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

A lot of people seem unable to grasp a "well if you assume A, then B logically follows" type of argument. They just hear you asserting B, and totally miss the context.

For example:

Idealist: "No one should ever go hungry! Food should be available to everyone."

Realist: "For free?"

Idealist: "Yes, for free, since if you charge money not everyone will be able to pay. Nobody should have to pay for food - in fact that should be made illegal! People need to eat! Its a basic human right! Refusing to give food to someone who's hungry is morally wrong!"

Realist: "Such a policy would actually lead to widespread famine, because it would destroy the food supply. Farmers would go out of business if they couldn't recover the costs of growing their crops. And why should they be in the business of growing food at all then anyway?"

Idealist: "Oh, so its all about farmers making money, and you don't care if people starve?"

Realist: "How do you expect the farmers to produce food for everyone, if they don't get paid for it? It costs them money to farm! They have to buy seeds, fertilizer, gasoline for the machines - all that has to come from somewhere. If a farmer gave away his entire crop for free, as you are demanding, he wouldn't be able to produce any more after that. Then there'd be no food at all for anyone!"

Idealist: "So you want people to starve?"

Realist: (facepalm)


What's this got to do with this thread? See my comments below...

That is why socialism tends to destroy economies - too many people for whom its all about "gimme, gimme, gimme!"

I wouldn't go that far. The assumption seems to be that antiretrovirals, or other forms of medical care, would have to be given out for FREE.
Selling them at a reasonable price to anyone who needed them, and could come up with the money, would be the way to go.
As in, "you broke it, you pay to fix it".

Its another matter if people get HIV-infected as a result of rape, or unscreened blood-transfusions. In the latter case its the hospital that "broke it".

Charity towards the needy is a good thing. But when the "needy" start demanding hand-outs as a right, that's another matter.

This gets personal for me, as I recently lost an uncle to lung cancer. And he wasn't stupid - in fact he was one of the most intelligent people I know. But yes, he chose to smoke. Its not as if he had no control over his actions or no clue of the dangers.

This seems to the crux of the matter: a lot of posters here seem to regard people as essentially helpless victims of their overpowering sexual drives. Expecting people to be responsible about it is dismissed as unrealistic, or even as heartless.
Given such an assumption, I can understand your sentiment. "IF they are such mindless animals, THEN maybe the world is simply better off without them!"

The idea of treating people as animals in regard to responsibilities, but as human in regard to rights, has never made sense to me. Its doublethink. It implies that being stupid is some kind of magic "give me everything I want for free" card.

The issue is that it is not practical to try to give antiretroviral drugs only to "deserving" people like An Anicient wants, because confronted with the simplistic punishment-based distribution policy he has a hardon for people will lie about how they got the virus and do everything possible to cheat the system. The only way it could work is if you create a massive bureaucracy to investigate everyone's claims and see whether they're actually "deserving" or not. Which will probably cost more than just giving out the antiretrovirals to everyone for free, so you might as well take the less assholish option.

Following from this is that promoting condom use is probably a good thing, because lots of people dying of AIDS puts strain on society and "if they're stupid enough to be promiscuous they deserve to get AIDS" is a broken approach.

As for whether antiretrovirals should be distributed for free vs. at a cost, I'd say that's a question of what the cost/benefits of a free distribution program are vs other things we could be doing with the money (and the resources it represents). Contrary to right-wing strawmen, not everyone who supports some degree of socialism is oblivious to the fact that society has finite resources.

That is a point we cannot hammer on enough.
Condoms are far cheaper than anti-viral.

Look, if he was a rational believer in scientific evidence, he wouldn't be a Christian, much less the freakin' Pope. He is, by definition, a batshit insane religious fanatic.

hey malaskor....the pope was right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92702

I know y'all hate worldnutdaily, but take a look at the story...
he has a point.

Owned.





And nobody has anything to say about it.

Thank you for making it so plain to everyone reading this thread how you regard a large percentage of the human race, including many forum members here. Do not be surprised if your comments on other matters are evaluated accordingly.

Haven't read the article yet, but why the new thread? You could have just used the existing one if you wanted to reply to me.

EDIT:
A point is there, true, in the fact that being monogamous/faithful to your significant other is preventing the spread of HIV.
But that doesn't change that the pope spoke in a way that is easy to misunderstand, it would have been easily avoidable to create such a mess as he did (again).

Oh and even the homepage of the organization the scientist belongs to says use of condoms lowers the risks.

And your statement of "Let them die of AIDS instead of providing condoms" is not equally repellent

Just because he ignores scientific evidence when it contradicts his established beliefs didn't mean he was going to when it doesn't.

I see, so you want it to say "Just go and f**k her", so you decide it actually does, but there must be some hidden agenda keeping it from saying so outright, even when the text clearly states something entirely different? That's incredibly dishonest of you, although not surprising given the trend you've displayed in this thread.

Also, it should be noted that when it comes to sex, the Bible is hardly a book that tiptoes about it. Ever read about Sodom and Gommorah? Or what happened to Lot after? Or Judah/Tamar/Onan? Or the Song of Solomon? The list goes on.

The Bible specifically mentions that they were only allowed virgins and they had to be taken as wives. This is directly in contradiction to your claim, the virgins part is almost certainly there specifically to avoid STD's among other things, and the whole 'wife' part is again specifically opposed to screwing everything in sight.

Moreover, a lot of your 'examples' are actually to do with rape, which is a controlled act of intimidation and domination, not in the least related to consensual if stupid screwing around.

Now, go tell any woman that Nazi's rapiding Jewish women is an example of how 'when groups of people meet each other sex will ensue'. If you survive, report back.

Which even the most cursory look at most actual interactions will prove to be false, you're simply listening to the particular branch you think sounds best for your own preconceived views, ignoring most of the stated views of anthropologists and a large part of history itself.

If you are so functionally retarded as to ignore significant sections of humanity existing right now happily getting along on an abstinence before marriage theme then I conclude all attempts at dialouge with you.

Again with the dishonesty, I did not say that. I said condoms will work in lab conditions and when used by professionals, but that in 'regular' use there are a great many simple things that people will do without thinking that will render them useless.

Take a basic course of the physical properties of materials, particularly plastic deformation, and come back when you''ve learned something.

No, you misunderstand, people (generally) don't deserve to die horribly. However, all physical things have a cause and effect. Most things also have a risk involved. Screwing around with multiple partners has a risk of STD's, the cause is the screwing around, the effect is the STD's. That is the risk, if you want to screw around, you accept that risk.

If that risk turns around to bite you, don't whine about it, it's your own damn fault and you should get no sympathy, it was easy enough to avoid the risk if you thought the consequences were so bad.

And as a responsible human, you should further realise actions have consequences, and adjust your behaviour accordingly, only the cowards and the spineless seek to try and have their cake and eat it as well by trying to dodge the consequences of an entirely optional behaviour that is not neccessary to them.

Except that in most cases they won't be able to, because if the other partner doesn't have HIV, then it clearly means the other person has been screwing around (in the context of sex).

If you find people deliberately infecting their spouse with HIV just so they can get treatment for a disease they caught by screwing around those people should be marched outside and shot immediately. Removing scum like that from the face of the earth would be a massive plus in most people's books.

Moreover, as I pointed out, the standard tests are able to reveal the progession of the disease, giving a timeline of who was infected first, and thus who is responsible. So even that dodge won't work.

Only if the treatment policy is made by people dumber than the idiots trying to cheat the system.

Quit generalising, the topic is STD's specifically, in terms of STD's, the majority of the time the people who screwed around were the ones who got hit, and thus is regulated the stupid levels quite nicely. Granted, some innocent also suffered, and they may have been large in number, and that is regrettable. However, that is why those particular people who can be helped now should be helped.

There is a huge difference between helping people with conditions they did not have much, if any, reasonable control over and helping people who deliberately put themselves out in harms way.

If I was injured in a car accident that was my fault in terms of irresponsible driving, then I would not consider myself worthy of medical treatment, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

True, either that or they deliberately ignore it because they happen to fall into the catagory affected by the statement.

True, and this thread seems to show a lot of bi-polar people, they want capitalist commercial lives and socialist private lives.

True to a degree, there is cost involved, but there is also justice to be considered, as you mention, a hospital causing the problem would mean the hospital should be forced to pay for it. The drugs don't have to be free, whoever is responsible should pay, however, in some cases like rape it may not be possible to track the responsible party, in which case some limited charity towards the victim is acceptable.

But for the people who bring it on themselves by screwing around, I'd like to see the drugs either removed from their access entirely or else premium priced. A caveat to this would be people who have ceased to screw around independent of knowledge of any STD, in which case they should be allowed to buy regular priced drugs.

Indeed.

Well, I'm sorry for your loss, but as you said, he had control over his actions, and in the end he paid the price. However, from the tone of your post, I'm guessing he didn't go demanding the 'right' to free treatment, which puts him leagues above the people under discussion and some people in this thread.

Exactly, a view I think could be engendered by society, but I suspect is largely amplified by some of them being people who want the no-consequences ticket, and thus want to beleive that this is so, even choosing to ignore the basic facts and evidence to do so.

Precisely.

Why should I care what stupid and/or insane people think?

So did you even read the Link?

The director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project claimed that the available data support's the Pope's claim.

But none of this addresses the reality of cultural institutions and AIDS transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The Bishop of Rome is basically saying "Instead of availing yourselves a simple, cheap, and highly effective means of preventing the spread of HIV, you should just give up your standard cultural practices in favor of something not even the ordained priests of the Church have managed to do..."

What a nutjob.

I'm not going to beat around the bush here - some of you people are straight up ignorant fools. The best research out there supports the Pope's claim!

If they don't want to give up their cultural practices of routinely having retardedly unsafe sex, then they have no right to bitch about contracting HIV, IMO. And it also makes them undeserving of the billions of dollars in financial aid that Africa receives - if they're not willing to change their ignorant cultural practices, then they don't deserve all those funds that we could be putting to infinitely better use here in our own country.

Um, the claim of the pope is that Condoms will not reduce the problem and can even increase the problem of AIDS. That is what I am calling Bullshit. Even if not everybody is willing to use condoms, at least those who are willing to use them will reduce their risks. No not eliminate it but if they are going to have sex anyway, at least it is some protection.

It is the whole thing of sex is not to be interfered with in any way which creates a problem. They fight against a whole vector which might be used to help fight against AIDS. No birth control methods are officially allowed by the Catholic church just like in the case of the girl in Brazil when the church excommunicated both teh mother and the doctors.

You do realize that most people have sex with their spouses on a fairly regular basis and don't use a condom, right? Your method of testing people's "worthiness" is totally unreliable and actually creates an incentive for these people to deliberately try to infect their spouses with HIV.

Because it's going to be real easy to prove that they did that, right? If a couple come in and both have HIV, and both got it at around the same time (because, you know, married people tend to have sex pretty frequently and not use condoms), good luck finding out which one got it by sleeping around. Your simplistic, vindictive punishment-based policy will not work.

And just how reliable is this timeline going to be if both people were infected at roughly the same time, which will happen frequently for reasons I've already stated?

I've already explained why the idea is retarded, but while we're at it let's explore some of the unintended social consequences of your policy. First off, huge numbers of dying people are going to be a burden on society. Even if you don't treat them at all, they're still being taken out of the work force, families are still losing breadwinners etc. Your policy is going to unnecessarily disrupt society. Second, you've just created a huge number of very angry people. Not just the people who've been denied medicine because you judge them worthy of death, but any loved ones they may have as well. These people are not just going to quietly and politely go over in a corner and die. No, society gleefully and self-righteously fucked them over, so a lot of them are going to want to fuck society back as hard as they possibly can. I expect your policy to inspire quite a bit of unrest and violence.

But never mind. You've found the villains and punished them, and that's all that really matters. I love simplistic punishment-based social policy.

Whatever. Your idea that "this is how it worked for 99% of human history" is simply false. And "it worked for 99% of human history" is no defense. All sorts of stupid stuff "worked" for 99% of human history - like thinking of diseases as caused by sorcery or spirits.

Hey, I'm just pointing out how totally stupid it is to base a moral system off Darwinism.

What this basically comes down to, once you strip away all the "yarr, personal responsibility" smoke and mirrors, is that you think people should effectively get the death penalty for the crime of promiscuity. I think I'll just let how ridiculously disproportionate a punishment that is under any sane ethical system to speak for itself.

Forgive me for being a touch skeptical of an article on a site that links to Marketing Evil right underneath.

I'm not saying I dismiss it out of hand, but given that according to the American Foundation for AIDS Research condoms are between 80-97% effective at preventing HIV spread if used correctly and consistently (reference) I'd like to see a bit more corroboration. For condoms used correctly and consistently to actually encourage the spread of AIDS they'd have to make people engage in over 8-10 times as much casual sex, which I'm really incredulous about.

Because, god knows, vaginal intercourse is RETARDEDLY unsafe.

Stop letting Jewsus do your thinking for you.

The Pope's claim: distributing condoms cannot solve the problem of AIDS, and can actually contribute to the problem.

There is research that supports that claim:

Now, don't be an idiot like Fritigern and assume that I support Catholic anti-condom/abstinence only methods just because I'm posting research findings, because the same paper addresses that stuff and points out various major problems that it can and does cause.

I'm just saying that the Pope isn't a nut for that statement, because the available research supports him on that one stand-alone statement: distributing condoms can lead to increased instances of sexual risk taking (mostly among youth), but since they're inconsistent with wearing condoms despite the increased risky sexual activity, it can result in more harm than good.

By the way, like usual don't trust how that WND article portrays the actual research. Just go here, and look around. Lots of interesting stuff.

Like this brief summary of another Harvard study (unfortunately the study itself seems to need a subscription to access):

Really, male circumcision would have a greater impact? Wouldn't have thought that...:wtf:

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully against the RCC's ignorant and short-sighted beliefs. But I'm also against people making ignorant criticisms.

Maybe if you weren't such an immature and ignorant dumbass you might, just might, understand something every now and then when the adults are conversing.

Concurrent partner networks are a fundamental aspect of many African societies, and have been for centuries. It's not realistic to expect massive changes in social organization and cultural institutions: it is realistic to distribute condoms. More importantly, the Pope's position has fuck-all to do with "research" and everything to do with religious ideology.

I was going to write a long winded reply to "An Ancient" but I think I can come up with an answer that sums it up quite a bit better.

The study which showed that Purity Pledges don't work also showed that the vast majority of individuals, religious or not, had sex before marriage.

You need to show some sort of study which shows anything disagreeing with those conclusions. You statement that it has worked for 99% of humanity has no supporting evidence at this point in time.

As far as condoms, the same can be said. You have no rational studies which indicate that condoms don't work to reduce Sexually Transmitted Diseases including HIV/AIDS. Until that, all you have is opinion.

This would support the idea that consistent condom use must be promoted, not that promoting condom use is counterproductive.

Claiming that this means promoting condom use is counterproductive seems like a false dillemma fallacy to me. There's no reason you can't promote reducing sexual partners and condom use at the same time.

Did you even bother reading, or even skimming that study before you posted this? I suspect you didn't. Try reading it, it might enlighten you about where my argument is coming from (hint: you might discover I'm in more agreement with you than you seem to realize - for example, the research is far more critical of the RCC's anti-condom/abstinence only stuff).

The point isn't that using one condom for one sexual encounter doesn't reduce the risk of getting HIV from that one encounter. The point is that distributing condoms to society at large increases the prevalence of sexually risky behavior in many African societies, but they don't consistently use condoms to make up for their increased sexual risk taking. Therefore, it CAN contribute to the problem.

No, it really just supports the idea that no matter which STD prevention method is promoted, the key aspect they all have in common is that African societies need to be vastly more educated in them - until then, they are limited in effectiveness, and yes, in plenty of cases as the research found, they can be counterproductive.

I don't think they were advocating one way or the other - they were just pointing out that emphasizing those particular programs might be more beneficial.

My argument is thus, can we prove that people will have more sex because they are using condoms? The first article you sent me talking about the use of condoms in a positive light and does not suggest what you stated. As well, it seems to argue the direct opposite and talks the greater use of condoms. Problems are that most sex is unplanned and condoms are not carried. As well, access to condoms is difficult. Various other factors are discussed as well.

I also read in the first report that sex education both in the media and school do not reach their full potential because they are censored. School is suppose to promote social acceptable social behaviors, for example.

There is also a statement that young males with good communication with their father are more likely to use condoms. The problem is that many parents feel embarrassed about talking to their children about sex.

While there is a high awareness of birth control measures, there is poor attitude. It is that poor attitude that seems to be the largest problem. Four out of ten girls surveyed were pregnant or had been pregnant. Other items disturbing is that a large percentage of those studied thought that masturbation could be hazardous to their health, something I had though was the cases that some thought but did not have any support.

Economic factors seem to involve a good percentage of the sex. 38% of the Girls had had sex for economic purposes in the last three weeks and it sounds like with multiple partners. There seems to be a large misunderstanding of the risk factors involved.

The article is worth reading if you did not read the whole thing. One really important is the statement "what you fail to teach your children, they will learn elsewhere." Education generally is seen as the largest problem.

I have to say that I don't think YOU read the entire article! I don't know where you are trying to go with this but you chose the wrong article. I see no where that it states that condom use can be counter productive. Page and Citation please?

See I think we're having a miscommunication here now, because you just changed the goal posts. You went from "Um, the claim of the pope is that Condoms will not reduce the problem and can even increase the problem of AIDS", to now asking me to prove that "using condoms = more sex".

But I wasn't arguing "using condoms = more sex". I was arguing that "availability/knowledge of condoms doesn't necessarily equal reducing the problem, and can sometimes contribute to the problem".

edit: Ok, here's the deal, you're misunderstand the following quotes from my posts:

You're mistaking what I mean by "increases sexual risk", I'm not arguing they have more sex when condoms are more available, I'm saying the kinds of sexual behavior they engage in is riskier. The problem is, they're more consistent in their riskier sexual behaviors than they are at actually using the condoms. Again, lots of possible reasons behind this are explained in that paper.

I hope this is cleared up.

And that's what the paper says, which I quoted from the 3rd paragraph on page 24, in the section "Condom Use and Protective Barriers" that starts on page 23. It's best to read the paragraphs leading up to it (and even better to read through the section "Sexual activities, sexual risk taking and risk perceptions" on page 19 as well, though I only had time to read it quickly) - they help lay out the inconsistent usage of condoms, various reasons behind it and some consequences it has.

It seems to me though that we're getting way more nuanced than the Pope's simpler statement, one which I had no intention of 'defending' this far. I just dislike when people criticize out of ignorance. I'm afraid this is one of those occasions where a simple bit of rhetoric from the mouth of a politician has truth on the face of it, but the intent behind it is distasteful. I was merely trying to talk about the former, and not defend the latter.

I gave you the page number in the quote in my post - p. 24. And I most certainly did read through the majority of it with a brief look at what I didn't read more thoroughly.