The problem is that he never engages with them – just uses them as a launching point for yet another iteration of the same tired assertions. See above.

FDB @ 393,
No, that’s contraception, which according to the Catholic Church, is a no-no whether you use a condom, the pill, an IUD or coitus interruptus. Sex is for having lots of little Catholics (if you’re a Catholic.)

I thought it was if you wore a condom.

Also,

BLASphemy. SINS of the flESH. RIGHTeous ANGer. etc.

Plus, don’t forget to point your finger forcefully skyward and wobble your jowels, while consulting an open bible on a podium without ever reading it. Ever.

Colin’s got promise – he’s already outlasted two Grandmasters on this thread (though I suspect CL’s heart was never really in it).

FDB @ 371 says,

“…people are free to selectively abide by or ignore the Church’s dictates. So, when the Church tells them not to screw around, they might think “hmm… well actually I’d prefer to screw around”, and when the Church tells them condom use is sinful (and now dangerous too), they think “now THAT one I can abide by”.”

FDB, that you seem to consider such an argument to be reasonable is hilarious.

Sigh. It’s not an “argument”.

It’s a description of reality. Do you find it an implausible one?

You’d need to cum in on a wing and prayer to provide empirical proof of that.

Isn’t FDB’s attempt to justify HIS opposition to the Catholic Church’s position on HIV prevention by using the example of Mr Simpleton a better example of confirmation bias? And indeed couldn’t the same be said of most of those on this thread attacking the Pope. They ignore the evidence put up by Saint, CL, and I that the promotion of condom use is not solving the problem of HIV transmission, whilst promoting abstinence/fidelity does seem to be more successful.

No. Read the article on confirmation bias again, closely this time.

Where is this proof that abstinence promotion is “more successful” than the distribution of condoms? Do you have a special definition of “successful” like C.L had a special definition of “true”?

Katherine Marshall and Lucy Keough, lead authors of the report, are clearly uncomfortable with approaches to HIV prevention that emphasize sexual responsibility, behavior change, and morally based messages. They praise the work and compassion of faith communities in treating and caring for people ­living with AIDS and their families, yet harshly ­criticize the messages of faith communities for increasing the stigma of AIDS. Their discomfort with attempts to change sexual behavior is evident early in the report, when, for example, they muse: “Should the focus be on changing the behaviors that contribute to HIV/AIDS? (Is that possible? Desirable? How? With what assurance?)”

That quote has, quite blatantly, been lifted out of context and misread:

Thus a first and important faith role involves the complex ethical challenges that HIV/AIDS presents and the difficult debates within societies and institutions about how to approach it.Should the focus be on changing the behaviors that contribute to HIV/AIDS (is that possible? Desirable? How? With what assurance?). Or should it, instead, be on
accepting the actual behaviors and working to limit suffering of all, and especially those with the least ability to respond—unborn children, young wives, young people everywhere? Who should have priority in receiving care when resources are constrained? How can communities cope with the burdens of the pandemic? Faith communities have special roles in addressing these ethical issues.

Canvassing these issues in this way isn’t tantamount to a discomfort with ‘approaches to HIV prevention that emphasize sexual responsibility’, unless you read it while holding a dogmatic conviction that such approaches are the only way to go.

If you want to call the scenario that FDB described an example of “confirmation bias” then so be it, although in my opinion the definition of “confirmation bias” as given at your Wikipedia link seems to better describe those who oppose the Catholic Church’s position on HIV prevention.

Even if the Church did change it’s position on condom use the simpleton in FDB’s example would simply think up another irrational argument to try an justify his non-use of condoms during his acts of fornication/adultery. So you’re still left with Mr Simpleton not wearing a condom.

Isn’t FDB’s attempt to justify HIS opposition to the Catholic Church’s position on HIV prevention by using the example of Mr Simpleton a better example of confirmation bias? And indeed couldn’t the same be said of most of those on this thread attacking the Pope. They ignore the evidence put up by Saint, CL, and I that the promotion of condom use is not solving the problem of HIV transmission, whilst promoting abstinence/fidelity does seem to be more successful.

In Edward Green’s critique (link below) of the West’s approach to HIV prevention he says:

“One must ask whether they [those working in HIV prevention] are more concerned with upholding a Western notion of sexual freedom or with saving lives. Their concern over any prevention approach that might be “moralistic” causes them to miss entirely the evidence for the remarkable success of sexual-behavior change in reducing HIV infections.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6172

The bottom line is that many people commenting on this thread don’t want to see a society where fornication and adultery are again frowned upon. For these people it’s important for the Catholic Church’s approach to HIV prevention to either fail or appear to fail. For such people sexual freedom is more important than HIV prevention.

FDB, that you seem to consider such an argument to be reasonable is hilarious.

It’s called confirmation bias Colin – well researched and well understood. That people who like sex but don’t like condoms will use any excuse not to use one is not particularly remarkable. The catholic church knows this.

Helen @ 373,
I never accused or implied that NAPWA or Michael Kirby supported the deliberate spreading of HIV. Shame on you for saying so. I simply raised the point that NAPWA and Michael Kirby opposed the criminalization of deliberate HIV transmission. And to my thinking such a position warranted a response from those in the blogging world concerned with the spread of HIV, particularly since so many bloggers have responded to the Pope’s comments.

I must admit reading the story you linked to I was at a loss as to what it had to do with this thread… until I got to the last paragraph which says:

“Once again, I am confirmed in my opinion that Christianity is a breeder of evil, a cesspit in which the most hateful and inhuman commitment to lies and delusions can ferment. Don’t ever preach at me about Christian morality: I’ve seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition.”

I think the author of the above paragraph has “issues”.