Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids - Page 4  

Oh c'mon everyone. This has to be trolling right?

I LOVE this thread.

For god sakes. Just don't ask him about the fossil record!

I never said we should eliminate it. I'm just pointing out what wonderful insight there is.

No, it's not a wonderful insight. It's something that everyone already knows. It's fundamental to the system.

I've got fossils in my pubes. God put them there to test me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
[B]

Nice, only:
- This works, if you are *very* accurate in your temperatur measurements, and abstain from fvcking 6 days before ovulation to maybe 4 days after. To reach 1%, you have an infertility window between the 18th and 24th day - thats 6 days out of 31.

If you are less strict, the method has a failure rate of about 15% (the pill is less than 1%, condoms around 5%) AND you can contract *any* STD. Great choice indeed.

Link 1

Link 2


Sorry to disappoint you, i went to a fertillity test (exactly because a former gf wanted to get off the pill), and my fertillity is slightly above average (switched to condoms and she never became pregnant )

Besides - I expressly stated that I never broke or lost a condom. AFAIK there is no medical condition known that would account for that (leave my dicksize out of it, it's just fine )

Actually, you didn't address what I said in the least.

ohforfuxake

1) Condoms reduce AIDS. Significantly.

2) Condoms don't have tiny ****ing holes in them that let sperm through.

3) The Church has taken a FAITH-based point of view, not a scientific one, and it happens to be totally ****ing wrong. People will DIE in fact, if they follow the 'thinking'.

4) The only sort of person who would attempt a DEFENCE of this (as we say outside of the US, you small-minded parochial ****stick) is someone so incapable of the correct use of prophylactics he gets seminal fluid all over his curlies when he uses a condom and conflates vaginal lubrication with sperm.

The End.

I think you have to laugh that there can be so many completely opposite opinions. It seems obvious to me and the opposite seems obvious to you. I think the bitterness that people are showing in this thread are the result of frustrations with the world. I think maybe I could never say it better than that song from Mike and the Mechanics.

Every generation blames the one before when all of their frustrations come beating on your door. I know that I'm a prisoner to all my Father held so dear. I know that I'm a hostage to all his hopes and fears

...

Crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thought;
Stilted conversations, I'm afraid that's all we've got.

You say you just don't see it. He says it's perfect sense. You just can't get agreement in this present tense. We all talk a different language, talking in defense.

...

So we open up a quarrel, between the present and the past.
We only sacrifice the future, it's the bitterness that lasts.


...

I'm sure I heard his echo in my baby's new born tears.


...

What a great song. But its the bitterness that lasts... Look anywhere in the world... Its not God, or religion, or government, or anybody to blame besides the bitterness that makes us say and do stupid things. I understand that people have lost faith in God. I think, again, is the consequence of man, not God. For another thing, obeying God is going to be difficult sometimes. Don't use that as an excuse to write him off. And don't read the angry words of bitterness and assume that your seeing the true voice of the Catholic Church. If you want to know the stance they really take on an issue, find out from the official doctrines of the church.

Ah BTW Jukebox, there is another little thing...

Failure rates are always given on a yearly base (no per individual screw). So your bogus calculation from two pages up gets even more bogus.

Usually, couples have a lot of sex over the course of one year, so the likelyhood of exchanging bodily fluids (involuntarily of course - at times women juice can be quite a great thing ) is something like 5% / screwsperyear - for a non-moronic couple thats in the promille range.

As I am trying to live a life free of indoctrination - thanks, but no thanks, the martyr pose you are strinking does not move my heart

What position do you expect the church to take? Besides, if you hate Catholics so much, you should be happy that we're all going to die of AIDS.

No, nothing bogus. They still don't account for the fact that a woman is not fertile but a small percentage of the time.

Hardly a martyr pose to simply state my observations without substantial risk of reprocussion.

I don't know what I expect them to take, but they should take an intelligent one.

And it's sick of you to say someone should hope Catholics die of AIDS. Sick in the head. A majority of the people in this thread that are upset with what was said are in favor of less people dying of AIDS.

The church lied. I hope whoever's responsible rots in their hell.

Okay, I ask all of you:

How often do condoms fail for you?

I've had two condoms break. One involved ejaculation and *could* have resulted in pregnancy (fortunately it didn't).

That's out of the couple of thousand condoms I must've used. That's not 5%.

That's 0% resulting in pregnancy.
That's let's say 2/2000 or 0.1% failure rate for STD risk (and 0% actual transmission).

Have any of you experienced condom failure, and at what rate?

The 5% rate just seems ridiculous for me. If you use it correctly, it should be much, much less frequent than that.

I don't hope anyone dies of AIDS.


What did they lie about?


Rotting in hell is a far worse fate than the momentary act of dying and moving on to something better. Who's sick now?

....But Here's a better one

Altogether now:

...every sperm is great, if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate

You've GOT to be kidding, right?

They said that using condoms increases the risk of AIDS.

What did they lie about? Where is your brain?

Tonton, they've got a track record of lies in other departments too so it's not really surprising. In fact you could make a conclusive and irrefutable argument that the whole Catholic doctrine (make that Christian) is built on a tower of lies.

The Bible itself contradicts itself with monotonous regularity on verifiable historical data (amongst a myriad of other issues) which to any thinking person would strongly suggest the possibility of error in one of the proposed viewpoints. As these opposing statements are not presented as hypotheticals but as 'absolute divine truth' then this must, by definition, mean one of them is a lie.

That's how lame the Catholic Church historically is - it has total control of the populace by suppressing literacy and only allowing priests/monks to transcribe the Bible which they then adjust to their own agenda, and they still can't get it together to 'fix' the contradictions. Unbelievable.

Btw - meanwhile back in the real world, check out this breaking news:

Arrested priest had stash of Porn and Nazi memorabilia

And, doesn't it? Let's see:

- No sex.
- Sex with condoms.

Which one increases likelyhood of infection over the other? Where's your brain? Try to use it sometimes.

The amount of intelligent posts in this thread is so low, it's amazing. Read alcimedes' post, I think it more or less explains the church's stance (Purpose of Sex == Children, nothing else). I think they completely lost touch with reality, but that doesn't mean they lie or their logic is flawed, the premises are (in today's world).


Now for you, Math Hero:


a*x + b*x = c

=> (a + b)*x = c | distributive law

if a + b == 1

=> x = c


Maybe you need some numbers:

(28/30)*leak_rate+(2/30)*leak_rate=.01

=> (28/30 + 2/30)*leak_rate = 0.01
=> 1 * leak_rate = 0.01

NOW SOLVE THAT EQUATION!!

What does that tell us? Nothing, I'd say.

But not using condoms != no sex. You can't correlate these two pieces to fabricate your equation simply because they're not related.

If you have sex, using a condom is safer. If you don't have sex, that's safest of all. The unifying factor isn't the condom, it's if you do or don't have sex. The church is skipping that part of the equation and fabricating their answer.

It's illogical. And it's a blatant lie. It's also going to kill people. Proper education will save lives, not lying to them.

The fact is that the Church doesn't give a flying f** whether people catch AIDS from any other means - they just are opportunistically seeing a chance to gain some support on their anti-sex obsession.

The reason (as ever) is because sex is experiential and involves a certain degree of freedom, intimacy, personal choice and responsibility (yes whatever they say, it always does). All the things that threaten the Church's stranglehold on scared, timed, narrow minds.

If you ask me they all need a damn good shagging. With a member of the opposite sex.

Correct, that means you are married and are prepared to build a family (conceive a child etc.).

And how exactly do you want to do that with a condom? Using a condom means you have sex only for pleasure which is against everything the church teaches. In other words: it is forbidden.

If you are not married, you must not have sex. If you are married, you must never change your partner again (unless he/she dies, of course).


not using condoms ==
1) no sex => P(You get AIDS) = 0
2) having sex with only one partner. Since both never had sex with anyone else => P(You get AIDS) = virtually zero (the partner has been infected through needles etc.)


So: Yes, they are related. There's simply no need for condoms. It is a sin to simply **** around and that's exactly what condoms are here for.


Wrong.


Correct. But that's because it is kind of fatal if you only listen to half of what they say.

If the church wants to preach that you can't have sex, then do it. I have no problems with that. I don't listen to them, but I don't begrudge others who make the choice to be Catholic to follow the laws of the church.

But that's not what the Vatican has said. They should come out and say sex is bad unless you're married and that you shouldn't use condoms because they're against the reproductive rules of the church. This is not what the Vatican is doing and they're being irresponsible.

You can, if you so choose, put two and two together to make five. But for the church to deceive people by hiding the veracity of their own rules and distilling their own teachings while simultaneously misrepresenting the truth is criminal.

They can teach that it's against the church to use condoms. They can also teach that it's going to kill you to live vicariously. But to teach that condoms don't help is beyond terrible. It is supposed to be up to the individual to decide if they are going to live by the rules of the church. It's not the job of the church to attempt to help people die.

Condoms help, the rules of the church are full proof. That's the truth and it's quite simple. Teach it and get your converts. To say what they did is inviting death, not religious growth and prosperity.

To you have a Biblical reference of that from Jesus Christ. I'd like to see it.

When you fail to find one perhaps you could give us your take on why sex for pleasure is a sin. Theologically.

This is exactly what the vatican has said all the time.

You really think you are allowed to have sex outside marriage?

1) Since when does the vatican need a bible reference for anything? Are we talking about the bible or about the catholic church?

2) What exactly are you talking about? You quote something and ask about something else.

If it doesn't need a Bible reference then there;s nothing stopping it changing it's rules. The only reason they are non-changeable is because they are said to come form God. God reveals himself through scripture.

This is Catholic dogma - don't you know this ??????

YES. You are 'allowed' to sex outside marriage. In my opinion. In my opinion, you are not 'allowed' to **** altar boys, but hey, I'm not a catholic.


My uncle died last week. I attended his Catholic requiem mass. I loved him. Anyone dying of AIDS is a tragedy.


No, it is not OPINION that wearing a condom reduces AIDS and in correct use acts as a superb barrier to HIV; and that spermicidal lubricant is also an excellent antiviral agent. It is a stone-cold, reproducible, invariable, demonstrable, scientifically

PROVEN. ****ING. FACT.

Damn faith, damn those who claim to speak for God when they would consign millions of innocents to a slow painful death, an avoidable death; who would see millions of orphans that never knew a parent's love; that would see nations economically crippled. If hell exists, they are going there. They are going there, them and Mike and the Mechanics.

You know, if a Jew or Muslim found themselves in a famine and nothing but pork to eat, they should. If the last two human beings on the planet had no priest to marry them, they should carry the species on.

A continent is facing a holocaust (let's be clear: millions, millions are going to die). Teaching people about fidelity in marriage, no sex before marriage and WEARING A CONDOM FOR SEX saves lives.

It saves lives.

**** this murderous dogma.

A 'church' that lets its priests screw little children and then protects them from the law is obviously a fake.

1) Who was talking about changing the rules? And what are you trying to accomplish, anyway?

2) The catholic church and the pope can say anything they like without any reference since they are infallible. Of course contradictions are not allowed. Those rules are set up by the church.

So, either point me to a bible reference that contradicts catholic teaching or stop wasting my time.


Yes, but not alone. He can also talk to the Pope for example.

I thought it was funny when it was first brought up by murbot. Now that it is the third time, I think it is just the worst kind of argumentation, kind of desperate.

And no, you're not allowed to do either one of those two things (according to catholic teaching, or are we suddenly discussing your opinions and your logic? I thought it was the catholic church's.).

Me. I am talking about changing the rules because the Catholic Church is demonstrably in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ on almost all issues and should get back in line or secularise itself.

Re your second point, I am trying to bash the Church obviously. The fact that it is also a sick institution that needs exposing before it gets any more innocents in it's evil clutches merely adds to the pleasure.


Non sequtur - look it up in your dictionary. They are only infallible because God makes them so. They are as such subordinate to God and cannot over rule Him. If they conflict with God's ralleged revelation (and they do) God must be right or else it invalidates the authority that granted them infallibility (allegedly). That's a philosophical and metaphysical impossibility. Doesn't matter though coz it's all bollocks anyway.

Btw - the Church is not infallible as you state. Only the Pope is and then only under certain circumstances. I'm beginning to realise you know very little about Catholic theology. The Pope is not infallible as an individual but only in his ex cathedra pronouncements. This was only defined in 1870 and since then there has only been one such pronouncement. It wasn't about sex.


Why ? You're wasting everyone else's.

Oh and I'll gladly give you any Biblical reference you like. Just choose a Catholic teaching and prepare to obfuscate. Do you feel lucky ....?

Oh Jesus...anyone who tags himself after a Foreigner song and quotes from Mike & the Mechanics just CAN'T be trusted...crawl back to the early 80's (hole) where you came from...

Yes, so do that, but that has little to do with the claim that their thinking is illogical. Which it is not.

And the rest of your post once again is just distracting from what is being discussed. If you think that the church should do this or that, fine. If you don't agree with their bible interpretation, ok. So what? If people would abide by the rules, there would not be AIDS. What has been said about condoms is not illogical, it is consistent with the other things the church teaches and as a whole, the rules are no threat to anybody, unless you break them.

As for the general church bashing: look for someone else.

BTW: non sequitur is written with an I, I had some latin myself. As well as logic.

No, what we're talking about is how the church is now saying that the virus can pass through a condom.


I don't care what you're allowed to do. Preach what you're allowed to preach but don't make shit up. The virus doesn't 'pass through' a condom. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. We all know the church is lying about it too.

Tell everyone the truth. Sex with a condom is safer than sex without a condom, and monogomy is the only full-proof* method. That's not what the church is saying according to the article we're discussing. So address the topics the article addresses, not generic church teachings.

*dirty blood transfusions et all.