• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Concerns Over Popes Rejection of Condoms for Combating AIDS

Condoms aren't 100% reliable.

Just tell people to not have sex with infected people.

Isolation colonies for the infectious is a good place to start.
Click to expand...

Its Africa we are talking about, most of them have no clue about AIDS or its affects, and cant afford to take tests and get checked out. What do you expect we do anyway, round up the infected?

Right, the proper answer to speech you disagree with is....to cut off that speech. I would add "freedom of speech" to your list of things to look up, right under "separation of church and state."
Click to expand...

The vatican plays an import role in society, a very influential rule not just in society but around the world, with the ability to alter politics. So instead of adding stopping freedom of speech to the list the way you suggested, get rid of the vatican. As i said previously, its probably not realistic to think this is possible, but that is one of the reasons why i think the vatican should cease to exist.
 
Condoms aren't 100% reliable.
Click to expand...

Tell me the chances of someone infected with AIDS to pass it on to someone after sex, compared to the chances of getting infected by it using a condom? I think that pretty much concludes it; 100% effective or not, they work, and thats all that matters.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, he's dead. That would be a little hard to do. Regardless, I don't see how Anton LaVey's influence would somehow be harmful. Do you know anything about Satanism?
Click to expand...

Enough to know it's garbage and completely untenable in a civilized society.

Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Click to expand...
 
kaya'08 said:
The vatican plays an import role in society, a very influential rule not just in society but around the world, with the ability to alter politics. So instead of adding stopping freedom of speech to the list the way you suggested, get rid of the vatican. As i said previously, its probably not realistic to think this is possible, but that is one of the reasons why i think the vatican should cease to exist.
Click to expand...

They may have influence, but there's nothing wrong with that. The only reason you would advocate ridding the world of the vatican is because you don't agree with their religious ideology. I don't agree with it either, but I think people should have a right to believe what they want to believe. I do have a problem when they try to shove it down my throat and understand that religion having influence on leaders can be dangerous. However, short of completely banning organized religion I think all we can do is continue to speak out against things and express our beliefs or get into a position of power where you can make changes based on your own beliefs.
 
BulletWounD said:
Enough to know it's garbage and completely untenable in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you just copied and pasted some stuff from wikipedia, which basically means you know absolutely nothing about Satanism. Gotcha.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Ah, so you just copied and pasted some stuff from wikipedia, which basically means you know absolutely nothing about Satanism. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Again, I know enough to know it's garbage. I have both wikipedia and your own personal statements from another thread to back that up.
 
BulletWounD said:
Again, I know enough to know it's garbage. I have both wikipedia and your own personal statements from another thread to back that up.
Click to expand...

Which amounts to absolutely nothing. Have you read any Anton LaVey books?

If you have such a sound argument you'd have much more than some wikipedia articles and your own personal opinion.

And hey, you are more than welcome to have whatever opinion you do about Satanism. I really could care less. I just think it's funny that people like you typically make harsh judgments with very little resources to back up your arguments. And as you have just shown you are no exception.
 
kaya'08 said:
Tell me the chances of someone infected with AIDS to pass it on to someone after sex, compared to the chances of getting infected by it using a condom? I think that pretty much concludes it; 100% effective or not, they work, and thats all that matters.
Click to expand...

Yes. Condoms succeed in allowing the users to think they're safe.

Ain't a concise and accurate statement of the circumstances a wonderful thing to behold?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes. Condoms succeed in allowing the users to think they're safe.

Ain't a concise and accurate statement of the circumstances a wonderful thing to behold?
Click to expand...

They aren't 100% effective, but they are far more effective than not using anything at all. It's better to be safe than sorry.
 
Laila said:
Condoms is not a solution but it is a wonderful starting place.

Muslim Sub Saharan Africa has little aids and not to the scale of other places, you get a step into where the Pope has his stranglehold and deathgrip and you notice it's off the roof.
Click to expand...

There a more pertinent reason for that.

HIV doesn't infect camels.
 
dclxvinoise said:
They aren't 100% effective, but they are far more effective than not using anything at all. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

See what I mean?

They're not 'safe'.

They're "safer".

That's a huge difference when the gamble is your life.

It's not safe to use a parachute to jump from an airplane, it's safer than not having one.

The safe option is not flying.
 
BulletWounD said:
Again, I know enough to know it's garbage. I have both wikipedia and your own personal statements from another thread to back that up.
Click to expand...
Well then share some of that knowledge with the rest of us, because so far you have done a poor job of making a case.
 
EgoffTib said:
You're really implying that Muslims **** camels? Talk about tactless ignorance.
Click to expand...

Awww....you're toooo smart for meee...

Would have been better or worse if I said,

Monkeys that can carry HIV don't live in the desert?

How many different offensive nuances can you dig out of that one?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
See what I mean?

They're not 'safe'.

They're "safer".

That's a huge difference when the gamble is your life.

It's not safe to use a parachute to jump from an airplane, it's safer than not having one.

The safe option is not flying.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck convincing people to abstain from sex. :lol:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Awww....you're toooo smart for meee...

Would have been better or worse if I said,

Monkeys that can carry HIV don't live in the desert?

How many different offensive nuances can you dig out of that one?
Click to expand...
Did I misinterpret something or was I correct?
 
EgoffTib said:
Did I misinterpret something or was I correct?
Click to expand...

Don't know.

Does "***" = "have sex with"?

What kind of a mind do you have, anyway?

Everyone knows why the muslims have those religious objections to eating pork.

They've always known cannibalism spreads kuru.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Don't know.

Does "***" = "have sex with"?

What kind of a mind do you have, anyway?

Everyone knows why the muslims have those religious objections to eating pork.

They've always known cannibalism spreads kuru.
Click to expand...
Were you implying that Muslims have sex with camels? If you were not, then you have my apologies.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, good luck convincing people to abstain from sex. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm stating the facts.

It's a lie to tell people condoms are "safe".

It's accurate to tell them it's safer to use them than it is to run naked through the briar patch.
 
EgoffTib said:
Were you implying that Muslims have sex with camels? If you were not, then you have my apologies.
Click to expand...

Of course I wasn't implying that.

Who could imagine a camel wanting to have sex with a muslim? They'd never consent, it would have to be rape.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm stating the facts.

It's a lie to tell people condoms are "safe".

It's accurate to tell them it's safer to use them than it is to run naked through the briar patch.
Click to expand...

How is it a lie to tell them that they are safe? Them being safe has no bearing on how effective they are. They are the safe alternative to not using a condom at all.

And no, your hyperbolic analogy is not accurate.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes. Condoms succeed in allowing the users to think they're safe.

Ain't a concise and accurate statement of the circumstances a wonderful thing to behold?
Click to expand...

Lool get aload of this guy, he thinks condoms are just some placebo affect. What a dork. That would explain your genital warts. :roll:
 
dclxvinoise said:
How is it a lie to tell them that they are safe? Them being safe has no bearing on how effective they are. They are the safe alternative to not using a condom at all.

And no, your hyperbolic analogy is not accurate.
Click to expand...

Because I know what the word "safe" means.

Because I posted a little word movie, just for you, to illustrate the difference between "safe" and "safer". Since that movied didn't work, please refund me the price of your ticket.

And at the most, it's a paraboic analogy. Falling bodies in constant gravity fields do not follow hyperbolas.
 
Last edited:
Actually I will agree with Scarecrow here on the wording. Condoms themselves are not safe, it is the proper use of condoms that makes it safer than not using them.

Afterall safe implies that you can't get pregnant, catch STDS, etc. at least in my mind.

Proper condom use is waaaaaay safer than not using one, but you are not 100% safe.

Either way, I would prefer educating Africans on proper condom use rather than telling them to abstain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom