Sphephen Fry debate against catholicism

[QUOTE="clayron"] 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. Teenaged

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

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="clayron"] 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. LJS9502_basic

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

And I also addressed the issue of the links you posted.

None of them agree with each other, which shows how the distinction between condom failure and usage failure (THE REASONS WHY IT FAILS) is an important factor that is the cause for such varying results. :|

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

When used correctly, no.

dreDREb13

No condoms can break even if one is careful. Anyway what I copied up there shows less chance..but still a high enough chance that I'd not want to risk it. But hey.....you can do what you want.

LJS9502_basic

Yea, and I can win the lottery. What you copied was hogwash. Just saying...

This was a topic about Stephen Fry, it is now a topic about condoms.

Good one fellas!

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="clayron"] 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. LJS9502_basic

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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

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

clayron

No legitimate site? Dude, my sources are from the center for disease control and various studying that you can view on the web. If anyone has yet to produce a legitimate site it is yourself.clayron

Hey now! Leave Human Life International alone. :x

[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Condom failure is condom failure...the reason isn't the issue. Anyway, other than condom makers I can find no legitimate site that lists the failure rate as low as he has.LJS9502_basic

And you are still not responding tome about the varying results all of your links give and what that heavily hints towards.

[QUOTE="clayron"]No legitimate site? Dude, my sources are from the center for disease control and various studying that you can view on the web. If anyone has yet to produce a legitimate site it is yourself.LikeHaterade

Hey now! Leave Human Life International alone. :x

Its international. :|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="clayron"] No legitimate site? Dude, my sources are from the center for disease control and various studying that you can view on the web. If anyone has yet to produce a legitimate site it is yourself.Teenaged

And you are still not responding tome about the varying results all of your links give and what that heavily hints towards.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]*facepalm*

I actually made an argument that we cant designate a failure rate for condoms in general, in which case that renders both mine and your information of failure rate relative.

In which case we are also unable to speak about condoms with absolute claims such as "they have a high/low failure rate".

But then again as with most things, even the safest thing can be rendered useless by the most wreckless user...

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I gave you quite a variety actually.....anyway.. Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter -- 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times. [In other words, just as rubber tires, over time, lose air, condoms (manufactured of the same product, rubber) also are porous.]

LJS9502_basic

And you are still not responding tome about the varying results all of your links give and what that heavily hints towards.

No one said that condoms are 100% safe. You are again responding to points that were never made...

Go on avoiding to answer to my points like you did just now.

Breaking a condom is the same risk chance regardless of what STD you have. If I have AIDS, I don't have any bigger chance to give it to someone than if I had syphilis.dreDREb13

Not entirely true.

The HIV virus cant travel by itself through the latex. It must be carried by the sperm liquids. The sperm liquids cant go through the latex if it doesnt break/tear so good luck proving that the whole 50 microns in diameter is something to really worry about.

Teenaged

Exactly, and well said. That kind of banter is just fear-mongering, out to convince people that you can get HIV when using FDA-approved condoms properly. Get real. :roll:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually no. If condoms fail for whatever reason...they fail. Period. tocool340

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

Exactly, and well said. That kind of banter is just fear-mongering, out to convince people that you can get HIV when using FDA-approved condoms properly. Get real. :roll:

LikeHaterade

No you didnt in regards to the specific point I am making about them.

No one said that condoms are 100% safe. You are again responding to points that were never made...

Go on avoiding to answer to my points like you did just now.

Teenaged

I asked him to give me a percentage on what he believed is "effective protection." I now believe it's 100%, and that kind of person should be afraid to walk out of his/her door every morning.

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Wow who's making absolute claims now, eh?

Teenaged

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Exactly, and well said. That kind of banter is just fear-mongering, out to convince people that you can get HIV when using FDA-approved condoms properly. Get real. :roll:

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] *Scratches head* I don't think that's an absolute claim. I mean, a failure will always remain a failure right?....:?LJS9502_basic

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

I guess you are the one that didnt pick up the difference between usage failure and condom failure. Or you just want to ignore how important the distinction of the two is. Not my problem.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Exactly, and well said. That kind of banter is just fear-mongering, out to convince people that you can get HIV when using FDA-approved condoms properly. Get real. :roll:

Teenaged

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats not what he is saying.

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

Teenaged

I guess you are the one that didnt pick up the difference between usage failure and condom failure. Or you just want to ignore how important the distinction of the two is. Not my problem.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I gave the source. *shrugs* Is this the same FDA that reverses itself over medication?

LJS9502_basic

Thats not the point I was talking about though anyway. I was talking about the hole in the latex 50 microns in diametre. Something to which you also didnt respond to the point.

Even the medical site said it reduces the risk of aids by 85%. That still leaves 15%. :|LJS9502_basic

What medical site? I want to see this site.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No that was EXACTLY what I was saying all along. Failure of condoms are failures and the reason isn't important...as the condom failed. I said it SEVERAL times in this thread. You just didn't pick that up.;:|LJS9502_basic

I guess you are the one that didnt pick up the difference between usage failure and condom failure. Or you just want to ignore how important the distinction of the two is. Not my problem.

The parametres are important to the surveys if we want to know whether or not its the condoms themselves that are "at fault".

And that has pragmatical consequences in real life, because you see depending on the above perhaps we should quit blaming condoms and then look for the real cause of unwanted pregnancies/STDs/HIV and that will help to find the best sollution. So no its not about a utopia.

I gave you quite a variety actually.....anyway.. Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter -- 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times. [In other words, just as rubber tires, over time, lose air, condoms (manufactured of the same product, rubber) also are porous.]

LJS9502_basic

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 through.

me

But we are not done yet.

Thestraightdope.com

"I'll say. Your clip is a 1992 letter to the editor from Mike Roland (The guy who wrote what you just posted), editor ofRubber Chemistry and Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society. Roland argued that "the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids [pores] about 5 microns (0.00002 inches) in size. Since this is roughly 10 times smaller than sperm, the latter are effectively blocked.... Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through."

This sounds scary, but there are a couple problems with it. First, Roland bases his statement about a 5 micron latex pore size on a study of rubber gloves, not condoms. The U.S. Public Health Service says that condoms are manufactured to higher standards than gloves. Condoms are dipped in the latex twice, gloves only once. If just 4 out of 1,000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1,000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000.

The second problem with Roland's letter is that it suggests, at least to the casual reader, that condoms offer no protection at all against HIV. That's not so. Roland himself estimates that condoms reduce HIV transmission risk by a factor of three. He cites a 1993 analysis by S. C. Weller suggesting that condoms are 69 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission.

The government's counterargument to this is that Weller did not distinguish between consistent and inconsistent users of condoms. Government spokesmen cite two European studies of "serodiscordant" heterosexual couples--that is, one partner had HIV, the other didn't. One study found that among couples using condoms consistently, there were zero cases of HIV transmission between the partners. Inconsistent users had a 10 percent infection rate. The other study found an infection rate of 1.1 percent between consistent users, 5.7 percent between nonusers. In other words, conservatively speaking, condoms reduced HIV transmission risk by a factor of 5.

We could argue about these numbers, but let's put this in perspective. Roland thinks condoms reduce AIDS risk by a factor of 3. A study cited by the government says they reduce it by a factor of 5. Avoiding high-risk sex partners, it's believed, reduces it by a factor of 5,000."

You can also read this:

The CDC's opinion (summary)

                  LEAKING THROUGH LATEX CONDOMS These are answers from the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC) to questions concerning the possibility of HIV"leaking" through latex condoms.

 1.   Can HIV leak through microscopic holes in latex condoms?       

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a study in  
  the July-August 1992 issue of "STD" which examined whether 
   HIV-sized glass beads could be forced through latex condoms  
  under stressful laboratory conditions.  These conditions  
  included higher concentrations of the "virus" (glass beads) 
   than in semen, a fluid that doesn't stick together as much as  
  semen, and forces that simulated 10 minutes of thrusting AFTER  
  ejaculation.  Most latex condoms leaked absolutely nothing.   
 The worst condom found would still reduce exposure risk by  
  10,000-fold, i.e., only 1 HIV virus might "leak" through only 
   1 of every 90 condoms.  Other tests have shown that under 
   "normal" conditions, HIV does not pass through a latex condom 
   that is not torn or broken.   

[You gave me a few sites with questionable, outdated, or downright wrong statistics which I provided evidence against since we begin this little converstaion. And regarding that. 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 through.

clayron

So you post an outdated source of your own? And only the ONE side of it.

Interesting conundrum....Answer to Do condoms leak HIV? Answer....

Probably, sometimes. The FDA says HIV-sized particles can pass through pores in latex. The CDC says that's all bogus, condoms work, use them. Who's right?

By the way...your site is actually 5% lower on the effectiveness of prevention hiv just so you know.;)

Bolded uses your site as evidence for the CDC..you omitted the FDA side...

Ok, if my source is outdated...then why not post a source that has more current information? If you can not do that, which you can't, then my source stills stands as the most recent source of data. You just criticized the FDA in another post, so don't walk backwards and say they may be right. The Center for Disease Control and the various sources I have posted are all incredibly consistent with what I keep posting, and the refutation of your points. The CDC is the ultimate authority on this subject, and you know it. And 5% percent reduction? I'll take that. Still fantastically better than absolutely nothing, and still shows the effectiveness of a properly used condom.

Wait, let me change what I said:

According to the FDA:

Life-Saving Barrier

A male condom, sometimes called a "rubber" or "prophylactic," is a sheath that fits snugly over a man's erect penis with a closed end to catch the sperm and stop them from entering the woman's vagina No prescription is needed to buy a condom.

Data show that if a condom is used correctly with every act of sexual intercourse for one year, about three out of every 100 women are expected to get pregnant.

Besides sperm, latex condoms act as a barrier to a wide variety of viruses, bacteria, and other infectious particles. By preventing contact with many sores and minimizing the exchange of infectious fluids, condoms can help prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes infection, and genital ulcers. Even though sperm are enormous compared to HIV (see illustration), both are much too small to see. But even HIV, which is among the tiniest of STD organisms, cannot pass through a latex condom.

So, technically, I was wrong, but I am still right. ;) So you know.

So you post an outdated source of your own? And only the ONE side of it.

Interesting conundrum....Answer to Do condoms leak HIV? Answer....

Probably, sometimes. The FDA says HIV-sized particles can pass through pores in latex. The CDC says that's all bogus, condoms work, use them. Who's right?

By the way...your site is actually 5% lower on the effectiveness of prevention hiv just so you know.;)

Bolded uses your site as evidence for the CDC..you omitted the FDA side...

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

So you post an outdated source of your own? And only the ONE side of it.

Interesting conundrum....Answer to Do condoms leak HIV? Answer....

Probably, sometimes. The FDA says HIV-sized particles can pass through pores in latex. The CDC says that's all bogus, condoms work, use them. Who's right?

By the way...your site is actually 5% lower on the effectiveness of prevention hiv just so you know.;)

Bolded uses your site as evidence for the CDC..you omitted the FDA side...

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

So you post an outdated source of your own? And only the ONE side of it.

Interesting conundrum....Answer to Do condoms leak HIV? Answer....

Probably, sometimes. The FDA says HIV-sized particles can pass through pores in latex. The CDC says that's all bogus, condoms work, use them. Who's right?

By the way...your site is actually 5% lower on the effectiveness of prevention hiv just so you know.;)

Bolded uses your site as evidence for the CDC..you omitted the FDA side...

clayron

I can never get enough of Stephan Fry :Dmarkop2003

Stephen Fry is a wonderful man. I've long had a man crush on Stephen - so witty and intelligent...

[QUOTE="markop2003"]I can never get enough of Stephan Fry :Dpoptart

Stephen Fry is a wonderful man. I've long had a man crush on Stephen - so witty and intelligent...

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="markop2003"]I can never get enough of Stephan Fry :DTeenaged

Stephen Fry is a wonderful man. I've long had a man crush on Stephen - so witty and intelligent...

A bendy nose and a wonky mouth - all so endearing!

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Wow who's making absolute claims now, eh?

Teenaged

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] *Scratches head* I don't think that's an absolute claim. I mean, a failure will always remain a failure right?....:?tocool340

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

And thats what I am saying: (RED) No one said that condoms are 100% safe; no one in this thread that he discussed with.

The debate was about:

a) What is the correct percentage

b) If the reasons why a condom fails matter.

With his comment, he tried to do away with (b). That it doesnt matter.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] *Scratches head* I don't think that's an absolute claim. I mean, a failure will always remain a failure right?....:?tocool340

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Stephen Fry is a wonderful man. I've long had a man crush on Stephen - so witty and intelligent...

poptart

A bendy nose and a wonky mouth - all so endearing!

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And such a bendy nose. XD

cybrcatter

A bendy nose and a wonky mouth - all so endearing!

Indeed – he's fascinating and with such charm, eloquence and erudite wit. The world needs more Mr Fry!

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats not what he is saying.

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

Teenaged

And thats what I am saying: (RED) No one said that condoms are 100% safe; no one in this thread that he discussed with.

The debate was about:

a) What is the correct percentage

b) If the reasons why a condom fails matter.

With his comment, he tried to do away with (b). That it doesnt matter.

Well the TC's thread title certainly tells me which side he is on, and I'm sure most of OT will be as well. Was a good hearing though.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] :? I didn't really see him saying condoms were a 100% a failure either. Only that condoms still carry a failure rate user failure or product failure alike. I think that's what he's saying. Not really sure since I actually skipped a few comments on the way here.....tocool340

And thats what I am saying: (RED) No one said that condoms are 100% safe; no one in this thread that he discussed with.

The debate was about:

a) What is the correct percentage

b) If the reasons why a condom fails matter.

With his comment, he tried to do away with (b). That it doesnt matter.

Different sources give different results all varying from 3% to 15%. Thats not a small variation. And that variation exists imo because it is affected by usage and thats why the usage failure is important.

Like I told LJ earlier it is important to know what is exactly the cause of those failures and deal with it. In which case: educate the public through a sex education that doesnt teach abstinence only. So at the end of the day it does matter.

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I didnt say that he said that either.

And thats what I am saying: (RED) No one said that condoms are 100% safe; no one in this thread that he discussed with.

The debate was about:

a) What is the correct percentage

b) If the reasons why a condom fails matter.

With his comment, he tried to do away with (b). That it doesnt matter.

Teenaged

Different sources give different results all varying from 3% to 15%. Thats not a small variation. And that variation exists imo because it is affected by usage and thats why the usage failure is important.

Like I told LJ earlier it is important to know what is exactly the cause of those failures and deal with it. In which case: educate the public through a sex education that doesnt teach abstinence only. So at the end of the day it does matter.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] I understand that much, but if the failure rate is at 15%, that still showing that people aren't using it correctly. The condoms are out there, but it would seem that 15% of people don't know how to use it correctly/mixed with the percentage of condoms that break which still would, at the end of the day, equal a failure....tocool340

Different sources give different results all varying from 3% to 15%. Thats not a small variation. And that variation exists imo because it is affected by usage and thats why the usage failure is important.

Like I told LJ earlier it is important to know what is exactly the cause of those failures and deal with it. In which case: educate the public through a sex education that doesnt teach abstinence only. So at the end of the day it does matter.

A point I made when I first posted the link to the site showing how usage can cause great variations of failure percentage. Even larger than 15%.

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Thats not what he is saying.

It is evident throughout the convo that he is trying to refute a point that was never made: that condoms are 100% safe.

In the context of the discussion we had back there he is heavily implying that even the slightest rate of failure is enough to shatter the safety of condoms, disregarding an important factor: type of failure (usage or the product's itself).

LJS9502_basic

I do agree as well. User error is a relevant factor.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tocool340"] :? I didn't really see him saying condoms were a 100% a failure either. Only that condoms still carry a failure rate user failure or product failure alike. I think that's what he's saying. Not really sure since I actually skipped a few comments on the way here.....coolbeans90

I do agree as well. User error is a relevant factor.

Perhaps they should reissue the Karma Sutra and highlight which positions should or shouldn't be practiced with condoms.

I think an ad campaign along the lines of 'Using a condom? Stick to the missionary!' would help :P

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]He is completely right. Why would anyone say condoms spread aids? QUOTE] Who, exactly said that?