wow. That has almost nothing to do with what I posted. Nowhere does it deal with the fact that the evidence shows that condoms help stop aids and do not increase promiscuity. Nowhere does it even deal with the fact that the pope lied about this and claimed that condoms increase the rate of transmission. Its almost like you didn't read my post at all and are just spouting the same craptacular argument that has been debunked by, what, 3 other people on this page alone.

sponsoredwalk

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method.

If anything I think appreciation of science has higher than it's ever been
in history and is growing exponentially. Focusing on these few negative
cases maps you in to a particular subset, the image of which will never
compare to that of the set it is enclosed in. As the universal set
expands at an accerated rate so does the particular set representing
science whose internal subspace representing anti-science will simply
remain a constant annoyance, but bounded. Vectors like engineering,
biology, psychology, etc... have variable scale factors, currently positive
This anti-science subset is pretty tame compared to the influence it had
throughout history, I see no reason why it wont continue to remain
constant as the set science increases, thereby making the anti-science
subset even less important.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well, I think again we must take into account the fact that catholics are not supposed to have that unmarried sex.

Shouldn't we also take into account that while Christians are not supposed to sin they will anyway. Ignoring that seems rather naive, particularly when this is ignored really only when it comes to sex.

It is like saying we don't require monitoring of child abuse because Catholic priests aren't supposed to abuse young child. But they do anyway.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow. That has almost nothing to do with what I posted. Nowhere does it deal with the fact that the evidence shows that condoms help stop aids and do not increase promiscuity. Nowhere does it even deal with the fact that the pope lied about this and claimed that condoms increase the rate of transmission. Its almost like you didn't read my post at all and are just spouting the same craptacular argument that has been debunked by, what, 3 other people on this page alone.

Well, the reason it has nothing to do with what you posted is that what you posted had nothing to do with what I posted. If the pope directly said, "wearing a condom during sex makes it more likely for you to get aids than if you have this sex without a condom" , then your post would be a response to mine. Your post does not respond to what I said. The Pope was speaking to catholics, under the assumption that they followed catholic dogma.

Repeating statistics about the sex that people have outside of marriage and its relation to condoms does not address this. If condoms lead to sex outside of marriage, then they lead to aids. That was the argument.

As far as I can see the post has been addressed twice, your post was not one of those that did.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Shouldn't we also take into account that while Christians are not supposed to sin they will anyway. Ignoring that seems rather naive, particularly when this is ignored really only when it comes to sex.

It is like saying we don't require monitoring of child abuse because Catholic priests aren't supposed to abuse young child. But they do anyway.

Yes, its quite similar to this. But we can make another comparison here, preists are not supposed to have sex or rape children. So if the pope started talking to preists about condoms, it wouldn't really make sense would it. For the pope condoms are inextricably linked with extramarital sex, as I've said.

I was merely pointing out how calling him a liar without listening to what he says in the proper context will lead to an invalid argument. Just as posting loads of statistics involving extramarital sex will need a qualifying statement, like this one you've posted, and like the one posted by mouse. We could accuse him of not caring about whether the non or lapsed catholics listened to him and got more aids, and maybe this is an actual position he holds, though it seems unlikely.

So we could call the pope naieve, perhaps irresponsible for not taking the degrees of catholicism of the people to whom he's speakign into into account, but calling him a liar is not somethign which there is sufficient evidence to support, though there is clearly sufficient emotional incentive.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Yes, its quite similar to this. But we can make another comparison here, preists are not supposed to have sex or rape children. So if the pope started talking to preists about condoms, it wouldn't really make sense would it. For the pope condoms are inextricably linked with extramarital sex, as I've said.

That is a different issue though, the idea that saying "Use a condom" is the same as saying "Go have risky sex"

People need to get over this idea. If I knew someone was raping children and I couldn't stop him or report him to the police or anything but I thought if I gave him a condom he would use it I would give him the condom.

padma

Malty_T wrote: »

, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

This is an interesting question. Sounds similar to fundamentalist religious groups out looking for converts, just kidding. The way I see it, is people have different interests. Some people myself included, more and likely see science as a boring subject which we were forced to do in school. This leading to a lifetime of no interest in the subject after it being forced on us through the education system.

I've always liked history and believe that if people knew more about history they would have a better grasp and understanding of the social and political landscape. However it is just a subject that I have interest in, yet have no interest in trying to address peoples illiteracy on the subject.

Would this help you to form an opinion on the subject?

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a different issue though, the idea that saying "Use a condom" is the same as saying "Go have risky sex"

People need to get over this idea.

Well it's not really my view on the matter, but in the context of all extramarital sex being wrong, you can see how suddenly condoning condoms would be related to it.

If I knew someone was raping children and I couldn't stop him or report him to the police or anything but I thought if I gave him a condom he would use it I would give him the condom.

Yes this is essentially the issue at hand. If the condom only served to protect the man, then maybe the pope would not want him to have a condom. Then again, I don't know anything about the pope.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Well, the reason it has nothing to do with what you posted is that what you posted had nothing to do with what I posted. If the pope directly said, "wearing a condom during sex makes it more likely for you to get aids than if you have this sex without a condom" , then your post would be a response to mine. Your post does not respond to what I said. The Pope was speaking to catholics, under the assumption that they followed catholic dogma.

You said "If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS." and that this deserves a proper analysis, so I showed the proper analysis that has actually been done. This is on top of repeatedly telling you that the pope lied about the efficicay of condoms in preventing the transmission of aids. It doesn't make a difference that catholics aren't supposed to have premarital sex, the pope still lied about condoms.

raah! wrote: »

Repeating statistics about the sex that people have outside of marriage and its relation to condoms does not address this. If condoms lead to sex outside of marriage, then they lead to aids. That was the argument.

As far as I can see the post has been addressed twice, your post was not one of those that did.

What the f*ck are you talking about! I was the person who posted the links to the information about how UNAIDS said "the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV" and how condoms have drastically reduced the transmittance of aids in Thailand. I also, in order to counter the expected rebuttal about condoms encouraging more people to have sex (and for teens to start earlier) linked to the study showing that, in fact, condoms actually encourage slightly less sex, and encourage teens to wait longer before first having sex (its all in this post).
So I dont know how you can say that I didn't repsond to your claim that condoms lead to sex outside marriage.


Its really transparent, btw, how you keep trying to move the goalposts from what the pope actually said, to wheter it could be true, to who the pope was talking to (as if that made the lying ok).

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Well it's not really my view on the matter, but in the context of all extramarital sex being wrong, you can see how suddenly condoning condoms would be related to it.

Not really. That would be like saying condoning seat belts encourages dangerous driving.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

On his last trip to Africa, the pope has said that condoms help to spread AIDS.

Source?

That is a lie.

Nothing more needs to be said.

REad it again:

it = irresponsible behaviour. It is NOT a lie to say that "use condoms" promotes promiscuity!


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090317_africa-interview_en.html
I think of the Sant’Egidio community that does so much, visibly and also behind the scenes, in the struggle against Aids, I think of the Camillians, and so much more besides, I think of all the Sisters who take care of the sick. 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 [by responsible behaviour], 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.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a different issue though, the idea that saying "Use a condom" is the same as saying "Go have risky sex"

People need to get over this idea. If I knew someone was raping children and I couldn't stop him or report him to the police or anything but I thought if I gave him a condom he would use it I would give him the condom.

Good example!
I think you have the kernel of the issue there. the Church would not say "dont rape people but if you are going to rape people use a condom because it might reduce the risk if AIDS"

They would say you cant do something wrong and expect good to come from it.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Shouldn't we also take into account that while Christians are not supposed to sin they will anyway. Ignoring that seems rather naive, particularly when this is ignored really only when it comes to sex.

They don't ignore it they condemn all wrong and don't condone doing wrong so that good may come of it. There is no relative wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It is like saying we don't require monitoring of child abuse because Catholic priests aren't supposed to abuse young child. But they do anyway.

No it isn't like saying that because this is a bad example. Why
Less then one per cent of abusers were Catholic clergy. WE should monitor the 100 per cent but that does not mean ignore the one per cent.

And the central issue with this example is this:

Just because people do evil doers not mean we can condone it.

Additionally there is no relative good or relative evil involved. The position is that one should not do evil. If rape is wrong rape with a condom wont make it right and isnt a relatively better thing to do than rape without a condom.

ISAW

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not really. That would be like saying condoning seat belts encourages dangerous driving.

No it wouldn't you have the logic wrong way around.

It would be like condoning dangerous driving on the basis that if you do it you are better off doing it wearing a seat belt!

The church would say "seat belts have nothing to do with it you should not drive dangerously with or without a seat belt"
"Wear a seat belt" is NOT the answer to dangerous driving!

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

Source?

This is the scond time you have asked for a source for this, I am really begining to think that you are just trolling.
From POST NUMBER 30 (and pointed out to you again in post 35):
Speaking during his first visit to Africa, the Pope said HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". (SOURCE)

ISAW wrote: »

REad it again:

it = irresponsible behaviour. It is NOT a lie to say that "use condoms" promotes promiscuity!

IT IS A LIE! From the study linked to in post 42:
Male respondents in the intervention city were less likely than those in the comparison city to initiate first sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08). Female respondents in the intervention city were less likely to have multiple partners (OR = 0.06). The program promoting and distributing condoms had no effect on the onset of sexual activity for females, the chances of multiple partners for males, or the frequency of sex for either males or females. CONCLUSIONS. An HIV prevention program that included the promotion and distribution of condoms did not increase sexual activity among the adolescents in this study.

How many different damn times do these things need to be pointed out to you? The pope lied and you are wrong.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

Good example!
I think you have the kernel of the issue there. the Church would not say "dont rape people but if you are going to rape people use a condom because it might reduce the risk if AIDS"

They would say you cant do something wrong and expect good to come from it.

Actually this complete unwillingness to even entertain the notion of damage control does explain how all those pedo priest got to abuse so many kids.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

No it wouldn't you have the logic wrong way around.

Dangerous driving encourages seatbelts?

ISAW wrote: »

It would be like condoning dangerous driving on the basis that if you do it you are better off doing it wearing a seat belt!

The church would say "seat belts have nothing to do with it you should not drive dangerously with or without a seat belt"
"Wear a seat belt" is NOT the answer to dangerous driving!

Actually, it would be like recognising that people (christian, priest or otherwise) will dangerous drive regardless of what you say and that accepting damage control is better than embracing naivity.
The churches answer to seat belts and dangerous driving would be to remove seat belts, along with spreading misinformation about seat belts efficacy, all the while expecting the people stupid enough to listen to them are smart enough to not drive dangerously.

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dangerous driving encourages seatbelts?


Actually, it would be like recognising that people (christian, priest or otherwise) will dangerous drive regardless of what you say and that accepting damage control is better than embracing naivity.
The churches answer to seat belts and dangerous driving would be to remove seat belts, along with spreading misinformation about seat belts efficacy, all the while expecting the people stupid enough to listen to them are smart enough to not drive dangerously.

Or, to take the analogy further (remembering the "microscopic holes"), that seatbelts are designed to be slightly too tight and cause your foot to press the accelerator harder.

ISAW

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually this complete unwillingness to even entertain the notion of damage control does explain how all those pedo priest got to abuse so many kids.

Which is nothing to do with the point to which you were responding
You do know priests constitute one per cent or less of child abusers?
There were about 5,000 plus bishops over the last century. How many of these can you name as covering up anything ? 500? 50? 5?

ISAW

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow. That has almost nothing to do with what I posted.

LOL Coming from someone who replied about "pedo priests" in reply to a comment of condoms that is a bit rich.

Or did you seriously think Bishops instructed abusing priests to wear condoms if they were abusing kids rather than tell them the abuse was wrong?

Nowhere does it deal with the fact that the evidence shows that condoms help stop aids and do not increase promiscuity.

Intergenerational sex is spreading HIV! Health reports say so! Condoms or no condoms if this vector was eliminated the spread woulkd ber substaintially arrested. condoms would not make a difference if poeople stopped being promiscious.

Nowhere does it even deal with the fact that the pope lied about this and claimed that condoms increase the rate of transmission.

Your source for the Pope saying this is? Try looking up Patricks Day 2009 Camaroon and reading what he actually stated and not some interpretation of it.

Its almost like you didn't read my post at all and are just spouting the same craptacular argument that has been debunked by, what, 3 other people on this page alone.

its almost like you cant supply the source you quoted. No it isnt because you cant supply it! So it isnt almoist like it actually IS.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

They don't ignore it they condemn all wrong and don't condone doing wrong so that good may come of it.

This is my point. The notion that supporting condom use is condoning sinful sex is the problem.

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't like saying that because this is a bad example. Why
Less then one per cent of abusers were Catholic clergy. WE should monitor the 100 per cent but that does not mean ignore the one per cent.

Yes, that was my point. It would be ridiculous to say we don't need to monitor sexual abuse in the Catholic clergy because priests are Catholic and therefore won't have sex with children.

So why say we don't need condoms because Catholics don't have pre-marital sex?

ISAW wrote: »

Just because people do evil doers not mean we can condone it.

And just because you protect people doesn't mean you condone what they are doing.

I don't condone heroine use, I would give a drug addict a clean needle because a drug addict is better than a drug addict with AIDS.

ISAW wrote: »

If rape is wrong rape with a condom wont make it right

It is nothing to do with making it right, it is to do with lessening harm.

If I knew someone was going to rape someone and I couldn't physically stop it but did have the power to give the person a condom I would give them the condom because while rape is terrible it is worse that a woman would be raped and then be pregnant with the rapists baby.

If anyone thinks that logic is making rape right, they are missing the point

ISAW

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dangerous driving encourages seatbelts?


Actually, it would be like recognising that people (christian, priest or otherwise) will dangerous drive regardless of what you say and that accepting damage control is better than embracing naivity.

Rubbish! You are suggesting that the HSE or Gay Byrne instead of saying
Dont drink and drive it is wroing
Dont take drugs and drive
or
Dont speed

Should be saying
"we know people willo speek drive dangerously and take drugs when driving so to them we say wear a seat belt"
What a ludicrous and irrsposnible stance to take!
Asking rapists to wear condoms is just plain silly!

The churches answer to seat belts and dangerous driving would be to remove seat belts, along with spreading misinformation about seat belts efficacy, all the while expecting the people stupid enough to listen to them are smart enough to not drive dangerously.

Seat belts do NOT prevent dangerous driving whether or not one wears them! Dont expect the Church to say dangerous driving is right is one wears a seat belt!
It is silly!

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

Which is nothing to do with the point to which you were responding

You were pointing out that the church has no notion of damage control, I was agreeing and saying how the abusing priests being repeat offenders shows this.

ISAW wrote: »

You do know priests constitute one per cent or less of child abusers?
There were about 5,000 plus bishops over the last century. How many of these can you name as covering up anything ? 500? 50? 5?

Are you claiming that the abuse cover up didn't go all the way up the chain of command in the catholic church, right to the pope? You have heard of the claims that complaints about abuse went ignored for decades by bishops and cardinals, including ratzinger himself, his brother and his predecessor, (more links here)?
You do know that it emerged in the Ryan Report that "Benedict XVI was revealed to have ordered bishops not to report child sexual abuse to the correct authorities" and in the Murphy report that "the Archdiocese took out insurance in 1987, Archbishop Kevin McNamara, Archbishop Dermot Ryan and Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had had, between them, available information on complaints against at least 17 priests operating under the aegis of the Dublin Archdiocese".
You do know these facts, right, when you are there trying to defend the catholic church, right?

Morbert

raah! wrote: »

.

Well the vectors "condoms increase promiscuity" and "promiscuity increases sex" along with "sex increases aids" are all members of this vector space of arguments, and we can thus express "condoms help spread aids" in terms of them. So we can say it's contained in them.

I've always liked this idea though, of expressing arguments in terms of vectors, because linearly dependent arguments can be just arguments that can be derived from one another, and we'll have to have very large bases.

Obviously condoms can't be part of the commandents or anythign like that, as they weren't invented, but perhaps we should include some more vectors to describe them, vectors which aren't contradictory with catholic moral vectors. I guess we can have contradictory to mean ... in a different vector space, they couldn't be added or combined. But the pope-space has to contain vectors which describe the world, as well as his moral vectors

While the idea can be fun, but I don't think it's really all that powerful. A derivation and a linear combination aren't analogous in many ways. Even with that aside, you can add vectors any way you like to get new vectors. Adding the vectors you have mentioned can give you "condoms help spread aids". Adding "AIDS is an STI" and "AIDS spreads when people catch it" and "Condoms reduce the risk of catching an STI" might give you "Condoms reduce the risk of spreading AIDS".

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

LOL Coming from someone who replied about "pedo priests" in reply to a comment of condoms that is a bit rich.

Well you post was about how the church throws damage control to the wind and would rather people didn't use condoms if they had sex, so the lack of real damage control (ok, beyond saving face for the church itself) is relevent.

ISAW wrote: »

Or did you seriously think Bishops instructed abusing priests to wear condoms if they were abusing kids rather than tell them the abuse was wrong?

Well, I personally think that the actual best thing to do would have been for the bishops to do would have been to turn the priests into the police, but thats just me.

ISAW wrote: »

Intergenerational sex is spreading HIV! Health reports say so! Condoms or no condoms if this vector was eliminated the spread woulkd ber substaintially arrested. condoms would not make a difference if poeople stopped being promiscious.

But people wont stop being promiscous, and ignoring this is really really stupid. Whats even more stupid, and incredibly immoral too, is lying about condoms in order to strengthen the position that having no sex is safest. People will always drive, no matter what you say, so better to drive and be safe, then to lie about seat belts under the assumption that people will stop driving altogether (and not just stop using the seat belts).

ISAW wrote: »

Your source for the Pope saying this is? Try looking up Patricks Day 2009 Camaroon and reading what he actually stated and not some interpretation of it.

its almost like you cant supply the source you quoted. No it isnt because you cant supply it! So it isnt almoist like it actually IS.

Ok you ARE trolling now. I have in 3 seperate posts (30,42 and 60, all repsonses to you) linked to my source (a direct quote from the pope, reported on the BBC website), unless have a link to a better source showing the pope saying something else, drop it.

Mark Hamill

ISAW wrote: »

Rubbish! You are suggesting that the HSE or Gay Byrne instead of saying
Dont drink and drive it is wroing
Dont take drugs and drive
or
Dont speed

Should be saying
"we know people willo speek drive dangerously and take drugs when driving so to them we say wear a seat belt"
What a ludicrous and irrsposnible stance to take!
Asking rapists to wear condoms is just plain silly!

Except that I am not. I have not said that the church is wrong in its stance tha people not having sex is the best way to stop aids, it clearly is. But thats not what the church is doing. In order to try to strengthen its position, its coming out with lies about the efficacy of condoms. It would be analogous to Gay Byrne coming out and saying seat belts dont work in order to scare people into driving safer.
The best thing for him to say is dont drink and drive, dont take drugs and drive, dont speed but regardless of how you drive, wear a seatbelt.
The best thing to say to reduce aids is dont have sex, dont have multiple partners, dont have one night stands but regardless of what sex you have, wear condoms.

ISAW wrote: »

Seat belts do NOT prevent dangerous driving whether or not one wears them! Dont expect the Church to say dangerous driving is right is one wears a seat belt!
It is silly!

Seat belts are a form of damage control, they dont prevent accidents, they reduce the damage that would be done in an accident.
Condoms are a form of damage control, they dont cure aids, they reduce the chance that HIV would be transmitted during sex..

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

condoms would not make a difference if poeople stopped being promiscious.

As has been pointed out or implied to you quite a few times, by quite a few posters, people are promiscuous, whether the church likes it or not, whether it wants it or not, and regardless of whether or not the church continues to stick its corporate fingers into its corporate ears.

The church's position is analogous to telling people that if they stopped driving, they'd never be involved in any road traffic accidents, while entirely ignoring the fact that people drive all the time.

Finally, on a mod note, this debate is (a) irrelevant to the OP and (b) not currently moving forward since you are ignoring what people are saying to you. In response to (a), I'll be splitting this thread off into a separate one, and in response to (b) please do try to respond to what people are saying, since your views are currently unsupported by evidence, your analogies are way off base, and you are not currently taking part in an exchange.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said "If condoms allow for increased promiscuity, and increased promiscuity helps to spread AIDS, then condoms help spread AIDS." and that this deserves a proper analysis, so I showed the proper analysis that has actually been done. This is on top of repeatedly telling you that the pope lied about the efficicay of condoms in preventing the transmission of aids. It doesn't make a difference that catholics aren't supposed to have premarital sex, the pope still lied about condoms.

Well, if your telling me he lied was based on similar argumentation to that post I quoted when making my original post, then I'm afraid it will require further argument before I accept that.

Could you point out exactly what the lies he told were? If it's along the lines of "condoms help spread aids" then , as I've said before, this will require some qualification in what the pope meant, and who he was talking to. My argument never contained any reference to condoms not protecting you from sex. That's why posting things about condoms protecting you from sex is not addressing the argument. Posting things about the aids people get when they have sex does not address the argument.

Perhaps you ignored the vector space argument as a joke, but it's important to take into account the context in which the pope says the things he says. It's also important to note that the word 'lie' means to consciously and deliberately tell someone something which you believe to be untrue.

I also, in order to counter the expected rebuttal about condoms encouraging more people to have sex (and for teens to start earlier) linked to the study showing that, in fact, condoms actually encourage slightly less sex, and encourage teens to wait longer before first having sex (its all in this post).

Condoms encourage less sex? And this is true because of a study that shows it? So... this thing that you wear, that means you can have more sex with less chance of getting a disease encourages less sex? And furthermore, this negates the claim that condoms allow for increased promiscuity?

It's absurd to suggest that condoms lead to less sex, and absurd to link the decreased levels of sex initiation in thsoe cities with condoms. Unless you can give a full explanation of how condoms do this "encouraging". Other than just citing those numbers, which may or may not have been coincidental.

The only argument I could think of so far was that condoms make sex less pleasant and therefore people have less desire to have sex.

Its really transparent, btw, how you keep trying to move the goalposts from what the pope actually said, to wheter it could be true, to who the pope was talking to (as if that made the lying ok).

My argument has been repeated in almost every post I have made. From the very start the entire argument was based around context. That's what the vector space post was about.

It's very unpleasant, by the way, to communicate with someone who is unable to debate in a civil manner. I could just as easily respond to your posts in the fashion with which you've responded to mine. That would nto be conducive to good discussion however.