Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Pope Francis


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 388 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 14:59:13 BDT
Garscadden says:
hey Tom - I'm sure you'll get round to me eventually, but just wanted to confirm whether you agree / disagree with my post about UNAIDS docs now agreeing with concurrency being an issue, and about concurrency not being the same as promiscuity?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:06:33 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:08:48 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:10:36 BDT
Bellatori says:
Not me chief... Benedict himself. Clearly he got back to the office and realised that he had not got it right hence as the article I quoted said THE VATICAN amended...

You are so blindly angry you will even contradict your 'head office'...! What kind of Catholic are you?!

You really have a problem with Hume don't you? Do you have the same problem with Kant?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:13:13 BDT
Garscadden says:
Tom - do you agree or disagree with my post?

To recap - the problem is not promiscuity, it is concurrency. The UNAIDS documents confirm concurrency is an important factor. If we approach the problem scientifically rather than morally or politically the solution becomes a lot clearer.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:22:26 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 15:25:53 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Personally I favour a pragmatic approach that is compatible with rather than a dogmatic approach that goes against human nature. Neither are perfect but it's fairly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense which is likely to be more effective.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:30:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 15:49:02 BDT
Garscadden says:
Okay - we are making progress.

As far as promiscuity is concerned - the definition is quite clear "having or characterised by many transient sexual relationships" and "demonstrating or implying an unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual". Concurrency is neither of these.

A) Where there is a lot of promiscuity condoms are shown to help.
B) Where there is concurrency condoms don't work - and this has two fold reasons -
- because the relationships are long term, and condoms are rarely used on long term relationships.
- because we get network effects (the six degrees of separation thesis)

Due to concurrency effects serial monogamy is actually safer - even if that means people have more partners over a given period of time.

Tom - I suspect we won't agree on point A. Do you agree on point B, and the follow up (serial monogamy, even if that means more partners over time), is safer than concurrency - and is something we should argue for?

[EDIT - missing word - update to read "Where there is concurrency condoms don't work "]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:36:30 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:38:52 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:40:56 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:43:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 15:50:31 BDT
Dan Fante says:
M, I think only someone as blinkered as you could consider a view which addresses reality as being analogous to having one's head in the sand. To be honest, much like those from CWB and Mad Paul on here, I take such criticisms as compliments. So let me return those thanks with bells on :P

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:50:02 BDT
Garscadden says:
Not at all - by progress i meant that you had actually answered a direct question.
I am not retracting my accusation. Care to answer the question in my last post?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:50:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 15:52:33 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Alongside other measures condoms contribute significantly to the fight against STD's. What's wrong with covering all basis in the preventions of AIDS?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:51:53 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:54:31 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:56:50 BDT
Garscadden says:
So can i take it you disagree with my posts?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:56:55 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 16:08:49 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 16:08:57 BDT
Bellatori says:
"Actually , at this point I do not care to answer the question of your last post."

Doesn't really need comment does it?!

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 16:10:26 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 16:13:51 BDT
Dan Fante says:
Do you really think the two are comparable?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 16:14:58 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 16:16:32 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 16:23:13 BDT
Drew Jones says:
AIDS has no concern for a persons sexuality and neither do condoms when it comes to protection. So let's not make things worse for yourself by introducing elements of your homophobia just so you can give the appearance of balance. Gay or straight, promiscuous or faithful condoms can and will decrease your chances of transmitting/contracting sexual infections.

"As Green or Hearst was quoted earlier, using something with at best an 80% chance of efficacy when used consistently and when confronting death, is not a matter of whether you will get AIDS, but reather when"
There is a problem with the quality of condoms manufactured in Africa. Ironically they are preferred to the better standards of the free Western charity supplied condoms because they aren't associated with cold moral judgement. This is another factor we can modify but the fact remains that even with the most prejudicial approach to condom use and using the Hearst study as you do condoms improve your chances against STIs by 80%.

"In the US ,less than 2% of the population contracts 61% of all HIVAIDS infections and the infection rate is growing in the UK, at a cost of what was it.. $ 673,000 per person? I printed the actual cost some months ago."
Yeah and we schooled you in statistics and media claims then too.

"Nobody here can read. Everything gets screened through prejudicial scripts before it reaches the mind."
Except you of course.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 34 5 minutes ago
Remain or Leave? 484 32 minutes ago
Christopher Hicthens 4023 49 minutes ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1152 1 hour ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 249 3 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1860 3 hours ago
Where did science orignally come from ? 532 11 hours ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1024 13 hours ago
What will happen first. The London BBC stop moaning that it's not fair, our side lost, wegot less votes but we supported remain and want the result changing. Or Jesus revisits the earth. 24 20 hours ago
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 158 21 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1541 22 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  30
Total posts:  388
Initial post:  13 Mar 2013
Latest post:  14 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions