<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Row and Bee Recent Updates</title>
<description>The last update of the comic.</description>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/</link>
<language>en-us</language>


<item>
<title>Big Words</title>
<description><![CDATA[I don't really have much to add for this one. I had my big rant-o-rama yesterday.

This is, however, directed at those that would intentionally use completely irrelevant, highly technical terms in an argument; specifically, arguments for deities.

We call this argument style "gibberish".]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/?p=640522</link>
</item>

<item>
<title>Force of Good in Teh Wurld</title>
<description><![CDATA[I'm not normally one to rag on the Pope for being a douchebag...wait, yes I am.

Saying that contraception is against your religion is fine, but fortunately you can't control what other people do in private, as much as you'd like to be able to, you sick fuck.

What am I complaining about today? The rampant misinformation surrounding the effectiveness of abstinence, being "faithful" to your spouse whomever they are, and the use of condoms and contraception. I'm referring to the situation in Uganda, Africa, where the ABCs (see what I did there?) has supposedly dropped the number of cases of AIDS. There's a lot of misinformation to sift through, however; least of which is the many appeals to morality that the Church throws around. For [url=http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_11condom.html]example[/url],

[quote][t]he condom does not abolish the risk of transmitting this horrible and ultimately fatal disease. Intercourse puts the uninfected spouse at great risk. There is therefore a doubt about taking the life of an innocent human being, a dubium facti, which as such, creates the same obligation as certainty. Self-sacrifice and abstinence are the only valid moral options.

Sister Miriam Duggan (Franciscan Missionaries of Africa) and Sister Kay Lawlor (Medical Missionaries of Mary) run a major abstinence program in Uganda. Sister Duggan says that the main reason why AIDS has spread so much in Africa is because of a loss of traditional values. Polygamy was practiced, but virginity before marriage and fidelity within marriage were respected. Media and peer pressure has resulted in promiscuity. The sister's program has shown that chastity is not pie-in-the-sky, but has very real positive results. Dr. Mulcaire-Jones who once believed that it would be impossible to get African men to understand natural family planning, or to adhere to a lifestyle of abstinence and sexual faithfulness in marriage now says "I have found tremendous willingness to hear and adhere to Church teachings about sexual morality - we are having tremendous success - the Catholic Church really does have the answer to this."[/quote]

This kind of sentiment, that only abstinence can save us from diseases, has some merit. There is, after all, no way to contract diseases if you have no contact whatsoever with another living being. This approach to controlling social creatures, however, is doomed to fail. Whether or not you agree with it, people are going to screw around, literally and figuratively. So, instead of only teach abstinence, which, studies have shown, [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/]only[/url] [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html]works[/url] [url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14236771.htm]roughly 50%[/url] [url=http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-abstinence-doesnt-work.html]of the time[/url]. I might have pulled that statistic out of my ass hat, but it's illustrative of the actual statistics.

Back to the situation in Uganda, there is [url=http://www.livescience.com/health/090331-bad-pope-condoms.html]apparently[/url] some [url=http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/03/prestigious-medical-journal-sa.html]disconnect[/url] between the church and reality.

Promoters of abstinence-focused HIV-prevention strategies, including the pope, point to Uganda's success in reducing HIV prevalence. While HIV rates climbed in neighboring countries, the proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002.

[quote]The success is attributed to the ABC campaign, short for "Abstain, or Be Faithful, or use Condoms." Conservative commentators often reference a Washington Post column from June 2008 by Sam Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee, in which he states that the casual-sex Western agenda forced upon his country in recent years threatens to undermine the success of its homegrown solution. 

But Ruteikara, a man of the cloth, and others touting Uganda's success fail to acknowledge Uganda's own data of what actually happened during those years. There's a C in ABC.

As reported in 2006 in the British Medical Journal's Sexually Transmitted Infections, Ugandan government health officials found that the rate of "ever use" condoms rose from 1 percent to 16 percent among women and from 16 percent to 40 percent in men from 1989 to 2000. Condom use during the most recent sexual encounter with a non-regular partner increased from 35 percent to 59 percent among men and 20 percent to 39 percent among women. [/quote]

So, tout what works under your morality, and then quietly brush aside everything that doesn't jive.

With all that, I leave you with Hitchens and Fry dominating the Catholic Church, in a public debate on whether or not the Church is a force for good in the world.

Do enjoy.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw]Part One[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTj9n40rNo]Part Two[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-q8US0QRs4]Part Three[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQRkfZzyfcU]Part Four[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i391gBoEo58]Part Five[/url]]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/?p=640122</link>
</item>

<item>
<title>Gay Agendas On Sale</title>
<description><![CDATA[You know, if people wanting other people to respect them, not for what they do in the private of their home, but how they conduct themselves in public, is a bad thing, it's time for social change.

Which is all that is warranted.

Unless it's time to start demonizing heterosexuals for having straight sex because someone's religious sensibilities are offended. I'm sure we could dredge something obscure up.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/?p=639711</link>
</item>

<item>
<title>Atomic Number Change Operation</title>
<description><![CDATA[Apologies to anyone that is offended by mention of an atom "cross-dressing" and the like; I'm using it as a metaphor to attempt to, at least for myself, explain how I view creationists labeling carbon as irreducibly complex. Aside from the concept of irreducible complexity being roughly equivalent to bemoaning how well aligned the atoms in a crystal happen to be, which, if you've had some geology and chemistry training, you realize it's not that improbable at all, it's refreshing to know that creationists are still sticking to the same arguments, though it's becoming déjà vu, because [i]we've seen all this same shit dozens of times before[/i].

Why, though, Bergman, in his [url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/that_bergman-myers_debate.php]debate with PZ Myers[/url], decided to bring up how complex carbon atoms are, and how irreducible they appear to be, at least to him, is beyond me. Swap an electron or a proton out, or add more, and suddenly carbon becomes boron, or nitrogen; add neutrons and it becomes unstable. Bergman should go back to basic chemistry; this is like watching a dog attempt to perform the Star-Spangled Banner.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/?p=637938</link>
</item>

<item>
<title>Heil Creationism!</title>
<description><![CDATA[There are several factors that went into today's image. One was a lecture by one of my heroes, PZ Myers, of [url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/]Pharyngula[/url] fame. Yes, that makes me one of those crotchety "new atheists", and personally I'm fine with the term. But that's beside the point. He discusses the argument...s that creationists use, and from the singular creationist seminar I went to, he's nailed the description. You can watch it [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo]here[/url]. I guarantee it'll be entertaining.

The other influence is also from [url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/that_bergman-myers_debate.php]Pharyngula[/url], and two related blogs: [url=http://kittywhumpus.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-thought-it-went-really-well-until-he.html]kittywhumpus[/url] and [url=http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/11/bergman_vs_myers_debate_should.php]Greg Laden's Blog[/url]. The subject this time was coverage of PZ's debate with creationist [url=http://creationwiki.org/Jerry_Bergman]Gerald Bergman[/url], wherein Bergman makes the wonderful non sequitur that all creationists bring up, equating evolutionary theory with Hitler and the Holocaust; incidentally, our own creationist lectures included how evolution was responsible for the Holocaust, as well.

It's almost always an appeal to emotion of some sort; they can't make a coherent logical argument based upon the many facts, all of which are covered ad nauseam: Hitler dogmatically misused science to further his own ends, he was a dictator that abused human rights, he used religion to control his troops. None of these speak for the argument that Hitler used evolution to kill millions of people, especially even when Darwin himself said that evolution, as it acted in nature, should not be applied to humans: it would be unethical otherwise.

All that aside, it's a dick move to pull out Hitler in a debate. You've basically got no argument left at that point, and you'd rather go the route of absurdity than rational discussion.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600</pubDate>
<link>http://www.drunkduck.com/Row_and_Bee/?p=637798</link>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>