Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2011, 07:48 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2011, 08:17 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Mormonism is a cult, and not a moral one at that. Unlike what David claims, it's not just fundamentalists who have a problem with Mormonism. Hitchens isn't exactly a fundamentalist. People who believe that God told Joseph Smith that polygamy is OK, only to retreat in the face of opposition in Congress, are dangerously irrational.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing people's religions. David rightly pointed that out by bringing up Scientology. Would it be wrong to criticize Scientology, or Scientologists, especially when they are running for office? If you believe that Xenu used nuclear weapons against the overpopulated earth 4.5 billion years ago, I don't trust you on anything.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2011, 09:52 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Mormonism is a cult, and not a moral one at that.
Sounds like any religion would disqualify a candidate in Hitchen's estimation, which is pretty much nothing new.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2011, 12:05 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Sounds like any religion would disqualify a candidate in Hitchen's estimation, which is pretty much nothing new.
If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2011, 03:10 PM
basman basman is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 648
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.
I'm missing the reason for your high dudgeon here. Ms BH Harry's comment seems entirely equable and apt. I'd have made the same comment myself. Plus I think Hitchens is right as you've paraphrased him. But that's a fish with a different fin.

Itzik Basman
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2011, 04:15 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Hey, I found a picture of apple:

__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2011, 04:22 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Oh, wait. Here we go.

__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-01-2011, 01:10 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Incapable of properly responding to arguments once again, my dear TwinSwords? All that logic and reason must be hard on you.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2011, 04:13 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage...
LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2011, 05:30 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGKRSAwrkXo
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-29-2011, 07:53 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.
What a horrible dilemma! ...not being able to resist the sheer joy of beating up on apple but as an unsavory consequence, being in the position of defending me.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 11-29-2011 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-29-2011, 11:48 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What a horrible dilemma! ...not being able to resist the sheer joy of beating up on apple but as an unsavory consequence, being in the position of defending me.
LOL! Yeah, it was weird.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2011, 01:07 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
LOL. You have a rather loose definition of "rampage."

Has it ever occurred to you that you're completely hysterical? You drink a lot of caffeine? You must get tired of changing your shorts every 15 minutes.
It depends on the person. You must get tired changing your shorts every 15 days. Perhaps you should change that to once every 30 days, to save yourself the effort.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-29-2011, 07:26 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
If you had actually read the article (or even just the subtitle), instead of seeing the name "Hitchens" and going on an ill-informed and defamatory rampage, you'd have seen that he dismissed the question of whether Mormonism is a cult is an irrelevant question. He merely took issue with the obscene history and beliefs of the Mormon (what I call a) cult.
Your definition of defamatory rampage is rather broad. I did read the article and as I perused Hitchen's objections to the craziness of LDS, I thought it wouldn't be much of a stretch to criticize any major religion in the US for things very similiar.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 11-29-2011 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-01-2011, 01:06 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Your definition of defamatory rampage is rather broad. I did read the article and as I perused Hitchen's objections to the craziness of LDS, I thought it wouldn't be much of a stretch to criticize any major religion in the US for things very similiar.
Show me where Catholicism strongly favored polygamy and racism as late as 30 years ago. You'd be right about Southern Baptists or Muslims, but then again, no one has accused me of being too soft on them. As for "any major religion", no. Mormonism is closer to Scientology than it is to Catholicism.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2011, 09:03 PM
hilbert90 hilbert90 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work? What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation? How easy it is to overlook what you don't want to see. Cult? I think so. The very fact that they have you so trained that you'll defend such an organization is proof.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-01-2011, 09:33 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilbert90 View Post
You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work? What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation? How easy it is to overlook what you don't want to see. Cult? I think so. The very fact that they have you so trained that you'll defend such an organization is proof.
What hysterics. The Church doesn't believe in separating the sexual act from its purpose: That's "insane".

And child molestation has no doctrinal place in Catholicism. That's just the slander of callow hipsters.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:08 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
What hysterics. The Church doesn't believe in separating the sexual act from its purpose: That's "insane".

And child molestation has no doctrinal place in Catholicism. That's just the slander of callow hipsters.
I didn't see any mention of doctrine in Hilbert's post. What he did refer to was a "attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation" - and that certainly did occur. And... Believe me when I tell you: it's not insane; if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:28 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act."
I have said it before, so I won't say it again.

I will say, though, I am always curious about the real world situations of people how make such statements about sex. Are they/have they been married?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:32 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I will say, though, I am always curious about the real world situations of people how make such statements about sex. Are they/have they been married?
LOL Why would a man of the left assume marriage to be a prerequisite for familiarity with sex?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:27 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
LOL Why would a man of the left assume marriage to be a prerequisite for familiarity with sex?
I don't. But I will point out that I am also a Christian.

I was expressing curiousity as to whether you'd had a long term and committed relationship. marriage is but one example of that, but it's still the most common one.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:51 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I don't. But I will point out that I am also a Christian.

I was expressing curiousity as to whether you'd had a long term and committed relationship. marriage is but one example of that, but it's still the most common one.
I have had relationships, but am not currently in one. And I am not married. Nor am I Christian in anything other than a cultural sense.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-02-2011, 09:50 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
I have had relationships, but am not currently in one. And I am not married. Nor am I Christian in anything other than a cultural sense.
You mentioned not being a Christian before I think. I was merely pointing out that I am one, and marriage is a sacrament in my religion, so it's going to be my "go-to" example of long-term committed relationships.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:31 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I didn't see any mention of doctrine in Hilbert's post. What he did refer to was a "attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation" - and that certainly did occur.
He is addressing a doctrinal critique by apple with a non-sequitur then.

Quote:
if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)
LOL Actually I have a scientific conception of the purpose of the sexual act (Writ large, requiring only singular reference). Recognizing that we gain other things from it (As an evolutionary device to encourage its use, better serving the primary function) doesn't change that fact. What, are you anti-science?

The Church simply takes that to the next level, recognizing this biological reality as a consequence of God's will. And God, not being one to act without purpose, is someone the Church feels has a pretty pivotal place in moral debate. Now, you may find that ridiculous. But as long as you require some generous, kindly, kid gloves talk about liberal shibboleths, you should show some degree of respect for real Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:40 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
LOL Actually I have a scientific conception of the purpose of the sexual act (Writ large, requiring only singular reference). Recognizing that we gain other things from it (As an evolutionary device to encourage its use, better serving the primary function) doesn't change that fact. What, are you anti-science?
How is this not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-02-2011, 03:43 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
How is this [idea that the purpose of sex is procreation] not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?
You may be correct in calling this an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to say. On the other hand, the idea seems to undergird environmentalism: The planet must be preserved at all costs.

One often gets the sense, too, that people who contend human ethics are merely an outgrowth of the evolutionary imperative--the species must perpetuate itself; cooperation and altruism are the best ways to do that --take great comfort from that notion, as it disposes of the idea that ethics might have a Transcendent Source.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:39 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
You may be correct in calling this an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to say. On the other hand, the idea seems to undergird environmentalism: The planet must be preserved at all costs.

One often gets the sense, too, that people who contend human ethics are merely an outgrowth of the evolutionary imperative--the species must perpetuate itself; cooperation and altruism are the best ways to do that --take great comfort from that notion, as it disposes of the idea that ethics might have a Transcendent Source.
As to the first, most (not all, but most) environmentalists don't treat the preservation of the planet as an end in itself, but as a means to the end of maintaining the quality and quantitity of human life. Many people are environmentalists for religious reasons as well.

As to the evolutionary imperative. I don't think it's so much a desire to eliminate God, although it may be for some. Rather, it's a desire to take one's own moral preferences and deem them immune to disagreement and/or argument, by claiming that they are self-evident and/or already proven.



As to the specific notion that the self-evident/scientific/evolutionary purpose of people is produce more people, and as many people as possible.

At least in some forms, this is simply religion in a particularly impoverished and abstract form.

Rather than YHWH or Jesus Christ or Allah or the myriad other spiritual systems that have been around for millenia and served many people reasonably well, positing a divine being or principle that promotes a rich if flawed set of moral and ethics and who values (at least some, but often all) people in themselves, this "natural law" religion worships The Person That Can Never Be.

The as-yet-unborn who are the nominal ends of this religion are only means once they materialize, and the ends will shift to the next generation and the next. People are only ends in themselves as long as they don't yet exist, because once they exist, their purpose to produce more people who don't yet exist. Thus, people who matter in and of themselves are beyond an ever advancing window, never coming to be as valuable in their own right.

The other justification I suppose is that people matter in the aggregate not as individuals, which makes the object of worship The Human Race. But the notion that the preservation of us as a species depends on each of us producing as many people as possible is somewhat akin to working to ensure that our planet ressembles Waterworld on the premise that water is necessary for life.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:49 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
How is this not the naturalistic fallacy? Since when does the evolutionary purpose of anything have normative weight?
Since the topic is on the nature of a thing, and the centrality of that nature in how it functions. At least, that is the case with what you quoted.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:58 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
if I follow you (I'm pretty sure I do), then you have a terribly limited conception of the purpose of "the sexual act." (It's not singular, by the way.)
I think we knew this from prior discussions. And, yeah, it's not singular, even according to Catholic doctrine. (I think we should all recall that expert as he considers himself about religion, along with all things, there's no reason to see Sulla as emblematic of the Catholic Church. The Church has enough over the past almost 2000 years that people can criticize without adding that unfair handicap.)

Last edited by stephanie; 12-02-2011 at 07:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:04 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I think we knew this from prior discussions.
No hemming and hawing over making an actual declarative position statement when it comes to snark, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-02-2011, 03:28 PM
hilbert90 hilbert90 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

As was pointed out, I was addressing the "morality" issue rather than the doctrinal issue. On the other hand, I fail to see how "doctrine" can actually be separated from people in positions of power in the church telling other people to cover something up and then they follow those commands. Sounds like official policy to me.

Maybe I'll take a different approach. The first "sign" of being a cult in the link above is that the LDS church has an ultimate leader who can dictate commands from God. The only other Western religion that exists with this property is Catholicism. In fact, the entire structure and hierarchy of the two systems is almost identical. In that sense I'd say that Mormonism and Catholicism are the most closely related rather than the least.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-02-2011, 03:55 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilbert90 View Post
As was pointed out, I was addressing the "morality" issue rather than the doctrinal issue. On the other hand, I fail to see how "doctrine" can actually be separated from people in positions of power in the church telling other people to cover something up and then they follow those commands. Sounds like official policy to me.
You're comparing a doctrinal structure which strikes moderns as offensive to criminal activities by people, not connected to doctrine. As such, it isn't really relevant, is it?

Quote:
Maybe I'll take a different approach. The first "sign" of being a cult in the link above is that the LDS church has an ultimate leader who can dictate commands from God. The only other Western religion that exists with this property is Catholicism. In fact, the entire structure and hierarchy of the two systems is almost identical. In that sense I'd say that Mormonism and Catholicism are the most closely related rather than the least.
It isn't really intended to. Mormonism is supposed to be imitating the American government in its structure. I guess the similarity is that the American government, like the Catholic church, models itself after the Roman Republic in many ways.

As to that particular element of "cult", it is silly Protestant heresy transformed into psychobabble by "secular humanists".
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-02-2011, 05:51 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilbert90 View Post
You have got to be kidding. Catholicism still engages in horrifying practices. Forget 30 years ago. What about its obsession with contraception perpetuating the rampant spread of HIV in potions of Africa where it does mission work?
You're talking about the approach which secular epidemiologists acknowledge leads to less AIDS? Perhaps opponents of faithfulness in marriage should be held to account for their role in spreading AIDS, in Africa and elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilbert90 View Post
What about the attempted systematic cover-up of child molestation?
Yes, what happened was terrible, but the wrongs have been fixed - and at no point did the Catholic Church actually endorse child molestation, which is unlike another religion, which worships a child molester as the best man who ever lived (who actually molested someone much younger than priestly child molesters).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2011, 06:26 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
You're talking about the approach which secular epidemiologists acknowledge leads to less AIDS?
Please point me to the epidemiological evidence that urging people to be abstinent until marriage leads to a lower incidence of AIDS than does encouraging condom use.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:12 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Please point me to the epidemiological evidence that urging people to be abstinent until marriage leads to a lower incidence of AIDS than does encouraging condom use.
Harvard good enough for you? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032702825.html

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

Faithful polygamy, my ass! But I do agree with the rest of this statement, and I'm sure that as a Christian, you will to.

Mind you, I don't agree with my position as you phrased it. However, it simply isn't correct to suggest that the Catholic Church's position is actually helping the spread of AIDS. The Catholic Church has more beliefs than only the ones about condoms - you can't separate them. If people were actually faithful to the Church's teachings, there'd be no spread of AIDS. It seems unlikely that people would obey half of the Church's teachings: violate the Church's teaching in every way, but suddenly become a fervent Catholic when it comes to using condoms.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:13 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

LOL Good point.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:34 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Faithful polygamy, my ass! But I do agree with the rest of this statement, and I'm sure that as a Christian, you will to.

...

Mind you, I don't agree with my position as you phrased it. However, it simply isn't correct to suggest that the Catholic Church's position is actually helping the spread of AIDS.
If I understood correctly, the article claimed that changing some bad sexual practices was more productive than condom distribution. However, and this is part of my fault for not being clear, what it DOESN'T say is that advocating the avoidance of condom use is somehow a useful strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:44 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
If I understood correctly, the article claimed that changing some bad sexual practices was more productive than condom distribution. However, and this is part of my fault for not being clear, what it DOESN'T say is that advocating the avoidance of condom use is somehow a useful strategy.
Nope, that's true. However, the claim was that the pope's position on condoms leads to the spread of AIDS, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it does. Condoms are of limited usefulness anyway (in Africa):

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.

People need to refrain from polygamy, promiscuity and adultery to prevent AIDS. Genitalia-chopping and condoms are not a viable strategy, though condoms can be a somewhat of a help, as the article states. However, as long as the population is having sex like madmen, the availability of condoms will not prevent the AIDS-rate from skyrocketing.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:52 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
People need to refrain from polygamy, promiscuity and adultery to prevent AIDS. Genitalia-chopping and condoms are not a viable strategy, though condoms can be a somewhat of a help, as the article states. However, as long as the population is having sex like madmen, the availability of condoms will not prevent the AIDS-rate from skyrocketing.
See, this is the problem with Green's logic. He is saying that promotion condom use hasn't been effective because people don't consistently use condoms. I fail to see how the same can't be said about the promotion of monogamy.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-03-2011, 06:35 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
See, this is the problem with Green's logic. He is saying that promotion condom use hasn't been effective because people don't consistently use condoms. I fail to see how the same can't be said about the promotion of monogamy.
Not everyone is monogamous? It's true. But in relatively healthy cultures, the overwhelming majority of monogamous couples do not cheat. So that takes a large portion of the population out of the STD equation. Say 70% of the sexually active population. I believe that this provides a far better degree of protection, than if 70% of people were using condoms relatively often, even if such efforts succeeded (and Green claims that they don't). That would mean that the virus has a clean chance of spreading through 30% of the population, and a reasonable chance to spread through the 70%. Unworkable.

Remember that to be monogamous requires the omission of adultery, while using condoms actually asks (poor) people to do something: buy condoms, not forget to use them correctly. It's a hell of a burden. On the other hand, not committing adultery is the moral and easy course of action.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.