Papal Visit to Ireland

[muppet]

"Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite."

I am trying hard to get my head around this sentence.

Condoms promote promiscuity? Fair enough, it is arguable. But people make the decision to go and buy them before they use them. So I would suggest the condoms are to protect the users, they don't create the users.

But this...'Chastity the opposite'.

What does that mean?

Chastity promotes the opposite of promiscuity, which I reckon is chastity? So chastity promotes chastity? That is hardly it.

Maybe he meant no condoms promotes chastity? Which would be hilarious. Ugliness would be far more effect than no condoms. Maybe the Vatican should look into this?

[stew]

"Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite."

I am trying hard to get my head around this sentence.

Condoms promote promiscuity? Fair enough, it is arguable. But people make the decision to go and buy them before they use them. So I would suggest the condoms are to protect the users, they don't create the users.

But this...'Chastity the opposite'.

What does that mean?

Chastity promotes the opposite of promiscuity, which I reckon is chastity? So chastity promotes chastity? That is hardly it.

Maybe he meant no condoms promotes chastity? Which would be hilarious. Ugliness would be far more effect than no condoms. Maybe the Vatican should look into this?

LOLOLOL.

Buck away compadres and feck the begrudgers!

[omaghjoe]

FFS Tiger seriously its not that hard. As well you know I don't mean manipulate the Data to get it to read something contrary to what it found. I mean manipulate it to make sense of it. All data must be manipulated to make sense of it. There is criteria for manipulating the data to make it empirical. Alot of data especially in regards to demographics would not be considered empirical evidence  as it is not collected under controlled conditions soit could only demonstrate certain things rather than actually prove them.

Sorry to tell you but pure Maths is theory, concept might be a better lay way of describing it but whenever it boils down to it basics a few assumptions must be allowed and all theories of maths derive from those. You can apply the theory to prove things but maths is theory, arithmetic that you mentioned for example is know as number theory.

If that 80% is wrong fair enough, but I took it from an article talking about how effective condoms where so I assumed it would skew it in the best direction for the articles argument. Could there be a discrepancy between controlled conditions and field conditions? In any case its irrelevant to my point

Your search makes interesting reading there is obliviously a lot of conflicting info and opinions out there. Alot of the focus seems to be on Uganda where there was a dramatic fall in the infection rate, and many top AIDs scientists say that abstinence was key. But it now seems to be climbing again in Uganda... There is also other countries where condoms are widely available and it continues to rise. I still have nt seen any stats connecting the Catholic's to higher rates of HIV only to the contrary.

An open mind is required on the solutions to Africa and not the arrogant approach that what works in the West should work there also.

[easytiger95]

FFS Tiger seriously its not that hard. As well you know I don't mean manipulate the Data to get it to read something contrary to what it found. I mean manipulate it to make sense of it. All data must be manipulated to make sense of it. There is criteria for manipulating the data to make it empirical. Alot of data especially in regards to demographics would not be considered empirical evidence  as it is collected under controlled conditions soit could only demonstrate certain things rather than actually prove them.

Sorry to tell you but pure Maths is theory, concept might be a better lay way of describing it but whenever it boils down to it basics a few assumptions must be allowed and all theories of maths derive from those. You can apply the theory to prove things but maths is theory, arithmetic that you mentioned for example is know as number theory.

If that 80% is wrong fair enough, but I took it from an article talking about how effective condoms where so I assumed it would skew it in the best direction for the articles argument. Could there be a discrepancy between controlled conditions and field conditions? In any case its irrelevant to my point

Your search makes interesting reading there is obliviously a lot of conflicting info and opinions out there. Alot of the focus seems to be on Uganda where there was a dramatic fall in the infection rate, and many top AIDs scientists say that abstinence was key. But it now seems to be climbing again in Uganda... There is also other countries where condoms are widely available and it continues to rise. I still have nt seen any stats connecting the Catholic's to higher rates of HIV only to the contrary.

An open mind is required on the solutions to Africa and not the arrogant approach that what works in the West should work there also.

FFS get a dictionary. Data should be analysed for statistical purposes not manipulated. You cannot make data empirical by manipulating it. Data (definition - facts or statistics collected together for reference or analysis) is empirical always. Good christ.

As for pure maths - pure maths is a branch of maths developed to deal in purely abstract concepts - not concepts such as statistical analysis which rely on traditional and measurable maths such as, you know, basic arithmetic and algebra.

Arithmetic is not a theory - it is a numeric language to describe physical phenomena - as in there's two apples, take away 1, what is left - yes, that's it, 1. that is the very opposite of the hypothetical method of scientific investigation.

And as for the points re AIDS in Africa and chastity - well once you've filtered the results of that google search through the gem that is your mind, unsurprisingly, it seems there is a bias towards the Catholic church point of view. But if you actually do that search and exclude all church backed publications, you'll see the vast majority of impartial sources reject that point of view - with statistics.

You make me tired Joe.

[muppet]

All data must be manipulated to make sense of it.

I love it. 

[stew]

All data must be manipulated to make sense of it.

I love it. 

OK Spock, did not compute!

[omaghjoe]

Left out a not on my last post sorry corrected it in bold up there.

I also must apologise, becuase I thought that you where actually being coy about manipulate and where aware there was two meanings, its obvious now you arent.

ma·nip·u·late
məˈnipyəˌlāt/Submit
verb
verb: manipulate; 3rd person present: manipulates; past tense: manipulated; past participle: manipulated; gerund or present participle: manipulating
1.
handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
"he manipulated the dials of the set"
synonyms:   operate, work; More
alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand.
"a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine"
synonyms:   massage, rub, knead, feel, palpate
"she manipulated the muscles of his back"
2.
control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
"the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
synonyms:   control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
"the government tried to manipulate the situation"
alter (data) or present (statistics) so as to mislead.
synonyms:   falsify, rig, distort, alter, change, doctor, massage, juggle, tamper with, t**ker with, interfere with, misrepresent; More


In this thread I have been talking about the first meaning, so get the other one out of your head, you too Muppet ye plank

And data may be empirical but the results it gives especially if there are many may not be clear, that is why the must be manipulated using mathematics to give a clearer picture

Maths is pure concept, and the equations which it uses that can be applied to solve real life problems are total theory. A problem solved proves the theory but the concept itself is still just that.

Your attempts to demonise me as some sort of Vatican cheerleader are laughable considering I entered into this with the notion that the Catholic church's message was helping to spread AIDs in Africa but have come away with an entirely different point of view. The most glaringly obvious one would be that Catholic countries in sub Saharan Africa have substantially lower infection rates. Is there any similar demographic data about condom availability and AIDs? I have been searching and can't find any, just seems to be a few articles that say that they dont help, or that they should help, but nothing concrete.

I've also seen that 80% figure for condom HIV prevention in another article, nothing in the high 90s. So I dunno where you got your figure from.

I am beginning to think that its actually you who is completely bias in your outlook on this, the constant tirade to insult and demonise also makes me feel uneasy. I have a bit of craic on here with people but its nothing serious apart from in the football forum then its deadly serious, but I feel venom and vitrol on the end of every other sentence with you, do you actually mean to come off like that or am I taking it up the wrong way? And if so why do you feel the need to do it? It might be what is making you tired.

[Eamonnca1]

I just checked in to see if this thread could get any more surreal. It can and it has.

[bennydorano]

Last man standing wins approach too I see. Straight outa the TF playbook, everyone else leaves exasperated & victory is claimed.

[easytiger95]

Not at all Benny - I'll be getting to joe's latest postcard from the edge later on.

[easytiger95]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9141163

how about that for effectiveness of condom use in preventing HIV? Is that clear enough for you?

[easytiger95]

Ok - let's do this quick and clear. First up, no one, and I mean no one, uses the word manipulate in relation to data unless they are talking about skewing the data. If they are not talking about skewing the data, they use the word analyse. You posting up the definition of manipulate does not change the fact that you are using it in a completely inappropriate way for your argument. Quick tip - if you have to post up dictionary definitions of the words you are using to make your point, you're using the wrong words.

And data may be empirical but the results it gives especially if there are many may not be clear, that is why the must be manipulated using mathematics to give a clearer picture
Data is always empirical, it does not in and of itself give results, data is usually analysed in either a qualitative or quantitative way to give a result to a specific question. Statistical analysis (using maths, yes, well done) is one of the quantitative methods.

Maths is pure concept, and the equations which it uses that can be applied to solve real life problems are total theory. A problem solved proves the theory but the concept itself is still just that.
(Deep breath) No, pure maths, which you first brought up, is theoretical and was first developed from basic mathematics to deal with abstract concepts. However, you are mixing up a lot of things - arithmetic, on which statistical calculations are based, is not theoretical, quite the opposite. When you talk about a theory being proved in maths using equations, I can only assume that you mean geometric theorems that we all learnt in school, such as Pythagoras, where basic algebraic equations are used to solve a more complex problem. Either way, none of these equates to the hypothetical method we have been arguing about. You literally do not know what you are talking about.

I am beginning to think that its actually you who is completely bias in your outlook on this, the constant tirade to insult and demonise also makes me feel uneasy. I have a bit of craic on here with people but its nothing serious apart from in the football forum then its deadly serious, but I feel venom and vitrol on the end of every other sentence with you, do you actually mean to come off like that or am I taking it up the wrong way? And if so why do you feel the need to do it? It might be what is making you tired.
I am completely biased - to dogma of all kinds, left or right, atheistic or religious. Someone comes on here, say like TF, and he enjoys playing the role of Catholic supervillain, stroking his white cat and annoying the bollix out of people. I can deal with that, he is just a troll.

Or Stew comes on, barks out a few homophobic insults, and calls someone a cnut. Ok, I vehemently disagree with him, but at least there is no artifice there.

But you Joe, your attack isn't on actual minorities or atheists  or lefties etc - your attack is actually on critical thought itself. Your   stupidity is either willful or ignorant. If ignorant, well then, I hope you've learnt something.

If it is willful, then like every other waster on the extreme right or extreme left, the one thing that you fear is critical thought and rational examination - because you're clever enough to know that those things demolish your argument. So, despite the fact that you've been told time and time again that your use of language is inaccurate and misleading, that your sources and numbers (at times by your own admission) are biased and wrong, you wander on and call foul that someone has called you on it. Which, by the way, is a typical extremist move, play the victim and make the other person the aggressor.

You may think that the board is simply a place for banter and not taking things too seriously. Grand, then don't take part in serious discussions. Your previous posts indicate that you are either spectacularly ill equipped to do so, or that you are a troll who enjoys taking the conversation down these cul de sacs.

Just as it is your right to not take this place seriously, it is my right to do so and also my right to think that people should stand behind their words, whether uttered in person, or typed in to their keyboard under an alias. Enough people know my real name on this board for me to be honest when I write, whether in fun or in debate, which is what this is. If you don't like the debate then don't engage. If you do engage, which you have, copiously, then don't complain when it doesn't go your way.

To finish...Good Jesus.

[Itchy]

Itchy reads 5/6 posts, itchys brain starts to melt, itchy departs. Have fun kids

[Eamonnca1]

Quoth Bill Clinton: It depends what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[omaghjoe]

Sorry tiger but manipulate is actually used in regard to data, frequently. In my line of work, it is constantly used about results and data. All you have to do is type in "manipulate data" into the google search bar and the first choice is "in excel", which will give you a whole list of way to do it. Data is not always empirical, if its not collected empirically, and you have to collectively manipulate it to give empirical results. There is nothing more to say on this.

Also sorry but Maths is complete concept, and all mathematic fields are based on concept. Maths only exists in our heads, it can be applied to real life but that doesnt make it real. If you cant wrap it around that, then our math discussion is over. Ask anyone who has a a degree in maths, I am sure they will agree and would be happy to answer your questions on it.

What are you talking about dogma? No one is trying to even bring dogma into this. Just because you are talking about the church doesn't mean everything that the church does is incorrect because of religious dogma. If your fundamentally biased against the church because of their dogma then having a rational discussion about the church is completely pointless.

But to say that you are opposed to dogma makes no sense. If you are opposed to religious dogma that's fine,but the society will live in is based on dogma. Maths for example is dogma, law is dogma, in fact, when I think about it, and this should really get you going, "everything non empirical is based on dogma". Have a think about that with an open mind and you should get an understanding of both the words.

Now lets get back to your original point that is that the Catholic message in Africa is helping to spread AIDS. As I said b4, I must admit I would have thought this as well, but there not appear to any evidence to show that. It should be a simple level of condom distribution and marketing by country v catholic infection rate. The only places on line I can find anything relating to that are the Catholic websites, which point to lower HIV/AIDS rate in catholic countries. Could it be the case that they are correct or is it just they fundamentally wrong because they are biased and based on dogma? If they are wrong it should be easy to prove, but despite a whole squadron of detractors of the Catholic church in this area, no one seems to have done that.

It should be perfectly clear that I am not engaging in banter, and this is a serious discussion. Which is why I am not engaging in insults to try and belittle what you are saying. I am not complaining that the debate is not going my way either, I am complaining about your constant tirade. I am not even sure there is a debate, only trying to establish facts, which you are trying to distract from by claiming that everything I say is rubbish. The very fact that you have the notion that this is a debate is worrying as it would indicate that you have dogmatically* chosen your side and are going about this whole thing to prove your point and attempt to smear and denigrate anything that opposed your position. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

*now thats banter