Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 923927.ece

Check out this vatican asswipe!

In 2003 a senior Vatican official claimed condoms had tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, exposing thousands of people to risk.

The then head of the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, said: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

He added "These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

The World Health Organisation responded at the time by saying that "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent.

What a joke....

D1B wrote:The WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent[/b].


What a joke....

I agree.

When done "consistently" and "correctly" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by only 90%, and they tell people this is "safe sex."

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:The WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent[/b].


What a joke....

I agree.

Ummmm, let's see......the collective wisdom of the World Health Org or fucking eunuch idiots like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo....hmmmm

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:The WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent[/b].


What a joke....

I agree.

When done "consistently" and "correctly" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by only 90%, and they tell people this is "safe sex."

In an ideal world - abstinence is 100% effective. Joe, I hate to break the new to you but that is not the case, especially in Africa.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I agree.

Ummmm, let's see......the collective wisdom of the World Health Org or **** eunuch idiots like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo....hmmmm

Who cares what he said? (PS -- He is not the Pope).

The issue is the WHO's stance. I don't like the odds of "consistent and correct" condom use. People are being told that sex with condoms is "safe." It is not. It is safer than unprotected sex; but condom use fails often enough that a person who has sex with an HIV infected partner(s) faces a substantial risk of eventually contracting the HIV virus.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

Ummmm, let's see......the collective wisdom of the World Health Org or **** eunuch idiots like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo....hmmmm

Who cares what he said?

The issue is the WHO's stance. I don't like the odds of "consistent and correct" condom use. People are being told that sex with condoms is "safe." It is not. It is safer than unprotected sex; but condom use fails often enough that a person who has sex with an HIV infected partner(s) faces a substantial risk of eventually contracting the HIV virus.

I do Joe. He's an offical in vatican spewing dangerous misinformation you apologist prick.

Listen, dumbass, on this issue your logic is sound in an ideal world, that's all. This not being ideal and nothing, short of castration or Rosie O'Donnel, ever has been able to control the sex drive of human males, condoms are lifesavers.

Catholics have been trying to control people's sex lives for 2000 years with little success.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Who cares what he said?

The issue is the WHO's stance. I don't like the odds of "consistent and correct" condom use. People are being told that sex with condoms is "safe." It is not. It is safer than unprotected sex; but condom use fails often enough that a person who has sex with an HIV infected partner(s) faces a substantial risk of eventually contracting the HIV virus.

I do Joe. He's an offical in vatican spewing dangerous misinformation you apologist prick.

Listen, dumbass, on this issue your logic is sound in an ideal world, that's all. This not being ideal and nothing, short of castration or Rosie O'Donnel, ever has been able to control the sex drive of human males, condoms are lifesavers.

Catholics have been trying to control people's sex lives for 2000 years with little success.

Slow news day, D? Have to go back and dredge up something some "official of the vatican" said SIX YEARS AGO?

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

I do Joe. He's an offical in vatican spewing dangerous misinformation you apologist prick.

Listen, dumbass, on this issue your logic is sound in an ideal world, that's all. This not being ideal and nothing, short of castration or Rosie O'Donnel, ever has been able to control the sex drive of human males, condoms are lifesavers.

Catholics have been trying to control people's sex lives for 2000 years with little success.

Slow news day, D? Have to go back and dredge up something some "official of the vatican" said SIX YEARS AGO?

The article cited was recent, asshole. The author brought it up. PM me if you need any reading comprehension help.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

I do Joe. He's an offical in vatican spewing dangerous misinformation you apologist prick.

Listen, dumbass, on this issue your logic is sound in an ideal world, that's all. This not being ideal and nothing, short of castration or Rosie O'Donnel, ever has been able to control the sex drive of human males, condoms are lifesavers.

Catholics have been trying to control people's sex lives for 2000 years with little success.

Slow news day, D? Have to go back and dredge up something some "official of the vatican" said SIX YEARS AGO?

Yeah, but that was a pretty good line, I thought

Like this guy knows anything about sex...........



All I know is the effin dude CREEPS me out!

mainejeff wrote:Like this guy knows anything about sex...........



All I know is the effin dude CREEPS me out!

LMFFAO!

Exactly!

D1B wrote:
In an ideal world - abstinence is 100% effective. Joe, I hate to break the new to you but that is not the case, especially in Africa.

and apparently it isn't the case in the Alter Boys changing room either...




(come on, I couldn't let that one get away)

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:The WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent[/b].


What a joke....

I agree.

When done "consistently" and "correctly" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by only 90%, and they tell people this is "safe sex."

Joe, what would the percentage have to be for you to consider it safe sex? Would you consider less than 5% infection rate with condoms safe sex? less than 2%?

Appaholic wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I agree.

When done "consistently" and "correctly" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by only 90%, and they tell people this is "safe sex."

Joe, what would the percentage have to be for you to consider it safe sex? Would you consider less than 5% infection rate with condoms safe sex? less than 2%?

0% = safe sex.

Something less than 0% is "safer sex," but it is not "safe."

The more times someone engages in "safer sex," the less safe it becomes.

Now consider the consequences of that on a society-wide basis.

Using a condom may be better than not using a condom, but let's not kid ourselves. Engage in risky conduct often enough, the odds decrease against you.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Joe, what would the percentage have to be for you to consider it safe sex? Would you consider less than 5% infection rate with condoms safe sex? less than 2%?

0% = safe sex.

Something less than 0% is "safer sex," but it is not "safe."

The more times someone engages in "safer sex," the less safe it becomes.

Now consider the consequences of that on a society-wide basis.

Using a condom may be better than not using a condom, but let's not kid ourselves. Engage in risky conduct often enough, the odds decrease against you.

You must have failed stats. If there's a 10% risk of contracting HIV having sex with a condom, then it's a 10% risk each and every time. There's no such thing as the "law of averages".

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
0% = safe sex.

Something less than 0% is "safer sex," but it is not "safe."

The more times someone engages in "safer sex," the less safe it becomes.

Now consider the consequences of that on a society-wide basis.

Using a condom may be better than not using a condom, but let's not kid ourselves. Engage in risky conduct often enough, the odds decrease against you.

You must have failed stats. If there's a 10% risk of contracting HIV having sex with a condom, then it's a 10% risk each and every time. There's no such thing as the "law of averages".

You used the term "law of averages," not me.

It is also a statistical theorem that random variables will occur pursuant to their underlying probability over a sufficient number of events. In fact, that's why we are able to calculate, on a percentage basis, possibilities and probabilities.

I took advanced statistics in college and got a 4.0 in the class. Thanks for asking.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
You must have failed stats. If there's a 10% risk of contracting HIV having sex with a condom, then it's a 10% risk each and every time. There's no such thing as the "law of averages".

You used the term "law of averages," not me.

It is also a statistical theorem that random variables will occur pursuant to their underlying probability over a sufficient number of events. In fact, that's why we are able to calculate, on a percentage basis, possibilities and probabilities.

I took advanced statistics in college and got a 4.0 in the class. Thanks for asking.

You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You used the term "law of averages," not me.

It is also a statistical theorem that random variables will occur pursuant to their underlying probability over a sufficient number of events. In fact, that's why we are able to calculate, on a percentage basis, possibilities and probabilities.

I took advanced statistics in college and got a 4.0 in the class. Thanks for asking.

You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

Beat me to it.

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You used the term "law of averages," not me.

It is also a statistical theorem that random variables will occur pursuant to their underlying probability over a sufficient number of events. In fact, that's why we are able to calculate, on a percentage basis, possibilities and probabilities.

I took advanced statistics in college and got a 4.0 in the class. Thanks for asking.

You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

I also said you had consider the consequences of that failure rate over a society-wide basis. Look it up, you'll see I said that. Don't take a snippet out of context.

The difference between the so-called "law of averages" and the theorem of random variables is that the "law of averages" accepts that, over a short-term period of observation, that the expected statistical norm will be observed (i.e., a 10% chance happens every 1 in 10 times).

The critical difference of the theorem of randmon variables is that it assumes a much-wider event horizon (such as society as a whole); and holds that, over a horizon of sufficient events, the occurrence of a random variable will conform to its underlying statsitical probability. Therefore, given a failure rate of 10%, let's say, over 1,000,0000 events, you can expect to observe approximately 100,000 failures.

Therefore, the more times an individual engages in risky conduct, even with a condom, the greater the chance he or she will become infected, given a sufficient number of encounters. That is absolutely true (here, you are talking about the overall odds decreasing against him or her as a result of a pattern of conudct, and not with respect to any single encounter).

And, in context, that is precisely what I said. Again, someone else mistakenly called what I said an application of the so-called "law of averages" rather than recognizing it for what it was -- a statement of the theorem of random variables.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote: You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

I also said you had consider the consequences of that failure rate over a society-wide basis. Look it up, you'll see I said that. Don't take a snippet out of context.

The difference between the so-called "law of averages" and the theorem of random variables is that the "law of averages" accepts that, over a short-term period of observation, that the expected statistical norm will be observed (i.e., a 10% chance happens every 1 in 10 times).

The critical difference of the theorem of randmon variables is that it assumes a much-wider event horizon (such as society as a whole); and holds that, over a horizon of sufficient events, the occurrence of a random variable will conform to its underlying statsitical probability. Therefore, given a failure rate of 10%, let's say, over 1,000,0000 events, you can expect to observe approximately 100,000 failures.

And, in context, that is precisely what I said. Again, someone else mistakenly called what I said an application of the so-called "law of averages" rather than recognizing it for what it was -- a statement of the theorem of random variables.

You said, word for word, the odds decrease against you. That's incorrect, the odds stay, in theory, exactly the same.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I also said you had consider the consequences of that failure rate over a society-wide basis. Look it up, you'll see I said that. Don't take a snippet out of context.

The difference between the so-called "law of averages" and the theorem of random variables is that the "law of averages" accepts that, over a short-term period of observation, that the expected statistical norm will be observed (i.e., a 10% chance happens every 1 in 10 times).

The critical difference of the theorem of randmon variables is that it assumes a much-wider event horizon (such as society as a whole); and holds that, over a horizon of sufficient events, the occurrence of a random variable will conform to its underlying statsitical probability. Therefore, given a failure rate of 10%, let's say, over 1,000,0000 events, you can expect to observe approximately 100,000 failures.

And, in context, that is precisely what I said. Again, someone else mistakenly called what I said an application of the so-called "law of averages" rather than recognizing it for what it was -- a statement of the theorem of random variables.

You said, word for word, the odds decrease against you. That's incorrect, the odds stay, in theory, exactly the same.

See the edit above. What I said is absolutely correct given a pattern of risky conduct.

In any event, stop taking words of of their overall context.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
You said, word for word, the odds decrease against you. That's incorrect, the odds stay, in theory, exactly the same.

See the edit above. What I said is absolutely correct given a pattern of risky conduct.

In any event, stop taking words of of their overall context.

Gotcha.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
See the edit above. What I said is absolutely correct given a pattern of risky conduct.

In any event, stop taking words of of their overall context.

Gotcha.

I thought of another way of expressing this, in a clearer fashion.

Here in New York, there is a lottery game, "Sweet Million," a pick-6 game in which no number can repeat, and in which you select numbers from "1" to "40." The odds of winning the grand prize of $1,000,000 is about 1:3.5 million.

If you were to buy every single combination of those 40 numbers, every ticket you hold would have a 1:3.5 million chance of being a winner; but your overall chance of winning would be a 100% (statistical certainty).

(We will put aside for the moment the fact that you spent $3.5 million to win a $1M).

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You used the term "law of averages," not me.

It is also a statistical theorem that random variables will occur pursuant to their underlying probability over a sufficient number of events. In fact, that's why we are able to calculate, on a percentage basis, possibilities and probabilities.

I took advanced statistics in college and got a 4.0 in the class. Thanks for asking.

You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

Joltin Joe,
You are supposed to discard the condom after each use, not reuse it. Reusing condoms, increases the risk.

MarkCCU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

You did say:
The more times - the less safe it becomes...
This is incorrect because it implies that odds or percentages change with frequency - when in fact it's 10% every time

Joltin Joe,
You are supposed to discard the condom after each use, not reuse it. Reusing condoms, increases the risk.