Topless women activists bang Notre Dame bell in anti-pope protest in Paris cathedral

Topless women activists have pounded a huge church bell in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris to "celebrate" the pope's resignation. Full Story

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#81 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Um....condoms DON'T stop AIDS....hello!!!!
That's basically a lie. Condoms do indeed help to suppress and control the spread of AIDS. You can't really be this dumb.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#82 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
They're NOT people, though, that's my point. They're just cells at the point when most abortions take place. Forcing women to bear children they don't want is pretty heartless, too, but I don't see you admitting to it.
Sure they are.

They're living, their human, and they are in a developmental stage.

How can they be "babies" if the woman wants one, but somehow less than human if they don't?

Who's "forcing" anything? Straw man.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#83 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
More offtopic irrelevancies...you don't rebut very well. If anyone's being made a "slave" here it would be the women you want to force to have unwanted children, though.
You don't understand what "slave" means do you? Go check a dictionary and come back with the official definition....

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#84 Feb 13, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's basically a lie. Condoms do indeed help to suppress and control the spread of AIDS. You can't really be this dumb.
This claim — so prevalent in condom-promotion literature — is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission.

That's one out of ten.

If you and I were to go skydiving, and I told you, "Don't worry... the parachutes work 90% of the time," how comfortable would you be making that jump?

Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS... that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.
The results of his research left him little doubt. "Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline," he noted. "Abstinence was probably the second most important change" (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte).

Unfortunately, not everyone was pleased with Dr. Green's conclusions. USAID shelved his study and enlisted a well-known condom advocate and employee of ETR Associates (an organization dedicated to "safe-sex" education) to write a new one. Apparently, USAID wasn't concerned with the apparent conflict of interest.

This is especially tragic, as the effectiveness of abstinence and fidelity education has been demonstrated by numerous research groups. As Loconte notes, evidence for the success of Uganda's approach has come from "USAID, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Harvard Center for Population and Developmental Studies, the Ugandan government, and numerous independent studies published in medical journals."

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f...

{Okay....so YOU believe the condom manufacturers claims....which are for profit and gain at the expense of health....I'll believe the truth....}
pope caught with bj

Kingston, PA

#86 Feb 13, 2013
most nuns have anal herpes----and its only because of condoms that cardinals, popes, and bishops dont get herpes when they bang all the anal herpes nuns up their butts.

always wear a condom when you bang a nun----cause nuns have lots of sexually transmitted diseases....jesus told me so!

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#87 Feb 13, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they are.
They're living, their human, and they are in a developmental stage.
How can they be "babies" if the woman wants one, but somehow less than human if they don't?
Who's "forcing" anything? Straw man.
ALL of my cells are living, human, and developing. Should I be prevented from scraping any off on the grounds I'm 'taking human life' or something?

They're a "baby" if they've been born. In the womb they're a fetus whether you want one or not.

If you make aboriton illegal, you force women to either bear an unwanted child or obtain an illegal abortion. No strawman at all.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#88 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim — so prevalent in condom-promotion literature — is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission.
That's one out of ten.
If you and I were to go skydiving, and I told you, "Don't worry... the parachutes work 90% of the time," how comfortable would you be making that jump?
Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS... that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.
The results of his research left him little doubt. "Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most
important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline," he noted. "Abstinence was probably the second most important change" (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte).
Unfortunately, not everyone was pleased with Dr. Green's conclusions. USAID shelved his study and enlisted a well-known condom advocate and employee of ETR Associates (an organization dedicated to "safe-sex" education) to write a new one. Apparently, USAID wasn't concerned with the apparent conflict of interest.
This is especially tragic, as the effectiveness of abstinence and fidelity education has been demonstrated by numerous research groups. As Loconte notes, evidence for the success of Uganda's approach has come from "USAID, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Harvard Center for Population and Developmental Studies, the Ugandan government, and numerous independent studies published in medical journals."
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f...
{Okay....so YOU believe the condom manufacturers claims....which are for profit and gain at the expense of health....I'll believe the truth....}
So, no condoms at all for Africans on the grounds that they don't stop AIDS 100% of the time? Is that SERIOUSLY your argument?

I've never said they're 100% reliable...I don't think ANYONE says that. I said they help greatly to reduce the spread of AIDS by sexual transmission, and that is a fact. You've done NOTHING to refute that.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#89 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand what "slave" means do you? Go check a dictionary and come back with the official definition....
I know exactly what it means. Evidently you can't read or at least couldn't comprehend my post.

Try harder.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#90 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
....EDITED.....
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f...
{Okay....so YOU believe the condom manufacturers claims....which are for profit and gain at the expense of health....I'll believe the truth....}
And it's also hilarious that you post a piece of Catholic Church propaganda, based on their TOTAL and INSANE opposition to birth control including condoms, and yet turn right around and whine that there's some sort of "conflict of interest" here and that claims by condom manufacturers are somehow "tainted" by being "for profit."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking...:)
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#91 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim — so prevalent in condom-promotion literature — is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission.
That's one out of ten.
If you and I were to go skydiving, and I told you, "Don't worry... the parachutes work 90% of the time," how comfortable would you be making that jump?
Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS... that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.
The results of his research left him little doubt. "Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline," he noted. "Abstinence was probably the second most important change" (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte).
Unfortunately, not everyone was pleased with Dr. Green's conclusions. USAID shelved his study and enlisted a well-known condom advocate and employee of ETR Associates (an organization dedicated to "safe-sex" education) to write a new one. Apparently, USAID wasn't concerned with the apparent conflict of interest.
This is especially tragic, as the effectiveness of abstinence and fidelity education has been demonstrated by numerous research groups. As Loconte notes, evidence for the success of Uganda's approach has come from "USAID, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Harvard Center for Population and Developmental Studies, the Ugandan government, and numerous independent studies published in medical journals."
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/f...
{Okay....so YOU believe the condom manufacturers claims....which are for profit and gain at the expense of health....I'll believe the truth....}
You're against abortions in the USA but encourage genocide in Africa?
How very 'christian' of you.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#92 Feb 13, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
You're against abortions in the USA but encourage genocide in Africa?
How very 'christian' of you.
Telling the truth about the effectiveness {or rather lack of} of condoms protecting against STD's and AIDS is genocide? How humanitarian of you....
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#93 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Telling the truth about the effectiveness {or rather lack of} of condoms protecting against STD's and AIDS is genocide? How humanitarian of you....
Over a million deaths from AIDS in Africa this year and they were 90% preventable according to you yet you also claim condoms don't help at all.

Is it because you don't judge Africans as human beings?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#94 Feb 13, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Over a million deaths from AIDS in Africa this year and they were 90% preventable according to you yet you also claim condoms don't help at all.
Is it because you don't judge Africans as human beings?
I'm not even sure how to respond to this....

{Sigh}

Deflection and playing the racist card does nothing but to show that you're grasping at straws and trying to find the tiniest area however non-existent to attack....

First: You don't judge unborn babies to be human beings do you?

Second:

http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/the...

VII.“Meghan’s Law”(added in response to Matt’s comment). When your opponent is winning the argument, pick up on some little point that they made and whine about it being a personal attack (or anything else that can distract from the conversation and instead twist the conversation around to some topic where you might stand a chance). Examples? You called me “fat”(even if they didn’t really) or “that sounds like a racist/homophobic/mysogenist/[ insert some big word here]” and attack the person instead. You know that is where liberals excel, attacking the messenger. Named in honor of Meghan McCain. True, some might argue that this is merely a variation of Commandment X, but really, it is a clever way to actually misconstrue what your opponent says, make it sound like they said something, and then you can launch into personal attack mode yourself while claiming to be the victim. It is a less ham-handed approach to get to Commandment X than to just launch directly into name-calling.

IX. Claim the high ground. Any possible high ground, by creating so-called noble reasons why our position is correct and the other side’s position is wrong. Examples? It’s not murder, it’s about freedom of choice, and those opposing abortion are trying to use government to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. Gay marriage is not about morality, it’s about giving gays equal rights to marry. Who can be against freedom and equal rights? When we protest, call it our Patriotic duty; when they protest Obama, call it un-American. When we dissent, it’s because we are bound by a sacred duty to stop the Republicans from steamrolling us; when they dissent, they are partisan hack obstructionists.

X. Call your opponents names. Never let a day go by without calling a conservative or a Republican a Nazi, a fascist, a Neanderthal, a bigot (a narrow-minded bigot is even better!), a knuckle-dragger, a misogynist, a hypocrite, or similar term. They will spend all their time defending themselves instead of ripping our positions to shreds. Last but not least, if you find yourself losing the argument with a conservative, never hesitate to call them a racist.

[Remember, children: It isn't cowardly to avoid a fight you can't win. And it is a crime to lose an argument that you could have won if only you would have used one or more of these Commandments. Now resume Mau-Mauing!]

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#95 Feb 13, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Over a million deaths from AIDS in Africa this year and they were 90% preventable according to you yet you also claim condoms don't help at all.
Is it because you don't judge Africans as human beings?
Funny, the UK's track record of treating people as human beings deplorable....Germany, Ireland....
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#96 Feb 13, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not even sure how to respond to this....
{Sigh}
Deflection and playing the racist card does nothing but to show that you're grasping at straws and trying to find the tiniest area however non-existent to attack....
First: You don't judge unborn babies to be human beings do you?
Second:
http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/the...
VII.“Meghan’s Law”(added in response to Matt’s comment). When your opponent is winning the argument, pick up on some little point that they made and whine about it being a personal attack (or anything else that can distract from the conversation and instead twist the conversation around to some topic where you might stand a chance). Examples? You called me “fat”(even if they didn’t really) or “that sounds like a racist/homophobic/mysogenist/[ insert some big word here]” and attack the person instead. You know that is where liberals excel, attacking the messenger. Named in honor of Meghan McCain. True, some might argue that this is merely a variation of Commandment X, but really, it is a clever way to actually misconstrue what your opponent says, make it sound like they said something, and then you can launch into personal attack mode yourself while claiming to be the victim. It is a less ham-handed approach to get to Commandment X than to just launch directly into name-calling.
IX. Claim the high ground. Any possible high ground, by creating so-called noble reasons why our position is correct and the other side’s position is wrong. Examples? It’s not murder, it’s about freedom of choice, and those opposing abortion are trying to use government to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. Gay marriage is not about morality, it’s about giving gays equal rights to marry. Who can be against freedom and equal rights? When we protest, call it our Patriotic duty; when they protest Obama, call it un-American. When we dissent, it’s because we are bound by a sacred duty to stop the Republicans from steamrolling us; when they dissent, they are partisan hack obstructionists.
X. Call your opponents names. Never let a day go by without calling a conservative or a Republican a Nazi, a fascist, a Neanderthal, a bigot (a narrow-minded bigot is even better!), a knuckle-dragger, a misogynist, a hypocrite, or similar term. They will spend all their time defending themselves instead of ripping our positions to shreds. Last but not least, if you find yourself losing the argument with a conservative, never hesitate to call them a racist.
[Remember, children: It isn't cowardly to avoid a fight you can't win. And it is a crime to lose an argument that you could have won if only you would have used one or more of these Commandments. Now resume Mau-Mauing!]
If it isn't racism then explain your reasoning.

Why do you support a policy which encourages the spread of AIDS?
shedevil

London, KY

#97 Feb 13, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should finish high school before deciding who gets to live and who gets to die.
Or if you can't finish, then at least start.
News flash I did finish school you should try going back to school yourself.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#98 Feb 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not even sure how to respond to this....
{Sigh}
Deflection and playing the racist card does nothing but to show that you're grasping at straws and trying to find the tiniest area however non-existent to attack....
...EDITED....
No, because it's a real and credible accusation. Naturally you yourself choose to deflect and run away from your indefensible position the moment you're challenged.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#99 Feb 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, the UK's track record of treating people as human beings deplorable....Germany, Ireland....
More deflections and evasions...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#100 Feb 14, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't racism then explain your reasoning.
Why do you support a policy which encourages the spread of AIDS?
It is a policy that encourages behavior that is pure and behavior that encourages fool-proof ways of NOT spreading AIDS....

The policy does NOT encourage the spreading of AIDS....

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#101 Feb 14, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a policy that encourages behavior that is pure and behavior that encourages fool-proof ways of NOT spreading AIDS....
The policy does NOT encourage the spreading of AIDS....
No, it encourages AIDS. Preventing people from using common-sense methods, cheap and easy methods at that, of avoiding AIDS is in fact a criminal and inhumane act.

This Pope shoujldn't be allowed to resign, he should be tried for crimes against humanity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min pusherman_ 558,898
What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 30 min kent 83,886
Pope plays key role in Cuba-US policy shift 5 hr Le Duped 2
Vatican signals new tone on US nuns 6 hr Stephany McDowell 1
The Roman Catholic church: Chronicle of a papac... 6 hr Stephany McDowell 1
Dogs go to heaven, Pope Francis says 17 hr cooldude 5
United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 20 hr Crazy 8,687
More from around the web