All Religion is Bad.

[ceo_esq]

If you think that's crucial to the comparison (which, incidentally, allows for it), then please answer my earlier question: if we further hypothesize that the anti-auto campaigners are a religious institution similar in all material respects to the Catholic Church, how and why does it change our conclusion about the anti-auto campaigners' ultimate (non-)culpability for additional highway deaths?

I've already stated that it wouldn't then change anything.

Well, if it doesn't change the conclusion that the campaigners are not responsible for additional deaths, then what's the big deal?

Stating that it is absurd does not make it absurd.

I never suggested otherwise. But if you're going to insinuate that, for example, the man's wife is guilty of causing his infection because she could not tolerate him packing a condom in his wallet for "emergency infidelities", I don't think any demonstration is called for.

When an institution has such moral authority and can direct human behavior they must take responsibility for their actions.

Direct human behavior? I'm afraid it rings a bit hollow to pin your theory of liability on the Church's control over people's conduct given that the situation we've been considering reveals nothing if not the Church's inability to control such conduct. Also, I cannot fathom your willingness to discard the principle of individual responsibility for one's own behavior.

To the extent that the Church's rules and ability to alter behavior due to moral authority then it absolutely renders them some degree of culpability. Simply asserting that there is no responsibility is not argument.

The default presumption is that people are solely responsible for their own individual choices. Rebutting that presumption requires the elaboration of a cognizable and coherent theory upon which alternate responsibility can be established - and in my field, I've seen just about every kind of theory pushed. You're just not there yet.

I'd like to see some direct evidence of the extent to which the Church alters the behavior of the people you're concerned about, and alters it, moreover, in a way that shifts their individual responsibility onto the Church, which I would expect means in a way that seriously impairs their exercise of free will.

• We know that the Church intents to alter behavior.
• We know the Church takes steps to alter behavior.
• We know that the Church uses its moral authority to direct that behavior.
• Given human nature and no alternate recourse by the Church in the event of failure the Church sets up people to fail.
• There is no fallacy.

Well, I think we know that the Church intends for people to alter their own behavior, it takes steps to encourage people to alter their own behavior, and it uses whatever degree of moral authority it possesses to instruct and exhort the faithful to alter their own behavior - often with noticeably little effect on their actual behavior. And speaking of their behavior, you'll have steered clear of the fallacy when you stop artificially restricting the number of alternatives available to an individual deciding whether or not to step across the line in a typical case.

Assuming 1 & 2 are different or the same won't resolve the issue as it concerns the term "holistic". You might as well call #1 "XYZ" and #2 "STP". It is arbitrary and conveys no useful information.

Oh, I daresay almost anyone looking at the definition of holistic would be able to say which of #1 and #2 I meant by "holistic". The "evaluating the teaching as a whole" language in #1 is kind of a dead giveaway; as is the "focusing on one part in isolation" language in #2. But call them whatever you like. I was simply proposing to shift the discussion in the direction of #1. If anyone else failed to understand that, but hasn't said anything, then I apologize for any confusion.

CEO, at the end of the day the statistics demonstrate that abstinence only programs cause increased sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Calling such a program holistic is empty and very potentially misleading.

For at least the third time, I didn't refer to the program as holistic. I referred to a holistic approach to critiquing the program. I don't think you understood which noun that adjective was modifying.

Hopefully I'll have time soon to scan through the thread - it's growing almost too quickly to keep up - for a relevant link concerning your reference to statistics, at which point I'll raise any questions I may have in that regard.

 

[articulett]

It's obviously the love boat.

(or in the case of the Titanic... a baptismal font?)

 

[ceo_esq]

But that would be wrong because the model for everyone except the catholic church is: Abstinence, Be faithful (to your monogamous partner) and Condoms. So the boats are all equally seaworthy.

I sort of had in mind that there's really only one boat at issue - we can call it the S.S. Nonmonogamous Sex, as a sort of mnemonic device. It wouldn't be anyone's boat in particular.

In what sense would the cathoilic church ask Africans to stay ashore, they are floating in a sea of Hiv/AIDS?

We're concerned about sexual transmission here, so the chief intersection with the "sea of HIV/AIDS" is through a trip on the boat. If you stay on shore (Monogamy Island?), you may be surrounded by water on all sides, but you're unlikely to drown if you don't actually go out on it.

Just about everyone can follow that advice, and if followed it will, incidentally, greatly reduce one's chance of drowning. However, we can predict that many people will, in practice, take at least one trip on the boat, because sometimes a boat trip can seem very appealing.

No, no, no! The catholic church says no one needs to take a boat trip and so they shouldn't EVER. All the other agencies admit that not only WILL they take the trip but that they will sometimes NEED/HAVE to.

OK, but to what are you saying "no, no, no"? Isn't it true that (1) in principle almost anybody can stay ashore/avoid nonmonogamous sex; (2) in practice, many people won't stay ashore/avoid nonmonogamous sex; and (3) staying ashore/avoiding nonmonogamous sex greatly reduces the chance of drowning/contracting HIV. I thought that was one of the strengths of our analogy.

It is at this point that the catholic church falls down because their response is, "Well, if you do ..."

I think that creates a little verisimilitude problem for our analogy right there. The Church rarely if ever comes out and says "Well, if you do ..." about anything. It prefers to stay on message, and the message is "Don't."

"... don't wear a lifejacket because it will cause you to drown!" The other agencies say, "Well, we advise against it but if you have to, here's a lifejacket, here's how to use it properly, please wear it."

Hmm. The Church says wearing a lifejacket will cause you to drown? You're saying that the Church says that wearing a condom will give you AIDS; I thought you'd backed off that allegation earlier in the thread because you never substantiated it. I can see the Church saying "Don't think that lifejacket will necessarily protect you". I can even see it saying "Overreliance on that lifejacket is inducing you to take disproportionate risks with the boat". But not "your lifejacket will cause you to drown".

 

[articulett]

Hmm. The Church says wearing a lifejacket will cause you to drown? You're saying that the Church says that wearing a condom will give you AIDS; I thought you'd backed off that allegation earlier in the thread because you never substantiated it. I can see the Church saying "Don't think that lifejacket will necessarily protect you". I can even see it saying "Overreliance on that lifejacket is inducing you to take disproportionate risks with the boat". But not "your lifejacket will cause you to drown".

How about "life jackets have little tiny hole in them through which H2O molecules will pass and enter your airway which can cause death due to a lack of oxygen"-- "besides... if you have faith--you'll float!" Or-- "if you use a life jacket, god will be mad and you may suffer for all eternity."

 

[qayak]

I sort of had in mind that there's really only one boat at issue - we can call it the S.S. Nonmonogamous Sex, as a sort of mnemonic device. It wouldn't be anyone's boat in particular.

That works for me. They are all up against the same problem.

We're concerned about sexual transmission here, so the chief intersection with the "sea of HIV/AIDS" is through a trip on the boat. If you stay on shore (Monogamy Island?), you may be surrounded by water on all sides, but you're unlikely to drown if you don't actually go out on it.

No, sorry. The refugees are already on the water. Their boats are sinking (complete sexual freedom). The ship picked them up, it is the "A and B" of the "A,B,C" model of HIV prevention and control. The "C" is the lifejacket.

ETA: You are a refugee. The catholic boat doesn't give out lifejackets all the others do. Which boat are you getting on?

OK, but to what are you saying "no, no, no"? Isn't it true that (1) in principle almost anybody can stay ashore/avoid nonmonogamous sex; (2) in practice, many people won't stay ashore/avoid nonmonogamous sex; and (3) staying ashore/avoiding nonmonogamous sex greatly reduces the chance of drowning/contracting HIV. I thought that was one of the strengths of our analogy.

We have already stated that the ship was the program. Staying ashore is only possible if you are convinced that the people of Africa can survive without ever having sex again. Remember, sex with a spouse is almost as dangerous as sex with multiple partners because of the numbers involved.

The church says even married couples can't wear condoms so one can pass to the other and re-infection greatly adds to the health problems of an infected person.

Hmm. The Church says wearing a lifejacket will cause you to drown? You're saying that the Church says that wearing a condom will give you AIDS; I thought you'd backed off that allegation earlier in the thread because you never substantiated it.

I hate to get pissed off but a lack of reading ability, or desire, on your part does not constitute a reversal of position on my part.

In an October 2003 interview with the BBC, for example, Cardinal Trujillo suggested that HIV can permeate microscopic pores in condoms. Calling the use of condoms “a form of Russian roulette,” Trujillo stated: “The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon [spermatozoa]. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.”42 Trujillo’s claim was not new. Since 2002, various bishops have claimed that HIV can permeate condoms, called for health warnings on condom packets, and cited anti-condom studies by the pro-“abstinence-only” Medical Institute for Sexual Health.43

I will back off as soon as The Rat reverses Trujillo's words and makes them Vatican policy.

I can see the Church saying "Don't think that lifejacket will necessarily protect you".

Everyone says that.

I can even see it saying "Overreliance on that lifejacket is inducing you to take disproportionate risks with the boat".

Overreliance? What the hell is that? If you go overboard you best have a lifejacket. If you have sex, you best wear a condom. That's not overreliance, that's what the things are for!

But not "your lifejacket will cause you to drown".

"Cardinal Trujillo suggested that HIV can permeate microscopic pores in condoms."

Interesting that you think telling people that the HIV will pass through microscopic pores in condoms isn't the same as saying they will cause you infection. You know, seeing as how contact with HIV is what causes infection.

All you play is semantic games. Please make an argument with actual evidence to support what you claim the catholic church's position is. My case has been made and you haven't poked a hole big enough for HIV to get through, even in Trujillo's insane world.

 

[RandFan]

Well, if it doesn't change the conclusion that the campaigners are not responsible for additional deaths, then what's the big deal?

?

No, they WOULD be responsible. Of course.

I never suggested otherwise. But if you're going to insinuate that, for example, the man's wife is guilty of causing his infection because she could not tolerate him packing a condom in his wallet for "emergency infidelities", I don't think any demonstration is called for.

She may very well bear some responsibility. If she knows that her husband is likely to cheat on her with someone of a high risk group then she should leave or tolerate the condom. Absolutely. I see that as a no brainier. I'm not sure why you chose that analogy.

Direct human behavior? I'm afraid it rings a bit hollow to pin your theory of liability on the Church's control over people's conduct given that the situation we've been considering reveals nothing if not the Church's inability to control such conduct. Also, I cannot fathom your willingness to discard the principle of individual responsibility for one's own behavior.

If the church is entirely incapable of controlling behavior then why doesn't the church simply pack it in. I never said the church was incapable of controlling conduct and I have no idea where you pulled that idea from.

• Without doubt the church has the ability to alter behavior. The proof is in the statistics.
• The problem is that behavior is not consistent. Humans who commit to follow the rules don't follow those rules absolutely.
• When humans fall they don't suddenly run out and break all of the rules.
• When religious individuals fail to live up to their commitments thy often act irrationally.
• It is counter intuitive but the statistics bear out that fact that in a moment of weakness people who commit to abstinence or monogamy and otherwise follow the rules of the church can and will fornicate and not use condoms (I'm amazed you don't call me on my claims. I assume you know I'm right and don't want to call me on it, right). We know that there is a cause and effect because we of the statistics and it does make sense.

The default presumption is that people are solely responsible for their own individual choices. Rebutting that presumption requires the elaboration of a cognizable and coherent theory upon which alternate responsibility can be established - and in my field, I've seen just about every kind of theory pushed. You're just not there yet.

Ultimately the individual bears responsibility for his or her actions. However, there is no question that people who commit to follow the Church's rules are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

The Church could provide comprehensive sexual education thus saving lives. If the Church feels that they have no responsibility then I feel sorry for them.

I'd like to see some direct evidence of the extent to which the Church alters the behavior of the people you're concerned about, and alters it, moreover, in a way that shifts their individual responsibility onto the Church, which I would expect means in a way that seriously impairs their exercise of free will.

You are conflating two different responsibilities. That individuals bear responsibility for their choices does not release a civic organization from separate ethical and moral responsibility. I'm surprised you would try and make that argument.

Well, I think we know that the Church intends for people to alter their own behavior, it takes steps to encourage people to alter their own behavior, and it uses whatever degree of moral authority it possesses to instruct and exhort the faithful to alter their own behavior - often with noticeably little effect on their actual behavior. And speaking of their behavior, you'll have steered clear of the fallacy when you stop artificially restricting the number of alternatives available to an individual deciding whether or not to step across the line in a typical case.

We know that abstinance only programs result in increased pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Regardless of the Church's intent we know that they are making the problem worse. I think they should bear responsibility for this. You apparently don't.

Oh, I daresay almost anyone looking at the definition of holistic would be able to say which of #1 and #2 I meant by "holistic". The "evaluating the teaching as a whole" language in #1 is kind of a dead giveaway; as is the "focusing on one part in isolation" language in #2. But call them whatever you like. I was simply proposing to shift the discussion in the direction of #1. If anyone else failed to understand that, but hasn't said anything, then I apologize for any confusion.

How about comprehensive and restrictive. The CDC and the WHO recommend a comprehensive program that includes safe sex programs that are proven to work. When you use terms like holistic it makes it sound like a program that is NOT comprehensive is comprehensive. Fair enough?

For at least the third time, I didn't refer to the program as holistic. I referred to a holistic approach to critiquing the program. I don't think you understood which noun that adjective was modifying.

I understand. The "approach" is not comprehensive. The "approach" does not include teaching safe sex which is shown to be an effective method to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The term "holistic" as to the "approach" tells us nothing and only confuses the issue.

Hopefully I'll have time soon to scan through the thread - it's growing almost too quickly to keep up - for a relevant link concerning your reference to statistics, at which point I'll raise any questions I may have in that regard.

I spoke too soon.

Scientific study of sex education
Scientific Knowledge on Abstinence-only Education Distorted

 

[The Atheist]

However, there is no question that people who commit to follow the Church's rules are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

I think youve got your wires crossed here, mate, the truth is precisely the opposite.

If people followed the church rules - no extra- or pre-marital sex - they would be pretty well insulated from ever catching an STD.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If it quack like a duck...

I gave my definition; it is an opinion; others agree. Moreover, I might add, that "apologist" is much less offensive than what I've been called by said apologists. I stand by everything I have said.

So did General Sedgewick.

As the bullets whistled by, some of the men dodged. The general said laughingly, " What! what! men, dodging this way for single bullets! What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."

A few seconds after, a man who had been separated from his regiment passed directly in front of the general, and at the same moment a sharp-shooter's bullet passed with a long shrill whistle very close, and the soldier, who was then just in front of the general, dodged to the ground.

The general touched him gently with his foot, and said, " Why, my man, I am ashamed of you, dodging that way," and repeated the remark, " They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." The man rose and saluted and said good-naturedly, " General, I dodged a shell once, and if I hadn't, it would have taken my head off. I believe in dodging." The general laughed and replied, "All right, my man; go to your place."

For a third time the same shrill whistle, closing with a dull, heavy stroke, interrupted our talk; when, as I was about to resume, the general's face turned slowly to me, the blood spurting from his left cheek under the eye im a steady stream. He fell in my direction ; I was so close to him that my effort to support him failed, and I fell with him.

Standing by what he said got him killed, since he was wrong. Are you sure stubborn is the way to go?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I really don't care about god if he exists, in and of himself he has never harmed nor hurt anyone. It's the lies that he is used to justify that cause evil.

Religion is the problem, god is just a patsy.

The itallicized part made me grin.

Of course, I have to ask, which god?

Thor?
Krishna?
Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds?
Allah?
FSM?
Jehovah?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

If people followed the church rules - no extra- or pre-marital sex - they would be pretty well insulated from ever catching an STD.

And if Priests had followed their own rule of celibacy, the US Catholic Churches for the past few years would not have been paying out millions in damages in abuse/molestation cases.

If.

So, the Church provides its policy and people do what they will. Some listen, some don't. Governments provide policies and programs, and some adhere to them, some don't.

Arti has made one good point, that people need education and info rather than dogmatic exhortation and good advice (which your "if" represents, good advice often ignored due to the usual motives) but that does not change the problem of acting on the info, anymore than it changes the problem of acting on a variety of advice (good or bad) from the RCC.

I think the Uganda program (which the USN was involved with somewhat a few years back in an OOTW / nation building role that included condom distribution) is a good example of multi party action doing some good in the long term.

Note: I learned from a Flight Surgeon that lambskin condoms, once a preferred sort for me, had larger interstitial holes in them than latex condoms, and were, due to the size of the HIV cells tmehselves, prone to fail in protecting against HIV transmission. It may be that the RCC referenced (perhaps disingenuously) this reasonably well established matter in re lambskin condoms (more expensive than latex) and chose to apply it to "all condoms" in its rhetoric for its own reasons.

Not sure.

Standing up and screaming "AIDS in Africa is now the RCC's fault!" is about as valid as

Blaming The Jews

for the political problems in the Middle East. Yeah, Jews and Israelis have a part to play in the problems and the solutions, but they are not the only players in the game.

DR

 

[The Atheist]

And if Priests had followed their own rule of celibacy, the US Catholic Churches for the past few years would not have been paying out millions in damages in abuse/molestation cases.

If.

Yep, one of the least-useful words in the language.

Hell, I am The Grammar Stalin, I'm cancelling "if".

I will note that the sentence you quoted is indeed a load of old bollocks and I only put it in to correct one of the incredibly high number of false premises in this thread.

So, the Church provides its policy and people do what they will. Some listen, some don't. Governments provide policies and programs, and some adhere to them, some don't.

Arti has made one good point, that people need education and info rather than dogmatic exhortation and good advice (which your "if" represents, good advice often ignored due to the usual motives) but that does not change the problem of acting on the info, anymore than it changes the problem of acting on a variety of advice (good or bad) from the RCC.

I think the Uganda program (which the USN was involved with somewhat a few years back in an OOTW / nation building role that included condom distribution) is a good example of multi party action doing some good in the long term.

I doubt anyone thinks the RCC have taken a particularly sensible approach to the whole deal, but even so, they still maintain a positive presence in the fight against AIDS. Hard to rate them overall, I guess as we have no idea how many people have stopped, or don't use condoms due to comments by popes or edicts from the church.

Given my own attitudes to sex when I used to put it about, I can't imagine the church's opinion would make much difference.

Note: I learned from a Flight Surgeon that lambskin condoms, once a preferred sort for me, had larger interstitial holes in them than latex condoms, and were, due to the size of the HIV cells tmehselves, prone to fail in protecting against HIV transmission. It may be that the RCC referenced (perhaps disingenuously) this reasonably well established matter in re lambskin condoms (more expensive than latex) and chose to apply it to "all condoms" in its rhetoric for its own reasons.

Not sure.

That's a good thought! In the case of the RCC, I doubt there are many experts on condoms and their usage! That is potentially correct, putting them about 100 years behind the times in the world of condoms.

Standing up and screaming "AIDS in Africa is now the RCC's fault!" is about as valid as

Blaming The Jews

for the political problems in the Middle East. Yeah, Jews and Israelis have a part to play in the problems and the solutions, but they are not the only players in the game.

DR

Ah, but there is a big difference - everything is the fault of the Joooos!

 

[ceo_esq]

I sort of had in mind that there's really only one boat at issue - we can call it the S.S. Nonmonogamous Sex, as a sort of mnemonic device. It wouldn't be anyone's boat in particular.

That works for me.

OK, so to reiterate the foregoing, we agree that there's only one vessel, it's no one's in particular, it represents sex between nonmonogamous partners, and to ride the boat means to engage in that kind of sex.

No, sorry. The refugees are already on the water. Their boats are sinking (complete sexual freedom). The ship picked them up, it is the "A and B" of the "A,B,C" model of HIV prevention and control. The "C" is the lifejacket.

I thought you just agreed above that there's only one boat and that the ship would be the sex (not a prevention program as such).

ETA: You are a refugee. The catholic boat doesn't give out lifejackets all the others do. Which boat are you getting on?

Again, I thought we agreed there's only one boat and it's not anyone's in particular.

We have already stated that the ship was the program.

Initially yes, but then I suggested that the analogy worked better if the ship represented the sex, and you said that that "worked for you". What did you mean by that, if not that you accepted the proposed modifications to the hypothetical?

Staying ashore is only possible if you are convinced that the people of Africa can survive without ever having sex again. Remember, sex with a spouse is almost as dangerous as sex with multiple partners because of the numbers involved.

Possibly, but the dangers of marital sex are basically a manifestation of the dangers of extramarital sex - that's how marital sex got dangerous in the first place - and so I think it's not unreasonable to focus our analogy on the extramarital situation.

I hate to get pissed off but a lack of reading ability, or desire, on your part does not constitute a reversal of position on my part.

I was being charitable there. You were never able to pinpoint and quote a statement in which the pope said that pope said that condoms cause AIDS. To recall your own words to you, you said "With his anti-condom statement the pope has made the claim that (1) the chance of getting HIV with a condom is as high as having unprotected sex. He further stated that (2) it was the condom CAUSING the infection" (underlining and numerals mine; boldface caps yours).

"Cardinal Trujillo suggested that HIV can permeate microscopic pores in condoms."

Leaving aside the issue of whether this statement is attributable to the pope, I agree the language you just cited is arguably suggestive of (1) above. That is, one might infer from it (though it's not the only interpretation) that "the chance of getting HIV with a condom is as high as having unprotected sex". But even you recognized that (2) goes beyond this statement, since you said that the statement that condoms "caused" AIDS was a "further" statement - one that goes beyond merely alleging that condoms offer scant protection. For the sake of argument, we'll grant you (1). You have offereed no support for (2), and that's what I pressed you for in vain for so long.

Interesting that you think telling people that the HIV will pass through microscopic pores in condoms isn't the same as saying they will cause you infection. You know, seeing as how contact with HIV is what causes infection.

Even you tacitly acknowledged that they are not the same statement when you distinguished (1) from (2) above and suggested that (2) went further than (1). You had at least that much right initially, but it frequently seems to be one step forward and two steps back with you.

Telling people that enough UV can pass through their suncream to provoke cancer is not the same thing as telling them that suncream is a carcinogen. Similarly, telling people that a lifejacket isn't buoyant enough to ensure their safety at sea is not the same thing as telling them that a lifejacket is really a weightbelt (as you had the Church do in the first iteration of the boat story).

Overreliance? What the hell is that? If you go overboard you best have a lifejacket. If you have sex, you best wear a condom. That's not overreliance, that's what the things are for!

I think "overreliance" in this context would simply mean overestimating the security offered by wearing a condom, particularly in the context of an otherwise high-risk lifestyle, and then acting in reliance on that overestimation.

 

[RandFan]

I think youve got your wires crossed here, mate, the truth is precisely the opposite.

If people followed the church rules - no extra- or pre-marital sex - they would be pretty well insulated from ever catching an STD.

To commit isn't necassarily to do. Many people commit to keep all of god's commandmants. I don't know any that do. You?

 

[The Atheist]

To commit isn't necassarily to do. Many people commit to keep all of god's commandmants. I don't know any that do. You?

Nope, I think you've just got the terminology wrong; "commit to follow" implies a commitment to actually following the rules. Obviously, many don't, in which case it questions whether they were actually committed to it. It's not as though a pledge is signed or anything - the church lays out its rules and those committed to them, follow them.

Just a technicality - I agree that probably a majority don't obey the rules, but those who do will be well-protected from AIDS.

 

[RandFan]

Nope, I think you've just got the terminology wrong; "commit to follow" implies a commitment to actually following the rules. Obviously, many don't, in which case it questions whether they were actually committed to it. It's not as though a pledge is signed or anything - the church lays out its rules and those committed to them, follow them.

Just a technicality - I agree that probably a majority don't obey the rules, but those who do will be well-protected from AIDS.

We will have to disagree. Your argument assumes that only those who are succesful at a commitment are truly commited. Humans are capable of sincerly commiting to do something and then failing to keep the commitment. Results can't prove initial intent (if they did it would make "commitment" a circularly defined concept / How would you falsify it? Find a person who didn't have commitment and succeded anyway?).

I will concede that failure calls into question the commitment but it doesn't prove that there was no commitment.

 

[Herzblut]

We will have to disagree. Your argument assumes that only those who are succesful at a commitment are truly commited. Humans are capable of sincerly commiting to do something and then failing to keep the commitment. Results can't prove initial intent (if they did it would make "commitment" a circularly defined concept / How would you falsify it? Find a person who didn't have commitment and succeded anyway?).

I will concede that failure calls into question the commitment but it doesn't prove that there was no commitment.

Same applies to the commitment of using condoms.

Increasing the acceptance rates of condom use or sexual restraint in a population has to be judged as a success in an HIV prevention program. Whether one or the other is more successful depends possibly highly on concrete circumstances of the respective societies. There is no such thing like "the one successful program" that can be rolled out unaltered in each region of the planet.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

Same applies to the commitment of using condoms. Increasing the acceptance rates of condom use or sexual restraint in a population has to be judged as a success in an HIV prevention program. Whether one or the other is more successful depends possibly highly on concrete circumstances of the respective societies. There is no such thing like "the one successful program" that can be rolled out unaltered in each region of the planet.

Let me ask you a question, if it can be shown scientifically that comprehensive programs that encourage abstinence, monogamy and provide information about condom use don't increase infidelity among couples and don't in crease sexual activity among young people but do reduce sexually transmitted disease, would you support such a program?

 

[Herzblut]

Let me ask you a question, if it can be shown scientifically that comprehensive programs that encourage abstinence, monogamy and provide information about condom use don't increase infidelity among couples and don't in crease sexual activity among young people but do reduce sexually transmitted disease, would you support such a program?

I support all programs that effectively reduce HIV transmissions. I said from the beginning that I think ABC-type of programs are in general very effective. I also think, the government should control the national HIV response and should utilize the respective capabilities of the relevant civil groups in society in the best way.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

I support all programs that effectively reduce HIV transmissions. I said from the beginning that I think ABC-type of programs are in general very effective. I also think, the government should control the national HIV response and should utilize the respective capabilities of the relevant civil groups in society in the best way.

Herzblut

And if it was shown that Catholic teachings about condoms increased rates of HIV infection?

 

[Herzblut]

And if it was shown that Catholic teachings about condoms increased rates of HIV infection?

They must stop. Why are you asking such weird questions?

Herzblut