Free condom distribution

captainbryce wrote:

CeCe wrote:

That is an excellent analogy!

Yeah, there is pretty much no good comeback for that one.

There is plenty comeback. Seatbelts are simply not comparable to condoms. Comparing dissimilar things and claiming that there is no good comeback doesn't work. Sex is sex; driving is driving. They are not alike and seatbelts cannot be accurately compared to condoms.

Although, if people want to make the comparison, I will bite. Sex with somebody who is not your spouse is like reckless driving. A seatbelt MAY protect you, but it shouldn't make you feel safe enough to drive recklessly. That is not saying go out and drive recklessly WITHOUT a seatbelt; it's saying don't go out and drive recklessly AT ALL! Drive responsibly! Likewise, have sex with your spouse only! Both driving and sex are not evil things, but they have a PLACE! Diverting from that place is asking for trouble, and a seatbelt or condom shouldn't be enough to make you feel safe with reckless behavior, which is what reckless driving and promiscuous sex both are. There are some who think it's okay to go joyriding if you buckle up. Others like me support driving properly.

Now, there are some differences I admit. The condom's purpose IS to create promiscuity. Afterall, they want you to buy MORE condoms frequently. You won't do that if you're not having frequent sex. The seatbelt is not something they want you to constantly have to replace. I also don't see free seatbelts being given out with free installation, so it's also incomparable to FREE condoms. So yeah, the comparison between condoms and seatbelts still doesn't work. BUT, since it was brought up, I might as well do something with it.

Now, again, I am not trying to take people's condoms away. (Some are SOOO defensive of something they have plenty of access to. Do people think the pope's got a lockbox on their genitals? ) I am merely saying that if you want condoms, you should get off your ass, go the store, and BUY them for crying out loud!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

captainbryce wrote:Yeah, there is pretty much no good comeback for that one.

There is plenty comeback. Seatbelts are simply not comparable to condoms. Comparing dissimilar things and claiming that there is no good comeback doesn't work. Sex is sex; driving is driving. They are not alike and seatbelts cannot be accurately compared to condoms.

Here is the reason why you are WRONG:

Definition of analogy:
a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

The point is, the two things being compared don't have to be similar so much as the "result" should be relatively similar. People choose to drive and people choose to have sex. A condom is a "safety feature" for sex just like a seatbealt is a safety feature for driving. The result of not wearing a condom is potentially having to pay extra money (unexpected child) or getting injured/killed (STD). The result of not wearing a seatbelt is potentially having to pay money (more extensive medical bills) or getting severely injured/killed (flying through the windshield). So there is clearly a valid and logical analogy between the two things. There is nothing wrong with driving nor is there anything wrong with having sex as long as it isn't done wrecklessly.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Although, if people want to make the comparison, I will bite.

You realize by "biting" you are in fact invalidating your own point (otherwise you couldn't make a valid comparrison yourself). Just saying....

Forgiveness Man wrote:Sex with somebody who is not your spouse is like reckless driving.

How do you figure?

Forgiveness Man wrote:A seatbelt MAY protect you, but it shouldn't make you feel safe enough to drive recklessly. That is not saying go out and drive recklessly WITHOUT a seatbelt; it's saying don't go out and drive recklessly AT ALL! Drive responsibly! Likewise, have sex with your spouse only! Both driving and sex are not evil things, but they have a PLACE! Diverting from that place is asking for trouble, and a seatbelt or condom shouldn't be enough to make you feel safe with reckless behavior, which is what reckless driving and promiscuous sex both are. There are some who think it's okay to go joyriding if you buckle up. Others like me support driving properly.

Again, how do you figure that having sex with someone that's not your spouse is "wreckless"?

Forgiveness Man wrote:Now, there are some differences I admit. The condom's purpose IS to create promiscuity. Afterall, they want you to buy MORE condoms frequently. You won't do that if you're not having frequent sex.

Do you REALLY belive this or are you pulling my chain? You honestly believe that condom's were created for the purpose of creating promiscuity? Were helmets invented to create dangerous bike riding too? How about dog leashes? Were they invented to encourage people to have viscious dogs?

Forgiveness Man wrote:The seatbelt is not something they want you to constantly have to replace. I also don't see free seatbelts being given out with free installation, so it's also incomparable to FREE condoms.

Well actually they ARE given out with free installation. In fact, they usually come standard in EVERY CAR today! The fact that they happen to be "reusable" is irrelevant. If they could create a reusable condom they would (although most people probably wouldn't want to use one because that's disgusting).

Forgiveness Man wrote:BUT, since it was brought up, I might as well do something with it.

Not really. If something doesn't make sense (according to you) then you can't turn around and use the same analogy to "make sense" from the opposite angle. It just doesn't work like that!

Forgiveness Man wrote:Now, again, I am not trying to take people's condoms away. (Some are SOOO defensive of something they have plenty of access to. Do people think the pope's got a lockbox on their genitals?

No, only the Sunday/Christmas Catholics think that. I'm not a Catholic so I KNOW the Pope has nothing on my genitals. But it's not an unreasonable position to have considering some of the ever changing positions Popes take on issues like this.

Forgiveness Man wrote:) I am merely saying that if you want condoms, you should get off your ass, go the store, and BUY them for crying out loud!

I think the Red Cross should stop giving out free blood too! If you happen to need blood, it should be charged to your credit card by the pint!

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:There is plenty comeback. Seatbelts are simply not comparable to condoms. Comparing dissimilar things and claiming that there is no good comeback doesn't work. Sex is sex; driving is driving. They are not alike and seatbelts cannot be accurately compared to condoms.

Here is the reason why you are WRONG:

Definition of analogy:
a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

The point is, the two things being compared don't have to be similar so much as the "result" should be relatively similar. People choose to drive and people choose to have sex. A condom is a "safety feature" for sex just like a seatbealt is a safety feature for driving. The result of not wearing a condom is potentially having to pay extra money (unexpected child) or getting injured/killed (STD). The result of not wearing a seatbelt is potentially having to pay money (more extensive medical bills) or getting severely injured/killed (flying through the windshield). So there is clearly a valid and logical analogy between the two things. There is nothing wrong with driving nor is there anything wrong with having sex as long as it isn't done wrecklessly.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Although, if people want to make the comparison, I will bite.

You realize by "biting" you are in fact invalidating your own point (otherwise you couldn't make a valid comparrison yourself). Just saying....

Forgiveness Man wrote:Sex with somebody who is not your spouse is like reckless driving.

How do you figure?

Forgiveness Man wrote:A seatbelt MAY protect you, but it shouldn't make you feel safe enough to drive recklessly. That is not saying go out and drive recklessly WITHOUT a seatbelt; it's saying don't go out and drive recklessly AT ALL! Drive responsibly! Likewise, have sex with your spouse only! Both driving and sex are not evil things, but they have a PLACE! Diverting from that place is asking for trouble, and a seatbelt or condom shouldn't be enough to make you feel safe with reckless behavior, which is what reckless driving and promiscuous sex both are. There are some who think it's okay to go joyriding if you buckle up. Others like me support driving properly.

Again, how do you figure that having sex with someone that's not your spouse is "wreckless"?

Forgiveness Man wrote:Now, there are some differences I admit. The condom's purpose IS to create promiscuity. Afterall, they want you to buy MORE condoms frequently. You won't do that if you're not having frequent sex.

Do you REALLY belive this or are you pulling my chain? You honestly believe that condom's were created for the purpose of creating promiscuity? Were helmets invented to create dangerous bike riding too? How about dog leashes? Were they invented to encourage people to have viscious dogs?

Forgiveness Man wrote:The seatbelt is not something they want you to constantly have to replace. I also don't see free seatbelts being given out with free installation, so it's also incomparable to FREE condoms.

Well actually they ARE given out with free installation. In fact, they usually come standard in EVERY CAR today! The fact that they happen to be "reusable" is irrelevant. If they could create a reusable condom they would (although most people probably wouldn't want to use one because that's disgusting).

Forgiveness Man wrote:BUT, since it was brought up, I might as well do something with it.

Not really. If something doesn't make sense (according to you) then you can't turn around and use the same analogy to "make sense" from the opposite angle. It just doesn't work like that!

Forgiveness Man wrote:Now, again, I am not trying to take people's condoms away. (Some are SOOO defensive of something they have plenty of access to. Do people think the pope's got a lockbox on their genitals?

No, only the Sunday/Christmas Catholics think that. I'm not a Catholic so I KNOW the Pope has nothing on my genitals. But it's not an unreasonable position to have considering some of the ever changing positions Popes take on issues like this.

Forgiveness Man wrote:) I am merely saying that if you want condoms, you should get off your ass, go the store, and BUY them for crying out loud!

I think the Red Cross should stop giving out free blood too! If you happen to need blood, it should be charged to your credit card by the pint!

captainbryce wrote:Cut for space

More multi-quote? Save yourself some time and do it the regular way.

Well it's only your opinion that there isn't anything wrong with sex. The analogy is weak for the same reasons my analogy was weak. The point of my analogy was merely showing you how anyone can claim a relation between two things. Like with mine: Sex with somebody who isn't your spouse is claimed as fun. Driving dangerously is claimed as fun. A condom is "supposed" to protect you; a seatbelt is "supposed" to protect you. However, if you engage in reckless behavior, while both MAY protect you, they both can fail and you're left with some consequences. A monogamous married couple is like a safe driver! (And if you multiquote this thing, I am ignoring it. Gosh dude, just quote the whole freaking thing in one. )

I am hardly invalidated it. I admitted my analogy was weak itself. But I was building on a weaker analogy. I was actually demonstrating how weak HER analogy was by showing how it could be easily adapted.

How do I figure? The same reason you figure that a condom and a seatbelt are remotely similar. I'm kind of showing you what her analogy really looks like. Anybody can make comparisons. But go ahead, go joyriding, and hope your seatbelt keeps you from crashing through the windshield. Never know, it just might do that.

Nobody thinks the Pope has a lockbox on anything except the non-Catholics who get all upset when he says something. Nobody but Catholics should really be paying attention to what the pope says, but they do, and it leads me to believe that they think he's got some amount of authority. If they didn't, they wouldn't pay attention. True Catholics already see the folly in the sexual escapades of their secular friends. Frankly, it ain't something we care to engage in. Very few people actually see that the emperor is really naked.

Well good. That's your right to think that! And if you think that, shame on you for judging people who don't like free condoms! Hypocrite!

Forgiveness Man wrote:
Well it's only your opinion that there isn't anything wrong with sex. The analogy is weak for the same reasons my analogy was weak. The point of my analogy was merely showing you how anyone can claim a relation between two things. Like with mine: Sex with somebody who isn't your spouse is claimed as fun. Driving dangerously is claimed as fun. A condom is "supposed" to protect you; a seatbelt is "supposed" to protect you. However, if you engage in reckless behavior, while both MAY protect you, they both can fail and you're left with some consequences. A monogamous married couple is like a safe driver! (And if you multiquote this thing, I am ignoring it. Gosh dude, just quote the whole freaking thing in one. )

That's okay, you can ignore it (it won't hurt my feelings) We both have our pet peeves. This is how I do it and you're the only one who's ever complaned about it so far. But for clarity's sake, I'll try to limit the multi quotes to two or three.

It is not only my opinion that there isn't anything wrong with sex. It's MOST people's opinion as well. Your opinion is obviously different. What I'm getting at is WHY is your opinion different? What is your justification for saying that it's WRECKLESS? I'm simply asking you to justify your position.

1) Wreckless driving is not claimed to be "fun" for most people. Not only is it stupid (for obvious reasons that can be quantified, unless with "sex") but it's also ILLEGAL! 2) Wreckless driving is ALWAYS dangerous whether you have a seatbelt or not. Having sex is not usually considered "dangerous" if you are using the proper protection. 3) Wreckless driving is putting OTHER PEOPLE at risk in addition to yourself. Having unprotected sex is only putting YOURSELF (as well as the partner who similarly chooses to engage in that activity) as risk. That ALONE makes it a completely invalid analogy.

Forgiveness Man wrote:How do I figure? The same reason you figure that a condom and a seatbelt are remotely similar. I'm kind of showing you what her analogy really looks like. Anybody can make comparisons. But go ahead, go joyriding, and hope your seatbelt keeps you from crashing through the windshield. Never know, it just might do that.

Since I've multi-quoted I'm expecting you to ignore this, but just for the sake of anyone else following the argument, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID WHY having sex is "wreckless". I'm not asking about analogies anymore, I'm asking for your explaination justifying the position that sex outside of marriage is wreckless. Until you can answer that, then NO ANALOGY you give is going to work because there is no frame of reference. You can't give us an analogy comparing sex outside of marriage with something wreckless unless you can explain how the two things are related.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Nobody thinks the Pope has a lockbox on anything except the non-Catholics who get all upset when he says something. Nobody but Catholics should really be paying attention to what the pope says, but they do, and it leads me to believe that they think he's got some amount of authority. If they didn't, they wouldn't pay attention. True Catholics already see the folly in the sexual escapades of their secular friends. Frankly, it ain't something we care to engage in. Very few people actually see that the emperor is really naked.

Well good. That's your right to think that! And if you think that, shame on you for judging people who don't like free condoms! Hypocrite!

The Pope speaks out on matters (and addresses people) OUTSIDE of Catholicism. The fact that when he says something ends up being on the news (secular/non-religious news) PROVES that he has influence (or is at least trying to influence) entities outside of Catholocism. If the Pope is addressing doctors on the issue of condoms in Africa, he is in fact pushing his influence outside of his religion. THAT is why other people care! It's not that we care about his opinion (or the opinion of anyone in the Church). It's that what he says directly influences politics, social development outside of the Church and the level of ignorance going on in the world today.