As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Catholics and Condoms: Pope says Condoms aggravate African AIDS Crisis
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Source
According to The FDA: "Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS."
1) Is it sensible for someone who denies an empirical basis of facts to make empirical claims?
2) How can a conversation occur between, say, the Pope and the FDA with regard to the utility of condoms?
3) Is it sensible to attempt to modify Catholicism with regard to condom use or is Catholicism fundamentally flawed given its primary assumptions of reality?
4) What of the Pope's position? Ideologically it can be defended. So what of the view of reality this ideological position manifests? To link to question 2, are the FDA and the Pope discussing the same thing?
5) Could it be sensibly argued that the Pope is correct?
What do you think of this situation? We already know what Bristol Palin thinks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQgaBvgmS88
The Pope today reignited the controversy over the Catholic church's stance on condom use as he made his first trip to Africa. The pontiff said condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids and could make the problem worse.
Benedict XVI made his comments as he flew to Cameroon for the first leg of a six-day trip that will also see him travelling to Angola. The timing of his remarks outraged health agencies trying to halt the spread of HIV and Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 22 million people are infected.
The Roman Catholic church encourages sexual abstinence and fidelity to prevent the disease from spreading, but it is a policy that has divided some clergy working with Aids patients. The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
According to The FDA: "Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS."
1) Is it sensible for someone who denies an empirical basis of facts to make empirical claims?
2) How can a conversation occur between, say, the Pope and the FDA with regard to the utility of condoms?
3) Is it sensible to attempt to modify Catholicism with regard to condom use or is Catholicism fundamentally flawed given its primary assumptions of reality?
4) What of the Pope's position? Ideologically it can be defended. So what of the view of reality this ideological position manifests? To link to question 2, are the FDA and the Pope discussing the same thing?
5) Could it be sensibly argued that the Pope is correct?
What do you think of this situation? We already know what Bristol Palin thinks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQgaBvgmS88
_J_ on
0
Posts
In short:
1) No
2) I don't rightly know, what with one side being a representative of highly irrational, dogmatic, religious institution.
3) It is a sensible idea to modify their stance, however, they won't change their position yet for a century or so. It's how they roll. Not to mention that a lot of their assumptions are fundamentally flawed on account of not being true and being based on what some primitive people wrote up thousands of years ago instead of demonstrable scientific evidence.
4) The Pope relies on his religious ideology in this question, and while his stance could be argued to follow his ideology. While it can be said that his position is valid in relation to his ideology, it says nothing about whether the ideology he relies on is a valid one. This is the point where you open a can of worms, but personally, I wouldn't make statements about reality based on hearsay or make-believe. I'd need some evidence.
5) The Pope could theoretically be correct about the first part of his statement, that abstinence would prevent the spread of the disease(in an ideal catholic world, where people wouldn't have sex. In reality, abstinence is pretty much a useless, even detrimental doctrine). The pope saying that condoms aggravate the AIDS crisis is just false, as condoms reduce the chances of catching the disease. This just makes the Pope look like a fundie idiot.
Really, I have a huge problem with people using their influence to spread their opinions, when only harm can come out of it. The Pope making this statement can only make the situation worse, as most of Africa is highly religious, and the catholics would probably listen to the Pope.
My assumption is that the Pope endorses abstinence for both Africans and Europeans. But I'm wondering if the "aggravates the problems" comment is racist.
That said he was speaking at an african event about african stuff, so lets not get carried away.
it's also the exact type of blind to reality bullshit you can expect from a lot of religious groups. they can not admit that a little of both might be the best way to go about it, so they frame is as abstinence vs. condoms rather than saying that use of protection + not fucking anything that moves = less HIV transmission. It can't be gray, they can't understand gray.
Whoa, what? Let's not get too hasty on the overgeneralizations hrmmm? Being a catholic myself, and knowing a very large number of catholics, they .. really don't think about it like that. Well the answer is a bit more complex but that's not the point of this thread.
Lemme tell you, tho. For catholics such as myself this pope is fucking depressing. I might add that a very large (and growing ) number of bishops have privately and publicly opposed this pope before, and will continue to do so.
sin is evil, sex outside of marriage or with protection is a sin. the fact that many many catholics don't actually believe that (from my experience) doesn't change anything.
Its also naive to think that in many parts of the world, women have the luxury of saying "no". At least give them a fucking chance.
If the studies show that condoms reduce the spread of Aids - then I feel its almost criminal to push a less successful methodology based on your own personal preference. Cant we agree that the problem is so bad that it just needs to be sorted? Lets leave the agenda until later.
And there's an organisation that COULD do so much good in the region... but doesn't.
Honestly - it makes me want to cry.
People aren't not going to have sex, the Catholic Church is just making it all the less likely that anyone will take the proper precautions when engaging in promiscuity.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's why a lot of weight is given to the pope's statements. He is the absolute spiritual (moral) ruler of hundreds of millions of people. The catholics church stance on issues such as abortion, euthanesia, gay marriage, sex in general holds a lot of weight in the politics of many countries. See for instance the recent drama in Italy over a man who desperately wanted to terminate the life of his daughter, who had been in a coma with severe braindamage for decades.
I'm not Catholic. I'm not religious at all. But, quite frankly, this is an incorrect understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Infallibility is subject to very specific terms - for instance, it must incorporate "a doctrine concerning faith or morals". Does the word of the Pope have great weight? Absolutely. But he is not invariably infallible, and, in fact, papal infallibility is extremely rarely used. Following the definition of the doctrine (note that ecumenical councils are also considered infallible) it has in fact been invoked only once. There are, however, several instances where infallibility is considered to apply after the fact (for instance, the dogma of the immaculate conception, which is itself frequently misinterpreted)
I'm not interested in defending the Catholic Church, dammit!
since condoms make it easier to have sex, you therefore have more people getting aids.
that assumes that without condoms people would be afraid to have sex instead of just doing it without protection....
but he's the pope, was this really out of character?
Rule 1 of being Catholic: acknowledge the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. Promptly ignore everything the guy says.
Fucking cockmonger.
He most certainly is culpable. He is the leader of the Catholic church. Leaders are culpable for what they tell their followers to do.
And I'm sick of this constant nonsequitor bullshit defense of religious stupidity via "humans are bad without religion too."
When you tell people "AIDS is bad but these condoms will protect you from getting it!" you're giving them a certain sense of security. Since most people don't use condoms properly even with instruction (and since if you don't have the right size they break or slip off), chances are they're not getting the 99.99% protection they believe in. Rape is extremely common in certain areas of Africa, and if the rapists aren't using condoms (or aren't using them properly) then condoms can't help much. The female condom is supposed to help a bit with the rape issue since women can insert the condom hours before they have sex, but since those condoms are expensive and since it's probably kinda tough to predict when you might be raped, that's not a sure-fire solution either.
So, the pope is wrong, wrong, wrong because if people are using condoms they're reducing the risk of transmission and slowing the spread of AIDS. But he's a tiny (eensy weensy) bit right in that condoms don't get at the heart of the problem... which is why education is paramount! (and why the pope's reliance on abstinence is totally wrong).
I can't wait til the pope and whatever cohort of assholes who support him just die off.
I hope for a progressive pope within my lifetime. I don't expect catholicism will disappear before i die, but it can damn well be turned into a tool for at least some positive effect.
However, this isn't a fucking theoretical puzzle. It's not something for scholars to sit and discuss ad nauseam. These are people's lives. This is a continent that is dying. Millions of people can be SAVED by acknowledging that maybe people are not perfect, and that trying to account for that is not an evil thing.
The pope is directly responsible because these people listen to what he has to say. I don't understand how any of the higher level catholic clergy can reconcile the fact that they had the power to save millions of lives and did nothing to stop it. In fact, they hindered it. Don't they think God is going to be pissed?
No it isn't. What the fuck?
Abstinence not a thing that people do.
People are going to have sex.
In some kind of abstract, theoretical realm, the best way to not get AIDS is to not have sex. But people are going to have sex, in the real world.
All things being equal, assuming you were healthy before, abstinence will keep you STI free 100% of the time.
Abstinence (not abstinence education, but actually not having sex) works.
It is, however, not the only thing that works.
It is pretty ignorant of him to say that they ADD to the problem, but he's just doing what he has to.
Everyone knows the tenets of Christianity are a little out of date.
Didn't Christianity make a pretty big sweep through Africa in the past though?
I'm not exactly sure how their religious views have developed over the years.