Pope 'distorting condom science'

InfamousI wrote:

"The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use."

I said "I defy you to tell me where he said", LM, not "where somebody said he said". That quote is from the -British- paper.
Anyway, what do you all think of this one?

To keep things in context, lets keep in mind that George W Bush is a Harvard Grad.

And again that does not say anything about the effectiveness of condoms. Nobody has ever said that abstinence was not better, but they were saying that Condoms still help prevent more illness than a program of "Abstinence and nothing else". Either this guy is a Catholic and promoting the agenda of the pope because that's how Catholocism works (and most every other organized religion) Or he is simply trying to jump on some new bandwagon.

Frankly from looking at the study though it seems they have a flawed methodology in the first place. Of course the people they offered condoms to probably had more partners, and they would anyways regardless of how many condoms are available. But you know what? History has shown in the US that promotion of condom use helped slow the spread of HIV quite a bit, so using your own old DDT argument against you if it worked in the US why not promote it elsewhere?

Rock wrote:

InfamousI wrote:

"The Pope had said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use."

I said "I defy you to tell me where he said", LM, not "where somebody said he said". That quote is from the -British- paper.
Anyway, what do you all think of this one?

I can't find direct quotes, but I can find multiple sources that state he said that. But considering supporting evidence for our side has already been presented, considering everyone around the world is responding based on the fact that he opposes the distribution of condoms, where's your evidence that he actually supports it? The fact that the Catholic Church distributes condoms is not supporting evidence, because there are Bishops and other members of the Catholic Church who have opposed the Pope's statements and stated that the distribution of condoms are both helpful and necessary to combat the problem.

Unlike you, I'll even accept an article claiming that he's stated he personally and publicly supports condom distribution as being beneficial and won't demand a direct quote.

Forgefire_McCain wrote:

To keep things in context, lets keep in mind that George W Bush is a Harvard Grad.

And again that does not say anything about the effectiveness of condoms. Nobody has ever said that abstinence was not better, but they were saying that Condoms still help prevent more illness than a program of "Abstinence and nothing else". Either this guy is a Catholic and promoting the agenda of the pope because that's how Catholocism works (and most every other organized religion) Or he is simply trying to jump on some new bandwagon.

Frankly from looking at the study though it seems they have a flawed methodology in the first place. Of course the people they offered condoms to probably had more partners, and they would anyways regardless of how many condoms are available. But you know what? History has shown in the US that promotion of condom use helped slow the spread of HIV quite a bit, so using your own old DDT argument against you if it worked in the US why not promote it elsewhere?

George W. Bush graduated Harvard with a C average, with legacy, and with money. Even with that, he couldn't get half-decent grades, and he's certainly not the head of the HIV Prevention Research Center of what is without question one of the world's top ten universities. The man who is quite specifically stated that not only was he not Catholic, but also completely disregarding any moral bias, and that the Pope was backed here with completely empirical data. And this data completely disagrees with your argument.

Quote :

I don't care if you don't like that the facts are on my side on this one,...

Anyway, my argument with DDT was nothing like that. It was "if it worked in Africa, and far better than anything before or since, who cares that you don't need it in the US?"

InfamousI wrote:

I can't find direct quotes, but I can find multiple sources that state he said that. But considering supporting evidence for our side has already been presented, considering everyone around the world is responding based on the fact that he opposes the distribution of condoms, where's your evidence that he actually supports it? The fact that the Catholic Church distributes condoms is not supporting evidence, because there are Bishops and other members of the Catholic Church who have opposed the Pope's statements and stated that the distribution of condoms are both helpful and necessary to combat the problem.

Unlike you, I'll even accept an article claiming that he's stated he personally and publicly supports condom distribution as being beneficial and won't demand a direct quote.

Using the principle of 'actions speak louder than deeds', I'll instead 'quote' how the Pope has done absolutely nothing to stop even his own bishops from distributing condoms in Africa. I'll also quote how the Pope has said that using condoms minimizes the risks of contracting HIV. Question is, can you still insist on denying this?

Rock wrote:

InfamousI wrote:

I can't find direct quotes, but I can find multiple sources that state he said that. But considering supporting evidence for our side has already been presented, considering everyone around the world is responding based on the fact that he opposes the distribution of condoms, where's your evidence that he actually supports it? The fact that the Catholic Church distributes condoms is not supporting evidence, because there are Bishops and other members of the Catholic Church who have opposed the Pope's statements and stated that the distribution of condoms are both helpful and necessary to combat the problem.

Unlike you, I'll even accept an article claiming that he's stated he personally and publicly supports condom distribution as being beneficial and won't demand a direct quote.

Using the principle of 'actions speak louder than deeds', I'll instead 'quote' how the Pope has done absolutely nothing to stop even his own bishops from distributing condoms in Africa.

So in other words, you've got nothing and are basing your belief on a practice that has been implemented before he even became Pope, despite all evidence suggesting your belief is untrue.

Wasn't it you, yourself, who argued in the case of child molestation among priests and the Church covering it up, that the Pope isn't responsible for everything that the Church does because he isn't necessarily involved in the decision to take those actions? Why then, should I accept your argument that in this case, he should be given credit for it, if you yourself argued that he should not be given the blame for a similar situation?

It now seems very much to me that you are blindly defending him for no reason other than you are Catholic, and will change your reasoning behind your defense to suit the argument, even if it contradicts a previous defense you have already made.

Rock the point is that the source really does not matter at this point. The statistics, past behavior, flaws in the one study you sited that are apparently big enough that someone in a totally different field can spot them and a slew of other issues all point to the pope basing his statement on nothing more than ecumenical politics. Of course more of the people being given condoms are going to be more likely to be promiscuous, they would be anyways. Of course an increase in abstinence is going to lower HIV growth, nobody has disputed that. But you can't use abstinence growth to say condoms don't work. People are going to be promiscuous either way, especially those who would not be interested in abstinence in the first place. They are taking two unrelated data sets and using them to prove a false point.

I argued that, given that the child molestation scandal which was kept a secret by the very people responsible for it, the chance was good that the Pope didn't know anything about it until we did. And it was followed by punitive actions and public denouncement on the Pope's part. The distribution of condoms, however, was a very open practice that Benedict quite undeniably knew full well was going on, and he did absolutely nothing to interfere with it. How, then, are they comparable?
You also seem to have completely ignored the article I produced. It now seems to me that you are now blindly bashing him for no other reason than that he is Catholic, even if logic itself must necessarily be inconstant for you to do so.

Its not being ignored rock, As I pointed out there are fundamental flaws in the study. Whoever is conducting it is drawing false conclusions based on data that has no impact on the overall spread of HIV. Its a flawed study.

Forgefire_McCain wrote:

Its not being ignored rock, As I pointed out there are fundamental flaws in the study. Whoever is conducting it is drawing false conclusions based on data that has no impact on the overall spread of HIV. Its a flawed study.

I was referring to LM. I'm working, so I hadn't the time to respond to your post (or bring back mine) yet. =(
But, since you mention it, I'd like to know how it's flawed, exactly.

Sex.

For one, it's flawed because there is a huge difference between not helping, and increasing the problem, which is what the Pope said condoms do.

Quote :

“there is not a single country in Africa where HIV prevalence has come down primarily because of condoms”.

Not one where it has come down, sure, but certainly not where it has gone up.
This is a technique used by biased arguments to draw attention away from the fact that they're not actually talking about what the Pope was.

As for my restraint, of course it's lessened. If I am to use a sports analogy here, look at (American) Football. They wear pads to eliminate risk of injury, right? But as a result, there will still be injuries, because players will tend to be more physical because they can. Does this mean we shouldn't have equipment? No. Does it mean the sport should be discontinued? No. Tell me then why this argument can't be applied to condoms?

Also, it's kind of an insult to me for a man to preach the 'word of God'. So the Pope isn't on my list of favourite people in the world. Someone needs to take the Church off their high horse and get them to chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

Rock wrote:

I argued that, given that the child molestation scandal which was kept a secret by the very people responsible for it, the chance was good that the Pope didn't know anything about it until we did. And it was followed by punitive actions and public denouncement on the Pope's part. The distribution of condoms, however, was a very open practice that Benedict quite undeniably knew full well was going on, and he did absolutely nothing to interfere with it. How, then, are they comparable?
You also seem to have completely ignored the article I produced. It now seems to me that you are now blindly bashing him for no other reason than that he is Catholic, even if logic itself must necessarily be inconstant for you to do so.

If you haven't realized it yet, the article you posted also supports the idea that Pope Benedict opposes the distribution of condoms as it can make the problem of the spread of AIDS in Africa worse, it just supports this stance rather than opposes it. In other words, even the people who support the Pope's statement agree that he was criticizing the distribution of condoms as detrimental to containing the spread of AIDS in Africa. No one but you seems to contest this. So the question remains, Rock, if the Pope does in fact support the distribution of condoms, why does no one the world over with the exception of you believe he does?

Also, here's a little less one-sided and biased and more informative news article on Mr. Green from Harvard and the situation in Africa:

Harvard Aids expert says Pope 'correct' on condoms and spread of HIV

I challenged that the context and the wording were unknown, thus making the quote a poor foundation upon which to form an argument. Turns out, I was right about at least the wording - the accurate translation is "aggravate the problem", not "increase the problem". Whether or not it was intended to mean the same, the Italian word is not the same, so using such wording was clearly deliberate. I still maintain that arguing a lone quote in such a manner without knowing or making any effort to know any more than what a partisan article lays before one is poor form. (If we have any Journalists out there, sorry.)
You still haven't answered my question, then: why hasn't the Pope done a thing to stop or impede condom distribution in Africa? I am loathe to take chopped-up, hand-picked words at face value when real-life events and facts speak to the contrary, regardless of what the world thinks. The world believes a lot of retarded shit, and environmentalism only scratches the surface.

Rock wrote:

I challenged that the context and the wording were unknown, thus making the quote a poor foundation upon which to form an argument. Turns out, I was right about at least the wording - the accurate translation is "aggravate the problem", not "increase the problem". Whether or not it was intended to mean the same, the Italian word is not the same, so using such wording was clearly deliberate. I still maintain that arguing a lone quote in such a manner without knowing or making any effort to know any more than what a partisan article lays before one is poor form. (If we have any Journalists out there, sorry.)
You still haven't answered my question, then: why hasn't the Pope done a thing to stop or impede condom distribution in Africa? I am loathe to take chopped-up, hand-picked words at face value when real-life events and facts speak to the contrary, regardless of what the world thinks. The world believes a lot of retarded shit, and environmentalism only scratches the surface.

Main Entry:
ag·gra·vate Listen to the pronunciation of aggravate
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-grə-ˌvāt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
ag·gra·vat·ed; ag·gra·vat·ing
Etymology:
Latin aggravatus, past participle of aggravare to make heavier, from ad- + gravare to burden, from gravis heavy — more at grieve
Date:
1530

1obsolete a: to make heavy : burden b: increase
2: to make worse, more serious, or more severe : intensify unpleasantly
3 a: to rouse to displeasure or anger by usually persistent and often petty goading b: to produce inflammation in

So what, you're saying that the Pope meant to say that the distribution of condoms can only make the problem angry? Because that's the only other definition for aggravate...

You're looking at the definition of an English translation of an Italian word. Id've done that myself, but that may or may not work with multiple languages. It's the flaw using an online translator to write a paper in Spanish.
But, even supposing that I take the paranoia on such translation in Spanish too far, which I admit is a very likely possibility, you're still avoiding my question.

As to your question, everywhere I look states that official Vatican policy does ban condom use and distribution, and any Catholic distributing condoms is in violation of that policy, but so many ignore it that there's not much the Vatican can do to stop it.

Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa

Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms

I'm ready to accept that point, but I don't know or see in those articles anything about Church policy on distribution itself. Yes, Church policy is against condom use, but then it is also against extramarital sex, and those using condoms are overwhelmingly doing so for extramarital purposes - so distributing condoms is simply a form of humanitarian aid for the already damned.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'd think that a bishop distributing condoms against the orders of the Vatican would face excommunication?

Rock wrote:

I'm ready to accept that point, but I don't know or see in those articles anything about Church policy on distribution itself. Yes, Church policy is against condom use, but then it is also against extramarital sex, and those using condoms are overwhelmingly doing so for extramarital purposes - so distributing condoms is simply a form of humanitarian aid for the already damned.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'd think that a bishop distributing condoms against the orders of the Vatican would face excommunication?

I'm not sure, but among my research, I believe I read that the majority of Bishops in Africa pushed for being allowed to distribute condoms, so the Church would be faced with excommunicating the lot of them. I also can't find any clear statement about allowing condom distribution, everything talks about banning condom use.

I also found a pretty good article talking about the exact statement the Pope made, translations, and a revised statement issued by the Vatican the next day:

Vatican backtracks over Pope's condom stance

Also found an article that though Mr. Green was said to agree with the stance the Pope takes, he also admits that the most effective method is the "ABC" method, “Abstain, Be faithful or use a Condom,” which contradicts his own stance that condom use may make the problem worse in Africa. Teaching only condom use might if no proper education comes along with it, but in addition to proper education, such as the "ABC" method teaches, it certainly helps.

Catholic Church's condom stance unfairly criticized

Rock wrote:

You still haven't answered my question, then: why hasn't the Pope done a thing to stop or impede condom distribution in Africa?

Because he does not care if people live or die in africa, so long as its not his fault. He is a political figure, not a religious one. He lives to make himself 'look good' and advance his cause as 'right'. They can't admit that god MIGHT not have influenced things like 'no masturbation' and the evils of spilling seed because if they did then they would have to admit some things in the bible are based around peoples ignorance of things like illness being attributed to divine sources and thus forcing them to actually THINK to justify their faith. Its much easier to just keep on with the flawed dogma and try to use bad science to kind of sideskirt the fact that maybe they don't have all the answers about god. The pope doesn't have to make waves and stop it, he does not have to make any changes. all he has to do is SAY he disagrees and that makes him look good and in the end thats all the catholic church cares about.

Meh. Okay, then. With the exception of what Forge just said, which I know is pointless arguing anyway, I cede this debate, leaving the 'stance on distribution' issue as 'unclear'.
And, let's drink up to another one, folks!

You guys and your word walls. All I have to say is.

I want sex. I will continue to have sex. Tell the Pope to go fuck himself. If I will burn in Hell for having sex then at least I'm there with the party people.

Don't worry, considering there is no hell, you won't burn in one. Its fun knowing Jewish history and mythology.

Rock wrote:

Meh. Okay, then. With the exception of what Forge just said, which I know is pointless arguing anyway, I cede this debate, leaving the 'stance on distribution' issue as 'unclear'.
And, let's drink up to another one, folks!

High fives all around!

Forgefire_McCain wrote:

Don't worry, considering there is no hell, you won't burn in one. Its fun knowing Jewish history and mythology.

Well.. I'm not Jewish.. Not Catholic either.. But either way I'm not going to stop the humping.

Mysteria Kiito wrote:

Forgefire_McCain wrote:

Don't worry, considering there is no hell, you won't burn in one. Its fun knowing Jewish history and mythology.

Well.. I'm not Jewish.. Not Catholic either.. But either way I'm not going to stop the humping.

You're married. So as long as you don't foray into bestiality, as far as the bible's concerned, you're in the clear.