Pope states condoms aren't the answer to HIV

[emiliano]

I don't know who this Dr Green is, but if you say so, then who I am to argue that Green isn't a dimwit.

You can check/research it.

 

[emiliano]

A person can be very intelligent and still lack logic and common sense.

And where would we find you?

 

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by Jordan St. Francis
Tumbleweed,

Would you offer a summary of the works of Dr. Green which you have mentioned (e.g. principally his methodology). I myself have not read them. Anything that you could point out from his material which indicates he is fudging or ignoring data for the sake of his Christian bias would shed some further light on your comments. Thanks.

Come On boys! This is a fair question, can any of you genius answer it? This is really stupid “”in logic, this is called "appeal to authority". His argument is obviously totally retarded, but ordinary people like yourself are afraid to say so because he is a Big Thinking Man.”

There are not many intelligent people that will post such an statement, alceste lives in a world where he is a greater thinker than men like Dr. Green.
Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies — I just imagine this guy applying for the position of director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, the whole world is retarded according to this poor fellow. What else should we appeal to in matters that concern STDs, logic says to the experts in these fields to the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies off course.
The AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard University Center for Population and Development Studies was established to support evidence-based research on the impact of behavioral approaches in reducing the transmission of HIV worldwide. The Project investigates documented HIV prevention successes, as well as other promising behavior-based approaches, to help guide the development of evidence-based models of behavior change for both generalized and concentrated epidemics.
The pivotal role of partner reduction well as other behavior-based prevention strategies that have been shown successful in reducing HIV prevalence in generalized epidemics will be investigated. This Project also seeks to promote a deeper understanding of the influence that spirituality, beliefs and values, such as respect and responsibility, can have on human behavior and health, especially with regard to the AIDS pandemic.
The APRP is supported by the John Templeton Foundation.http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/

You can be a thinking man. You don't need a degree, or a pulpit, or a blog, or a network of religious publications who will buy your musings to advance their own agendas. You just need a method: Logic. Green does not have it.

Well what else could we need but your good self.:sarcastic On top of everything Dr. Green is not Catholic and in fact he is a supporter of the ABC program in Uganda.
A-Abstinence, B-Be Faithful, C-Use a Condom. That’s what you call thinking:shout, as I said the responsibility for the failures of the past decades must be shared, free condoms programs alone won’t solve the problem, the free condoms brigade must come to the realization that the ideal solution is to have A-Abstinence, B-Be Faithful, C-Use a Condom, Abstinence is achievable, faithfulness is achievable, don’t go around preaching that is not, this is irresponsible and this is the arena where the Church operates, for the godless lacking in self-control there is condoms.

 

[LuisDantas]

What are you talking about? Did you read this part?: The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease.
Abstain from sleeping around ,have only one sexual partner and it will be slow down, if you are infected already abstain from all sexual activities.

That's why he is failing so utterly. He is in a position of authority, yet he refuses to accept reality and offers just about the poorest advice imaginable, certain to create much conflict, disease and death.

Really, how much of a leader can he be when he refuses to even acknowledge the plain fact that people can and will remain having sex even if they feel guilty and conflicted about it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Abstinence is achievable, faithfulness is achievable, don’t go around preaching that is not, this is irresponsible and this is the arena where the Church operates,

Abstinence and faithfulness, just like nearly anything else, are achievable... but only under adequate circunstances.

The plain fact is that people often deal with circunstances, emotional, social and of other kinds, that make abstinence and even faithfulness non-achievable. It is quite pointless to disregard that, and quite irresponsible to actively seek to disregard those very real people under very real risks.

Unless you're proposing that the Church is supposed to care only about people with plenty of choices who live in ideal circunstances, I guess.

for the godless lacking in self-control there is condoms.

Strangely enough, it doesn't work that way. Somehow devout christians keep having sex all the same... if anything, they suffer more for it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can check/research it.

That is still reversing the true burden of proof. We have no reason to accept his advice at face value, nor to fail to consider our own mental faculties.

 

[emiliano]

That's why he is failing so utterly. He is in a position of authority, yet he refuses to accept reality and offers just about the poorest advice imaginable, certain to create much conflict, disease and death.

Really, how much of a leader can he be when he refuses to even acknowledge the plain fact that people can and will remain having sex even if they feel guilty and conflicted about it?

You have not followed the discussion Dr. Green's studies shows a different picture.
It is clear from the Op that the Pope addressed his message to the faithful, I do not share you low opinion of people, this opinion of your "people can and will remain having sex even if they feel guilty and conflicted about it" Does it applied to all people or just Africans? Do you think that all the people of this world acts on instinct alone? That we remain in our animalistic state?

 

[mohe3439]

I feel that this is absurd, any logically thinking person would know this isn't true, but the thing is that this message is going to people who were foolish enough to believe anything that a person in power says. This is just another way to draw in more ignorant people into Christianity and what does the Pope care, it's not him who's dying from AIDS, it's just millions of innocent good hearted people.

 

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Jordan St. Francis
Tumbleweed,

Would you offer a summary of the works of Dr. Green which you have mentioned (e.g. principally his methodology). I myself have not read them. Anything that you could point out from his material which indicates he is fudging or ignoring data for the sake of his Christian bias would shed some further light on your comments. Thanks.

Come On boys! This is a fair question, can any of you genius answer it?

I already answered it. Condoms are only effective when people wear them. When people don't wear them, you can't blame condoms for hastening the spread of HIV. A sound methodology would research the effect of condoms when they are used, not when they're haphazardly tossed off the back of pick-up trucks blasting rock music.

This aspect of his argument is a logical fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc - or false cause. Your use of Dr Green to advance your own argument is a different logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam - appeal to authority.

Also, your suggestion that anyone here is advocating condom availability only, to the exclusion of efforts to promote behavioral change is a straw man fallacy. Nobody here said condoms alone would solve the problem.

Let's stay on target: the thread is about whether or not it is acceptable for the pope and the church to use their platform of influence to deceive the people of Africa about the effectiveness of condoms (when used, obviously) in preventing the spread of HIV. It is not about abstinence, fidelity or behavioral change.

 

[emiliano]

Abstinence and faithfulness, just like nearly anything else, are achievable... but only under adequate circumstances.

Good one. The Church is where these circumstances are developed, the development of virtues!

The plain fact is that people often deal with circumstances, emotional, social and of other kinds, that make abstinence and even faithfulness non-achievable

Please don’t do this. Is or isn’t achievable? You can’t have it both ways.

It is quite pointless to disregard that, and quite irresponsible to actively seek to disregard those very real people under very real risks.

The Church is here to facilitate the resources that enable the faithful to withstand the temptations and preaches God’s moral Law, it you contracted AIDS don’t have sexual relation, repent and atone for your sins, if you contracted it by other means, obey God moral Law “do not commit murder.

Unless you're proposing that the Church is supposed to care only about people with plenty of choices who live in ideal circumstances, I guess.

It is not a guess really, your soul’s Salvation is worth the sacrifices, you can even seek science’s help and render yourself impotent, but don’t spread AIDS.

 

[emiliano]

I already answered it. Condoms are only effective when people wear them. When people don't wear them, you can't blame condoms for hastening the spread of HIV. A sound methodology would research the effect of condoms when they are used, not when they're haphazardly tossed off the back of pick-up trucks blasting rock music.

So it is the free condoms brigade's failure, why would the Pope get on their waggon?
Folks here are calling the Pope all sorts of names because he does not join this failed attempt to slow down the spread of this virus.

This aspect of his argument is a logical fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc - or false cause. Your use of Dr Green to advance your own argument is a different logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam - appeal to authority.

Thanks for the Latin, I call your arguments pure and simple BS.

Also, your suggestion that anyone here is advocating condom availability only, to the exclusion of efforts to promote behavioral change is a straw man fallacy. Nobody here said condoms alone would solve the problem.

It was you that suggested that Dr. Green was proposing abstinence only and in end it end up been that he does doesn't and he not even Catholic

Let's stay on target: the thread is about whether or not it is acceptable for the pope and the church to use their platform of influence to deceive the people of Africa about the effectiveness of condoms (when used, obviously) in preventing the spread of HIV. It is not about abstinence, fidelity or behavioral change

The Pope isn't in the condom distribution brigade and addressed his message to the faithful, the message rings "there is a better way to stop this" then you got on your ego trip, calling manes and beating you drums, you gonna have to make a decision, who failed?

 

[emiliano]

I feel that this is absurd, any logically thinking person would know this isn't true, but the thing is that this message is going to people who were foolish enough to believe anything that a person in power says. This is just another way to draw in more ignorant people into Christianity and what does the Pope care, it's not him who's dying from AIDS, it's just millions of innocent good hearted people.

Are they all innocent?
It has been clearly established that this problem has not responded to the campaign. what do you propose, that we disobey all forms of authorities? How do you know this: "it's just millions of innocent good hearted people"?

 

[J Bryson]

Tell you what: The day that the Pope uses a condom for its intended purpose is the day that he has enough experience in the matter to have an opinion.

 

[emiliano]

That is still reversing the true burden of proof. We have no reason to accept his advice at face value, nor to fail to consider our own mental faculties.

You are so disjointed from the discussion, this is in response to Dr.Greens works, an expert in this field. agnostic said that he doesn't know much about Dr. Green and his works and I suggested that he research. If you or him aren't interested don't accept his opinions,you have freedom of choice, God gave you that.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for the Latin, I call your arguments pure and simple BS.
you gonna have to make a decision, who failed?

Ad hominem. (You did.)

 

[LuisDantas]

You are so disjointed from the discussion, this is in response to Dr.Greens works, an expert in this field. agnostic said that he doesn't know much about Dr. Green and his works and I suggested that he research. If you or him aren't interested don't accept his opinions,you have freedom of choice, God gave you that.

Nope, I understand perfectly. I recognize an Appeal to Authority Fallacy, that is all.

 

[LuisDantas]

You have not followed the discussion Dr. Green's studies shows a different picture.

Maybe that is true. I have certainly not pinpointed those differences. Anyway, if he claims that abstinence is effective as an AIDS countermeasure, he is simply wrong. I have no intention of ignoring what I see and know just because he says so.

Unless, I guess, some convincing argument is actually presented to me. Do you have such an argument?

It is clear from the Op that the Pope addressed his message to the faithful, I do not share you low opinion of people, this opinion of your "people can and will remain having sex even if they feel guilty and conflicted about it" Does it applied to all people or just Africans? Do you think that all the people of this world acts on instinct alone? That we remain in our animalistic state?

Actually, I have a low opinion of the Pope, not of people as a whole. He ought to know better than to cause this much damage, or else remain silent on the matter.

Discounting the load of your questions, yes, I will say that it is indeed to much to expect people to generally abstain from sex. We ARE animals to such a degree that it simply does not make sense to expect otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Abstinence and faithfulness, just like nearly anything else, are achievable... but only under adequate circumstances.

Good one. The Church is where these circumstances are developed, the development of virtues!

You know, that amounts to claiming that things are perfect when they are purged of their imperfections: true in a literal sense, but quite non-informative.

The Church is supposed to aim for the development of virtues. But certainly not to foolishly assume it when it is plain that they won't be found.

(And that is assuming that abstinence is somehow a virtue, which is tentative at best, you know).

Please don’t do this. Is or isn’t achievable? You can’t have it both ways.

That's why I didn't try to. Read again and you will understand, hopefully. It's not like it is difficult or anything.

Please pay attention before attempting to answer.

The Church is here to facilitate the resources that enable the faithful to withstand the temptations and preaches God’s moral Law, it you contracted AIDS don’t have sexual relation, repent and atone for your sins, if you contracted it by other means, obey God moral Law “do not commit murder.

What a disjointed discourse. AIDS is not either a sin nor a result from sin. And the one attempting murder is the Pope, by means of his disapproval of condoms.

It is not a guess really, your soul’s Salvation is worth the sacrifices, you can even seek science’s help and render yourself impotent, but don’t spread AIDS.

I hope you're not serious...

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

What a disjointed discourse. AIDS is not either a sin nor a result from sin. And the one attempting murder is the Pope, by means of his disapproval of condoms.

I hope this is rhetoric. Let us be serious- if one knowingly has HIV they need to refrain from sexual activity. To do so consciously without informing anybody is criminal. We can hardly call the Pope a murderer- he is compelling no one to act but rather laying out the teachings of an Institution to which he is bound to do- that condoms, along with all forms of sexual activity outside of the permanent bond of marriage, are immoral in the Church's eyes. He is not telling people to have sex without condoms, which is how HIV is contracted. He is telling them to have sexual relations according to the Church's standards, in which case the disease would not be contracted.

It seems to me that the primary complaint is that Africans are not hearing what the Pope is saying, misunderstanding him, so that they proceed to avoid condoms but not sex. So should he make it more clear?

 

[logician]

"Pope Benedict says the distribution of condoms is not the answer in the fight against AIDS.
He spoke aboard the papal plane on his way to Africa, his first trip to the continent as pontiff. But he insisted that the church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS in Africa.
The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of disease. "

In other words, the pope is signing the death warrant for millions if they follow his advice, if you have HIV, and DON'T know it, you doom others to posssible death if you have sex w/o using a condom, married or not.