Rant numero # 2

Well after seeing the same commercial like 3 times in a row (don't ask, my cable company is dumb as hell) I got a little fed up. These commercials about donating money to save the animals, save the african children that happened because lack of control. Face it people, these people only want your money, why do you think there's so many different commercials and ads from so many different companies/organizations? We'll start with the money thing. They tell you it only costs a dollar a day or some silmilar bullcrap so you can save ONE child. Here's the catch, they usually tell you that 40 cents of each dollar or the such will be sent to africa/said child right? Well that 60 cents they keep probably can be safely said that it adds up to a profit, yes? Sad.... If I want to help a child out in africa, I'll put $20 or however much of their money (Go to a exchange building people!) in an envelope and mail it down to them africans, I'm not going to pay someone 60% of the total donation just to take it down there. That's BS, why are people so screwed up? But hey, some people are probably thinking, why would we help africans right? That's BS eh? Well yes and no. While helping out your fellow humans, it's about the nicest thing you can do and I expect you to do it, there is a point. There is a whole nation, and we're supposed to just lift them off the ground and feed them, clothe them and give them money. Why are there so many people that there isn't enough food, shelter, or said clothing in the first place? Lack of self control obviously and they need to realise that you can't just have 10 kids these days and it's all cool, due to the cost of things these days (or at least that's what the government wants you to think). It wasn't me that made the african make so many kids, why should I donate? There are many looks and points of views that can be taken and I guess it's the fact that everyone looks at things differently in some way that these organizations take advantage of that. I could be wrong, but hell, who wants to argue me?

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 95Next »
gschoppe9 years ago
lack of self control is not the issue, Africa is far less populated than North America, and has more natural resources by far. The issue is that local governments are horrendously corrupt and tyrannically self-serving, and the major industries are owned by foreign companies that remove all profit from the country, rather than feeding it back into their economy. Africa is one of the rest of the world's cash cows. as long as its milked by foreign nations, and not by its own people, its people will suffer. i'm certain you don't mail $20 to africa a month, because you have no method of identifying the poor. (not to mention that most people don't care enough to try) the charities doing work there spend significant amounts of money setting up the infrastructure to find the needy, and make sure the money stays helping them, rather than going to the governments... if you want a charity where more than 40% of the money goes to the needy, try "catholic relief services" more than 94% of the cash goes to the needy... I know I'm gonna get flack for mentioning a Catholic charity, but 94% !!! thats amazing.
Punkguyta (author)  gschoppe9 years ago
At least the catholics can do something huh? (Note I don't capitalize "catholics" they don't deserve capitalization)
And why not ? =o)
Despite the priest of the church of my village was a pedophile, they're are not all so bad ...
I'd say it's because of the hypocrisy, the unwillingness to try and help because they're bound by ridiculous domga, etc.
"unwillingness to try and help because they're bound by ridiculous Dogma, etc." would you consider it wrong for a vegan charity not to give meat to homeless people? would it be wrong for a Hindi charity to leave beef stew off the menu? why, then, is it wrong for a Catholic charity to not distribute condoms. Sex is a choice, not a requirement, just as beef is a choice. also, please elaborate of the "Hypocrisy".
How about the bit where Catholic priests tell their congregations that condoms cannot stop HIV because the virus can get through the rubber, and that condoms frequently tear anyway.

Balance that against the Eighth Commandment (or the Ninth Commandment if you're not Catholic).
If I remember correctly, this was a single incident that you're referring to... I also mentioned this in an earlier post... yes, there are some members of the church who misunderstand science, and some who misuse an understanding of science to sway people, however, this is not an act of the church, but an abuse of power by an individual. All large groups have members who act against the tenets of the group. There are Calvinists who believe that the poor are poor because God hates them, and therefore Usury is acceptable, and giving to charities is wrong (it fights the will of god). There are Muslims who believe that bombing schools will bring them to paradise. These are not actions of a religion, but of individuals. There is NO ONE (including the POPE) in the Catholic Church who cannot speak lies in its name. (the papal infallibility has severe restrictions on when it applies) Should I bring up England's treatment of Ireland in the 1800s and claim that it proves that being British is an atrocity? Should I claim that all British citizens wish to hold the Indian Government in an Opium induced stupor and harvest Africa for slaves? Would you like everything stated by Dr Harold Shipman or Fred and Rosemary West to be held against Briton as a whole? The Catholic church has never stated that condoms don't work, there are "catholic" extremists who make that sort of claim, but they are a minute minority. The Catholic church opposes contraception for two reasons, neither of them related to the effectiveness of measures taken. Firstly, the Catholic church opposes any casual attitude towards sex. Sex is considered an act with a dual purpose: it strengthens the bonds of marriage, and it produces children. Psychological studies have confirmed that sex forms a psychological bond between the participants, and the more times that bond is formed and broken, the weaker it becomes, leading, in part, to a higher rate of failure for marriages in more promiscuous couples. Secondly, the Catholic Church proscribes to the traditional interpretation of "the Sin of Onan", which was the accepted interpretation for all of Christendom until the early 1900s. There was a council formed by the other Christian denominations where they re-interpreted the passage based on pressure from their followers to accept contraception. The Catholic church maintains the original translation which places emphasis on the sin of onan being "coitus interuptus".
The Catholic church has never stated that condoms don't work, there are "catholic" extremists who make that sort of claim, but they are a minute minority.

The claims that condoms don't stop HIV came directly from the Vatican.

You've already mentioned Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, claiming that condoms can't even stop sperm, never mind the HIV virus, but his claims are not based on condom failure - he says the polymer network of the rubber stretches out into an open net that lets the virus and sperm through.

The archbishop of Mozambique is still telling people condoms are being used to deliberately spread HIV.

The Muslims who believe suicide bombings earn them a place in paradise are taught that by their Imams. I've heard these people speak, and they were quite clear on the point.

The Irish mess was driven and fuelled by organised religion, not by British Politics, it was China where we as a national policy started a war to continue sales of opium (that's how we got Hong Kong - we stole it to use as a base to trade in opium), not India (we just grew it in India...).

African slavery was continued by most European countries, not just the UK, and slavery is still approved of by the Islamic religion in Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.

The examples of the Wests and Shipman were not driven by religion, just sex and greed, and were never condoned by any religion, unlike my examples above.

(I don't have any figures to hand about condom failure, but I have discussed it with members of the medical profession, and the consensus is that the failure of a condom to prevent infection or pregnancy is usually down to a failure in the education of the users - not knowing that you must withdraw soon after ejaculation, or that the condom must be fully unrolled, or that the use of non-water-based lubricants dramatically weakens the rubber, as does the presence of nicotine on the fingers when putting it on. It is also not very clever to put one on if you have long manicured nails - the sharp nails can split the condom, and the solvents still evaporating from recently-painted or glues nails also weaken the rubber.)

The simple fact is that the Catholic Church has lied, and continues to lie, about the effectiveness of condoms.

Oh, and according to this Christian website, "swingers" (openly promiscuous couples) are eight times less likely to get divorced than couples in a monogamous relationship.
Cardinal Trujillo is not stating that condoms stretch, he is simply making reference to two studies from the early nineties, that I, although I believe them to be likely incorrect, cannot find contrary evidence to. His statement there is not the church's official opinion, but his own, which he has severely restricted since that time. If you'll notice, the Vatican link provided by NachoMahma states the UCLA study's findings as a reason for more research and caution, rather than a flat truth. the archbishop of Mozambique is simply crazier than a loon, but so are many people in power in Africa. The two studies in question were UCLA's and The Mombasa Center's. Both state that a well made condom is extremely effective at preventing aids. however, many condoms on the market have extremely lax quality control. These defective condoms either contain minuscule holes to begin with, or develop them during normal stress caused by intercourse. These are possible issues with "new" condoms. Also, it is generally accepted that older condoms (that have been stored incorrectly) are much more likely to fail. Mineral animal, and vegetable oil can break them down, and they are much less safe for anal intercourse, as the stresses placed on the condom are much greater. It strikes me that the agreed upon risk factors for condom failure noted above are all extremely likely to be in play in Africa. Even disregarding the dubious study results, how are people living off aid packages going to properly store condoms and gain access to water based lubricants in addition to the insufficient lubrication already present on the condom? also, I still want to see a copy of "sex and the holy city". Are you quoting the Guardian's article or did you see it? Finally, where is the contrary evidence to the UCLA study? I can't find it listed anywhere. All I keep seeing is that the "consensus" view is that they work. Pardon me if this sounds accusatory, but in the 1100s the "consensus" view was that the earth was flat, despite the Greeks having shown it to be spherical more than a millennium before. I really want to see some numbers on this, as the "holes in condoms" argument has always seemed unlikely.
Cardinal Trujillo is not stating that condoms stretch...

Then what does this statement mean?

...the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom...

Granted the HIV virus is small, but it is far larger that the inter-molecular pores of a condom. Only gases like hydrogen and helium can easily pass through a condom.

Stop avoiding the issue of this sub-thread: the Catholic religion in general, it's official representatives, up to and including Papal advisers (I don't know about the current Pope himself, but he used to run the Inquisition and is an open anti-evolutionist, so I don't hold out much hope), has and does lie about the role of condoms in the prevention or transmission of HIV.

I'll re-join the thread when you have acknowledged the facts so that we can move on.
1-10 of 95Next »