Children charged with child pornography

Just a big WTF!? from me at the moment.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news....Teen.Sexting/

I think these charges are completely ridiculous. Are we really paying law enforcement to start going after teenagers for things like this? Things like this need to be left to the parents.

And then the charges! Some in the article claim they're just placing these charges to get the kids to think a little... it's complete bullshit. You don't slap felony charges on a teenager for taking pics of their own body and sending them to other underage people. You deal with it internally. This kind of crap has the potential to ruin lives far beyond what taking a picture could do.

Puritan beliefs and values are strangling our country. The human body is a beautiful thing. Save the jail time for the people who try to take advantage of and exploit it, not for teenagers who are trying to explore it.

It's a tough line to walk. How do you accurately judge circumstance and the impact of these things? I do think the punishment is a little harsh, but I look at the situation and I can VERY quickly see it getting out of hand. I don't think the solution is just letting teenagers go run wild and 'explore'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
Puritan beliefs and values are strangling our country.

---

This I have to disagree with. It's a generalized blanket statement based on very obvious predisposed bias against puritan values as if they are all bad.

So if you got rid of 'puritan' values as you seem to desire to do, would it be alright if I came over stomped on your throat, stole your computer, set your house on fire, and murdered your entire family?

How about monogamy? Oh yeah that's right. Considering the plethora of STDs out there and people who just dont seem to care about them, by all means indulge. Yeah you can be careful, the trouble other people are not always.

Like ANY democratic government system the majority get catered to and the minority get the proverbial shaft.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae

Like ANY democratic government system the majority get catered to and the minority get the proverbial shaft.

---

Er, actually the electoral-college system means that you can get more votes and still lose the elction. Therefore what the acctual majority wants can be totally ignored given the right circumstances.

I partially agree with Jyn. The knee jerk reaction by the government in which they make a blanket felony charge on all students is just absurd. However, I do believe the students should be suspended, and have their files documented. These are teenagers first and foremost, which means teenagers make bonehead decisions from time to time. I truly feel if this happens a second or third time. Then you push for more aggressive charges. Felonies for the first time around is just a bit much. Then you run the risk of tainting the teenagers record for life as a sexual offender.

If they send pictures to each others they get charged with a felony that then has to go to court and has the potential to hinder their chances of making something with their lives, possible inclusion on the sex offender registry and various other things.

But if they were actually having sex with each other it would be handled ENTIRELY BY THE PARENTS. It would fall to the parents to deal with the situation. If it happened in school, they might be expelled for the rest of the year, but the buck stops with the parent's handling of the situation.

That's my problem with this.

A photo vs. actual intercourse...and the photo is the one with the potential for permanent, life-altering (barring pregnancy/std's) effects.

Yeah. This situation is retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
This I have to disagree with. It's a generalized blanket statement based on very obvious predisposed bias against puritan values as if they are all bad.

---

There's nothing wrong with having a bias against irrational, faith-based pseudophilosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
So if you got rid of 'puritan' values as you seem to desire to do, would it be alright if I came over stomped on your throat, stole your computer, set your house on fire, and murdered your entire family?

---

Is there some reason why you think that only puritans would object to this kind of behavior?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
How about monogamy? Oh yeah that's right. Considering the plethora of STDs out there and people who just dont seem to care about them, by all means indulge. Yeah you can be careful, the trouble other people are not always.

---

(Italics mine) Care to guess which group of people in this world tend to be staunchly opposed to sex education and the use and distribution of condoms? I'll give you a hint: it's the religious people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
Like ANY democratic government system the majority get catered to and the minority get the proverbial shaft.

---

Most democratic governments have mechanisms in place specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae

This I have to disagree with. It's a generalized blanket statement based on very obvious predisposed bias against puritan values as if they are all bad.

---

No. It's an obvious implication that puritan values being taken to this level are bad. Also, what Snrubb said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae

So if you got rid of 'puritan' values as you seem to desire to do, would it be alright if I came over stomped on your throat, stole your computer, set your house on fire, and murdered your entire family?

---

You don't need puritan morality to know that those are bad things. In fact, you don't need morality at all in that respect. Any government will realize that those things need to be legislated against in order to preserve civilization, regardless of views on morality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae

How about monogamy? Oh yeah that's right. Considering the plethora of STDs out there and people who just dont seem to care about them, by all means indulge. Yeah you can be careful, the trouble other people are not always.

---

The view that monogamy is the only real/good/valid option (not sure if this is an opinion you hold, just stating my own opinion on it) for a relationship needs to change. For some people, it works. It has benefits, but for a lot of people it does not work.

In any case, the main belief I was addressing here is the supposed "reverence" that the human body is held in. How is something revered so much that even the mere idea of other people seeing it is revolting? Nudity should never (I use the word generally, as I realize there could/should be exceptions) be an issue. Two words. Loosen up.

Anyway, I didn't want this to be a debate on puritans so I probably never should have wrote that bit in.

Back to the main issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen

I truly feel if this happens a second or third time. Then you push for more aggressive charges.

---

My point is that this type of issue shouldn't even be chargeable as an offense. Two times, three times, ten times... whatever. There shouldn't be charges, especially as child pornography! That's a serious charge for serious criminals, which these kids are not. Do any of you feel that this is particularly deviant behavior? They aren't exploiting themselves for the sexual gratification of the public. In fact, you could argue that the adults who are making a national issue of this are the ones exploiting the underage teens. This is a private matter that should have remained private.

Teens are going to inevitably explore sexually. Letters, IMs, in person, over the phone, and, yes, with pictures. It's a natural part of growing up, and, as mentioned in the article, technology is being used as an extension of that.

Quote:

---

Care to guess which group of people in this world tend to be staunchly opposed to sex education and the use and distribution of condoms? I'll give you a hint: it's the religious people.

---

No, it's the catholics. I'd dare to say a majority of the rest of us who profess one faith or another WANT kids to be better educated on sex and contraception.

Just FYI.
;)

Also, I agree with the view that it's just goddamn STUPID to charge a teenager with a sex crime for taking photos of their bits and sending them around.

Instead, I suggest these kids be shown the sorts of things that happen to those photos once the object of their affections finishes fapping.

Paris? Miley? That girl from High School Musical? It's moar likely than you think!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maelgrim
No, it's the catholics. I'd dare to say a majority of the rest of us who profess one faith or another WANT kids to be better educated on sex and contraception.

Just FYI.
;)

---

You are entirely wrong. You are failing to remember Christianity is not the only religion in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Is there some reason why you think that only puritans would object to this kind of behavior?

---

I came here to say this. Thwarted once again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
How about monogamy? Oh yeah that's right. Considering the plethora of STDs out there and people who just dont seem to care about them, by all means indulge. Yeah you can be careful, the trouble other people are not always

---

...but while I'm here, are you saying that a non-monogamous marriage will lead to an STD? Because, you know, that's a lie and stuff.

Alright, this post is a study in informal logical fallacies. Let's take a quick look.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
So if you got rid of 'puritan' values as you seem to desire to do,

---

This can be described as any number of things, but a hasty generalization fallacy seems to be the most appropriate. Nowhere did Jyn indicate he wished (or could) curtail "puritan values" in this, or any other, country - at most, perhaps he implicitly could be read to advocate for narrowing their influence on the scope of our operational laws - at most. Runner-up to this fallacy is perhaps a straw man fallacy.

Quote:

---

would it be alright if I came over stomped on your throat, stole your computer, set your house on fire, and murdered your entire family?

---

...

Wow.

Okay. This may be the most stark "fallacy of the absent middle" or fallacy by false dichotomy I've ever seen. The two options are not "puritan values" or - literally - attempted murder, burglary, arson, and serial murder. Believe it or not, there is a portion of the Western world that manages to adhere to neither. I would even estimate the majority.

Runner up: red herring fallacy. What the hell does this have to do with sexual mores? Are you saying that people who don't adhere to particular sexual mores are more likely to commit arson? If so, do you have - wait for it - absolutely any piece of proof whatsoever? I'll even let you just show simple correlation, even though that does not show causation. Please.

Quote:

---

How about monogamy? Oh yeah that's right.

---

Another false dichotomy fallacy. The voluntary adherence to monogamy as a social norm in absolutely no way predicates or necessitates the enforcement of child pornography laws in the way originally intended in this thread, nor have you presented absolutely any evidence whatsoever that either prevents - what was that alternative you gave us - ah, yes, attempted murder/mayhem, burglary, arson, and mass murder.

Quote:

---

Considering the plethora of STDs out there and people who just dont seem to care about them, by all means indulge.

---

Association fallacy. Pae's argument: "STDs are bad, people who don't follow puritan morals get STDs, therefore we should enforce puritan morals in a completely separate, non-STD related area [child pornography law enforcement]."

Uh.

Okay, man.

Quote:

---

Yeah you can be careful, the trouble other people are not always.

---

Okay. I'm going to give you a hint: if you ever have to rest a statement on blaming an undifferentiated mass of "others" that are not a party to the thread, take a moment to ask yourself if you're actually addressing an argument of any kind. The fact some people are not careful in any endeavor does not actually affect, in isolation, the success of the degree of care of other people. You can have all of the unprotected sex you want, and I am no more likely to get an STD - unless we have a common sexual partner. If you wish to try and make that argument, then make it - but don't leave out a middle term or premise and expect the forums will correct your sloppy reasoning for you.

Warning: if you actually try to make this argument, I will personally dismantle it.

Quote:

---

Like ANY democratic government system the majority get catered to and the minority get the proverbial shaft.

---

This is both a hasty generalization fallacy ("all democratic governments do X"), possibly intended a slippery slope fallacy ("democratic governments necessarily give the minority the shaft") (would depend on how you read that clause - admittedly) and an appeal to emotion ("I'm an insular minority and my beliefs get the shaft").

So, Pae, you managed about a four-line post and had no less than six fallacies.

Want to take another crack at it?

For the record, that was just my objections to the structure of your statements. I'm not even addressing the lack of evidence (for the most part - I just had to in a few places because it was so glaring - but you actually provide essentially no evidence whatsoever). So if you do take that next crack at it, bring, you know - what's it we call that thing that supports a contention - oh yeah.

Proof.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
Do any of you feel that this is particularly deviant behavior? They aren't exploiting themselves for the sexual gratification of the public. In fact, you could argue that the adults who are making a national issue of this are the ones exploiting the underage teens. This is a private matter that should have remained private.

Teens are going to inevitably explore sexually. Letters, IMs, in person, over the phone, and, yes, with pictures. It's a natural part of growing up, and, as mentioned in the article, technology is being used as an extension of that.

---

I definitely do not think school should be the setting for teenagers to explore their sexual ideas.

I can understand the obscenity charges maybe. The child pornography thing is retarded. The purpose of those laws is to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. If you are the person taking pictures of -yourself- and sending them around, you're not being exploited, you're just being kind of short-sighted.

I'm also confused about what Kailen said. I didn't see anything in the article about school.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
I definitely do not think school should be the setting for teenagers to explore their sexual ideas.

---

School is simply the angle the writer of the article is taking regarding this subject. All of the teens are being referred to as students, classmates, etc.

So, first off, your above opinion is an unrealistic expectation. I happen to agree with you, but it's just not going to happen. School is where a very large portion of a teen's social life is going to develop/occur. Chances are more than likely that any given person a teen is sexually interested in or wants to send nude pics to is going to be one of their classmates. If a teen wants to choose school as a setting for these kinds of escapades, they will find a place/way/time to do so. Short of segregating the sexes (and single-sex schools have their own share of problems), our thoughts on what should be are pointless.

Secondly, as I said, school is just the angle the writer took. People that were mentioned in the article happened to be classmates. We do not know the circumstances through which they were "caught." Perhaps parents were going through their kids' cell phones. Perhaps a teacher took a phone off of a student who was using it in class and saw what was on the screen. Perhaps one of the recipients of the pictures did not appreciate it and told a parent/teacher/authority. It might have happened in school or it might not have...

But in none of the cases should they be charged with child pornography. If the parents caught them, they can handle it. If the teacher caught them, they can tell the parents and also discipline the student within school. However, I do not think they should be disciplined in that particular case for any reasons other than not paying attention and/or being distracting to the class. I do think, however, that my 3rd example warrants slightly harsher punishment. If someone is just randomly sending out unsolicited nude pics of themselves to classmates, they need a stronger dose of discipline, but it still does not warrant felony charges or anything approaching child porn.

Ultimately, I'd love to see the day where a nude pic is just not a big deal in the way that it currently is. Oh, no! People know what you look like naked! Travesty! Horror! (well, horror may be accurate for some people :p)

Jyn, I understand what you are saying, though it does not change the fact that school should be an institution of learning. Teenagers text messaging pictures of themselves to classmates is not abnormal, but they truly should be conscious about whom they are sending to, and where. Now, I can understand you making a rebuttal stating they are teenagers; do they really think like this? I can only say that that the world is an unforgiving place, and what seems as an insignificant mistake can have grave consequences to someones life.


I will again agree with you. I firmly believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Unfortunately, most punishments do not fit the crime. I would be a stalwart advocate of reforming any laws were the punishment did not fit the crime for kids and adults.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
Jyn, I understand what you are saying, though it does not change the fact that school should be an institution of learning.

---

Nowhere in the article does it say that any of these photo messeges were either sent or received at school. It simply says that students in question happened to be highschool students, which given their age group, isn't surprising.

Quote:

---

You are entirely wrong. You are failing to remember Christianity is not the only religion in the world.

---

O rly?

Putting the batshit fundies of all flavours in their own little box momentarily, are you honestly trying to say that a moderate person of any faith besides Catholicism actually DISAGREES with kids being taught about the realities, responsibilities, and consequences of sex?

Because well shit... That's kinda sad if it's true, and makes me empathise with the atheists a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maelgrim
O rly?

Putting the batshit fundies of all flavours in their own little box momentarily, are you honestly trying to say that a moderate person of any faith besides Catholicism actually DISAGREES with kids being taught about the realities, responsibilities, and consequences of sex?

Because well shit... That's kinda sad if it's true, and makes me empathise with the atheists a bit more.

---

Islam and Orthodox Judaism are exactly the same if not worse. And yes, it is sad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Nowhere in the article does it say that any of these photo messeges were either sent or received at school. It simply says that students in question happened to be highschool students, which given their age group, isn't surprising.

---

I understand the angle that you are attempting to take. The fact still remains neither your or I know if nude pictures were being transmitted during school hours. The lawyers could subpoena the records. If the students transmitted the nude photos during school hours, then some form of punishment should be served, and if not then no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maelgrim
O rly?

Putting the batshit fundies of all flavours in their own little box momentarily, are you honestly trying to say that a moderate person of any faith besides Catholicism actually DISAGREES with kids being taught about the realities, responsibilities, and consequences of sex?

Because well shit... That's kinda sad if it's true, and makes me empathise with the atheists a bit more.

---

Maybe Australia hasn't been infected by this kind of particularly noxious Evangelist Christianity, but in the states there is a very strong movement against any form of sex education other than 'abstinence only' in which birth control, if it is discussed at all, is only disparaged. Studies have repeatedly shown that teens who receive only abstinence-only education have a higher rate of teen pregnancy and a higher rate of STDs than those who receive comprehensive sex education.

These same groups oppose making birth control available to teens, support the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill any prescription they have religious disagreements with, e.g. birth control pills, 'morning after' birth control, etc., and oppose measures to guarantee that health insurance must cover birth control. In addition, they usually oppose abortion rights even in the case of incest or rape and sometimes even in the case where the woman's health is at risk.

I honestly believe that a strong minority, if not a majority, of these groups doesn't actually care at all about preventing abortions, but they want to make sure that if a woman, or a girl, commits the sin of having sex, that she will be punished for it by contracting an STD, being impregnated and being forced to raise a baby she's not ready to care for or support, dying during childbirth or a back-alley abortion, or a combination of the above.

If they really wanted to prevent abortions, they'd be gung-ho about making sure that teens know about contraceptives and making sure that every woman had access to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khortez
Er, actually the electoral-college system means that you can get more votes and still lose the elction. Therefore what the acctual majority wants can be totally ignored given the right circumstances.

---

State level systems do not use the electoral college.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
Maybe Australia hasn't been infected by this kind of particularly noxious Evangelist Christianity, but in the states there is a very strong movement against any form of sex education other than 'abstinence only' in which birth control, if it is discussed at all, is only disparaged.

---

Just to add to what you wrote, let's not forget the Pope's broad condemnation of the use of condoms in Africa, the STD capital of the universe:

Quote:

---

Pope Dipshit said:
"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality,"

---

The link to the 2005 article is HERE

Quote:

---

From the BBC:
The spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

---

Let's call the Pope a dipshit regardless of the massively enormous amounts of contributions (personal and otherwise) to Africa by the Catholic Church. I sense some something here that I haven't felt... oh, right. Hate.

I don't know any catholics that -don't- buy birth control for their children.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/03/pope.poll/index.html

I don't see the relevence of the pope being brought up as a factor in this, either. The pope said don't fuck around. The people fucked around. They apparently have hearing problems, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grantref
I honestly believe that a strong minority, if not a majority, of these groups doesn't actually care at all about preventing abortions, but they want to make sure that if a woman, or a girl, commits the sin of having sex, that she will be punished for it by contracting an STD, being impregnated and being forced to raise a baby she's not ready to care for or support, dying during childbirth or a back-alley abortion, or a combination of the above.

---

I REALLY don't think ANY parents want that for their kids, or ANY kid. Really.

I don't agree with abstinence only programs. However, most studies I've seen have a very low difference, if any, on the impact of abstinence only programs. (although abstinence did prove to be the less desirable method in some cases it seemed)

One study:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publi...abstinence.pdf

I'm hardly gonna blame (or partially blame) organizations that promote abstinence for the spreading of STD's or excessive and 'irresponsible?' sexual behavior whether or not their method is perfect.

In any case... whether in school or not, I think the people pushing/aiding the charging of these kids need a violent reality check. I don't see the government protecting anyone here, I see kids being victomized by retarded laws and those 'enforcing' the laws, which happens quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Akhafta
Let's call the Pope a dipshit regardless of the massively enormous amounts of contributions (personal and otherwise) to Africa by the Catholic Church.

---

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Akhafta
I don't know any catholics that -don't- buy birth control for their children.

---

Well, if the catholics that you know like brith control, then I guess that means that catholics in general do. :rolleyes

I can probably match you anecdote for anecdote here, which is why anecdotes are pretty much useless.

And yes, I know that not every religious person disapproves of condoms. However, if you look at the people who actively discourage the use of condoms as well as other types of birth control, I think you'll find those people to be exclusively religious. In any case, the official position of the major religions worlwide is to discourage birth control, and to generally have an unhealthy obsession with other people's sex lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Akhafta
I don't see the relevence of the pope being brought up as a factor in this, either.

---

Because some of us were discussing religious support/discouragement of condoms. That's why statements made by the head of the catholic church seem pretty fucking relevant.

Considering the immense number of Africans infected with HIV who WILL die from it, and the Catholic's church complicity in preventing widespread condom use, the misery and death they are responsible for is... well, only the capstone of centuries of colonial exploitation of Africa, explicitly endorsed by the church for most of it.

Ratzinger is a colossal douche and should be laughed at like the figurehead of a medieval institution surviving on momentum alone.

Abstinence or condoms? I have an idea. I'll stay here and test out the abstinence theory and YOU go to Africa and test out the condom theory.

More than 1.2 million FREE condoms are distributed in one day in South Africa. 400 million a year.

Keep in mind, though, that South Africa recalled 20 million condoms for being defective, flagged a total of four condom making firms, and there were still 3 million defective condoms at large in 2007. Even effective condoms have a 2-4 percent chance of not working.

Also keep in mind that condoms do NOT prevent all STD's and that sexual intercourse even with condoms with someone with an STD can multiply the risk of HIV.

25 to 30% of aid to help with HIV in Africa is from the Catholic Church. 30 to 70% of general aid in small communities come from the Catholic Church. I'm quite sure it'd be nearly impossible to document the help that has come from the Catholic Church and other religions. I don't call that surviving. I call that a 'collosal' amount of help. Islam is credited in part to North Africa having a lesser percentage of HIV.


Let's look at some other more prevailing factors of AIDS in Africa:

It's been assumed that HIV began in South Africa.

Prostitution (which we all know the Pope is highly supportive of)

Donations of medical supplies to Africa is a corrupted effort. Supplies are traded by African doctors for cheaper supplies. Some supplies are just re-used instead of being properly disposed of.

AIDS Denialism:
Many governments in sub-Saharan Africa denied that there was a problem for years. President Mbeki defended a small group of dissident scientists who claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV. He also suggested that AIDS stems from poverty rather than HIV. And then there's health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who insisted that the many deaths in the country are due to malnutrition, and hence poverty, and not HIV

A stigma is attached to admitting to HIV infection. For another, many deny that the HIV virus causes AIDS: Many myths are also attached to the use of condoms, such as the ideas that a conspiracy wants to limit the growth of the African population and that condoms stifle the traditional power of the man in his community. Health spending in Africa has never been adequate, either before or after independence.

A minority of scientists claim that as many as 40% of HIV infections in African adults may be caused by unsafe medical practices rather than by sexual activity.

Quote:

---

Abstinence or condoms? I have an idea. I'll stay here and test out the abstinence theory and YOU go to Africa and test out the condom theory.

---

Nonsense. That is -not- any kind of balanced or reasoned argument. How about YOU live in Africa your whole life and abstain from sex? Remember, if you DO have sex your religious leader has told you in no uncertain terms that this is against your faith. Have fun.

Quote:

---

More than 1.2 million FREE condoms are distributed in one day in South Africa

---

Many other African countries don't have such facilities as this. Also, is this even enough for a country of 48,000,000 people?

Quote:

---

Also keep in mind that condoms do NOT prevent all STD's and that sexual intercourse even with condoms with someone with an STD can multiply the risk of HIV.

---

This is true, but a 97.something success rate is better than zero.

Quote:

---

It's been assumed that HIV began in South Africa.

---

This lends nothing to your point.

Quote:

---

Prostitution (which we all know the Pope is highly supportive of)

---

Again, this would be massively curtailed by condom use.

Quote:

---

AIDS Denialism:
Many governments in sub-Saharan Africa denied that there was a problem for years. President Mbeki defended a small group of dissident scientists who claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV. He also suggested that AIDS stems from poverty rather than HIV. And then there's health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who insisted that the many deaths in the country are due to malnutrition, and hence poverty, and not HIV

A stigma is attached to admitting to HIV infection. For another, many deny that the HIV virus causes AIDS: Many myths are also attached to the use of condoms, such as the ideas that a conspiracy wants to limit the growth of the African population and that condoms stifle the traditional power of the man in his community. Health spending in Africa has never been adequate, either before or after independence.

---

Yes yes and yes, there is all this too, can you see why having the leader of the largest faith group in Africa spouting nonsense along with these idiots is a bad thing?

Quote:

---

A minority of scientists claim that as many as 40% of HIV infections in African adults may be caused by unsafe medical practices rather than by sexual activity.

---

Let's leave aside the "minority" part of this. Can you still see where the other 60% of AIDS transmission comes from? I think everyone else in the room, including the elephant, can.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by khaltek
Nonsense. That is -not- any kind of balanced or reasoned argument.

---

Take a moment to compare arguments with me here:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grantref
Considering the immense number of Africans infected with HIV who WILL die from it, and the Catholic's church complicity in preventing widespread condom use, the misery and death they are responsible for is... well, only the capstone of centuries of colonial exploitation of Africa, explicitly endorsed by the church for most of it.

Ratzinger is a colossal douche and should be laughed at like the figurehead of a medieval institution surviving on momentum alone.

---

vs. My argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by khaltek
Remember, if you DO have sex your religious leader has told you in no uncertain terms that this is against your faith. Have fun.

---

Monogamy, Khaltek. THAT is what the Pope supports. Lot's of people support it. What's the ratio of married couples that continuously use condoms in the world to those that don't?

The Pope says abstinence or abstinence until monogamy. It sounds like people (except those who are intolerant) want him to say: Abstinence or abstinence until monogamy, but if you just absolutley HAVE to bang every last person in the room (including the elephant), at least use a condom. ??? Seriously.

Quote:

---

Many other African countries don't have such facilities as this. Also, is this even enough for a country of 48,000,000 people?

---

So donate. But don't blame the Catholic Church for not donating to THIS specific cause. Especially when they're one of the top contributers to Africa.

Quote:

---

This is true, but a 97.something success rate is better than zero.

---

85% -unless an STD is involved, which can multiply the chance of infection. Like I said, YOU try it in Africa. It's a bit more troubling when it's YOUR life. If YOU wouldn't do it, why blame the Pope for warning his peeps not to do it?

Quote:

---

Again, this would be massively curtailed by condom use.

---

Agreed. And once the Pope says condoms are cool, everyone's gonna start using condoms with their prostitutes.


I CAN see how it's bad, Khaltek. Like I've said, I don't agree with abstinence only education. My objection is to paranoia, intolerance, and name calling.

Quote:

---

My objection is to paranoia, intolerance, and name calling.

---

As decent human beings we SHOULD be calling people out on lies. If one massively powerful individual's words help the spread of AIDS it's our -duty- to be intolerant of him. If he says idiotic things, he's an idiot. Being all nice about everyone is great, but people should be called out on their actions when they fuck up and ruin countless lives.