One problem he has encountered and will continue to encounter is evident in his interview. The sexual politics of the west gets many otherwise capable minds to deny the most effective and enduring means of preventing the spread of disease. That is: personal behavior and self control.

Dr. Green also “believes that modern Western medicine and traditional sub-Saharan African healing should work together rather than compete.” See here.

It seems to me like Dr. Green says many things which he intends to be accurate within a narrow precise context, but which may sound quacky when generalized even slightly out of that context. The above statement could be interpreted as encouraging Western-trained doctors to incorporate unspecified “traditional healing” techniques in their portfolio, but that’s apparently not what he meant.

Example: I read through his slide presentation on AIDS (it’s a PDF file). Page 75, quote: E² = MC² Or: (hyper-) epidemics of HIV largely determined by Multiple Concurrent (partners) Compounded by (lack of) Male Circumcision”

At first glance, this appears to be Dr. Green’s generalization of findings. A more thorough read-through seems to indicate it’s the findings from a few specific cases. His recommendations, which are more general, are found on the final page:

• Reduce the number of multiple and concurrent partnerships;
• Prepare for the possible roll out of male circumcision;
• Address male involvement and responsibility for sexual and reproductive health, HIV prevention and support;
• Increase consistent and correct condom use; and
• Continue programming around delayed sexual debut in the context of condom programming and reduced partnerships.”

(This time the bolding is my doing.) Not sure what he means by “programming,” and I’ve never heard about any circumcision correlation, but I don’t follow the issue closely enough to assess it.

I dont know what you consider “rebutable” – or what “every other” is- I was talking about what Dr. Edward Green the director of of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Public Health said in a interview published just today said.

“I am a liberal on social issues and it’s difficult to admit, but the Pope is indeed right. The best evidence we have shows that condoms do not work as an intervention intended to reduce HIV infection rates in Africa.”

Green went on to say, “[w]hat we see in fact is an association between greater condom use and higher infection rates.”

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/articolo.aspx?articolo=14614

Well of course they aren’t actually relativists. It is almost impossible to be a human being and be an actual relativist. But that doesn’t mean that relativist arguments aren’t used to shut down debate all the time. “Who’s to judge?” is almost never the beginning of a serious attempt to figure out who the proper judging authority ought to be. “Who’s to judge?” isn’t the beginning or middle of discussion, it is the end of one.

And that is really the point. You are clinging to the distinction between strong on weak relativism in what you think are actual beliefs. But functionally, in independent arguments, relativism is used to say “you can’t judge”. The fact that it isn’t consistent because the very same person doesn’t say “I can’t judge” for things important to him is irrelevant. Strong relativism is used to shut down arguments all the time. The fact that almost no one really, truly, in their heart-of-hearts is a consistent relativist has nothing to do with that.

Keith: If that is the case you should be against ANY involvement of the United States, or any other country, in fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Is that the case?—Mitchell Rowe

No, Mitchell, because a) I don’t see there’s an imposition involved, of values shared or not shared (though there might be, and perhaps ought to be with regard to some issues involved); and b) I’m not a strong relativist, as I’ve made clear—the issues involved in the abstinence example lie on one side of a dividing line for me and the issues involved in fighting AIDS, the other.

I guess what you are really saying is that one shouldn’t respond to Goldberg sarcastically and ironically. But it seems to me that always taking him seriously would have the undesirable effect of dignifying unserious arguments. What’s worse, it would take the fun out of it.—John Holbo

Yes, there’s merit in both those arguments. Goldberg deserves mockery, even when he doesn’t deserve mockery. His book equating liberalism with fascism is argument enough for never taking him seriously, about anything, even when he tells us that he believes that the Sun will rise in the East.

Yet you appeared to take him seriously—your mockery was ancillary. If you’re going to make what appears to be a reasonable response to someone’s argument, even someone who doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, then you have a responsibility to your own future credibility to take that someone’s argument seriously. Otherwise, don’t engage them with a serious response. Once of Goldberg’s greatest vices is undoubtedly that he misreads liberal authors he thinks shouldn’t be taken seriously in his pursuit to make what appear to be serious arguments about, say, the nature of liberalism. I’d expect you’d want to avoid the same mistake.

I write that with better, and more sincerely friendly, humor than perhaps comes through on the page. I’ll not back-down from my criticism, though I think well of you and I know you’re well-intentioned and Goldberg is not. Indeed, I most especially don’t like writers I think well of to make the sorts of mistakes I’m criticizing.

I’ll have to end my part in this discussion here—my chronic pain is acting up today (I have a genetic illness that results in fairly severe, constant pain) and extra pain medication is already dulling and confusing my thinking. Thank you so much, John, for taking the time to read my comments and engage with me seriously, even when I’ve been critical. Personally, if I never have to deal with or think about anybody’s inconsistency in their application of their supposed relativistic beliefs, I’ll be thrilled. Thanks to everyone else who has participated.

I guess what you are really saying is that one shouldn’t respond to Goldberg sarcastically and ironically. But it seems to me that always taking him seriously would have the undesirable effect of dignifying unserious arguments. What’s worse, it would take the fun out of it.

He’s wrong to equate relativism with liberalism, of course, but that is the proper response to his post, not to say that he must not know anything about liberalism if he thinks that it should be consistent in this way, which is your response.

You’re eliding the rest of my paragraph following the sentence you quote:

Yes, some of the liberal opposition to Bush’s foreign abstinence doctrine was based upon the specific objection to it, which is Holbo’s point—but other opposition was based upon the principle of cultural relativism, which is what Goldberg refers to. So, if there are liberals who opposed Bush’s policy on the basis of cultural relativism and who support Obama’s support of the UN policy, then his charge of hypocrisy is valid.

I’m clearly not agreeing with Goldberg lumping all liberals together, relativists and plain old liberals. So I clearly am not saying that he’s right either in the fullest sense, or even in the sense he thinks he is, because I follow that paragraph immediately with this:

However, Goldberg doesn’t prove that any such persons exist.

I recognize that I am polix and I write tangled sentences. However, I think that is insufficient excuse for you to have begun or ended having thought that I asserted Goldberg was right, without qualification.