Sphephen Fry debate against catholicism

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

*bows down*

LJS9502_basic

The site you linked gives an average failure rate (for both types of failures) at 8.04%

That is half of the 15% you claimed initially.

So no, I am still bowing, because I didnt only bow for the refutation of your percentage but for the clarification of key-points that were left unclarified and shed light on many aspects of this discussion....

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Pregnancy Rates are on the Uprise, Abortion is on the Uprise, and Teen Sex is on the Uprise. And Again, Sarcasm won't help you.

Snipes_2

You can put the bat away, that horse is already dead. They're on the rise, that does not mean condoms are at fault. In fact, I posted a link where several professionals who deal with this issue every day said that the decrease in sexual education and contraceptive use is to blame for these factors. See, correlation+professional opinion and objective study=causation a.k.a. a valid argument, simply saying all these things are on the rise and then attributing that to condoms with no proof=simple correlation a.k.a. a flimsy argument.

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="theone86"]

You can put the bat away, that horse is already dead. They're on the rise, that does not mean condoms are at fault. In fact, I posted a link where several professionals who deal with this issue every day said that the decrease in sexual education and contraceptive use is to blame for these factors. See, correlation+professional opinion and objective study=causation a.k.a. a valid argument, simply saying all these things are on the rise and then attributing that to condoms with no proof=simple correlation a.k.a. a flimsy argument.

theone86

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

A very high occurance...? I don't think so..and as i've said...priests are PEOPLE therefore they are subjects to fallibility just like you and me..you're suggesting we blame a whole organization for rare actions of individuals...

11Marcel

That doesn't say the whole catholic church is responsible, but it deserves a good look at the guidelines for priests and the celibacy in general. It's no far cry to think that making priests be celibate channels their sexual urges in the wrong way. After all, it's fair to say that sex is part of human nature, and if that human nature becomes too much to handle for a priest's faith, then the children are the closest comfort. Maybe that should be changed.

I don't think so...it may also be that pedophiles are choosing to go into the priesthood as a means of getting around children...there's really no definitive conclusion one could make in that regard..

There are less priests then males in the world..so naturally the percentage will be higher..

Also from your source; if that's what you really want to call it.

EDIT: I suppose it means nothing if you honestly believe that FDA-approved condoms aren't effective protection against HIV.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] And where are the links? I attributed it to their usage :?Snipes_2

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

That's the problem with correlation, you can make your arguments with it all you want, but it's going to bite you in your behind.

So no, I am still bowing, because I didnt only bow for the refutation of your percentage but for the clarification of key-points that were left unclarified and shed light on many aspects of this discussion....

Teenaged

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] And where are the links? I attributed it to their usage :?Snipes_2

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

no correlation is not he most effective way to view statistics and I've illustrated why. In addition, you've provided no statistics simply saying that people are going to have more sex if condoms are available so naturally diseases will be more prevalent (conjecture). If you can't find the link that's your problem, I'm not searching for it again, and there is no point at which you successfully refuted anything I've said. Anything else?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Also from your source; if that's what you really want to call it.

EDIT: I suppose it means nothing if you honestly believe that FDA-approved condoms aren't effective protection against HIV.

LJS9502_basic

But your source does.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

11Marcel

That's the problem with correlation, you can make your arguments with it all you want, but it's going to bite you in your behind.

It's not just Catholics. Others just don't get press.:|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Also from your source; if that's what you really want to call it.

EDIT: I suppose it means nothing if you honestly believe that FDA-approved condoms aren't effective protection against HIV.

LikeHaterade

But your source does.

From yet another site....Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%.

Which means his 2% is STILL too low...

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] And where are the links? I attributed it to their usage :?Snipes_2

Links are there and the difference between what exactly you attributed it to is semantics, you still have not refuted anything I've said nor provided any real basis for your argument based on objective facts or reasoning. Your argument is still the same now as it was ten pages ago, which is basically to say it's a bunch of correlation and conjecture.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]One...I never said they didn't...

LJS9502_basic

But your source does.

User error doesn't count. If I use my PC as a windowstop and it falls out the window and breaks does that mean Dell made a faulty PC?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]One...I never said they didn't...

LJS9502_basic

But your source does.

It sounds to me that you're nit-picking. You provided a source that is anti-condoms and believes that they do not protect against HIV. Why the hell should I, or you yourself, take that source serious?

I don't think so...it may also be that pedophiles are choosing to go into the priesthood as a means of getting around children...there's really no definitive conclusion one could make in that regard..

There are less priests then males in the world..so naturally the percentage will be higher..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Also, if this was the case, why not let the justice system deal with these cases from the get go? If pedophiles become priests and not the other way round, wouldn't that mean that they weren't true catholics in the first place? Besides, the justice system is the system everyone chooses to find the truth. Why wouldn't it be good enough for the church? Questions, questions....

Also, as always every excuse is found to prevent saying "yeah, maybe we should also take a good look at the guidelines for priests". Why is that so hard to say/admit?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

So no, I am still bowing, because I didnt only bow for the refutation of your percentage but for the clarification of key-points that were left unclarified and shed light on many aspects of this discussion....

LJS9502_basic

Did you quote the wrong post or something?

But then again you butchered my post so you probably knew who you are responding to.

Still your response makes no sense. Care to enlighten me?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

But your source does.

LikeHaterade

It sounds to me that you're nit-picking. You provided a source that is anti-condoms and believes that they do not protect against HIV. Why the hell should I, or you yourself, take that source serious?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

But your source does.

theone86

User error doesn't count. If I use my PC as a windowstop and it falls out the window and breaks does that mean Dell made a faulty PC?

[QUOTE="clayron"]Did you see where it says "typical use" and how that is defined?LJS9502_basic

First, that wall of text I posted showed the difference between user failure and condom failure. You posted a link that shows what you get when you have "typical use" and "perfect use". You didn't contradict me at all and you know it.

Contradictions to the Center for Disease Control by a "Pro-Life" website. Really? You have found no contradictions. I have refuted every single thing you have said.

Ok, lets do this:

1. Your link does not provide the names of studies. It provides quotes and then nothing else. It not even possible to verify the quote with the report it is quoted from.

2. This is correct :""The rubber comprising latex condom has intrinsic voids about 5 microns in size." The HIV virus is 0.1 micron. Roland, Rubber World. June 1993. Roland and Sobieski, Rubber Chemistry and Technology. Vol. 62, 1989."

However, I posted a source earlier that says that condoms reduce HIV transmission by 80%. 80%. That a significant number considering that condoms does indeed contain microns that HIV could potnetially get throuhg.

3. "Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 70% if they are used "consistently and correctly" IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) Medical Bulletin Feb. 1997"

Backs up my earlier claim.

4."It is not established whether the condom is as effective at preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV as it is for preventing conception." "The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence (of HIV) among condom nonusers. Thus the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy." Family Planning Perspectives, 1999."

And I will add:

• Condoms are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy when used consistently and correctly.5
• The first-year effectiveness rate in preventing pregnancy among typical condom users on average is 86 percent. This includes pregnancies resulting from errors in condom use.Not from defective condoms.

5. "The failure rate for condoms in preventing pregnancy is 10%. K. Niswander. Manual of Obstetrics 1980."

Weird, because 10 years later its 98% based on by the CDC in 1990.

6.The ISO standard for condoms allows 2 per 350 to be defective (about six defects per thousand.) (Tough luck if you happen to be one of those six). Six defects per thousand. .6% Yet, there is still a 98% success rate in condoms.

7."Increased condom use will increase the number of [HIV/AIDS] transmissions that result from condom failure" and "a vigorous condom promotion policy could increase rather than decrease unprotected sexual exposure if it has the unintended effect of encouraging a greater overall level of sexual activity." "Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons".

Wrong. AIDS: Researchers from Switzerland's Lausanne University Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine report the results of a media and school-based prevention education program that promoted condom use, sexual abstinence, and marital fidelity. Findings indicated that condom usage has increased dramatically and people are engaging in no more sex now than when the campaign began. The findings should reassure those who fear that widespread condom education will increase sexual activity and promiscuity. These findings are consistent with studies on condom use and sexual behavior in Germany and other European nations.

8. "In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992."

Well I can not argue with one test.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]One...I never said they didn't...

LJS9502_basic

But your source does.

From yet another site....Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%.

Which means his 2% is STILL too low...

[

clayron

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And an opinion on the issue does not mean the stats aren't correct. I've given him other stats showing his 2% is way too low....so that just backs up other stats is all.;)LJS9502_basic

User error doesn't count. If I use my PC as a windowstop and it falls out the window and breaks does that mean Dell made a faulty PC?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

But your source does.

Teenaged

From yet another site....Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%.

Which means his 2% is STILL too low...

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] I'd say the archbishop during his final statement won the debate by pointing out how they did not make a single argument for how the Catholic Church is not a force of good in the world, all they did was prove how the Catholic Church was bad for the world. VendettaRed07

...... Well.. You cant exactly be a force of good in the world and be bad for the world at the same time..

[QUOTE="clayron"]

[

LJS9502_basic

Obviously different surveys get different results here, which shows you the difference of condom failure and usage failure something which those surveys do not seem to adress, and their differences in fact point towards it.....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="clayron"]

[

Teenaged

Obviously different surveys get different results here, which shows you the difference of condom failure and usage failure something which those surveys do not seem to adress, and their differences in fact point towards it.....

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Because I've shown other quotes that state the same. They don't 100% protect against AIDS by the way....Anyway....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="clayron"]

[

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And an opinion on the issue does not mean the stats aren't correct. I've given him other stats showing his 2% is way too low....so that just backs up other stats is all.;)LJS9502_basic

User error doesn't count. If I use my PC as a windowstop and it falls out the window and breaks does that mean Dell made a faulty PC?

They happen, but if the user uses the condom correctly then it happens rarely. Some moron putting it on hastily or tearing it accidentally does not mean that the product doesn't work. It means that the user destroyed it and rendered its protection void. The 2% he is talking about accounts for the accidents that happen when the condom is used correctly. If it's not used correctly then you can't expect it to have any effect. If I drink alcohol while taking medicine then I am solely responsible for what happens. It doesn't mean that the medicine doesn't work; it means I am a moron.

Proof?

It's not just Catholics. Others just don't get press.:|

LJS9502_basic

Also, are those protestant priests abstinent too? Because that would only strengthen my point that the guidelines for priesthood in part cause the child molestation.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

I don't think so...it may also be that pedophiles are choosing to go into the priesthood as a means of getting around children...there's really no definitive conclusion one could make in that regard..

There are less priests then males in the world..so naturally the percentage will be higher..

11Marcel

Also, if this was the case, why not let the justice system deal with these cases from the get go? If pedophiles become priests and not the other way round, wouldn't that mean that they weren't true catholics in the first place? Besides, the justice system is the system everyone chooses to find the truth. Why wouldn't it be good enough for the church? Questions, questions....

Also, as always every excuse is found to prevent saying "yeah, maybe we should also take a good look at the guidelines for priests". Why is that so hard to say/admit?

I believe i posted earlier that the church follows the two duties of the criminal justice system...which are punishment and making sure the innocent aren't punished wrongly...

What do the guidelines have to do with anything?..

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And an opinion on the issue does not mean the stats aren't correct. I've given him other stats showing his 2% is way too low....so that just backs up other stats is all.;)

From yet another site....Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%.

Which means his 2% is STILL too low...

LJS9502_basic

I am talking about the site that gives a total average of 8.04 failure rate.

Therefore

8.04 + 7 = ~15 :|

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Feel free to read my last link....also says 14%.

LJS9502_basic

Obviously different surveys get different results here, which shows you the difference of condom failure and usage failure something which those surveys do not seem to adress, and their differences in fact point towards it.....

You are refuting points that were never made... what is that fallacy called?

Not to mention you responded without even addressing my point.

Because I've shown other quotes that state the same. They don't 100% protect against AIDS by the way....Anyway....

LJS9502_basic

Well, you said they did, not I. But so much for that now, huh? It doesn't have to be 100% to be effective though.

HIV is not acquired easily through sex. Condoms act as a barrier to block vaginal fluids/ejaculatory fluids. HIV +/- couples use condoms to protect their partners. What I'm getting at here is that if a condom had failed to protect one from HIV, the condom itself would have had to have a huge, gaping hole in it, which gives us the most logical conclusion that the condoms were not used correctly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Proof?

It's not just Catholics. Others just don't get press.:|

11Marcel

Also, are those protestant priests abstinent too? Because that would only strengthen my point that the guidelines for priesthood in part cause the child molestation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Because I've shown other quotes that state the same. They don't 100% protect against AIDS by the way....Anyway....

LikeHaterade

Well, you said they did, not I. But so much for that now, huh? It doesn't have to be 100% to be effective though.

HIV is not acquired easily through sex. Condoms act as a barrier to block vaginal fluids/ejaculatory fluids. HIV +/- couples use condoms to protect their partners. What I'm getting at here is that if a condom had failed to protect one from HIV, the condom itself would have had to have a huge, gaping hole in it, which gives us the most logical conclusion that the condoms were not used correctly.

[Nope. I've linked, I've quoted. I didn't make a statement on my own. It's disingenious to state I did.

What do the guidelines have to do with anything?..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

And condoms aren't always going to prevent AIDS, STDs, nor pregnancy....and are you saying condoms don't tear?LJS9502_basic

When used correctly, no.

Protestant priests do not practice abstinence...

I have a question LJ, and I need to know before this discussion can continue. Is 100% the only percentage that would qualify as "effective protection" to you? If not, please give me a percentage. I'm getting the vibe that you're under the impression that I am saying that condoms are perfect.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

What do the guidelines have to do with anything?..

11Marcel

Ok, then what do normal pedophiles have for an excuse..or protestant ministers..or any other religions ministers who don't practice celibacy?..

Protestant priests do not practice abstinence...

Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Protestant priests do not practice abstinence...

clayron

As a rule Catholic priests are to remain celibate...as a rule protestant priests do not have to..

[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Protestant priests do not practice abstinence...

Xx_Hopeless_xX

As a rule Catholic priests are to remain celibate...as a rule protestant priests do not have to..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And condoms aren't always going to prevent AIDS, STDs, nor pregnancy....and are you saying condoms don't tear?LikeHaterade

When used correctly, no.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="clayron"] Neither do some Catholic priest.clayron

As a rule Catholic priests are to remain celibate...as a rule protestant priests do not have to..

I don't see that happening in the forseeable future nor is that in effect so it's irrelevant...

You are just posting things. These studying are not indicating what they consider condom failure. Every source I have distinctly defines it, and you are ignoring it. You posted a link that showed if a user does not use a condom consistently and properly they have a 14% chance of pregnancy. THat SAME chart shows that when you properly and consistently the percentage drops to 3. clayron

Well, obviously his quotes >>>>> your quotes. DUH!

Yeah sounds about right. I got a bit of problems with the church, but my loyalty doesn't necessarily lie with the church in a whole but more to my faith and my God.

But a lot of people's double standards of religious people are a tad ridiculous as well.

Powerful debate. I enjoyed watching it immensely.

Where are you getting these numbers? Because the local Health Department here completely disagrees with you. If the percentage drops in safety were that daunting, we'd hare 1 in 2 people with an STD.

Am I the only one who has no idea who Stephen Fry is?

Niff_T