50k Challenge reopened with higher stakes

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Therefore, the teaching of the RCC to not use condoms will increase the probability of AIDS transmission for those who accept these teachings but would have used condoms otherwise.

That is what I am thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, you are asserting that someone accepts one teaching of the church and doesn't use condoms, but then doesn't accept another one about having pre/extra marital sex? I guess that makes sense to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this isnt obvious in your life experience? That people accept some rules and disregard others? You've never heard of Catholic teenagers with unwanted pregnancies?

I sincerely hope your position isn't that it is an illogical leap to think that these people might take to heart some but not all of the Church's teachings, or furthermore that even if they did, entire nations of people would find it possible to remain abstinent. I would guess there is no precedent for that in all of human history.

[BluffTHIS!]

vhawk,

I can't imagine anyone choosing to disregard a moral stricture against premarital/extramarital sex, and then having qualms about using a rubber when doing so. Lots of catholics think they can indeed pick and choose (we call them derisesively "cafeteria catholics"), but if they are going to disregard one teaching on sexuality, there is no way that they are going to be concerned about disregarding a lesser one, *especially* since they will also most likely be concerned about avoiding negative consequences.

Of course that doesn't mean that it is impossible for someone to do as you say, but it is so unlikely that the numbers doing so can't be significant enough for the purposes of this debate, *unless* you are straining at gnats to make your bogus causative argument.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I don't want to outlaw the church, I want the church held accoutnable for it's misdeeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rest assured each individually will be judged on their acts. Least ways, that's how I understand the deal.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

I can't imagine anyone choosing to disregard a moral stricture against premarital/extramarital sex, and then having qualms about using a rubber when doing so. Lots of catholics think they can indeed pick and choose (we call them derisesively "cafeteria catholics"), but if they are going to disregard one teaching on sexuality, there is no way that they are going to be concerned about disregarding a lesser one, *especially* since they will also most likely be concerned about avoiding negative consequences.

Of course that doesn't mean that it is impossible for someone to do as you say, but it is so unlikely that the numbers doing so can't be significant enough for the purposes of this debate, *unless* you are straining at gnats to make your bogus causative argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is exactly what happens everywhere in the world. People fear to use condoms because the church forbids it, and those same people cannot resist the urge to have sex. So, they pop out lots of babies.

I am not saying this is the sole cause of unwanted pregnancy, it most certainly isnt, and is probably not even the main one. But you have to admit it clearly happens all of the time, and you cannot claim incredulity.

[madnak]

Bluff, first it does happen. I know that from growing up in Utah. People are idiots when it comes to these things - you may not like it, but it's true. The fact this behavior doesn't strike you as consistent is irrelevant.

Second, people make decisions based on large constellations of motivation. Religious teaching certainly "edges the scale" toward sex without condoms. Your simplistic examples have no bearing on the real world. How about something more realistic? A girl has agreed to have sex with a guy (she "knows it's wrong" but she's going to "let him do it" anyway) and want to insist on a condom - of course, she's rather insecure and naive, which is why the guy managed to seduce her in the first place, and when he brings up the religious element of condoms she gives in. Hey, she doesn't like to say no and she's not a very good thinker and she's already feeling guilty about being there, naturally she'll cave when he guilt trips her. The sum total of these kinds of situations is much more important than whether some logician in a vacuum ponders and then decides to disregard a major restriction while holding fast to a minor one.

Third, the effects on individuals aren't as important with respect to this stuff as the effects on groups. Religious people aren't the only ones who are affected by this kind of propaganda. These kinds of teachings can affect condom availability, general cultural outlook, access to information about safe sex, and even expectations among young people. The effects can run very deep and be very indirect.

Finally, statistics don't support your position. Actually there appears to be an inverse correlation between religious fundamentalism (particularly the teaching of abstinence) and teen pregnancy/STD rates. A scientist would say that when you make a prediction and the results don't confirm that prediction, it's time to revise your hypothesis.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is exactly what happens everywhere in the world. People fear to use condoms because the church forbids it, and those same people cannot resist the urge to have sex. So, they pop out lots of babies.

I am not saying this is the sole cause of unwanted pregnancy, it most certainly isnt, and is probably not even the main one. But you have to admit it clearly happens all of the time, and you cannot claim incredulity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Regarding 50 years ago I might buy that argument. But not now. If they are routinely (you might have a case as to occasional but even then your argument still doesn't trump morality) having pre/extramarital sex, then it is highly unlikely they continue as regular churchgoers who care about the condom issue.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But this is exactly what happens everywhere in the world. People fear to use condoms because the church forbids it, and those same people cannot resist the urge to have sex. So, they pop out lots of babies.

I am not saying this is the sole cause of unwanted pregnancy, it most certainly isnt, and is probably not even the main one. But you have to admit it clearly happens all of the time, and you cannot claim incredulity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Regarding 50 years ago I might buy that argument. But not now. If they are routinely (you might have a case as to occasional but even then your argument still doesn't trump morality) having pre/extramarital sex, then it is highly unlikely they continue as regular churchgoers who care about the condom issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happened in AMERICA more often 50 years ago than it does today. But we aren't talking about America.

[BluffTHIS!]

vhawk,

Here's a clue: african catholics are more conservative (less likely to pick and choose what to follow or not) than american and european ones for various reasons. And the only reason what I said might have been true in american 50 years ago is because it would mostly involve one time/occasional actions, and not habitual ones.

And this whole issue is a red herring of sorts. It is not morally licit to do something morally illicit in order to mitigate possible negative consequences of another morally illicit act (two wrongs . . .). And I again submit that someone who is a catholic, but habitually ignores its moral teachings, is only a nominal catholic and won't be too concerned about following other moral teachings linked to sexuality. If someone is not going to worry about offending God in a matter of sexual morality, why is he going to be concerned about adding to the offense by putting a rubber on? The answer is he wouldn't be.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

Here's a clue: african catholics are more conservative (less likely to pick and choose what to follow or not) than american and european ones for various reasons. And the only reason what I said might have been true in american 50 years ago is because it would mostly involve one time/occasional actions, and not habitual ones.

And this whole issue is a red herring of sorts. It is not morally licit to do something morally illicit in order to mitigate possible negative consequences of another morally illicit act (two wrongs . . .). And I again submit that someone who is a catholic, but habitually ignores its moral teachings, is only a nominal catholic and won't be too concerned about following other moral teachings linked to sexuality. If someone is not going to worry about offending God in a matter of sexual morality, why is he going to be concerned about adding to the offense by putting a rubber on? The answer is he wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there probably aren't any Catholics, anywhere in the world, who wouldn't be considered nominal Catholics under this definition.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug,

You still aren't really answering the question I put to you. Furthermore, by logical extension, any talk of "holding responsible" must also extend to any group, including political parties, who through their exercise of free speech, advocate actions even when they don't incite violence (but especially when they do), but which do in the opinion of others, have deleterious effects. As an example, to myself and likeminded people, the Democrat party's advocacy of legal abortion. Or to liberals, the Republican party's advocacy of the war in Iraq. So we religious repubs can sue the dem party for abortion, and you lib dems can sue the repub party for the lives of soldiers lost in the war. That sound right?

[/ QUOTE ]No bluff this doesn't sound right. I want to see evidence of whatever is stoping stem cell research. I want to see evidence of condom use being unethical. It you can't provide me with some evidence, It's fine for you to obey your fantasy. Actually I don't think it's fine for you to obey the dilusion. I want you to be aware that unless you are stoning to death everyone that works on sunday, and own slaves, you are able to determine right from wrong without your current reading material. There are far better explainations and I believe you are capable of seeing them. The best method to achieve that lofty goal, I'm open to. Perhaps if you answered my question about the best way to handle Mulsim extremists, you will be well on your way to realizing that religion is the easist way to get good people to do evil.