Popey calls us Nazis

[nath]

True not explicitly

Nor implicitly.

As to your second comment, we'll that's pretty fucking ridiculous.

The pope has no evidence that condoms will aggravate the problem beyond some gut feeling or bullshit false morality. Condoms do in the overwhelming majority of situations, prevent HIV transmission. ABC (abstinence, be-faithful, use a condom) is clearly the best approach. Taking the condom out of that equation and actively saying they cause problems *is* dangerous.

 

[noblok]

The pope has no evidence that condoms will aggravate the problem beyond some gut feeling or bullshit false morality. Condoms do in the overwhelming majority of situations, prevent HIV transmission. ABC (abstinence, be-faithful, use a condom) is clearly the best approach. Taking the condom out of that equation and actively saying they cause problems *is* dangerous.

Not a gut feeling. Empirical evidence. Edward C. Green - Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right - washingtonpost.com

 

[Lamp]

Hell, there's a newspaper article about the moon made of cheese. Doesn't mean it is

 

[Ezteq]

Hell, there's a newspaper article about the moon made of cheese. Doesn't mean it is

bollocks


*cancels train tickets to the moon and order for 300 boxes of crackers*

 

[noblok]

However, this newspaper article is written by someone who knows his stuff. It may be hard to believe, but in this case the pope was right. A policy which relies only on condoms is ineffective. That's basically what he said and which was subsequently taken out of context by newspapers all over the world. He didn't say one should never use a condom. Ideally, yes, but if the choice is between condom use and unprotected sex with a HIV positive partner (or while being HIV positive yourself), it's obvious a condom should be used.

Plenty of catholic ethicists will say that in some cases condom use is the way of the 'lesser evil'. If you look at the actual actions of catholic mission workers in Africa you'll find that many of them distribute condoms to people who can't remain faithful and to those who are HIV-positive (even if they are faithful, because they don't have the right to contaminate their partner). None of this is in contradiction with the statements of the pope.

(edit: I know some people take objection to it still being called 'a lesser evil', but that's a discussion for another thread.)

 

[nath]

However, this newspaper article is written by someone who knows his stuff. It may be hard to believe, but in this case the pope was right. A policy which relies only on condoms is ineffective. That's basically what he said and which was subsequently taken out of context by newspapers all over the world. He didn't say one should never use a condom. Ideally, yes, but if the choice is between condom use and unprotected sex with a HIV positive partner (or while being HIV positive yourself), it's obvious a condom should be used.

Plenty of catholic ethicists will say that in some cases condom use is the way of the 'lesser evil'. If you look at the actual actions of catholic mission workers in Africa you'll find that many of them distribute condoms to people who can't remain faithful and to those who are HIV-positive (even if they are faithful, because they don't have the right to contaminate their partner). None of this is in contradiction with the statements of the pope.

(edit: I know some people take objection to it still being called 'a lesser evil', but that's a discussion for another thread.)

That's a very good article. Interesting though, that the only part that would back up what the pope says is *pure* speculation. Otherwise it seems to be saying very sensible things - monogamy overall and if not, use condoms. Saying "monogamy or nothing, condoms make the situation worse". An argument several people seem to have against my/our position is that they should airdrop a bazillion condoms on to various countries in Africa and the problem will sort itself. No, that's more or less the inverse of what the pope is saying.

Information - factual information, is a good thing. The pope doesn't deal in that.

Ben Goldacre seems to have it about right: http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/the-pope-and-aids/

 

[Wij]

However, this newspaper article is written by someone who knows his stuff. It may be hard to believe, but in this case the pope was right. A policy which relies only on condoms is ineffective.

Except that that is a straw-man argument. Who advocates a policy only of condoms ? Noone. Condoms help but noone ever claimed they will stop the spread of AIDS on their own. It's a false syllogism:

1.) AIDS is a big problem
2.) Condoms aren't the whole of the solution to AIDS
Therefore:
3.) Don't use condoms

The pope wanks too you know.

 

[Afran]

I mistook the Popemobile for an ice cream van today. I only realised my mistake when I read the "Wouldn't mind that child" sign on the back.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair, his native tongue is Spanish so don't be such a pedant

Yeah. I thought that as I was typing it, but I was so staggered by his "20% effective" post that I figured what the fuck, let him have it eh

I mean:

Using the ducking bullets anology, ok ducking may help 80% of the time, but maybe a better option would be to stop shouting "hey dickhead your mum is a whore and you couldnt hit a barn door at ten paces"? If a condom was 99.99999999999999 etc % effective against catching HIV I still wouldnt take the risk if the odds were that the person was HIV+.

To give it it's fair comeback:

1) Nobody in their right mind would try to attract the attentions of a man with a gun in the hope of getting shot.
2) Nobody in their right mind would have sex with someone, protected or otherwise, if they knew in advance they were HIV+


The fact is, sex can be something fun, to be enjoyed freely between consenting adults, or groups of consenting adults, or groups of consenting adults and a well-informed goat, dressed as "naughty satan"...


I think the reason that christianity has monogamy (and the completely unrealistic no sex before marriage) as an ideal is no more complex than the control of women.

Christians are scared - they're scared that their girlfriend's sat on a bigger, fatter, better one, with someone who's more fun, better looking and richer. They're scared that they were dirtier with the ex because the ex turned her on more. Maybe because he could fill her better.

They like their women naive and sexually unblemished. And what kind of woman is better and safer than someone with very little sexual experience, preferably a virgin. Someone who isn't going to compare their feeble fumblings with the extacy they experienced with Mr Anal McDong.

Christianity's the same as Islam. Apart from instead of making women dress up like ninjas, christian's call them slags, abuse them physically, look down on women who enjoy a fat one inside them.

Humans. Like. Sex.

The one's who aren't too scared to anyway...




Edit:

Nobody is being aggressive here

I am. A little. Tho they can always put me on ignore 'cause they're not up to the fight intellectually (like Turamber)

 

[kamorrista]

To be fair, his native tongue is Spanish so don't be such a pedant

Ah yeah should have been "to have sex" isn't it? I'm sorry, my english level isn't good enough, thanks Raven, guess is stupid to laugh at people about these kind of things, the good part is I learn English, does he learn Spanish? I don't think it would be fair if i laugh at Britain people who said something wrong in Spanish. (btw 20% effectivenes post wasn't mine)

Using the ducking bullets anology, ok ducking may help 80% of the time, but maybe a better option would be to stop shouting "hey dickhead your mum is a whore and you couldnt hit a barn door at ten paces"? If a condom was 99.99999999999999 etc % effective against catching HIV I still wouldnt take the risk if the odds were that the person was HIV+....

The thing is that you probly don't know the other person is HIV+ unless she tells you, may lie to you, so equip it just in case, normally most of people don't even have sex if they know the other person has AIDS, but normally, u never know.

 

[Scouse]

Ah yeah should have been "to have sex" isn't it? I'm sorry, my english level isn't good enough, thanks Raven, guess is stupid to laugh at people about these kind of things, the good part is I learn English, does he learn Spanish? I don't think it would be fair if i laugh at Britain people who said something wrong in Spanish. (btw 20% effectivenes post wasn't mine)

My bad, sorry! No es accetable para usted? (that's all the spanish I know and it's wrong).

Was in a wicked mood and fancied trolling a bit.

Anyway. No christians about to tell us why they're scared of sex?

 

[noblok]

Except that that is a straw-man argument.

That is probably true. However, I'll try to explain why the pope chose for the straw-man approach...

The pope was asked what he thinks of condoms, he replied (my translation from a Dutch translation) "If the soul is lacking, if Africans don't help one another, then the whip can't be stopped by spreading condoms. On the contrary, we then risk to aggravate the situation." This may be a straw-man argument, but it's not incorrect when taken by itself.

Why did he dodge the question in this way? Probably because he didn't want to get sucked into something which isn't his domain: the domain of pastoral (pragmatical) ethics. It's not the pope's function to deal with concrete situations where sometimes the 'lesser evil' must be chosen. That's a task for pastors in the field. The pope only deals with ideal situations where all evil can be avoided.

 

[kamorrista]

My bad, sorry! No es accetable para usted? (that's all the spanish I know and it's wrong).

Was in a wicked mood and fancied trolling a bit.

Anyway. No christians about to tell us why they're scared of sex?

almost perfect (aceptable) so don't be ashamed

Just guessing pure Christians think sex is sin, unless u don't get satisfaction and u do it for species perpetuation purposes, isn't it? I can be wrong.

 

[Turamber]

are you making up the point about them holding banners proclaim there's no God?

Hardly. I was watching the discussion piece on the Pope's visit on BBC2 last night and they showed some of the protestors and their banners, some clearly stating there was 'no God'.

To line the route of the Pope with such banners seems a complete waste of time to me. He's not about to be convinced, and neither are the Catholic faithful. The only people it really matters to are those protesting ... which to me is a sure fire sign of a fanatic.

 

[Turamber]

Just guessing pure Christians think sex is sin, unless u don't get satisfaction and u do it for species perpetuation purposes, isn't it? I can be wrong.

No sex isn't a sin, it is the means for the continuation of the species. However, to Christians, it is only for a husband and wife. That way any children are born into a loving family relationship, which should be very beneficial for them.

 

[Lamp]

Religion also says God made the earth in 7 days...which we can prove to be factually & scientifically wrong...you can use religion to stick your head in the sand & believe in whatever nonsense you want to, even dress them up as scientific or divine fact if you want. If people want to believe condoms doesn't protect against STD's & other viruses then thats their choice. You can pull all religions to pieces very easily.

 

[Raven]

Hardly. I was watching the discussion piece on the Pope's visit on BBC2 last night and they showed some of the protestors and their banners, some clearly stating there was 'no God'.

To line the route of the Pope with such banners seems a complete waste of time to me. He's not about to be convinced, and neither are the Catholic faithful. The only people it really matters to are those protesting ... which to me is a sure fire sign of a fanatic.

A protest against the bullshit of religion is not being fanatical, no more than someone standing up in front of a couple of hundred people telling them that god exists.

Protesting against the huge waste of money involved in the popes visit is also not fanatical, its all good and well allowing these people to worship their made up deity but it becomes utterly stupid when we have to pay for it, Yes I understand the politics and protocol behind state visits but how many million? Is it really worth it? Its not even our chosen brand of sun worship either, its some guy who is head of a different cult.

 

[Scouse]

To line the route of the Pope with such banners seems a complete waste of time to me. He's not about to be convinced, and neither are the Catholic faithful. The only people it really matters to are those protesting ... which to me is a sure fire sign of a fanatic.

Disagree. It means undecided onlookers are far less likely to get involved with the church.

It's why in years past this sort of action was termed "blasphemy" and punishable, at times, by DEATH.


The idiocy of the church and its institutions do not stand up well to ridicule.

Yes, the "faithful" (i.e. the indoctrinated) are quite adept at ignoring all reasoned argument and retreat quite nicely into the little private hell they've created for themselves called their "faith". However the rest of the planet (i.e. people who are still free to think for themselves) are far less likely to take up the cause of these catholic idiots if they see the opposition to it.

Which is nice

 

[Fafnir]

Well the Catholic church is a really healthy place...

Vatican makes attempted ordination of women a grave crime | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[kamorrista]

No sex isn't a sin, it is the means for the continuation of the species. However, to Christians, it is only for a husband and wife. That way any children are born into a loving family relationship, which should be very beneficial for them.

So i already said, it is not a sin if u do it for species perpetuation.

 

[Scouse]

Lol

Revised Catholic rules put female ordination in same category of crime under church law as clerical sex abuse of minors

Yep, 'cause attempting to make a woman a priest is just as bad as forcibly ramming your cock into a 6 year old boys ass. According to god.

Also, I'm getting hacked off with this term "clerical sex abuse". Lets call it what it is - paedophilia.



Edit: BTW - there's no such thing as "sin"...

 

[nath]

Hardly. I was watching the discussion piece on the Pope's visit on BBC2 last night and they showed some of the protestors and their banners, some clearly stating there was 'no God'.

Very well, and I saw a site with a set of a great deal of pictures of the protest. I couldn't find any saying "there is no God", which does not mean there were none. Photos of the Protest The Pope march through central London, 18th September 2010

However, what that does mean is that it's likely there were few - and clearly the focus of the march was not to say "there is no God", but to attack the Catholic church and perhaps religious belief in general.

To line the route of the Pope with such banners seems a complete waste of time to me.

A) That's an exaggeration, don't do that. The route was not "lined" with those posters, there may have been a few but you're basically changing the purpose of the protest and that's naff and pointless.

B) They're obviously not trying to say anything to the Pope, to change his mind - I won't imagine many people are deluded enough to think they can convert him. However, what it does is show that there's an awful lot of people do not respect religious belief, or the Catholic church and do not agree with the popes visit. That's not fanatical and that's not a waste of time.

Honestly, you're getting more irrational as this argument goes on - you used to be quite clear headed about this stuff but you seem to be getting more and more grumpy and your posts are suffering for it.

 

[Wij]

Also, I'm getting hacked off with this term "clerical sex abuse". Lets call it what it is - paedophilia.

No - it's child-rape. You can be a pedo without actually doing anything about it. It just means you have a liking for the pre-pubescant form. In itself it isn't a crime. Child-rape definately is though and a lot worse one than ordination of women or using the wrong type of cutlery. The RC church just tries to classify things according to its own priorities in much the same way as the recording industry tries to get downloading an mp3 classified in law at about the same level as genocide.

 

[Wij]

That is probably true. However, I'll try to explain why the pope chose for the straw-man approach...

The pope was asked what he thinks of condoms, he replied (my translation from a Dutch translation) "If the soul is lacking, if Africans don't help one another, then the whip can't be stopped by spreading condoms. On the contrary, we then risk to aggravate the situation." This may be a straw-man argument, but it's not incorrect when taken by itself.

But he's not naive enough to think this won't be taken out of context and put lives at risk.

 

[Scouse]

No - it's child-rape.

I stand corrected



But btw - "straw man" arguments are made for one reason noblok - to deflect people's attention from the fact that you're WRONG.

 

[nath]

No - it's child-rape.

Your irrational hatred of religion is clouding your judgement and making you think raping a child is more serious than it is.

You should be ashamed.

 

[noblok]

But he's not naive enough to think this won't be taken out of context and put lives at risk.

That's a criticism I can sympathise with. I think making that statement was a bad idea, even if it's true. However, in my opinion the real responsibility here lies with the people taking the quotes out of context.

 

[Raven]

His stance on contraceptive is only one of the failings of the Catholic church, why does he/the church have such a problem with homosexuality? What's the deal with women not being allowed to become priests? It's perfectly fine in the Anglican church, a far more progressive organisation who may well be wrong on the fundamental theory that god exists but at least they aren't total shits.

Their major problem is the fact they are hundreds of years out of date, where other branches of Christianity have moved on, they refuse to. This is not that much of a problem in developed countries because we can just ignore it or choose not to follow that particular religion (or none at all) but in countries where whole communities are sucked into this vile branch of Christianity people don't have that choice.

Most of what the church says is immoral is only immoral because they say it is, little is mentioned in the bible about it and what there is is so ambiguous that it is unreliable.
I just find it very sad that some people will lead their lives according to this utter bullshit. If there was a god then I am pretty sure he would have better things to worry about than people shagging whoever they like or who gets to read from the bible in front of everyone.

If god was to exist then I imagine he would want you to live your lives how you please, you aren't on this planet long. Make the most of it.

 

[Turamber]

Religion also says God made the earth in 7 days

Actually no, the Bible said that - not all religions believe that. It also doesn't state that they are 24 hour periods, "day" can refer to different lengths of time - even in English.

There seems to be a received opinion on these forums that only idiots believe in God, yet just last night I was reading about one of the worlds foremost experts on biotransmitters. His work on synapses lead him to turn from an atheist into a Christian - and there are plenty more examples too, eminent scientists and mathematicians who believe in the existence of God.

 

[Turamber]

Protesting against the huge waste of money involved in the popes visit is also not fanatical, its all good and well allowing these people to worship their made up deity but it becomes utterly stupid when we have to pay for it

Both politicians and members of the Catholic Church are on record stating that the Church paid for all the pastoral aspects of the visit, but the state parts of his visit were covered by the UK taxpayer under the principle of reciprocity.

He was also invited to the UK by the previous head of state, Gordon Brown. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, its the fanatics way after all.