Tackling AIDS in Africa

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Ha ha ha! I want to stop replying cause it's wrecking the thread but this is comedy gold!

Pasting in a whole post with a disparaging remark isnt doing much for debate. If you have a point to make make it. "this is funny" isn't a point unless supported bwith evidence!

Guns don't kill people people kill people... ah how I love that phrase. And it makes so much sense!

Which you promptly ignored!

I'll give you a bread knife and you give me a gun and lets try to find things we can do with those items that are not killing people. I can think of about 10 for the bread knife off the top of my head. You having much luck with the gun?

Are you trying to argue for "intelligent design" here. now that is funny.

Ill give you one example. If I was ta mute with my arm trapped under a rock in a forest I could use the gun to signal for help. especially if it was a flare gun. Faced with that or the choice of cutting off your arm with the breadknife what do you think seems sensible?

It's just so much easier to kill people with a gun no? It's almost like it's what they're made for!

You ARE trying to argue for "intelligent design"

Wow! Imagine if that was actually the purpose of a gun... oh wait. I think it is. Now, I don't know what kind of strange relationship other people have with their penises but I can assure you mine is not nor can I concieve of any way it could be for killing anyone. So. Quit equating it with a gun, or I will continue to laugh at your posts and think they're silly.

The body, parts of the body or tools created by people can all be used for doing acts which are wrong. Deal with it.

And I never called you a Nazi.

You equated my "type of logic" with Nazis

Anyhow, I think we have your position on the matter.

No you don't! My personal beliefs are nothing to do with the issue!

You believe the Pope has a valid position re: the crisis of AIDS in Africa.

It isn't a question of what I believe! It is a logically valid position!

Now here's what I think. I think he has a position, it is fine that he has a position, but I think it is wrong to say that his position is valid without really hammering out what it means to have a "valid" position.

Fair enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

We have to be morally relativistic here (I know it sounds like such evil!),

We DON'T have to be relativist ! And whether or not YOU are does not invalidate the Pope's or another religion's position!

the situation faced in AIDS ravaged regions is awesomely bad. And complicated. The Pope's views are complicated by the fact that before any of this problem flared up he thought condoms were morally wrong.

No he didn't! He wasnt Pope then for starters but the last Pope didn't either QED!

Now it looks from the outside that condoms may (amongst many other things) help to stem the flow of new infections.

No it doesn't! I already posted references to peer reviewed reports which show that free condoms are not arresting HIV because of exploitative sex.

An extra pair of hands on that bank to save the people from falling in the river if you want to take an earlier analogy. If that is the case then condoms are great.

Or to take another earlier analogy. Is it better to have a policy to create a Schindlers list so some people can avoid being gassed or is it better to say camps should be closed down?

The previous thinking that they are immoral is wrong.

1. That isn't the previous thinking
2. You opinion that something is wrong is just that your unsupported opinion!

If it is not the case then condoms are bad and the previous position that condoms are immoral is right... no... wait. That's not true is it? Condoms do not have a right or wrong to them.

Exactly! QED you are arguing from a false premise!

Their use or non use is all that matters. So if they save lives, and they can be shown to save lives,

They haven't been! Exploitative sex still happens to be spreading HIV!

by people who are in there getting their hands dirty, then the only valid position to hold is that they should be available

actually no it isn't the only valid position even if a schindler's list saved lives that does not mean the much broader wrong of gassing people shouldn't be given way more attention!

and the Pope does not hold a valid position.

He does. it is based on sound argument. Just because you dont agree does not invalidate it!

So in a long rambling sense, the only truly valid position to hold is the "Act; Observe; Modify" position.

Yes. maybe modify you opinion by observing intergenerational exploititive sex is wrong and act to stress that rather then "free condoms and encouraging condom use will prevent AIDS"

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I thank you for clarifying that point but my real issue was not with the car analogy but with the use of unrelated and misleading analogies in general.

LOL! and who introduced the "speeding car " analogy?

Analogies like having safe sex is like using less dangerous guns are misleading and unhelpful and only serve to confuse the issue.

AS are phrases like "safe sex" You have been shown the stats. Condom use is encouraged in africa and condoms made available. HIV is STILL spreading!

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

AS are phrases like "safe sex" You have been shown the stats. Condom use is encouraged in africa and condoms made available. HIV is STILL spreading!

Monogamy and abstinence are encouraged in Africa and HIV is STILL spreading!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Monogamy and abstinence are encouraged in Africa and HIV is STILL spreading!

Not where monogamy and abstinence are practiced even if free condoms are given out!

http://www.uz.ac.zw/science/maths/zimaths/73/aids.html

According to the study, abstinence education has shown significant effectiveness in reducing AIDS in Uganda, with the HIV infection rate dropping 50 percent between the years 1992 and 2000.

When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000.

The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive in 2001, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women.

Reuter report of 1 February 2003 quotes the Botswana Health Minister, Joy Phumaphi, at the launch of a new programme to combat AIDS: ``We will treble the annual distribution of condoms and have them available within one kilometre of 85% of the population.'' The report goes on to say that more than a third of the people aged 15 to 49 have HIV in Botswana, and that the country has handed out 21 million condoms over the last decade. The government now plans to sell 14 million over the next four years at cost price.



And the argument was not about the spread it was about condoms being the solution and the Pope or others having an invalid opinion for saying "condoms are not the solution to the spread of HIV":


The net impact of changes in initiation of sexual
intercourse and of abstinence among those who had
had sex is reflected in the proportion of all women
and men who were sexually active in the three
months before each survey period. This measure
indicates a decrease in ongoing levels of exposure
over the period 1988–2000 to HIV risk among all
adolescent women and men,
...
Sharp increases in monogamy also contributed to
lowering the risk for HIV infection for the periods
1989-1995 (GPA) and 1995-2000 (DHS). These
increases reduced the risk for HIV infection among
younger married women and among unmarried
sexually active women at all ages. They understate
the importance of overall reduction in the number of
sexual partners. Other research has shown that
partner reduction among those having multiple
partners can also be highly significant in terms of
epidemiological impact on HIV infection.13
Increased monogamy protected unmarried men
over the period 1989-1995 (GPA data shown here and
also discussed in other studies14); the limited data
available for married men for this time period also
show that this factor changed in the direction of
reduced risk of HIV infection for them.

http://www.guttmacherinstitute.net/pubs/or_abc03.pdf page 20 right hand column

sonicthebadger*

@ISAW.

I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we don't seem to be speaking the same language so it's not getting us anywhere. It's been fun though! Have a nice day.

Sam Vimes

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

@ISAW.

I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we don't seem to be speaking the same language so it's not getting us anywhere. It's been fun though! Have a nice day.

I concur. Bye now

ColmDawson

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

@ISAW.

I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we don't seem to be speaking the same language so it's not getting us anywhere. It's been fun though! Have a nice day.

You say you are speaking different languages but you have not backed up this claim with a citation!

sonicthebadger*

ColmDawson wrote: »

You say you are speaking different languages but you have not backed up this claim with a citation!

Oh, I'm sorry. Here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discombobulate#English

Does that help?

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

@ISAW.

I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts because we don't seem to be speaking the same language so it's not getting us anywhere. It's been fun though! Have a nice day.

Stricking your fingers in your ears and saying "Im not listening2 will not make you righ.

I agree we don't seem to be speaking the same language. I rely on classical logical debate. I back up what the pope's position seems to be with published peer reviewed research. You rely on opinion such as " I think he has a position, it is fine that he has a position, but I think it is wrong to say that his position is valid without really hammering out what it means to have a "valid" position," and on "groupspeak" ironically common to Religious cults: http://www.sossobriety.org/cults.htm

In fact, a cult doesn’t have to have a living guru, be fanatically religious, or religious at all. That is just one cult variation. Cults can be secular, are found in the fields of psychotherapy, politics, science, business training, self help and new age movements. A cult can form around an idea, a book, a mission, a vision, a theory, etc. Often cults form through split aways from healthy organizations under the excuse of it being degenerate, insufficiently fundamentalist, or badly organized. This is usually provoked by the need of the breakaway cult members to find solace in certainty, black and white thinking and set answers for everything. What Fromm called the "Escape from Freedom". Moreover, just as nobody decides to join a cult, cult members never think or admit they are in one. Cult members like to reassure themselves in collective self-delusion that they are superior, even denouncing other groups as being cults and/or congratulating themselves on being the true path, being rational and objective and even trumpeting their own non-cultism!

In such a way have some people pointed to recovering alcoholics and AA as a cult.

I supplied definition of "valid" and i supplied the published research on HIV/AIDS statistics in relation to monogamy, to abstinence, and to condom availability and use.
The Popes position is valid! That validity is supported by peer reviewed literature. Opposed to that we have the opinion that "promoting condoms are the best way to prevent HIV spreading".