Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
that's Spike Milligan
AIDS figures always stagger me. the majority of people disregard it completely now. but 32.9 million. Fuck.
For instance, I hear someone say 'abstinence' I barely look up from my paper. I hear someone say condoms, they got my attention. If that dude turns out to be the pope, it makes no odds. Dude's talking condoms.
though I wouldn't know how to measure it so I won't be a pedant about it.
I'm not denying the dubious morality of some of the men spreading the disease, but the fact that the Church provides them with a "convenient excuse" is cruel in itself. It isn't realistic to expect people to abstain and it is not only incorrect but downright evil for one of the most influential people in the world to say that condoms won't work and may even make it worse. No excuse for that. It's a fucking lie and it's plain evil.
"[it is a problem] that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
I see his logic - condoms encourage sex, which he sees as the problem. But it isn't correct - if everybody wore a condom the spread of the disease would of course be all but halted immediately.
This comes after several other high profile catholics have said that condoms simply don't work. ONe has even gone as far as to say that the virus can pass through pores in condoms. This hasn't been denounced by the Church and the Pope's comments just serve to give weight to completely false statements like that.
They have their ridiculous, outdated, ignorant fantasy and they are entitled to keep it. But they must be condemned when they use it to be responsible, whether directly or indirectly, for the death of millions.
I can't think of the pope without getting angry.
I thought all catholics listened and obeyed the pope, is this not the case?
Seriously though is anyone really surprised?
You hold some SERIOUS grudges.
Dr. Edward Green, Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Public Health (and neither a catholic nor a conservative), is with the pope on this one:
"I am a liberal on social issues and it’s difficult to admit, but the Pope is indeed right. The best evidence we have shows that condoms do not work as an intervention intended to reduce HIV infection rates, in Africa. (They have worked in e.g. Thailand and Cambodia, which have very different epidemics)
What we see in fact is an association between greater condom use and higher infection rates. We don’t know all the reasons for this but part of it is due to what we call risk compensation. This means that a man using condoms believes that they are more effective than they really are, and so he ends up taking greater sexual risks. Another fact which is widely overlooked is that condoms are used when people are engaging in casual or commercial sex. People don’t use condoms with spouses or regular partners. So if condom rates go up, it may be that we are seeing an increase of casual sex"
ps. I think this thread borders on the offensive. Try referring to the leader of any other significant religious group as a "cunt" and see how far that gets you.
I have to say I was a little bit surprised that no ones really picked up on this, just because you might not follow religion to come out with 'The Cunt of a Pope is everything that's wrong with The World' is grossly offensive to anyone who reads this site, that might be a christian.
Whats the Muslim stance on contraception, I'm sure its just as measured and controlled as the Catholic Church, will ehwhat be starting a thread entitled 'Mohammed is a cunt'?
Mohammed has been dead for 1400 years. I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to say about the Aids epidemic.
For the record, I was raised a Catholic and I don't have a problem with the thread title.
I have no problem with that whatsoever
I think he's fudging his own nuanced opinions by saying "the Pope is probably right". The Pope is of course an ideologue when it comes to contraception, while Green's stance on condoms is:
"I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship."
I think he's got a point when he talks about risk compensation, but the same thing could be said about crash helmets causing motorcyclists to drive faster. Should we play down the health benefits of helmets so people slow down on curves?
The more vital point he's making about the fight against AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is that the disease is mostly transmitted in the kinds of semi-casual relationships which are the norm there, i.e. transmitted when people DON'T use condoms, because the partners trust each other, even though they're not actually being faithful.
"These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships."
So Green knows that unless we accept that condom availability is only part of the solution a lot of people are going to keep on dying. I think he's throwing in with the Pope because he's frustrated with liberal squeamishness in talking about these factors, which are ultimately cultural.
clearly the pope ad Dr Green are not arguing for exactly the same thing. But what is interesting is the fact that as soon as the pope said it, there was an immediate assumption that what he was saying was untrue, anti-science etc etc, when in fact his point is at least arguable scientifically.
At any rate, the Pope's message was mainly about the importance of abstinence and fidelity, not condoms. His position, if you read what he has actually said and written, is nuanced (albeit dogmatically informed).
But I have strong suspicions that he'd be happy to selectively quote the science that (kind of) backs up his position and bury research that contradicts it, because WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE SPERMATOZOA?!
And if there's any truth to the Vatican spreading tales about tiny AIDS holes in condoms then that's flat out evil.
and generally very reasonable, it's worth noting that risk compensation (in general terms) can be a very difficult effect to actually find/show. Even in the health psychology literature it's mostly spoken of as a hypothetical thing (as in even when you can see evidence of what might be risk compensation taking place, there are often better explanations). There's a guy in the US called Brewer (I think) who's doing very interesting stuff on it..
ehwhat, the "would I say the same thing about Mo" rule is always a good one. Not because religious people have a right not to be offended, but because it's good to not be a hypocrite.
what i would love to see would be someone at the granuiad sanctioning that headline, and then them introducing their typos to give
'Pope Condones Condoms'
but i agree with your point.....although its not really relevant.......like any other strict, heirarchical central control power system, the RC church is primarily concerned with its power not waning.....other considerations seem subordinate to this.....it is a power structure....just like capitalist corporations....it is not interested (per se) in peoples wellfare, IT is interested in maintaining ITs power.
Now individual humans within these sorts of bodies may wish to care more for people, and if the numbers of humans who are componants in the church or corporations are large enough then the objectives of the church/corporations may be modified, but never mistake the underlying raison d'etre for these power bodies......'to survive and prosper'
they pick the pope that they think might ensure this best, whether he be an ex-nazi or whatever
This is probably as good a place as any to field that. He was a member of the Hitler Youth, not the Nazi party. Membership was required of all boys his age. He was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings because he felt it conflicted with his faith (see http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm)
Now, if you want to call him an "ex-Nazi" go ahead. But it seems to me that to be consistent you'd have to condemn all Germans of a certain age, regardless of party membership - and even if they resisted - as ex-Nazis.
And maybe my original post was a little hyperbolic and borne through frustration in the heat of the moment, but it's just now and then that organised religion gets my goat so much that it just comes out...it usually takes a few strongbows though!
if your side lost so badly?
here it is again: http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm
but noooo because its an elder with a fucking stupid great big white hat and it may upset a few luny bins in the proccess we cant say a word!
Tonight I think im gonna have an orgie with aids ridden hookers with condoms just to prove a point, orrrr kidknapp the pope present him infront of a aids ridden hooker at gun point and tell him to either choose no condom or condom, take photos and then dennounce the whole religion as an out of date, money grabbing instertution and then return to my game of Fifa where im not harming anyone.
from what I understand he's said Abstinence is more effective than condoms at stopping AIDS....which he is right about.
But has any Pope ever had a cunt?