quote:
Zaza wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I really hope to see the day when the Catholic Church adopts more humane views on sex.
You mean when the Catholic Church stops realizing that personal responsibility falls in with whether or not someone contracts AIDs in many cases and starts treating the world like the animals you think they are?
It's our choices in life that separate us from the beasts. We choose not to follow our base urges and instead try to live to some standard of moral decency. I applaud the Catholic Church on that regard, even if I disagree with many other parts.
And I don't see where it's logical to fault an organization from expecting people to be humans, and not dogs rutting around looking for the next nice piece of ass.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
You mean when the Catholic Church stops realizing that personal responsibility falls in with whether or not someone contracts AIDs in many cases and starts treating the world like the animals you think they are?It's our choices in life that separate us from the beasts. We choose not to follow our base urges and instead try to live to some standard of moral decency. I applaud the Catholic Church on that regard, even if I disagree with many other parts.
And I don't see where it's logical to fault an organization from expecting people to be humans, and not dogs rutting around looking for the next nice piece of ass.
This is usually something I would fully agree with, in this case however it isn't the whole story. Africa is full of people who are illiterate and not nearly as informed as we are, just look at the horrible reports of people raping infants because they believe that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS. Churches would be in a unique position there to reach the people who may attend church but who are not willing to completely change their lifestyle in the name of religion and make at least some difference. If this were a western situation where people are basically bombarded with contraceptives and information about AIDS from other sources it would be a different story. Mod fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:42 AM.
Also the Catholic doctrine on sex goes way beyond telling people to not run around like a pack of horny monkeys, condemning basically every form of sexual activity that involves contraceptives, even for married couples. Even people who are fully capable of restraining themselves if they wanted to might not want to pick between having children and never having sex with their wife.
quote:
Callalron stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
I wasn't making a second argument. My point there was "You don't have to think kindly of the dead. You could just say nothing." I can only assume all this comes from either hostility to religion, or jerkiness for the sake of being a jerk. Since this board (and the 'net in general) and jerkhood go hand-in-hand, that one was kind of a given, so it wasn't offered up as a choice. Plus, my overdeveloped sense of cynicism automatically leads me to assign the worst possible motive to people's actions.And army of strawmen? This must be that "Army of One" thing I keep hearing about.
Of course. 'Obviously' you can derive my motive from my posts without fault, just as 'obviously' I can see that you are a fundie.
I quite vividly remember you doing this several other times to me and others in similar debates. I'll dig it up if you absolutely don't want to take my word for it, but I really just suggest you start sticking to the point instead of this game of extrapolation de. I didn't say anything in the other thread about the Pope, I wasn't going to jump in on the whole thing at all until Maradon started with his usual europhobia crap. The idea that you 'know' people are arguing just to be jerks is ridiculous, and you really should stay out of any discourse if that's what you're gonna follow on, because it just makes you look dumb.
And yes, you really did create a second, distorted argument. The argument was over wheter the Pope was a good person and wheter it's okay not to mourn him. Throwing "You just hate religion!" carries no value except to distract people from the main point and discredit the person you're arguing with by inventing a motive for them. A very typical strawman. Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 09:14 AM.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael had this to say about the Spice Girls:
You mean when the Catholic Church stops realizing that personal responsibility falls in with whether or not someone contracts AIDs in many cases and starts treating the world like the animals you think they are?It's our choices in life that separate us from the beasts. We choose not to follow our base urges and instead try to live to some standard of moral decency. I applaud the Catholic Church on that regard, even if I disagree with many other parts.
And I don't see where it's logical to fault an organization from expecting people to be humans, and not dogs rutting around looking for the next nice piece of ass.
It's personal responsibility if you're lied to about the efficency of condoms and prevented from accessing them no matter what your moral basis is? 
What on EARTH is human about entirely repressing the urge to have sex? It's not like it's "Either you live in chastity or you have sex with anything that moves", there is this crazy thing called a middle ground. Having sex is just as natural as eating.
What is this "standard of moral decency", precisely? How much sex is okay before you're an indecent animal? Does it vary based on wheter you live in Africa or the First World? Is "enforced ignorance" one of its primary goals? Is it okay to shove it down the throat of people who aren't interested in its teachings? Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 09:22 AM.
-or-
It's definitely a better message to tell people who are HIV positive to just wrap it up rather than getting them to stop all together.
I think the Pope did enough good things in his life that he commands a certain amount of respect. He was very progressive in a number of areas, and nit picking on abstinence is just the cool thing for some pseudo-intellectuals to do, IMO.
-Tok
quote:
Toktuk had this to say about Robocop:
I never knew there all these Catholics running around in African tribes who would instantly start using condoms and stop spreading the AIDS if only the Pope would just tell the duders to wrap it up.-or-
It's definitely a better message to tell people who are HIV positive to just wrap it up rather than getting them to stop all together.
I think the Pope did enough good things in his life that he commands a certain amount of respect. He was very progressive in a number of areas, and nit picking on abstinence is just the cool thing for some pseudo-intellectuals to do, IMO.
-Tok
Pointing out the despicable thing in refusing people access to condoms in a HIV-plagued area is "nit picking"?
Wow, you're a horribly callous person.
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Tron:
There are a lot of people that did a lot of great things in their life that are also at least partially responsible for some... not so good things. I don't think it's okay to say, "but..but.. he did these good things! Therefore, the bad things don't matter at all and anyone that thinks that they do is obviously just a jackass who is only saying it because he hates religion/Christianity/Catholicism."
You make it sound as if, by supporting abstinance, the Pope has committed crimes against humanity or something.
quote:
Zaza had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Pointing out the despicable thing in refusing people access to condoms in a HIV-plagued area is "nit picking"?Wow, you're a horribly callous person.
There are tons of groups offering condoms in Africa. Are you suggesting that preaching abstinance is worse than doing nothing?
-Tok Toktuk fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 04:59 PM.
quote:
Toktuk's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
There are tons of groups offering condoms in Africa. Are you suggesting that preaching abstinance is worse than doing nothing?-Tok
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 05:21 PM.
He should take some of the blame, just because he was in charge of the people who did spread the lies, but I have not seen any evidence that he is directly responsible for the policy, or that he showed any support for the policy.
quote:
Kinanik had this to say about (_|_):
Just because the church was doing it, doesn't mean the Pope supported it.He should take some of the blame, just because he was in charge of the people who did spread the lies, but I have not seen any evidence that he is directly responsible for the policy, or that he showed any support for the policy.
So where did he condemn the lies being spread by his subordinates?
Also did you even read the articles posted earlier? He's staunchly against condoms + he hasn't condemned or put a stop to spreading lies about condoms + he's the head of the Catholic Church = he's blamefree?
k.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Zaza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm
If a group makes the accusation, it must be true!
quote:
Nobody really understood why Sakkra wrote:
If a group makes the accusation, it must be true!
I'm sure that the fact that UNAid and WHO both chose to put credit to the claims means they were completely baseless and grasped from thin air. They probably just invented that interview with Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, and noone noticed at all! Especially the bishop himself that they lied about, why'd he take any offense to that? Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 05:36 PM.
quote:
Sakkra was listening to Cher while typing:
If a group makes the accusation, it must be true!
Yeah especially a group as unbiased as WHO. I mean they would never lie would they. 
quote:
Zaza had this to say about dark elf butts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm
quote:
It says cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.
That's a really dumbed down version of a true statement. Condoms are not 100% effective, using condoms does not completely stop the spread of HIV. It turns out that the only way to be 100% sure you do not pass on HIV is to...practice abstinance. I know, it's shocking.
If a religious group is against birth control, would you rather them do nothing or preach abstinance?
-Tok
quote:
Zaza really needs to get laid:
So where did he condemn the lies being spread by his subordinates?Also did you even read the articles posted earlier? He's staunchly against condoms + he hasn't condemned or put a stop to spreading lies about condoms + he's the head of the Catholic Church = he's blamefree?
k.
Did you read the part of my post where I said he should take some of the blame?
quote:
Toktuk screamed this from the crapper:
That's a really dumbed down version of a true statement. Condoms are not 100% effective, using condoms does not completely stop the spread of HIV. It turns out that the only way to be 100% sure you do not pass on HIV is to...practice abstinance. I know, it's shocking.If a religious group is against birth control, would you rather them do nothing or preach abstinance?
-Tok
Bullshit. Latex condoms, if properly used, prevent the transmission of HIV. They fail due to A) human error or B) manufacturing defect, and that's it. There is no inherent design flaw that allows HIV to pass through, which is what that statement, by virture of its omission of A) and B) above, implies.
Moreover, HIV statistics bear out the idea that condoms are effective in retarding the spread of HIV. So not only are they misrepresenting their statements, but they are ignoring the facts. Let them preach abstinence all they want; the main issue is that they lie about condom effectiveness.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Nobody really understood why Toktuk wrote:
That's a really dumbed down version of a true statement. Condoms are not 100% effective, using condoms does not completely stop the spread of HIV. It turns out that the only way to be 100% sure you do not pass on HIV is to...practice abstinance. I know, it's shocking.If a religious group is against birth control, would you rather them do nothing or preach abstinance?
-Tok
Do you lie to yourself or just to other people?
Just curious.
As Karnaj said, condoms, used properly, are 100% effective at stopping AIDS - and saying "nothing or abstinence" is ridiculous obfuscation since the problem isn't abstinence teaching, it's preventing contraception teaching.
Keep on though, I'm sure your conscience is clear, happy and full of pink clouds.
quote:
Kinanik thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Did you read the part of my post where I said he should take some of the blame?
Well, yes, but noone's been trying to assign him the entire blame anywhere in this therad, so... Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 06:55 PM.
Let me make something clear: I'm not against the use of condoms. But you aren't going to change a religious organizations views overnight. You will not force the Catholic church into supporting birth control if they don't want to. So, with that in mind, are you honestly saying that teaching about abstinance is worse than doing nothing? If that's your argument, all I can say is that I think you've walked away from reality, because from my viewpoint, abstinance IS a form of birth control and disease prevention.
-Tok Toktuk fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:36 PM.
quote:
Toktuk got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Are you two fuckers seriously arguing that it's just as safe or safer for someone who is HIV positive to use a condom instead of not having sex at all? I want to see you dig up the studies that show that condoms are 100% effective as a form of birth control or disease prevention. The motherfucking condom manufacturers don't even claim that shit.Let me make something clear: I'm not against the use of condoms. But you aren't going to change a religious organizations views overnight. You will not force the Catholic church into supporting birth control if they don't want to. So, with that in mind, are you honestly saying that teaching about abstinance is worse than doing nothing? If that's your argument, all I can say is that I think you've walked away from reality, because from my viewpoint, abstinance IS a form of birth control and disease prevention.
-Tok
I'm saying that teaching abstinence and repressing contraception is worse than doing nothing. If you'd stop omitting that uncomfortable little second bit of it it'd probably make more sense to your oh-so-grounded-in-reality mind.
Also how does "you will change nothing" come into play exactly? Does the fact that the catholic church's view are set in stone somehow make them magically okay? Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:40 PM.
quote:
Zaza enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I'm saying that teaching abstinence and repressing contraception is worse than doing nothing. If you'd stop omitting that uncomfortable little second bit of it it'd probably make more sense to your oh-so-grounded-in-reality mind.Also how does "you will change nothing" come into play exactly? Does the fact that the catholic church's view are set in stone somehow make them magically okay?
1) Contraception is less effective than not having sex. That's the end of it. Just because you dance around and claim that it's not true because they're designed to be foolproof doesn't change anything. Manufacturing defects are the entire reason they're not 100% effective.
EDIT: And considering the conditions that condoms in Africa are probably transported and stored in, I'm sure that condom effectiveness is reduced even more.
2) The church's policies are not set in stone. Like every religious organization, they adjust their social viewpoints much slower than the rest of the world does. But I don't think that's even been the argument here. You guys keep arguing about abstinance. My stand on abstinance is that it really isn't a bad thing, and there are clear benefits to it.
-Tok Toktuk fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:50 PM.
-Tok Toktuk fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:50 PM.
Vorago fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 07:54 PM.
quote:
Toktuk had this to say about Knight Rider:
1) Contraception is less effective than not having sex. That's the end of it. Just because you dance around and claim that it's not true because they're designed to be foolproof doesn't change anything. Manufacturing defects are the entire reason they're not 100% effective.EDIT: And considering the conditions that condoms in Africa are probably transported and stored in, I'm sure that condom effectiveness is reduced even more.
2) The church's policies are not set in stone. Like every religious organization, they adjust their social viewpoints much slower than the rest of the world does. But I don't think that's even been the argument here. You guys keep arguing about abstinance. My stand on abstinance is that it really isn't a bad thing, and there are clear benefits to it.
-Tok
1) This, however, is utterly irrelevant as teaching contraception is shown to have much greater results in reducing AIDS than abstinence, so by fighting the method of contraception to replace it with their own, they are essentially doing the same as trying to replace cancer treatment with healing prayers. Causing needless deaths.
2) You're the one that went on a "you will change nothing! NOOOTHING!" spat.
quote:
Zaza wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
1) This, however, is utterly irrelevant as teaching contraception is shown to have much greater results in reducing AIDS than abstinence, so by fighting the method of contraception to replace it with their own, they are essentially doing the same as trying to replace cancer treatment with healing prayers. Causing needless deaths.2) You're the one that went on a "you will change nothing! NOOOTHING!" spat.
1) Fine, if you think so highly of the effectiveness of condoms, we'll line up an HIV positive chick for you to fuck. Just wrap it up and go to town. No worries, right?
2) No, I said *you* (as in, a non-Catholics) are't going to change anything with the Catholic church. The followers of the church make the internal change.
-Tok
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Toktuk said this:
1) Fine, if you think so highly of the effectiveness of condoms, we'll line up an HIV positive chick for you to fuck. Just wrap it up and go to town. No worries, right?2) No, I said *you* (as in, a non-Catholics) are't going to change anything with the Catholic church. The followers of the church make the internal change.
-Tok
1) Are you stupid, willfully obfuscating, or just utterly devoid of reading comprehension? Contraception works better because many more people are willing to use contraception than are willing to give up sex entirely. The effectiveness of condoms in each given situation DOES NOT EVEN COME INTO PLAY. You just keep bringing it up because... I honestly don't know why you keep bringing it up.
2) And this was relevant to the argument how?
quote:
Zaza wrote this stupid crap:
1) Are you stupid, willfully obfuscating, or just utterly devoid of reading comprehension? Contraception works better because many more people are willing to use contraception than are willing to give up sex entirely. The effectiveness of condoms in each given situation DOES NOT EVEN COME INTO PLAY. You just keep bringing it up because... I honestly don't know why you keep bringing it up.
The vibe I'm getting here is that teaching people about abstinance is an inherently bad thing. Abstinance is not a bad thing. People throwing out condoms and not providing information that they can fail isn't exactly a positive practice, IMO. So you've got a religious going around telling people that the only way to be sure is to not have sex.
What I think is that it's better to have someone going around saying that condoms aren't 100% effective rather than no one pointing out the downsides of condoms. The only way you can *really* educate people and move them into the 21st century is to stop treating them like animals. Condoms will do a better job of slowing the spread of AIDS, yes, but it's not a negative thing to have another group appealing to people to have some self control. The two extremes work as a counter weight to bring things to a positive middle ground.
-Tok
quote:
Toktuk's fortune cookie read:
The vibe I'm getting here is that teaching people about abstinance is an inherently bad thing. Abstinance is not a bad thing. People throwing out condoms and not providing information that they can fail isn't exactly a positive practice, IMO. So you've got a religious going around telling people that the only way to be sure is to not have sex.What I think is that it's better to have someone going around saying that condoms aren't 100% effective rather than no one pointing out the downsides of condoms. The only way you can *really* educate people and move them into the 21st century is to stop treating them like animals. Condoms will do a better job of slowing the spread of AIDS, yes, but it's not a negative thing to have another group appealing to people to have some self control. The two extremes work as a counter weight to bring things to a positive middle ground.
-Tok
Well, unfortunately the "vibe" you're getting has nothing to do with the argument at hand, unless you'd like to point out where anyone condemned teaching abstinence in itself. Nor has your opinion about what's efficent, as abstinence is proven to be a pretty dismal failure for preventing AIDS, while contraception works. It doesn't work all the time, but, nothing does. Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 08:42 PM.
quote:
Mr. Liam? That sounds too much like Mr. Shit.
Teaching people abstinance is nice and all, but it won't cut down on anything.
did you know u can get aids from tears??
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean was naked while typing this:
did you know u can get aids from tears??
TOILET SEAT
quote:
Zaza had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Well, unfortunately the "vibe" you're getting has nothing to do with the argument at hand, unless you'd like to point out where anyone condemned teaching abstinence in itself. Nor has your opinion about what's efficent, as abstinence is proven to be a pretty dismal failure for preventing AIDS, while contraception works. It doesn't work all the time, but, nothing does.
The whole fucking thread was a bitchfest on the Catholic Church/Pope's on message on birth control and disease control - abstinance. My opinion on what is the most efficient was stated in the prior reply - and I did not say that abstinance alone was the most efficient overall - on an individual basis, someone not having sex is less likely to contract AIDS than someone who is with condoms.
My argument is: Condoms work as a short term solution for AIDS. But you need to teach people about being patient & selective about their sexual partners to have lasting long term benefits. Some groups focus on condoms, some on abstinance. If both continue to do what they do, then the end result over time is better than if you had focused on one or the other.
-Tok Toktuk fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 08:59 PM.
quote:
Toktuk spewed forth this undeniable truth:
The whole fucking thread was a bitchfest on the Catholic Church/Pope's on message on birth control and disease control - abstinance. My opinion on what is the most efficient was stated in the prior reply - and I did not say that abstinance alone was the most efficient overall - on an individual basis, someone not having sex is less likely to contract AIDS than someone who is with condoms.My argument is: Condoms work as a short term solution for AIDS. But you need to teach people about being patient & selective about their sexual partners to have lasting long term benefits.
-Tok
No it wasn't. You keep saying so but it's basically just a lie. The "whole fucking thread" was a bitchfest about repressing the teaching of contraception in favor of something that doesn't work very well. You're not even arguing with any real people, you're arguing with the voices in your head or something.
Teaching abstinence as the safest path is FINE as long as contraception is also taught along with it for all the people who will, quite simply, not refrain from having sex no matter how often they're told it's good for them. Now that you managed to actually get an answer to your off-topic drivel, will you STOP bringing it up and maybe, just maybe, go back on topic?
Do you think it's okay to block out contraception teaching confirm/deny. Zaza fucked around with this message on 04-03-2005 at 09:05 PM.
quote:
Zaza had this to say about dark elf butts:
No it wasn't. You keep saying so but it's basically just a lie. The "whole fucking thread" was a bitchfest about reperssing the teaching of contraception in favor of something that doesn't work very well. You're not even arguing with any real people, you're arguing with the voices in your head or something.
Okay, there are a handful bad apple priests telling lies about condoms. That's bad. But it's on the same level as people claiming that condoms allow you to have worry free sex. Either way, it's not giving people the whole truth.
quote:
Teaching abstinence as the safest path is FINE as long as contraception is also taught along with it for all the people who will, quite simply, not refrain from having sex no matter how often they're told it's good for them. Now will you STOP bringing up unrelated shit and maybe, just maybe, go back on topic?Do you think it's okay to block out contraception teaching confirm/deny.
You've come around to saying the same thing as I am: a combination of both messages is the best course of action.
I never said it was a good idea to block out contraception education.
-Tok
-nem
quote:
Nobody really understood why nem-x wrote:
Why do you sign your posts?-nem
Just because.
-Tok
quote:
I bet Zaza's Mother is proud:
So you're saying that contraception programs don't work then?Or alternatively, you could be saying that every Roman Catholic in Africa ignore their priests when said priests tell them that contraception is sinful, and that despite all these events of priests trying to stop distribution of condoms they have never been successful.
There is also the possibility that you're saying their preaching about abstinence works just as well as contraception.
If I'm missing any option, let me know.
They tell them contraception in sinful in the same breath as they say pre-marital sex is sinful.
If they choose to ignore one, why wouldn't they ignore both?
Oh thats right, because it prevents your villanification of a respected world leader from working. My bad.
That aside, John Paul II went out in style. Apparently, he struggled out one last 'Amen' for the people in the square, then died more or less instantly afterwards.
