Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:23
Quote Posted by Kolya
I'm glad you're up to the task of protecting the RCC from malicious misrepresentation. Because clearly they're the ones in need of protection (lol) here.
While those African half-primates should just stop fucking around like monkeys and learn some culture - problem solved!
Awesome Scots, just awesome.
Thanks for proving yourself to be one of the irksome pricks I just referenced in the post directly above yours. You are awesomely fucking stupid, mate.
I'm arguing the poor teaching is guilty on both sides of the fence. Not that one side is right and one is wrong, both are guilty of an offence, both are more or less minor - because both have basis in fact - but both have massive problems in their conception (lol good word) and delivery.
Witness below:
Quote Posted by d0om
Well, if everyone used condoms properly, then HIV wouldn't spread.
If everyone was faithful to one married partner only, then HIV wouldn't spread.
One of these things is not like the other.
ie. one of them is patently false.
Kolya on 19/3/2009 at 12:28
So condoms do not protect from infection, yeah? Is that what you are saying?
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:29
I'm saying they are not foolproof and indicating they are is wilful misrepresentation. Take that and spin it as you will, buddy.
For reals, the RCC is not my battle to be fought - I just fight from truth, justice, integrity of reporting AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
Chimpy Chompy on 19/3/2009 at 12:31
If everyone used condoms properly, the spread of aids would be pretty heavily cut back, i'm sure.
Anyway i hear Uganda got good results out of primarily promoting abstinence\faithfulness? (I'm just going off a brief mention on a bbc article here). Although we'd have to first see what other factors might contribute, ie does that country have a culture more likely to listen to such a message in the first place.
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:34
Well, Ugandans are heavily "missioned" by the RCC so that's probably why it had a good acceptance rate.
Kolya on 19/3/2009 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I'm saying they are not foolproof and indicating they are is wilful misrepresentation. Take that and spin it as you will, buddy.
No, d0om already had misuse of condoms covered, ("if everyone used condoms properly, then HIV wouldn't spread"), but you said one of those statements was wrong.
Which one was it?
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:35
Uh, the very same one, THEY ARE NOT FOOLPROOF. Deal with it. He's wrong.
The foolproof isn't to do with abuse, the foolproof has to do with when used properly they're only successful x% of the time and fuck knows how accurate that % is because they sure don't fucking do statistical trials well in the medical community. Do not fuck with me on this, Kolya, this is not your battle to be won.
Kolya on 19/3/2009 at 12:39
"Not foolproof" indicates that one makes a mistake while using them. D0om talked about properly using condoms.
I don't have to spin your words or deal with them because you're too stupid to even write up a coherent argument.
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:40
i got it from your mom :'(
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 12:43
Quote Posted by Kolya
I don't have to spin your words or deal with them because you're too stupid to even write up a coherent argument.
Let me explain how this works, you brilliantly dense bastard, they base their assertions of "ability to
limit the spread of STDs" and "ability to prevent pregnancy" based on trials that do not account for a whole load of factors that equate to statistical nonsense. If their trials and hence their statistics are redundant then your argument is redundant. I'll stick to that. Call it incoherent if you want. I'm done.
Notice how they don't even say prevent the spread of STDs but limit, because even when used properly it can still happen - do the condoms tell you how to use them exactly and accounting for all the bodily fluids and so on?
....?
