Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Only if "condoms cause AIDS" is a logical argument

That is a misunderstanding of what the Pope said.

Though the whole "Lets give Condoms to Africa" thing was pretty much a mask so people could pretend like they were helping Africa.

[Ampersand]

Oh, please.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.

[Neonivek]

when used consistently and correctly

That is where it starts to get concerning. Guess what the percent change it will prevent HIV under those conditions?

Not to mention what are the numbers even even under labratory conditions?

It isn't a real solution to a systematic problem, it is just something that makes people feel better.

[Leafsnail]

when used consistently and correctly

That is where it starts to get concerning. Guess what the percent change it will prevent HIV under those conditions?

The chance of preventing the spread of HIV approches 99% when condoms are used correctly.  For the Pope's argument to be correct, condoms would have to increase promiscuity by some 9900%.

[Neonivek]

No Leafsnail, what I mean is. Do you know what the percents become when they are even slightly incorrectly used? It drops sharply.

condoms would have to increase promiscuity by some 9900%

Ignoring what I said earlier... This would also be incorrect since your statistic would assume people would have sex only once ever.

I myself am not against condoms, but realise it isn't a realistic solution.

Ohh well, now Ill have to try harder not to check back in here.

[Leafsnail]

Hence why condoms are given out along with education on how to use one correctly.  It's not rocket science.

Ignoring what I said earlier... This would also be incorrect since your statistic would assume people would have sex only once ever.

Nope.  If a person has sex with another unprotected, the chance of spreading HIV is close to 100%.  The chance with a condom is roughly 1% if used correctly, so the Pope's argument that condoms cause harm only works if people have 100x more sex due to condoms, which, to be honest, just isn't going to happen.

[Jackrabbit]

Ohh well, now Ill have to try harder not to check back in here.

Once again, my offer of coming over to hang out with the cool, non-committal kids who don't get into arguments like this (anymore) still stands. We do have cookies!

[LegoLord]

Some protection is better than no protection.

I'm pretty sure that 99% of all major 'corrupted by religion' events were actually political events using religion as a tool.

Exactly! Religion can be used as a tool, people are too loyal to religion and it can easily have people acting without thinking of the consequences.

Someone wasn't paying attention.  Muz was responding to a statement along the lines of "any damn thing can be corrupted."  You aren't proving anything by saying religion can be used as a manipulative tool.  There are so many things that can.  Just look at the health care debate in America.  Surprisingly, there's not much religion in most of the manipulative statements by the more raving and fanatical of the republicans.

I normally don't like doing this, but at this point the argument seems to be whether or not religion is "evil," which implies that any with religion would be evil.  That is what you seem to be suggesting, RAM.  Also, you previously spoke of good intentions being able to countering God's will.  God's will, according to Christianity, is to do good.  I see a lot of strawmen in your arguments.  And you nitpick at little details.  To sound reasonable, you need a strong, central argument, which I don't think even exists for your purpose.  What are you even trying to do?  Disprove God (something not even well-defined in the first place)?  Make Christians conform to your views?  Just complain?  Whatever it is, you're probably having the same effect on Christians as any unreasonable Christian that would go raving about how sinful atheism is would have on you.

[Ampersand]

The problem is that this whole debate has gone off on some weird non-reasoned tangent that equates Good and Bad with True and False.

[Vester]

Ohh well, now Ill have to try harder not to check back in here.

Once again, my offer of coming over to hang out with the cool, non-committal kids who don't get into arguments like this (anymore) still stands. We do have cookies!

Guh. I'm pulling out of this before it goes into politics and I explode.

Can I have cookies?

[Zironic]

People fuck no matter what. Teenage kids get bored. Give them condemns, move on.

[G-Flex]

I think giving them condemnation is what is hurting this problem in the first place (and yes, that's a joke, I understand you just made a typo).


Granted, that attitude is a bit fatalistic anyway. Just because teenagers are driven to have sex doesn't mean you can't teach them about it or how to go about it responsibly, even if half of them won't end up being responsible anyway half the time.

[sonerohi]

Why is everyone spending so much time on this arguement? I mean, really. Life's short, lets bone.

[Enzo]

Why is everyone spending so much time on this arguement? I mean, really. Life's short, lets bone.

I think the ideal solution would be to argue about the pope while having sex. It's all about multitasking.

Edit : Wait, sex and religion? And this topic isn't locked yet? Madness!

[Ampersand]

I think I called for locking it way back in page 2 or 3