Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on November 20, 2010, 12:55:01 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
Pope admits that Condoms may be acceptable in some cases to prevent the spread of HIV.
There's a lot fo sarky comments I could make here, but I'll settle for saying it's a good sign.
-
I don't see how this is any different from before. What's a more humane sexuality? No extramarital sex?
-
Honestly the whole anti-contraceptive thing was a weird swerve by the sitting pope back in the 50s. I'm surprised they've been holding onto it this long.
-
I don't see how this is any different from before. What's a more humane sexuality? No extramarital sex?
It's a severe step backwards from trying to tell people that Condoms promote the spread of HIV, which was the Pope's stance not so long ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7950671.stm)
As for the 'more humane sexuality', I've got no idea whatsoever what that means, it's one of those vacuous soundbytes that pop up from time to time, but regardless of the reason, it's a good sign that an admission has been made that Condoms can prevent HIV by the Vatican and that their use, even to a limited degree, is acceptable.
-
Which century were we living in again? Oh right... I believe it's the 21st Century. Some people haven't caught on yet. Surely they will one of these centuries!
-
well, at least this is a step forward.
-
Yeah, well expect more of this to pop up from time to time... after all, they are loosing people's interest.
$$$$$$$$$
-
Yeah, everything the Church is about is making money :rolleyes:
-
31 October 1992 - Pope John Paul II admits the earth is not the center of the universe after all and Galileo was not completely wrong.
this is not an organization quick to reverse it's mistakes.
-
this is not an organization quick to reverse it's mistakes.
At least they do change. If it had been the protestants who thought Galileo was wrong we'd still be dealing with Central Earth Universalists insisting that their vision of the heavens was correct. :p
-
Doesn't really mean anything - The damage is done, and now they just wanna save face over here. The message has already gone out, the damage is done, and it's gonna be an absolute minority who get to hear this clarification, so big whoop. No, an actual good sign would be the pope admitting that the pedophilia scandals are not just "rumors" as he calls them. He doesn't even have to admit or apologize; he can keep being the deluded, removed-from-reality, evil old man that he is, and still acknowledge these accusations. But then again, that might too much to ask from a man who associates Atheism with Nazism, even though HE was the one who was in the Hitlerjugend. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad! :lol:
You know, after the "Saint Valentine's Day Massacre", Al Capone started sponsoring a soup kitchen.
-
Not totally cool with where this is going. We have fairly devout Catholics here and while I think criticism of the church is fair we could at least be civil about it.
-
I don't see why we should give the pope a break which we wouldn't give any other politician. If Obama or David Cameron said that **** they'd have been called much worse.
Hell, if a Muslim cleric had said that we'd have people foaming at the mouth about it. I don't see why Catholics should get some special exemption.
-
(http://simianfarmer.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/lackoffaith.jpg)
-
I don't see why we should give the pope a break which we wouldn't give any other politician. If Obama or David Cameron said that **** they'd have been called much worse.
I don't really care about the content of the criticism, just the tone. There's something of a mini-history here and I'm interested in avoiding a repeat.
-
There's a difference between attacking someone and attacking their faith. Religion, unfortunately, has a defense mechanism that blurs the line between the two, which is brilliant because it enables what's called "emotional blackmail". You know "why are you making me upset?!", when in reality, the person's making themself upset. I think as long as we stick to the topic, we can be rational about this.
-
Yes, there is a difference, and you still blurred it yourself when you called the Pope, what was it?
he can keep being the deluded, removed-from-reality, evil old man that he is
Right. That. And then you Goodwin'd the thread.
Don't get me wrong, I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a Pope and what that entails, but damn, don't be a dick to the guy.
-
There's a difference between attacking someone and attacking their faith. Religion, unfortunately, has a defense mechanism that blurs the line between the two, which is brilliant because it enables what's called "emotional blackmail". You know "why are you making me upset?!", when in reality, the person's making themself upset. I think as long as we stick to the topic, we can be rational about this.
I'm sure this could be achieved, but, well, your first post had Nazis, Al Capone, and evil delusions. In reality everybody makes themselves upset, but it doesn't causally uncouple anything farther down the chain.
-
Pardon me for interjecting, but what's all the commotion about in this thread? The Catholic Church seems to be transitioning from an outdated view on sexuality to a less outdated one. How could this possibly be bad when the alternative is sticking to the outdated views? :confused:
-
Pardon me for interjecting, but what's all the commotion about in this thread? The Catholic Church seems to be transitioning from an outdated view on sexuality to a less outdated one. How could this possibly be bad when the alternative is sticking to the outdated views? :confused:
There's hardly been a commotion at all. It has been asserted that this move is not good enough.
-
Pardon me for interjecting, but what's all the commotion about in this thread? The Catholic Church seems to be transitioning from an outdated view on sexuality to a less outdated one. How could this possibly be bad when the alternative is sticking to the outdated views? :confused:
The point Nemesis was making is that this is too little, too late.
Bear in mind that the Catholic Church hasn't actually moved in their position on contraception. They've basically said "We don't think everyone who has sex with someone with AIDS/HIV should catch it and die"
Not exactly a great leap forward. It's progress but at this rate it will be over a hundred years before they manage to catch up with the 20th century.
And then you Goodwin'd the thread.
No he didn't. The pope Godwin'd himself when he compared atheism to Nazism. Since this is a thread about the pope and his pronouncements it is perfectly on topic to bring it up as an example of how far out of touch the pope actually is.
-
Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."
-
There's hardly been a commotion at all. It has been asserted that this move is not good enough.
Well there you go. Anyway, of course the change isn't good enough. How do you expect such a conservative institution to change so much of its principles so suddenly? The Church will always lag behind in things like these and expecting them to do anything else is very nearly like expecting them to throw out their fundamental dogma.
-
Edit: Was gonna explain, but Karajorma pretty much beat me to it.
-
If I heard the news correctly the context this was in related to male prostitutes. Think they might be trying to tell the priests to use them to hide the eveidence when molesting kids?
-
Um...no?
(I have to say, watching the angst in absentia was far more satisfying than providing it myself. :p)
-
Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."
But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.
-
Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."
All things considered, though, the church doesn't quite share the same views of good and evil as you. Those of us that actually do respect not only their right to hold those beliefs but a group's right to spend money how they deem fit just have to let them do what they're doing.
Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'.
That's a pretty bold statement.
-
Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."
But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.
A lot of Americans have that idea, too, actually. That's why STD rates are so high. We're just lucky our prevalent STDs are things like HPV instead of HIV.
-
Well it's not. The Catholic church has a lot of money and power, and they tend to use it for evil instead of good. They have a lot of **** to make up for. They should be dropping boxes of condoms all over southern Africa, not muttering "yeah, fine, I *guess* you can have sex without the threat of death looming overhead..."
But that won't work. Many africans seem to have the idea that 'we've been in a relationship for so long, we can do without condoms'. That idea, plus polygamy being common = Problems.
A lot of Americans have that idea, too, actually. That's why STD rates are so high. We're just lucky our prevalent STDs are things like HPV instead of HIV.
Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.
-
cheating, having an STD beforehand without knowing it (i think there's still no HPV test for men), getting an STD through some non-sex means..
-
Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.
because what you think is happening and what is really happening not the same thing.
-
Huh, how does that work? Long relationships seems to suggest a lack of promiscuity, which in turn suggests less transfer of STDs.
because what you think is happening and what is really happening not the same thing.
Well you've pointed out why he's asking how that works, but not much else. :p
-
All things considered, though, the church doesn't quite share the same views of good and evil as you. Those of us that actually do respect not only their right to hold those beliefs but a group's right to spend money how they deem fit just have to let them do what they're doing.
Yes but when "how they deem fit" include outright lies then it does become much harder to justify. The Vatican's position in condoms in Africa was not to simply tell people that God wanted them to not use condoms (Which is a stupid position but one that at least is a religious one) but instead to categorically state that condoms did not prevent or reduce the risk of catching AIDS because the HIV virus could pass through the latex barrier.
That is wrong. They had no science to back up that position and it is obvious that they spread those lies because it suited their goals. A lot of people have died because of their actions. More will do so in the future because this statement will take many years to filter down to Africa and cancel out the previous position.
So yeah, I agree with Iamzack, a change of position isn't good enough. They should actually do something to redress the balance even if it means doing something they'd usually go against.
-
Yes but when "how they deem fit" include outright lies then it does become much harder to justify. The Vatican's position in condoms in Africa was not to simply tell people that God wanted them to not use condoms (Which is a stupid position but one that at least is a religious one) but instead to categorically state that condoms did not prevent or reduce the risk of catching AIDS because the HIV virus could pass through the latex barrier.
That is wrong. They had no science to back up that position and it is obvious that they spread those lies because it suited their goals. A lot of people have died because of their actions. More will do so in the future because this statement will take many years to filter down to Africa and cancel out the previous position.
So yeah, I agree with Iamzack, a change of position isn't good enough. They should actually do something to redress the balance even if it means doing something they'd usually go against.
That makes a lot of sense, but I still don't think I'd hold the Church any more responsible for deaths than any large institution that's capable but unwilling to help out. But I can't say it helps their credibility much as a religion, though. As I've said earlier the Church is perfectly at liberty of saying whatever they want. If it's wrong, then don't believe it, as we're doing here. Even if the Vatican had previously accepted that condoms can prevent HIV, by no means are they obligated to help with the HIV crisis in Africa. And if followers of Catholicism didn't help out on the sole basis that the Vatican said that condoms don't prevent HIV transmission, then I'd say that blind adherence is equally to blame for help not being given.
Still, I'm a bit hazy on what you're saying here that "they spread those lies because it suited their goals." I honestly can't say for a fact whether they were intentional lies or they were just being stupid, but my point would just boil down to whether or not it's worse to be mean or stupid, neither of which would affect anything but blame. But what you mean by "goals' here is big too, because there is a difference between trying to kill all Africans by tricking them into giving each other HIV and trying to stick to what they believe (in some form). Or alternatively they have some much more sinister goal here, of which I am unaware.
On the other hand, it's hard to charge a Church with criminal negligence so I don't exactly know what we'd do to hold them accountable. Is lying even against international law in this case? But I digress, I doubt any of you are arguing anything other than the fact that they should do something more (which is what you explicitly said, too, Kara). No doubt that they should do more, in much the same way that North Korea should stop being a dictatorship and people should stop polluting and people should stop murdering each other.
-
That makes a lot of sense, but I still don't think I'd hold the Church any more responsible for deaths than any large institution that's capable but unwilling to help out.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you more. It's not that they were capable and unwilling. They were perfectly willing to do something. There is a big difference between doing nothing and actually expending effort to make the situation worse.
As I've said earlier the Church is perfectly at liberty of saying whatever they want.
No they aren't. If they are sticking to dogma that's one thing. But to flat out lie about something is irresponsible and dangerous.
If it's wrong, then don't believe it, as we're doing here.
Pretty easy to say when you have easy access to the truth. But it's pretty blinkered thinking to imagine that people in Africa have the same access to information that we do. Priests are a trusted source of information. If a priest is saying "Condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS" there is going to have to be a mountain of evidence to overcome that, especially as most people affected by this would prefer not to use one anyway.
Still, I'm a bit hazy on what you're saying here that "they spread those lies because it suited their goals."
I would have thought it pretty obvious. The Catholic Church doesn't want anyone using condoms. Saying that they are useless against AIDS means less people use them.
I honestly can't say for a fact whether they were intentional lies or they were just being stupid, but my point would just boil down to whether or not it's worse to be mean or stupid, neither of which would affect anything but blame. But what you mean by "goals' here is big too, because there is a difference between trying to kill all Africans by tricking them into giving each other HIV and trying to stick to what they believe (in some form). Or alternatively they have some much more sinister goal here, of which I am unaware.
I'm not saying the plan was to kill Africans. Their plan was to prevent condom use cause that is what they believe. And they didn't give a **** what damage was caused in preventing the use of condoms.
On the other hand, it's hard to charge a Church with criminal negligence so I don't exactly know what we'd do to hold them accountable. Is lying even against international law in this case? But I digress, I doubt any of you are arguing anything other than the fact that they should do something more (which is what you explicitly said, too, Kara). No doubt that they should do more, in much the same way that North Korea should stop being a dictatorship and people should stop polluting and people should stop murdering each other.
No. I'm saying they should do more to make up for the fact that they made the situation worse. As I said above this isn't a case of them doing nothing. They caused a bigger problem than there would have been if they had done nothing. This means that they are responsible for cleaning it up, not simply making some tiny pronouncement that they aren't going to keep making things worse.
You don't applaud a man because he announces he's going to quit sticking his dick in a blender. He never should have done it in the first place. Similarly while stopping their idiotic stance on AIDS is a step in the right direction, I'm not going to applaud the Catholic Church for stopping spreading lies and dogmatic nonsense that they never should have been spreading in the first place.
-
A good start would be taking every penny the Vatican has and putting it to either research for a cure or drugs for those they lied to.
-
if you don't reward lessening of negative behavior you will never get positive behavior.
-
Vatican, awaaaaaaaaaaayyyy!
Vatican clarifies pope's condom comments: Nothing's changed
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, might use condoms but the Vatican rushed on Sunday to clarify there is nothing "revolutionary" in his statements.
The pontiff made the comments in a book-length interview with a German journalist, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, which is being released Tuesday. The Vatican newspaper ran excerpts on Saturday.
Church teaching has opposed condoms because they're a form of artificial contraception although it has never released an explicit policy about condoms and HIV. The Vatican has been harshly criticized in light of the AIDS crisis.
After the Vatican paper jumped the gun on an embargo on the book's text on Saturday, chief Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi told media Sunday this does not reflect any doctrinal change in the Catholic view forbidding artificial contraception.
Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they may be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality."
Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activisits when he told reporters en route to Africa in 2009 that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms.
"On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.
Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer, revisited those comments and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-20-pope-condoms_N.htm
-
if you don't reward lessening of negative behavior you will never get positive behavior.
They're getting the reward of us not constantly calling them evil bastards for doing said behaviour. :p
-
i really dont care if i get aids because if i get aids i also qualify for medical marijuana. i also get more free money and free health care from the governments. i dont give a **** about what the pope says.
-
if you don't reward lessening of negative behavior you will never get positive behavior.
They're getting the reward of us not constantly calling them evil bastards for doing said behaviour. :p
Kinda like how that was still happening in this thread after the news? Yeah, that's a great reward.
-
I only said they wouldn't be called evil over the things they've stopped doing. They've got a vast reservoir of evil to still get insulted about. :p
Seriously though, if this was any other organisation other than the Church would you even care about people calling them evil?
-
Yes. I've already explained that I fundamentally disagree with the Church. They get no points from me on that basis.
-
Well that's your choice. I choose to call them evil because they fit the definition.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.
In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."
Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.
Now while ignorance might be the issue with those actually in Africa, those in the Vatican can't make the same claim. Especially not when they have been screamed at by the WHO for getting it wrong.
Now that they've back down on that nonsense I don't call them evil over that. Like I said, there's plenty more to call them evil about.
-
There's an interesting editorial on it today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
Once again, I can't comment on it, because I simply get too angry about all of this and the 'value' of human life according to the Vatican when compared to its agenda.
-
There's an interesting editorial on it today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
Once again, I can't comment on it, because I simply get too angry about all of this and the 'value' of human life according to the Vatican when compared to its agenda.
Well, you're forgetting that the vast majority of religions survive by devaluing the individual -- We need salvation because we're evil, vile sinners who deserve to go to hell! :doubt:
-
Indeed, and the more obsessed we become with how 'evil' we are, the more we murder our own potential. Humanity is capable is heights and depths of massive extremes, but the heights simply seem to count for less and less these days, we are forever looking down on ourselves without realising that, in order to do so, we must be further up than we think.
-
Especially not when they have been screamed at by the WHO for getting it wrong.
I feel the need to note that I read that as 'The Who', rather than 'The World Health Organization'. [/random aside]
-
There's an interesting editorial on it today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
Once again, I can't comment on it, because I simply get too angry about all of this and the 'value' of human life according to the Vatican when compared to its agenda.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50082000/jpg/_50082791_010665079-1.jpg)
That news image makes him look insanely evil.......
-
There's an interesting editorial on it today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
Once again, I can't comment on it, because I simply get too angry about all of this and the 'value' of human life according to the Vatican when compared to its agenda.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50082000/jpg/_50082791_010665079-1.jpg)
That news image makes him look insanely evil.......
that's a shop of the emperor from SW
-
Indeed, and the more obsessed we become with how 'evil' we are, the more we murder our own potential. Humanity is capable is heights and depths of massive extremes, but the heights simply seem to count for less and less these days, we are forever looking down on ourselves without realising that, in order to do so, we must be further up than we think.
I am quoting this and using it later, if it is favorable to you. Quoted and sourced to 'Flipside' of course
-
Sorry, but I think the Pope is seriously confused. He thinks there's male prostitutes who are devout-enough Catholics to listen to what he says. Not to bash anyone by mistake, but I don't think that a Catholic person who believed enough to listen to the pope would be a prostitute.
-
Sorry, but I think the Pope is seriously confused. He thinks there's male prostitutes who are devout-enough Catholics to listen to what he says. Not to bash anyone by mistake, but I don't think that a Catholic person who believed enough to listen to the pope would be a prostitute.
just the ones who believe enough to listen to their priests amirite
-
Sorry, but I think the Pope is seriously confused. He thinks there's male prostitutes who are devout-enough Catholics to listen to what he says. Not to bash anyone by mistake, but I don't think that a Catholic person who believed enough to listen to the pope would be a prostitute.
1.1 billion Catholics. Pretty good chance at least one of them is a whore.
-
How many of those 1.1 billion Catholics give a damn what the pope says about using condoms anyway?
-
Enough that it's a problem
-
Indeed, and the more obsessed we become with how 'evil' we are, the more we murder our own potential. Humanity is capable is heights and depths of massive extremes, but the heights simply seem to count for less and less these days, we are forever looking down on ourselves without realising that, in order to do so, we must be further up than we think.
I am quoting this and using it later, if it is favorable to you. Quoted and sourced to 'Flipside' of course
Feel free. If it helps someone get a different perspective, it's all for the good :)