Funny events in anti-woke world

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,923
1,792
118
Country
United Kingdom
1.38% per act, even divided by 4, means if you had anal sex twice a week while HIV positive, there's about a 30% chance you infect someone each year, even if you use condoms carefully every time.
That's not how HIV works.

The risk of HIV transmission is dependent on viral load in a person's body at the time. There are many, many HIV discordant couples who are entirely capable of having sex without condoms for years on end without any risk of infection because the positive partner has an undetectable viral load.

HIV prevention policy among MSM in the developed world is frankly past the point of worrying about condoms, as they're a relatively small part of the story and, beyond the need to combat fatigue, everyone in the community is as aware as they can be at this point. It's far, far more important to ensure that people get tested regularly, because almost all HIV infections are caused by people who don't know they are HIV positive.

Condoms were important in the 80s and talking about them then would have made a real difference, and they're still an important part of fighting heterosexual transmission in the developing world today, but noone expects or needs them to be 100% effective.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
You're substituting what he said for something far less palatable. I've shown you his actual words, they aren't what you claim them to be. Then, if there was any ambiguity, I showed you an essay he wrote explaining his position better (and without the inaccurate description of how things work).
Do you mean that enough people called him out for lying on a documentary that he was forced to put out a correction?

That whole waffle about "nets" is deliberately designed to present the image in people's minds that condoms have holes in. It's not a net, it's a barrier. You can inflate a condom with air or water, and neither air nor water somehow oozes out through pores in the membrane. If air and water can't get through, viruses and sperm sure can't either. You want to talk about "margin" as if it means a damn when he's said sperm and viruses "easily" pass through the "net". Sure bud. And I can pour water into a sieve (from which it "easily" escapes), and we all know what the "margin" will be of whatever is under the sieve getting wet. So he's definitely misleadingly inaccurate, and on the "easily" / "margin" score we can at best consider him logically inconsistent. We can also consider how incredibly dubious it is that he compared condoms to cigarettes. This is of course a false comparison, because he's comparing the risk-taking activity of smoking (i.e. smoking) against the safety improvement for sex (condoms).

It is beyond credibility to think this was accidental mis-statement, because him being misleading is so comprehensive and unidirectional.

The trick he used of course is to couch things in vague and stupid terms, precisely because people in that position know exactly how to lie so that other liars who want to defend their lies can lie along with them too. And that's what I mean about you refusing to see the woods for the trees. As textual analysis goes, your efforts would be embarrassing for a 14-year-old. But worst of all is that you are protecting someone for being extraordinarily misleading, and almost certainly dishonest.

Of course, no doubt we're due the next time you want to have a go at the media for a much lesser sin of incompetence or dishonesty, because that's how your hypocrisy rolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,091
6,376
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're substituting what he said for something far less palatable. I've shown you his actual words, they aren't what you claim them to be.
He said sperm passes easily through the 'net' formed by a condom. You've acknowledged he said this before, so it's frankly bizarre for you to now claim my description is inaccurate.

You are the only one substituting his own words for a substantially different message about "edge cases" and "70%", absolutely none of which was in his message. He said it passes easily through. That's what I said he said, and that's what he said, and that's what you're endlessly defending.

Then, if there was any ambiguity, I showed you an essay he wrote explaining his position better (and without the inaccurate description of how things work).
Yes: he later retreated from the position after widespread condemnation, and pretended he said something else entirely so as to avoid taking responsibility.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,376
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
It past afternoon hour, so no half measures on cringe anymore, we're going headfirst into the wormhole.




Ballard's unethical behaviour has layers like onion.

Tho it's a lot, will try to fit what can be fittened.

Recently, a number of unsourced allegations from unnamed “sources familiar with the situation” claimed a pattern of “sexual misconduct” involving Operation Underground Railroad founder Tim Ballard. Since Blaze Media’s audience has donated to Operation Underground Railroad over the years and would want to know the truth regarding these allegations, Blaze News spoke with several women who have worked with Ballard.

These women, some of whom went on Operation Underground Railroad rescue missions and others who considered going on missions but never did, were willing to speak on the record to us about their experiences with Ballard and O.U.R. Broadly speaking, the women who spoke to Blaze News allege that Ballard manipulated them and/or attempted to coerce them into crossing important professional boundaries during their time at O.U.R.

Ballard and his wife, Katherine Ballard, also spoke with Blaze News and responded to many of the women's allegations. Their responses are included here, as are several statements that they have given to other outlets and/or posted to social media.

O.U.R. officially refused to respond on record regarding the specific allegations against Ballard, but Blaze News did speak with several sources familiar with O.U.R. operations who agreed to share some insights regarding O.U.R. undercover work.

The 'couples ruse'
"Sound of Freedom," the film starring Jim Caviezel about the horrors of child sex trafficking, became a smash hit at the box office this summer, raking in over $212 million worldwide and thus becoming one of the highest-earning independent films of all time.

Though a dramatization, the film depicts the real-life work of former Department of Homeland Security special agent Tim Ballard. About 10 years ago, Ballard founded Operation Underground Railroad, an organization designed to rescue victims of human trafficking. According to its website, the organization has had remarkable success, rescuing over 6,000 victims and apprehending more than 4,000 predators.

In an apparent attempt to provide better safety for mission operatives, in recent years, Ballard began implementing a mission tactic that he dubbed a "couples ruse." In a couples ruse, a woman pretending to be Ballard's wife or girlfriend would accompany him on rescue missions. Then when Ballard — himself posing as a sexual predator — found himself in a situation in which he was pressured to engage in sex with strippers, prostitutes, or even children, he could refuse on the grounds that he didn't want to upset his girlfriend. In other words, the fake girlfriend would "block" for Ballard, and he would "block" for her, should the need arise.

One source familiar with O.U.R. operations told Blaze News that such couples ruses are rare, while another stated that when involving benign gestures of affection such as hand-holding, they can be an effective means of protecting mission operatives.

Nevertheless, some women affiliated with O.U.R. rescue teams now claim that Ballard soon began abusing the couples ruse and eventually used the ruse as a tool for sexual grooming.

According to these women, Ballard, a married father of nine and professed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, initially implemented strict rules regarding the couples ruse: no kissing on the lips and no touching or exposing private parts. Then, they said, Ballard gradually relaxed those measures before eventually dispensing with them almost entirely.

For example, according to the women who spoke with Blaze News, while on rescue missions, Ballard would sometimes share a bed with a woman posing as his girlfriend or invite her to shower in his bathroom, even though accommodations at designated safe houses provided separate bedrooms and bathrooms. Ballard, for his part, categorically denied ever having been alone, even briefly, in one of these safe houses with a female operative. O.U.R. did not return a request for comment confirming this claim.

Ballard also reportedly sent to one of the victims a photo of himself covered in tattoos and wearing only underwear. That image then began circulating on social media.

During an appearance on " The Adam Carolla Show" on September 29, Ballard verified the photo but explained that it served a legitimate operational purpose. He claimed the photo was taken after he had fallen asleep while having the tattoos — which he says were henna tattoos — applied in preparation for a mission. He stated that the tattoo artist needed to take the picture so that she would have a frame of reference, should she need to reapply the tattoos at a later date.

It is unclear why tattoos in the groin region or on an upper thigh would have been necessary for rescue missions, since they were unlikely to be seen, and a source familiar with O.U.R. operations denied that having henna tattoos applied was a normal component of O.U.R. undercover work.

'Traffickers can smell the pheromones!' Establishing 'chemistry' for the couples ruse
According to the women who spoke with Blaze News, before they ever went undercover together, Ballard first wanted to ensure that he and his female counterparts in the couples ruse had physical "chemistry" that would be obvious to those they would meet during an operation. "Traffickers can smell the pheromones!" he would allegedly say, impressing upon the women that their couples ruse had to be believable, or otherwise the mission and their very lives might be at risk.

"There has to be real chemistry," he would insist, per one woman. "[Traffickers] have to really believe you are in love with this person, and he wants you to get to that point before you're ever on the op so that when you're on the op and you're with the traffickers and you're in these brothels and these strip clubs, in these places where you're trying to get intelligence ... you're not breaking your cover at all."

To that end, several women told Blaze News that Ballard encouraged them to participate in tantric massages before and while on a couples ruse. A tantric massage is an erotic massage that often involves participants lying naked or nearly naked together. For men, a tantric massage is called "lingam," a Sanskrit word for penis that some tantric massage enthusiasts have translated to mean "shaft of light" or "wand of light."

In a screenshot of a text message — apparently sent from a burner phone with Ballard's known code name, as confirmed by multiple sources, and a number that once belonged to Ballard, as confirmed by one source familiar with O.U.R. operations — Ballard appears to have discussed tantric massages with at least one of the accusers, telling her, "It's NOT about learning some strange kinky moves. That's not it at all. I don't have any to teach anyway.

"It's just about making it real and tapping into tantric /light," his text continued, according to the screenshot seen by Blaze News.

"I think u will be surprised how FAST we connect," he added in a follow-up text.

When Blaze News asked Ballard about tantric massages, he initially appeared confused and claimed he was "not at all" familiar with the term. He then seemed to understand and likened tantric trainings to yoga or a breathing exercise and claimed he used the words "tantric," "reiki," "goddess," or "energy" interchangeably to describe such trainings. He insisted that participants always wore clothes during these tantric trainings, that others were always present, and that "zero massage" was involved with them.

He also suggested that "tantric" could be used to refer to the exotic, "ritual kind of places" that trainees would occasionally visit for more in-depth role-playing. The goal, he said, was to see how operatives perform in environments that more closely resemble those they will see on a mission.

A source familiar with O.U.R. operations denied that undercover training or in-field work involved tantric or any other kind of massage.

'You don't want the first time to be in a cartel setting': 'Practicing' the couples ruse
According to the women who spoke to Blaze News, Ballard was so concerned about the believability of the couples ruse that he frequently asked women to "practice" their couples ruse long before a mission ever took place.

One woman claimed that Ballard came to consider the couples ruse "a perishable skill" that required regular honing. To that end, Ballard flew women across the country, where they would "practice" their chemistry through tantric massages and other trainings, according to multiple women.

When asked about practicing couples ruses, Ballard told Blaze News that during O.U.R. trainings, "People pair up and pretend to be in a couple's situation. ... You don't want the first time [that they're together] to be in a cartel setting. So you have to practice to make sure this person knows what they're doing." He also insisted that such practices were always conducted "in groups" and that he would not have been alone with a female operative during such practice sessions.

A source familiar with O.U.R. operations told Blaze News that Ballard was the only operative who ever "practiced" with women or sent explicit text messages to them in connection with a couples ruse.

O.U.R. did not return a request for comment seeking clarification of these issues.

'With the exception of actual penetration': Allegedly engaging in sex to help victims of sex trafficking
Through these couples ruses, both in the office and in the field, Ballard eventually engaged in sexual contact with some women and propositioned others, the women told Blaze News. "As far as physical [touching], he made it pretty clear that really the only thing that was not going to be considered, if need be, during an op was kissing on the lips," one woman said. "Everything else was pretty much a go and, honestly, more than just a go; it's something that I should anticipate and be prepared to make happen for the sake of the act."

Another woman claimed that, while on a mission, she and Ballard participated in several "sexual acts with the exception of actual penetration." She also stated that their sexual contact ended at the end of the mission.

Other women mentioned engaging in sexual acts and being in various states of undress with Ballard while on a mission, sometimes even while at their private accommodations when no one else was around. According to the women, Ballard would argue that they had to maintain the appearance of a romantic relationship at all times during a mission because suspicious traffickers might be surveilling them at any moment.

Ballard denied that he engaged in any physical contact beyond "hand-holding, arms around shoulders, stuff like that." He also alleged that some female operatives wanted to kiss him during a mission to put on a more convincing performance, but he always refused. "There's no reason to do it. It's not appropriate," he claimed he would tell them.

A source familiar with O.U.R. operations denied that O.U.R. would ever have approved of any sexual contact between couples ruse partners.

'U never did Brazilian before ??' Ballard allegedly makes an intimate request
Apparently to make a couples ruse as convincing as possible, Ballard allegedly requested all women to first have a Brazilian wax, which would remove all pubic hair from their private areas, before they went on an operation. According to a text message viewed by Blaze News that was sent by a phone allegedly operated by Ballard, Ballard explained that "pretty much 100 percent of sex tourists" have Brazilian waxes done.

When the alleged victim told Ballard she'd never had a Brazilian wax before, he expressed surprise. "Wow! U never did Brazilian before ??" he wrote, according to a screenshot seen by Blaze News. "For the record ....i didn't tell u to," he quickly added with a winking emoji.

Perhaps most disturbing about the alleged Brazilian wax request is that it seems entirely unnecessary for a mission to rescue trafficked children. The women who accompanied Ballard were ostensibly brought along to play a part in a couples ruse, nothing more. Since Ballard wanted a fake girlfriend to "block" unwanted sexual advances from others and his own couples ruse rules forbade exposing private parts, it's unclear why the women would need to have a Brazilian wax to fit in with other "sex tourists" or how he would have known if they had declined to get one.

Ballard categorically denied to Blaze News that he ever asked a female operative to get a Brazilian wax, and a source familiar with O.U.R. operations also told Blaze News that female operatives would never have been required or recommended to get one as part of O.U.R. protocol.

An 'extensive and very manipulative ... plan': The apparent ruse of the couples ruse
To those in the outside world, it might seem obvious that engaging in sexual contact for the sake of helping trafficked children is wildly inappropriate. But the women who spoke with Blaze News indicated that Ballard gradually implemented an "extensive and very manipulative ... plan" to convince them to participate in things they otherwise would never have considered doing.

One of the main tactics Ballard used, they claimed, was to lean on their desire to help victims. "Is there anything you wouldn't do to save a child?" he would allegedly ask.

According to one woman's summary, in preparation for a possible mission, Ballard said something to the effect of: "This is going to be a really seedy place. What if this happens? Would you be willing to do this? Well, well, what if I need this? Would you be comfortable doing that?

"And then it's all about testing those limits," she added.

The women also claimed that Ballard would then bad-mouth unnamed women who had allegedly gone on couples ruses in the past, slamming them as "crazy" and claiming that they had fallen in love with him along the way. Such stories, perhaps apocryphal, seemingly motivated the women to prove their mettle and their devotion to the cause by trying to outdo their supposed predecessors on the couples ruse.

When they found themselves questioning the legitimacy of tactics involving sexual contact, they often doubted their own instincts, relying on Ballard's breadth of knowledge about rescue missions to convince themselves that such tactics were normal. "Just remember that Tim's the expert in your learning," one woman recalled telling herself. "Just don't question him. Just do it, as he's right and you're wrong."

She also claimed that sometimes an associate of Ballard — whose identity is unclear but whose role appears to have included booking flights for those going on O.U.R. missions — would remind her about Ballard's superior field experience. "Don't assume you know better than Tim," he'd say, she claimed. "He hates it when these women he brings undercover start thinking they're smarter than him. He's been doing this for 20 years. He knows so much more than you know."

Ballard even allegedly told some of them that engaging in sex play with him might improve their marriages, even as he also allegedly told them not to tell their husbands about what they were doing. "You can take that sexual charge ... home," one accuser claimed he told her.

Another woman claimed that Ballard repeatedly warned her that, should she fail in her couples ruse mission, she would have wasted the hard-earned money that honest donors had entrusted to O.U.R. She said that he also told her that a poor performance from a fake girlfriend had ruined a mission in the past. "I was feeling like ... I have to prove to him that I won't misuse donors' dollars," she explained to Blaze News.

Another common theme from the women who spoke with Blaze News is that Ballard would use spiritual manipulation to coerce them into sex. Most, if not all, of the women who spoke with Blaze News have had some affiliation with the LDS church at some point in their lives, and in many cases, he would cite for them a passage from the Book of Mormon in which a man kills another man at the promptings of the Holy Spirit. According to multiple women, the purpose of this reference was to demonstrate that sometimes the Holy Spirit asks people to perform "unconventional" tasks, presumably such as engaging in extramarital sexual contact during couples ruses.

Ballard told Blaze News that he had "no recollection" of citing "anything like that." He and his wife, Katherine, both stated that they regularly quote scripture — especially Jesus' dire warning in the Gospel of Matthew that "if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea" — to support their work of saving children.

"It's our testimony about why we're doing what we do," Katherine Ballard told Blaze News.

'Mutual Assured Destruction': Alleged demands for silence
Despite the importance that obvious physical chemistry supposedly carried in a couples ruse, Ballard, whom some described as "a bully," would also insist that the women stay silent about their alleged sexual encounters with him. In addition to keeping the information from their husbands or boyfriends, Ballard reportedly instructed them not to tell their direct supervisors or other leaders at O.U.R., some of whom are Ballard's relatives.

"Nobody would ever understand [why] we did those things," he would allegedly say, one woman said.

Then, after women had engaged in sexual activity with him, Ballard used their encounters to his advantage, holding those encounters over their heads to pressure them even more forcefully into silence, the women claimed. "We will have so much s*** on each other....we will be deterred into silence on all things forever," he allegedly wrote in a text, according to a screenshot seen by Blaze News. "Mutual Assured Destruction."

Many women also claimed that Ballard frequently demanded that they erase the digital traces of his conversations with them, including — and perhaps especially — explicit conversations. "He had me delete everything," one woman explained to Blaze News. "... He would call at night to say, 'Hey, you scrubbed your phone, right?'"

"He had me delete so much," she later added.

Other women made similar statements. Because of Ballard's insistence that the women regularly wipe their messages, they had scant physical evidence to share to support their allegations, they indicated to Blaze News.

Ballard told Blaze News that "protocol, at the end of an operation, is to clear the texts."

"Once the operation is over," he added, "every operator knows ... you kill the communication or any of the content that's not material to the prosecution. Because that's the smart thing to do."

In his conversation with Blaze News, Ballard repeatedly lamented that he had to discuss operational protocols such as wiping phones to defend himself. He feared that doing so would likely compromise future operations.

A source familiar with O.U.R. operations indicated that in some circumstances, operatives may have been encouraged to delete their texts after an operation.

'It's enough to physically make me feel sick': The fear of public 'backlash'
The women who spoke with Blaze News said they eventually began experiencing debilitating emotional and psychological side effects as a result of what they had allegedly done with Ballard, what they allegedly had been coerced into doing, and/or what had allegedly been done to them. Some mentioned suffering recurring nightmares, panic attacks, or bouts of depression. Others admitted having difficulty trusting others and entering therapy. One woman partially attributes the collapse of her marriage to her time with Ballard.

Despite these sometimes severe aftereffects, some of the women still hesitated to report Ballard's alleged behavior to those at O.U.R. or to others in their communities for fear of retribution. "He has threatened to destroy our lives if we speak out," one woman said.

"I have 1,000 bricks, and you only have one," Ballard allegedly warned another after she confronted him about his alleged behavior, she told Blaze News.

But their fear is not limited to Ballard or to his supposed allies at O.U.R. Many women also expressed to Blaze News a deep concern about the potential fallout of these accusations from the media and the public at large.

"The paranoia of what could happen, the backlash of all of this — I mean, it's enough to physically make me feel sick a lot of the time because I don't want all that. I don't want all that negative attention," one woman admitted.

Their concerns are hardly without merit. Now, in fall 2023, a full six years after the start of the #MeToo movement, many in the U.S. have grown weary of accusations — especially false accusations, such as those leveled against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — being used in an attempt to tarnish the character and ruin the career of an influential person. Even recent allegations made against actor and podcaster Russell Brand have met with strong, visceral opposition, as many have begun to see such accusations as little more than a leftist tactic to prevent someone from speaking truth to power.

The women who spoke to Blaze News are very aware of the current cultural climate regarding accusations of sexual misconduct. They also know that some people will likely dismiss their allegations as just another attempted political hit job, now that Ballard has teased a run for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by Mitt Romney. Romney has stated that he will not seek re-election.

The women further know that many Americans hold Tim Ballard in high esteem, especially after watching "Sound of Freedom." They know because they once held him in high esteem as well and seem to feel betrayed by his alleged conduct behind closed doors.

For these reasons and perhaps others, the women claimed that they had always intended to keep the investigation into Ballard within the confines of O.U.R. "We loved O.U.R. to the point that we were willing and devoted to it. ... So there was no reason ... to go public," one woman explained. She also added that she and other accusers complied with a request for an internal investigation, presumably from O.U.R. officials. "We did that. It was quiet," she said.

'Baseless inventions designed to destroy me': Ballard goes public
In his conversation with Blaze News on Monday, Ballard indicated that he had only a general idea of what he had been accused of doing. Nevertheless, he had already begun publicly responding to some of those general allegations.

On September 18, he issued a statement through the SPEAR Fund, where he is now a senior adviser. Ballard's full statement is as follows:

As with all of the assaults on my character and integrity over many years, the latest tabloid-driven sexual allegations are false. They are baseless inventions designed to destroy me and the movement we have built to end the trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable children.
During my time at O.U.R., I designed strict guidelines for myself and our operators in the field. Sexual contact was prohibited, and I led by example. Given our meticulous attention to this issue, any suggestion of inappropriate sexual contact is categorically false.
The following week, Ballard posted to his Instagram page two videos addressing the allegations. In the first video, which appears to have been spliced or to have experienced technical difficulties, Ballard repeatedly lavishes praise and "homage" on the women who have helped him pull off the couples ruse. "Hundreds, maybe thousands of children have been rescued using this amazing tactic," he claims.

The second video features a woman whose face has been obscured but who identifies herself as Nataliya. Nataliya claims to have performed multiple couples ruses with Ballard and avers that his conduct was always aboveboard. "There was, again, absolutely ZERO sexual contact, touching, anything inappropriate of that nature ... from start to finish," she emphasizes.

Last week, Ballard also shared with Adam Carolla what he believed was the origin of the allegation that he showered with his couples ruse partners. He told Carolla that on one particular mission in the Dominican Republic — which he claimed saved 27 children who had been locked up in a chicken coop — he ended up showering with a female operator after a mud-based couple's massage. However, he insisted that both participants were wearing bathing suits and that their innocent actions while in the shower — "We don't even touch each other!" he told Carolla — were concealed from others in the massage room by a towel.

Once he and the woman shared that "awkward" anecdote with others, the rumor mill distorted the story to imply that he took showers with his couples ruse partners, he said.

Ballard's wife, Katherine, appeared with her husband for part of the interview with Carolla, and she told Carolla that her husband is doing what he needs to do to rescue children. "And I KNOW," she added with emphasis, "that he has done it in a way of complete faithfulness to me."

Katherine also made a solo appearance on a recent episode of " The Rod Arquette Show" podcast. On it, she assured host Rod Arquette that she was "very aware of the couples ruse" and its purpose for a rescue mission. She claimed that her husband and his ruse partners "never did [a couples ruse] without training first," though she did not elaborate on what kind of training was involved.

She also alleged that "there were a couple times when Tim was propositioned during a training, like, 'Hey, here's my hotel card.'" In those instances, her husband had the women dismissed from the team, Katherine said.

Katherine then reiterated to Blaze News that she still believes in her husband's fidelity. "The couples ruse was created to protect his relationship with me," she said. "... It was a way to stay virtuous."

'We also feel a responsibility to speak out': The accusers offer a public statement
Several accusers, including at least some who spoke with Blaze News, have since hired attorney Suzette Rasmussen to represent them. On Thursday morning, Rasmussen stood at the steps of the Utah Capitol to read a statement on behalf of her clients, who have chosen to remain anonymous at this time.

Here is the full statement:

We are choosing to give a public statement about our experiences with Tim Ballard. Earlier this year, complaints were filed that opened the door for an internal investigation. We now stand together to affirm the truth behind these allegations.

Our involvement with Operation Underground Railroad was rooted in our commitment to fighting against human trafficking. But while engaging in that noble cause, we were subjected to sexual harassment, spiritual manipulation, grooming, and sexual misconduct.

Though we value our privacy as we work to rebuild our lives, we also feel a responsibility to speak out and state unequivocally that these allegations are true.

We acknowledge the risks involved in challenging someone as prominent as Tim Ballard. We will reveal our stories in our own time and in our own way and on our own terms. But for now, we choose to remain anonymous.

We wish to express our gratitude for the outpouring of support from those who have responded and commented to the media and social media posts.

We also want to extend our support and solidarity to all survivors of harassment and abuse of any kind. We believe you, and we are standing by your side as you embark on your own healing journey.
The women also gave Blaze News another statement via Rasmussen regarding their allegations against Ballard:

We had no intention of going after Tim legally until he chose to publicly deny any wrongdoing. He has threatened us, attacked us, and continues to lie and cause further trauma. When we finally started to reach out to one another after being isolated and told to distrust one another, we discovered the extent of Tim’s lies and realized how much he has manipulated, used, and profited off of us and so many others. We cannot stand by and allow him to do this anymore.
On Monday, Rasmussen announced that she is preparing a lawsuit in connection with the allegations, which she claimed had been known to O.U.R. officials "for several months."

'Does not represent O.U.R.’s values': Ballard's former organizations and associates respond to the allegations
For many in Blaze Media's audience, this story may feel almost personal. After all, BlazeTV host and founder Glenn Beck has had a relationship with Ballard that goes back years.

Many of Beck's listeners have also donated generously to Operation Underground Railroad in the past, as it was once affiliated with other nonprofits promoted by Beck. According to Beck, his audience has raised over $100 million for various charities, including O.U.R., in just 10 years.

After Rasmussen read the public statement on behalf of some of Ballard's accusers — all of whom were "former employees and contractors who worked closely with Operation Underground Railroad"; Blaze News was able to independently verify the O.U.R. employment of two women — O.U.R. issued another public statement that did not directly respond to a number of questions asked by Blaze News:

Operation Underground Railroad received an allegation of behavior that violated company policy by then CEO Tim Ballard. The organization immediately placed Mr. Ballard on administrative leave and launched an independent, external investigation of the allegation. At the conclusion of the investigation, as previously stated by O.U.R., Mr. Ballard resigned.

Mr. Ballard’s alleged misconduct does not represent O.U.R.’s values or others within the organization. We expect all employees to follow appropriate protocols and to conduct themselves in the performance of their duties consistent with such values. To protect our operators and other law enforcement partners in the field, we will not comment further publicly about our operating procedures.

O.U.R. is dedicated to combatting sexual abuse and stands with anyone who has been victimized. O.U.R. is sensitive to the privacy concerns of any individuals affected by this and is committed to upholding our duty to protect their anonymity.

O.U.R.’s mission does not change, and we are committed to continuing our domestic and international efforts, in collaboration with law enforcement, to rescue any and all from the scourge of human trafficking.
Per O.U.R., Ballard left the organization "permanently" in late June, just a couple of weeks before "Sound of Freedom" was released in time for the July 4 holiday, and the women suggested to Blaze News that removing Ballard from O.U.R. while still preserving its reputation had always been their ultimate "goal."

"I thought we had won," one woman said. "The goal was accomplished, which was to remove the cancer from the organization and still allow it to continue even stronger than ever. That was the goal."

Ballard disputed that he left on account of the investigation, telling Blaze News that he always intended to leave O.U.R. by May 11, 2023, to avoid the appearance of "a conflict of interest" with the film. He also claimed that he began announcing his intention to leave O.U.R. last October and voluntarily resigned in the first week of May.

A source familiar with O.U.R. denied that Ballard ever made such announcements or that Ballard left the organization in early May. The source confidently stated that Ballard left as a result of the internal investigation regarding alleged sexual harassment.

When asked for comment by Blaze News regarding the allegations against Ballard, Glenn Beck provided the following statement:

I find the allegations against Tim Ballard deeply troubling. I can only hope that truth prevails, justice is served, and all involved will use the free gift of Christ and repent, turn to him, correct their errors, and let the atonement of Jesus Christ work miracles in their lives. It is the only thing that can repair brokenness. My intentions, and those of the thousands in my audience who have generously contributed to O.U.R., were to help save God’s children from the scourge of human trafficking. May the Lord heal this mess so that this important work can continue.

To make up for the wall of text.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,165
969
118
Country
USA
Condoms were important in the 80s and talking about them then would have made a real difference, and they're still an important part of fighting heterosexual transmission in the developing world today, but noone expects or needs them to be 100% effective.
The event we are discussing was not in the 80s, it was in the 2000s. I don't think you're disputing the idea the condoms are insufficient to prevent the spread of HIV, and in some circumstances you are calling them unnecessary. Would you not then agree with the idea that condoms shouldn't be treated as the solution to AIDS in the way it often has been?
But worst of all is that you are protecting someone for being extraordinarily misleading, and almost certainly dishonest.

Of course, no doubt we're due the next time you want to have a go at the media for a much lesser sin of incompetence or dishonesty, because that's how your hypocrisy rolls.
You probably shouldn't have brought that up, it does not make you look good. Consider the two scenarios:

1) A long-time, celebrated science journalist writes an article for Time Magazine and links to source data that if you actually look at completely contradicts the central premise of his article, and you argue that's probably just an honest mistake.

2) A Catholic Cardinal, whose professional isn't science communication, gives an answer in a spoken interview, for a TV program that's not in his native language (I have not been able to find whether he spoke to them in English, or if they translated the interview. Either way, things can be confused in translation.), and gives a description that is inaccurate, but we have no direct evidence that he knew it was wrong in the moment, and you take the position that it's almost certainly not only a deliberate lie, but a carefully crafted deception using deliberate word choice.

You have to be joking, right?
He said sperm passes easily through the 'net' formed by a condom. You've acknowledged he said this before, so it's frankly bizarre for you to now claim my description is inaccurate.
You do understand you are interpreting that statement, right? You are taking "easily passes" to mean "condoms offer no protection at all", which might be a reasonable interpretation if you ignore everything else he said, but it's still an interpretation, it isn't his actual words.

Now, we have other things he said in that interview, and volumes of clarification afterwards, to be able to say "well, that interpretation is wrong, he clearly understands that condoms do not have a 100% failure rate." You are behaving as though your interpretation of one sentence he said taken in a vacuum is the only thing that's truth, and everything else is a lie.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,091
6,376
118
Country
United Kingdom
You do understand you are interpreting that statement, right? You are taking "easily passes" to mean "condoms offer no protection at all", which might be a reasonable interpretation if you ignore everything else he said, but it's still an interpretation, it isn't his actual words.
Some desperate weaselling here. What does the term "easily passes through" bring to mind for you? Would you say air "easily passes through" the skin of a balloon? Or would you say that water "easily passes through" a sieve? He also referred to it as a "net", saying the virus is by far small enough to pass through the holes of that net. Does that imply anything even close to 70% protection? Or 50%? No. No it doesn't.

It's very, very obvious to anyone approaching this honestly, that he intended to give an impression of uselessness and ineffectiveness.

Now, we have other things he said in that interview, and volumes of clarification afterwards, to be able to say "well, that interpretation is wrong, he clearly understands that condoms do not have a 100% failure rate." You are behaving as though your interpretation of one sentence he said taken in a vacuum is the only thing that's truth, and everything else is a lie.
For the third time: "volumes of clarification afterwards" refers to the backtracks and rewrites he gave to deflect criticism. Those words are at odds with what he originally said both in tone and substance.

We can consider what else he said at the time, though. The only additional relevant detail is the "margin of uncertainty" comment, which (as we've established) doesn't indicate anything about the actual probabilities or scale of protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
1) A long-time, celebrated science journalist
As I already pointed out, the average mainstream media science journalist doesn't have a degree in science and in fact knows relatively little about science. I don't therefore hold misconceptions about the expected quality of science journalism.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,923
1,792
118
Country
United Kingdom
The event we are discussing was not in the 80s, it was in the 2000s. I don't think you're disputing the idea the condoms are insufficient to prevent the spread of HIV, and in some circumstances you are calling them unnecessary.
...

Okay, so condoms are unnecessary for people with an undetectable viral load. That is to say the virus is present in their body but in such low concentrations that it can't be detected. There has never been a recorded case of someone passing on HIV to someone else with an undetectable viral load. It may be hypothetically possible, but even if it is it is so improbable that we should just dismiss the possibility. Many couples will use condoms anyway just for the added security, but it isn't considered in any way necessary.

Unless a person is being treated with antiretrovirals, however, they are not going to maintain an undetectable viral load. This is why it's so important for people to get tested regularly so that, if they have HIV, they can be treated and their viral load monitored. The most effective means of preventing HIV transmission is to identify it quickly and treat it. Condoms can certainly help, but they don't need to be 100% effective because they are just one part of a range of measures to prevent HIV transmission, because in the grand scheme of things HIV is basically done in the developed world. The rate of new infections has been in continuous decline for a long time. Part of that is scientific progress, but a big part of it is greater awareness and education among at-risk communities, often carried out by those communities themselves against a background of government negligence.

In the developing world, the situation is very different because antiretrovirals are expensive and much harder to get hold of and the facilities to test for HIV may not be as common. This is rapidly changing, but until it does or until a means of eradicating HIV completely is discovered, condoms are and will continue to be incredibly important. They are not perfect, but they are by far the most cost effective means of lowering transmission rates. The problem with HIV is that the more of a given population has it, the more difficult it becomes to avoid exposure. Condoms don't need to be perfect, they just need to lower rates of transmission to curb the exponential growth of new infections.

Informing people about risky behaviors is important because it helps at-risk groups to identify themselves and take precautions, but theres no evidence that promoting abstinence has ever been effective in curbing HIV transmission rates. If anything is insufficient, it's the idea that you can just tell people sex is bad and they will stop doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,165
969
118
Country
USA
...which (as we've established)...
Only in your imagination.
As I already pointed out, the average mainstream media science journalist doesn't have a degree in science and in fact knows relatively little about science. I don't therefore hold misconceptions about the expected quality of science journalism.
So why do you expect such precision from a priest with a degree in philosophy communicating in a foreign language?
If anything is insufficient, it's the idea that you can just tell people sex is bad and they will stop doing it.
Which isn't what is being said, so we're good.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
So why do you expect such precision from a priest with a degree in philosophy communicating in a foreign language?
In a certain way I don't necessarily, and indeed, his explanation of condoms was, as explained, a crock of shit. Of course, that begs the question that if he were so profoundly ignorant about condoms, what was he doing spouting his opinion?

And that's the kind version.

The unkind version is that the Catholic Church has paid a great deal of attention to condoms, and its upper hierarchy quite an impressive record for routinely attempting to dissuade people from their use, up to and including spreading blatant lies and misinformation. As a general rule, I don't think they've ever done much to merit our trust on the topic. And that goes here too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,165
969
118
Country
USA
Of course, that begs the question that if he were so profoundly ignorant about condoms, what was he doing spouting his opinion?
I'm gonna guess it's because the BBC invited him on their program to talk about Catholic teachings on sex and abortion, and he wasn't prepared for that specific moment. It's not as though he volunteered the comment. It was part of a dialogue.
Bradshaw: Is it the position of the Vatican that the virus, the HIV virus can pass through the condom?

Cardinal ALFONSO LOPEZ TRUJILLO
Pontifical Council for the Family
Yes, yes, because this is something which the scientific community accepts, and doctors know what we are
saying. You cannot talk about safe sex. One should speak of the human value, about the family, and about
fidelity.

BRADSHAW: But I have spoken to the World Health Organisation and they say it is simply not true that
the HIV virus can pass through latex from which condoms are made?

TRUJILLO: Well they are wrong about that, no dialogue is possible at that level, scientifically speaking,
because this is an easily recognisable fact.
Neither party is correct here, but I'd argue Trujillo is closer to the mark. He did not understand the mechanism of failure, and he went on to embarrass himself attempting to explain it, but does HIV make its way through condoms? Absolutely. Nobody reasonable is going to dispute that condoms fail. The Cardinal is taken aback by even the suggestion, it's hard to imagine he was prepared for that question.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,091
6,376
118
Country
United Kingdom
Only in your imagination.
I explained at length how the term "margin" does not imply "the edge" outside of typography. Eg, "profit margin", and "margin of error", which can be of any size-- including massive. You offered zero reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
I'm gonna guess it's because the BBC invited him on their program to talk about Catholic teachings on sex and abortion, and he wasn't prepared for that specific moment. It's not as though he volunteered the comment. It was part of a dialogue.
You shouldn't need to guess. He was President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and condom use sits fair and square right in the middle of his remit and thus things he can be expected to know about, and why the BBC invited him for comment. Furthermore, a man in his position is hardly some sort of ingenue who can easily be caught out.

Neither party is correct here, but I'd argue Trujillo is closer to the mark.
This is absurd.

There is only one way HIV gets through the latex of a condom: the condom breaks. A man could not get to the higher echelons of the Catholic Church lacking the wit to make such a simple statement. That he instead attempts to argue around it speaks volumes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,165
969
118
Country
USA
I explained at length how the term "margin" does not imply "the edge" outside of typography. Eg, "profit margin", and "margin of error", which can be of any size-- including massive. You offered zero reply.
When I can win the point without responding to something, I don't respond. Having even acknowledged that he didn't say they fail every time means you lost that point. Not even your broadest explanation of "margin" allows for an "every time" interpretation.

Edit: If you see my responses slowly condensing down like they are right now, and I'm not explicitly conceding anything, it means I think I can let most of what I'm responding to stand uncontradicted and win the argument.
There is only one way HIV gets through the latex of a condom: the condom breaks.
So if someone asks you if HIV can pass through a condom, is the answer yes or no?

Who is more profoundly wrong: the person who says yes with the wrong understanding of why, or the person whose understanding of the physical interactions leads them to the entirely wrong conclusion?
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,091
6,376
118
Country
United Kingdom
When I can win the point without responding to something, I don't respond. Having even acknowledged that he didn't say they fail every time means you lost that point. Not even your broadest explanation of "margin" allows for an "every time" interpretation.
The line "I win that point", followed by such pathetic quibbling is honestly quite comedic. I didn't even say he claimed they work 0% of the time. I said he was claiming that they didn't work. Which he is-- to absolutely anyone being honest with themselves. You've tried to shift the conversation onto some meaningless quibbling technicality rather than engaging with what he said or what I said.

If you want to quibble that "don't work" is only applicable for things that work 0% of the time-- you'd be embarrassing yourself, but if you really wanted to-- then I want you to tell me honestly that you'd object if someone described a collander as "not working" to block the passage of water.

Edit: If you see my responses slowly condensing down like they are right now, and I'm not explicitly conceding anything, it means I think I can let most of what I'm responding to stand uncontradicted and win the argument.
It means you've got fuck all to say and no convincing response, so you'd rather just declare victory, after demonstrating nothing and convincing nobody.

So if someone asks you if HIV can pass through a condom, is the answer yes or no?
The answer is no. Intact condoms are impermeable to HIV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,434
5,693
118
Australia
The line "I win that point", followed by such pathetic quibbling is honestly quite comedic. I didn't even say he claimed they work 0% of the time. I said he was claiming that they didn't work. Which he is-- to absolutely anyone being honest with themselves. You've tried to shift the conversation onto some meaningless quibbling technicality rather than engaging with what he said or what I said.

If you want to quibble that "don't work" is only applicable for things that work 0% of the time-- you'd be embarrassing yourself, but if you really wanted to-- then I want you to tell me honestly that you'd object if someone described a collander as "not working" to block the passage of water.



It means you've got fuck all to say and no convincing response, so you'd rather just declare victory, after demonstrating nothing and convincing nobody.



The answer is no. Intact condoms are impermeable to HIV.
My dude, you're playing Chess against a pigeon.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,165
969
118
Country
USA
If you want to quibble that "don't work" is only applicable for things that work 0% of the time-- you'd be embarrassing yourself.
You are the one who said that his comment couldn't possibly be about failure rates, and had to mean that they "don't work". If "don't work" doesn't mean 0% to you, then you are now saying he was talking about failure rates. You're trying to dunk on yourself.
The answer is no. Intact condoms are impermeable to HIV.
And not all condoms are manufactured without defect. And not all condoms remain intact through use. And even intact condoms are not a guarantee you won't infect someone while having sex.