15 May 06
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy would I bother attempting to provide them, when you dismiss inconvenient experimental figures out of hand as being implausible? Even if you don't dismiss the figures, you obviously misunderstand them, in light of your erroneous insistence that the 60-70% figure requires a high remarriage rate.
It might be to the wife - but do you have any figures to back this?
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesProve it.
It is not the case that it requires higher than a 30% remarriage rate. The remarriage rate can approach 0% while the intra-marriage transmission rate can meet and exceed 60-70% and even approach 100%.
In your own example, you have a remarriage rate of 100% to justify the 60% transmission rate.
15 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioNo, I wouldn't. The Church's purpose is to teach the Truth, not what is utilitarian. If the Church does decide that using condoms in the situation described is morally permissible, then it would have to be derived from the teaching and Tradition of the Church.
Hold on a sec. If this comment was directed at me, then you've misread me. I don't think that
the Church is responsible for the epidemic in Africa, by any means. I simply believe that their
stance on condoms in this case is absurd and that offering tacit support for the use of condoms in
life-threatening situations within the confines of marriage is a ...[text shortened]... s the rate of infection by just 5%, I will consider it a victory.
Wouldn't you?
Nemesio
15 May 06
A reasonably good summation of the subject:
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-condom-debate-is-big-for-church.html
My own views are more like this poster in the Comments section:
"I wonder how important it is for the Vatican to pronounce a judgment on this issue. How many women are there whose husbands have AIDS and know it and insist on intercourse and are willing to wear a condom and have access to condoms and are practicing Catholics? Is it not better to deal with these situations pastorally? Aren't there established practices covering people who do not wish to contracept but whose spouses practice it or insist on practicing it?"
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo I don't. In my example, the remarriage rate is only 40%.
Prove it.
In your own example, you have a remarriage rate of 100% to justify the 60% transmission rate.
The proof is trivial. Starting with my example, add as many singly-married couples without HIV to the mix as you wish in order to decrease that 40% toward 0%. Do we need to do it in baby steps?
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageStart with one guy who has HIV. Assume he got it outside of marriage.
For me and Nemesio--please.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/1 = 0%
Current remarriage rate: 0/1 = 0%
A married woman sleeps with him and gets infected.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 0/2 = 0%
Current remarriage rate: 0/2 = 0%
That woman infects her husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 1/3 = 33%
Current remarriage rate: 0/3 = 0%
That woman dies, and her husband remarries. He infects his new wife.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 2/4 = 50%
Current remarriage rate: 1/4 = 25%
That man dies, and his new wife remarries, infecting her new husband.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 3/5 = 60%
Current remarriage rate: 2/5 = 40%
Now, suppose there are 95 other people, none of which are remarried, and none of which have HIV.
Current % of intra-marriage transmissions: 3/5 = 60%
Current remarriage rate: 2/100 = 2%
15 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's not trivial. It's your calculation of the remarriage rate - you're calculating it as the percentage of people remarrying of the total population when you should be calculating it just on the eligible population (i.e. people who are divorced or widowed - naturally couples that are still married to each other do not count). That's how the 30% figure in BdN's link is calculated.
No I don't. In my example, the remarriage rate is only 40%.
The proof is trivial. Starting with my example, add as many singly-married couples without HIV to the mix as you wish in order to decrease that 40% toward 0%. Do we need to do it in baby steps?
So, in the example you've given, the remarriage rate is still 100%.
EDIT: What's more, if you read my original post against the 60-70% figure, you'll see that the required remarriage rate for the eligible HIV-infected sub-population must be around 100% to justify the 60-70% intra-marital transmission rate.
15 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhatever. Even accepting your inferior and experimentally atrocious definition of remarriage, it's still trivial to construct an example that shows that the remarriage rate can approach 0% while the intra-marriage transmission rate can approach 100%. Replace my 95 married people with 98 divorced people and the remarriage rate under your definition is still 2%.
It's not trivial. It's your calculation of the remarriage rate - you're calculating it as the percentage of people remarrying of the total population when you should be calculating it just on the eligible population (i.e. people who are divorced or widowed - naturally couples that are still married to each other do not count). That's how the 30% figur ink is calculated.
So, in the example you've given, the remarriage rate is still 100%.
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what? What bearing does that have on whether the 60-70% figure is possible or plausible? It doesn't have any, for it's really just a restatement of the figure.
What's more, if you read my original post against the 60-70% figure, you'll see that the required remarriage rate for the eligible HIV-infected sub-population must be around 100% to justify the 60-70% intra-marital transmission rate.
No matter which way you state it, your only objection to the figure is that you simply doubt it. But you have given no basis for your doubt, while I have shown that it is possible and plausible.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"Experimentally atrocious"? Dear Doctor, please do let me know how many previously healthy people are included the next time you read about the success rate of a drug trial, or how many minors are included the next time an unemployment rate comes out.
Whatever. Even accepting your inferior and experimentally atrocious definition of remarriage, it's still trivial to construct an example that shows that the remarriage rate can approach 0% while the intra-marriage transmission rate can approach 100%. Replace my 95 married people with 98 divorced people and the remarriage rate under your definition is still 2%.
"Experimentally atrocious". ROFL!
Even if I replace your 95 married people with 98 divorcees, the 2% is the remarriage rate for the whole population, not the HIV+ sub-population.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou have given us no reason for believing that the remarriage rate of HIV+ patients should be an order of magnitude higher than that for the general population - and there is no reason for assuming that a priori (if anything - quite the opposite). You're right in one thing - it is just a restatement of the 60-70% figure.
So what? What bearing does that have on whether the 60-70% figure is possible or plausible? It doesn't have any, for it's really just a restatement of the figure.
No matter which way you state it, your only objection to the figure is that you simply doubt it. But you have given no basis for your doubt, while I have shown that it is possible and plausible.
But if you want to believe that, on average, an HIV+ African spouse will be married 2.3 times, then what we consider plausible differs widely.
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are moving the target. Your 30% claim was with respect to the whole population, and I have shown it to be wrong.
Even if I replace your 95 married people with 98 divorcees, the 2% is the remarriage rate for the whole population, not the HIV+ sub-population.
You only introducted the HIV sub-population metric a couple posts ago.
15 May 06
10 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat's truly funny is that adopting your preferred metric is tantamount to falling for Zeno's dichotomy paradox.
"Experimentally atrocious". ROFL!
To complete a race, you must first go 50% of the distance. If two people are starting a race, neither is currently eligible to win because neither has achieved all of the logical preconditions of winning the race, according to Zeno.
You're saying the same thing. You're saying that a married person is ineligible to remarry because only divorced or widowed people can logically remarry. You're saying that not having completed all of the logical preconditions of remarriage makes them ineligible and means that they should not be counted in the basis of the remarriage statistic.
I'm saying that's foolish for the same reason that Zeno's paradox is flawed. Married people are just as eligible to remarry as a sprinter at the start line is eligible to complete the race.
In the face of this, if you still maintain that only divorced people or widows should be counted in the basis, then why not limit the set further to divorced people who are currently reengaged? After all, just as divorce or widowing is a logical precursor to remarriage, so is finding an agreeable new spouse. Are you willing to limit your count to these as the basis of the rate? Why stop there? There are numerous other logical preconditions to remarriage, such as arranging a service with a priest. Should only those people who are divorced, have found a new mate, have asked the mate to marry, and have arranged a service with the priest be counted as the basis of the remarriage rate? If not, why do you choose one precondition as being special while ignoring the others?
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's the claim of the study! The set of empirical results of the study is the reason.
You have given us no reason for believing that the remarriage rate of HIV+ patients should be an order of magnitude higher than that for the general population .
You're rejecting the study. On what basis? It sounds like it's on the basis that you merely doubt its findings.