If only there were choices other than complete abstinence and rampant promiscuity.
There are, just don't expect a religous group to spout them. Thats the problem If you want a certain agenda pushed go form your aid organization. It's easy to throw bricks.
All you have to back up your claim of it not working is your personal opinion and some people that may or may not have listened.
Are you asking me to cite?
[/I].
[/QUOTE]
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
In the real world, where people do have sex, it doesn't work.
I prefer policies to be based in the real world rather than fairytaleland.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't think abstinence is that bad of an idea. If such a huge number of people had AIDS, I would not have sex with anyone until we both got tested, regardless of whether I would use a condom. There seems to be the underlying assumption that Africans are primitive or something, and they're all uncontrollably fucking each other. They're people, I can't understand why it's so hard to not have sex with someone who's potentially disease-ridden.
I know it's a lack of education. Hand in hand with this, I don't blame the Catholic Church so much as the government. To have government officials giving out superstitious advice is awful. At least the Church exists precisely because of superstition, and someone sworn to celibacy is a shitty guide to sexual health. The Church has an obligation only to promote what they think is best. The government has an obligation to promote the public welfare. Only one of those organizations is failing horribly at what they ought to do.
ever read a condom box? It specifically says that it doesn't prevent HIV/AIDS.
THe church doesn't hand out condoms because it is considered a sin to use birth control, that is a tenet of their religion, to apply reason to a tenet of religion is useless. Furthermore, blaming a lack of condom use on the church implies that people are listening to the preaching and slavishly following it. If people were listening then they wouldn't be having sex before marriage and people who choose 1 partner and only have sex with them can only get their diseases. The AIDS problem can hardly be placed at the feet of some missionaries who do more good than harm.
A) Using condoms isn't a natural urge on the level of having sex. The churchs have been spreading misinformation about condoms, telling people that they don't prevent HIV and such.
Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy when used properly, much less preventing disease. telling people that the only way to be sure to not catch HIV is by not having sex is not misinformation. Also Its irrelevant how natural an urge it is, you ignore natural urges to follow rules all the time its called society.
Abstinence is not 100% effective, and claims to the contrary are complete bullshit. Every other birth / disease control is assessed based on its effectiveness as actually practiced in the real world. So, every time people re-use a condom, that is included in the analysis of how effective condoms actually are.
So really, abstinence is one of the least effective methods of birth and disease control, so perhaps we should tell people to use a fucking condom.
If only there were choices other than complete abstinence and rampant promiscuity.
There are, just don't expect a religious group to spout them. Thats the problem If you want a certain agenda pushed go form your aid organization. It's easy to throw bricks.
It's incredibly easy to throw bricks when an organization is directly contributing to people dying of preventable disease. It's like throwing heat seeking bricks at the sun from 10 feet away.
I don't think abstinence is that bad of an idea. If such a huge number of people had AIDS, I would not have sex with anyone until we both got tested, regardless of whether I would use a condom. There seems to be the underlying assumption that Africans are primitive or something, and they're all uncontrollably fucking each other. They're people, I can't understand why it's so hard to not have sex with someone who's potentially disease-ridden.
Humans have sexual intercourse. That's what they do.
I know it's a lack of education. Hand in hand with this, I don't blame the Catholic Church so much as the government. To have government officials giving out superstitious advice is awful. At least the Church exists precisely because of superstition, and someone sworn to celibacy is a shitty guide to sexual health. The Church has an obligation only to promote what they think is best. The government has an obligation to promote the public welfare. Only one of those organizations is failing horribly at what they ought to do.
Every moral actor has a responsibility to not cause undue harm to others through either gross negligence (they honestly believe condoms don't work) or outright malicious lying (they'd rather have people die than violate their religious codes). Espousing that condoms are completely ineffective or indeed cause AIDS is unethical regardless of who is doing it and for what purpose.
Not to mention that any Christian who is lying in a way which results in death is so obviously sinning that they are spitting right in God's eye.
Yes the Catholic 'no BC abstain or die' mindset is criminally idiotic, but it seems that few people here are really addressing what the point of the article was- that religious charities have a stronger tendency towards effecting people positively in a psychological way than their secular counterparts, even if they are providing the same rational, tangible benefits in terms of goods and services.
It seems to me that the point here isn't to support the idea of Christianity specifically (I suspect that if they had the same prominence as the Christian organizations in the area, the point could have been as easily made with any other religion), but to show that the psychological change seems to be positive on a day-to-day, personal level, even if the rational effects at the overall social scale (AIDS epidemic, miseducation, etc.) in fact, come out as neutral or negative.
He cites that those converted to Christianity have a more positive and optimistic mindset than those who haven't, who tend to largely harbor a defeatist attitude- and who could blame them, where in many places the social/political/physical environment would make anyone despondent. What the religion provides is an irrational optimism that can function regardless of how shitty the environment is, precisely because it it is irrational.
"My whole family is dying of starvation and disease but I'm gonna keep on truckin' and doing good shit because heaven is gonna be sweeeet," to summarize in an overly simple manner. It may not really make a whole lot of logical sense over say, suicide, but the ability to irrationally keep on being positive in the face of a horrible situation can be the factor that makes the difference between making the necessary efforts to improve that situation, or to give up or half-ass an effort, thus making the situation perpetuate itself.
Now obviously, religion isn't the only thing that can change attitudes- psychological CBT training and/or anti-depressants can do the same things, and probably more effectively- but in a poor, undereducated area without those sorts of resources, religion may be the only thing that can come close to serving the role for most people; and missionaries may be the only ones nuts enough to go out in large enough quantities to make any large scale change. I can't say I've done any research on the matter, but I'd guess that the number of missionaries out there dwarfs the number of qualified non-theistic therapists/psychiatrists out there willing to go to a third-world country for little to no pay- and unfortunately, convincing people to take and heed rational psychological advice is harder to do than shouting OBEY GOD OR ELSE (oversimplfying again) in mass numbers, and that's something that's true in supposedly educated first-world societies, much less an undereducated third world environment.
Again, I haven't done any research here, but if the secular charities are providing tangible needs- clean water, roads, food, medicine, houses, education, etc.- but not providing for psychological needs as well, it would not be surprising to find that the religious charities seem to do more benefit at a personal level. The secular charities seemingly have some work to do to match their religious counterparts in providing for those needs, even in an imperfect way.
(Again yes, there's a lot of oversimplifying going on here and I know not every person in Africa lives in a grass hut and has a kindergarten-grade reading level, but presumably most charities in Africa are focused upon those areas most deprived of social and physical resources and not well-to-do college towns, so I would hope my point is not totally devoid of credit.)
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
In the real world, where people do have sex, it doesn't work.
I prefer policies to be based in the real world rather than fairytaleland.
His claim isn't even true, anyway, you can contract any STD without having sex, its just not as easy. The 'abstinence works' claim only serves to stigmatise those unlucky people who contract STDs through other means.
Abstinence only sex education is the equivalent of saying your chances of dying in a car crash are vastly reduced if you don't get in a car or go near a road.
Who in their right mind would think that "Stay in your house" is realistic road safety message?
Abstinence only sex education is the equivalent of saying your chances of dying in a car crash are vastly reduced if you don't get in a car or go near a road.
Who in their right mind would think that "Stay in your house" is realistic road safety message?
^ This good fucking hell a thousand times this.
I think we only end up in this retarded spectrum because sex gets seen as somehow inherently unproductive if you're not makin' manz and so clearly people can just choose to totally not do it. I mean this is an internet forum - most of the people here can barely avoid masturbating for a week. Sure on some specific occasion I can not do it, but that's not a choice I'm going to continually make.
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
You know, people choosing not to have sex is not a fairy tale. It really does happen.
The problem is not with teaching abstinence as a solution. The problem is with teaching abstinence as the only solution. Certainly from a practical standpoint, regardless of your moral standpoint on the issue.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
You know, people choosing not to have sex is not a fairy tale. It really does happen.
The problem is not with teaching abstinence as a solution. The problem is with teaching abstinence as the only solution. Certainly from a practical standpoint, regardless of your moral standpoint on the issue.
Yes. People choose not to have sex. These people are a stunning minority. Perhaps basing any idea that needs to work on more then a super-majority of the population on the lifestyle decisions of a small minority is a bad idea. Jus' saying.
Actually, I know you're not specifically advocating abstinence only, it's just I think giving it the slightest bit a credence is absurd. To the extent that I'd wish they'd stop throwing it into sex ed in the west as "abstinence is an effective and safe choice" because that's the wrong god damn section to talk about not having sex.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
In the real world, where people do have sex, it doesn't work.
I prefer policies to be based in the real world rather than fairytaleland.
Thats just the thing, the catholic church is not in africa to teach people your policies. There are in africa to teach people their policies. This is not a government enforced abstinance only sex education program. This is a private religous group that is there doing missionary work. If you would like to open a humanitariam group called Condoms R Us and pass them out you are more than free to do so. For that matter why isn't there a agnostic humanitarium group over there passing out condoms and telling people that there is no afterlife and they are SOL for losing the genetic lottery and being born in a disease ridden third world country?
I mean people seem to be really upset about all these religous groups so why not?
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
In the real world, where people do have sex, it doesn't work.
I prefer policies to be based in the real world rather than fairytaleland.
His claim isn't even true, anyway, you can contract any STD without having sex, its just not as easy. The 'abstinence works' claim only serves to stigmatise those unlucky people who contract STDs through other means.
Yes you can contract them but the occurences drop substantially. If the nominal percentage of condom failures can be ignored for the sake of argument so can the astronomically small number of non-sexual infections.
People have however intimated that the solution is condoms, ignoring the failures. I only request the same.
The same what?
You want me to intimate condom use is 100% effective?
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
Condom failure is not the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. Catching an STD from a toilet seat while wearing a condom is the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. And the rates for these are exactly the same.
A condom failure is the same as abstinence failure, which is someone swearing abstinence, taking the oat in front of a priest, getting that silver ring or whatever, then having sex anyway and catching an STD because abstinence-only education taught them jack shit about safe-sex practices. And the rate of that is considerably higher than the rate of condom failure.
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
Condom failure is not the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. Catching an STD from a toilet seat while wearing a condom is the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. And the rates for these are exactly the same.
A condom failure is the same as abstinence failure, which is someone swearing abstinence, taking the oat in front of a priest, getting that silver ring or whatever, then having sex anyway and catching an STD because abstinence-only education taught them jack shit about safe-sex practices. And the rate of that is considerably higher than the rate of condom failure.
What if you're on the toilet seat only because someone is having sex with you at the time? Then the whole situation gets a little more muddled.
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
Condom failure is not the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. Catching an STD from a toilet seat while wearing a condom is the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. And the rates for these are exactly the same.
A condom failure is the same as abstinence failure, which is someone swearing abstinence, taking the oat in front of a priest, getting that silver ring or whatever, then having sex anyway and catching an STD because abstinence-only education taught them jack shit about safe-sex practices. And the rate of that is considerably higher than the rate of condom failure.
You are missing the point. I qualified the statement with If practiced. The system the catholics are teaching would work. If I were abstinant the chances of me catching aids are lower than if I had sex with a condom. Therefore by teaching they are not criminally negligent or any of the other accusations that have been leveled at them. People aren't following it because it is their choice.
These are people not bucks during rutting season jumping through picture windows in suburban homes because they are driven mad by the urge to hump something.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
Condom failure is not the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. Catching an STD from a toilet seat while wearing a condom is the same as catching an STD from a toilet seat while being abstinent. And the rates for these are exactly the same.
A condom failure is the same as abstinence failure, which is someone swearing abstinence, taking the oat in front of a priest, getting that silver ring or whatever, then having sex anyway and catching an STD because abstinence-only education taught them jack shit about safe-sex practices. And the rate of that is considerably higher than the rate of condom failure.
You are missing the point. I qualified the statement with If practiced. The system the catholics are teaching would work. If I were abstinant the chances of me catching aids are lower than if I had sex with a condom. Therefore by teaching they are not criminally negligent or any of the other accusations that have been leveled at them. People aren't following it because it is their choice.
These are people not bucks during rutting season jumping through picture windows in suburban homes because they are driven mad by the urge to hump something.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
The point is this: Abstinence education has been proven to be at least ineffective and at worst counter-productive. So it is a-ok to lambaste them for it. I don't care if, in some abstract fantasy version of reality, abstinence advice, if followed, has a higher chance of preventing STDs than condoms. In the real world, passing out condoms has a better chance of preventing STDs than abstinence-only education. No, humans aren't animals that simply rut all day. But they are humans with desires and they are going to fuck each other. That's reality. Period. There is no reality in which humans are going to abstain indefinitely. No reality that exists anyway. So I conclude that condoms actually do have a higher chance - a much higher chance - of preventing STDs than abstinence. Because abstinence doesn't happen.
The Catholic Church is like an ostrich, preaching abstinence with their head in the sand. It is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Yes they can.
"Guys, seriously, God says you shouldn't have premarital sex so you shouldn't. But if you do, use a condom. This isn't approval by the church to have sex, but it's better to use a condom and repent than not and get the hiv."
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
You are missing the point. I qualified the statement with If practiced. The system the catholics are teaching would work. If I were abstinant the chances of me catching aids are lower than if I had sex with a condom. Therefore by teaching they are not criminally negligent or any of the other accusations that have been leveled at them. People aren't following it because it is their choice.
These are people not bucks during rutting season jumping through picture windows in suburban homes because they are driven mad by the urge to hump something.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
The point is this: Abstinence education has been proven to be at least ineffective and at worst counter-productive. So it is a-ok to lambaste them for it. I don't care if, in some abstract fantasy version of reality, abstinence advice, if followed, has a higher chance of preventing STDs than condoms. In the real world, passing out condoms has a better chance of preventing STDs than abstinence-only education. No, humans aren't animals that simply rut all day. But they are humans with desires and they are going to fuck each other. That's reality. Period. There is no reality in which humans are going to abstain indefinitely. No reality that exists anyway. So I conclude that condoms actually do have a higher chance - a much higher chance - of preventing STDs than abstinence. Because abstinence doesn't happen.
The Catholic Church is like an ostrich, preaching abstinence with their head in the sand. It is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
They don't preach abstaining forever just until marriage. it is not a fairytale to abstain from fucking eachother until you are 18.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
Certainly.
Like Shinto said, as long as it's not directly infringing on some people's rights, I wouldn't have the government ban it(the offending tenet). No one else really wants that either.
But as a member of society, it's my responsibility to try to shape it to what I would consider to be more ethical, just, what have you. That includes activities I find detrimental.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
Did I miss something? He totally said that they should stop preaching "that shit" anywhere because he disagreed with it. does that mean something besides the stoppage of people saying things he disagrees with?
hardly a leap
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
Did I miss something? He totally said that they should stop preaching "that shit" anywhere because he disagreed with it. does that mean something besides the stoppage of people saying things he disagrees with?
hardly a leap
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
Did I miss something? He totally said that they should stop preaching "that shit" anywhere because he disagreed with it. does that mean something besides the stoppage of people saying things he disagrees with?
hardly a leap
I don't see what's wrong the Catholic church (or any other church) telling its members to be abstinent before marriage. Almost every religion imposes some rules on the personal behavior of its believers, be it through dietary codes, mandated rituals and holidays, dress codes (such as turbans for Sikhs) or any of a number of various ascetic practices. Sometimes this is abstinence from meat, sometimes it's just meditation and imposed solitude. Sometimes, in the case of the Catholic church, it's abstinence from sex unless it's under certain Church-approved conditions. The Church is far from the first organisation to demand this from its members, and unless those members are somehow bound by law, Inquisition-style, to remain in the Church I think the Church has the right to ask that.
It may seem unreasonable and unrealistic to us, and maybe it is. Humans have sex whether they're allowed to or not. But I'm not sure it's any more unrealistic than other things the Church demands - aren't greed and envy and anger considered sins equal to lust?
This, of course, doesn't mean that the Church should be allowed to spread erroneous information about condoms. If the Church doesn't have anything nice to say about condoms, they shouldn't say anything at all - but that information (and the condoms themselves) should be freely available from civil authorities, regardless of the religious affiliations of their constituents. I can go down to the health department and pick up a whole bag of condoms in my hometown (not the kind most of us like to use, but at least they're there). This should be as true in Africa as it is in the US.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
Also to consider is that we are in (thankfully) the twilight days of an administration that favors faith-based charities for federal aid.
Nobody is going to argue that the Catholic Church should be banned by law from peddling nonsense, but I don't think that they should get a disproportional share of US federal aid money for doing it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
Right. They should probably stop preaching that shit anywhere.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
You are missing the point. I qualified the statement with If practiced. The system the catholics are teaching would work. If I were abstinant the chances of me catching aids are lower than if I had sex with a condom. Therefore by teaching they are not criminally negligent or any of the other accusations that have been leveled at them. People aren't following it because it is their choice.
These are people not bucks during rutting season jumping through picture windows in suburban homes because they are driven mad by the urge to hump something.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
The point is this: Abstinence education has been proven to be at least ineffective and at worst counter-productive. So it is a-ok to lambaste them for it. I don't care if, in some abstract fantasy version of reality, abstinence advice, if followed, has a higher chance of preventing STDs than condoms. In the real world, passing out condoms has a better chance of preventing STDs than abstinence-only education. No, humans aren't animals that simply rut all day. But they are humans with desires and they are going to fuck each other. That's reality. Period. There is no reality in which humans are going to abstain indefinitely. No reality that exists anyway. So I conclude that condoms actually do have a higher chance - a much higher chance - of preventing STDs than abstinence. Because abstinence doesn't happen.
The Catholic Church is like an ostrich, preaching abstinence with their head in the sand. It is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
They don't preach abstaining forever just until marriage. it is not a fairytale to abstain from fucking eachother until you are 18.
Yes it is. And suggesting 18 as an average marrying age is also a fairytale nowadays.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Also to consider is that we are in (thankfully) the twilight days of an administration that favors faith-based charities for federal aid.
Obama favors faith-based charities for federal aid.
Just sayin'
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
There are, just don't expect a religous group to spout them. Thats the problem If you want a certain agenda pushed go form your aid organization. It's easy to throw bricks.
No, because there is nothing to cite, If you don't have sex you don't get Sexually Transmitted Diseases
which is my point, abstinance works, if anyone would follow it. If the catholic church said that you should smear yourself in mud before intercourse to protect yourself and people called foul they would have a point
they are not there to espouse a solution, they are there to espouse their solution and it is one that works if you follow it.
Okay, it works in fairytaleland where people don't have sex.
In the real world, where people do have sex, it doesn't work.
I prefer policies to be based in the real world rather than fairytaleland.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know it's a lack of education. Hand in hand with this, I don't blame the Catholic Church so much as the government. To have government officials giving out superstitious advice is awful. At least the Church exists precisely because of superstition, and someone sworn to celibacy is a shitty guide to sexual health. The Church has an obligation only to promote what they think is best. The government has an obligation to promote the public welfare. Only one of those organizations is failing horribly at what they ought to do.
Abstinence is not 100% effective, and claims to the contrary are complete bullshit. Every other birth / disease control is assessed based on its effectiveness as actually practiced in the real world. So, every time people re-use a condom, that is included in the analysis of how effective condoms actually are.
So really, abstinence is one of the least effective methods of birth and disease control, so perhaps we should tell people to use a fucking condom.
It's incredibly easy to throw bricks when an organization is directly contributing to people dying of preventable disease. It's like throwing heat seeking bricks at the sun from 10 feet away.
Humans have sexual intercourse. That's what they do.
Every moral actor has a responsibility to not cause undue harm to others through either gross negligence (they honestly believe condoms don't work) or outright malicious lying (they'd rather have people die than violate their religious codes). Espousing that condoms are completely ineffective or indeed cause AIDS is unethical regardless of who is doing it and for what purpose.
Not to mention that any Christian who is lying in a way which results in death is so obviously sinning that they are spitting right in God's eye.
It seems to me that the point here isn't to support the idea of Christianity specifically (I suspect that if they had the same prominence as the Christian organizations in the area, the point could have been as easily made with any other religion), but to show that the psychological change seems to be positive on a day-to-day, personal level, even if the rational effects at the overall social scale (AIDS epidemic, miseducation, etc.) in fact, come out as neutral or negative.
He cites that those converted to Christianity have a more positive and optimistic mindset than those who haven't, who tend to largely harbor a defeatist attitude- and who could blame them, where in many places the social/political/physical environment would make anyone despondent. What the religion provides is an irrational optimism that can function regardless of how shitty the environment is, precisely because it it is irrational.
"My whole family is dying of starvation and disease but I'm gonna keep on truckin' and doing good shit because heaven is gonna be sweeeet," to summarize in an overly simple manner. It may not really make a whole lot of logical sense over say, suicide, but the ability to irrationally keep on being positive in the face of a horrible situation can be the factor that makes the difference between making the necessary efforts to improve that situation, or to give up or half-ass an effort, thus making the situation perpetuate itself.
Now obviously, religion isn't the only thing that can change attitudes- psychological CBT training and/or anti-depressants can do the same things, and probably more effectively- but in a poor, undereducated area without those sorts of resources, religion may be the only thing that can come close to serving the role for most people; and missionaries may be the only ones nuts enough to go out in large enough quantities to make any large scale change. I can't say I've done any research on the matter, but I'd guess that the number of missionaries out there dwarfs the number of qualified non-theistic therapists/psychiatrists out there willing to go to a third-world country for little to no pay- and unfortunately, convincing people to take and heed rational psychological advice is harder to do than shouting OBEY GOD OR ELSE (oversimplfying again) in mass numbers, and that's something that's true in supposedly educated first-world societies, much less an undereducated third world environment.
Again, I haven't done any research here, but if the secular charities are providing tangible needs- clean water, roads, food, medicine, houses, education, etc.- but not providing for psychological needs as well, it would not be surprising to find that the religious charities seem to do more benefit at a personal level. The secular charities seemingly have some work to do to match their religious counterparts in providing for those needs, even in an imperfect way.
(Again yes, there's a lot of oversimplifying going on here and I know not every person in Africa lives in a grass hut and has a kindergarten-grade reading level, but presumably most charities in Africa are focused upon those areas most deprived of social and physical resources and not well-to-do college towns, so I would hope my point is not totally devoid of credit.)
Twitter
Who in their right mind would think that "Stay in your house" is realistic road safety message?
I think we only end up in this retarded spectrum because sex gets seen as somehow inherently unproductive if you're not makin' manz and so clearly people can just choose to totally not do it. I mean this is an internet forum - most of the people here can barely avoid masturbating for a week. Sure on some specific occasion I can not do it, but that's not a choice I'm going to continually make.
You know, people choosing not to have sex is not a fairy tale. It really does happen.
The problem is not with teaching abstinence as a solution. The problem is with teaching abstinence as the only solution. Certainly from a practical standpoint, regardless of your moral standpoint on the issue.
Thats just the thing, the catholic church is not in africa to teach people your policies. There are in africa to teach people their policies. This is not a government enforced abstinance only sex education program. This is a private religous group that is there doing missionary work. If you would like to open a humanitariam group called Condoms R Us and pass them out you are more than free to do so. For that matter why isn't there a agnostic humanitarium group over there passing out condoms and telling people that there is no afterlife and they are SOL for losing the genetic lottery and being born in a disease ridden third world country?
I mean people seem to be really upset about all these religous groups so why not?
Yes you can contract them but the occurences drop substantially. If the nominal percentage of condom failures can be ignored for the sake of argument so can the astronomically small number of non-sexual infections.
You want me to intimate condom use is 100% effective?
I am saying that abstinance, if practiced is more effective than condoms. The counter was that people can catch STDs by non-sexual means. I assert that the percentage of condom failures is higher than the percentage of abstinant people that catch AIDs from toilet seats (and other freak occurences). Apologies for any confusion.
A condom failure is the same as abstinence failure, which is someone swearing abstinence, taking the oat in front of a priest, getting that silver ring or whatever, then having sex anyway and catching an STD because abstinence-only education taught them jack shit about safe-sex practices. And the rate of that is considerably higher than the rate of condom failure.
What if you're on the toilet seat only because someone is having sex with you at the time? Then the whole situation gets a little more muddled.
You are missing the point. I qualified the statement with If practiced. The system the catholics are teaching would work. If I were abstinant the chances of me catching aids are lower than if I had sex with a condom. Therefore by teaching they are not criminally negligent or any of the other accusations that have been leveled at them. People aren't following it because it is their choice.
These are people not bucks during rutting season jumping through picture windows in suburban homes because they are driven mad by the urge to hump something.
is the catholic church naive? probably. But a religous institution can hardly preach abstinance before marriage on 5 continents and pass out condoms to the unmarried on a sixth.
The point is this: Abstinence education has been proven to be at least ineffective and at worst counter-productive. So it is a-ok to lambaste them for it. I don't care if, in some abstract fantasy version of reality, abstinence advice, if followed, has a higher chance of preventing STDs than condoms. In the real world, passing out condoms has a better chance of preventing STDs than abstinence-only education. No, humans aren't animals that simply rut all day. But they are humans with desires and they are going to fuck each other. That's reality. Period. There is no reality in which humans are going to abstain indefinitely. No reality that exists anyway. So I conclude that condoms actually do have a higher chance - a much higher chance - of preventing STDs than abstinence. Because abstinence doesn't happen.
The Catholic Church is like an ostrich, preaching abstinence with their head in the sand. It is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
"Guys, seriously, God says you shouldn't have premarital sex so you shouldn't. But if you do, use a condom. This isn't approval by the church to have sex, but it's better to use a condom and repent than not and get the hiv."
Bam.
So removal of any religion you disagree with is your goal?
Any religious tenet considered harmful.
On the black screen
They don't preach abstaining forever just until marriage. it is not a fairytale to abstain from fucking eachother until you are 18.
just curious, who decides them to be harmful? you?
When did you make the leap from "they shouldn't do this" to "I think this should be illegal and banned by the government."
Because I think you are the only one who made that jump.
Certainly.
Like Shinto said, as long as it's not directly infringing on some people's rights, I wouldn't have the government ban it(the offending tenet). No one else really wants that either.
But as a member of society, it's my responsibility to try to shape it to what I would consider to be more ethical, just, what have you. That includes activities I find detrimental.
On the black screen
Did I miss something? He totally said that they should stop preaching "that shit" anywhere because he disagreed with it. does that mean something besides the stoppage of people saying things he disagrees with?
hardly a leap
Normative Statement
On the black screen
"Should" does not imply coersion.
Are you not a native english speaker?
It may seem unreasonable and unrealistic to us, and maybe it is. Humans have sex whether they're allowed to or not. But I'm not sure it's any more unrealistic than other things the Church demands - aren't greed and envy and anger considered sins equal to lust?
This, of course, doesn't mean that the Church should be allowed to spread erroneous information about condoms. If the Church doesn't have anything nice to say about condoms, they shouldn't say anything at all - but that information (and the condoms themselves) should be freely available from civil authorities, regardless of the religious affiliations of their constituents. I can go down to the health department and pick up a whole bag of condoms in my hometown (not the kind most of us like to use, but at least they're there). This should be as true in Africa as it is in the US.
Also to consider is that we are in (thankfully) the twilight days of an administration that favors faith-based charities for federal aid.
Nobody is going to argue that the Catholic Church should be banned by law from peddling nonsense, but I don't think that they should get a disproportional share of US federal aid money for doing it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes it is. And suggesting 18 as an average marrying age is also a fairytale nowadays.
Obama favors faith-based charities for federal aid.
Just sayin'