Ha, take that Ratzinger!

Plautus · 11-11-2011 04:19AM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Twomey's far from it, and he's nobodys fool, least of all yours. Though I can understand why you would be keen to try and smear him.

Ah don't have kittens about it. Was Twomey the one to put a comparison of Gilmore with Hitler in your head? Bless. It's rarefied air there in the seminary's theology faculty.

Genghiz Cohen · 11-11-2011 11:35AM

Sarky wrote: »

Goodness me, you're not suggesting Mr. Twomey... eats da poopoo?

Like ice-cream!

recedite · 11-11-2011 12:58PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Couldn't get passed this sentence I'm afraid.

Then you missed this gem....

it was reported recently that the Government would not be extending an invitation to the Pope for the International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin next year. But it is not in their gift to issue or not to issue invitations to such events.

By inserting the words "it was reported recently" he shows that even he knows its a lie. Its calculated to provoke outrage among the gullible sheeple.
If he is forced to state exactly where it was reported, I'm sure he will be able to find some parish magazine somewhere.

mascaput · 11-11-2011 10:41PM

fitz0 wrote: »

Where do all these declarations of the Vatican as a "major player" in the world of statesmanship have their basis?

From what I can gather, the Vatican has nothing more at its disposal than a rapidly declining network of agents scattered throughout the world and a very high horse to sit on. Since losing its place as overseer to Catholic Europe and the gradual loosening of its hold upon those nations and loss of any military force, what does it have? It's not a major economic player, not a major military player, not a major moral player (the aforementioned network includes far too many kiddie fiddlers for that). With the multi cultural nature of modern Europe where the Catholic population is decreasing, it logically should mean that the Vatican's influence decreases with it.

All I can see the Vatican as is a puffed up, patriarchal, slightly senile dinosaur that seems to still think it has a say in what the world does. The world has moved on, and the sooner everyone stops enabling the Vatican to claim to be a major player the better.

Indeed. It amazing how they can go on about 'faith moving mountains' and the dope can't even move the Irish Government invite old Papanazi. Looks like the fuel guage on the faith tank is dropping rapidly....

Dades · 12-11-2011 10:32PM

Sarky wrote: »

Goodness me, you're not suggesting Mr. Twomey... eats da poopoo?

The amount of people scratching their heads at this line of posting is quite large I'd say.

fitz0 · 13-11-2011 02:08AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM

For reference.

Galvasean · 13-11-2011 03:24PM

That video is quite funny until you realise people have been murdered due to it.

F12 · 13-11-2011 03:32PM

Galvasean wrote: »

That video is quite funny until you realise people have been murdered due to it.

By being made to eat poo-poo? :eek:

I think the remix version is a lot better....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg&feature=related

Mistress 69 · 13-11-2011 06:14PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Couldn't get passed this sentence I'm afraid.

This one is a far more objective viewpoint, you may or may not have seen it already.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1112/1224307456113.html

fitz0 · 13-11-2011 07:31PM

It refers to the UN estimate that the Catholic Church provides 27 per cent of care for HIV/Aids patients worldwide, and is often a “first responder” in humanitarian crises such as that in Haiti.

I'd be curious as to the UN estimate of the percentage of HIV cases that are preventable through condom use.

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 07:54PM

fitz0 wrote: »

I'd be curious as to the UN estimate of the percentage of HIV cases that are preventable through condom use.

Don't know, but the African countries with the larger Catholic populations have a lower instance of HIV.

Delirium · 13-11-2011 08:12PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Don't know, but the African countries with the larger Catholic populations have a lower instance of HIV.

Really?

Because based on the regions with the highest instances of HIV and the regions where Catholicism is highest, it seems that it is very much the reverse.

MagicMarker · 13-11-2011 08:43PM

Of the 22.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa, around 65% of them are in countries that are majority Christian.

The country with the largest population of HIV/AIDS sufferers, South Africa, is 80% christian.

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 09:02PM

koth wrote: »

Really?

Because based on the regions with the highest instances of HIV and the regions where Catholicism is highest, it seems that it is very much the reverse.

Then it seems you'll need to check your colours again.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/catholic_church_aids_africa.html

Sources :
HIV Surveillance Report for Africa, 2000. World Health Organization. Table 4, page 159.
Roman Catholicism by country from Wikipedia.
CIA The World Factbook.
Countries by World Region

Delirium · 13-11-2011 09:10PM

The middle and bottom of Africa have the highest rates of HIV. With the exception of the very souther tip of Africa, the higher concentration of Catholicism is in the same regions.

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 09:26PM

koth wrote: »

The middle and bottom of Africa have the highest rates of HIV. With the exception of the very souther tip of Africa, the higher concentration of Catholicism is in the same regions.

Actually, going by your own map, it is the non Catholic and Non Muslim countries that have the highest instances. When you can provide proper figures, from a proper source, other than your incorrect opinion on how a map is shaded, come back to us.

Delirium · 13-11-2011 09:39PM

And why don't you provide some info to back up what you're saying?

because currently anything I'm finding says that the Christian countries have the highest rates of HIV with the Islamic countries having lower rates.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 13-11-2011 09:43PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yet Comrade Gilmore has achieved what Hitler failed to do and closed the Irish Embassy in the Vatican.

Hitler failed to close the Irish embassy?

Oh, and...

Hitler%20and%20church%202.jpg

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 09:47PM

koth wrote: »

And why don't you provide some info to back up what you're saying?

because currently anything I'm finding says that the Christian countries have the highest rates of HIV with the Islamic countries having lower rates.

You do understand the difference between Christian and Catholic regarding abstinence ? Islam is even stricter again on abstinence.

I have provided facts, figure and sources. We're still waiting on yours.

Turtwig · 13-11-2011 09:51PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

HIV Surveillance Report for Africa, 2000. World Health Organization. Table 4, page 159.
Roman Catholicism by country from Wikipedia.
CIA The World Factbook.
Countries by World Region

It is a little odd that the WHO table cited makes no relative estimate of religiosity. The "Countries by World Region" gives no mention of any quantities whatsoever. And the source from wikipedia is the CIA worldfactbook. So in effect, the only sources used for the graph are actually CIA and WHO. With the % Catholicism pulled out of the CIA's arse. Given that they estimate a country's population to precision (e.g South Africa 49,004,031) I'm not an hundred percent confident in their data. I'm also curious as to how your analyst at god&science worked out Algeria's Catholic proportion. Even the CIA don't know that! But let's leave all that aside, as it does appear some figures are outdated from the CIA ones and I couldn't really be arsed in rechecking all of them (S Africa and Benin were at least two errors I spotted.) . Why? Because the graph you provided is pointless.

Delirium · 13-11-2011 09:51PM

Yes I understand the difference between Catholic and Christian. But I'm having difficulty finding breakdowns along Catholic and Christian so it's making it difficult to compare anything against what you've posted.

MagicMarker · 13-11-2011 10:29PM

Also are the Catholics in that diagram baptised catholics or just those taken on census Sunday?

recedite · 13-11-2011 10:48PM

koth wrote: »

The middle and bottom of Africa have the highest rates of HIV.

Yes, AIDs often starts in the bottom alright.

Quadratic's point is a sound one;

The idea that faithful Roman Catholics would follow rules regarding the use of condoms, but ignore the more important doctrines of marital fidelity is ludicrous, at best. So, Roman Catholicism isn't the cause of the AIDS crisis in Africa. Get over it!

Having said that, if they handed out condoms, there would be less AIDs.

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 11:10PM

recedite wrote: »

Having said that, if they handed out condoms, there would be less AIDs.

If that is the case, where is the stats to prove it ?

Why is there more HIV in the more liberal Christian countries that do hand them out ?

Handing out condoms and promoting less indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners, is a much riskier strategy than promoting the belief of sex inside marriage only.

Delirium · 13-11-2011 11:22PM

Didn't the pope himself say last year that condoms could reduce the risk of HIV infection. I think he said that his comments only applies to male prostitutes though.

MagicMarker · 13-11-2011 11:26PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

If that is the case, where is the stats to prove it ?

http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

The evidence for the effectiveness of condoms is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not (discordant couples). In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistently using condoms, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.2 A recent review of 14 studies involving discordant couples concluded that consistent use of condoms led to an 80% reduction in HIV incidence.3

80% reduction if condoms are used correctly, pretty clear don't ya think?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Why is there more HIV in the more liberal Christian countries that do hand them out ?

Link?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Handing out condoms and promoting less indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners, is a much riskier strategy than promoting the belief of sex inside marriage only.

Do you not think we should hand out condoms as well as promote monogamy?

marienbad · 13-11-2011 11:33PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

If that is the case, where is the stats to prove it ?

Why is there more HIV in the more liberal Christian countries that do hand them out ?

Handing out condoms and promoting less indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners, is a much riskier strategy than promoting the belief of sex inside marriage only.

Why not do both ? it is not an either or situation .

The Quadratic Equation · 13-11-2011 11:51PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

80% reduction if condoms are used correctly, pretty clear don't ya think?

Those stats are for already monogamous couples in Europe where on parter is infected and they wish to have intercourse. That is a very narrow specific instance, and it does not compare abstinence.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Link?

Already given a few posts back, you might also have missed the context so, which would explain the stats you quoted.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you not think we should hand out condoms as well as promote monogamy?

For a married Catholic couple, who don't believe in birth control, and who believe sex is for loving procreation, where one partner has hiv, abstainance would be a better course of action. For single unmarried Catholics, you can hardly expect Catholics to promote sex only inside marriage, and then expect Catholics to hand out condoms to other Catholics promoting indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners.

MagicMarker · 14-11-2011 12:16AM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Those stats are for already monogamous couples in Europe where on parter is infected and they wish to have intercourse. That is a very narrow specific instance, and it does not compare abstinence.

Those stats are for people who have sex and use condoms correctly, can you explain to me how the results would differ if you protected yourself correctly but with different partners?

As for comparing it to abstinence? Seriously?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Already given a few posts back, you might also have missed the context so, which would explain the stats you quoted.

Yeah no I didn't see any mention of liberalism in any of your posts, can you provide a link? Or in your mind is it just higher infection rate = liberal?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

For a married Catholic couple, who don't believe in birth control, and who believe sex is for loving procreation, where one partner has hiv, abstainance would be a better course of action.

Promoting abstinence for married couples? Good luck with that.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

For single unmarried Catholics, you can hardly expect Catholics to promote sex only inside marriage, and then expect Catholics to hand out condoms to other Catholics promoting indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners.

Of course I wouldn't expect catholics to do the right thing, how silly of me. They of course must give priority to their retarded beliefs.

The Quadratic Equation · 14-11-2011 12:21AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't expect catholics to do the right thing, how silly of me. They of course must give priority to their retarded beliefs.

There we have it then.
No need to discuss or explain it any further so.

Ha, take that Ratzinger!

Comments