:shock: This guy seems to think that condoms are evil. Literally, he has said this. He also seems to think that the CDC is covering up the "condom lie". I Googled this and the CDC has plenty of info supporting the usage of condoms and its effectiveness. Even the FDA chimes in with an A-Ok. He is claiming that not only do contraceptives not help against disease, but they are also destroying culture. This guy is a lunatic. :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ9dR5p ... re=mh_lolz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ9dR5psj4&list=HL1364537744&feature=mh_lolz)
http://www.vericast.net/blog/2013/03/19 ... n-culture/ (http://www.vericast.net/blog/2013/03/19/contraception-poison-to-the-human-culture/)
Before I even clicked the link, I thought to myself, "Probly a Catholic". Sure enough...
Yep, a Catholitard. Dumber than the average Christian.
:-s I wonder how he'll think about what he said when over population has everyone starving to death and no unpolluted water to drink. The number one problem in the world is too many people, and almost every other problem is caused by that. Condoms are evil? Too bad his dad didn't use them. :shock: 8-)
QuoteYep, a Catholitard. Dumber than the average Christian.
Well at least they don't burn crosses in people's yards here in Arizona like the Methodist do, or come to your door trying to shove their dogma down your throat like others do. :P Bill
Quote from: "ApostateLois"Yep, a Catholitard. Dumber than the average Christian.
I actually find them to be more intelligent overall, which is scary because it lets them create so many mental hoola-hoops and circular logic...plus, in religious debates, they have the weight of records and "tradition" on their side when they start to argue with the protestants. The average protestant Christian I think is just ignorant to a lot, so they aren't quite as dangerous.... sometimes. :evil: :evil:
Condoms (non lubricated) are useful in a survival kit for several reasons, including a collapsible emergency water container. Buy the Magnum size and keep a few on hand. If nothing else, might accidentally impress your girl friend. :-D
(edit) I watched the video. My brain is a little bit smaller now.
Easier to waterproof wooden matches by keeping them in a tied condom than by waxing them. They're also good for keeping stored tools from rusting.
Quote from: "Colanth"Easier to waterproof wooden matches by keeping them in a tied condom than by waxing them. They're also good for keeping stored tools from rusting.
Right. You can also make instant fire starters by taking a condom and stuffing it with dryer lint. Keeps completely dry and lights very quickly, even on wet days.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Before I even clicked the link, I thought to myself, "Probly a Catholic". Sure enough...
At least, with the catholics, it is a debate. In islam, it is a statute.
I said it before (and it's probably in the Great Backup in the Sky) - it used to be a stature with the Catholics. Christianity is a lot older than Islam. You can't expect an ignored child to show the restraint of a well-beaten adult, restrained in chains.
The difference is only like 300-400 years, to be fair.
The RCC stopped killing people a while ago, but that's only because governments wouldn't allow them to. Those same governments won't allow Moslems to go around killing people.
But the RCC still thinks its rules should apply to everyone and no one else's rules should apply to its members, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for Moslems to grow up first.
Quote from: "AspiringParagon":shock: This guy seems to think that condoms are evil. Literally, he has said this. He also seems to think that the CDC is covering up the "condom lie". I Googled this and the CDC has plenty of info supporting the usage of condoms and its effectiveness. Even the FDA chimes in with an A-Ok. He is claiming that not only do contraceptives not help against disease, but they are also destroying culture. This guy is a lunatic. :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ9dR5p ... re=mh_lolz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ9dR5psj4&list=HL1364537744&feature=mh_lolz)
http://www.vericast.net/blog/2013/03/19 ... n-culture/ (http://www.vericast.net/blog/2013/03/19/contraception-poison-to-the-human-culture/)
He's actually right. The CDC was disclosing theoretical failure rates at least back in 2000/2001. I worked for an advertising firm that managed, and did media buys for their their condom awareness campaigns.
You googled "is the CDC covering up condom failure rates"? Does that sound like it should make any sense to you? Have you looked at his sources? Have you taken the time to base your rejection on actual personal research? I fell into advertising. I actually went to school for sociology. Personally the video that grabbed my attention was right here http://www.vericast.net/condomnation/ (http://www.vericast.net/condomnation/)
There was also another that I can't find now, and I also read that blog you posted a link to, and another one he has, which I have bookmarked someplace. But that video I just linked got my attention because I expected to listen to a rambling loon but what I was hearing was actually sound sociological methodology. Then I looked at his sources to see if I could make the same conclusions based on his own sources, and to see if I could find holes in his conclusions using his own research. His rationale held up. Really well actually. That got me interested. Then I read the blog posts and saw the other video. That all had me extra intrigued because like I said it didn't sound like a rambling loon. Again and again he was using actual sociological methodology in his assertions and in his logical testing. Here was the real mind blower for me though. Where his argument isn't supported well enough, he discloses that. No one does that when they're lying. No one sees the limits of their own argument when they're just looking to prove a point that can't be proven. It's logically impossible first of all, and it doesn't help a person's credibility. And liars want to be credible. If people are lying they try to white wash the imperfections in their arguments, or they just pull out those parts of their arguments completely. Or because they're lying they don't even see the imperfections of their own argument. He sees them. Which means he's testing his rationale/claim. It all seemed like honest scholarship to me instead of a conn. It intrigued me enough to start doing some of my own research as my time allows. After a couple of months of broken up time so far I'm not finding much that refutes his conclusion. In looking for negations, I'm actually stumbling on more supportive data. Census numbers, unplanned pregnancy elevation, infection elevation, correlation with independent condom distribution figures, findings from health oversight committees, and so on.
Its your right to disagree with him. But it sounds to me like your opinion isn't worth much. This so called catholictard is actually making sense. No one could say what he's saying, and say it the way he's saying it, structure it the way he's structuring it and also disclose his own rhetorical weaknesses if they never did actual sociological study and research. All of that stuff is very technical sociological monologue. To ordinary people it probably just sounds like talking. To someone who has a background in sociology it sounds like business talk that only Socios can identify when they hear it. That was another thing that made him seem more credible than crazy to me. Also the fact that he sounded pretty informed, beyond the references he was offering.
So anyway it's your right to disagree. But you're basing your opinion only on what people tell you, and only if they tell you something you already agree with. You just sound like you're babbling. Which actually was what I expected from him when I found his video. Ironic.
For the record I'm not even a catholic I'm a born again agnostic lol. But I know good sense and reason when I hear it. Which makes me wonder how much more the catholics have right. Which is scary.
I live in New York so I have access to really good libraries in doing my own research. But even if you live in a small town you should be just a short drive away from a major library. You should put it to use.
1. You seriously need to work on your spacing, paragraphing and punctuation because your text block is difficult to read.
2. You maintain that you have found "more supportive data" but not provided any, or any links.
One sample of contradictory data from a link:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/416 (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/416)
QuoteSexual transmission of HIV occurs when infected semen, vaginal, or other body fluids contact mucosal surfaces, such as the male urethra, the vagina, or cervix.[2] According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), a number of carefully conducted studies, employing rigorous methods and measures, have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission.[1,2]
In a two-year study of sero-discordant couples (in which one partner was HIV-positive and one was HIV-negative), no uninfected partner became infected among couples using condoms correctly and consistently at every act of vaginal or anal sex versus 10 percent of those using condoms inconsistently.[1,6]
In a similar two-year study, two percent of uninfected partners who used condoms consistently became HIV-infected versus 12 percent among those who used condoms inconsistently or not at all.[1]
A recent study of declining HIV prevalence in Uganda found no evidence that abstinence or monogamy had contributed to the decline. Findings identified the increased use of condoms in casual relationships as important in Uganda's declining HIV infection rates.[7]
Seriously. You'll have to do better than that to win any arguments. I am very confident that the vast preponderance of evidence not only supports condom usage, but also condom level of quality as well. If you want to argue the issue, better come up with some supporting sources.
I've read some of the articles that are used as sources in your blog, and they basically all come down to the same thing: they all assume abortions are horrible, contraception leads to "immoral sex" which is wrong, a culture based around sexual freedom is a bad thing, and the idea that things used to be better.
The problem is that none of these things are actually bad, and it didn't used to be better. It's nice to give graphs that show a rise in abortions, but I don't buy that more abortions is neccesarily a bad thing. The alternative to an abortion is an unwanted child. That is a bad thing. In effect, every abortion done means one less unwanted child, which will later probably turn into another poor excuse for a human being.
Likewise; the "consistent" failure rate of birth control is still very low if applied properly; what you're seeing is mostly poor sexual education combined with the false promise that poorly applied birth control is still realiable combined with people have much more sex because of it. If you compare abortion numbers for other western countries, you'll see that the number in the US are really bad. I'm not sure how much of your research time you've devoted to figuring out why that is, but I'm willing to bet that resistance to contraception and sex ed are involved heavily. The Netherlands has an abortion rate that has been mostly stable for the past 40 years, and it's about 75% lower than that in the US, and around the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in the world. And we also happen to have a culture that is really open about sex and provides excellent sexual education.
So there lies the crux in your argument. Your proof might be sound, but the thing you're trying to prove isn't objective enough to make the proof worth anything to someone who simply disagrees that your ideal view of the world is one worth striving for. And the evidence shows that if you stop thinking sex is a bad thing and simply embrace it as part of the human condition and teach it for what it is, most of the bad statistics you mention also go away. It seems to be US prude culture that's causing these numbers to go out of whack, and you're advocating for it.
Quote from: "macmania"Its your right to disagree with him. But it sounds to me like your opinion isn't worth much. This so called catholictard is actually making sense. No one could say what he's saying, and say it the way he's saying it, structure it the way he's structuring it and also disclose his own rhetorical weaknesses if they never did actual sociological study and research. All of that stuff is very technical sociological monologue. To ordinary people it probably just sounds like talking. To someone who has a background in sociology it sounds like business talk that only Socios can identify when they hear it. That was another thing that made him seem more credible than crazy to me. Also the fact that he sounded pretty informed, beyond the references he was offering.
You're not who you say you are. Either you're a nutjob who isn't terribly good at factchecking and really, really into Catholic-brand condom denialism (protip: agnostics don't usually endorse their brand of crazy and then "wonder how much more the catholics have right", that's a pretty big red flag right there that you're almost certainly a catholic pretending to be an agnostic) or you're the nutjob blogger himself pathetically trying to counter criticism by lathering praise on yourself. Either way, it's pretty damning.
Quote from: "macmania"To ordinary people it probably just sounds like talking..
Da Fuq? Well I thought he was talking from his mouth moving, sounds coming out that sounded like American English but what the hell do I know.
This reminds me of a story out of India and the Peace Corps. It is part of one of their training sessions about fully explaining themselves to the people that they are there to help.
A Peace Corp instructor was in a rural village in India. She was there to instruct people on using condoms. She explained how it helped prevent social diseases and how it prevented prenancy. She used what was was available to demonstrate how to put it on. She gathered the women of the village and put the condom on a broom handle. When she finished she put the broom handle in the corner of the hut where she was working. She had every woman put a condom on a broom that they brought to the demonstration. Weeks later the Peace Corp instructor visited the village and was shocked that most of the women were pregnant. She went to each of the pregnant women's huts, and sure enough there in the corner of each hut was a broom handle with a condom on it.
Quote from: "Hydra009"You're not who you say you are. Either you're a nutjob who isn't terribly good at factchecking and really, really into Catholic-brand condom denialism (protip: agnostics don't usually endorse their brand of crazy and then "wonder how much more the catholics have right", that's a pretty big red flag right there that you're almost certainly a catholic pretending to be an agnostic) or you're the nutjob blogger himself pathetically trying to counter criticism by lathering praise on yourself. Either way, it's pretty damning.
Fact checking, my ass. You don't know shit, let alone enough to decide whether or not I'm "factchecking". Learn to spell it before you use it dumbass.
The best you've got is accusations that I'm not fact checking, and accusations that I'm some poser? I AM agnostic, I AM really doing research, and you're really bad at constructing a counter thought. You're an embarrassment to thinkers. By the way there's no such thing as "AN agnostic", dumbass.
Quote from: "macmania"Quote from: "Hydra009"You're not who you say you are. Either you're a nutjob who isn't terribly good at factchecking and really, really into Catholic-brand condom denialism (protip: agnostics don't usually endorse their brand of crazy and then "wonder how much more the catholics have right", that's a pretty big red flag right there that you're almost certainly a catholic pretending to be an agnostic) or you're the nutjob blogger himself pathetically trying to counter criticism by lathering praise on yourself. Either way, it's pretty damning.
Fact checking, my ass. You don't know shit, let alone enough to decide whether or not I'm "factchecking". Learn to spell it before you use it dumbass.
The best you've got is accusations that I'm not fact checking, and accusations that I'm some poser? I AM agnostic, I AM really doing research, and you're really bad at constructing a counter thought. You're an embarrassment to thinkers. By the way there's no such thing as "AN agnostic", dumbass.
Well, aren't you just full of hugs and kisses. :roll: Everything Hydra said about your post was valid, and your only response was to insult him. Like so many others before you, you refuse to engage in a proper discussion because you know any one of us could rip you a new asshole if you tried.
Put up or shut up. I'm not interested in hearing your excuses and insults, and I can guarantee no one else here is either.
There are plenty of arguments made against your position. Unless you intend to address those, I'd kindly ask you to shut up and go away.
Quote from: "macmania"Quote from: "Hydra009"You're not who you say you are. Either you're a nutjob who isn't terribly good at factchecking and really, really into Catholic-brand condom denialism (protip: agnostics don't usually endorse their brand of crazy and then "wonder how much more the catholics have right", that's a pretty big red flag right there that you're almost certainly a catholic pretending to be an agnostic) or you're the nutjob blogger himself pathetically trying to counter criticism by lathering praise on yourself. Either way, it's pretty damning.
Fact checking, my ass. You don't know shit, let alone enough to decide whether or not I'm "factchecking". Learn to spell it before you use it dumbass.
The best you've got is accusations that I'm not fact checking, and accusations that I'm some poser? I AM agnostic, I AM really doing research, and you're really bad at constructing a counter thought. You're an embarrassment to thinkers. By the way there's no such thing as "AN agnostic", dumbass.
sab and now this guy? what is with the prick-parade?
Religion spends too much time on things that involve sex.
I was taking a trip with two other guys one time. One was a fundamentalist. I can't remember what the context was. Maybe there was no context at all. Unexpectedly, he said he loved his wife, but he never lusted after her. He said, "Can you imagine someone lusting after his wife?" This was in question format, but his inflection and intent clearly meant it as a statement of condemnation.
The other guy and I looked at each other for a second like we were trying to read each other for a reaction. Then he shook his head and said, "I lust after my wife all the time." We both laughed and nodded. The fundamentalist got quiet and dropped the issue, but I don't think he was questioning his perspective. He was most likely making a judgment about us, and congratulating himself on correctly pegging us as wretched sinners letting ourselves be influenced by the will of Satan.