Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS in Africa. (3 Viewers)

[Tully B.]

I think that essentially sums everything up.

It's you. You're the ratscallion. Hahahaha, I like you. You're funny.

 

[SnowFox]

Rapists wouldn't be acting on the teachings of Rome and acess to condoms is going to do buckley's to the power of less in a rape situation. CLOWN!

The point of this thread was to debate the fact the catholic church is advocating an idea that condoms, somehow miraculously, cause its users to get HIV/AIDS and Abstinence and Celibacy will some how stop it. The idea has "FUBAR" pasted on it.

Fuck a 1st world country knows a fucking condom will stop both pregnancy and STI's to a certain extent, and Abstinence does shit all. HIV/AIDS is transferred by bodily fluids; blood, sperm, pre-sperm, vaginal fluids, will all contain the HIV/AIDS.

If majority of a country practices safe sex, the problem will slowly die down, yes it will take a long time, but not nearly as long as a fucked idea that the church has decided to shit out.

As for the Rapists shit, that was a shot at the whole idea of celibacy "protecting" people of becoming victims to the disease. Yes i know obviously that they wouldnt care about religion or some other belief, but they will still have the disease one way or another and they will spread it.

 

[Tully B.]

You must spread reputation around before giving it to katie_tully again.

I must now, must I? I guess I will.

 

[Lentern]

I'm sorry, I simply do not understand your logic. How is stemming the supply of contraception any different from taking contraception back? The only difference I can see is that taking it away would mean they run out of it sooner. Taking away a positive influence (or influencing the taking out of a positive influence, if that makes sense) does equate to a negative influence. I just don't know how you can see it otherwise. I'll try to think of an analogy to simplify it.

OK, again with the car-seatbelt stuff. Seatbelts save lives. Check. Take away the seatbelt, what do you get? Less lives saved. Can we blame the people who took away the seatbelts? Nooooo, 'cause it's not like dey put bombs in da cars or nufin'.

Personal opinion of mine, don't use analogies, unless you have a beard and a thick foreign accent they rarely help.

With that being said I will reply with one because I am feeling lazy.

Imagine a massive company donates thousands of dollars a year to St Vincent de Paul. St Vinnies uses that amount of money to provide shelter and food for homeless people. The trade union at the company demands a pay rise and to make the pay rise without cutting into profits the company stops donating to St Vinnies. Are the trade unionists/workers responsible for number of homeless people on the streets?

 

[Lentern]

I think that essentially sums everything up.

I think a few well chosen four letter words essentially sums you up.


I don't really but opportunity only knocks once, and he would repeat this at every opportunity.

 

[moll.]

I think a few well chosen four letter words essentially sums you up.

Is "cool" one of them?

 

[Lentern]

The point of this thread was to debate the fact the catholic church is advocating an idea that condoms, somehow miraculously, cause its users to get HIV/AIDS and Abstinence and Celibacy will some how stop it. The idea has "FUBAR" pasted on it.

Fuck a 1st world country knows a fucking condom will stop both pregnancy and STI's to a certain extent, and Abstinence does shit all. HIV/AIDS is transferred by bodily fluids; blood, sperm, pre-sperm, vaginal fluids, will all contain the HIV/AIDS.

If majority of a country practices safe sex, the problem will slowly die down, yes it will take a long time, but not nearly as long as a fucked idea that the church has decided to shit out.

As for the Rapists shit, that was a shot at the whole idea of celibacy "protecting" people of becoming victims to the disease. Yes i know obviously that they wouldnt care about religion or some other belief, but they will still have the disease one way or another and they will spread it.

Whatever the purpose of this thread I was personally responding to whether the Catholic Church is to be blamed partially or otherwise for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Whether or not contraceptives can curtail the problem more effectively or whether or not some innocents will sadly fall victim to rape is neither here nor there.

 

[Tully B.]

Personal opinion of mine, don't use analogies, unless you have a beard and a thick foreign accent they rarely help.

With that being said I will reply with one because I am feeling lazy.

Imagine a massive company donates thousands of dollars a year to St Vincent de Paul. St Vinnies uses that amount of money to provide shelter and food for homeless people. The trade union at the company demands a pay rise and to make the pay rise without cutting into profits the company stops donating to St Vinnies. Are the trade unionists/workers responsible for number of homeless people on the streets?

I don't have a beard, but I can do a pretty good Irish accent.
That analogy is flawed, because the trade unionists aren't expressly asking for money to be taken out of St Vinnies and into them, they're just asking for money. And even in the analogy you provide, I would have to say that the trade unionists, without knowing anything about money being taken out of St Vinnies, are still partially responsible.

The Catholic Church urges the ceasing of the distribution of contraception, and the reason they give isn't that it can be spent better elsewhere, it is that using contraception is wrong. I don't have a citation for this atthemoment, but if you want one, I'm pretty sure I can find it.

Whatever the purpose of this thread I was personally responding to whether the Catholic Church is to be blamed partially or otherwise for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Whether or not contraceptives can curtail the problem more effectively or whether or not some innocents will sadly fall victim to rape is neither here nor there.

I agree with you here. Unless people are accusing HIV-ridden priests of raping African citizens, the issue of rape is irrelevant to this thread. If, however, that is the case, please share.
We are talking about the (possible) ways that the Church influences the spread of HIV, and those ways do not include people being born with it, or recieving it by way of rape (as far as I know - please tell if otherwise.)

 

[Lentern]

I don't have a beard, but I can do a pretty good Irish accent.
That analogy is flawed, because the trade unionists aren't expressly asking for money to be taken out of St Vinnies and into them, they're just asking for money. And even in the analogy you provide, I would have to say that the trade unionists, without knowing anything about money being taken out of St Vinnies, are still partially responsible.

The Catholic Church urges the ceasing of the distribution of contraception, and the reason they give isn't that it can be spent better elsewhere, it is that using contraception is wrong. I don't have a citation for this atthemoment, but if you want one, I'm pretty sure I can find it.

Well sorry but I think that is rubbish. Choosing to stop making a positive contribution does not equate to a negative contribution. If someone else is supplying the item and you intervene to stop them that might be different but governments get their money from the people, they are there to represent the people and in this case could be said to have been acting on behalf of the people.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I think a few well chosen four letter words essentially sums you up.

That's a bit childish, imo.

I'm pointing out that by claiming abstinence = complete impossibility of infection, you clearly have no idea about HIV/AIDS

I don't really but opportunity only knocks once, and he would repeat this at every opportunity.

I'm not even sure that makes sense.

 

[SnowFox]

Whatever the purpose of this thread I was personally responding to whether the Catholic Church is to be blamed partially or otherwise for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Whether or not contraceptives can curtail the problem more effectively or whether or not some innocents will sadly fall victim to rape is neither here nor there.

http://community.boredofstudies.org...ll-defends-popes-hiv-condom-comments-smh.html

They would be partly responsible if HIV/AIDS was to increase in Africa due to that stupid idea.

 

[Lentern]

That's a bit childish, imo.

I'm pointing out that by claiming abstinence = complete impossibility of infection, you clearly have no idea about HIV/AIDS


I'm not even sure that makes sense.

Of course its not completely impossible but when it comes to causes that can be prevented via practical means it is safer than driving a car.

It's a line from Catch 22.

 

[Lentern]

http://community.boredofstudies.org...ll-defends-popes-hiv-condom-comments-smh.html

They would be partly responsible if HIV/AIDS was to increase in Africa due to that stupid idea.

They would not and the reason is this. Anyone who adheres to the popes teaching will be no less likely to contract HIV/AIDS if the pope had no stance on condoms. The only people who will be negatively affected are those who arrogantly decide to interprate catholic teachings themselves and cast aside pivotal parts of the Popes teaching.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Of course its not completely impossible

Wtf are you talking about? You said this:

a peoples who do practise abstinance will not get hiv.

It is obviously incorrect. Case closed.

 

[Lentern]

Wtf are you talking about? You said this:




It is obviously incorrect. Case closed.

then why did you claim that if people are going to practise contraception they will not get hiv... now you are just been inconsistant

I sincerely apologise for treating the both of you with so muc respect as to expect you to be sensible and accept the implications of such comments rather than demand I waste time quibbling over valid but irrelevant technicalities. This is a broad problem that must be dealt with broadly, it cannot be practically micromanaged. Once again I apologise and will make sure I show the same manners and good grace towards the pair of you that you have thus far shown towards me.

 

[SnowFox]

They would not and the reason is this. Anyone who adheres to the popes teaching will be no less likely to contract HIV/AIDS if the pope had no stance on condoms. The only people who will be negatively affected are those who arrogantly decide to interprate catholic teachings themselves and cast aside pivotal parts of the Popes teaching.

Wait..what?

The pope says Condoms and the use of Condoms will increase HIV/AIDS, Welfare services are teaching people that Condoms are safe.

If the 46.5% of African Population (who are Christian) follow the popes word of mouth, then hell will break loose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

 

[Lentern]

Wait..what?

The pope says Condoms and the use of Condoms will increase HIV/AIDS, Welfare services are teaching people that Condoms are safe.

If the 46.5% of African Population (who are Christian) follow the popes word of mouth, then hell will break loose.

Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If 46.5% of them follow the popes word then they will be abstaining and at a lower risk of contracing AIDS then if they were having unrestrained sex with anything that moves but using a rubber.

 

[SnowFox]

If 46.5% of them follow the popes word then they will be abstaining and at a lower risk of contracing AIDS then if they were having unrestrained sex with anything that moves but using a rubber.

But after they are married, they are still being told condoms are evil.

 

[Lentern]

But after they are married, they are still being told condoms are evil.

It's not one partner relationships that are causing it to spread like wildfire. Keep in mind also the pope says divorce is evil so it is absolutely one partner.

 

[SylviaB]

Lentern stop this bullshit where you act like "Oh well yeah, the Pope blatantly lies and says that condoms spread aids and don't work, but who cares, no harm done, they shouldn't be having sex anyway."

1. People are raped, and condoms enable sex between married couples without possibly spreading any dieseases contracted.
2. People are born with aids, and condoms allow married couples etc etc.
3. Africa is already way way overpopulated; did you know that a quarter of allow greenhouse emissions each year come from the razing of African forrests and other plants so that there is enough room for the rapidly expanding population to live? And did you know that there is a massive fucking food and water shortage in Africa?
Condoms allow married couples to have sex without having shit loads of kids, somethign Africa REALLY does not need atm.