Losing virginity early or late tied to health risks
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Monday, December 10, 2007 06:20
VIEWED: 10121
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests.
The findings, according to researchers, cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education that has been introduced in U.S. public schools.
Using data from a 1996 cross-sectional survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, the researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) -- including a high number of sexual partners and a history of having sex under the influence of alcohol.
On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKFLE47097220071204
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BS. I started young, had no STD's, and am going stronger than ever.
Debunking Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How does this cast doubts on the benefits of abstinence-only sexual education? The last time I heard advocates of abstinence only never said anything about whether men would be able to get erections, only that it helps to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, which according to this study it does. Quite the contrary, I’d say that the AJPH has just handed the abstinence-only crowd their smoking gun.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another bogus medical study trying to pass off correlation as causation. Early or late loss of virginity are only indicators for other factors that affect health and sexual functioning. People who become sexually active early are most likely abused or promiscuous, which then leads to STDs.
Using data from a 1996 cross-sectional survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, the researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) -- including a high number of sexual partners and a history of having sex under the influence of alcohol.
On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.
People who become sexually active very late probably have problems with sexual or social functioning to begin with (ergo why they are late). It has nothing to do with teaching abstinence in schools. Besides, teaching abstinence doesn't teach them to stay virgins until they are 40. Good grief. Just teaches them to stay abstinent or virgin until later (not late)--until they get married or find a steady monogamous partner. It is teaching them to not be promiscuous, which is associated with STDs. It makes a lot of common sense.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really, I mean it doesn't indicate that Abstaining prevents STDs; it indicates that people who start earlier have higher incidences. There’s nothing inherently about sex before marriage.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quite the contrary, I’d say that the AJPH has just handed the abstinence-only crowd their smoking gun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That was my thoughts, though they do acknowledge that in the article:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Another bogus medical study trying to pass off correlation as causation. Early or late loss of virginity are only indicators for other factors that affect health and sexual functioning. People who become sexually active early are most likely abused or promiscuous, which then leads to STDs.
Quote:
It's not possible to determine cause-and-effect from the survey data, according to the researchers.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So? According to this study if you start having sex at a young age, which is what the abstinence-only crowd is trying to prevent, you are at greater risk of STDs and promiscuity, which is what the abstinence-only crowd has been saying all along.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Not really, I mean it doesn't indicate that Abstaining prevents STDs; it indicates that people who start earlier have higher incidences. There’s nothing inherently about sex before marriage.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quite the contrary, I’d say that the AJPH has just handed the abstinence-only crowd their smoking gun.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Twenty-two is late? Where are these people from? I was a virgin when I got married at 22, and I am doing just fine, thank you very much.
On average, respondents said they had sex for the first time around the ages of 17 or 18. Those who had their first sexual encounter at average age of 14 were considered "early starters" and those who started at age 22 or older were considered "later starters."
I'll be damned if I teach my daughter to start having sex at 17 or 18 so that her "emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being" aren't "impeded." You can develop emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills without having sex, or haven't these folks heard?
These folks are pissing me off.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The abstinence only crowd want to stop people having sex before marriage, finn.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So? According to this study if you start having sex at a young age, which is what the abstinence-only crowd is trying to prevent, you are at greater risk of STDs and promiscuity, which is what the abstinence-only crowd has been saying all along.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STD's.
It is also seldom practiced in the real world, making its usefulness dubious.
Teaching people not to be promiscuous might have its uses, though. While I don't believe social pressure can prevent sex entirely, it might get people to halve their number of partners per year. It might also convince them to slip something on before taking the plunge.
So maybe we can drop abstinence education in favor of 'good dating advice.'
"Listen girls, if you go down on him during the first date, he might not respect you. Make him wait at least a month, and make sure you click on an emotional level before you let him inside of you. And when you do have sex, make sure you use a condom. It only takes one mistake to cost you a lifetime."
Of course, I have ALWAYS respected girls that go down on the first date. ;-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Risk of STD's I get, but risk of promiscuity??? Isn't that like, "risk of being at the amusement park too long", or "risk of too many episodes of Firefly" or some such?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
you are at greater risk of STDs and promiscuity,
Just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s certainly the common straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda, but it’s not really what they’re after. They want to prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only.
Originally posted by citizen:
The abstinence only crowd want to stop people having sex before marriage, finn.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If amusement parks and Firefly could result in disease or pregnancy and psychological health problems then yes, it would be exactly like that.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Risk of STD's I get, but risk of promiscuity??? Isn't that like, "risk of being at the amusement park too long", or "risk of too many episodes of Firefly" or some such?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
you are at greater risk of STDs and promiscuity,
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can get diseases from eating at McDonalds, or touching your eye after visiting the loo; you can get psychological health problems from having idiot parents, or traitorous friends; you can get pregnant from having secret agencies use you to incubate super-soldier embryos...okay- I couldn't think of something for that last one- my point is that sex is natural, like eating. Do it wrong, and you'll get fat...paint it as sinful and you attach unnecessary emotional stress onto what's gonna happen sooner or later anyway.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If amusement parks and Firefly could result in disease or pregnancy and psychological health problems then yes, it would be exactly like that.
Not my best-worded argument ever Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Allow children to do whatever they want without supervision and you as a parent deserve to have your skin flayed and strung up by your nose hairs. Don’t play this game with me, Chris. No good parents allows their children to go to amusement parks without supervision of some sort or allows them to watch TV unabatedly without concern for what they are watching, so why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration?
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You can get diseases from eating at McDonalds, or touching your eye after visiting the loo; you can get psychological health problems from having idiot parents, or traitorous friends; you can get pregnant from having secret agencies use you to incubate super-soldier embryos...okay- I couldn't think of something for that last one- my point is that sex is natural, like eating. Do it wrong, and you'll get fat...paint it as sinful and you attach unnecessary emotional stress onto what's gonna happen sooner or later anyway.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being a bit of a rogue here
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Don’t play this game with me, Chris.
, of course you're right.But- true story- my first real girlfriend and I first did it in her bedroom; she said her Mom knew we were gonna, and she'd rather it be in the safety of her home rather than in a parked car. She had a great Mom.
Quiet as mice Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The abstinence only crowd want to stop people having sex before marriage, finn."
"That’s certainly the common straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda, but it’s not really what they’re after. They want to prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only."
Uhm, Finn --
***************************************************************
snicker ... They don't really want people to wait until marriage, do they.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"so why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration?"
Are you saying that the abstinence-only crowd invites their parents along on the honeymoon ?
Keeping it all in the family, eh ?
***************************************************************
I like to watch.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, they don't want to limit it to marriage, they just want to limit it to marriage. Sounds like they want to limit it to marriage to me.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s certainly the common straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda, but it’s not really what they’re after. They want to prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep, that’s the mom ever teenage boy wants their girlfriend to have.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Being a bit of a rogue here
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Don’t play this game with me, Chris.
But- true story- my first real girlfriend and I first did it in her bedroom; she said her Mom knew we were gonna, and she'd rather it be in the safety of her home rather than in a parked car. She had a great Mom.
Quote:Yes, I realize that you’re intent upon ignoring the issue because you don’t like religious type, but the fact remains that abstinent-only programs are directed at children and young people, not adults. There are precious few abstinence-only programs directed at unmarried 30-something men and women. The fact remains that the whole idea behind the abstinence only program is that young people should avoid sex until they are ready, which in this case is defined as marriage.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So, they don't want to limit it to marriage, they just want to limit it to marriage. Sounds like they want to limit it to marriage to me.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s certainly the common straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda, but it’s not really what they’re after. They want to prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
BS. I started young, had no STD's, and am going stronger than ever.
Yeah, and my Grandpappy drank like a fish, ate bacon and eggs every day, and smoked ten packs/day and lived to be forty.
Your lack of STDs just means you were a lucky little slut. Good for you.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re absolutely right. Since sex by it’s nature is generally a private thing and parents aren’t allowed to be directly involved in the children’s sex life, the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being.
Originally posted by rue:
"so why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration?"
Are you saying that the abstinence-only crowd invites their parents along on the honeymoon ?
Keeping it all in the family, eh ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Somebody is jealous.
Your lack of STDs just means you were a lucky little slut. Good for you
Poor Hero, didn't get any then, ain't gettin' any now. ---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The abstinence only crowd want to stop people having sex before marriage,finn.- Chrisisall
That’s certainly the common straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda, but it’s not really what they’re after. They want to prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only.- Finn
My mind just refused to jump off that cliff with you, Finn. Care to re-state? If not, can you tell me how you just got across that great chasm in the brain?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You’re absolutely right. Since sex by it’s nature is generally a private thing and parents aren’t allowed to be directly involved in the children’s sex life, the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being."
Wait a minute. I thought the reason to not teach sex-ed in schools was because the parents are teaching it at home. So the parents are NOT now allowed to be directly involved in their children's sex lives ? That means the schools better start teaching sex-ed. Right ?
***************************************************************
What DO you mean, exactly ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have't a clue what Finn means. But it sure is fun poking at it!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words, you don’t really have a rational response.
Originally posted by rue:
"You’re absolutely right. Since sex by it’s nature is generally a private thing and parents aren’t allowed to be directly involved in the children’s sex life, the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being."
Wait a minute. I thought the reason to not teach sex-ed in schools was because the parents are teaching it at home. So the parents are NOT now allowed to be directly involved in their children's sex lives ? That means the schools better start teaching sex-ed. Right ?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can’t do anything about your mind and it’s cliff jumping, but I can tell you that Citizen made the “abstinence only” quote, not Chris. Just FYI.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
The abstinence only crowd want to stop people having sex before marriage,finn.- Chrisisall
My mind just refused to jump off that cliff with you, Finn.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who wants to live long anyhow?
All life is, is everything you gotta put up with between sexual intercourse. And if that isn't true for you, whoever is reading this, you need to re-evaluate and re-prioritize your positions.
Whether you were a pimp at 12 years old or you were a late bloomer that didn't get it till 22, live it... love it... learn it... and be the goddamned best at it that you can be... and hopefully you will be havin' it all of your life.
Nothing better in the world kids. Don't let an early death get in the way. Those nasty last 20 or 30 years, you can't get any without pills and who wants to have sex with anyone you could have sex with at that age anyhow?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FINN: Okay, Citizen said it not Chrisisall. (Are you sure I didn't make any spelling mistakes you'd like to point out?) But I see you avoided the real question, which is calling the "sex only in marriage" a straw man argument and then prompty repeating the very same point! How do you DO that? Surely, that's not what you meant!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
I'm not the one short on rationality. First you said abstinence until marriage was a straw-man argument. Then you said the abstinence only program WAS no sex until marriage. You said parents couldn't be involved in their children's sex lives. Sounds to me like your saying parents can't teach their children about sex at home. So you must be for sex-ed at school, right ? Or are you going to say that schools cain't teach it, 'neither ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There wasn't a real question. The issue you are referring to, I've already explained, I think quite clearly. I suspect that you choose not to understand it, because it suggests a more rational agenda to the abstinence-only camp then you want to assign to people you don't agree with, but that's not my problem, nor is it something want to discuss again. The fact remains that abstinence-only programs are directed at young people, not adults - the obvious idea being to prevent young people from having sex until they are responsible enough to do so. It's really not that hard to grasp, and if you can manage it, we may have something talk about, otherwise I don't see the point.
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN: Okay, Citizen said it not Chrisisall. (Are you sure I didn't make any spelling mistakes you'd like to point out?) But I see you avoided the real question, which is calling the "sex only in marriage" a straw man argument and then prompty repeating the very same point! How do you DO that? Surely, that's not what you meant!
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Spoken like a single guy without daughters.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Who wants to live long anyhow?
All life is, is everything you gotta put up with between sexual intercourse. And if that isn't true for you, whoever is reading this, you need to re-evaluate and re-prioritize your positions.
Whether you were a pimp at 12 years old or you were a late bloomer that didn't get it till 22, live it... love it... learn it... and be the goddamned best at it that you can be... and hopefully you will be havin' it all of your life.
Nothing better in the world kids. Don't let an early death get in the way. Those nasty last 20 or 30 years, you can't get any without pills and who wants to have sex with anyone you could have sex with at that age anyhow?
My take on sex is that it is far more enjoyable and long lasting if taken with a degree of gravity and responsibility that it deserves. Take for instance my mother, who lived the young carefree free-love stuff during the 60s - for about a year when she was 15. After that, she spent 20 years struggling to raise children in abject poverty with no education. Sounds like a load of fun to me.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well you've always seemed like an upstanding citizen to me finn... you should give your mother more credit.
Not to mention that she wasn't privy to free condoms at school and over the counter day after pills at the local Walgreens either.
Ever notice how it's only white people who are concerned with birth control too? Probably too broad a generalization, but that's all I see on TV or in health class in school. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem you have Finn is that you're making too many contradictory arguments. On the one hand you're saying that it's not about emotional health, then you're saying it is. You're saying parents shouldn't be involved, then you're saying parents who aren't involved should be flayed. You're saying either the schools teach abstinence only programs or the only other option is for parents to let kids screw at random.
Nowhere in your book is there room for parents to teach their children respect for themselves, taking responsibility by being prepared, understanding their own emotions and motivations. It's either abstinence only as taught by the schools or a pediatric Sodom and Gomorrah world.
It's actually YOU that can't conceive (pun intended) of anything outside of your agenda. And so your arguments go in circles, contradict themselves, and have unbridgeable gaps.
"never said anything about whether men would be able to get erections, only that it helps to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies" So it's not about physical or emotional health, except when it is " the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being".
"if you start having sex at a young age, which is what the abstinence-only crowd is trying to prevent ... prevent young people from getting involved in sex at too early an age, by limiting sexual activity to marriage only" So it's not about marriage, except when it is "young people should avoid sex until they are ready, which in this case is defined as marriage".
"Allow children to do whatever they want without supervision ... why do people advocate that children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration? ... the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being" So it's not about parents educating their children and being involved either, since abstinence-only classes are the only viable option. Except when it IS about parental involvement "Allow children to do whatever they want without supervision and you as a parent deserve to have your skin flayed and strung up by your nose hairs."
"young people should avoid sex until they are ready, which in this case is defined as marriage" And I guess it's not about false dilemmas either except when it is the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My mother was an extraordinary women, who at a very young age naively bought in the free-love bullshit of the 60s. She did a remarkable job raising me and my various siblings. She also graduated with a Nursing degree with a 4.0 GPA at 34. She was an exceptional woman, who could have done far better with her life, had it not been for her experimentation with sex at such a young age.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Well you've always seemed like an upstanding citizen to me finn... you should give your mother more credit.
Quote:Ever notice how poverty and crime is rampant among African-American and Hispanic communities? A large part of it has to do with children having children they can’t afford to take care of. In fact, over 80% of teen pregnancies (ages 15-19) are from African-Americana and Hispanic girls.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Ever notice how it's only white people who are concerned with birth control too? Probably too broad a generalization, but that's all I see on TV or in health class in school.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Blah blah Blah. As usual, you can’t deal with the issues, so you attack the person you don’t agree with or take someone’s words out of context.
Originally posted by rue:
The problem you have Finn is...
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"lived the young carefree free-love stuff during the 60s - for about a year when she was 15. After that, she spent 20 years struggling to raise children in abject poverty with no education. Sounds like a load of fun to me."
Sounds like a reason for abortion or adoption to me - and in the process becoming older and wiser.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see, so 15 year old girls should screw all they want, because they can always kill or give away the pregnancies? Man that’s some cold shit.
Originally posted by rue:
"lived the young carefree free-love stuff during the 60s - for about a year when she was 15. After that, she spent 20 years struggling to raise children in abject poverty with no education. Sounds like a load of fun to me."
Sounds like a reason for abortion or adoption to me - and in the process becoming older and wiser.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"As usual, you can’t deal with the issues"
As usual you duck actually discussing things by claiming there's nothing to discuss. Since everyone else will also be reading my post, they'll get that my post has substance and understand your tactics as well.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, did I say that ?? Anywhere ?? No, I didn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I see, so 15 year old girls should screw all they want, because they can always kill or give away the pregnancies. Man that’s some cold shit.
What I've been posting all along, if you'd bothered to actually read my posts, is that parents need to realistsically teach their children. About sex, consequences and responsibility. You don't have to moralize or turn it into some mythic finish line.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I doubt it. Even those who buy into your general ideology aren’t stupid. They know damn well you’re full of shit, even if they don’t confront you on it. Just like your crap of accusing of people of wanting “rude people” tasered. People saw through that bullshit too, Rue. No one you accused ever seriously advocated tasing rude people. That was a figment of your imagination design to attack people you don’t agree with, and everyone saw it for what it was.
Originally posted by rue:
"As usual, you can’t deal with the issues"
As usual you duck actually discussing things by claiming there's nothing to discuss. Since everyone else will also be reading my post, they'll get that my post has substance and understand your tactics as well.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOOOHHH. Changing the subject ! That's a good one !
***************************************************************
AND a personal attack ! How inventive !
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, you did. My mother loved me. I know that seems remarkable to you. People do love their children, even if they are mistakes. Killing it or giving it away may be the cold logical thing to do, but it’s not always the human thing to do. It’s far better to teach our children the responsibility to avoid having to deal with those kinds of choices, then to allow them to make that mistake on their own, so they can grow from it.
Originally posted by rue:
Hmm, did I say that ?? Anywhere ?? No, I didn't.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I said this "so 15 year old girls should screw all they want" ?? Really ?
***************************************************************
Are you hallucinating ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a friend who had a child at 14 years old. Her parents were good but old-fashioned - one didn't discuss (ahem) sex. Her big reason to have sex - the guy - who was quite a bit older - said he loved her. When she realized she was pregnant she couldn't bring herself to tell her parents so the first place she went was grandma who lived down the street. Her grandmother said - oh, about how far along are you my dear ? To which my friend said - about three months or so. And the grandmother said - well dear it's too late to do anything about it now. So let's tell your parents and figure out what to do.
Even good girls raised in good homes get pregnant if they aren't educated. Even good families consider abortion as an option. Even good mothers consider adoption.
Abstinence only is not education. It's a way of putting your head in the sand and pretending that if you sound disapproving enough kids won't have sex. And - it doesn't work (too many studies to dispute that.)
And it doesn't say anything about THIS study. Kids have sex early for many different reasons - girls are often preyed on by older men, boys egg each other on, low academic performance, low economic status, few good options available as examples, neurological and emotional dings - they all constribute. Abstinence only won't work for them. And where you have all the right factors in place - including responsible parents - abstinence only isn't necessary.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Somebody is jealous.
Your lack of STDs just means you were a lucky little slut. Good for you
More like not getting enough then and getting too much now. I wonder if that means I'm nearing a mid-life crisis.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because if you make sex horrific enough... outlaw condoms so people WILL get AIDS... fraught with danger and the possibility of many many children.... then of course young kids will think ahead and just say "no".
My take on sex is that it is far more enjoyable and long lasting if taken with a degree of gravity and responsibility that it deserves. Take for instance my mother, who lived the young carefree free-love stuff during the 60s - for about a year when she was 15. After that, she spent 20 years struggling to raise children in abject poverty with no education. Sounds like a load of fun to me.
Sure.
FWIW, I don't want young children in this righteous, venegful, moralistic country to have sex. We make sure to combine sex and violence in so much of our "entertainment" that it's more like rape. And when it's seen as dirty, with a nasty tase of sadism and exploitation ... well, I don't think kids should handle sex in that kind of milieu. So I'll be the first one to say that older people shouldn't be having sex with anyone less than 18; there's too much of a legal/ power imbalance.
But all those nasty consequences of "sex for fun"... My God, man, civilization and science are here to help! As a Chinese colleague of mine says: If you can't be good, be careful.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or you could just try to instill in your children a since of self-pride and responsibility, so that they can always make the best effort to enjoy all of life’s riches, without becoming bitter and cynical. I guess telling them to live life to the lees with carefree abandon is easier, but failing to inform them of what might very well happen if they do, seems like a real asshole thing to do to your children.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because if you make sex horrific enough... outlaw condoms so people WILL get AIDS... fraught with danger and the possibility of many many children.... then of course young kids will think ahead and just say "no".
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually didn't have sex until I fell in love- unfortunately she only 'liked' me *snif*.
I sex-educated myself mostly, and only was promiscuous with my female friends after I decided sex didn't always mean love.
It's different now than before- the info is widely available. Smart, educated horny young folk should behave as they please, as long as they're bein' safe and aren't makin' someone THINK they love them...
grrrargggChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Or you could just try to instill in your children a sense of self-pride and responsibility, so that they can always make the best effort to enjoy all of life’s riches, without becoming bitter and cynical."
You can do all of those, and still have responsible, pre-marital sex.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I'm the one here who's advocating telling kids what's up. You're the one advocating scaring them. Yes, things MAY happen if you have sex. Condoms break. No form of birth control is 100% safe. People may feel used or betrayed. Alcohol can be a big problem, so can low self-esteem. (Looking for love and finding sex.) Which is why I don't advocate most kids having sex. I don't think they're emotionally mature. But I'm not going to tell them scare stories and insist on "abstinence only". I think an honest discussion about all the REAL pitfalls that await them should be good enough.
failing to inform them of what might very well happen if they do
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can’t remember the first girl I fell in love with. I think she might have been Liz Brady from Eighth Grade math class. We didn’t have sex, but she was one hot number, as I remember, you know for an Eighth Grader.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I actually didn't have sex until I fell in love- unfortunately she only 'liked' me *snif*.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s safe to say that you and rue have spent so much time trying to put words in my mouth here that you have no clue what I advocate.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I think I'm the one here who's advocating telling kids what's up. You're the one advocating scaring them.
failing to inform them of what might very well happen if they do
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kissed my first girl at five. Always had more fun with girls than boys.
Actually had first sex at twenty (would have been 12 ifn' I had my way), though, you know- the 'love' thing...*makes goopy face*
Playing Barbie was more fun than playing war Kenisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wasn’t much of a romantic in my early years. That didn’t start until well into my 20s. As a teenager I was awkward and uncomfortable. It was not a pleasant time. It was kind of a tough neighborhood. We always had to prove ourselves. We had to be tough, but it was mostly a façade. Stories about what we might have done with girls were common, actual feats were rare. We were mostly full of shit.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Kissed my first girl at five. Always had more fun with girls than boys
Actually had first sex a twenty, though, you know- the 'love' thing...*makes goopy face*
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was a love-sick would-be knight in shining armour- there was just no one to save...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I wasn’t much of a romantic in my early years.
...plus, skinny, Trek nerd, acne...
13 - 17 wuz no picnic Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remembering back to my standard Californian Sex Ecucation courses, it was always stressed that the only 100 percent form of protection against std's and pregnancy was abstinence.
They just weren't so rigid as to only try to sheppherd those few who listened to that caution. Truly, the beauty of the sex education class was that it armed kids with facts, facts that more than anything else were the true deterrent to having sex when they weren't yet ready, or without the proper protection, because the cold reality of consequences are far more sobering and convincing than fanstasy land father-daughter pacts, or boogie man stories about how if you have sex before you are 18 and married, the likelyhood is you're going to end up being a crack-whore on the streets dying of aids...
kids are smarter than to react to hyperbole like that, especially when they get to an age where they see people around them having sex and still managing just fine.
My only problem with abstinence only education is the "only." Seriously...when you go on a rafting trip they tell you how to lock your feet in under part of the raft so that you don't fall in, and then...call them crazy, they tell you what to do if you fall in anyway...they don't just wait at the back of the boat to tsk tsk while your foot gets caught under a rock and you drown, nor do they wait till that point to try to shout out solutions to you while your head is underwater and its too late.
It's also noteworthy that nobody gets mixed signals by the instructions. Nobody goes "oh, if they're telling us what to do if we fall in, then it must be completely safe to fall in, if we follow guidelines"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What Righteous9 Saidtm
Over the side Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said Righteous.
Quote:If you advocate what Righteous advocates, then I'm with ya.
It’s safe to say that you and rue have spent so much time trying to put words in my mouth here that you have no clue what I advocate.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
you have no clue what I advocate
Well darn, I could have thought it was abstinence only
Quote:
benefits of abstinence-only sexual education
straw man that substitutes for the Abstinence-only agenda
limiting sexual activity to marriage only
abstinent-only programs are directed at children and young people, not adults
young people should avoid sex until they are ready, which in this case is .. marriage
Because anything else is
Quote:
Allow children to do whatever they want without supervision
children should be allowed to have sex at will without parental consideration
the only solution is to let children screw unabatedly without concern for their emotional or physical well-being
15 year old girls should screw all they want, because they can always kill or give away the pregnancies
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly--do anything that is natural wrong, and there are consequences. I don't see a problem with painting eating wrong or having sex wrong as sinful (gluttony and lust, respectively).
Originally posted by chrisisall:
my point is that sex is natural, like eating. Do it wrong, and you'll get fat...paint it as sinful and you attach unnecessary emotional stress onto what's gonna happen sooner or later anyway.
Not that I want to live in terms of avoiding sin. But there is such a thing as teaching our kids to live wisely. That means don't eat just cause you feel like it, and don't have sex just cause you feel like it.
Maybe I'm a prude, but I really do believe part of the problem with modern society is the "do it if it feels good" attitude. So we buy too much, eat too much, have too much sex (as in promiscuity), have too many wars (cause it feels good to kick ass), drive too many cars, etc.
Now that I have kids, I know what I definitely want to teach them re sex. Wait. It IS special. Save it for someone with whom you want to share ALL of yourself--emotional, intellectual, spiritual, in addition to physical--and make sure that person wants to share it with you. You can have as much mindless, empty sex by yourself. But when you have sex with another person, make sure that person is going to be around for a while.
OK, getting off the soapbox now.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You would not have liked the native Hawaiians or Polynesians.
I wanted to get back to this a little more. I think we do a disservice to our children by not teaching them certain things. One is that it's possible to have mixed emotions. To desire someone but not trust them. To like someone but not respect them. To need someone but not like them, or maybe not even trust them. And so on. Because of that, I don't believe in an assembly-line process for teaching about love, trust and sex.
**************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Finn, Rue quoted what appears to be your stance on the issue (for abstinence only). Is that an accurate picture? If not, can you clarify?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you definitely hit the nail. Its real easy to spout off about abortions and adoptions when its not your kids or you, but a father doesn’t want his daughter to ever even get to the point where either of those things is an option. When it comes to sex, it seems for a lot of people that responsibility should be taught only as an afterthought, and that ignoring the consequences for quick ecstasy is the more important part, but the ecstasy will last only a little while, then when something happens, you may spend the rest of your life regretting that one moment. The more intelligent way to approach sex, which you’d think most adults would have figured out by now, is that putting responsibility first, means many more years of enjoyment then would otherwise be the case. When you say you think that responsibility should be put forward, you get portrayed by people like Rue and Signym as if your some monster trying to frighten your children. That's just bent.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Now that I have kids, I know what I definitely want to teach them re sex. Wait. It IS special. Save it for someone with whom you want to share ALL of yourself--emotional, intellectual, spiritual, in addition to physical--and make sure that person wants to share it with you. You can have as much mindless, empty sex by yourself. But when you have sex with another person, make sure that person is going to be around for a while.
OK, getting off the soapbox now.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No picture painted by rue can be accurate.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn, Rue quoted what appears to be your stance on the issue (for abstinence only). Is that an accurate picture? If not, can you clarify?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It is clear to me that abstinence-only programs place a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, encouraging children to be strong and resist temptations that could lead them to danger.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that part of the message, and I doubt Rue finds problem with that message either.
Abstinence-Only programs go further, however. They fail to tell children about ways to make sex safer. They go on to insist that children should abstain from sex until they are married.
This is akin to giving a 16 year old the following information:
“Here’s a brand new Ferrari. Cool, isn’t it? It’s all yours. Now that you have the equipment to drive, I want to stress to you that you shouldn’t drive under any circumstances. If you drive, you may have a bit of fun, but you’ll probably crash and die. And ignore those straps on the chairs. Remember: Don’t drive until you’re, like, 24 or something. And even then, make sure you only drive on one road. Forever. Now here’s the keys. Have a nice day.”
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And are you afraid to tell us all what your view IS? Or.... what?
So Finn, Rue quoted what appears to be your stance on the issue (for abstinence only). Is that an accurate picture? If not, can you clarify?- Signy
No picture painted by rue can be accurate. - Finn
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t think I have been secretive about what my views are. I’ve been talking about them all through this thread. If you can’t have a conversation with someone without putting words in their mouth, then I can’t do anything about that, but I don’t have to participate. When you decide you’d like to know what I think instead of the thoughts you want to attribute to me, then my posts will still be here for you to read.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:And are you afraid to tell us all what your view IS? Or.... what?
So Finn, Rue quoted what appears to be your stance on the issue (for abstinence only). Is that an accurate picture? If not, can you clarify?- Signy
No picture painted by rue can be accurate. - Finn
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t think I have been secretive about what my views are. I’ve been talking about them all through this thread. If you can’t have a conversation with someone without putting words in their mouth, then I can’t do anything about that, but I don’t have to participate. When you decide you’d like to know what I think instead of the thoughts you want to attribute to me, then my posts will still be here for you to read.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:And are you afraid to tell us all what your view IS? Or.... what?
So Finn, Rue quoted what appears to be your stance on the issue (for abstinence only). Is that an accurate picture? If not, can you clarify?- Signy
No picture painted by rue can be accurate. - Finn
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Hello,
I'm not clear on your exact position myself, Finn. I'm sure you said what you meant, but I can't quite tell what you meant from what you said.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t want my children making irresponsible decisions with regard to sex, what is there to know? If you have a specific question I’ll try answer it.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not clear on your exact position myself, Finn. I'm sure you said what you meant, but I can't quite tell what you meant from what you said.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I don’t want my children making irresponsible decisions with regard to sex"
You know, that is so weird, that would be my position too. Only I would never propose an 'abstinence-only' education as a way to get there. That certainly seems like a faster way to uninformed and irresponsible sex than complete accurate information.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I don’t want my children making irresponsible decisions with regard to sex, what is there to know? If you have a specific question I’ll try answer it.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not clear on your exact position myself, Finn. I'm sure you said what you meant, but I can't quite tell what you meant from what you said.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Hey, I agree with that.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bah, I was a bastard, but not a stupid one, in spite of the fact that the entirety of any form of sex ed in THAT school system pretty much amounted to their drug education...
"It's bad, it's icky, don't do it"
(I kid you not, it's that extreme, and still is, having to have had THAT convo with the kids because no one else had the guts, grr )
After watching my damnfool "peers" whom I hated anyway, have unplanned pregnancies and in one case, deliberate marital entrapment via such - his fault just as much cause he shoulda wrapped it or kept it in his damn pants... I took matters a bit more seriously than most folk my age and pondered the question of "What does she WANT from me?" when the relationship started goin there, and more often than not, dropped it like a hot brick because of either less than pure motives, or the wrong reasons (i.e. putting out to get her hooks into my life or paycheck or looking for a surrogate father figure, or some self destructive reason..) which did, yes, cause some fallout, but probably less than thinking with my dick woulda.
And should it go there, it was never without precaution or a full understanding of potential consequences, just the same as I knew full and well what I was doin when I put that first pallmall in my mouth and lit it - ALL of said knowledge coming from self-education in the face of lack of information, distortion and outright lies from the school, being that I am not an unplanned parent, nor dead of an STD, and smoking did not turn me into a heroin addict. 
Look folks, we're HUMAN, and ain't it about time we freakin accepted this, instead of using distorted moralities and twisted religion to try and excuse, wall off and deny it ?
You wanna see where THAT goes, just watch the movie Equilibrium.
The more we try to deny our own humanity the more warped the forms in which it finally expresses itself, and to be blunt, life has risks, and consequences, and trying to make everyone "safe" from every damn thing on the planet leads to a rubber room and a box of crayons in some scene right out of Demolition Man.
Everytime we deny our own humanity, it cripples us, makes us less than we should be, less than we could be, and I for one, am not an advocate of murdering the only thing that separates us from what amounts to sentient savagery of a most brutal stripe.
Maybe that won't get across, cause it sounds convoluted even to me - so let's sum it up simple.
I believe that honesty is the best policy for such education...
And that the Trojan Man oughta be a national hero.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My mother was an extraordinary women, who at a very young age naively bought in the free-love bullshit of the 60s. She did a remarkable job raising me and my various siblings. She also graduated with a Nursing degree with a 4.0 GPA at 34. She was an exceptional woman, who could have done far better with her life, had it not been for her experimentation with sex at such a young age.
Yeah. My mom had it pretty rough too and had a lot to cope with. Good for your mom, really, and good for you. Maybe she bitches about the way things turned out or maybe she doesn't. Either way, I'll bet there's a lot of great memories she has well before you were born and all while you were growing up. Many people would love to go back and do things differently knowing what they know now, but who's to say that we wouldn't do twice as bad the second time around? Who is to say that if we had that oppurtunity we might not hesitate on something and miss out on the best thing that could have ever happened to us in either timeline?
That's just being a kid. You can't blame a movement for that. Look at kids today.... they all wanna be gangstas and rock stars. Win some, lose some. If the world were full of people who won all the time, nobody would appreciate it because they'd be too wrapped up in their own perfection. It's always possible that life would have turned out better could we go back, but there's always the chance that things could have been horrible, because even if we had total control of our situation as a kid knowing what we know now, there are always external influences which deal horrible blows to us.
Besides.... maybe if you asked her, after having raised you from birth, your mother wouldn't have changed a thing for the world.
Wow.... I just thought of that movie Mr. Destiny and I'm kind of taking it to a whole new level in my mind now.
Quote:
Ever notice how poverty and crime is rampant among African-American and Hispanic communities? A large part of it has to do with children having children they can’t afford to take care of. In fact, over 80% of teen pregnancies (ages 15-19) are from African-Americana and Hispanic girls.
Surly I have, and I don't think that our two points are mere coincidence. People with money tend to have less kids. I'd imagine that there are very many psychological and social reasons for this that I've never even contemplated or discussed with anyone else. It would probably make a great thread to discuss.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Many people would love to go back and do things differently knowing what they know now, but who's to say that we wouldn't do twice as bad the second time around? Who is to say that if we had that oppurtunity we might not hesitate on something and miss out on the best thing that could have ever happened to us in either timeline?"
Hello,
I may be about to reveal my geekiness, but there was a GREAT episode of TNG that dealt with this question in what I considered to be a very good way.
Captain Picard was dying from a heart attack. The reason he was dying was that his heart was a synthetic replacement that was particularly susceptible to an energy discharge he'd encountered.
As he ascended to the afterlife, he met an entity who claimed to be God. This entity explained that he was dying and why. Picard recalled that if he had not lived as an impetuous and brash youth, he would never have gotten into a barfight where his original heart was damaged. Thus, he'd still have his original heart. And so, he would still be alive.
The entity gave him the ability to go back and change his behavior for the few days surrounding the bar fight. He went back and did indeed change his behavior. In the process of making the 'right' decisions, he alienated friends and established himself as a guy who never took any chances.
Restored to the present timeline, he found himself no longer a Captain, but an unassuming junior officer who had never achieved anything spectacular in his life. Finding this banal existence more painful than death, he begged to undo his changes.
So he went back and had his fight, and got stabbed through the heart.
And he laughed in happiness, knowing that everything would unfold exactly as it should... and that he would be the man he wanted to be.
I really liked that episode a lot. The only thing that would have made it more perfect is if Picard actually died at the end.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What do you mean by "irresponsible"? I'll bet my definition is different than yours. And how do you propose to get from here to there?
I don’t want my children making irresponsible decisions with regard to sex, what is there to know? If you have a specific question I’ll try answer it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"Many people would love to go back and do things differently knowing what they know now, but who's to say that we wouldn't do twice as bad the second time around? Who is to say that if we had that oppurtunity we might not hesitate on something and miss out on the best thing that could have ever happened to us in either timeline?"
Hello,
I may be about to reveal my geekiness, but there was a GREAT episode of TNG that dealt with this question in what I considered to be a very good way.
Captain Picard was dying from a heart attack. The reason he was dying was that his heart was a synthetic replacement that was particularly susceptible to an energy discharge he'd encountered.
As he ascended to the afterlife, he met an entity who claimed to be God. This entity explained that he was dying and why. Picard recalled that if he had not lived as an impetuous and brash youth, he would never have gotten into a barfight where his original heart was damaged. Thus, he'd still have his original heart. And so, he would still be alive.
The entity gave him the ability to go back and change his behavior for the few days surrounding the bar fight. He went back and did indeed change his behavior. In the process of making the 'right' decisions, he alienated friends and established himself as a guy who never took any chances.
Restored to the present timeline, he found himself no longer a Captain, but an unassuming junior officer who had never achieved anything spectacular in his life. Finding this banal existence more painful than death, he begged to undo his changes.
So he went back and had his fight, and got stabbed through the heart.
And he laughed in happiness, knowing that everything would unfold exactly as it should... and that he would be the man he wanted to be.
I really liked that episode a lot. The only thing that would have made it more perfect is if Picard actually died at the end.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Well.... all geekeyness excused, there probably isn't many better analogies than that to what I said. I actually find it hard to believe that I've never seen that episode considering how many episodes of TNG and DS9 I've seen on Spike TV over the last 3 or so years. Amazing how it again makes me question whether I've ever had an origianal thought in the first place, or if I'm just speaking idealisms which were parts of things I've witnessed on TV or movies in the past which spoke to me.
And however harsh it may sound that it could have only been better if Pecard had died at the end, I've seen "Stranger than Fiction" and believe very much that the author of the story who made Will Farell live at the end probably killed her career in the process. I know exactly what you're saying. Perhaps it is an instinctual influence which makes so many of us attracted to the sacrafice of oneself for their idealism.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It took me a bit to find the episode. It was called 'Tapestry.' Here is a link to a more complete synopsis and detail:
http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/241.html
I think that the reason we see sacrifice as a noble enterprise is because it necessitates the overcoming of instinct. Those that can overcome the lizard survival instinct and make a conscious sacrifice for their ideals have demonstrated that they are evolved past animalism.
Unfortunately, some lines of evolution are dead ends. Note the suicide bomber, who also sacrifices himself for his ideals...
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sure if you can't get your point across with reason, attacking me personally will make up for that. Or not, whatever.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes, I realize that you’re intent upon ignoring the issue because you don’t like religious type, but the fact remains that abstinent-only programs are directed at children and young people, not adults.
Quote:I get what you're saying, what I don't get is how me saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" is a strawman, but you saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" isn't.
There are precious few abstinence-only programs directed at unmarried 30-something men and women. The fact remains that the whole idea behind the abstinence only program is that young people should avoid sex until they are ready, which in this case is defined as marriage.
It would be just as easy, and indeed valid for me to say "they want to stop sex before marriage, and they're excuse is health" as it is for you to say "they want to improve peoples health and their selfless crusade is fulfilled only by Christian marriage principles". Frankly implying I'm just anti-religious doesn't make your position any stronger, quite the opposite in fact. It's also a load of crap. I don't care which of us can spin the facts where, the fact is they want to stop sex before marriage, anything besides that is a rationalisation.
Frankly I don't buy into your seeming false dichotomy of "no sex before marriage" or "everyone having sex with each other from the age of 15" (I say a seeming false dichotomy, because the only options you seem to be espousing are "no sex before marriage" or "Sodom meets Gomorrah"). I also don't accept that teaching children that sex is wrong unless they're married, and giving no information besides that, can ultimately for the majority be anything but harmful.
Personally I think when someone’s ready is a personal choice, not an arbitrary limit given by a group with admitted religious links, who are likely taking their cue from religious dogma as much from Science or Health measures. For some people waiting for marriage might be right, others it might not, and waiting for marriage could easily lead to hasty poorly thought out marriages, a product of over zealous drunk people and an all night chapel in Vegas. It's much better to give people the information they need to make informed decisions, because saying "just don't do it!" will just lead to people still doing it, but without the information necessary to prevent themselves getting into trouble.
EDIT: To add some clarification, and the last paragraph.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not attacking. But it’s just like you insisting that the Bible isn’t an historical text, because Christian use it as a religious text. Same kind of thing, I think.
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm sure if you can't get your point across with reason, attacking me personally will make up for that. Or not, whatever.
Quote:Anytime a simpler argument is substituted for a more correct, but complicated, one, it is a straw man.
Originally posted by citizen:
I get what you're saying, what I don't get is how me saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" is a strawman, but you saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" isn't.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is an Ad Hominem attack. You're not going after my argument, you're going after me. That's what an Ad Hominem means. If I'm just basing it on a preconceived Bias as you suggest, my position should be easy enough to refute, so you shouldn't need to go after my preconceived anti-Christian bias. I could easily say you're just a pro-Christian; I don't because it would only harm my own position. You want to carry down this tired road of "don't listen to him, he's just and anti-X" go ahead; it only harms your position, not mine.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not attacking. But it’s just like you insisting that the Bible isn’t an historical text, because Christian use it as a religious text. Same kind of thing, I think.
My argument, I recall for the bible, was not that it wasn’t a historical text, but that because it’s a religious text it can’t be held as accurate as a solely historical text. The two arguments are completely different, and the fact you prescribe to me that other argument brings us quite conveniently to what the definition of a Strawman argument really is.
Quote:Not really. What I said wasn't a Strawman, it doesn't speak to motive, but it never intended to. You are bringing the strawman in by impressing on my argument an note of intention that I never made. As for their intentions, as I said your statement is no better than mine.
Anytime a simpler argument is substituted for a more correct, but complicated, one, it is a straw man.
EDITED for clarity.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, of course that’s what she said. She never told me she didn’t want me, but I’m old enough now to know what she gave up and to know that she gave it up because of a mistake. I don’t have a problem with that. Mistakes happen, but it’s how you deal with those mistake that matter. My mother may not have taken responsibility in time to save her future, but she certainly did to save mine, and for that I’m grateful. It doesn’t mean I want my daughters to suffer that way. There have got to be easier ways to learn those lessons.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Besides.... maybe if you asked her, after having raised you from birth, your mother wouldn't have changed a thing for the world.
Quote:Eh, probably not. It would simply be used to call Whitey the scourge of the land, instead of any real socio-political analysis.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Surly I have, and I don't think that our two points are mere coincidence. People with money tend to have less kids. I'd imagine that there are very many psychological and social reasons for this that I've never even contemplated or discussed with anyone else. It would probably make a great thread to discuss.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not attacking you, at all. Calling a statement you made a straw man, whether true or not (and it is true) is not in any conceivable way attacking you personally.
Originally posted by citizen:
It is an Ad Hominem attack. You're not going after my argument, you're going after me. That's what an Ad Hominem means. If I'm just basing it on a preconceived Bias as you suggest, my position should be easy enough to refute, so you shouldn't need to go after my preconceived anti-Christian bias. I could easily say you're just a pro-Christian; I don't because it would only harm my own position. You want to carry down this tired road of "don't listen to him, he's just and anti-X" go ahead; it only harms your position, not mine.
Quote:First of all that’s not what I said. What I actually said, was “According to this study if you start having sex at a young age, which is what the abstinence-only crowd is trying to prevent …” In other words, what the Abstinence Only crowd is actually trying to do is prevent young people from having sex at a young age. Using marriage as a solution to this is simply a convenience that meets the religious opinions of many in this group and it has been used to deal with this vary issue for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. You then insist up on this simplified argument as a substitute (a straw man) that the Abstinence Only crowd wants to stop people from having sex before marriage, but that’s an oversimplification, because the Abstinence Only Programs are not directed at unmarried adults, just unmarried young people.
Originally posted by citizen:
I get what you're saying, what I don't get is how me saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" is a strawman, but you saying "they want to stop sex before marriage" isn't.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think we both know that, that is not what I was calling an attack. Ironically though it is a strawman on your part, because you're misrepresenting what I was saying. I very clearly stated that you trying to paint me as 'Anti-Religious', going after me rather than my argument was what formed the Ad Hominem.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not attacking you, at all. Calling a statement you made a straw man, whether true or not (and it is true) is not in any conceivable way attacking you personally.
I clearly noted in the quote you have in your post that I was talking about your attempt to paint me as "anti-Christian" and not your usage of the word 'Strawman'. In fact the word Strawman appears in neither my quote, nor the quote I was replying too, so I don't know how you could possibly have become confused as to that point. Perhaps you are being obtuse on purpose?
Do you have an answer to my earlier point, or do you prefer to stretch this red herring as far as it will go?
EDIT:
I've just seen the ammendment to your post, give me a moment.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s not an ad hominem either. It’s an observation. Once again, I’m still not attack you personally; it’s your argument I’m talking about. You may not agree with it, but it’s one I’ve noted on several occasions. Another thing I’ve noted on several occasions is that when you don’t like the way someone interprets your position, you often falsely accuse them of ad hominem, perhaps as a Red Herring. Maybe you should simply clarify or in many cases, just accept the observation. I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that you’re position on this board has not been largely opposed to religious thinking, so it’s not hard to view your position as being “anti-religious.”
Originally posted by citizen:
I think we both know that, that is not what I was calling an attack. Ironically though it is a strawman on your part, because you're misrepresenting what I was saying. I very clearly stated that you trying to paint me as 'Anti-Religious', going after me rather than my argument was what formed the Ad Hominem.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To be fair Finn, you do do the "That's what I'd expect, coming from a ****** " quite a bit. It's never occurred to me to call you a Neo-Con or a 'Repuglican', because frankly, your views are too complicated and varied to be pigeonholed so simply. But you do tend to throw out anti-religious and anti-lefty labels rather, er, liberally
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not attacking you, at all.
.Just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
isn't balance a large part of martial arts?
Craneisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, I do. I do evaluate people’s arguments based on my impression of their past positions, and that often leads to labeling positions a certain way. For some people, particularly those who adhere to certain ideologies, those labels work well. For others, the labels are less easily applied but they still help to categorize opinions so that they can be discussed.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:To be fair Finn, you do do the "That's what I'd expect, coming from a ****** " quite a bit. It's never occurred to me to call you a Neo-Con or a 'Repuglican', because frankly, your views are too complicated and varied to be pigeonholed so simply. But you do tend to throw out anti-religious and anti-lefty labels rather, er, liberally
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not attacking you, at all.
For myself, Neo-Con may not be a perfect label, but it probably applies well in certain areas and Republican, being a rather big tent description of many Conservative and Liberal opinions probably applies often, but less specifically. Liberal also applies sometimes, and even anti-religious, but probably not often enough to gain much of an impression in people’s minds.
“Repuglican” is a derogatory spelling of Republican, and that probably would be an ad hominem, because it's designed to insult a person or demean a position.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would argue that is is the CORE of any true system.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
isn't balance a large part of martial arts?
Chrisisall-Fu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Finn, I was ready to have a detailed discussion of your and my views, but I see you entirely ignored my invitation to elucidate your point (whatever it is). Also, three different people have tagged you with your reply to Citizen which you keep rationalizing, so obviously nothing from you is accurate. And every time someone has you on the ropes logically, you avoid the issues and lash out instead. Which is just what I'd expect from an know-nothing reactionary. That's not an attack, by the way, that's an observation.
See? Doesn't feel so good coming from the other direction, does it?
So, if you would care to reply to the many requests for you to discuss your viewpoint, feel free. We will likely not attack you as frequently as you attack others.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But why? You don't need labels to argue issues.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I do evaluate people’s arguments based on my impression of their past positions, and that often leads to labeling positions a certain way.
Quote:Okay- I'm officially lost here. How do labels categorizing positions assist discussions?
For others, the labels are less easily applied but they still help to categorize opinions so that they can be discussed.
For instance, when Hero says something, I either agree with it, or argue another viewpoint- labeling Hero (which would be easy IMO
) doesn't help in my discussion...(Sidebar: Hero has been much more reasonable lately since he's been satisfied sexually-
GIRLFRIEND OF HERO, TAKE A BOW!)
Quote:Yeah, well, Bush calling himself a Republican is already an insult to good Republicans IMO
“Repuglican” is a derogatory spelling of Republican, and that probably would be an ad hominem, because it's designed to insult a person or demean a position.
Contentious Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn has demonstrated extensive knowledge on a wide range of subjects, Signy. I don't believe that is even debatable, and therefore I judge your ad-hominem to be inaccurate.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which is just what I'd expect from an know-nothing reactionary.
"Know-it-all reactionary" might have been a better shot.
Still just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, know-it-all reactionary then! I was just grabbing for any old label. 
I really like your point about labels getting in the way of discussion. I find several kinds of "discussions" on the board. The two that always seem to conflict are those who reach for "the truth" within the way they feel, and those who reach for "the truth" within the way they think. And it doesn't seem to matter which side of the ideological divide they fall, I've seen both on both sides.
Those who reach for the truth in how they feel about a topic seems to use labels more often. It's as if they feel that if they can only express what they feel in the most pithy manner possible they have made their point. And that utterly disconnects with those who want to explore how people think on a topic. A pithy expression of deeply held opinion doesn't "qualify" as discussion.
I THINK I'm the "thinking" type. I don't "get" expressions of opinion, no matter how deeply held. I can only seem to understand when people go from point A to B, C, then D. But I'm sure my arguments seem like so much "ratioanlization" to the feeling-types, who really want to know how I feel about a topic.
So, Finn.... would it make you more comfortable if I expressed how I FELT?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've certainly tossed about my share...then I started calling peeps 'bipeds' in a derogatory way- it can't be fully offensive OR denied!
Originally posted by SignyM:
I really like your point about labels getting in the way of discussion.
Silly silly Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Finn? What say you?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interestingly, this was on cnn
Teen Births up for First Time in 15 YearsQuote:
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- In a troubling reversal, the nation's teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials and reviving the bitter debate about abstinence-only sex education. The rise in teen births may be a statistical blip and not the beginning of a new upward trend, officials said.
The birth rate had been dropping since its peak in 1991, although the decline had slowed in recent years. On Wednesday, government statisticians said it rose 3 percent from 2005 to 2006. The reason for the increase is not clear, and federal health officials said it might be a one-year statistical blip, not the beginning of a new upward trend.
However, some experts said they have been expecting a jump. They attributed it to increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that doesn't teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception. Some key sexually transmitted disease rates have also been rising, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The rising teen pregnancy rate is part of the same phenomenon, said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.
www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/05/teen.births.ap/index.html
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are we supposed to trust that ultra-left wing source, Signy?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Interestingly, this was on cnn
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well that's better, since you've actually explained your position (as you later tell me I should) I understand where you're coming from. However, your basis for calling what I said a strawman is unsound, because it requires an inference of motive that simply wasn't there, and seems to stem from your own preconceived bias against me. I merely stated that they want to stop sex before marriage, which is what they want to do. Anything beyond that is motive, and I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to point I was addressing. Yes, if having sex younger is bad for your health, it logically follows that you should encourage youngsters to wait until they are older, but it does not logically follow that they should wait until they are married. The article does not mention marriage, so by focusing only on what you say is the motive, you seem to be trying to slip in an admission that the 'Abstinence only' crowd are correct about their only after marriage slant.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all that’s not what I said. What I actually said, was “According to this study if you start having sex at a young age, which is what the abstinence-only crowd is trying to prevent …” In other words, what the Abstinence Only crowd is actually trying to do is prevent young people from having sex at a young age. Using marriage as a solution to this is simply a convenience that meets the religious opinions of many in this group and it has been used to deal with this vary issue for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. You then insist up on this simplified argument as a substitute (a straw man) that the Abstinence Only crowd wants to stop people from having sex before marriage, but that’s an oversimplification, because the Abstinence Only Programs are not directed at unmarried adults, just unmarried young people.
Like putting a bill through congress as a package deal, if you want this you have to have this. They may be totally correct in the reason behind what they want to do, but that doesn't mean what they want to do is correct. Since I was arguing against what they want to do, and not why they want to do it, their reasoning is entirely irrelevant to anything I was saying, which is why I didn't make any mention of motive, only end result.
Quote:You said that I'm Anti-Religious, it couldn't be clearer that you are talking about me and not my argument. You can call it "just an observation" if you like, but it makes it no less an Ad Hominem, which is short for argumentum ad hominem, which is latin for "argument against the man". If you're saying I am this, or I am that it's a text book definition of an Ad Hominem. An Ad Hominem isn't necessarily an insult, it's an argument towards or against the arguer, and not their argument.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not an ad hominem either. It’s an observation. Once again, I’m still not attack you personally; it’s your argument I’m talking about.
Quote:No, I don't, and to be honest I really could not care less about what you think of me personally. Argue against my position, not the person making it. But to delve to those levels myself briefly, since we're making 'personal observations', I find you rather too often rely on phrases like “well you're just anti-this” or “pro-that, so you would say that”. I've said it already, but I'll say it again, if I were merely running with a preconceived bias, my argument would be using that bias as a corner stone, and thus would be entirely unsound and easily argued against. So, if you are in fact correct with your accusation, you'd never need to make it, because my argument would crumble when exposed to logic.
You may not agree with it, but it’s one I’ve noted on several occasions.
Quote:I've made the Ad Hominem accusation only when someone has attack
Another thing I’ve noted on several occasions is that when you don’t like the way someone interprets your position, you often falsely accuse them of ad hominem, perhaps as a Red Herring.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, you're all care-free about what the world thinks of you personally, meaning what? You suddenly see us as ants and you're all above us- and no one is as smart as you are? And if there's a God- you're it, 'cause no one is as righteous? Well, if you're God, as you clearly must be saying from all this, why can't you get a cheaper flat????
Originally posted by citizen:
to be honest I really could not care less about what you think of me personally.
UberstrawChrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME