Manny Pacquiao wants to ban condoms in the Philippines

I refuse to negotiate the indisputable fact that unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases cause a net gain in human suffering. (*especially* in places like in Pac-Man's case)

Call me whatever you want, but I'm not "self-satisfied" at twhy77's mistaken belief that contraceptives cause human suffering, moreso incredibly disturbed, because unlike some silly partisan bickering over penis pictures on twitter... this has life and death consequences, as we've seen from the Catholic church enabled AIDS epidemic in sub-saharan Africa.

These are not statements of opinion I am making, these are statements of fact. I did not choose to believe them anymore than I choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. If by 'logically taut', you mean 'anecdotal and circumstantial', then yeah, sure. I could make an 'open minded' argument that water isn't wet, but there would be no virtue in it.

The only person making appeals to "intuition" here is twhy77, who claims that contraceptive usage somehow magically turns women into sex objects, causing some kind of nebulous net gain in human suffering and degradation of culture (which are completely unquantifiable, unlike the deaths we've seen in conjunction with contraceptive banning)

Meanwhile; it's been shown time and time again that contraceptive usage decreases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and lowers the infant mortality rate.

So, do you actually posit that people getting AIDS and having children that starve to death is a good thing?

 

It is? Nobody taught me that in school. I thought that's what they were prior to the blessing etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer#Communion_Wafer

 

Banning contraceptives to stop STDs is like denying food to starving people. "maybe if they don't see the food all the time, they won't go hungry!"

 

Cool. We will all keep this in mind, in the event that someone eventually considers asking you to engage in this hypothetical negotiation. (For the record: Don't YOU ever ask me to back down on my BELIEF that RAPE is the opposite of AWESOME.)

Those bastards!

Well if I had known all along that I'm sticking up for someone who believes condoms have fantastical magical powers, I certainly would've been less vocal. I can't believe he actually asserted that ridiculous notion! How laughable! Nobody should take this clown seriously!

Oh. Wait. I see what you did there.

Did you just suggest that one marker for judging whether a claim is based on mere intuition is the unquantifiability of its asserted content (e.g., net gains in human suffering)... right after announcing -- at the top of the same post -- "unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases cause a net gain in human suffering"... right after saying twhy77 is "[t]he only person making appeals to 'intuition'"?

In any case, I think you're overrating quantifiability. Some folks, viz. craaazy epistemologist-types, have honestly gone so far as to maintain that human beings can sometimes prove propositions that are -- get this -- utterly devoid of standardly measurable objects. (Yep; in the broad unit-based sense, too, not just statistically.)

The Guttmacher Institute? Really? ...Really?

The lone, dagger-in-the-heart source you decide to show me is one that shocks us with the groundbreaking discovery that, if you only prevent a life from ever coming into existence, you thereby lower the odds that there will have been an existence which reduces back into the non-existence from which it came in a span quicker than most?

Come to think of it, that's not an entirely bad pro-life strategy. Curtail death by launching a pre-emptive strike on the one host it so parasitically depends upon, life! Did you know that -- statistically, studies show, Science says, etc. -- mankind could actually cut the human mortality rate to ****ing zero if we'd simply let ourselves go extinct first?

Nope.

 

from your very own article...

seems to me that the problem are outmoded ways of thinking rather than the availability of condoms. solution-more condoms, and more education. less repression of sexuality. acceptance of the imperfect human being---especially seeing as how sex still has very much less consequences than that other odious and base animal instinct-violence.

also the article directly seems to contradict your position...

which leads to the following---

...the lone source you cited directly contradicts you.

 

My source says that the Catholic Church did enable the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa with life-or-death (OK, mostly just 'death') consequences (i.e., the only claim I was briefly countering with that source)? How terribly -- no, how criminally -- negligent of me!

For some reason that sounds like the exact opposite of what I thought the article was saying. Somehow I got the impression that it was defending the Church's policies re: the African AIDS crisis. Apparently it instead reinforced the unavoidable charge that the Papists are none other than, ultimately, AIDS-lovers.

I'm embarrassed.

 

It was defending one facet of the Pope's plan->namely that encouraging less abusive sex is good. (like less death is better!). if only it were so simple.

As it relates to this topic however, it utterly disparages the point that reducing condom availability in anyway actually helps the cause---it merely points out that condom use is not as effective as it could be, due to outmoded ways of thinking brought on principally by tribal beliefs and/or Christian notions of morality and of generally repressing all things sexual.

well then

 

Maybe I'm oversensitive, but usually when people are arguing with Catholics, they like to maintain that it is always just a stupid wafer and that Catholics are dumb for believing that it becomes Christ. It's usually a term of degradation, especially when followed by a eugenic statement. My bad if I read that wrong Voodoopope. Classy as always Sam and King Cheetah.

 

I guess you missed it, but twhy77 has already suggested that the totality of human suffering is *increased* by contraceptive use, which is, by and large, the only feasible means we have of stopping the spread of STDs and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

And by all means, believe whatever you want about anything. But when your "belief" causes human suffering, I will point it out, unapologetically so.

Did you even read the article you posted?

Highlights:

Nevermind the fact that no supporting evidence is given.

In other words, it's not that condoms aren't effective, it's that they're either 1) restricted from access or 2) not using them/incorrectly using them.

So yeah, proof of concept, they're not using them. Thanks, Catholic church! Those bastards, indeed.

More proof of concept, even when they do use them, they're not using them correctly.

All this goes to show is how deadly and dangerous ignorance can be. These people aren't given access to sexual education. A lack of knowledge doesn't mean condoms don't work. That's like the carpenter blaming the tool. Nobody thinks dropping a crate of condoms from an airplane is going to work.

Apparently you didn't see what he did there.

Spoiler

So yeah, if you equate my stating that contraceptives reduce diseases and unwanted pregnancies with his notion that contraceptives cause moral bankruptcy (or whatever the hell you want to call it) in society/for women... then you just keep on shining, brother.

Death and disease cause suffering. We can measure these things. Women "becoming sex objects" isn't measurable. I don't have to use intuition to know that contraceptives prevent the former, we have the knowledge to support that. Meanwhile, if you want to suggest that we're morally corrupting our society, or turning women into sex objects, with contraceptives, good luck proving that.

I think it's safe to say there's no accounting for taste (oh those poor, sexually objectified women?)

Yes, the Guttmacher Institute. Or, you know, try typing "contraceptives infant mortality rate" into google and take your pick.

Spoiler

Please, let's not waste each other's time with silly non-starters like this. Allowing people to control the number of children they have to fit their ability to support said children (i.e. not let them freaking starve to death or die of some horrid disease because of other factors related to overpopulation) is an important factor in mitigating human suffering.

Then tell me, what are you proposing? twhy77 suggests that contraceptive use *increases* human suffering, do you agree? If so, then you must think that, for all the unnecessary death, suffering, and disease caused by contraceptives being banned, that the benefits still outweigh those negatives. Is that true? How do you rationalize that? What is your reasoning? What are the benefits? Do you feel (like twhy77) that a few "I'm glad I had kids" stories from people in the middle of a 1st world country make it justifiable to disuade people from using contraceptives, or worse yet, impose restrictions on them? twhy77 is a catholic, is the basis for your reasoning couched in scripture as well?

 

Here, I'll hold your hand.

1. DonnyMost says, and I quote, "Call me whatever you want, but I'm not "self-satisfied" at twhy77's mistaken belief that contraceptives cause human suffering, moreso incredibly disturbed, because unlike some silly partisan bickering over penis pictures on twitter... this has life and death consequences, as we've seen from the Catholic church enabled AIDS epidemic in sub-saharan Africa."

(Pause for The Breakdown: Donny implies that the Catholic Church has substantially enabled the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.)

2. Roggit provides an article that states: (a) the Church's policy of emphasizing abstinence, monogamy, etc. ("less abusive" sex!) in Africa is one primary method supported by evidence; whereas (b) there's no conclusive evidence that condom-promotion, after 25 years, has significantly slowed the African AIDS epidemic; yet (c) AIDS researchers still promote the availability of contraception in Africa. [NB: The article never even comes remotely close to so much as mentioning "outmoded ways of thinking brought on principally by tribal beliefs and/or Christian notions of morality and of generally repressing all things sexual." The careful reader would do well to mentally register the fact that Mr. Storm has evidently smuggled his own biased assessment into the mix and apparently projected it onto Edward C. Green, whose alias is presumably not "Northside Storm".]

3. Excited, Northside Storm jumps into the mix and blows an entire load of my arguments away, by exposing an apparent contradiction between what I assert and what the article asserts. Or does he?

4. Dramatically turning the tables, Roggit politely hints that there's really no contradiction proper, since a contradiction is constituted by statements of both a proposition and its opposite (e.g., 'x' + 'not-x'), and the article obviously never stated that the Catholic Church enabled the African AIDS epidemic, i.e., the article didn't even imply that the claim Roggit disputed (viz. Donny's charge against the Church) is true.

5. Storm modifies his criticism, as, y'know, he didn't mean a literal contradiction, but only an arguable inconsistency.

6. Roggit points out that the Church is, still, hardly an enabler of an AIDS epidemic. And the article to which he linked (he repeats) cannot even be said to loosely contradict that simple point. One could at best argue that the Church enables the epidemic by stopping condom usage. Except condom usage in Africa hasn't been effectively prevented by the Catholic Church and, if it had been, the article would be saying that this wouldn't necessarily have removed a significant source of relief anyway. Basically, the article says: what the Church prohibits, there's no proof it helps; what the Church advocates, there is proof it helps.

And yet, oddly enough, this "contradicts" my denial of the Church's role in enabling the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

The Catholic Church has worsened (in other words, been an enabler of) the AIDS epidemic (or, by the kindest standards, done it absolutely no favors) by both working to restrict access to condoms and sexual education and spreading misinformation about both contraceptives and sexual health.

The article you posted basically says that 1) less partners decreases the chances of AIDS transmission (duh) and 2) condoms have not been used enough to make headway in the fight against AIDS (either by ineffective application through misinformation/lack of knowledge, or by lack of access, both of which we already know the Catholic Church has contributed to).

Once again, it's the carpenter blaming the tool. And in this case, the church is one hell of a bias carpenter.

Yes, it has. And yes, it is. As I already pointed out, discounting contraceptives based on ignorance and lack of availability/application is an invalid criticism.

Funny, what I got from it was this.

What the church prohibits, there's proof it helps, only we can't seem to get people educated (I wonder if it has anything to do with Catholic missionaries telling the locals lies about condoms, or maybe Catholic dignitaries pressuring African leadership), or enough availability and adoption of it to get it to work en masse.

What the church advocates, there's proof it helps as well.



So basically, I have no problem with advocating more monogamous relationships, just stop telling people to stop using condoms or they'll go to hell (the catholic church won't allow you to use a condom even if your spouse has AIDS...), or spreading lies about how they don't work (AIDS can "pass through" a condom, really?), etc. If you're on the anti-human suffering train, you'll get with the program and support both. Or otherwise you can continue riding the dogma bus all the way to AIDSville and starvation-city, that's your call.

 

fine, you got me. I waded into the argument and assumed you were arguing against providing more condoms or disincentivizing contraceptives based on your one article and the f****g subject of this thread. as a frequent derailer of threads, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you were off on the sides waging some other separate obscure tit for tat with Donny. If you want to continue, by all means, go ahead.

I actually don't think the Catholic Church has been a net negative force in terms of the contraceptive debate---their talk about abstinence does help. However, their unbalanced tendency towards repressing sex education and condoms does not help. Period. You gotta balance both out.

Even the author of your article agrees.

Now, if you want to argue against what Pacquiao is advocating for (i.e the f****g topic of this thread, I must emphasize) and what Donny and twhy were arguing over in the first place, well, you just provided a fabulous article and voice to do so.

If you're off defending the Catholic Church's honor in every thread---well then good luck lol, this place is like atheist central.

 

It is?

There's only like 4 or 5 of us.

Vocals ones, anyway.

 

btw, Roggit, in honor of the one piece of evidence you gathered and your condescending wit, I have decided to post a number of sources that support mine and Donny's viewpoint on the topic at hand. Empirical sources.

Please, let me hold your hand.

If you would like to evade your purpose in jumping inside this thread, then please go ahead and assert the following: "I believe in freer condom distribution and the availability of contraceptives. I think what Manny is advocating is wrong. I disagree with you on your stance on the Catholic Church as being extreme, BUT, I do agree with you on this particular topic."

If you do not wish to do so, and have a concealed motive in disparaging Donny and me over this, then you should state "I disagree with you on this topic, and believe in restricting access to contraceptives. Let the source I quoted and highlighted be the first example of why my logic is flawed."

You can continue your argument after, but I just want it to be clear where you stand, since you seem to be confusingly hijacking this topic. I do that sometimes, it's not the end of the world, but frustrating nonetheless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10546314

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8324613

http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/4morerh/4std/pdf/pr6st07.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16877291

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section004_group004/culture

 

meh, I always get the notion that there's a lot of atheists on here...i'm sure I'm not alone in that assertion given what always happens when there's a social conservative thread lurking around.

as an atheist myself---call it my godless-dar. or something less lame than that.

 

I was raised by Jesuits... never took offense to it being called a wafer... probably because it is a wafer.... in fact the priests called it a "eucharist wafer".....

You don't speak for all Catholics... certainly not for the Jesuit Fathers that raised me... you either have your head up your butt on in the sand.

 

Once again, stay classy. The guy just called for eugenic action against Catholics, maybe he wasn't trying to make a dig against church teaching in the sentence previous? But like I said, maybe I'm just oversensitive from reading too many stories like this where calling it a wafer or a cracker is meant as an argument: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

After destroying a consecrated host the guy says: "I know some of you have proposed intricate plans for how to do horrible things to these crackers, but I repeat…it's just a cracker. I wasn't going to make any major investment of time, money, or effort in treating these dabs of unpleasantness as they deserve, because all they deserve is casual disposal. However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel. "

Once again, sorry if I'm a little sensitive.

 

Donny, Northside, and Roggit.

What's the use of prattling on about this topic any further? There is a fundamental distinction between the utilitarian arguments you guys make and the traditional ones we are making (for the record Donny, I don't think I've made a single appeal to scripture as you impute).

Also, you guys are not really getting the gist of our argument, or at least mine. I hope I'm not arguing that the spread of STD's is a good thing. I'm arguing about a way to fight it. Of course condoms help in stopping the spread of AIDS, that's not really at issue. What's being argued is the moral questions that follow from that. If you take the stance of most utilitarians and argue that the only moral questions are whether pain or pleasure are being stopped or advanced, then there's not much point in arguing with someone who thinks these questions involve much more. It's as simple as that. This thread will literally go on for days, and I have more important things to do, like play with my kids. This is not the proper forum for swaying people's opinions on fundamental matters, which is whats at stake here.