What I said wasnt brought on by my personal issues, it was about your personal behaivor. This is not the first time where you have posted material that is not factually substaintiated or misunderstood without anylasis. I have even done some of those anylasis for people explaining in detail why its been misunderstood, Ive also pointed many people at them but either they have not been read or the information goes in one ear and out the other. You've been in some of those conversations.
It's personal to insinuate that I'm only posting to "provoke" or "embarrass" you, but taking a page out of your book, "agree to disagree". I don't feel my behavior was personal, given I'm asking you for explanation on the topic at hand. I also feel you've been in many conversations where it goes in one ear and out the other, but dragging it out into other threads is inappropriate, and if you'd like to disagree with me there, perhaps we can take it up with the mods. Until then, if you've got issues with the way I post to you other than that you disagree with what I have to say, feel free to PM me and I would be happy to hash it out there.
Again, not what I meant. Jude implyed that as soon as disagreements came up people should be leaving those groups to find or form new ones. I noted that if everyone did that the groups would be in such a radical state of flux that none would exist for very long.
Implied and then corrected himself to say that not every disagreement is worth leaving, which I agree with and thus would likely avoid your worst-case scenario.
You said: So how many people do I have to meet that aren't the typical puppy-kicker fire-and-brimstone Christian before they become more than just an exception to the rule?
I said it is subjective and that hasnt changed. How many "exceptions to the rule" that you meet before your views on a group change is strictly up to you. I cant make a determination for you on that
And I said that it's not completely subjective because in general, it's going to take a MAJORITY of people changing their behavior to mend the stereotype they've built for themselves. It's pretty ridiculous to me to insinuate that it's so subjective that one or two (or even a handful of) people changing their behavior is automatically going to shatter every single stereotype built up about Christians, and Catholics especially. There's a long history of hurt there and pussyfooting around it without actually trying to think of a tangible solution doesn't get anything done.
Here you go again, unfounded and factually unsubstantiated accusations of the church I happen to be a part of.
Ya know what? Lets put this issue to bed right now. For the last time.
Alright, let's do it. Let's see...
The reason why condoms are not being used in Africa is because of a psuedo-macho belief that condoms harm a mans masculinity. The average african male will not use them at all because of their own cultural beliefs. Dont even get me started on some of their other cultural beliefs like "raping a virgin will cure your HIV/AIDS"
You mean one
of the reasons. And that's if they even have access to contraception and know what it is and how to use it. Which, I might add, many people don't, given their sex education is poor at best and nonexistent at worst. I have a friend in Peace Corps in Cameroon right now and has been holding monthly citywide health fairs to show people how to put a condom on, and we're talking people who are well past their teens and twenties.
Now to get on with Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo's comment. According to the CDC a condom can not under any circumstances completely (meaning 100%) protect you against pregnancy or contracting the HIV/AIDS virus. The numbers rage at about 98% effectiveness but that is still not 100% (if it were any other number I wouldnt care about the numbers but I believe that teaching people that a condom can garatee protection when it cant is dangerous).
Spermazoan have a size of about 5 micrometers by 3 micrometers and with a tail that measures around 50 micrometers. The HIV/AIDS virus has a diameter of 1/10,000th of a milimeter (if you dont care to do the math that means the HIV/AIDS virus is significantly smaller then a single spermazoan). Both the spermazoan and the HIV/AIDS virus has a small enough size to slip through the microscopic holes in condoms but they dont always do so
Yes, I am well aware of the failure rates of various methods of birth control, but let's just talk about the logic you're defending here. Even though condoms cannot completely protect against HIV/AIDS, how does that negate its usefulness for people who continue to have sex regardless of this fact?
Indeed, this is bolded because it's important -- or would you perhaps like to argue with me over the effectiveness of abstinence-only education? I shouldn't think we need to, considering the evidence against it is pretty damning
and even hurts the Pope's message about it even more -- that those who are given abstinence-only education are even more likely to engage in unprotected sex
. So not only is he promoting an idea that doesn't work, he's promoting an idea that potentially puts people in even more danger.
Not really sure how you can try and justify that because I'm not making these things up, as you like to unfairly accuse me of.
Let's summate it a bit: With typical use failure rates involved, if you can prevent something like 86 out of 100 people from spreading HIV/AIDS to their partner, why in the world
would you say "Oh, but 14 people will get it anyway, guess everyone has to suffer!" Logic, please?
The comment that most people harp on about is this, said by Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo sometime before 2003: "Condoms do not protect against the HIV virus".
What people dont understand is the Cardinal was talking about the 10% of people that would not be protected by the use of condoms (that 10% being according to a study done by the WHO earlier that year). To him and many of the Cardinals that handle matters of health concern the chance of 10% of a population being infected was to many, I would dare say that even 1% would be to many for them. It was unthinkable for them to condone something that was not safe for everyone all the time. To them condoms promoted promiscuity which in turn increased the problem (there is misunderstood context in what the problem is as well).
How do you know he meant that? Please provide quotes of his correction of intent so I can be sure it's not simply you speaking on his behalf through your own filter.
And your logic fails again. regardless. Choosing not to save 90 people because 10 others might contract AIDS/HIV is horrific.
How can you even defend that as being pro-life? How is that doing God's work? Could you maybe explain to me the rationale of why letting 100 people contract AIDS/HIV and most likely die is better than the failure rate of about 10 or so? That's pretty terrible logic no matter which way you slice it, and speaking of statements that are unfounded, let's talk about the old "promiscuity" adage, shall we?
This goes back to abstinence only education time and time again and is a tired talking point by the conservative right (who ironically usually end up being slut-shamers and not terribly sex-positive to begin with) . If you offer people birth control, sure, maybe a few more will choose to have sex because of its availability, but it has not been proven in any demonstratable way outside of conservative horror stories to scare their women into keeping their legs shut to be any kind of phenomenon outside of a negligible number of people. But allow me to do the homework for you, since apparently "time and time again", I just seem to make this stuff up.
The Church has been telling people for YEARS not to have sex til marriage, and it's ineffective, plain and simple, and yet, they're not willing to try and protect even 90% of the people who do it anyway, choosing instead to let 100% live a life of disease and eventual premature death. Again, please do try and explain this logic to me, how making everyone suffer because of 10% is benevolent.
To complicate matters Cardinal Trujillo made his statements about condoms in Italian, meaning there was a mistake in the translation. Often when he, the other cardinals, and the pope refered to the "tiny holes" in a condom they would specifically talk about the microscopic holes left in the material that allow spermazoan to rarely pass through. However translations always came out as Tiny holes, making people think that the church's leaders were specifically talking about small holes that you could slide a needle or even pen through. That is not the case and it never has beenHe's still wrong.
In the proper context "the problem" was not the chance for condoms to break nor was it the chance for spermazoan or the virus to pass through. In fact it didnt even deal with condoms except in the loosest terms, instead it was societal. The problem was, to them, infedelity and promiscuity that condoms promoted but also it was a question of souls.
According to who? What proper context? Are you friends with him or do you have more substantial evidence of his intent?
There it is, I hope this is the last time I will have to teach birth control to Elliquiy
Condescending tone is unnecessary given I have a good understanding of how birth control works and have already pointed out flaws in your own explanation that are plainly false. Good talk.
Then why do you demand that the Pope or vatican be the ones the must change for us to prove ourselves worthy of redemption in your eyes? If you agree with me that a group is the people and not the leader then it shouldnt matter one way or another what they say/do. You already have the stereotype broken. If you believe it must be a mix of teh people and the leader then thats much harder to quantify but also more important to do so IMO
Because the leader speaks to a group and if the group is complacent and okay with that leader representing them while remaining and reaping the benefits of being in the group, then they're supporting his behavior. You want to change things, you claim you "distance yourself" from what you disagree with, that you aren't like the rest, but you just spent the last few paragraphs defending their behavior and justifying blatantly bad information. It's not an issue with other people not understanding you necessarily, it can very well be an issue of the message you're
sending, whether or not you mean it.
By the way, some extra credit reading:Condoms and promiscuityPope manipulates science on condoms
(This article actually talks about how Catholics who work to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV should be ANGRY with him, given he's reversing their work, and yet, they remain in the same group lead by him. Great logic.)Also: Pope says condoms okay for male prostitutes
...But apparently not for people who could actually benefit the most from them. And as long as those male prostitutes are only fucking women. Because that's such a large population.
Edited for some additional references and rewording to clarify myself.