Dan DiLeo Op-Ed in Daily Sun

ebilmes · April 01, 2009, 12:26:10 PM

If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2009/04/01/alternatives-condoms-catholic-church-and-contraceptives

ugarte · April 01, 2009, 04:20:10 PM

[quote ebilmes]If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2009/04/01/alternatives-condoms-catholic-church-and-contraceptives[/quote]
Condomed sex during fertile periods is more likely to result in pregnancy than the rhythm method.

APRIL FOOL'S!

On a more serious note, if the objection of the Church to condom use is that it demeans the relationship of the partners, that's what it should argue. Shitty science is a destructive way to make a moral case.

Jim Hyla · April 01, 2009, 05:19:20 PM

[quote ugarte][quote ebilmes]If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2009/04/01/alternatives-condoms-catholic-church-and-contraceptives[/quote]
Condomed sex during fertile periods is more likely to result in pregnancy than the rhythm method.

APRIL FOOL'S!

On a more serious note, if the objection of the Church to condom use is that it demeans the relationship of the partners, that's what it should argue. Shitty science is a destructive way to make a moral case.[/quote]How about no science. A lot of proclamations, but not backed by any data. And how about no discussion of HIV/AIDs, mentioned but nothing discussed.

About what I expect from religion, after all, religion is a belief not a science. So don't try and prove it to me.

KeithK · April 01, 2009, 05:33:27 PM

The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

jtwcornell91 · April 01, 2009, 06:16:46 PM

[quote KeithK]The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).[/quote]

I believe ugarte's point was that the piece would have done better to stick to the morality argument rather than to include dubious-at-best assertions like "NFP ... has been shown to be equally, if not more, effective as contraception when practiced correctly."

Jim Hyla · April 01, 2009, 06:20:44 PM

[quote KeithK]The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).[/quote]Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?

These are statements that can have some proof, and yet none is offered. The stats, and science that I once learned was that the rhythm method is inherently flawed. The temperature idea is not foolproof enough to be a good form of contraception. Now maybe there is more science but none was presented. And where does the HIV/AIDs idea come in? Again, it's mentioned but not discussed. Why? I agree that abstinence is good protection, but it was never discussed.

So, if they want to make a moral discussion, go right ahead. I'm willing to hear their morals, they can hear mine. But when you try and discuss it relative to science and issues such as effective contraception, HIV/AIDs, and overpopulation, then you have taken it out of pure morality and brought it into science.

Contraception, HIV/AIDs, and overpopulation were mentioned in the first two sentences, so I don't think that I mistook the main point of the piece. The piece mixed science and morality/religion, not I.

KeithK · April 01, 2009, 08:05:52 PM

[quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK]The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).[/quote]Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?[/quote]
I'm not arguing with ugarte's point or with Jim's disagreement on the facts. I was reacting to Jim's last paragraph which is pretty dismissive of religion in general. You don't need go there to make a decision on the either the facts or the moral argument.

Jim Hyla · April 01, 2009, 08:39:34 PM

[quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK]The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).[/quote]Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?[/quote]
I'm not arguing with ugarte's point or with Jim's disagreement on the facts. I was reacting to Jim's last paragraph which is pretty dismissive of religion in general. You don't need go there to make a decision on the either the facts or the moral argument.[/quote]But Keith, I wasn't trying to make a decision on the moral argument, just the mixing of that with science. My last paragraph was somewhat dismissive, I agree, but that was because of the mixing up of the two in the article. Morals, related to religion or not, are beliefs. It's then when you try and prove it by science that you get into trouble, at least with me.

Please reread this

QuoteAbout what I expect from religion, after all, religion is a belief not a science. So don't try and prove it to me.

You probably took offense at the beginning "About what I expect". But that's true, it is about what I expect. This statement is true to my beliefs. Religion is a belief, not a science, so don't try and prove science with it, at least to me. That's not that dismissive, it just states my view of science and religion. State your belief, respect my belief; and when it comes to science, let's do the science and when there is proof, let's all acknowledge that.

I don't believe that the world has been around for only 6000 years, someone saying that they believe it will not make me believe it. In fact, I believe that holding to those invalidated beliefs drives more people away than it ever brings in, at least in a learned society. Therefore, I cannot sit back and let his belief that, the rhythm method is at least as good as condoms, stand unchallenged.

KeithK · April 01, 2009, 08:51:20 PM

Fair enough Jim. I've dealt with enough folks who are dismissive of religion that it's easy to tweak that nerve.

ebilmes · April 01, 2009, 11:44:27 PM

-- moved topic --

Josh '99 · April 02, 2009, 10:39:33 AM

The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.

KeithK · April 02, 2009, 11:17:20 AM

[quote Josh '99]The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.[/quote]
I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.

Josh '99 · April 02, 2009, 12:37:51 PM

[quote KeithK][quote Josh '99]The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.[/quote]
I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.[/quote]If it's an April Fool's piece, it seems to have fooled you guys into thinking it was a real article. :-}

ugarte · April 02, 2009, 02:13:01 PM

[quote Josh '99][quote KeithK][quote Josh '99]The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.[/quote]
I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.[/quote]If it's an April Fool's piece, it seems to have fooled you guys into thinking it was a real article. :-}[/quote]
Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

KeithK · April 02, 2009, 04:00:51 PM

[quote ugarte]Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.[/quote]
Exactly. Since it was 4/1 I had to consider the possibility but the article seemed sincere.