That doesn’t mean that he can’t back up his statements.

What is he waiting for? Isn’t it likely he doesn’t have anything to back them up? Isn’t it likely that, to his knowledge, it is unfounded?

It was definitely the best put forward.

Blackstone’s was better.

The Pope himself doesn’t cite anything.

That doesn’t mean that he can’t back up his statements.

an anology (and not the best put forward)

It was definitely the best put forward.

Hello I bookmarked this site. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Pianoforte Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

I meant you were being pendantic in that you are fleshing out an anology (and not the best put forward) to the minute details that wasn’t even the topic. Maybe pendantic isn’t the right word? How about just plain ‘ole annoying in your non-conversation?

Not if it’s not unfounded – which you admit may be the case.

I admit anything is possible (even the Pope’s mythology). However, The Pope himself doesn’t cite anything.

If a person makes a statement that to their knowledge is unfounded are they being irresponsible?

Once again, pendantic. The issue was that extra travel. There might be other factors, there might not be. However, child seats have potential for some positive effect.

You’re an idiot if you think this is freaking pedantic.

Programs should be measured on effectiveness – not good intent – not potential for effectiveness. And heaven forbid if someone spends 10 man-hours conducting a cost-benefit analysis in order to…you know…determine the freaking cost. Or how about a risk-benefit analysis? Or how about any type of analysis other than a feel-good-benefit.

Do you think the Pope has a responsibility to admit his position is unfounded?

Not if it’s not unfounded – which you admit may be the case.

The program might not EVER save a single life, and it might have other negative effects which are more difficult to contemplate.

Once again, pendantic. The issue was that extra travel. There might be other factors, there might not be. However, child seats have potential for some positive effect.

Condoms definately have a very real, very effective, postive effect on an individual basis. I think the analogy is not a good one.

It’s amazing to me that we are now disussing mainly the analogy and not the topic.

However, I think my argument on this topic was kinda high level.

Do you think the Pope has a responsibility to admit his position is unfounded? Do you think he should admit that condoms protect against AIDS on an individual basis?

This is despite the “fact” that corkie is a pedantic a$$ wholly committed to breaking down any single argument to damn near mathematical logic.

Ha ha. That was funny.

Sometimes I do that. However, I think my argument on this topic was kinda high level.

Also, if some charity were to buy child seats for airlines and pay for the offset in ticket price, that could only be a good thing.

NOT TRUE.

The program might not EVER save a single life, and it might have other negative effects which are more difficult to contemplate.

You don’t have to say, “If you do drive the Ferrari…”

You just give him the facts about how seatbelts save lives in all cars.

Stepping outside the analogy, you just give people classes on the facts about AIDS and condoms. The idea is to make them appreciate the dangers and either abstain, be monogamous, or, at least, use condoms.

What you do NOT do, is take all the seatbelts out of the cars, obviously.

On November 20th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, zeroangel said:

That’s more on the level of the difference between riding a bicycle and driving a Ferrari.

Works for me.

And so telling that kid who doesn’t know how to drive not to try to drive the Ferrari, but if he does he should make sure he obeys the speed limit signs, isn’t at all sending him a mixed message?

And don’t do cocaine either. But if you do, try to do it in moderation.

There’s a spaceship somewhere with a missing pilot.

*smile*

But the evidence might only be absent to you. Are you sure there’s no study or analysis on the subject?

No, I am not certain. EQ earlier tried to present the opinion of Dr. Green, but it turns out the data he based his opinion on was flawed and he agreed condoms should be used as a “backup.” Even if there were such studies, I highly doubt they would meet your requirement #2 below.

We know how effective child seats are on an individual basis, but it’s clearly insufficient to rely simply on that information to make a stand on airline regulations for them.

Yes, but we also know what the mitigating factors are. IMHO, I have yet to see a convincing theory of how condoms would actually increase the instances of unsafe sex. Also, if some charity were to buy child seats for airlines and pay for the offset in ticket price, that could only be a good thing.

Frankly, I don’t think this requirement can be met in today’s world.

I don’t think so either.

2. I think it’s very possible that there might be no statistically significant reduced spread of HIV associated with condom distributions.

If you are talking about distributions in and of themselves, I agree.

I am unbiased. All I care about is AIDS prevention. It’s a horrible disease and needs to go away. We know condoms protect individuals. Do you think the Pope has a responsibility to admit his position is unfounded?

But one should never rely strictly on pure intuition/judgment as default.

Of course not, however I think this particular situation (condoms in Africa) is one in which we can go on intuition/judgment initially and get the data later. After all, both you and I seem to agree, it’s unlikely that condom distribution will increase the spread of HIV.

Then who’s purchasing those billboards in England?

I think the point I was making was that atheists only organize around the one idea (no belief in gods). Emjem24 seems to think that we have some set of common goals or ideas other than that. It’s just not true. I’ll bet you can even find atheists opposed to condom distribution in Africa. However, If non-stamp collectors were regularly regarded as evil, they would probably buy billboards too.

Good chat corkie. We can probably wrap this one up.

A global warming hoax? Say it isn’t so…but then we’ve known it all along. Today, the blog post came that someone had hacked into the Hadley Climatic Research Centre in Britain. Other reports say the site hacked is Britain’s University of East A …..

they aren’t a group anymore than a group of people who don’t collect stamps are a group.

Then who’s purchasing those billboards in England?

I am unsure if any study has actually been conducted….In the absence of evidence…

But the evidence might only be absent to you. Are you sure there’s no study or analysis on the subject?

I am taking a stand that’s rather reasonable based on how effective we know condoms are on an invidual basis.

We know how effective child seats are on an individual basis, but it’s clearly insufficient to rely simply on that information to make a stand on airline regulations for them.

I can’t think of any other way to prove this one way or the other than to distribute condoms and see what happens. Do you object to this idea?

I don’t object to this if:

1. No good studies or analysis currently exist.

2. The study is nonpolitical (for either side) and adheres to pure scientific standards in its epidemiological approach. Frankly, I don’t think this requirement can be met in today’s world.

Do you think this idea of increased unsafe sex because of condom distribution has merit or are you not interested in speculating?

I haven’t given it much thought at all, however:

1. I don’t think it’s likely that a condom distribution program leads to an increased spread of HIV.

2. I think it’s very possible that there might be no statistically significant reduced spread of HIV associated with condom distributions.

In any case, consider the Catholic Church stance on birth control, the Pope is obviously biased.

Yes. He is. Are you?

Do you demand empirical studies every time you assess whether or not it’s safe to cross a particular street?

No. But don’t think that I haven’t performed quick risk analysis of certain activities such as crossing sketchy intersections. When readily referenced (by memory or otherwise), I believe empirical studies are extremely valuable. However, I often conclude that it’s excessively impractical to seek out an empirical studies and rely, instead, on pure intuition/judgment. But one should never rely strictly on pure intuition/judgment as default.

There are too many counterintuitive truths in this world.