Pope in Africa talking out of his ass - seriously wtf????

So you chose not to partake in an experience you knew nothing about until marriage so it'd have more meaning for you? Good for you. Let me clue you in on something - you don't have to be married to someone for sex (or anything you do) to have meaning.

Your example of the drug user is silly. You are not biologically designed to take morphine. In fact, you must go to great lengths to do so, in a very artificial manner. Sex and drug use are not the same. Stop trying to make some connection between the two. And, hell, the church has been giving its followers wine, a drug-containing compound, for non-medicinal purposes for how long now? The church is the biggest pusher out there!

So tell me, why does the church perpetuate the whole 'sex is bad' thing? Is it because it is something that brings pleasure to people's lives, when they "should" be living some fake idealistic life of devotion to a being who supposedly built us to commit the very sin it condemns?

Credit where credit is due; while I'm not the most pro-Pope person you'll meet, he did also call for peace between Christians and Animists, and speak on human rights.

But nobody cares about that stuff.

I'll take both, and just find something else to blame the catholics for.

Liberal mantra. Privatize Pleasure. Socialize Risk. Free love doesn't seem so free anymore. When you need basically a state run-funded bureaucracy to support it.

...Because condoms break and/or come off disturbingly easy if you are getting a decent rythym goin?

Just my experience.

Are you a Klingon? I hear they have spikey bits down there...

No, I just kinda fuck hard.

That and I can't exactly screw a virgin but this is beside the point.

There is no evidence that this would help Africa out of the shitfest of AIDS it has.

Anywho,

Blah.

Then you sir, are quite simply being an idiot. And wrong.

You draw the absolute strangest conclusions in this thread based on nothing except a desire to engage in ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you. And some other odds tendancies I won't go into.

I am quite simple in my views, you don't want AIDS, don't screw around. If you do screw around, you don't deserve to be shielded from the consequences, and if those consequences include HIV, sucks to be you, but tough.

This applies to anyone, it's not religion specific, it's common sense specific. An item that, for it's title, seems oddly lacking in most.

Your idea of improving the human race is to help preserve the lives of the idiots who are to stupid to control their base impulses?

I have not seen anyone die by lack of having sex as soon as they physically could.

Indeed, yet even in those times, most cultures had an established family system that encouraged people not to screw around at random.

Anything can have meaning, I'm not saying it mighth not have meaning, but to me, it would have more meaning in the context I described.

That happens to be my choice, because I'm not some stupid moron who can't control the desire some people have to fuck everything in sight.

You aren't biologically designed to do a lot of things. However, of those, ingesting naturally occuring drugs is much closer to something we are naturally able to do than others.

Flip it around, morphine is just a random drug. Try cocaine, find a coca leaf, chew a coca leaf, get high. Basic cocaine use (in mild form) 101. It's actually easier to get high of coca leaves than it is to get sex.

And you see me disagreeing with you where exactly?

Damned if I know, I'm not Catholic, ask one of them. As far as I'm concerned, sex is not a bad thing, but it has it's place.

Anyone who thinks sex in and of itself is a sin is just as stupid as the morons who can't control themselves and get HIV.

And to the guy who asked about people who are faithful but get it from a partner with a prior history. Those people should be helped, because they actually did what they could reasonably do to avoid it, and thus if circumstances beyond their immediate control take over they should be helped.

People who are stupid enough to go out and catch the virus by screwing around deserve everything they get. Not all humans deserve help and aid just because they are human, most of them deserve whatever they get, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions would be far more morally questionable IMO.

Some people my not like that view, fine, don't like it. Doesn't make you right or moral just because you want to encourage people to stupid and prtect them from their actions.

WTF???:wtf:

Dude, you are being an ass.

Interesting. So, how are you planning to seperate those "worthy of help" from those who "deserve what they get"? Are you going to require people wanting antiretroviral drugs and medical care to answer questions on how they got HIV so you can tell whether they're "worthy" or not? And how are you going to prevent cheating? Are you going to hire investigators and create an entire bureaucracy to check people's claims about how they got the virus? This is shaping up to be a very expensive system.

Or are you just going to help everyone? In which case more AIDS means greater burden on the medical system period, so doing your best to prevent its spread is more logical than "fuck 'em, Darwin will weed out the ones stupid enough to get infected!" Unless you plan to deny medical care to everyone, which would be the simplest option but also the most cartoonishly evil. And while we're at it, lots of people dying of disease is going to have negative consequences in society beyond just placing a burden on the medical system.

In short, "fuck 'em, let Darwin take care of 'em!" is really not particularly logical when you leave the realm of abstract arguments about personal responsibility and start applying it to the real world.

Most of your post does not really need an answer and others have answered much the same way I would.

What I mean very simply is that, to use the bible analogy, "Be Fruitful and Multiply" is in our Genes.

To paraphrase Penn and Teller, the human race survived the last four million years by f**king and eating everything around them.

Actually I'm applying Darwinian social constructs to their logical end. This may or may not be the same thing.

Well, Penn and Teller would be wrong, for a whole host of reasons ranging from the best genes to limiting in-breeding via sheer possesiveness, humans have largely throughout history constructed societies/tribes/hunting groups wherein one does not screw everything in sight, lest one receive Big Chief's Hatchet of Justice in ones head.

It would be quite simple to ask them how many sexual partners they've had and when, that sort of question is not uncommon and gets asked a lot in medical practices, ironically largely in the area of STD's, since such things are neccessary information.

Moreover, it could easily be combined with a test, which would be test both partners for HIV, if the other partner doesn't have it, you've been sleeping with someone else, if they do have it, then it is more likely they've been sleeping around (since the degree of infection can also be tested for it can also be determined who got it first in such cases, and thus who is likely at fault).

Reasonable benefit of the doubt could also be applied as letting a careful person die to avoid benefiting one or two careless people would not be acceptable.

Not really, as above, it's a relatively simple system in it's rough form. You don't have to prevent cheating, with the clear message that if you deliberately sleep around you won't get any help the numbers of people doing so will probably drop somewhat anyway.

Moreover, since you can get HIV by other means, like dirty needles, for areas with a high incidence of HIV, you would probably want to set up semi-regular screening anyway.

As I said, help those who tried to help themselves, leave those who ignored the simple method of not screwing around and got HIV to their own devices.

Not really, it is supposed to have worked for 99% of humanities history, the only reason people don't want it to apply to the real world is they like the idea of action without responsibility.

The most cost effective option is simply waiting until marriage. It's not hard, it's been done before, all it requires is a little self-control. The reason it isn't applied is that people are weak-willed and egotistical and don't want to accept that you can't get away with everything.


I wrote the following summary whilst on my lunch break, it's harsh and cruel, yes, but it's also simply social evolution in it's most raw and uncompromising state and encapsulates a view I would issue to most people who want to try and allow people to screw around and prevent HIV at the same time. (If you don't like it, fine, but I didn't invent or like the idea of social Darwinism, I just sometimes find it amusing how utterly ruthless it can be).

Welcome to the wonderful world of social Darwinism people. In a natural setting these people would kill themselves off, they are naturally selected by their activities for removal from the gene pool, leaving a stronger more desirable human populace to continue. You want to help these people? Then you want to weaken humanity, which makes you a traitor to your species, since you are actively working against the selective forces that would otherwise purge the human race of these undesirable elements.

Moreover, you are attempting to fight the universal law of cause and effect with no purpose other than the weakening of your own kind. Or do you believe that people should be free of effect when they actively go out and encourage the cause? Most of your arguments amount to the childish: “I want to do something, how dare you tell me I can’t do it! I have rights!”

Such an argument is pathetic and exemplifies the entire problem at the root of this epidemic, people want actions without consequences, because they are stupid, egotistical morons with no sense of wider responsibility to themselves, society, their potential or actual children or other dependents. Yes, you have rights, you have the right to screw up your own life, you don’t have the right to demand that others protect you from the consequences of your self-destructive actions.

Such people are stains on the human race and should be allowed to suffer the consequences of their actions. If the sea is full of sharks, swim somewhere else. Don’t complain when the sharks eat you. If the stove is hot, and you don’t want to be burned, don’t touch the stove.

In the meantime, the sort of people who want to screw around and those who support them in their actions cost others money, time and resources, they put at risk others who have not gone out to be so irresponsible, such as faithful partners, and seek to weaken the human race as a whole. They can’t regulate their base instincts and would not survive outside of the desperate environment created by people with similar views who try to claw at any way of partaking of whatever they want whilst shielding themselves from the consequences of their actions, obviating any sense of moral responsibility in favour of short term personal gratification.

If you want to take the risk, fine, sleep around, if you end up catching HIV, then you’ve been hit by the risk you accepted in the first place. Don’t try to wiggle out of it afterwards just because you don’t like it. If you didn’t like it you shouldn’t have taken the risk. Now that risk means you’ll die, well, tough.

As I said before, people who actually control themselves but end up with HIV due to the morally and mentally inferior nature of their husbands or wives (or doctors with dirty needles etc), should be helped, but those who went out there and got themselves infected through their own stupidity should be left without help or pity.

A lot more people would be agreeing if we were talking about cancer, IMO those who smoke and get cancer and then continue to smoke or only quit when they get cancer should also not be offered any help at others expense. However, smoking induced cancer is seen generally as people's own fault by people who aren't stupid enough to smoke and get cancer, but question the smokers and they will demand the right to treatment for their cancer even though it's their own stupid fault. They have no grounds for demanding this help other than the fact it has happened to them, there is no moral or scientific leg for them to stand on to demand treatment. The only reason a lot of people here react in mock-horror or faux-outrage to the concept of leaving people who sleep around to die of the diseases they pick up is because you yourselves partake of the same activities (or hope to) and thus are simlpy trying to cover your own ass. Again, you have no moral or scieftific leg to stand on in demanding these people be helped and like those smokers you seek to weaken the rest of human society at our expense to cover your own stupid lack of self-control and moderation.

So grow up and/or accept that actions have consequences.

And made a nice recovery after the dark ages...

Africans are naturally predisposed to be polyandrous and have low impulse control and future-time orientation. The epidemic of AIDS is a behavioral problem and genetic predisposition will change accordingly to environmental pressures.

You can't change their behavior because the majority of people here believe it to be immoral and unethical and then the only thing you do is to cuddle them and baby them and hopefully try to mask the problem.

You'll be essentially be treating them like African-American here. And the AIDS rates in the US of the African-American population in the United States is still exceptionally high compared to other demographic groups.

You can mail condoms monthly to high - risk demographics and hope for the best.

If you don't believe there's a relationship between a person's intelligence and libido then there would be no cause. However, i do.

Show me documentation of historic examples where cultures except under the most extreme controls and on a large scale prevented sex. I know that Roald Amundsen had to threaten his own crew to prevent them from having sex with the native women. Continuing on, Pizarro kept an Indian mistress, US G.I. had sex with German, British, and Japanese women. Much was written about Southern Slave Masters having sex (or raping depending on exact circumstances) with Black American Slaves. Russian Troops raped German women. German Troops raped female Jewish prisoners. Need I really go on?

Yes, of course Fox, let's list Russian troops in WW2, Nazi troops in WW2, slavers, Spanish conquistadors and the like as 'examples of why people must always have sex'.

There isn't an emoticon that rolls its eyes enough to sum up the utterly pathetic nature of that comparison.

Or you buy condoms that are a size or two too big for yourself just to impress your woman? Too bad women tend to find out the truth later on.

Yes, I showed some of the more extreme examples....
The extreme examples are the easiest to dig out of history books and the most likely to be recorded. It is repeated in the bible where it is written:

While most Archaeology in the lands of Canaan don't showing this really happening but instead a more peaceful transformation, the subject is clear. People having sex with each other. Whenever groups of men and women interact, they have sex.

Now, you have yet to show any examples of this not happening

Yeah, and guess what, your latest example definitively mentions taking a person as a wife. Moreover, the actual text mentions this applies only to virgins. So by your own example is the idea that everyone is history was screwing around with everything that moved shot down.

You are attempting, and failing, to move the goalposts entirely, stop being dishonest and address the actual issues.

And when they start to realize that you're denying people who have large numbers of sexual partners medicine they will start to cheat.

So you've just given these people an incentive to deliberately try to infect their spouse with HIV. Oh this is shaping up to be some wonderful social policy.

And your system will be ineffective as anything but a generator of suffering because the people you're trying to punish will just find ways to cheat their way out it.

All sorts of stupid stuff "worked for 99% of humanity's history". And actually it didn't work that way for 99% of humanity's history. The way it worked for 99% of humanity's history is that the "deserving" and "undeserving" would be screwed over equally because effective treatment for infectious disease was nonexistant.

You realize that by this repellent logic we shouldn't build hospitals, right? In a natural setting people with weak immune systems and bad genes are killed off, they are naturally selected for removal from the gene pool, leaving a stronger and healthier human populace to continue. You want to help these people? Then you want to weaken humanity, which makes you a traitor to your species, since you are actively working against the selective forces that would otherwise purge the human race of these undesirable elements.

Thankfully, the human race turned its back on this retarded philosophy when it invented agriculture and medicine.

Um, what do you expect, bluntness?
"Just go and f**k her" from the bible?

Granted it was many years ago but I have taken anthropology and overriding everything is that whenever humans interact, sex is a part of that interaction.
Often times it is pretty language but the core is always sex.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim here......
You make the claim that we can actually as a major group control human sexuality. You have posted no studies, not even talked about studies which one might be able to look up, and have posted no historic examples. You claimed that there were plenty but never showed any.

Previously, you claimed that condoms don't work to prevent STDs. I posted the example of Nevada Brothels.

The burden of proof is on your side

So anyone who screws before marriage like he says, deserves to get STDs?

You should have a car accident Ancient.

Just so I can say "you chose to drive cars, therefore you must suffer the consequences".

The point is made even stronger when one considers the rabbinic comment on the passage that it was essentially a concession to human nature, implying that if it had been outright forbidden (instead of restricted under terms that would make it usually not worth it), the law would be ignored.