Gates Pushes Open-Source Approach to HIV Research

dan the person writes that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "has donated $287m to 16 different research groups around the world to work on developing an HIV vaccine. The catch? They have to share their work even if the groups were previously competing against each other. Sounds like a familiar development model to me, I wonder where I have seen it before?" Besides the BBC's coverage, the Seattle Times has a good story about the grant, with a few more details about how the money will be spent.

Comments

Should we be happy or sad?

[pimpimpim]

Happy that he apparently understands how progress can be achieved most efficiently, or sad that his (previous) company does anything it can to stop this kind of progress in the IT field, even though their previous boss apparently knows very well what the consequence of that is....

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

company does anything it can to stop this kind of progress in the IT field, even though their previous boss apparently knows very well what the consequence of that is....

Until the consequence of lack of innovation in the IT field is millions of deaths I think you trivializing HIV/AIDS to try to make a point.

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[LithiumX]

Microsoft's job is not to expand the boundries of IT for all, it's to make money. While OpenSource and GPL software has shown that it can be profitable, that's not where the real money has ever been for individual companies. Therefore, they stick with privatized licensed software models. Since HIV research isn't a matter of profit for him, he'll go with what's the most efficient method for across-the-board advances. Makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[Fungii]

What? Of course we should be happy.

Just because you don't have a high opinion of Gates or his companies practices doesn't mean that this is a "sad" developement. There is a huge difference between curing a disease and the operation of a private company.

Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[theStorminMormon]

Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.

Clever you, except for the fact that this IS an example of privatized medical research. The example says the opposite of what you want it to say.

-stormin

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[amliebsch]

certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.

So - wait. You think Gates shouldn't be allowed to invest his private funds in medical research?

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since HIV research isn't a matter of profit for him, he'll go with what's the most efficient method for across-the-board advances. Makes perfect sense to me.

HIV research is not a matter of profit for Bill Gates, but it is a matter of profit for all the companies in that field. For them "the most efficient method for accross-the-board advances" makes exactly the same sense as OpenSource in IT for Microsoft.

Behind medical research there is a company like Bill Gate's, with shareholders money invested, they want to make profit by selling directly or licencing HIV vaccine production. As Henry Ford used to say: We are in the business of making money, not in the business of making cars.

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[cnettel]

If MS got a one time payment of n billion dollars to make the source for everything up to and including Vista available, I'm sure they would agree. It's just a matter of what n is. It's not like you can't get a license to the Windows source today, if you're the right OEM/university/nation. Likewise, these companies can certainly gain profit as long as they're paid well to do this research.

Another matter is what's really made available. Analogies are hard, but source tells a damn lot about your methodology and thinking, more so than formal articles, results or even lab protocols.

Re:Should we be happy or sad?

[prell]

Until the consequence of lack of innovation in the IT field is millions of deaths I think you trivializing HIV/AIDS to try to make a point.

And you unwittingly trivialized the impact of greed in the free market :-)

Your attitude, intention, and outlook are really what matter. What fields you apply yourself to is just details. So if you have the intention of helping people and making their lives happier and better, that will naturally affect how you create software or how you search for cures.

Your actions come naturally from your understanding of the world and how you consciously want to treat people (including yourself). These actions are a wave: Once you act, the effects of the action are out of your control, and travel endlessly. And as I said, actions flow naturally from your intention, so it is imperative that you decide the kind of effect you want to have on the world and on other people, and you must feel it in your heart, and draw it from your life experience rather than dogma. And since your actions affect how other people feel about the world, and how they act, your actions - every single one - are important. This shouldn't create pressure for you, though, because at its core, life is about love, and expressing love is the most natural thing there is (even if it doesn't feel that way right now). Everything else is the result of confusion and misunderstanding, even though it feels so real. Think of it this way: Your life is important. Yeah, you! For yourself, and for everyone: let's make it a good one. After all, it's the only one we have.

It's arguable that religion, spirituality, and morality have never improved upon the Golden Rule: Treat others as you'd like to be treated. If you had AIDS, how would you feel knowing that laboratories competed against each other, delaying the production of a cure and irresponsibly putting your life in jeopardy?

Open Source? Not Quite

[eldavojohn]

I read both articles and I don't recall seeing anywhere that they would allow anyone access to their findings and research. I believe that open source means anyone can access it and contribute if they wish. I believe that their findings will still be restricted to the 16 groups involved. That's no more open source than 16 companies banding together to create a software suite and keeping the source closed to only themselves.

Either way, I'm never going to be able to see the research or dump the data in to Weka and try to find correlations by mixing and matching data mining algorithms on lab data.

Also, I think it's stupid that the story implied irony that Gates doesn't use the open source model in software:

The catch? They have to share their work even if the groups were previously competing against each other. Sounds like a familiar development model to me, I wonder where I have seen it before?

I don't know where you got that quote because I can't find it in either of the linked articles. People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[mikesd81]

Give the guy some credit. Gotta crawl before you can run.

Wrong title

[tomhudson]

since we're talking about AIDS, shouldn't it be "Open Sores", and not "Open Source" ?

Re:Wrong title

[Adelbert]

Making jokes about a devastating mass illness that ruined the lives of many, many people from all over the world. That's ... tasteful.

Re:Wrong title

[77Punker]

Tasteful and funny need not be the same. Also, if you want tasteful, the internet is the wrong place. I thought the joke was funny. Now just let me think up a few about cancer...

Re:Wrong title

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

What? Are we only supposed to joke about nice things like ponies and fluffy pillows?

Re:Wrong title

[tomhudson]

I guess whoever rated it as flamebait missed the irony - the history of Microsoft calling Open Source a virus ...

... if you wanted a joke about open sores and taste:

A leper was eating his Big Mac, when he noticed another patron staring at him, ashen-faced, not eating his Happy Meal.

He walked over to the guy and said, "look I know my appearance has ruined your meal. Please, let me pay for another one."

The other customer said "No, its not you."

The leper returned to his seat, but a few minutes later noticed the guy still staring, his food untouched, so he went and repeated his offer, and got the same response.

Finally, the leper finishes his meal, sees the guy still staring at him, with his food now cold and uneaten.

He goes over and says "Look, I know you're trying to be nice, but I've been through this before. I know my appearance is revolting to most people, and I insist on replacing your meal."

Customer: "No, its okay. Honest, it's not you!"

Leper: "Well, if its not me, what WAS it?"

Customer: "The guy behind you dipping his fries in your neck."

-- Now, what is the first thing that's going to come to mind when you hear "Do you want fries with that?"

Re:Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

Making jokes about a devastating mass illness that ruined the lives of many, many people from all over the world. That's ... tasteful.

No, it's not.

Re:Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, sarcasm, like irony, is dead on so many people.

totally different goals

[nitroamos]

the goal of microsoft is to make money.
the goal of bill gates' charity is to help people.

why should it be surprising if gates uses different methods to accomplish different goals?

Re:totally different goals

[phoenix.bam!]

Don't you get it? Bill Gates is evil and all those billions he is giving to help the world are just to trick us into buying more units of Windows and Office.

Re:totally different goals

[955301]

Close. If you look at the money Mr. Gates has taken in with Microsoft and compare this to an equivalent amount of money distributed across other companies, you will find that he's not as giving as everyone claims.

Re:totally different goals

[jamesh]

Oh come on. It is not that i don't believe you, but you can't make a statement like that and not back it up with at least one source.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[badfish99]

...their findings will still be restricted to the 16 groups involved
Sounds like he's trying to make the HIV research community into one big monolithic business. More like Microsoft than Open Source?

you got it backwards

[m874t232]

People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software

Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth.

You cannot avoid using Microsoft software. Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits (i.e., every dollar that Microsoft makes that goes beyond what they would make in an efficient market) is money that's not available for public health, education, or development.

Dollar for dollar, money available for improving the economy and infrastructure of third world nations is going to save more lives than money available for an AIDS vaccine.

So, I think, overall, when Microsoft uses its monopoly profits to take money out of the economy and funnel it into the development of projects designed to make Gates look better, you're getting the worst of both worlds: money becomes unavailable for productive uses, and it is funnelled into projects that make Gates look good but are not particularly rational.

Re:you got it backwards

[klynch]

So you are saying we shouldn't bother to help a child who was born with AIDS just because some people made a poor decision? Things aren't always black or white.

Re:you got it backwards

[wwahammy]

Tell me how it is that you can create an economy in a country where over 1/3 of the adult population is already infected with HIV.

Could you help me a little with that one? Oh and if you can figure out how sick and dying people can be good workers and entrepreneurs without medication. Bill Gates already has the money (whether he got it fairly or not). Would you rather he keep it?

Re:you got it backwards

[Fungii]

Unbelievable! How the hell can this be moderated as insightful? Did anyone actually read this post?

"Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth."

Eh, no. I don't know if you know this or not, but no one actually wants to contract AIDS. This is probably the stupidest argument I've ever read on slashdot, and believe me that's saying something.

Sure your argument about microsoft taking money from the economy is fine, the complete lack of free trade in third world countries is what causes most of the deaths in the world at the moment, but this isn't about microsoft or free trade - we're talking about curing a disease for god's sake!

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth.

This is true for adults, but not for the children of people infected with HIV/AIDS. I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage", but it would still be a fairly massive world-wide problem just in terms of those who already have the disease - especially those who have the disease through no fault of their own.

What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[Monster_Juice]

Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS.

Maybe you don't know this but AIDS is not just a disease that affects the US and Europe. Maybe you can explain to the millions of people in Africa that all they needed to do was stop by a 7-11 and pick-up some condoms. AIDS is a worldwide problem and in many countries rape is by far the leading cause of AIDS.

Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits (i.e., every dollar that Microsoft makes that goes beyond what they would make in an efficient market) is money that's not available for public health, education, or development.

Just because money is spent on one thing does not make it unavailable to a totally different market. For instance let me rework your rant here. Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits is money that's not available for Twinkie purchases; therefore Microsoft's monopoly tactics are leading to a healthier America. As you can see that is just dumb, just as dumb as your analogy. To correct another minor point Microsoft is not funneling money to anyone. Bill Gates is giving money and yes he was the founder of Microsoft but they are not the same thing.

Re:you got it backwards

[Troy]

1) Bill Gates the individual is doing this, not Microsoft the business. They actually do have separate bank accounts.
2) You are assuming that all of Microsoft's profits are somehow coming from the "public works" budgets of federal, state and local governments. This is a staggeringly incorrect assumption.
3) You forget the AIDS is killing an entire generation of Africans, with 20% of some countries' population being infected with HIV. You can tut-tut all you want about how AIDS is avoidable, but it isn't so simple in regions where education is scarce, protection is more scarce, and free time is plentiful.

Re:you got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful = contains anti-microsoft speech on Slashdot.
Expect to be moderated as Flaimbait for standing up aginst him though

Re:you got it backwards

[BecomingLumberg]

You cannot avoid using Microsoft software.

You know, I was poking around /. the other day and I heard of this really cool new thing called Linux... I don't really know about it, but it has something to do with penguins and being free... I don't know if that's something you might want to look into or not...

Re:you got it backwards

[Atzanteol]

Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits (i.e., every dollar that Microsoft makes that goes beyond what they would make in an efficient market) is money that's not available for public health, education, or development.

Odd. So companies aren't taxed on profits then?

Re:you got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the Twinkie analogy. Sadly I know there are statistics out there to prove this correct, and yet another set to say it is BS.

Long live the Twinkie. They are good dipped in chocolate milk too.

Re:you got it backwards

[plague3106]

the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage"

No, the obvious solution is to use condoms, but the idiot Catholic church said condom use is Evil(tm), and the desperate people listening to the church followed. The result is that HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia.

Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual contact.

Re:you got it backwards

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I recently read a compilation of studies of illegitimate children. The statistics ranged anywhere from 2.5 up to 20% of children in marriage are the product of infidelity. If there's that many fathers out there raising someone else's kid, even if you only take the 2.5% statistic, imagine how many women are able to cheat and not get pregnant. Now remember that it's widely accepted that men cheat more frequently, so take whatever estimate you have in your head and double it.

Unless you propose to eliminate infidelity, your solution is a terrible one. For someone like me, who practices safe sex without exception, marriage or a similarly commited relationship is in fact the most likely way to contract an STD.

Re:you got it backwards

[turgid]

What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.

That's flamebait if ever I heard it. Can you god-botherers please explain what's so wrong about sex? Do you assume that all of us that have had it outside of marriage are promiscuous, engaging in unprotected sex with vast numbers of strangers possibly of the same sex? Do you assume that we're all introvenous drug users? Perhaps HIV/AIDS appears spontaneously in people who are immoral by your standards?

Does being married, a man-made institution, suddenly make it OK?

I was raised by agnistic Calvinists (if that isn't an oxymoron) and at the age of nearly 32 and after 4 years of marriage I'm only just beginning to come to terms with being a male human being.

I'll tell you what's wrong: fear bourne out of ignorance, like all the rest of the world's problems. And don't get me started on G. W. and Stem Cell Research...

Re:you got it backwards

[budgenator]

Tell that to the chaste wife who is going to die because her husband was poking his schlong into every whore in the gutter; or even somebody like me who gets a twinge of dread everytime my glove get wrapped up in dental bur at work.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

So you are saying we shouldn't bother to help a child who was born with AIDS just because some people made a poor decision?

No, I'm saying that we should spend our limited resources carefully, so that we can save the maximum number of babies (and adults).

Any baby born today with HIV is very unlikely to benefit from vaccine research. And there is a good chance that no vaccine will ever be developed, or even that if it will be developed, it will still take many decades. That's why we need to allocate our funding carefully.

Putting too much money into vaccine research relative to other efforts means that many babies will die needlessly.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

Tell me how it is that you can create an economy in a country where over 1/3 of the adult population is already infected with HIV.

Come on, use your head.

The fact that 1/3 of the adult population in some countries is infected, while it is at most a few percent in many other countries, tells you that there are other factors that cause the high HIV infection rates.

Furthermore, the only way these people would be helped is if you could develop a cheap, effective, therapeutic HIV vaccine that needs to be given only once. The chances of that happening are negligible.

The best way of combatting HIV in third world nations is public education, women's rights, public health, and economic development. Doing that would bring down HIV infection rates in the hardest hit countries to western levels.

Oh and if you can figure out how sick and dying people can be good workers and entrepreneurs without medication.

They can't be, and they will never be: almost everybody who is HIV infected will get sick and die from it eventually. With long term drug therapy and excellent medical care, people may be able to live close to a normal lifespan, but economic development is a prerequisite for, not a consequence of, that.

Bill Gates already has the money (whether he got it fairly or not). Would you rather he keep it?

That's an entirely separate question. If he spends billions on vaccine research that leads to no useful results, I suppose it will finance US and European scientists and equipment manufacturers which is probably better than some other ways he could be spending his money. But that doesn't change the fact that pretending that this money is going to help children in the third world is a misrepresentation. Vaccine research is a long-shot and, beyond the generous amounts that are already being spent, an inefficient use of AIDS-related funding.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

This is true for adults, but not for the children of people infected with HIV/AIDS. I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage"

I'm not talking about "personal responsibility", I'm talking about basic reprodutive rights and basic sex education. The problem with HIV isn't one of failing to choose abstinence or safe sex, it's that women in many of the hardest hit countries simply don't have the choice to abstain or pratice safer sex at all, for a variety of social, educational, and economic reasons. Giving them that choice doesn't require any new technology or magic bullets; it is something we can do right now.

but it would still be a fairly massive world-wide problem just in terms of those who already have the disease - especially those who have the disease through no fault of their own.

The fact that you wish that a magic pill makes it all go away doesn't change reality: a vaccine won't cure or help people already infected, a therapeutic vaccine is very unlikely, and we can't even deliver the cheap and effective drugs we already have.

Only education, womens rights, and economic developent are going to bring the AIDS epidemic under control.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

AIDS is a worldwide problem and in many countries rape is by far the leading cause of AIDS.

Not just rape, but general suppression of women and women's rights. And that is precisely why investing in education, development, public health, and women's rights in those nations is what needs to happen right now.

Maybe you can explain to the millions of people in Africa that all they needed to do was stop by a 7-11 and pick-up some condoms.

Maybe you can explain how you're going to deliver complex drug therapies or vaccine schedules in nations where people can't even get condoms? Vaccines are a gimmick for wealthy nations, an outgrowth of a quick fix mentality. Once you get poor nations to the point where you could deliver a vaccine, HIV infection rates will already have dropped down to US and European levels.

Just because money is spent on one thing does not make it unavailable to a totally different market. [...] Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits is money that's not available for Twinkie purchases; therefore Microsoft's monopoly tactics are leading to a healthier America. As you can see that is just dumb, just as dumb as your analogy.

Your analogy is flawed because, while Twinkies are unrelated to economic development, the cost of Microsoft software is very much related to economic development: every modern government and every major business has little choice but to buy Microsoft software in order to participate in the global economy. That's why when Microsoft charges monopolistic prices, it does hurt economic development.

To correct another minor point Microsoft is not funneling money to anyone. Bill Gates is giving money and yes he was the founder of Microsoft but they are not the same thing.

Gates earned that money through Microsoft (and he didn't just earn it, he actively participated in its monopolistic practices). Therefore, the analysis of the causes and effects of Microsoft's profits and the use Gates puts them to is very much valid (and I didn't start the thread anyway).

Re:you got it backwards

[the_womble]

Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.

What is to stop us doing both?

Re:you got it backwards

[the_womble]

Do you have any evidence to back-up that assertion? It should be easy to prove.

HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia

Despite the fact that only a small minority of Asians are Catholics. In fact the Philippines, the only majority Catholic country in Asia has a low prevalence of AIDS.

There would be plenty of evidence if you were right. Catholic parts of Africa would have higher AIDS rates, Catholic individuals should be more likely to have AIDS, Catholic countries in Europe should have higher AIDS rates than others etc.

You also assume that people have heard of the teaching (I doubt they have outside the west where it receives media attention - I have never heard it mentioned here in many years of living in Asia) and

You also assume that people will simultaneously ignore the church's main teaching on sex and follow a minor, controversial one.

It is such a pity the facts do not fit your western atheist prejudices.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

1. Condom use would also work. I'd certainly rather have people have sex outside of marriage with a condom than without. Still, condoms are not quite as good a solution as just not having sex (just in terms of effectiveness).

2. Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual contact.

While it is possible for AIDS/HIV to spread through non-sexual contact, are you seriously suggesting it would be a world-wide health issue of this magnitude if you could only get it through, say, blood transfusion.

I agree that it is opportunist to jump on a disease as a way to reinforce morals, but it's also kind of silly to pretend that human choices have nothing to do with the spread of this disease.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

Dude - wtf? If someone has enough self-control to not have sex before marriage, they have enough self-control to not have extra-marital sex after they're married. Your statistics are meaninigless. They show people AREN'T treating sex as something that should be only between married couples, not that they CAN'T.

But the real problem I have with what you're saying is that you act as though it has to be either-or. I think that advocating traditional values is the best solution. People like you obviously difer. Since you're going to have sex anyway, I certainly want you to practice safe sex. But it's not really "safe" in the way that "no sex" is safe. There's always a real chance of you contracting diseases or getting (someone) pregnant.

So what's wrong with my solution:
1. Tell people the only absolutely safe sex is no sex until marriage, than only sex with a married partner who followed the same plan. Allow religious groups to advocate this as well (since practically every religion in existence opposes extra-marital sex traditionally, if not as much anymore.)
2. Tell people that if they really do want to have extra-marital sex, they should use condoms. And give them condoms if they are poor.

What's the issue there?

In any case, you're statistics about illegitimate children are just not really relevant.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

What I wrote was flamebait? How about this: Does being married, a man-made institution, suddenly make it OK?

You know very well that most religious faiths believe marriage is not a man-made institution. So how is assuming your premise (religions are wrong) a legitimate argument? It's logically vacuous and serves only as flamebait.

In any case: I never said anything was wrong with sex. I happen to like sex. A lot. I'm a fan. I just also happen to believe that sex is best enjoyed between by a married couple. You extrapolate from this that I'm making all these judgments about other people being "imoral". I know some "god-botherers" believe that, so I'm not faulting you for assuming that I do, I'm just telling you that I don't. I believe people who practice extra-marital sex would be happier if they didn't, but I'm not in the blame game or the coercion game.

I'll tell you what's wrong: fear bourne out of ignorance, like all the rest of the world's problems. And don't get me started on G. W. and Stem Cell Research...

It's clear to me you're just looking for a fight (not to mention a closing tag to your italics! ;-) but I really have no desire to get drawn into a debate protecting G. W. (for whom I have no good feelings or loyalty) nor stem cell research.

I stand by what I said. It's my opinion that sex-between-marrieds (the traditional gold-standard of every world religion) is the best sexual practice. It does NOT follow that sex is bad, evil, gross, dirty, icky or whatever. It also does not follow that those who choose not to live by that standard are evil. These are not philosophical or theological necessities, they are cultural artifacts of our Puritan heritage (those guys were wack).

The best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is never having sex. The second best way (which is actually just as safe if both people do it) is to have sex only with the person you are married to (and not with anyone if you're not married). If people did this, there'd be almost no sexually transmitted diseases. The third option is to mitigate the risks of STDs with "safe sex". I'd say it would be best for people to go with traditional values, but I encourage you - and everyone else - to go with "safe sex" as a second option if you're not going to go with traditional values.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

What are you trying to say here? The standard I'm advocatinig is: "only have sex with your spouse".

You've got this weird vision where there's a chaste women with a philandering husband (and therefore apparently some philandering women to help him along). What's the relevance?

You've got an axe to grind, alright, but that's not really very informative or relevant.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

it's that women in many of the hardest hit countries simply don't have the choice to abstain or pratice safer sex at all, for a variety of social, educational, and economic reasons.

Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense. If we're talking about rape or sexual slaves, then I'm with you 100%, but it sounds like you mean non-coercive factors. In that case, I ask why is that you single women out as being vulnerable to poverty, as though a poor man is somehow inherently superior to a poor women. Sounds suspicious to me.

The fact that you wish that a magic pill makes it all go away doesn't change reality: a vaccine won't cure or help people already infected, a therapeutic vaccine is very unlikely, and we can't even deliver the cheap and effective drugs we already have.

I have no idea who you think you're talking to. I said "if people only had sex with their spouse - HIV/AIDS wouldn't spread any further, but we'd still have a huge people that have the disease and that would be a problem". Then you start going off about a magic pill? Huh?

Only education, womens rights, and economic developent are going to bring the AIDS epidemic under control

Now, let's just say as a hypothetical, that all women converted to Islam. And started following their religion. And men too. So they stopped having sex outside of marriage. Wouldn't that stop the spread of the disease? Not saying it would solve all problems of women's rights, just pointin out that your statement is just obviously false. There are other ways.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

Because a lot of the people who think you should have sex according to traditional morals and values also think condoms are bad (which would help with those who don't want to live according to traditional values) and some of them even think that HIV/AIDS is God's wrath on the homosexuals and fornicators of the world.

On the other hand, a lot of the people most opposed to AIDS also react to traditional values as though there are inherently sexist (what is sexist about telling men AND women to only have sex with the person they're married to, I don't know) and are opposed to the very same patterns of behavior that would limit the spread of the disease.

I'm not really saying you can't do both, just observing that a lot of people refuse to.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[plague3106]

While it is possible for AIDS/HIV to spread through non-sexual contact, are you seriously suggesting it would be a world-wide health issue of this magnitude if you could only get it through, say, blood transfusion.

No, I was saying that there are OTHER diseases, such as flu, ebola, smallpox, malaria, etc. that spread just fine without needing use to have sex to do so. I wasn't talking about HIV for the statement to which you are responding.

Re:you got it backwards

[An Onerous Coward]

Furthermore, the only way these people would be helped is if you could develop a cheap, effective, therapeutic HIV vaccine that needs to be given only once. The chances of that happening are negligible.

And where did you come up with this little tidbit of information? The reports I've heard indicate that, given access to anti-HIV medications, people in the third world are very good about following whatever medical routine the people at the clinic recommend. After all, their lives depend on it.

I'm especially curious about the "given only once" condition. You sound like you're assuming that the poor are automatically too shiftless and irresponsible to remember to come in and get a booster shot in six weeks. This leads me to believe that it makes you feel more comfortable to believe that the poor are responsible for their lot in life, because it absolves you of any responsibilities or obligations. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this one statement, but given the number of people who actually think this way, I don't feel too guilty about that.

Re:you got it backwards

[An Onerous Coward]

I agree that it is opportunist to jump on a disease as a way to reinforce morals, but it's also kind of silly to pretend that human choices have nothing to do with the spread of this disease.

I don't think anyone is pretending anything. We all know that HIV is transmitted by sex, and that there are lots of people engaging in risky behaviors. In my mind, the debate is over whether we should write off people because they don't strictly adhere to one individual's moral code. Those who argue that we can do a lot to lower my opinion of religious people in general.

I also believe that a lot of people don't have much choice about getting AIDS. Just a few examples: babies infected at birth. Women who have been raped. Men who spend time in prison. People who are strictly faithful to people who are not. The woman who knows her husband is sleeping around, but is more afraid of losing his support than of HIV.

Nobody is disputing that personal choices lead to many cases of HIV. What we are disputing is the conclusion that messages of personal responsibility are therefore the solution. We see it much the same way we see the distinction between abstinence and "abstinence-based education." When someone defends abstinence-ed by pointing out the effectiveness of abstinence itself, I regard them as having completely missed the point.

Re:you got it backwards

[An Onerous Coward]

You must be new here. Welcome to America.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

I'm especially curious about the "given only once" condition. You sound like you're assuming that the poor are automatically too shiftless and irresponsible to remember to come in and get a booster shot in six weeks.

Failure to comply with medication regimes is a major problem in developing nations. It's not because people don't want to, it's because they often can't. For example, it may take them several hours to get to the hospital and back.

In any case, you're focussing on a small part of the statement and missing the big picture. The real issue is that people arguing for increased spending for an HIV vaccine need to present a cost/benefit analysis if they want to argue that that is money well spent.

Of course, Gates has the freedom to decide for himself that he is so much smarter than the market and policymakers and pump billions into an HIV vaccine without a cost/benefit analysis, but without presenting a reasonable cost/benefit analysis, that's a publicity stunt, not useful research funding.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense

That style of argumentation is inflammatory and unproductive, and I suggest you'll get along better in the world if you stop these "when did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

In any case, rather than try to explain to you the link between women's rights and HIV/AIDS, I refer to article that explains the link. There are lots more articles on it on the Internet if you bother to look for them.

Then you start going off about a magic pill? Huh?

You have been arguing that investing in an HIV vaccine is important in order to help children and other people not responsible for their infection. With that argument, you implicitly assume that a practical, effective HIV vaccine can be developed at all. Right now, that's wishful thinking.

Improving women's rights and economic development in third world nations is difficult politically and very expensive; that's why policy makers are looking for a "magic pill" (an HIV vaccine) to avoid having to make tough political decisions or spend a lot of money.

Re:you got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone like me, who practices safe sex without exception, marriage or a similarly commited relationship is in fact the most likely way to contract an STD.

And that's also the case for many women at risk for HIV: their partners get HIV outside of marriage and transmit it to their wife. Frequently, both husband and wife even know that the husband is HIV positive. Those women need the choice to say "no" if they like, to practice safer sex within their marriage, and to leave their husbands if they choose. Right now, many of them don't have that choice.

Re:you got it backwards

[19thNervousBreakdown]

In any case, you're(sic) statistics about illegitimate children are just not really relevant.

Sure they are. They establish that infidelity is a reality. The difference is, if someone cheats when the couple is still using condoms the chance of transmitting a disease is greatly reduced. But if someone cheats in a commited relationship and catches something it's practially guaranteed that they'll pass it on. I'd say even if you go by the 2.5% statistic that infidelity is extremely common; I doubt more than 10% of cheating women are actually dumb enough to get pregnant, so you can estimate that at least 25% cheat. I'd say that based on my own observations and experiences too, even without the statistic. You can also estimate that the men cheat about the same; maybe more, maybe less, but not much either way. So with all this cheating going on, STDs propogate almost as well as if we were all "hitting it raw dog" the whole time, at least among cheaters and those that love them.

The issue with your plan is, people won't use condoms. I've been in a relationship commited enough to stop using them twice in my life. We were both tested beforehand, and at the time at least, I trusted them completely. But otherwise, it's a constant battle to use one all the time. They'll say, "Just once without won't hurt," if you don't have one on you, or figure after you've been together 5 times that's enough, or even try to take it off during. One girl even started taking it off--without using her hands--and got it most of the way before I realized what was going on. Not to mention breakage, or pinholes, or people allergic to latex--I had a married woman proposition me, but she was allergic to latex so she never used a condom.

What I'm saying is, your advocacy solution is no solution at all. There is no social solution, people's sex drives are just too strong. The best you'll manage is to make them hide it even more. The only real solution is a cure.

And once we have everything cured, it'll be the free love era again. there'll be so much fuckin' going on even a Slashdotter could get laid. Now what's wrong with that?

Re:you got it backwards

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I forgot you were a Mormon--nevermind that last paragraph.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

I don't think I said anything about an HIV vaccine. I was talking about a "cure".

I gues the discussion of women's rights is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm certainly not acusing you of being a wife-beater or abusing women. I do think that many people engage in various forms of reverse-discrimination or cultural imperialism when they talk about 3rd-world nations, however. I really haven't seen enough of what your opinion is to know if that's what you're doing or not.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

This is why your fidelity statistics don't matter.

You're saying "people behave in this way, we can't change it" - and then you advocate condoms. So why is it that we can change one type of behavior but not another? Why is fidelity just a given - we can't influence it - but condom use is variable? It seems like your argument hinges not on the statistics, but on your assumptions about which types of human behavior can change and which can't.

All I'm saying is that - assuming all types of human behavior can be changed - the best solution to HIV/AIDS at this time is to stop having extra-marital sex. Sure - if we have a cure then that works too. But the funny thing is we've had traditional sexual values for a long time (and we have them right now) but a cure is absent at he time.

I'm not saying don't look for a cure, I'm not saying don't use a cure. I'm not saying don't use condoms. I'm saying if we think we can change human behavior the best solution right now is a return to traditional morals. The second best solution is condom-use. And the solution that isn't available now is the cure (which we should work on).

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I'm looking at this from a purely selfish viewpoint; if everyone did the same this problem would not exist. Condoms are a great way to protect yourself, and that's it. I don't expect to change any behavior, in fact I expect that most people have way more unprotected sex than they admit to.

Traditional morals? I'll bet you dollars to dohnuts that in the '50s cheating was at best half of what it is to today, and 90% of the white dresses sold should have been pearl.

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

I don't think I said anything about an HIV vaccine. I was talking about a "cure".

A cure is even less likely than a vaccine. To date, there is not a single viral disease that can be cured using drugs, and most viruses are far simpler to eliminate than HIV. Over the next several decades, HIV infection, at best, will become a manageable chronic disease for people in wealthy nations. And if HIV ever gets cured, it will likely be by gene therapy, which simply does not work for third world nations.

Medicine simply does not have a solution to the world-wide HIV epidemic. The only realistic response to the HIV epidemic is in patient, long-term development efforts.

I do think that many people engage in various forms of reverse-discrimination or cultural imperialism when they talk about 3rd-world nations

People may say things that are uninformed or prejudiced, but that's not discrimination or imperialism. Discrimination and imperialism are real mistreatment of specific people and groups of people. Equating the two is bad because it stifles debate and stifles the opportunity to eradicate misconceptions.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

You're not making any sense at all.

if everyone did the same this problem would not exist

vs.

I don't expect to change any behavior

So, in other words "if people changed their behavior..." but "I don't expect them to". You're saying "If X then Y", and also saying "not X". That's the logical equivalent of saying nothing at all.

Also - you're saying the infidelity rate was 1/2 todays rate 50 years ago? And that doesn't mean anything? Seems like doubling the rate is pretty significant to me.

Look man, I don't know any statistics that contradict your fidelity statistics. What I do know is that sex before marriage and especially cohabitation lead to higher divorce rates (I can find references to studies if you don't want to trust me). What i do know is that it's not really impossible to have a healthy social life and hold sex off until marriage. What I do know is that the vast majority of my close friends who didn't do this (hold off until marriage) regret doing so (not holding out) - although they'd probably deny it if called out in group situations (I'm not enough of an ass to actually experiment on that hypothesis).

It's like this unspoken secret: everyone lies about how much sex they have (starting with like 12 to 14 year old boys), and then eventually do lose their virginity, and then they lie about liking it. I'm not saying they don't enjoy the experience (I've always enjoyed it myself), but most people regret the way in which it happened. It's this self-perpetuating social trauma. No one honestly likes it, but everyone keeps doing it. The only thing I can compare it to is binge drinking. I have a hard time believing that anybody really enoys drinking until they puke and pass out, but as a relatively recent college grad I know that most people don't even question it. It wasn't like they thought "why should I drink?" or "do I really enjoy this?" Some did - and they are the ones that quit drinking. The ones that didn't question it were the ones that got all hyped up about the prodiguous quantities of alcohol they couldn't wait to consume. (Note - I'm not against drinking alcohol, I'm talking about getting utterly and totally wasted multiple times a week.)

I'm not saying I dislike them for the choices they made - I'm saying it just didn't seem to actually make them happier. I feel the same is true with pre and extra-marital sex. Putting aside questions of how many people do it, I think the real point is that it doesn't actually seem to make most people's lives better. The other example I can think of is little kids and candy. They don't know how to say "no" to themselves - so if you leave them alone with relatively unlimited quantities of candy they end up eating until they feel sick (not to mention the toothaches that will come down the road). So it is with kids these days and sex and alcohol. I'm not against either sex or alcohol, but I feel like the vast majority of American kids are rushing into these things like kids stuffing candy into their faces until they puke.

Please don't bother to flame me for "imposing my morals" or whatever. I've expressed my opinion that it doesn't seem to make people happy. I'm sure you think it makes you happy, and I'm not about to try and argue with you that it doesn't. If you were my best friend and we were having a heart-to-heart, I might make that case. But you're not. So I'm not. I'm not imposing my morals on you or anyone else. It's possible to say "I don't think that doing X makes sense" without saying "becase you do X I think you are evil". I'm saying the former, not the latter. Kids are not very bright if they eat so much candy it makes them sick, but they're not necessarily evil for doing it.

And in any case, this is way OT by now.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

A cure is even less likely than a vaccine.

I should have been more careful with my words. I suppose we can talk of three general drugs: a "cure" (which makes the condition go away), a vaccine (which prevents the condition) and treatments that mitigate the symptoms. We've made great strides with treatments, and it's possible (I think) that with time our treatments could reach the point of allowing people with HIV/AIDS to surive and live as healthy people. This is the type of "cure" I was referring to.

The only realistic response to the HIV epidemic is in patient, long-term development efforts.

I'm not sure about only. If it was the only response, we'd give up our drug and vaccine research, wouldn't we? Are you suggesting we do so?

In any case, my main point (stop having pre/extra-marital sex) would be a long-term development effort, would it not? In any case, I'm really not sure what types of long-term development efforts you are referring to. Not that I'm arguing you're wrong, but you're being excessively vague. HIV/AIDS requires (I would think) a different response in America vs. in Italy vs. Senegal vs. South Africa vs. Cambodia vs. India vs. China. The cultures and socio-economic standards of these countries vary dramatically. Africa has the largest number of AIDS cases, but the disease is growing more rapidly in South and South-East Asia ( http://www.growthhouse.org/asianhiv.html ). Even if you are saying the exact same "long-term development efforts" are needed in both locations, I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by that phrase.

People may say things that are uninformed or prejudiced, but that's not discrimination or imperialism.

This is incorrect. A sentiment can be discriminatory and/or imperialist w/out having any impact whatsoever. If you make the statement: "Mormons women are rude, mean, thieving, superstitious, perverted, abused, abandoned, verminal subhuman" ( http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/audaciou.htm text search for "subhuman") then you've made (in my opinion) a disciminatory remark. But if person A holds this opinion than they have a discriminatory viewpoint without necessarily have actually discriminated. It's the difference between intent to murder and murder.

So the distinction you derive is a false one. It is possible to hold disciminatory or imperialist atitudes without "real mistreatment". You conclusion regarding "equating the two" is inapt, because the one equivicating here is you. I've pointed out that discriminatory and/or imperialist viewpoints are sometimes present, you're the one that tried to conflate these with discriminatory and/or imperialist actions. It is my position that those pernicious viewpoints - even if they have not yet resulted in the discriminatory/imperialist action - should nonetheless be opposed. Or would you have me - and others like me - stand by and listen to discriminatory rhetoric without opposing it because the rhetoric - until it is acted out - is merelely "uninformed" and not yet actually "discriminatory"? Must we wait for hate-speech to turn into hate-action before we are allowed to fight back - even if just with words?

The only difference is that in addition to harmful hate-action (outright discriminatory viewpoints) I see that we also have a problem with benevolent discrimination. This discrimination - like helping a chick out of it's shell http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=10060529188 07 - can be just as pernicious in the long run - and should be opposed as such.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

We've made great strides with treatments, and it's possible (I think) that with time our treatments could reach the point of allowing people with HIV/AIDS to surive and live as healthy people. This is the type of "cure" I was referring to.

Well, that's not a cure, and our treatments are already almost to that point. But that's not an option for third world nations.

I'm not sure about only. If it was the only response, we'd give up our drug and vaccine research, wouldn't we? Are you suggesting we do so?

Drug and vaccine research is very useful for developed nations. But it's not a solution to the AIDS crisis in the third world.

then you've made (in my opinion) a disciminatory remark.

Making a discriminatory remark isn't the same as discrimination, just like sexual innuendo is not the same as rape.

It is possible to hold disciminatory or imperialist atitudes without "real mistreatment".

Holding a discriminatory attitude isn't the same as discrimination, just like being horny isn't the same as having sex.

Or would you have me - and others like me - stand by and listen to discriminatory rhetoric without opposing it because the rhetoric - until it is acted out - is merelely "uninformed"

Quite to the contrary: you should use the opportunity to counter it. But if you equate a discriminatory attitude with discrimination, you will never have the opportunity; discrimination is illegal, and if discriminatory speech becomes illegal, you simply can't talk about it.

(I find it ironic that a Mormon would want to "oppose discrimination", given the discrimination that the Mormon church actually practices against all sorts of groups. Of course, you have the legal right to choose to practice whatever religion you like, but I consider your choice immoral.)

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

But if you equate a discriminatory attitude with discrimination

I don't. I never did. You took something I wrote the wrong way and haven't listened to me since. No one here is talking about discriminatory viewpoints being the same as discriminatory action. I can't state this any more clearly than I already have.

(I find it ironic that a Mormon would want to "oppose discrimination", given the discrimination that the Mormon church actually practices against all sorts of groups. Of course, you have the legal right to choose to practice whatever religion you like, but I consider your choice immoral.)

What do you hope to gain with snide comments like this? The Mormon church believes:

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. - 2 Nephi 26:33

You've also got:

they did not send away any who were bnaked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon criches; therefore they were dliberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no erespect to persons as to those who stood in need. - Alma 1:30

There are those who say the Mormon faith oppresses women, that it oppresses gays, or that it oppresses blacks. These things are not true. We believe that men and women have different roles. Historically, we've allowed social prejudices to bleed into our church - that is true. But Utah was also at the forefront of the suffrage movement:

With no dissenting votes, the territorial legislature passed an act giving the vote (but not the right to hold office) to women on 10 February 1869. The act was signed two days later by the acting governor, S. A. Mann, and on 14 February, the first woman voter in the municipal election reportedly was Sarah Young, grandniece of Brigham Young. Utah thus became the second territory to give the vote to women; Wyoming had passed a women's suffrage act in 1869. No states permitted women to vote at the time. http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehoo d_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.htm l

There's nothing sexist about Mormon theology. We're one of the only Christian religions to view Eve not as a screw-up, but as the instrument for putting God's plan into action. (That's not just a minor theological scrap - that's the source of most Christan misogony throughout history.) The theology is often misunderstood by those who see only that men hold the priesthood and women do not, but that is because they do not understand that according to Mormon theology the priesthood is to serve - and never to command - and that men are not given the priesthood because they are superior (if anything - because they are inferior). As my mother put it: "If Christ had suffered and died for our sins as a woman - no one would have noticed! Women are always putting others ahead of themselves. That Christ - a man - was willing to do so was what made the story so remarkable".

Regarding blacks, I'm sure you're referencing the fact that until 1978 the priesthood was given only to white men. This does look very damning. Either the leadership was tainted with genuine racism, or the church was merely enacting God's will: for which there is precedent. When Christ was on earth, he restricted his teachings by race at first, and

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

What do you hope to gain with snide comments like this? The Mormon church believes:

They aren't "snide comments". You make judgements about supposed discriminatory speech by others; that makes your own morality and ethics very much an issue.

You may contest all of this as you wish, of course, but in the end I just have to ask why we would be so careful to come across as non-racist and non-sexist if we truly were?

You attempt to establish that your church doesn't discriminate simply by redefining the terms to suit your needs. But it's pointless to debate this further. My own faith tells me that you have chosen a religion that is immoral in both some of its fundamental tenets and some of its practices, and that includes, specifically, its practices in third world nations. Therefore, I think it's pointless to continue this discussion: to me, you are trying to defend the indefensible and you simply have no moral basis from which you can make arguments about issues of discrimination or development. Furthermore, if your own faith doesn't already tell you that the actions of your church are wrong, nothing I say will likely change you.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

specifically, its practices in third world nations

What on earth are you talking about? Ordinarily when someone critcizes my church I don't take them very seriously because I've almost always heard it before. I have to admit, though, that you sound like you've got some fascinating new spin I've never heard of. I'm shocked that anyone that knows anything about the Mormons would claim they have a troubled past in their dealings with third world nations. There are a lot of things to criticize in the history of the Mormon religion: but I have no idea why you'd pick this as your target from all the others.

This is from a semi-recent Times article about LDS finances:

And as long as corporate rankings are being bandied about, the church would make any list of the most admired: for straight dealing, company spirit, contributions to charity (even the non-Mormon kind) and a fiscal probity among its powerful leaders that would satisfy any shareholder group, if there were one

and then there's this (from the same article):

Huntsman resumed building the $5 billion, 10,000-employee Huntsman Chemical Corp., which he owns outright. Ten years ago, Huntsman shifted his company's mission from pure profit to a three-part priority: pay off debt, be a responsible corporate citizen and relieve human suffering. Thus far, his company has donated $100 million of its profit to a cancer center at the University of Utah. It has also built a concrete plant in Armenia to house those rendered homeless by the 1988 earthquake, and it is active in smaller charities ranging from children's hospitals to food banks.

(article found reprinted here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml )

The Mormons - with their vast financial and capital resources and strict hierarchal organization - are frequenty fist-responders to international crises. We either go in their ourselves or just as frequently donate the funds and materials to the organizations placed to get things done. Charitable work is the one thing that Mormons are just plain really good at it. A lot of people don't like our theology, but I've never met anyone that didn't like our welfare efforts.

We've got a vested interest in long-term financial growth in these nations too. Although currently limited to Mormon members, the Perpetual Education Fund is one such example. In the 19th century Mormon converts making the long journey to Utah from Europe could borrow from Perpetual Emigration Fund, make the travel, set up a new home, and then pay back the loan for others to use. The idea has been restarted for poorer countries where eduction may help life people form poverty to (relative) middle class lifestyles. Mormons can get loans for education or to start businesses in South and Central America (as well as African and Asian nations, I believe) and use the education to move from the poorest classes to the middle classes. The education is usually for learning a trade or skilled labor as opposed to a liberal arts education. Then they repay the money into the fund for the next person to use. The intial funds for the program were derived from contributions from members in 1st world nations (like the US). Mormons care very passionately about charity and education. You don't start the donation level at 10% if this isn't something that really matters to you in your life.

I'm just really not sure where you are coming from. I'm not offended at all that you called my religion immoral. I think it's best to be honest and to call it like you see it (although for the sake of full disclosure, nothing you've said indicates to me that you or your religion or faith are immoral. Mistaken, perhaps, but certainly not immoral.)

And you jibe about "redefining" discrimination is unwarranted. From wikipedia: To discriminate is to make a distinction. There are several meanings of the word, including sta

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

The Mormons - with their vast financial and capital resources and strict hierarchal organization - are frequenty fist-responders to international crises. [...] We've got a vested interest in long-term financial growth in these nations too. Although currently limited to Mormon members, the Perpetual Education Fund is one such example.

Yes, and why do Mormons collect all this money and use it in this way? Among other things, because it helps the organization grow, because church members are pressured to do it, and because you can brag about it (as you just did). Those acts may still be good, but they are not charity, because charity is self-less. Charity would be for the Mormon church to give the money to nondenominational aid organizations or to local churchas; but combining one's own religion and aid is not charity, it is taking advantage of vulnerable people for one's own benefit.

And you encourage this selfish thinking at the individual level: you say that "if you do this, then you'll be rewarded after death; if you don't do this, or if you do that other thing, then you'll be punished after death". The Mormon church appears to have a particularly pernicious form of this tit-for-tat deal compared to other churches by promising restoration of the healthy body and mind after death, playing on fears about the body and dying (that is tempered by the fact that its notions of "heaven and hell" are considerably more palatable than brimstone and fire).

In different words, when an atheist and a Mormon perform the same good act, then in the atheist, it's a sign of good character, while in the Mormon, it's probably just a desire for a reward that causes him to behave in that way.

Another issue is Mormon attempts to legislate morality. Why is that an issue? First, you are imposing your own religious beliefs on others that way. Second, you are depriving people of the ability to be good by simply making it illegal to commit sin.

These are just exemplary points, but they illustrate that fundamentally Mormons (they are not alone in this) confuse good deeds and good character, and this confusion is deliberate because it furthers the worldly goals of the church.

Religions and churches like the Mormon church are analogous to prisons. Prisons keep bad people from doing bad things, but they fail to turn bad people into good people. When a prisoner refrains from doing evil, you don't know whether it's because he has become a good person or because he simply was prevented from being bad in prison (a problem parole boards face). And while the existence of prisons arguably has a positive effect on society, and while we need them until we come up with something better, prisons are not moral institutions, and many of the principles by which they operate are immoral.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

There are a number of glaring mistakes in what you write, but also much that I believe to be true. I'll start out with your assertion that charity is self-less. I agree both in particular (with regards to charity) and in general (with regards to morality as a means in itself as opposed to a "gold star" system).

But the real problem here is that you're attacking a straw man.

1. The Mormon church exemplifies charity according to your definition. I know of many, many examples of charity from the Mormon chuch (because I was involved in them) that I could not find in the press The true scope of Mormon charitable giving is staggering, but we do it as quietly as possible. Sure, you can say I'm bragging about it now, but I'm trying to actually tell you something that is true. I don't know how to do this in a way that is not bragging. I either say "no really, we don't want credit!" (and you accuse me of bragging) or I just leave you with the false impresion that Mormons don't do charity, or only do it for our own sake. Mormons also, as I stated, have no problem donating a lot of money and goods to other aids organizations and then asking for no recognition in return. Many times charity is handed out by the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. to people who never know the money/goods actually came from the Mormon church.

As a final example of how this works on a local level: Each Mormon congregation is a "ward". Together the wards form a "stake". Several stakes may share a bishop's store house. This is the repository for goods (mostly groceries) intended for welfare relief in the area. The money is donated by local members, and it's distributed locally. What I like about the system the most (I've volunteered a few times) is the utter care taken to preserve the dignity of people receiving the goods. You can either "shop" yourself or get a delivery. The front of the storehouse is set up like a supermarket. There are no signs to advertise, but once you enter you take a shopping card and you shop. The only difference is you don't pay befre you leave. If you get a delivery the groceries are brought to your house in plain, unmarked paper bags. There's nothing at all to indicate to anyone else that you're getting charity. There's no reason to do that other than to simpy be as far from self-aggrandizing as possible.

2. Your attacks on Mormon theology as reward based are well-taken, but misguided. It's not a flaw of Mormon theology, but of many Christian cultures to see the rules as a series of checklists. If you do what's right - you get a gold star and you get goodies in the after life. If you do badly, you are threatened with various really scary punishments. Thus it is possible to see Christians as incentivized to do good for some ulterior motive while - for example - the humanist would be doing good for it's own sake. And I will admit that in Mormon culture this mistake (sometimes seen as works vs. grace) can be unusually prevelant. But it's a mistake people make, and not a mistake of the theology of Mormonism. Christ preached against the scribes and pharisees on exactly this topic, and the Book of Mormon also contains remonstrances against it. What Mormons actually believe, however, is that the purpose of the rules and commandments is not to gain reward in the afterlife, but to become better people. If you are not generous, then (Mormons believe) what you need to do is practice generosity. Through practice the action - which may at first be done reluctantly - may be engrained in your character. I could find exact quotes from modern Mormon leaders, but it comes down to this: Mormon theology is not concerned with what you do, it is concerned with who you are. So you see, while it may be true that Mormons (like many other people) do "confuse good deeds and good character" this is a result of Mormons failing to live up to their own religion. It is an indictment (and a valid one) of Mormons, but not of Mormonism.

3. "Mormon attempts to legis

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

The Mormon church exemplifies charity according to your definition. I know of many, many examples of charity from the Mormon chuch (because I was involved in them) that I could not find in the press

You keep supplying evidence for the statement "many Mormons are good and the Mormon church does good". I agree with that statement. Like any large population, the Mormon church has its share of good people, and it causes the others to behave themselves. And Mormon practices probably actually produce large numbers of people who aren't just behaving in good ways but are genuinely good people.

None of that says anything about the morality of Mormon theology itself. We can eliminate bad behavior with brain surgery and achieve generosity through electrical stimulation of the brain. We can eliminate the desire for non-procreative sex through drugs. The fact that we can produce what you consider moral behavior in this way doesn't make the application of procedures that achieve it moral.

Your attacks on Mormon theology as reward based are well-taken, but misguided. It's not a flaw of Mormon theology, but of many Christian cultures to see the rules as a series of checklists

You're quite right: many Christian denominations are. I didn't claim that Mormonism was unusual in this regard. I also didn't "attack" Mormon theology, I simply consider it immoral.

So you see, while it may be true that Mormons (like many other people) do "confuse good deeds and good character" this is a result of Mormons failing to live up to their own religion. It is an indictment (and a valid one) of Mormons, but not of Mormonism.

No, it is a fundamental flaw of Mormon theology (as well as of many other religions). The Mormon Articles of Faith specifically tell people that they will be rewarded or punished, and therefore utilitarian considerations are a built-in part of the theology. If Mormonism didn't want its adherents to make this confusion, it could simply eliminate rewards and punishments from its teachings; everything else would remain unchanged: practices, laws, teachings, theology, etc.

Through practice the action - which may at first be done reluctantly - may be engrained in your character.

That is a good and valid principle: people become better people by becoming accustomed to doing good deeds. We teach children that way, and we also use rewards and punishments until they have learned. And that's probably the way heaven and hell were originally intended: as metaphors and teaching devices. But the Mormon church (as many others) never resolves the issue; it maintains these notions as "articles of faith". And, what is worse, it uses these promises of rewards to recruit people into the religion. Despite all the protestations of tolerance, in the end, it still ends up as "my god gives you more rewards than your god, that's why you should join us".

"Mormon attempts to legislate morality". I gather from this you are referring to Mormon opposition to legalizing gay-marriage

No, I'm not referring to it specifically. I don't care whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It's a non-issue that is being used to get people like you to the polls to vote for people like Bush.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. ... Without denying the actuality of evil, I prefer to see the Mormon Church in terms of it's capacity to heal sinners, as opposed to prevent sin.

But that, in itself, constitutes intolerance to other religions. While your church permits others to worship as they choose, when they don't share your views about what is sinful and what is not sinful, then you try to restrict how they can act. And, furthermore, you actively attempt to change others to conform to your notions of morality, including by coercive means.

Laws are inherently mor

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

You keep supplying evidence for the statement "many Mormons are good and the Mormon church does good". I agree with that statement

What I was responding to was your contention that Mormon charity was derived from self-interest. But I'm happy to set that aside to concentrate on the issues around Mormon theology.

No, it is a fundamental flaw of Mormon theology (as well as of many other religions). The Mormon Articles of Faith specifically tell people that they will be rewarded or punished, and therefore utilitarian considerations are a built-in part of the theology. If Mormonism didn't want its adherents to make this confusion, it could simply eliminate rewards and punishments from its teachings; everything else would remain unchanged: practices, laws, teachings, theology, etc.

This is where I really disagree with you. The Articles of Faith you are referring to are 2 and 3:

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This statement is explicitly what you don't like: rewards/punishment based on actions. Not on character. But your reading of Mormon theology based on these two verses is piecemeal. You should at least read all 13 of the Articles of Faith. If you did, you'd end up with this:

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Note the emphasis (added by me) on being In 2 and 3 it's all about what you do, in 13 it's all about what you are. We've already agreed that there is at least one strong connection between action and character. Those who do the right action (may) end up with improved character. So 2 and 3 can be seen as saying "you'll get into an accident if you drive without going to driving school" while 13 is stating "you'll get into an accident because you'll be a bad driver". There's no direct connection between going to driving school and crashing your car. But going to driving school will make you a better driver (assuming you're someone who's never driven before, has no idea about driving) and so it will make you a better driver.

The thing you're missing is the principle of milk before meat. The utilitarian aspect of Mormonism is something you see as an end in itself, but is explicitly a means to an end. It is the simplistic level of theology that is a lot more meaningful to many people than the more philosophical aspects.

I truly believe in what you are saying. Being is more important than acting. That is why I have so much respect for the atheist existential philosophers (especially Simone de'Beauvoir). Without any belief in God or an afterlife their morality is derived existentially. They skip the childish punishment/reward phase. Although I'm a Christian, I tend to get along much, much better with your average humanist than other strict Christians because of exactly the things we're discussing now. But, as Christ taught, His Church is a net that brings in a lot of different kinds of fishes. In order to speak to more people there are many facets of His theology - all of which lead to higher levels of understanding. As Isaiah write, the Lord teaches "line upon line, precept upon precept". The punishment/reward phase is a phase that - like ignoring wind resistance in high school physics - is fundamentally flawed but also fundamentally necessary to teach all people the true principles at work.

No, I'm not referring to it specifically. I don't care whether gay marriage is legalized or

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

This statement is explicitly what you don't like: rewards/punishment based on actions. Not on character. But your reading of Mormon theology based on these two verses is piecemeal. You should at least read all 13 of the Articles of Faith. If you did, you'd end up with this:

You are proving that there exist non-utilitarian aspects to Mormon theology, which is obviously true, but it's irrelevant to this argument. The point is that Mormon theology contains offers of utilitarian deals to its followers. Since Mormons say can't pick and choose which parts of Mormonism you follow, this is obviously an essential part of Mormon theology. (Let's not even go into the fact that your interpretation of Article #13 as talking about character rather than actions is dubious at best; I actually se no Article that clearly supports the notion that Mormonism is concerned with character rather than behavior.)

The thing you're missing is the principle of milk before meat. The utilitarian aspect of Mormonism is something you see as an end in itself,

No, I don't see it as an "end", I see it as a means. In fact, it's a very effective means for getting people to improve their character. But that doesn't make it moral.

Let's say Article of Faith #2 said "Every Mormon child should undergo brain surgery to eliminate aggressive behavior and to eliminate desire for non-procreative sex."; brain surgery could be very safe and effective in getting people to stop doing bad things. Would the existence of Article #13 make up for the existence of such an Article #2? Wouldn't you consider any religion that requires brain surgery on children for its members immoral, no matter what its other tenets might be?

The thing you're missing is the principle of milk before meat.

I think you're evading the issue. Just answer this question: according to Mormon theology, will God actually reward me for charity, punish me for sin, and assign me to one of the three Kingdoms after death according to my behavior in the world? Or are these beliefs merely an educational device? And if they are an educational device, were they created by men or by God?

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

First let me just reiterate that I'm impressed with your position in general. I have really enjoyed this discussion so far. Not because it's been "fun", but because I respect your determination to stick to moral principle.

You asked a direcct quesiton and it deserves a direct answer. I promise I'm not trying to evade what you're saying, so please just do me the favor of reading my entire (direct) response to your question.

The question: Will God actually reward me for charity, punish me for sin, and assign me to one of the three Kingdoms after death according to my behavior in the world?

There are at least two dificult issues in this sentence. I'm not sure if you meant to question one or both (andn there may be others). The first is the nature of the evaluation and the second is the nature of the punishment/reward. Given the fact that this is actually a complicated question the best and most honest answer I can give you is that in general it's a "yes", but if I'm going to be really specific, it's a "no". Hear me out.

Regarding the Nature of Evaluation

You draw a distinction between behavior/action and character/being. You're claiming that what someone does is not the same as what someone is. But I'm claiming that what a person does given perfect knowledge about all factors in their environment IS EQUIVALENT to what a person is. So I think one thing you object to is the nature of judging people based on what they do as opposed to what they are. I believe this distinction ceases to exist when the one doing the judging is God. In that case, what you do IS who you are because God knows all of the circumstances involved. Circumstances + action = character.

Regarding the Nature of Punishment/Reward

Another issue you may have is the idea that God stands ready to mete out rewards to some and punishments to others. I'm not sure if this is a problem for you, but it's a problem for me. If God has the option to punish some and reward others, why not just leave out the punishment? Positive reinforcement seems so much better than negaitve, so why would our Eternal Father resort to negative punishment - especially after the fact? What good can it do? It makes no sense to me.

After a careful study of Mormon theology, however, I've come to the conclusion that God does not, in fact, mete out punishment or rewards. The punishment or reward are direct and inevitable consequences of the people that we've become (which is the same as the actions we've made). The highest reward is to dwell with God. This is not granted as a gold star for people God likes, however (or for those who've followed the most rules). The Book of Mormon explicitly states that those who do not end up in God's presence are only those people who would suffer more from being in his presence than from being wherever they do end up. God IS the reward, not the reward-giver. The same analog works for punishment.

The critical role of Christ in Mormon theology is not to judge people, but to provide a means whereby we may change who we are If it's true that your actions determine your character, than what happens when you make a bad choice? Your character has been corrupted. You can't go back in time and re-make the decision. To me, this is the true miracle of Christ and the function of his atonement. I don't claim to understand why it works, but the idea is that because Christ has suffered for our sins we have the opportunity to expunge the sins we've committed. And this means we have an opportunity to become the kinds of people we would have been had we made the right decision at the time. That is the salvation Christ offers: a salvation to effect our character retroactively. We are made perfect through the blood of Christ.

I would urge you to not take my word for this Mormon theology stuff. Go read just a chapter of the Book of Mormon and see for yourself if I'm making this stuff up or if it's what Mormons really believe. Try 2nd Nephi chapter 2 here:

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

Well, thanks for your careful responses as well, and I find our conversation interesting as well.

After a careful study of Mormon theology, however, [...] The Book of Mormon explicitly states that those who do not end up in God's presence are only those people who would suffer more from being in his presence than from being wherever they do end up. God IS the reward, not the reward-giver. The same analog works for punishment.

Well, since you manage to express this concept that you arrived at after careful study of Mormon theology in plain language so that non-Mormons can easily understand it, that raises the question: why do the Articles of Faith not just use the same plain language? The articles could say:

Article #2: We believe that God in His mercy gives each man the kind of afterlife that he feels most comfortable with.

Article #3: We believe that, just like a connoisseur appreciates better wine and food through experience, men appreciate and will obtain a better afterlife through the practice of charity and purity.

If I understand you, you're saying those two articles are what the actual Articles #2 and #3 amount to; so, why don't they say that? Why do they use language that obviously would be misinterpreted by the kind of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

For the sake of full-disclosure, here is where I draw the distinction. You don't legislate morality directly, you legislate pragmatically to get to morality.

Let me paraphrase that. You're saying "One ought to legislate pragmatically in order to promote behaviors which conform to the Mormon view of what constitutes moral behavior."

What I can't figure out to begin with is why you even want to bother to apply your principle. Is it because you can't think of another principle? Or is it your wish to force me towards what you consider salvation, even if I don't want to? To me, your desire for resurrection of the body is one of the worst states of sin a human being can be in, how can it be a moral choice for you to impose on me and others behaviors that promote this?

Another question about your approach is where you would stop. Right now, Mormons are constrained by democracy and society, but if they were free to pass any laws they wished, what kinds of laws would they pass "to get to morality"? Would adultery and homosexual acts become ilegal again? What about masturbation and lying? How do you decide?

When you talk about "pragmatic", you are implying that that's the best practical thing to do. Actually, there is another way: you legislate pragmatically to maximize the ability of people to make their own moral choices. That principle yields laws that protect people from crimes against person or property, but otherwise interferes minimally in their lives, and maximizes the ability of religions to co-exist.

Your principle leads to conflict between religions and religious coercion, because if you try to legislate "to get morality", then a tug of war starts between different religions whose morality one ought to get. My principle leads to peaceful co-existence between religions.

But it isn't just my principle, it's the principle the US and Europe have increasingly adopted in the 20th century; prior to that, nations were using your principle, the principle in which the majority religion would coerce the minority religions to conform to its views of morality, and it led to constant conflict. Moving from your principle to my principle was a giant step forward for the West; why do you want to get back to the old principle?

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

The articles could say:

Article #2: We believe that God in His mercy gives each man the kind of afterlife that he feels most comfortable with.

Article #3: We believe that, just like a connoisseur appreciates better wine and food through experience, men appreciate and will obtain a better afterlife through the practice of charity and purity.

If I understand you, you're saying those two articles are what the actual Articles #2 and #3 amount to; so, why don't they say that? Why do they use language that obviously would be misinterpreted by the kind of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?

As a brief aside, what do you think are "the kinds of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?". I'll add this to my list of questions I'd still like to get answers to. The other two are "what have Mormons done that's harmful against the 3rd world" and "what aspects of Mormonism are coercive". These aren't the main thrust of our discussion, so I don't mind them getting deferred for now.

In brief, I think your rephrasing of the Articles of Faith (2 and 3) is valid. I think you are understanding me pretty well. So the question is, why didn't Joseph Smith give something similar to that in response to Editor Long's question about what Mormons believe in 1842.

The main reason is what I referred to earlier as the milk before meat principle. The most superficial, and therefore the most readily accessible, interpretation of human morality starts with action. The most crude understanding of morality starts with things that should or should not be done. Therefore, to cast as wide a net as possible, it makes sense to start with actions and build from there. This is not somehow isolated to Mormonism, or utilitarian religions. Just take a look at the 10 Commandments. Most of them are explicitly action-based: don't make other idols, don't use the name of God in vain, don't work on Sabbath, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't steal. Others are less explicitly action based: honor thy mother and father, don't covet. Arguably, those are also behaviors. Do you find the criticism of Articles of Faith 2 and 3 equally applicable to the 10 Commandments? Another example of this milk before meat principle is the way in which Christ taught people in parables. At times it seems the parables were designed to encode the meaning to keep unbelievers from understanding, but the majority of parables are simply ways to wrap moral concepts up in plain-language. It seems like they too would be vulnerable to your criticism. Why tell a story about building on sand or on rock? Why not just state in plain language the point?

So I actually believe that the Articles of Faith, as stated, are more clear for people who have no philosophical or theological training. For example, I'm not sure about "most comfortable". I think "We believe God in His mercy gives each man exactly what he chooses, with the only exception being that through the miracle of the atonement, you can repent of choosing bad things." That's basically exactly what Mormons believe, but I'm not sure it's as clear, and you need to develop a framework (that you and I both share) about the intrinsic value of morality first. Any theology that requires a philosophical groundwork first, and then gets to the point second is less optimal for getting to the most people. I find the Articles of Faith, as stated, dovetail with the methods of teaching found in the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. I believe this is because Christ and His prophets followed the same principle of milk before meat for the same general reasons.

A lesser reasons may (or may not) include the following consideration:
The Articles of Faith - as you stated them - would have been hard to swallow in 1842. If the Mormons faced the persecution they did based on the Articles of Faith as written, how much worse may it have been if they'd come out with deeper philosophy out

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

For the sake of full-disclosure, here is where I draw the distinction. You don't legislate morality directly, you legislate pragmatically to get to morality.

Let me paraphrase that. You're saying "One ought to legislate pragmatically in order to promote behaviors which conform to the Mormon view of what constitutes moral behavior."

OK, I completely failed to make my point. Let me try again, with a fresh start.

Actually, there is another way: you legislate pragmatically to maximize the ability of people to make their own moral choices.

This is what I believe. I agree 100% with this statement. The point I was trying to make was that this standpoint is a moral one. It makes no sense to me when people pride themselves in refraining from applying their morality to other people. This means you have, by definition, a double standard. This is hypocritical. The exact same morality should be consistently applied.

But my morality, and Mormon morality, does specify that the freedom to choose is essential. And so your position does conform with Mormon principles. As I stated, Mormons believe there are some things we should not do that are not appropriate for legislation because to legislate them would remove choice. I offered smoking and drinking as two examples. Other examples would be paying tithing, believing anything, etc.

So I'm not advocating laws to "get morality", just laws to allow morality.

Even though we agree on principle, and you phrased it much, much better than I did, I'm not going to claim that we agree on all actual applications of this principle. For example, you seem to think it's a bad idea to have adultery be against the law. This isn't obvious to me. Marriage is a contract, one of the conditions of that contract is fidelity, adultery breaks that contract. Marriage is not a contract between two people, it is a contract between two people and the gov't (otherwise it would be absurd for the gov't to hand out marriage licenses). So if you break a contract with the gov't, should it be criminalized? Possibly. I don't know that it would be a good idea to actually have cops investigate fidelity for reasons of privacy, personal rights, and practicality, but in terms of principle alone, I don't have an issue with it.

But on most issues, we actually probably agree. Mormonism wouldn't really change very many laws at all. As far as homosexuality goes, I've already stated that Mormons refuse to make thought-laws. So that would never be illegal. As for homosexual acts, consensual acts between people that don't impinge on human freedom can't be illegal. I'm comfortable with that. Masturbation? Same thing. You could argue that it's addictive, I suppose, but even if that's true, it's just an unenforceable law. And as for lying, it's not even universally immoral, how could we possibly make it illegal?

I hope I've clarified my point. Just that it's impossible not to have a moral basis for laws, and that having two moralities (one for you and yours, one for everyone else) is hypocritical. There should be one morality. But we should only legislate in order to maximize morality - and that means allowing people to do all the evil, wrong, stupid things possible up to the point where freedom to choose is curtailed. This makes sense to me.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

As a brief aside, what do you think are "the kinds of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?"

I assume anybody who isn't Mormon, but you tell me. Are there any other religions that Mormons respect enough not to attempt to gain converts from them?

The main reason is what I referred to earlier as the milk before meat principle. The most superficial, and therefore the most readily accessible, interpretation of human morality starts with action. The most crude understanding of morality starts with things that should or should not be done.

So you agree then that Mormon missionaries use the language in Articles #2 and #3 in full knowledge that their audience is going to interpret it differently from the way that they themselves interpret those articles? For example, missionaries believe, as you do, that character determines the afterlife, but their audience interprets their statements to mean that actions are sufficient to determine the afterlife. Or, to bring it more to the point: Mormon missionaries believe there to be a spiritual truth, but they are actually telling their audience something that differs from the actual spiritual truth, because they think that the audience is not ready to understand the actual spiritual truth.

Mormon missionaries want to reach as many converts as possible, and this introduction to our theology is foundational and therefore exactly what we need. This is just a simple principle of teaching: you start with simple principles, common ground, and motivating examples.

Giving students simple rules and theories that the teacher knows are not actually true is called a "teaching device". They are widely used in classrooms and mentoring and they are quite effective. The reason it is permissible not to tell the truth to students in a classroom setting is because the students (or their guardians) have consented to the teacher-student relationship and because there are strict boundaries for how teaching devices can be used.

However, Mormon missionaries are not just using such techniques as a teaching device, they are using them as a recruiting device. That is, Mormon missionaries are using teaching devices without the prior consent of the other person. In different words, Mormon missionaries are deliberately not telling the truth to their audience without the consent of their audience. Now, do you disagree with this analysis in some way, or do you simply believe that not telling the truth is justified and moral under those circumstances?

Two additional remarks. First, religions that aren't attempting to grow fast don't have to do this: almost all their instruction takes place within settings in which instructors have authority over their students. Using teaching devices to induce people to join a religion is an attempt to gain converts at the expense of other denominations and religions, and that violates Mormon claims of religious tolerance, in my opinion. Second, one principle of teaching devices is that they need to be resolved eventually; that's why we have textbooks and reference books, and why the two aren't the same. But Mormons have one set of Articles of Faith, valid and applicable to everybody from potential convert to religious scholar and philosopher. Therefore, the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

So you agree then that Mormon missionaries use the language in Articles #2 and #3 in full knowledge that their audience is going to interpret it differently from the way that they themselves interpret those articles?

I think this further highlights the vast gulf between what you think about Mormons, and the truth about Mormons. Mormon missionaries are overwhelmingly 19 - 21 year old kids. Kids. For American missions they have 3 weeks of training. For foreign-speaking missions they have 8 or 11, and it's almost all spent on learning the language.

Furthermore, there are no official Mormon theologians, there is no official canon of Mormon theology, and there is no professional clergy. The type of intentional misleading you speak of is institutionally impossible. The educational wing of the church is called CES (Church Educational Services, I think) and they specialize in getting the basics down. There has been no official attempt to capture Mormon theology definitively, and there never will be. There is no authoritative voice to say "this is what the scripture means, this is what it doesn't" except perhaps the Prophet. And the sad truth is that we haven't had a truly theological prophet since Joseph. Brigham was a colonizer, and since then they have been administrators first, and theologians second. I just want you to understand that your characterization I started this post with is not only false, it is impossible.

Also, once you understand that there is no such thing as a closed or definitive Mormon canon, you will realize that your assertions that the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology is equally impossible. Mormon theology can not be contained because we believe in an open canon and on-going revelation.

Now let me get to your remarks regarding "teaching devices". What you say about these are accurate, but the articles of faith are not teaching devices in this sense. I don't know how much you know about math, but one extremely tricky problem is whether you can take a limit from inside an integral and move it outside an integral. The short answer is: you can. And so in early calculus assuming the limit of the derivative is the same as the derivative of the limit is fine. But when you get to Real Analysis for the first time they tell you "guess what, this actually needs to be proven" And the proof that it is OK to do so is very difficult. So what I'm telling you is that there are teaching devices that are incomplete and there are teaching devices that are false. Both can be very useful. Chemistry, for example, is taught almost entirely with falsehoods in high school, and then you find out that everything they taught you was an oversimplification that was not technically true when you get to college-level chemistry and you have to start over again. The final picture is relatively similar, but the high school stuff is false. In contrast, when you tell your students "it's ok to move the limit outside of the integral" this is true, but you're neglecting to mention that this isn't obvious, it's actually a consequence of some extremely in-depth theoretical mathematics. Mathematic knowledge is rife with examples like these.

So your characterization Mormon missionaries are deliberately not telling the truth to their audience without the consent of their audience is not correct. First of all because missionaries never deliberately withhold the truth. You're extremely lucky if you get a missionary that actually has thought about this seriously at all. And secondly, the Articles of Faith are TRUE, they are just incomplete.

One difference we may also have, is that you think it is possible to express theology definitively. I think it is not. You believe it's possible for a human to comprehend and state the complete truth of religion. But I believe that God's thoughts are not as our thoughts. The best we can ever do is approximate the moral truths of

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

Mormonism wouldn't really change very many laws at all. [...] As for homosexual acts, consensual acts between people that don't impinge on human freedom can't be illegal. I'm comfortable with that.

Well, you say one thing, but the actions of your fellow Mormons speak another language. For example, consensual sodomy has remained against the law in Utah, one of the small minority of remaining states, until the US Supreme Court finally overturned all sodomy laws in 2003. And as recently as 1997, the Utah legislature even rejected a law to decriminalize sodomy between spouses.

Having spent some time in Utah, I think it's pretty clear that Mormons restrict many behaviors that are not restricted elsewhere, and that those restrictions are made to make others conform to Mormon standards of good behavior, not just trying to ensure that each resident can act according to their own conscience without interfering with the rights of others to do so.

As usual, general Mormon attitudes temper the severity with which many of these rules are imposed, and positions more tolerant of other religions and views can probably be reconciled with Mormon theology, but right now, that's not how Mormons act at the ballot box and in the legislature. (This blog post addresses some of these issues.)

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

This entire post is about how Mormons behave - and explicitly about how Mormons in Utah behave. Most of what has made this conversation rewarding has been the focus on Mormonism - as opposed to Mormons. I feel no motivation to defend the actions of large numbers of Mormons - especially not ones from Utah (I don't like Utah Mormons very much).

I think it's a bad idea to have so many Mormons in one place. I think it would be a bad idea to have so many Buddhists, Catholics, or Baptists in one place too. Or atheists for that matter. The behavior you see in Utah is a result of homogeneity - not theology. Even if Mormons are equally bad outside of homogenuous areas, the problem still remains: do you want to critcize what we believe, or the fact that we fail to live up to it? I'm telling you what we believe, I'm not telling you that were shining examples of all our principles. I never claimed that Mormons were better than the average person (and I never would) so I don't see why you want to claim they're worse.

Let's please keep this focussed on the theology/philosophy. I'm still waiting to hear back on several of our most hotly-debated issues. I especialy would like to see your response to my parallels between the Articles of Faith and the 10 Commandments and Parables. If all you want to do is criticize people then just let me know now so I don't waste time responding.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

Oh yeah - another thing. When was the last time someone was actually prosecuted using that anti-sodomy standard? That law has been on the books in many, many states in the union. It's just a historical artificat, and doesn't really prove anything by itself.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

A final note: that blog post was from a pretty uninformed Mormon (if it was by a Mormon). I didn't read the entire thing, but in skimming it I found at least one glaring factual error. The blogger claimed Mormons deny evolution - and cited an article that is almost 100 years old. The Mormon church's official position on evolution is that it has no position. This has been the position for decades, and Mormonism's most prominent thinker (Hugh Nibley) was an obvious believer in the theory.

I myself, am not convinced one way or the other.

-stormin

Re:you got it backwards

[m874t232]

Furthermore, there are no official Mormon theologians, there is no official canon of Mormon theology, and there is no professional clergy. The type of intentional misleading you speak of is institutionally impossible. The educational wing of the church is called CES (Church Educational Services, I think) and they specialize in getting the basics down. There has been no official attempt to capture Mormon theology definitively, and there never will be. [...] Also, once you understand that there is no such thing as a closed or definitive Mormon canon, you will realize that your assertions that the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology is equally impossible. Mormon theology can not be contained because we believe in an open canon and on-going revelation.

The problem isn't that there isn't a complete statement of Mormon theology, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to even individual statements about Mormon theology, even those made by Joseph Smith. Whenever I try to reason starting from one of those statements, you say that there are some other statements that I don't know about that modify the truth of that original statement, or that the words don't really mean what they mean in ordinary language.

And while you don't hesitate using your own behavior or the behavior of other Mormons to support what Mormonism is all about, when others give examples that don't fit your views, then you just say that those don't count for some reason, because they don't live up to Mormon ideals for example.

The problem here isn't my state of knowledge about Mormonism, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to any set of premises about the religion. I do appreciate the time you have taken for your responses, but I think that makes further debate pointless.

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

The problem isn't that there isn't a complete statement of Mormon theology, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to even individual statements about Mormon theology, even those made by Joseph Smith.

That's a trap, and you should know it. The problem is that you keep trying to prooftext Mormon scriptures. This means you are taking exact quotes out of context and then trying to hold me accountable for what without context they seem to mean to you. There is no lack of commitment on my part. I have not once shied away from the truth of the Articles of Faith. I have no backed down a single iota. The only thing I have refused to commit to here is your interpretation of the Articles of Faith.

I'm not accusing you of being deliberately underhanded in your prooftexting. But unless you've actually read the entire Pearl of Great Price (which contains the Articles of Faith) how can you really expect to avoid prooftexting it? Any attempt I make at this point to say "this is what Muslims believe" based on quotes from the Koran would be inevitably prooftexting because I haven't read the entire Koran. I'd be finding quotes and taking them out of context. The only way to avoid this is to actually read the entire Koran. If you're going to criticize Mormon theology (which, in itself, is OK) you should realize that until you've read the entire basic Canon (Old and New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) any attempt you make to quote from these books will likely result in you getting the meaning wrong because you don't have the context.

There's nothing wrong with me going to my Muslim buddy and saying "I think this is what Muslims believe, and I think it's wrong". Sometimes I'm right (about what they believe) because I've come across parts of the Koran that you can use without context. The parts that say Christ is not God's Only Begotten Son because God does not beget, he creates, is right. So we agree to disagree on that one. But there have been other verses I've come across that I quoted at him only to have him respond "you don't understand what that means because it is part of this context". And if he says that, I would never respond by telling him "no, really, it means what it says" because he would be right: some elements of scripture (of any text!) need to be taken in context. Whether my prooftext will actually be right or be wrong is a crapshoot.

If you have spent a lot of time arguing with other Christians then this misunderstanding is understandable. You don't have to worry about prooftexting very much when a Baptist and a Lutheran talk scripture: they use the same text. And so when you and I discuss the Bible prooftexting is not such an issue. But the second you start using scripture you haven't actually read you should be aware of the danger of getting what you read wrong because of what you haven't read.

As far as Mormons v. Mormonism goes, here is the disambiguation. I will defend Mormonism or go down in flames with it. I will defend the Mormon Church and Mormon people only to the extent that I have to based on the theology. This means I'm liable to take issue with statements like "the Mormon church is evil" but let statements like "Mormons are evil" pass. The Church is Christ's Church - that's part of our theology. But Christ calls the sinners, and not the righteous to repentance. So why should I have to argue that the people in the church are all great, wonderful, good and kind? We're all sinners - just like everyone else.

So that's my direct response to your post. But here's the one thing I'd like take issue with. I have either responded directly to each of your initial points or requested clarification of them. You have, so far, largely neglected to provide the clarification requested (e.g. how is Mormonism coercive, what is it that Mormons have done regarding the 3rd world that you find evil) and - more disturbingly - you've completed and totally dodged my main

Re:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

One other thing.

even those made by Joseph Smith

I'm assuming this referred to my refusal to acquiesce to your interpretation of the Articles of Faith. If there's something else Joseph Smith said that you think I'm not standing behind, let me know. But before you accuse me of not standing behind Joseph Smith maybe you should study the things he actually said. (Again: it's all about context.)

Richard Bushman is a foremost expert on that topic. Two of his books are Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400042704/sr=1- 1/qid=1154004630/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6105923-4548025? ie=UTF8&s=books ) and Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0252060121/sr=1- 2/qid=1154004630/ref=sr_1_2/002-6105923-4548025?ie =UTF8&s=books ). Yes, Bushman is an active Mormon. But the first book is published by Knopf and the second by the University of Illinois. This means the second book, in particular, rises to the highest standards of academic scholarship. While I'm suggesting books, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195168887/sr=1-1 /qid=1154004833/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6105923-4548025?i e=UTF8&s=books )is the first (and so far only) scholarly overview of the Book of Mormon as a religious text. It contains a pretty good overview of some Mormon theology as well as the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I'd be happy to send you a copy at no charge. Seeing as how the author is my father, I can get copies for free. I've already sent 2 out to people I've debated with on Slashdot.

Precedent

[krell]

Whenever Gates pushes for open source anything, it is always wise to consider it in the light of historic precedent:

"Joshua Pushes for Jericho to have Open Wall Policy"

Greeks Push for Trojan "Open Gate" Policy.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[linuxrocks123]

> People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.

Hmmm. No, you're wrong. People's lives can depend on software. In my Data Structures class, the TA told us a horror story about a case where an operating system race condition in a chemotherapy machine resulted in people being given lethal doses of radiation.

Now as far as M$ software ... the dependence wouldn't be that direct, true, but people's lives depend on the productivity of society, -- if you have food, you have time to spend on developing medicine -- so I'd say there's still some dependence.

The "human life" argument isn't very good anyway, rather like the classic "10,000 dead in Sri Lanka" troll. Human life is very valuable, and as a society we want everyone to have as much of it as possible, but we also want everyone to have as good a life as possible, which is why we have televisions, music, video games (software), art, literature, and tools to help us finish our work as quickly as possible, including software.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Whaddaya mean lives don't depend on Microsoft software. Shows what you know. If it weren't for Microsoft there's a lot of people who wouldn't be alive today. Hospitals depend on the reliability and robustness of Genuine Windows so that doctors can "git er done". You don't think hospitals would be stupid enough to trust vital data to Unix operating systems do you? If you think that, you're out to lunch.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, i see. south park can mnake a joke and its funny, but it does on /. and now all the sudden we are all serious. and besides, parent didn't make fun of the illness, he made a funny about how 'open source' is simlair to 'open sores'

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that they would allow anyone access to their findings and research.

From the Seattle Times Article:

The Gates recipients -- including some drug companies -- all agreed to share information promptly with everyone else in the program and the wider science community. (emphasis mine)

I interpreted that as there is a requirement not to withold publication untill you get something really exciting. Science is fundamentally "open source". You research, you publish, then others can use what you publish in their own research. The only wrench in the works is if the researchers take out a patent. But as I read the article, there are few additional limitations on patenting:

Individuals can patent breakthroughs, but each signed a contract pledging that any vaccines developed through the collaboration will be sold cheaply in Africa and other developing regions, where the epidemic is most intense.

Comparing it to Free/Open Source software is a little off, as FOSS depends on copyrights, and you can't copyright scientfic ideas and facts of nature.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[Mifflesticks]

I'm glad you read the article carefully enough to point out flaws in the submission. I do, however, disagree with the following:

"People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god."

Ever think that mistakes in software -- even just in poorly designed interfaces -- have been directly responsible for wrong medical procedures or analyses or the like? Or that because of software flaws (some of which can be attributed to MS, but obviously not all), people's identities have been stolen? I completely beg to differ. People's lives these days depend critically upon software. And it's only going to become moreso.... (time to enforce higher-quality code.... from EVERYONE)

The Devistating Truth

[fullphaser]

Once the drug is created though, gates forces everyone who was cured to buy an MS product in addition to the price of the treatment

But seriously, as long as money is going to these companies, they won't create the cure, just the temporary antidote, someone needs to be out there actually monitiring these companies (not a government orginization, they are to easily tempted by cash) just something to make sure they are developing a cure and not simply a pain reliever or placebo

Re:The Devistating Truth

[drunken_boxer777]

if you read the seattle times article, you would see that only some of the money goes towards companies (most towards research institutes and centers which are more like academic institutions), and there are goals that must be met. so, they don't achieve the goals, they don't get more money. end of story. what i find interesting is that the amount of money from the gates foundation will be only 10% of all money towards HIV vaccine research - never mind the amount spent on other drugs for HIV, etc.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[orasio]

Open source actually doesn't mean much. You could do whatever and call it open source. That's the marketing beauty of the term, but it has nothing to do with it.

Open source doesn't require you to share the information you have, or the source.

Even free software doesn't. When you distribute GPLed software, you are obliged to distribute the source too, and pass certain freedoms to the guy that receives it.
But most important, it doesn't say that you have to share it at all!!!
If you have a lab, for example, and make a special linux kernel for your propriteary hardware, for internal use, you don't have to share it with anyone!.

Probably software plays a big role in the development of vaccines. Statistics can be better treated, some times, with custom software. Machine learning of course can play its role, lots of software stuff does.

Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[hotspotbloc]

I use to hate BG as much as the next person ("Burn [him] like a witch if I wasn't afraid of the fumes" - Drew Cary) but it seems to me that he is placing the same effort that he did into making MS into a "success" now with his foundation. Granted IMO it's being done with stolen funds but still if he can do to TB what he did to Lotus 1-2-3 he has to be thanked. If he's known for anything it's "hell or high water, he'll get the job done".

Bill Gates reminds me of William Bulger: Brilliant, cunning, a great person to have on your side and a devastating enemy to have against you. Glad those guns are pointed towards HIV and TB.

Maybe it's time to separate the BG of MS and the BG of the Gates Foundation. It's seems he has.

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's time to separate the BG of MS and the BG of the Gates Foundation. It's seems he has.

Don't be naiv. Donations by hughly rich people are usually money that would be collected as tax.

Choosing to spend that taxable money by themselves on their pet projects is just an other way express their power and shape their public image at the same time.

I am sure, you would also prefer to look like the great saviour of the sick and ill, but you are not rich enough, you have to give your taxes to the taxman.

It's not your fault that the political agenda and philosophy of (mostly) the rich has made your "charity" contribution for the good of society as a total looser thing, which will be wasted. Paying tax is pretty uncool, avoiding them is the great thing to do, isn't it?

Too bad we can't do it all... or maybe not... I wonder how quickly would collapse the coutry.

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[LotsOfPhil]

Hehe:

"if he can do to TB what he did to Lotus 1-2-3 he has to be thanked."

As for the reply-er who said:

"Don't be naiv. Donations by hughly rich people are usually money that would be collected as tax."

If you think this foundation and donating vast sums of money like this is the only way he could avoid/reduce his tax bill, then you are the one who is being naive.
I suggest you read Perfectly Legal. Even if he is just circumventing his taxes, I think he is saving a lot in overhead.

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a cynical idiot.

People don't donate 85% of their net worth to dodge taxes...

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[budgenator]

Donations by hughly rich people are usually money that would be collected as tax; and spent on bridges to nowhere in the state that senator "leaky internet pipes" Stevens comes from and is so rich they pay people to live there, no doubt; kind of makes weazeling out of pay taxes look like a Good(tm) thing don't it.

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[darkmeridian]

Bill Gates has donated more to charity than either Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, or Carnegie. And that's adjusted for inflation.

Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[replicant108]

"Gates' game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.

"[He] says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he's locking in a trade system that will effectively block the delivery of medicine to over 20 million."

Killing Africans for profit and PR

call me paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

but I do wonder how much effort is *really* being put into finding a cure/vaccine by the encumbent drugs companies.

think about it, they can either develop a cheap use once vaccine, or masses of variations on retrovirals that western govts (or individuals) will fork out for for 15+ years. Africa can't afford them and who cares? where is the malaria vaccine?

i hope this effort by billg gets some results. Mind you how much would the drug companies pay to bury that information?

im not normally this paranoid (oh i know you all think i am) but when it somes to things like this, i do wonder...

This is indeed a great development.

[KIFulgore]

Only slashdotters bluster, compete, and condescend on pedantic points more than research scientists. Amiright?

Re:This is indeed a great development.

[lucychili]

For whom?

It could be, But I have not yet seen where it says that the results will be open sourced.

While the participants are required to share it doesnt say whether they collectively sign an NDA and whether the various processes and the ultimate solutions are going to belong to Gates or to a wider community.

Gates could be good or bad for world health depending on whether he is encouraging openness for developing private assets, or whether he is encouraging openness in the interests of effective and accessible medicine for African people.

Existing AIDs treatments are protected by patents. Generic drug factories in India which could supply the drugs to Africa have been closed in the interests of protecting the patent on the medicine. 20million lives to protect income on a patent. South Africa is not a subscriber to the DMCA for this reason.

So Gates money behind research can either be a tool for making medicine available to all people,
or it can be a block to other groups who would wish to do the same.

Depends whether the goal is the patent asset or the end of AIDs.

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[ggKimmieGal]

Too add on the idea that software saves lives, let's think about this in a more life threatening sense: hospitals. Recently, I had surgery. It would have been really bad if the software run IV pump gave me just a little too much morphine too quickly. It would have been bad if my state of the art EKG machine hadn't been working correctly. Hospitals run off a lot of software now.

PICK A SIDE

[mary_will_grow]

I don't know where you got that quote because I can't find it in either of the linked articles. People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.

I love this argument.

"Gates deserves his billions, he's had such a HUGELY IMPORTANT impact on the world! Computers have become life-saving technology, our quality of life has improved dramatically, and we've enabled positive growth across the world! Thanks to people like him, we'll become so efficient that hunger will be a thing of the past... ...Oh, and also...

Its OK if Microsoft stifles competition and growth in the field of IT, because its just a bunch of stupid computers that don't really matter."

Pick a frigging side! I know you didn't say the gates-is-great stuff, so its kind of a straw man I'm building here, but for the record, heres my side: You're wrong, computers are WICKED important, and he has had a NEGATIVE impact on the field of computing by shoehorning shitty technology into places it shouldn't be [by WACK marketing practices, some of which were outright illegal, others were simply _completely_ against the spirit of the competition-fueling-growth model]. He has sold people crappy tools that made them take longer to learn stuff, thus slowing the development of lifesaving computing technology. So THERE.

Re:PICK A SIDE

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick a frigging side! I know you didn't say the gates-is-great stuff, so its kind of a straw man I'm building here, but for the record, heres my side: You're wrong, computers are WICKED important, and he has had a NEGATIVE impact on the field of computing by shoehorning shitty technology into places it shouldn't be [by WACK marketing practices, some of which were outright illegal, others were simply _completely_ against the spirit of the competition-fueling-growth model]. He has sold people crappy tools that made them take longer to learn stuff, thus slowing the development of lifesaving computing technology. So THERE.

Anyone who uses "wicked" and "wack" in capital letters in a post doesn't deserve to be printed. Also, the last sentence of your argument adds so much to it. Your stance is so irrefutable I don't know where to begin. That's sarcasm, by the way. Do you even know what "shoehorning" & "straw man" mean?

Re:PICK A SIDE

[mary_will_grow]

Um, a "straw man" argument is when you start plopping in opinions that no one has brought up yet, and then attack them. Which is exactly what I did up there.

"Shoehorning" is stuffing something in somewhere when it doesn't quite fit. Like Microsoft technology in a school. [Thats a HUGE generalization about microsoft technology, and isn't entirely accurate, but I'm sure you get the point.]

I'm surprised someone with such an unbelievable intellect, disgusted by slang and CAPITAL LETTERS, would have such trouble understanding something so incredibly simple. You must be a hit at all the parties.

Re:PICK A SIDE

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on the fence until I got to the So THERE. That is when you sold me.

BTW Most marketing practices are WACK. That is why it is marketing. Next your going to think the Bud frogs are real.

Re:PICK A SIDE

[AusIV]

You're putting a lot of words in peoples mouths here. The parent post was suggesting that there is a huge difference between finding a cure for HIV/AIDS and marketing an operating system. To argue with that is retarded.

Yes, computers are important. Competition among software vendors is important. Yes, Microsoft has a history of stifling that competition. But the computer industry is business. Businesses try to make money. That's why they're there.

Curing AIDS on the other hand should be thought of as a humanitarian issue. There are millions of people waiting on a cure for AIDS and the longer it takes, more people get AIDS and more people die. A cure for AIDs doesn't need competition, it needs collaboration. Competition provides different options for the consumer, forcing the competitors to create a better product in order to keep or gain consumers. As of yet, there aren't any options for AIDS cures. The companies need to be pooling what they know in order to save millions of lives.

Now, before you call me a Microsoft apologist, I have a few points I'd like to make. There are other options.

For example, I'm writing this post on a Linux box. I've often grown frustrated by Linux developers insistance that everything should be open source. Most companies develope their products to make money, and they can't do that if just anyone can produce the exact same thing. Linux developers often turn down offers that would improve the user's experience because it's not open source. To a degree, this limits the development of Linux.

Another option is the Mac. OSX provides an alternative to Windows that tends to be more complete than Linux, unfortunately it's only available on overpriced hardware, so it can't proliferate as well as Windows can.

Personally, I have two computers. My Linux server, and my Windows laptop. The only Microsoft software I use on my laptop is the operating system. I use Firefox for web browsing, OpenOffice.org for documents, Eclipse for programming, the GIMP for photo editing, iTunes for my music, and the list goes on. In fact, I get more aggrivated at Apple for tying me to Windows than I do Microsoft, because on that list of software I just gave you, iTunes is the only thing not available for Linux.

In short, Microsoft has plenty of competition, but many of the competitors create their own barriers that prevent them from excelling.

money vs selfish attitudes

[bzipitidoo]

It's great that Gates is trying to promote sharing. Much depends on the attitudes of the researchers. Some may see the others as competitors who could scoop them. Those who feel that way will try to conceal their real attitudes, paying lip service to the openess requirements, while making sure that it will be hard for anyone following in their footsteps to pass them. The way PhD work is done encourages this sort of paranoid, selfish thinking. You've got to have an advisor you can trust not to blab, or take credit for "your" work, or for that matter take over your work. You too have to keep mum until you've published lest someone else take it and turn it into their PhD. When such things happen, the chances of being able to prove anything or get justice are low. The Soviet Union often pulled a particular stunt in which they'd claim their researchers had already done about a year before research just finished by the West.

Competitive pressure, with all kinds of things at stake such as research funding, prestige, career advancement, or even the career itself, can bring out the worst in some people. No doubt Gates has seen that. Want competition in moderation. Don't want athletes hiring hit men to break opponent's knees, or tampering with the playing field, or taking performance enhancing drugs. In this case, don't even want anyone to have an edge with legit means like superior equipment or techniques that is not available to the others. We have yet to see athletes suing one another over intellectual property issues in efforts to deny advances to their opponents. No doubt Gates has seen all that, especially among his many defeated opponents, so perhaps he can pick out groups who will keep the competition clean and minimal. No Dr. Hwangs of stem cell research infamy. And maybe Gates can write the rules and set up the game so that destructive competition is too hard or risky to be tried. That a big deal is being made of Gates' "open source" requirement suggests more people than just us Slashdot readers are aware the game of research and innovation could use a bit of cleaning up. Why, even that ultimate competitor Gates himself seems to be implicitly admitting as much. That is, assuming that aspect wasn't overly emphasized for this audience.

Re:money vs selfish attitudes

[drunken_boxer777]

i dont' know how you acquired your knowledge of what it's like to work in academic science and earn a phd, but if it was first hand i am sorry that the situation apparently jaded you. i am earning my phd in biology (7th year baby), and have never heard of an advisor taking credit for a students work. in fact, i only know 3 faculty members who even touch benchwork (out of maybe 70 whom i am familiar with).

but it's refreshing to see the stipulations set forth to the researchers, given that the academic/research environment is very competitive and rife with 'secrets'. however, i think the submitter was a bit of a flamebait for suggesting open source anything.

Re:Fuckin' EffPee!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

argue with your detractors. See what that got you? You are now flaimbait. The reason those idiots are no longer posting is because they are moderating.

Is this what we've come to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, is the open source movement going to lower itself to stating that if you're aligned with Microsoft's development practices for software, then you're hindering aids research? It's a worringly bad comparison to make, and certainly one that open source as a whole should refrain from. Science has always had an air of open-ness about it, however programming operating systems is more art than science, and the reality is that whether it's a tool or a piece of art, it's going to cost you money somewhere along the line. Science conversely was an open affair, and only recently has this changed with the practices of 'Big Pharmo', who are prepared to develop a cure for aids, providing they've got exclusivity.

For once, let's just try and laud Gates for doing yet another charitable thing. He starts a foundation, and the visible heads of the Open Source hydra present themselves only to bark, despite billions going to good causes. To see it happen then was a telling sign about general maturity in the community, and to see it happen again here in the wording and tone of some of these comments is again, dispicable.

I can't imagine Microsoft or anyone who works there has ever supported the notion that work on a HIV curve should be top secret and an utter cash cow.

The real question anyone should be asking about this is whether or not requiring openness in the development of HIV cures will facilitate or hinder the process, since if there's not going to be any pot of gold at the end of it, a lot of people aren't likely to bother making the effort. At least when the patent wears off it's free, and the Chinese will liklely just make it anyway at knock-down prices regardless of IP rights. If we got the free cure in 21 years from waiting on a patent to expire, or 30 years of slower, open research, which would really be best?

If Gates and others donate enough to make it worth while, we don't have to wait 21 years. Unfortunately it's too early to tell if the money given will be enough, and we'll never know in a measurable way it's impact on private-sector development.

-Steve Gray
-Cobalt Software

Re:Fuckin' EffPee!!!!

[RLiegh]

>If you've got more than two brain cells to rub together, you want to opine and argue with your detractors. This is why Kuro5hin.org will always be better than Digg

Fixed your post for you :)

simple economics

[briancnorton]

Think about it as such. 287 million to research a cure.

or

Spend 3 billion of your own money to develop a treatment.

100 million people with AIDS (total guess) X $10 / week = $1 Billion dollars per week for the rest of their lives, and you ensure a new generation of "customers."

Yes, there are people doing research that would love to find a cure, but it takes a pharmaceutical giant to engineer, manufacture, and distribute. I wish him luck, but don't expect anyhting monumental from it.

Re:simple economics

[rbarreira]

I feel stupid. What's your point exactly?

Re:simple economics

[Jonny 290]

Pharmaceutical companies make more money off of treating a long disease than they do curing it.

Re:simple economics

[briancnorton]

I didn't really make a claim to this end, but I don't think that a profit motivated pharmaceutical company is going to allow their work to be purchased for a paltry 287 million. It'll fund some university labs into the future, but won't lead to a cure. (my prediction)

Don't blame the Catholic Church...

[GI Jones]

No, the obvious solution is to use condoms, but the idiot Catholic church said condom use is Evil(tm)

I don't get this. The same Catholic Church that is against condoms, is also against sex outside of a monogamous marital relationship. If everyone is in strict adherence to the laws of the Church, AIDS wouldn't be the issue it is. Actually, your problem with the Catholic Church is not that they are against condom use, but that they spend their money to convert people instead of spending money to hand out free condoms... and you think somehow they should be spending their money to support things that they don't believe in? Once again, I don't get it.

Re:Don't blame the Catholic Church...

[rbarreira]

The same Catholic Church that is against condoms, is also against sex outside of a monogamous marital relationship. If everyone is in strict adherence to the laws of the Church, AIDS wouldn't be the issue it is.

So all we can say is:

Thanks Church, for showing once again that you understand how the real world works.

Re:Don't blame the Catholic Church...

[plague3106]

The Catholic church doesn't understand basic human needs. You may as well try a rabbit (or any other sexual creature) to not have sex. Think it would work? No, it won't, because the church tries to pretend we are something more than we really are.

The fact is if the pope hadn't said condom use was unacceptable, many of the people in Africa would have used condoms, and we wouldn't have the spread of AIDS.

My problem with the church is that it brainwashes people into thinking some of our most basic needs are evil, and then turns around and says NOT to be safe KNOWING that people will have sex and it will help spread a lethal disease.

Lets not forget the Catholic church is THE richest entity in the world; do you know how much land, goal, etc. it owns. If there ever was a waste of money, its building yet another church, yet another statue of some guy on a cross, and trying to keep pedofiles hidden within their ranks. What a great use of money that organization makes.

Re:Don't blame the Catholic Church...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm? Wasn't it more to the tune that some Catholic missionaries were spreading rumors that condoms actually spread AIDS?

Quality of life or quality of death?

[elucido]

We have to ultimately decide if we want to invest our time in increasing quality of life, or in increasing quality of death. These are the main two motivational factors.

I'd prefer quality of life, I like the idea of working hard for years as life continues to get better and better. I don't like the idea of working hard as life continues to get worse and worse, more dangerous, and shorter.

How many people here actually agree on supporting quality of life?

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[spitzak]

I read both articles and I don't recall seeing anywhere that they would allow anyone access to their findings and research.

Actually this matches the GPL quite well. The GPL does not require you to make the source code publically available. It requires you to supply the source code to whoever you give/sell the program to. Thus there is no reason for the public to be able to see the code if all the parties agree to share only with themselves.

[The GPL also requires you to allow the person receiving the program to modify and redistribute it as they see fit, so they *could* make it publically available if they wanted. It is not clear if that is true here, probably not, so that is a difference]

Re:Open Source? Not Quite

[budgenator]

Actually the data is amazingly transperent right now, fifteen minutes on google links after searching for "cd4 gp120" you'll find enough data about HIV infections of CD4 T killer cells to make anybodies head spin. As most research is government funded the data is pretty much available, try looking at the HIV sequence database over at Los Almos National Laboratories, all kinds of geek toys, FAQs and tutorials there. you can even run polypeptide and nuecleotide sequences against the HIV genome. The hard part about a HIV vacine is that the part of the virus the body sees is covered in sugars so the immune system doesn't respond to it!

Technology is the biggest life saver

[mangu]

Until the consequence of lack of innovation in the IT field is millions of deaths

One question: where are those millions of deaths by HIV/AIDS happening? That epidemy first became widespread in the USA/Canada, but it was contained there about twenty years ago. Yet it still seems to be one of the main causes of death in Africa. So, yes, there is a close correlation between technological innovation and saving lives.

A very interesting example on how proper information management can save lives is in the book "Visual Explanations" by Edward Tufte. There he mentions how in a cholera epidemic in London in 1854 a physician, Dr. John Snow, plotted all cases in a map of London. He found the cases were concentrated around the corner of Broad St. and Cambridge St, where there was a well. Dr. Snow went there and broke the water pump, after that the epidemy subsided. That's how it was found that cholera was transmitted by contaminated water, at the time it was believed that the disease was caused by impurities in the air.

to quote chuck peddle

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nothing evil about bill gates and there is nothing nice about steve jobs.