Smircle, I'm aware of that, and I was waiting for the argument, since it's basically true. However, I do not think that a degree of caution really describes a wholesale revocation of human nature. A little less anonymous fvcking might be looked at as good hygiene and nothing more. It doesn't need moralizing, you can put it down on the same level as eating a proper diet, not binge drinking or smoking. "Look after your health", as opposed to "look after your soul." You say technology is better, but admit that practice counts when you note the example of hygiene.
In truth, untill we move towards each other, we're both wrong, insofar as each of our stances are incomplete. Technology and practice (on a systemic level) are part of the same entity. Think techne which might be something you make, but also something you know how to do/something you do. Technology and practice fold into each other.
It's interesting to me, that when I say "rethink" the automatic reaction is that I have said "revoke."
Take the examples of prostitution/polygamy:
It could be rethought via, legalization, licensing, TESTING, and controls, and not neccessarily criminalization. Likewise "polygamy" might be rethought WRT age of consent and spousal/custody rights rather than outright monogamy.
In the developed world, I wold say sexual freedom also needs to be "rethought" and a myriad of guilt assuaged before we can say that we're providing a real balance of safe sex teaching. The guilt heaped on by the church is without equal, but the libertine fantasy of freedom creates it's own problems. I know of kids (young teens) pressured into sex because they are surrounded by a culture that tells them it's not only OK, but that they need to do it because it's everyone else is and it's safe too, so what's wrong with your daughter, dude, why doesn't she put out?
This all goes to my point about suggesting that people look at what they do and not just how they do it. The second you ask people to control themselves, you're automatically branded a prude, a bigot, a consevative moralist... etc etc
The rights and abilities of the person to determine their own behavior can be (and have been) assailed from both sides. I think it is possible for both the religious conservative (moralist) and the laissez faire sexual libertine to fail us when it comes to providing a balanced solution. So far, they both have.
I've never really had a problem getting to know a woman before hopping into bed, wouldn't have it any other way, which is not to say I didn't want to fling myself into a few sacks over the years, but ultimately I've always been able to find a wise balance between sex, (temporary) abstinence, and relationships. I really do think it's a gross exagerration to say that most people can't control themselves enough to slow it down a little, be more selective of their partners, and, yes, put on the damned condoms!
That's funny Fellowship, they'd say the same about you.
Touché on this point, iBook.
The Catholic Church's problem isn't the way they interpret Biblical events -- in fact that's one of the few strengths because they don't see a need to take everything literally. They believe the Big Bang and Evolution and the rest can have their place in society along side religion.
Their real problem is their incredible pig-headedness when it comes to birth control, women serving as ministers and the like. IOW, with real-world problem-solving. Not Biblical problem-solving.
I know of kids (young teens) pressured into sex because they are surrounded by a culture that tells them it's not only OK, but that they need to do it because it's everyone else is and it's safe too, so what's wrong with your daughter, dude, why doesn't she put out?
This all goes to my point about suggesting that people look at what they do and not just how they do it. The second you ask people to control themselves, you're automatically branded a prude, a bigot, a consevative moralist... etc etc
The rights and abilities of the person to determine their own behavior can be (and have been) assailed from both sides. I think it is possible for both the religious conservative (moralist) and the laissez faire sexual libertine to fail us when it comes to providing a balanced solution. So far, they both have.
Balance....... I could not agree more Matsu. Great work!
yes, I can agree to most of what you say, I mean it's nothing but simple, basic logic that screwing around exposes you to a higher risk of contracting and transmitting a STD.
Nevertheless, I don't believe you are totally right, because:
- usually, the main transmitters of any sexually transmitted disease are a small minority of sexually very active men. Unless you can convince them, you cannot contain the disease. Convincing them is much tougher than convincing the sexually less active, because it is their hobby.
- Of couse, you can try to employ drastic measures to bully them out of their behavior, but if you act in a more Aikido-like style and encourage people to switch to lower-risk sex without changing their overall behavioral pattern, you are much more likely to indeed change behavior instead of earning opposition.
I am not sure how different the rate of polygamism or rather promiscuity is if we compare Africa and the west - I have the feeling it might be surprisingly similar. Nevertheless the higher level of education, the intense (at least over here, in Germany) safer sex promotion and the ready availability of tests and better medical and hygienical standards have lead to very different rates of HIV-infections.
I have heard of peer pressure being a problem with teenagers trying to get layed even though they do not feel it's the right time. However, I don't think it's too meritful to mix this with the issue at hand - there is no real connection.
I find the vatican's idea laughable - however it might not be so funny after all. Strong pressure to be monogamous will only lead to more lies and secret visits to prostitutes - exposing the partners even more.
I think people should think for themselves and not listen to the Pope. Sure they can listen to what he says but many times a "Church" is misguided and individuals should make their own choices. My view is that the Catholic Church has distorted the meaning of the Bible to such a degree it is not an entity to take seriously. Nothing against Catholics just their rigid man-made structure.
(and understand, i don't agree with them AT ALL on this one)
in theory, if everyone were to follow the church's teachings about sex (not until marrige) the spread of AIDS would grind to a virtual halt. sure, needles and misc. would still spread AIDS to some miniscule extent, but it wouldn't really be the problem it is now.
problem is, theory and reality often don't mix. people will have sex and so should use condoms.
as for the AIDS virus passing through, my understanding was that the virus itself is small enough to fit through the latex, but since it's immersed in fluids it never actually does.
a kernal of truth wrapped in misleading information. who'd have thunk it.
The fluid does pass through... condoms are 99% effective or something... but a woman is only fertile for about 2 days out of the month. This means that
(28/30)*leak_rate+(2/30)*leak_rate=.01
solve that equation and you get
leak_rate=0.15 or
15% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So everytime you have sex with an HIV infected person you have a 15% chance of exchanging fluid. Now multiply that by the rate at which you are likely to get HIV from exchanging fluids with an HIV positive person and thats scary.
It's as if the Catholic church is saying that seatbelts are not 100% effective, so they shouldn't be installed in cars because they cause drivers to drive carelessly because of a "false" sense of security.
No. a better analogy is the Catholic church says don't kill. Of course this means they don't approve of wearing gloves while you kill because they don't believe you should kill.
Then your counter-argument would be, "but killing without gloves will cause me to go to jail. Thats not good advice. Catholics are illogical."
And people balked when I compared the Pope with Bin Laden. Let's see, both believe they know the true will of god, both endorse policies that result in massive death, both consider themselves infalliable, wait... no... that's just the pope.
By this same logic, Gun's kill so the authors of the US Bill of Rights (Specifically, 2nd amendment authors) are a bunch of bin ladens.
Do I go to hell if I think Catholics are retarded? (not saying I do or anything)
Some Mormons said I was going to 'outer darkness' the other day when I got into a chat with them... it made me feel bad so I don't talk to them any more. I don't go around telling THEM they have to be in the dark. ::goes to turn on another night light::
They are also telling that guy in the choir to **** his wife without a condom, and he is HIV positive.
Your analogy is retarded.
What the hell are you talking about? There some console in the Catholic church that has nothing better to do than sit around and tell sick married people to have sex? I think your confused.
They who said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Brief and troublous is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man's dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from the nether world. For haphazard were we born, and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been; Because the breath in our nostrils is a smoke and reason is a spark at the beating of our hearts, And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes and our spirit will be poured abroad like unresisting air.
Even our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will recall our deeds. So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and will be dispersed like a mist pursued by the sun's rays and overpowered by its heat. For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns. Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are real, and use the freshness of creation avidly.
Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no springtime blossom pass us by; let us crown ourselves with rosebuds ere they wither. Let no meadow be free from our wantonness; everywhere let us leave tokens of our rejoicing, for this our portion is, and this our lot.
Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair grown white with time. But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Comments
In truth, untill we move towards each other, we're both wrong, insofar as each of our stances are incomplete. Technology and practice (on a systemic level) are part of the same entity. Think techne which might be something you make, but also something you know how to do/something you do. Technology and practice fold into each other.
It's interesting to me, that when I say "rethink" the automatic reaction is that I have said "revoke."
Take the examples of prostitution/polygamy:
It could be rethought via, legalization, licensing, TESTING, and controls, and not neccessarily criminalization. Likewise "polygamy" might be rethought WRT age of consent and spousal/custody rights rather than outright monogamy.
In the developed world, I wold say sexual freedom also needs to be "rethought" and a myriad of guilt assuaged before we can say that we're providing a real balance of safe sex teaching. The guilt heaped on by the church is without equal, but the libertine fantasy of freedom creates it's own problems. I know of kids (young teens) pressured into sex because they are surrounded by a culture that tells them it's not only OK, but that they need to do it because it's everyone else is and it's safe too, so what's wrong with your daughter, dude, why doesn't she put out?
This all goes to my point about suggesting that people look at what they do and not just how they do it. The second you ask people to control themselves, you're automatically branded a prude, a bigot, a consevative moralist... etc etc
The rights and abilities of the person to determine their own behavior can be (and have been) assailed from both sides. I think it is possible for both the religious conservative (moralist) and the laissez faire sexual libertine to fail us when it comes to providing a balanced solution. So far, they both have.
I've never really had a problem getting to know a woman before hopping into bed, wouldn't have it any other way, which is not to say I didn't want to fling myself into a few sacks over the years, but ultimately I've always been able to find a wise balance between sex, (temporary) abstinence, and relationships. I really do think it's a gross exagerration to say that most people can't control themselves enough to slow it down a little, be more selective of their partners, and, yes, put on the damned condoms!
Originally posted by segovius
That's funny Fellowship, they'd say the same about you.
Touché on this point, iBook.
The Catholic Church's problem isn't the way they interpret Biblical events -- in fact that's one of the few strengths because they don't see a need to take everything literally. They believe the Big Bang and Evolution and the rest can have their place in society along side religion.
Their real problem is their incredible pig-headedness when it comes to birth control, women serving as ministers and the like. IOW, with real-world problem-solving. Not Biblical problem-solving.
Originally posted by Matsu
I know of kids (young teens) pressured into sex because they are surrounded by a culture that tells them it's not only OK, but that they need to do it because it's everyone else is and it's safe too, so what's wrong with your daughter, dude, why doesn't she put out?
This all goes to my point about suggesting that people look at what they do and not just how they do it. The second you ask people to control themselves, you're automatically branded a prude, a bigot, a consevative moralist... etc etc
The rights and abilities of the person to determine their own behavior can be (and have been) assailed from both sides. I think it is possible for both the religious conservative (moralist) and the laissez faire sexual libertine to fail us when it comes to providing a balanced solution. So far, they both have.
Balance....... I could not agree more Matsu. Great work!
Fellowship
The Vatican wants to wipe out the black race. Been wanting to for centuries. What a better chance than now.
Excuse me while I return to facializing my 12 year old girlfriend.
Just kiddin', Artman's in a weird mood
yes, I can agree to most of what you say, I mean it's nothing but simple, basic logic that screwing around exposes you to a higher risk of contracting and transmitting a STD.
Nevertheless, I don't believe you are totally right, because:
- usually, the main transmitters of any sexually transmitted disease are a small minority of sexually very active men. Unless you can convince them, you cannot contain the disease. Convincing them is much tougher than convincing the sexually less active, because it is their hobby.
- Of couse, you can try to employ drastic measures to bully them out of their behavior, but if you act in a more Aikido-like style and encourage people to switch to lower-risk sex without changing their overall behavioral pattern, you are much more likely to indeed change behavior instead of earning opposition.
I am not sure how different the rate of polygamism or rather promiscuity is if we compare Africa and the west - I have the feeling it might be surprisingly similar. Nevertheless the higher level of education, the intense (at least over here, in Germany) safer sex promotion and the ready availability of tests and better medical and hygienical standards have lead to very different rates of HIV-infections.
I have heard of peer pressure being a problem with teenagers trying to get layed even though they do not feel it's the right time. However, I don't think it's too meritful to mix this with the issue at hand - there is no real connection.
I find the vatican's idea laughable - however it might not be so funny after all. Strong pressure to be monogamous will only lead to more lies and secret visits to prostitutes - exposing the partners even more.
Personally, I don't know anyone who is against lesbianism, at least bisexual lesbians, that is.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I think people should think for themselves and not listen to the Pope. Sure they can listen to what he says but many times a "Church" is misguided and individuals should make their own choices. My view is that the Catholic Church has distorted the meaning of the Bible to such a degree it is not an entity to take seriously. Nothing against Catholics just their rigid man-made structure.
Fellowship
You are *such* a protestant!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Moogs
How did this degenerate into a thread about chics that swing both ways?
We really need to have more threads do this.
Originally posted by tonton
The church leaders should be tried for genocide in an international court. There's no other acceptable step to deal with this.
You get aids from sex. The church opposes it. I fail to see your logic.
Originally posted by alcimedes
a few notes.
(and understand, i don't agree with them AT ALL on this one)
in theory, if everyone were to follow the church's teachings about sex (not until marrige) the spread of AIDS would grind to a virtual halt. sure, needles and misc. would still spread AIDS to some miniscule extent, but it wouldn't really be the problem it is now.
problem is, theory and reality often don't mix. people will have sex and so should use condoms.
as for the AIDS virus passing through, my understanding was that the virus itself is small enough to fit through the latex, but since it's immersed in fluids it never actually does.
a kernal of truth wrapped in misleading information. who'd have thunk it.
The fluid does pass through... condoms are 99% effective or something... but a woman is only fertile for about 2 days out of the month. This means that
(28/30)*leak_rate+(2/30)*leak_rate=.01
solve that equation and you get
leak_rate=0.15 or
15% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So everytime you have sex with an HIV infected person you have a 15% chance of exchanging fluid. Now multiply that by the rate at which you are likely to get HIV from exchanging fluids with an HIV positive person and thats scary.
Man I enjoyed finding their site.
now I'm off to register the domain www.condomsarethedevil.com
Originally posted by tonton
I've just thought of another analogy:
It's as if the Catholic church is saying that seatbelts are not 100% effective, so they shouldn't be installed in cars because they cause drivers to drive carelessly because of a "false" sense of security.
No. a better analogy is the Catholic church says don't kill. Of course this means they don't approve of wearing gloves while you kill because they don't believe you should kill.
Then your counter-argument would be, "but killing without gloves will cause me to go to jail. Thats not good advice. Catholics are illogical."
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
And people balked when I compared the Pope with Bin Laden. Let's see, both believe they know the true will of god, both endorse policies that result in massive death, both consider themselves infalliable, wait... no... that's just the pope.
By this same logic, Gun's kill so the authors of the US Bill of Rights (Specifically, 2nd amendment authors) are a bunch of bin ladens.
They are also telling that guy in the choir to **** his wife without a condom, and he is HIV positive.
Your analogy is retarded.
Some Mormons said I was going to 'outer darkness' the other day when I got into a chat with them... it made me feel bad so I don't talk to them any more. I don't go around telling THEM they have to be in the dark. ::goes to turn on another night light::
Originally posted by murbot
*BZZT*
They are also telling that guy in the choir to **** his wife without a condom, and he is HIV positive.
Your analogy is retarded.
What the hell are you talking about? There some console in the Catholic church that has nothing better to do than sit around and tell sick married people to have sex? I think your confused.
Even our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will recall our deeds. So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and will be dispersed like a mist pursued by the sun's rays and overpowered by its heat. For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns. Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are real, and use the freshness of creation avidly.
Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no springtime blossom pass us by; let us crown ourselves with rosebuds ere they wither. Let no meadow be free from our wantonness; everywhere let us leave tokens of our rejoicing, for this our portion is, and this our lot.
Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair grown white with time. But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Wisdom 2