Abstinence, AIDS and the White House

[Ravenstorm]

More moronic policy that puts religious values over people's lives.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58041

Raven

[Hulkein]

Nice.

[TheEschaton]

This is the kind of shit which makes my job so hard.

Living in the community, trying to promote condom use...

"...but I heard condoms will GIVE you AIDS..."

"I heard that the condoms have HIV in them..."

"I was told condoms are a sin, and the Bible forbids them..."

If these abstinence only programs actually taught abstinence in a healthy, correct manner, it might work, but the problem with most abstinence programs are that they are a) mainly religious based, and thus moralizing, and b) usually spreading misinformation about anything but condom use.

That being said, I'm all about "delay of sexual debut" programs. Kids shouldn't be having sex at the age of 12, especially when 1 in 4 people has HIV.

-TheE-

[Apotheosis]

Fuck it. I'm at the point where social darwinism looks like the only way that the human race is going to survive......

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah I can't believe they're mostly advocating the only method that's 100% guaranteed to prevent AIDS.

And why exactly is the term "whistleblower" in the title? Is this really some sort of surprise to anyone, anywhere?

Also:
greater financial independence for women.WTF did this come from? Isn't this something that should be encouraged because it's the right thing to do, not because it supposedly helps prevent AIDS?

[Warriorbird]

Because, clearly, telling people not to have sex is terribly effective at making people have safe sex.

If only that wasn't statistically completely untrue...

If only your prudery was actually effective...

Sadly enough, this is the real world. Keeping people stupid only works at winning elections.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Yeah I can't believe they're mostly advocating the only method that's 100% guaranteed to prevent AIDS.


Let's say that abstinence is 100% effective, but a feasible option for only 10% of the population.

Let's say condom use is 90% effective, but is feasible for 80% of the population.

Which one does it make sense to put money in?

Jorddyn

P.S. I did not take the time to search for actual statistics, so I used numbers that seemed reasonable. Even if you triple the abstinence percentage and half the effectiveness of condoms, the point still stands.

[CrystalTears]

Sure, teach abstinence if you want, and let people know that it's 100% effective against HIV.

That being said, you should also have other options available since telling people they should stop having sex altogether is not a viable solution either.

[TheEschaton]

Abstinence is feasibly for very few people. Not having sex is not a natural instinct. Yes, it's 100% effective, but if you KNOW how to USE a condom effectively, a condom is 99% effective.


-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Pinch the tip.........hard.

-M

on a note of seriousness, I agree with what CT just said.

[TheEschaton]

Of the condom, not the penis!

Although that might be effective in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS too.


-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
That being said, you should also have other options available since telling people they should stop having sex altogether is not a viable solution either.
The number in the article said 66%. That leaves a ton to spend on non-abstinence teaching.
Originally posted by TheEschaton
Abstinence is feasibly for very few people.For a guy who espouses personal responsibility, this is a bit much.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Because, clearly, telling people not to have sex is terribly effective at making people have safe sex.Because a conditional is a command now. Clearly.
Originally posted by Jorddyn
Which one does it make sense to put money in? I refuse to believe that humanity is in such poor shape that we are unable to disobey the lizard part of our brains. The "not feasible" argument is very much akin to saying "it just isn't feasible/natural for morbidly obese people to not eat as much".

[TheEschaton]

I myself am responsible concerning my own sexual habits. And I do espouse responsibility - and using a condom is responsible.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Once upon a time in India they had a tremendous spiralling of AIDs cases. The government proceeded to start suggesting abstinence and personal responsibility with the majority of their funding. Nothing helped. Time passed, and they got a Health minister who came up with this novel idea of spending funding to provide condoms and a vast education program about using them.

The rate of new infection dropped dramatically.

Your sanctimonious nonsense and semantics tossing is pretty pointless here, Latrin.

[Wezas]

(I guess my last post didn't work)

Car Accident Fatalities:

100% effective = hiding at home 24/7
95% effective = seatbelts, airbags, education

Personally, I'd rather have the money spent on seatbelts, airbags, and education - rather then advocating people hide at home.

[DeV]

I wonder if the people that set these ridiculous policies have any idea just how good sex is. The spread of AIDS is on the rise in certain groups and they've been preaching abstinence for years. Way to be blaringly obvious that abstinence is the most 100% effective method of preventing that. Now all they need to do is face reality and get with an actual program that will yield *effective* results. This abstinence shit isn't working. How many "signs from God" they need to realize this, we'll not know soon it seems.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by DeV]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Which one does it make sense to put money in? I refuse to believe that humanity is in such poor shape that we are unable to disobey the lizard part of our brains. The "not feasible" argument is very much akin to saying "it just isn't feasible/natural for morbidly obese people to not eat as much".

The difference is that being morbidly obese means that there is something wrong.

Having sex does not.

Jorddyn

[Apotheosis]

All I have to say is that personal responsibility is an issue. Why should people not some risk based on their actions.

We do not live in a risk free world. You can manage risk, however, all you can do is manage it.

If people cannot control their own impulses, then they deserve what follows, I am sorry, but that is just how it happens.


You can never be free from the consequences of your actions, no matter how hard you try to ignore it.

[StrayRogue]

It makes me laugh that people actually voted for this government.

[Apotheosis]

On a slightly related note:


http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=48816Students


Students Arrested For Oral Sex In Classroom

12/13/2005 11pm report

By First Coast News Staff

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Three First Coast students are facing criminal charges after a teacher says they were involved in oral sex in the classroom.

Christopher Lemay, 18, is accused of paying a 16-year-old-girl to perform the act on another boy at Sandalwood High. Those two are under-age, so First Coast News is not releasing their identities.

Sandalwood administrators say the act happened under a table in a large class full of students, so the teacher had limited visibility.

The news is catching even veteran educators by surprise.

"It is not indicative of any school in Duval County," said Acting Principal Jack Shanklin.

"I've been in education a long time and I have never seen a situation like this in any educational setting," he said.

All three students have been assigned to alternative schools.

© 2004-2005 First Coast News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Apotheosis]

Yes, apparently sex education is doing wonders at teaching the youth about appropriate and safe behaviors.

^

[Parkbandit]

An anonymous U.S. government official

I stopped reading this piece right about there...

If this anonymous US government official also said George W Bush is the best President ever.. I would give it the same attention.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Yswithe
If people cannot control their own impulses, then they deserve what follows, I am sorry, but that is just how it happens.


So, even though a way to limit the risk is available (read: condoms), no one should know about them. All we should tell them is "If you have sex, you might die", and then let them choose?

Jorddyn

[DeV]

Originally posted by Yswithe
If people cannot control their own impulses, then they deserve what follows, I am sorry, but that is just how it happens.
Innocent people suffer the consequences of AIDS as well. Notably children. They don't deserve what follows.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Yswithe
Yes, apparently sex education is doing wonders at teaching the youth about appropriate and safe behaviors.

^

Well... at least they're practicing a safer sex and won't risk pregnancy? :D

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Yswithe
Yes, apparently sex education is doing wonders at teaching the youth about appropriate and safe behaviors.


Obviously, the problem is the sex education at school.

It couldn't be two parents who work long hours to buy the kid everything s/he wants.

It couldn't be the parents who refuse to discuss sex, behavior, and consequences with their children because ignorance is better than education.

It couldn't be the pressure from their peers, or the general acceptability and expectedness of sexual behaviour at a young age.

Nope. Gotta be the sex ed class.

Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Your sanctimonious nonsense and semantics tossing is pretty pointless here, Latrin.Once upon a time in New York City, there was a big problem with subway safety. Nothing helped. Then a guy came along with a gun and shot 4 kids (thieves, but kids nonetheless). That guy was never robbed again.

Remind me not to ride the subway with you, WB.

Oh yeah, and remind yourself that before you make an anecdotal claim, you should probably make sure the statements that you base that claim on aren't "plainly impossible" (thanks for the sound bite, Mr. Pilot). Endorse them all you want, just don't make up stats, k?
Originally posted by Wezas
Personally, I'd rather have the money spent on seatbelts, airbags, and education - rather then advocating people hide at home.The main flaw in your analogy is that abstinence is not being promoted as a forever activity, it's being promoted as a pre-marriage activity (the issues between marriage and committed, non-marital relationships aside). Similarly, driving is not legal for anyone to do at any time.

And as an aside, making 4-point seatbelts the standard would turn that number to 99.9999999%, if what my gearhead friend in HS said was true.
Originally posted by Jorddyn
The difference is that being morbidly obese means that there is something wrong.

Having sex does not. So.. you agree that it is unfeasible for morbidly obese people to simply not eat as much, or that both feasibility arguments are wrong?
no one should know about them.Again, 66% is the cited figure, not 100%.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Yswithe
Yes, apparently sex education is doing wonders at teaching the youth about appropriate and safe behaviors.


Obviously, the problem is the sex education at school.

It couldn't be two parents who work long hours to buy the kid everything s/he wants.

It couldn't be the parents who refuse to discuss sex, behavior, and consequences with their children because ignorance is better than education.

It couldn't be the pressure from their peers, or the general acceptability and expectedness of sexual behaviour at a young age.

Nope. Gotta be the sex ed class.

Jorddyn

That should be read as /sarcasm on my part.

[ElanthianSiren]

How does the misconduct of three teenagers equate that abstinence-only education is the way to go? Following that mentality should assure us that the misconduct of political officials warrants anarchy. Clearly, the three kids in question have social problems that extend BEYOND their sexuality.

-M

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Yswithe
If people cannot control their own impulses, then they deserve what follows, I am sorry, but that is just how it happens.


So, even though a way to limit the risk is available (read: condoms), no one should know about them. All we should tell them is "If you have sex, you might die", and then let them choose?

Jorddyn

I guess the main point of what I am trying to get across is A> promote abstinence first, and B> promote condoms as a safer alternative, but not 100% by any means.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Yswithe
If people cannot control their own impulses, then they deserve what follows, I am sorry, but that is just how it happens.
Innocent people suffer the consequences of AIDS as well. Notably children. They don't deserve what follows.

Yes, that's entirely true. Innocent people suffer consequences of other peoples poor choices all the time.

If you are aware of the risk, and do nothing to avoid or limit it, then you deserve to remove yourself from the gene pool.

I can't believe that after thousands of years of history, as well as learning from others mistakes, that they don't know. I can only assume that they don't care at that point.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The main flaw in your analogy is that abstinence is not being promoted as a forever activity, it's being promoted as a pre-marriage activity (the issues between marriage and committed, non-marital relationships aside). Similarly, driving is not legal for anyone to do at any time.

Nor is sex (in its various forms) legal for anyone to do at anytime.

Additionally, who says no-sex-before-marriage isn't a forever activity? I'd like to be married someday, but how can you guarantee it? If I never marry, can I have sex someday anyway? At what age? Can I marry someone I don't love just so that I can have sex? What if I marry someone I do love, and he beats me, and we then we then divorce? Isn't divorce as bad as premarital sex? What happens if I remarry?

In other words, it is hardly as black and white as you make it seem.



Originally posted by Jorddyn
The difference is that being morbidly obese means that there is something wrong.

Having sex does not.
So.. you agree that it is unfeasible for morbidly obese people to simply not eat as much, or that both feasibility arguments are wrong?

No, I do not. I agree that they are completely different beasts. One is an extremely unhealthy, unnatural state. The other is a morality imposed restriction.



no one should know about them.Again, 66% is the cited figure, not 100%.

Ah, well that's much better. We're only spending 2/3 of the total on the one that doesn't provide as much benefit.

Jorddyn

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
How does the misconduct of three teenagers equate that abstinence-only education is the way to go? Following that mentality should assure us that the misconduct of political officials warrants anarchy. Clearly, the three kids in question have social problems that extend BEYOND their sexuality.

-M

Apparently this is a symptom of the change in social attitudes towards sex.

40 years ago, hell, even 20, this would not be in the news (most likely because it never would have occurred).

I'm saying abstinence first, barring that, use protection, but by no means promote protection (condem,etc.) as 100% effective.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Ah, well that's much better. We're only spending 2/3 of the total on the one that doesn't provide as much benefit.

Jorddyn

That's because you fail to see any benefit in promoting abstinence. In addition to the health problems, abstinence covers the emotional issues as well.

Teens are confused enough, and psychologists/scientists have proven that they're not 100% emotionally developed until late teens/early 20s anyway. (in most cases, there are always exceptions, but they're the outliers and not the norm).

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Yswithe

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
How does the misconduct of three teenagers equate that abstinence-only education is the way to go? Following that mentality should assure us that the misconduct of political officials warrants anarchy. Clearly, the three kids in question have social problems that extend BEYOND their sexuality.

-M

Apparently this is a symptom of the change in social attitudes towards sex.

40 years ago, hell, even 20, this would not be in the news (most likely because it never would have occurred).

I'm saying abstinence first, barring that, use protection, but by no means promote protection (condem,etc.) as 100% effective.

You can't promote a condom as 100% effective because it isn't. Even prescriptions like depoprovera are only 99.96% effective.

I promise you that 40 years ago, kids were sneaking around to fondle and pleasure each other (1965). I would argue that you didn't hear about it because newspapers had more tact and didn't disclose that type of behavior.

-M
edited because I forgot a 9. Nobody panic. 99.96

[Edited on Wed, December th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Apotheosis]

Melissa. this is hardly sneaking around. this was in a classroom, during class.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm agreeing with you that it's unfortunate, but I'm saying I don't think it's statistically significant.

-M

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I stopped reading this piece right about there...

If this anonymous US government official also said George W Bush is the best President ever.. I would give it the same attention.

You'll continue to remain ignorant then because the above mentioned anonymous official turned over an existing document. That he wishes to remain anonymous in no way invalidates an official, verifiable document.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
In other words, it is hardly as black and white as you make it seem.Either it is being promoted as a "hide in your pants 24/7" activity or it isn't. Sex is encouraged during marriage, therefore the abstinence program isn't as the analogy would suggest. As I said, the arbitrarily exaggerated disparity between marriage and committed, non-marital relationships is an important but tangential issue as to whether or not the analogy is sound.
One is an extremely unhealthy, unnatural state. The other is a morality imposed restriction. I contend that eating is as natural as sex (and a whole boatload of other things), and that while the likelihood of contracting a disease from one act of sex is infinitely higher than the likelihood of becoming morbidly obese from eating one sandwich (the likelihood of the second being 0), they are equally "feasible" for someone to reduce/ignore for a finite length of time.
Ah, well that's much better.Yep.

As to the document in question: While it's certainly a lot more trustworthy than the famous Downing Street Memos that somehow got destroyed before anyone see them (and while I have no problem believing the veracity of the report), verifiable is very, very different from verified.

Also, the article misquotes the report. While the guideline is 66%, the "no exceptions" blurb is in regards to AB programs not dropping during 05-06.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Yswithe

That's because you fail to see any benefit in promoting abstinence.

I see benefit in promoting abstinence. I see larger benefit in promoting safer sexual activity.

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

Oh yeah, and remind yourself that before you make an anecdotal claim, you should probably make sure the statements that you base that claim on aren't "plainly impossible" (thanks for the sound bite, Mr. Pilot). Endorse them all you want, just don't make up stats, k?

What nonsense, given your stance on citations. Do a little more research. But, then again, you tend to favor "faith based" facts so that's clearly pointless.


40 years ago, hell, even 20, this would not be in the news (most likely because it never would have occurred).

Ever read up on the Spur Posse or some of the teen based sex scandals of the 1960's? (Note: I'm suggesting a 20 year old scandal and a 40 year old bunch of scandals...not meaning to say the Spur Posse happened in the 1960's. Also, mind you, the Glen Ridge rape is closer to being 20 years old. The Spur Posse event was just 12 or so. Needless to say, sex is nothing new. Stuff like that has been happening for a long time, it's more a matter of it being reportedly differently these days in my opinion.)



Once upon a time in New York City, there was a big problem with subway safety. Nothing helped. Then a guy came along with a gun and shot 4 kids (thieves, but kids nonetheless). That guy was never robbed again.

And guess what, I think that shooting played into the anti grafitti efforts that ended up cleaning up the New York subways. I'm so not getting how this invalidates my point, oh pinnacle of sanctimoniousness. To be more accurate (yet still ineffective in disproving me) you could suggest not participating in a robbery of my apartment, because I would most definitely attempt to kill your punk ass.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

An article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html) from 2004 on federally funded abstinence programs.


Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
---------------------------------------

How in the F, with findings like these, can the federal government still support such inadequate programs?

[Jorddyn]

One is an extremely unhealthy, unnatural state. The other is a morality imposed restriction. I contend that eating is as natural as sex (and a whole boatload of other things),


Honestly, clear this up for me, so I can know what I'm debating against.

Is having sex like like being morbidly obese, is having sex like eating, or is having sex like eating so much that you become morbidly obese?

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

How in the F, with findings like these, can the federal government still support such inadequate programs?

Because of folks who like to engage in willful stupidity.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Is having sex like like being morbidly obese, is having sex like eating, or is having sex like eating so much that you become morbidly obese?


I'll take what's behind door #2!

[Warriorbird]

Honestly, clear this up for me, so I can know what I'm debating against.

Is having sex like like being morbidly obese, is having sex like eating, or is having sex like eating so much that you become morbidly obese?

Jorddyn

No. You're just debating with a science major who likes to abuse logic like a philosophy major. He also tends to favor "faith based" justification.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Do a little more research.Indian guy claims that new AIDS cases have gone way, way down (to the tune of 400% decrease). UN guy says that's utterly impossible.
I'm so not getting how this invalidates my pointI would have thought that we could agree that shooting kids is wrong.
Originally posted by Jorddyn
Honestly, clear this up for me, so I can know what I'm debating against.The point we're debating is whether or not abstinence is feasible. Certainly the sex drive is as natural to humans as the hunger drive. An example of someone who cannot resist their hunger drive with any regularity is someone who is morbidly obese. If human drives are irresistable in the short-term sense, both of the following statements are true:
1. It's not feasible for most people to abstain from sex before marriage.
2. It's not feasible for some people to resist the urge to eat.

Certainly there is the question of degree, which I should have made clearer from the beginning, but otherwise I reckon it hangs together pretty well.

[Warriorbird]

The point we're debating is whether or not abstinence is feasible.

It's the fact that you're clearly discussing something different from the rest of us that makes you so flabbergasting to deal with.

You're like Michael Savage, sans all the hate speech and bile. It's funny. He has science degrees too.


The point we're debating is whether or not abstinence is feasible. Certainly the sex drive is as natural to humans as the hunger drive. An example of someone who cannot resist their hunger drive with any regularity is someone who is morbidly obese. If human drives are irresistable in the short-term sense, both of the following statements are true:
1. It's not feasible for most people to abstain from sex before marriage.
2. It's not feasible for some people to resist the urge to eat.

Certainly there is the question of degree, which I should have made clearer from the beginning, but otherwise I reckon it hangs together pretty well.

The issue here was funding "abstinence education" as 66% of all funds spent, not "whether abstinence is possible." Your underlying logic seems to be that all premarital sex is deeply amoral. A rational person might understand that not eating at all leads to death. Not having sex at all sure doesn't lead to death, but there's a level of sex possible that certainly doesn't lead to AIDs or teen pregnancy. Any sex at all is clearly bad to you, however, so abstinence education is the way to go, even though most of the programs are filled with religiously twisted inaccuracies and lead to more unsafe sex among the participants.

Then again, you're functioning from the safe sex is bad self-denial paradigm, so that isn't really all that suprising. I'm sorry. Your moral judgements seem to result in the lack of objective thinking.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Is having sex like like being morbidly obese, is having sex like eating, or is having sex like eating so much that you become morbidly obese?

Jorddyn rofl

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

The point we're debating is whether or not abstinence is feasible.

It's the fact that you're clearly discussing something different from the rest of us that makes you so flabbergasting to deal with.

You're like Michael Savage, sans all the hate speech and bile. It is understandable. He is a virgin.

I agree 100% with Jorddyn. Nothing can be taken away from the fact that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing HIV/AIDS/most STD's/Pregnancy and so on. It is not 100% effective in preventing people from wanting to have sex and fulfilling that want though.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. All that self-denial thinking tends to lead to a lot of problems for impractically religious types. Certain evangelists and certain monolithic globe spanning denominations come to mind.

Certain, "I want to stay a virgin" types can be a lot of fun, at least from what I remember. I got my introduction to another form of sex that wasn't a pregnancy risk from one. She was a great girl. I doubt Latrin's having that much fun and dealing with his urges that well, however. I imagine cilices, scourging, and cold showers.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
but there's a level of sex possible that certainly doesn't lead to AIDs or teen pregnancy.


Yeah no sex. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing either.



Originally posted by Latrinsorm
And as an aside, making 4-point seatbelts the standard would turn that number to 99.9999999%, if what my gearhead friend in HS said was true.


4 point seatbelts are worlds safer than 3 point seatbelts. They take about 20 seconds to buckle up though and people just can't be bothered to be safer.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Drew
4 point seatbelts are worlds safer than 3 point seatbelts. They take about 20 seconds to buckle up though and people just can't be bothered to be safer.

Or, perhaps people are not educated as to the benefits of proper use. Perhaps if people were educated, since we know they're going to keep driving, they would begin demanding that their vehicles wear... er... have 4 point seatbelts.

Jorddyn

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Once upon a time in India they had a tremendous spiralling of AIDs cases. The government proceeded to start suggesting abstinence and personal responsibility with the majority of their funding. Nothing helped. Time passed, and they got a Health minister who came up with this novel idea of spending funding to provide condoms and a vast education program about using them.

The rate of new infection dropped dramatically.

Your sanctimonious nonsense and semantics tossing is pretty pointless here, Latrin.

True in India, education and condoms have helped tremendously especially among the prostitutes frequented by truckers which was responsible for a large portion of the spread of Aids in India.

In Saudi Arabia where sex outside of marriage is heavily frowned upon and no one is distributing condoms at the local mall, the rate of the population that is infected with Aids is .01%. The rate of infection is one of the lowest in world, lower than the United States.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
This is the kind of shit which makes my job so hard.

Living in the community, trying to promote condom use...

"...but I heard condoms will GIVE you AIDS..."

"I heard that the condoms have HIV in them..."

I have heard this in Africa as well, I was shocked the first time. I was unaware that people believed this in America.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Drew
4 point seatbelts are worlds safer than 3 point seatbelts. They take about 20 seconds to buckle up though and people just can't be bothered to be safer.

Or, perhaps people are not educated as to the benefits of proper use. Perhaps if people were educated, since we know they're going to keep driving, they would begin demanding that their vehicles wear... er... have 4 point seatbelts.

Jorddyn


They were actually offered as an option on some car a long while back. A while back (before airbags were in every car) some automakers did some surveys and women overwhelming said they would never buy a car with 4 point belts, men were a bit more open, but not much. You'll never see them on cars unless the government mandates them and that will never happen.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah no sex. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing either.

Missing the point. Have you had sex before marriage? Do you have AIDs? If you don't, that's clearly the right amount of properly dealt with sex. If you haven't, we're already hearing from one self righteous virgin.


In Saudi Arabia where sex outside of marriage is heavily frowned upon and no one is distributing condoms at the local mall, the rate of the population that is infected with Aids is .01%. The rate of infection is one of the lowest in world, lower than the United States.

Saudi Arabia is clearly who we want to model ourselves after! I guess I was right about the Middle East helping theocratize us while we "democratize" them.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird



In Saudi Arabia where sex outside of marriage is heavily frowned upon and no one is distributing condoms at the local mall, the rate of the population that is infected with Aids is .01%. The rate of infection is one of the lowest in world, lower than the United States.

Saudi Arabia is clearly who we want to model ourselves after! I guess I was right about the Middle East helping theocratize us while we "democratize" them.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

My point simply was that abstinence education works in parts of the world very effectively. I have no problem with abstinence education in America in conjunction with programs on safer sex and condoms.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Yeah no sex. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing either.

Missing the point. Have you had sex before marriage? Do you have AIDs? If you don't, that's clearly the right amount of properly dealt with sex.


Have you played russian roulette before? Are you still alive? Apparently you played the right amount.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Drew]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The issue here was funding "abstinence education" as 66% of all funds spent, not "whether abstinence is possible." I don't remember claiming the point Jorddyn and I were discussing was the only issue involved with this entire topic.
Any sex at all is clearly bad to youSpeaking of flabbergasting.
Originally posted by Jorddyn
Or, perhaps people are not educated as to the benefits of proper use. Perhaps if people were educated, since we know they're going to keep driving, they would begin demanding that their vehicles wear... er... have 4 point seatbelts.You might appreciate the irony here: 4-point seatbelts are actually illegal in my home state. :)

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV
It is understandable. He is a virgin.

Wouldn't that make his arguments on this subject more credible? He's practicing what he preaches.

[Warriorbird]

I'll be Ophionic.

No.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The point we're debating is whether or not abstinence is feasible.

I think perhaps the problem we're having is that my definition of feasible is "likely or probable", while yours seems to be "possible".


Certainly the sex drive is as natural to humans as the hunger drive.

I totally agree.


An example of someone who cannot resist their hunger drive with any regularity is someone who is morbidly obese.

I totally agree.


If human drives are irresistable in the short-term sense,

... and this is where we disagree. I am not saying either drive is completely irresistable in the short term. Most people do a fine job of keeping their clothes on at work, in church, while at the gym, even when they see an attractive person. What you are asking isn't short term denial of an urge. You're asking long term denial of something that makes us human, based solely on your morality.

I'm also failing to see how from the day sex first seems like a good idea until if/when I ever get married is "short term".


both of the following statements are true:
1. It's not feasible for most people to abstain from sex before marriage.
2. It's not feasible for some people to resist the urge to eat.

I still can't make this jump with you. Why? They aren't the same thing, even to you.

It appears that to you, one is morally wrong in your eyes until that magical day some guy stands up and says "You may now screw the bride", and the other is only wrong when done to excess. Isn't anything to excess wrong?

Now, since the entire point of this thread isn't whether or not abstinence is feasible or not, but rather if the program is, how about a compromise?

1. It is ridiculous to design a program that requires to work: people resist human urges indefinitely, people of all different faiths and backgrounds heed your morality.

2. I don't have a 2.

Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

According to Mill (or possibly Bentham) the only person (he would have said man, but whatever) who can judge which of two activities were better was the person who was experienced with both. So in that sense, no.

[4a6c1]

I agree with this completely. Sex is bad.

Everyone should just....hurt each other to get off. Dirty dirty human touching and dirty dirty sex. Whips are so much better for you.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
My point simply was that abstinence education works in parts of the world very effectively. I have no problem with abstinence education in America in conjunction with programs on safer sex and condoms.

Abstinence education is not quite the same as "automatic death if we find out you had sex."

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

Have you played russian roulette before? Are you still alive? Apparently you played the right amount.

Still alive last I checked. I'm sure there's been definitely greater than a .4% chance that I'd catch AIDs or die, but it hasn't happened yet. I'm pretty happy with my marriage, and don't have any hangups from religious issues. I've always been a gambler rather than a self-hating Puritan I guess. Of course, I hedged my bets. I guess this all is much more poignant to me for a variety of reasons. I grew up in one of the most religiously conservative areas of the country. I know victims of priestly sex abuse (one of the things that this sort of bullshit thinking leads to in my opinion). One of the "True Love Waits" people from my high school is already dead.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
More moronic policy that puts religious values over people's lives.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58041

Raven

Welcome to North America's answer to the rise of the Islamic Republic. :(

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by xtc
My point simply was that abstinence education works in parts of the world very effectively. I have no problem with abstinence education in America in conjunction with programs on safer sex and condoms.

Abstinence education is not quite the same as "automatic death if we find out you had sex."

Jorddyn

Keeps people abstinent though doesn't it? :lol:

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Drew
They were actually offered as an option on some car a long while back. A while back (before airbags were in every car) some automakers did some surveys and women overwhelming said they would never buy a car with 4 point belts, men were a bit more open, but not much. You'll never see them on cars unless the government mandates them and that will never happen.

People were originally scared of seatbelts, because they'd be trapped in a fiery crash or drown.

People originally didn't buy cars with air bags because they were afraid of head injuries, or thought they didn't work.

Today, would most people buy a new vehicle without both? No. Why not? Because they know how much safer they are with them.


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You might appreciate the irony here: 4-point seatbelts are actually illegal in my home state. :)

Ok, I can laugh at that. :)

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Keeps people abstinent though doesn't it? :lol:

xtc: Author of The Patriot Act II.

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

The Patriot Act 2! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah)

[4a6c1]

:lol:

yikes

[Latrinsorm]

That'll teach me to not check for new posts for another week or so.
Originally posted by Jorddyn
I think perhaps the problem we're having is that my definition of feasible is "likely or probable", while yours seems to be "possible".I agree with your definition.
What you are asking isn't short term denial of an urge.I disagree.
You're asking long term denial of something that makes us human, based solely on your morality. I regularly ask this when I ask people to be civil, kind, generous, etc.
I'm also failing to see how from the day sex first seems like a good idea until if/when I ever get married is "short term". Compared to infinity, 100 years is pretty short, wouldn't you say?
Why?In the sense that they are both drives the non-sentient mind provides. There's no need to reason oneself into being hungry/horny, it just is.
Isn't anything to excess wrong?No.

More to the point: it is not my purpose here to assign moral values to either activity. It is my purpose to demonstrate that abstinence is a feasible program. AIDS and all other disease is bad and unwanted pregnancies are bad, thus we should prevent them. Abstinence, when used properly, is the most effective method (which we've agreed upon). If abstinence is feasible, we should therefore support it.

Most important to the thread in general, President Bush is not suggesting that abstinence be the only method taught. ABC. What he allegedly wants is to increase funding to the AB parts. If one found the current AB programs lacking, I would expect that one would praise Bush for this effort (puh-raise hee-im!).

[Warriorbird]

There's a difference between abstinence being the most effective method of preventing AIDs and "abstinence education" being the most effective education program for preventing AIDs.

That's the problem with "abstinence education" taking up 66% of the funding.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
I'm also failing to see how from the day sex first seems like a good idea until if/when I ever get married is "short term".


And that's assuming the same moral code pushing no sex before marriage will even let you marry your partner of choice.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV
It is understandable. He is a virgin.

Wouldn't that make his arguments on this subject more credible? He's practicing what he preaches. Not really, no. He doesn't know what they are fighting against and one person not doing it barely affects the millions of others that are. Those are the people that need to hear the safer sex message more than anyone right now. Abstinence is great for those not already having sex. They aren't adding to the problem, but the bottom line is that preaching to the choir is seemingly redundant.

[Warriorbird]

And that's assuming the same moral code pushing no sex before marriage will even let you marry your partner of choice.

Raven

But, but, Raven, it's all about love! Your love is wrong and they love you so much that they're going to keep you from having it.

Gay people having sex also makes horrible things happen to the completely unrelated marriages of straight people, don't you know!

Latrin and his moral code love you just that much!

[Latrinsorm]

See this is why I don't bother to respond to most of your posts anymore, WB. You're just going to remember me saying what you thought I'd say in the first place, what's the point?

[Warriorbird]

Given the amount of your off context quoting and semantics in the thread, Latrin, I thought of it as completely reasonable.

Given your defense of "anti homosexuality" Christianity I still find it completely reasonable. For offensively putting words in someone's mouth it seems pretty well backed up by reality.

This is a good excuse for you to not address Raven's point however.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV
It is understandable. He is a virgin.

Wouldn't that make his arguments on this subject more credible? He's practicing what he preaches. Not really, no. He doesn't know what they are fighting against and one person not doing it barely affects the millions of others that are. Those are the people that need to hear the safer sex message more than anyone right now. Abstinence is great for those not already having sex. They aren't adding to the problem, but the bottom line is that preaching to the choir is seemingly redundant.

What if it's targetted at people who aren't having sex (for the most part), like 6th graders?

Then wouldn't it give him more credibility?

[Warriorbird]

Not in particular. He represents a pathetically small portion of the population. His "sex ed" standpoint is also demonstrably ineffective at achieving its goals by the largest related group's own internal studies. Their courses and others are also filled with dangerous misinformation and inaccuracies, which are perhaps more damaging than if there was none of their "education" available.

[Sean of the Thread]

A dude in my 7th grade sex ed class got suspended for masturbating during one of the films.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
What if it's targetted at people who aren't having sex (for the most part), like 6th graders?

Then wouldn't it give him more credibility? What WB said. "Sex education" isn't doing the trick, so then "abstinence education" presents the magic solution? Doubtful.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not in particular. He represents a pathetically small portion of the population. His "sex ed" standpoint is also demonstrably ineffective at achieving its goals by the largest related group's own internal studies. Their courses and others are also filled with dangerous misinformation and inaccuracies, which are perhaps more damaging than if there was none of their "education" available.

I don't care what his stance represents; him being a virgin still adds credibility to it. It's the whole practice what you preach idea.

Just because you disagree with his stance doesn't mean you can't admit that.

[Hulkein]

My thoughts, eh, I went to Catholic school for 12 years where they teach abstinence (that being said they also tried to raise awareness about condoms etc in HS, so it wasn't all abstinence). That didn't work too well for myself or I'd say around 90% of the people I knew.

I still don't think that means adequate funding some abstinence programs is bad, it does work for some people.

[Back]

I promote abstinence as a very valid option of prevention. But not as a sole option, and with full instruction on what abstinence entails, i.e. there are things you can and cannot do.

That my government uses my tax dollars to primarily fund this method, and that there is evidence of those programs being wrought with misinformation is beyond mind-boggling. But with people in this country espousing intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolution, why am I not surprised.

If we ever do overhaul the tax system, I’d vote for a list of government programs people can check off for what their money goes to.

Hey, thats a fucking brilliant idea. Its democratic, something thats supposed to be the magical cure all for everything.

[Hulkein]

It is a good idea, but if people could check what their tax dollars go to, I have a feeling the poor on welfare would end up getting the shaft.

[Warriorbird]

I still don't think that means adequate funding some abstinence programs is bad, it does work for some people.

Curiously enough, we agree. I wouldn't put 66% towards what currently passes for abstinence education, however.

And no, I still do not think his being a virgin backs up his message all that much. If anything, I think it makes him less worthy to speak. I'd think those favoring abstinence would be more effective if they were those who had not practiced it, and suffered negative consequences. I'd believe a pro-asbtinence message far more from someone with full blown AIDs than I would from someone who had never had sex. It's sort've like what made me not try heroin, despite all my opportunities... some stupid DARE bullshit? (no, I smoked up, dropped acid, and did other things.) No. What made me not try heroin was reading the writings of junkies and seeing a pair of really terrifying movies about the drug.

[Hulkein]

<< It's sort've like what made me not try heroin, despite all my opportunities... some stupid DARE bullshit? (no, I smoked up, dropped acid, and did other things.) No. What made me not try heroin was reading the writings of junkies and seeing a pair of really terrifying movies about the drug. >>

Good point.

[Ravenstorm]

Much like those scared straight programs. Having your parents or the cops tell you to stay out of trouble because you really won't like what happens as a result? Eh.

Having convicts serving life imprisonment and have no reason to lie to you telling you to get your act together because you're a very pretty boy with a nice ass? Suddenly the same message has a whole new meaning.

Raven

[Valthissa]

Do the people that post here know that there is a tremendous amount of raw data and analysis on sex, sexually transmitted diseases, attitudes towards sex, rates of AIDS infection, changes in rates of sexually transmitted diseases based on changes in laws, etc, etc, etc.

I assume they do.

I think trying to stop AIDS using a mostly abstinence based approach will fail.

To deny that promiscuity in the modern world has led to a dramatic increase in sexually transmitted disease can only be described as ignorance.

It has been demonstrated that abortion notification laws for teenagers lowers the rate of venereal disease - which is a proxy for the amount of sexual activity of teenagers. While we will never return to the mores of the 40' or 50's it is foolish to assert that our urges cannot be overcome given sufficient deterrent.

C/Valth

I'd post more but my 5 year old needs attention

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Valthissa]

[Necromancer]

For what it's worth, the few studies done on abstinence-only education for students have demonstrated the following:

In about half of the studies, abstinence-based education did not decrease STD infection rates among teenagers, lower the age of first sexual encounter, nor reduce teen pregnency rates.

In the other half of the studies, it was found that these abstinence-based programs actually increased the number of teenagers living with STDs, the number of pregnant teens, and lowered the age of first sexual encounter.

Currently, according to the provisions in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that dictate Federal guidelines for funding and content of these programs, 10% of the funds are to go to exminations of these programs. Almost none of the funding has actually gone to evaluating these programs and their effectiveness. After the studies done demonstrated the above findings, people just "forgot" to have more of them.

In contrast, comprehensive sexual health education (the alternative which includes abstinence messages, safe sex methods, dialogue on different sexual orientations, and even self-esteem segments to help teens gain the confidence necessary to make their own decisions in sex instead of letting their partner do it), which has been vilified by proponents of abstinence-only education, has time and again been proven to increase the average age of first sexual encounter and to lower teen STD rates and pregnencies. These programs are inegligible for any Federal funding under current regulations (largely because they refuse to expressly say "Sex outside of marriage causes physical, emotional, and mental damage" which is required by all sexual health programs funded by the Federal government.

Anyone who doubts this can look at Germany. In the 1990's, admist a crisis of teenage pregnency and STD infections rates, they switched from abstinence-only education to comprehensive sexual health education and found dramatic improvements in just a few short years. They haven't looked back.

Too bad the US can't seem to ever look forward.

[Hulkein]

Yes, the US never looks forward. That's how we became the lone super power, by never looking forward...

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

If we could throw cruise missiles or ground troops at the problem we'd sure whoop its ass.
These problems don't have a Communist economic system we could overload in an arms race either.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Too bad the US can't seem to ever look forward.It's very puzzling how a number of otherwise intelligent people here are confusing the numbers 66% and 100%.

[Necromancer]

>It's very puzzling how a number of otherwise intelligent people here are confusing the numbers 66% and 100%.

The misunderstanding is in the actual numbers, not peoples' takes on the numbers. The new measures would require approximately 2/3 of all Federal funding to go to abstinence-based education. But they wouldn't change the provisions in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, knowns not-so-affectionately as the Eight Commandments, that dictate the requirements to gain any Federal funding. Those requirements are set up so basically ONLY Abstinence-based education programs can effectively get funding (see my previous post, where I quoted one of those provisions). Comprehensive Sexual Health education cannot get Federal funding unless it compromises some of its core values to the point where it is no longer recognizable as such.

Most Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Programs (the only ones that have been proven to actually work) get their funding from NGOs or from school fundings (only the more wealthy schools tend to be able to afford this, poorer schools have to rely on Federal funds, which helps explain at least some of the differences in STD infection and teen pregnency rates amongst poorer and richer students).

Don't get me wrong, these new provisions would turn an already reprehensible situation into a cesspool of immoral and grim sexual health values that are completely lacking in accountability to our youth. At least right now, some middle of the road programs can get Federal funding; soon far fewer of them will.

And while abstinence-based education proponents are patting themselves on the back, our youth are dying from AIDS and dropping out of school to take care of children they never really wanted. It's charming really.

[Necromancer]

>Yes, the US never looks forward. That's how we became the lone super power, by never looking forward...

Ever see that map, "The World According to America", where an entire region is shaded out, and it says "There be dragons here"?

Yeah, that's what that line reminds me of. No offense, but only an American would be ignorant enough to believe something like that.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Compared to infinity, 100 years is pretty short, wouldn't you say?

When measuring my life, no, 100 years is not at all short. It's everything, and likely more.

Unless you're saying my eternal soul will burn in hell for having experienced sex without being married, which is then a whole new discussion.

Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

Not at all. I'm promising you that there is life after this one, an eternal life filled with infinite delight of every kind. Thus our bodily lifespan is in fact short term.

This is not an attempt to convince you that because of its relative shortness, this bodily life is irrelevant or worthless. Far from it. This is only a claim that 100 is much smaller than infinity.

It is a fundamental concept of true Christianity that no one can be said for certain to be condemned to Hell without a comminique from the divine.

Necromancer, your quote is incorrect. The actual text reads "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" and "[the program teaches] the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity". Not only that, in very large letters, the title reads "Separate Program for Abstinence Education" (emphasis mine). Comprehensive programs not receiving money intended for abstinence-only programs does not in any way imply that comprehensive programs don't get any money at all.

If that was all there was, then it'd just be supposition on my part that comprehensive programs receive money. Of course, if that was all there was, this thread's impetus wouldn't exist:

Given that the "whistleblower" report as a matter of course applies to programs that are not abstinence-only (there's that 66% again), you've made a surprisingly colossal error.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Necromancer
>Yes, the US never looks forward. That's how we became the lone super power, by never looking forward...

Ever see that map, "The World According to America", where an entire region is shaded out, and it says "There be dragons here"?

Yeah, that's what that line reminds me of. No offense, but only an American would be ignorant enough to believe something like that.

Only an idiot with no knowledge of history would say that the US never looks forward.

The map is funny, as are you.

[Warriorbird]

It's very puzzling how a number of otherwise intelligent people here are confusing the numbers 66% and 100%.

Disagreeing with two thirds of funding going to programs which one thinks are ineffective is not misunderstanding basic math. Sorry. Your distortion is just a little too ludicrous there.

You still haven't answered Raven's point like I predicted.

[Latrinsorm]

Perhaps, before dusting off the ol' crystal ball, you should have read my earlier posts where I stated "the issues between marriage and committed, non-marital relationships aside" and "the arbitrarily exaggerated disparity between marriage and committed, non-marital relationships is an important but tangential issue as to whether or not the analogy is sound."

If we're not agreed whether abstinence works at all, what purpose would be served discussing what kind of relationships pre-relationship abstinence should apply to?

Horse, then cart.

[Warriorbird]

So...rather than that semantic garbage... couldn't you have just said, "I can't answer that question! We handle the percentage of the population that's gay (which, while small is roughly the same size as the number of people embracing abstinence) by not discussing it. We wish we could tell them how horrible they are but we can't get away with it."

Wouldn't that have been more accurate?

[Tsa`ah]

Teaching abstinence to a social segment with sex on their mind 58 seconds of every minute is rather absurd.

One thing that has always bugged me about abstinence programs is the information they leave out. Information that other programs include, such as other ways to contract HIV.

It's just assumed by the "moral" Christian right that no one is ever going to use drugs intravenously or even help someone that is bleeding.

While abstaining from sex will certainly prevent you from ever contracting an HIV infection via sexual contact ... it will not prevent you from contracting HIV in your daily life unless you're educated on the many ways infections can be spread.

Abstinence works, abstinence programs do not. You simply can't expect that morality to hold in ever aspect of our culture. Sex is only taboo amongst the prudish right and this nation is not even 20% prudish right.

I'd have no problem at all if programs taught about abstinence and protection, as well as focusing on methods of infection ... unfortunately some dumb ass who couldn't keep his dick in his pants to begin with, wants to force abstinence down our mouths because he's "born again" and wants to cater to that particular crowd.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Wouldn't that have been more accurate? I realize that you already know the answer, but for the benefit of the kids at home: No. No it would not have been.

I'll be sure to inform my professors that logic is actually semantics garbage, btw. They'll get a big kick out of that.
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I'd have no problem at all if programs taught about abstinence and protectionSixty. Six. Percent. Sixty. Six. Percent.
as well as focusing on methods of infection Also from the article is that the 66% number is out of 50% of the total money spent on general AIDS prevention. So rest assured, other methods of infection are covered (if people follow the guidelines).

[Warriorbird]

I'll be sure to inform my professors that logic is actually semantics garbage, btw. They'll get a big kick out of that.

Funny. One would think they'd laugh at you dodging questions and distorting other people's statements. Those are usually referred to as logical fallacies.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

You'd be welcome to back up your spurious accusations with any statement I "distorted", but of course none exists. I guess you can waste your time looking for one if you want.

"Dodging" is another fun little obviously incorrect attack. It's like me saying "hey let's go get a drink" and you saying "No, whiskey is bad for you" and then taking issue with me for not addressing your whiskey concerns. When we agree on drinking *in general*, then we can talk about whiskey. This isn't a hard concept.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that you agree that AIDS preventation via pre-relationship abstinence is feasible, then I agree that now is the time to discuss which relationships exactly the courses should talk about. Judging by your previous statements, however, this seems an unlikely conclusion.

[Warriorbird]

It's very puzzling how a number of otherwise intelligent people here are confusing the numbers 66% and 100%.

Funny how no one was doing that. At all. You're clearly winning on that formal logic notion.


And that's assuming the same moral code pushing no sex before marriage will even let you marry your partner of choice.

Raven

You still haven't addressed this.

You claim that you're using formal logic, but you're violating the principles of it all over the place like you usually do.

You attempted to shift the issue to "whether abstinence education is possible" from "whether 66% of all funds allocated should be spent on it."

I actually said that I thought abstinence was something that should be addressed, but not at the clear expense of other more effective programs, and not in what currently passes as "abstinence education" which is religiously inspired bullshit. And yes, I've read the literature of several of the related programs.

I'd much rather have AIDs victims telling children "Don't end up like me. I'm probably going to be dead next year." than a bunch of sanctimonius virgins attempting to suggest to teens that they should "save themselves!"

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Funny how no one was doing that.
you should also have other options available
So, even though a way to limit the risk is available (read: condoms), no one should know about them.I accept that Necromancer's quote was a misapplication of how he understood a bill from 1996, rather than a misreading of the article in question. However, I contend that taking what one understands a secondary document to say without even reading the primary document should not be anticipated in a debate.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
You attempted to shift the issue to "whether abstinence education is possible" from "whether 66% of all funds allocated should be spent on it." The word is feasible, not possible. And here's how that got started:
Let's say that abstinence is 100% effective, but a feasible option for only 10% of the population.

Let's say condom use is 90% effective, but is feasible for 80% of the population.

Which one does it make sense to put money in? I'd say something like "you'll note that these are not my words", but given that you didn't note it the first time around, I'm not so sure you will this time either.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I actually said that I thought abstinence was something that should be addressedAs I'm sure you're aware, people besides you and I have posted in this thread.
I'd much rather have AIDs victims telling children "Don't end up like me. I'm probably going to be dead next year." than a bunch of sanctimonius virgins attempting to suggest to teens that they should "save themselves!" I'd much rather the government spend money on retroviral programs to make AIDS less of an immediate death sentence to begin with and suggest a comprehensive AIDS prevention program, maybe with a memorable acronym. Luckily, that's exactly what they're doing, so I don't have to find a printer so I can send a nice-looking letter to my representatives.
You still haven't addressed this.We (all, not just you and me) still haven't agreed on whether we're drinking or not.
You claim that you're using formal logic, but you're violating the principles of it all over the place like you usually do.I have never claimed to be using formal logic, and the lack of funny-looking symbols in my posts reinforces this. I'm curious as to which principles I'm "violating" though.

[Warriorbird]

Once again...

You attempted to suggest that people were doing what they clearly were not.

You keep trying to make the discussion about an entirely different issue than what it actually is.

Then you use ridiculous analogies as a justification for refusing to address a point.

It's funny. I used some of the flaws in your posts in the past to help study for the LSAT.


I'd much rather the government spend money on retroviral programs to make AIDS less of an immediate death sentence to begin with and suggest a comprehensive AIDS prevention program, maybe with a memorable acronym. Luckily, that's exactly what they're doing, so I don't have to find a printer so I can send a nice-looking letter to my representatives.

How did you even think that BEGAN to be applicable? We're talking about educating students about a disease...not curing a disease.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Necromancer]

Stating that sex outside of marriage is likely to cause these damages is no less deceitful and misleading than saying it will cause these damages. I missed the word "likely", but that doesn't change, at all, the situation.

And I think you're missing the holistic view here. The funds in the 96 Welfare Reform Act account for virtually ALL of the Federal funding for these programs; which is why the Act is so important to this situation. It's not that Congress can't create a new fund for comprehensive sexual health education tomorrow, it's just that until they do, these 8 Commandments determine the vast majority of the sexual health education that students are getting.

To require that 2/3 of your federally funded sexual health programs be these ineffective (and indeed potentially damaging) education programs is horrendous in and of itself, but the truth is that already MORE than 2/3 of Federal funding is going to abstinence-based education. This law would prohibit future sources of funding from coming to pass (at least, without an increase in abstinence-based education to go alongside). That's the real danger. And as long as the funding sources created by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act continue to be the guidelines for educational policy, we're looking dangerous times ahead.
This means more dead teenagers. That, to me, is immoral. If you support that, you are deserving of that adjective as well.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Necromancer]

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. It's funny. Nobody's ever gotten AIDs before from sex within marriage. Really!

:snickers:

[Sean of the Thread]

I practice the titty fuck and don't come in her eye for HIV protection. Has worked thus far.

[Warriorbird]

Always a valid option! Though it is hopefully a difficult one for our gay male posters.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

There's an alternate option, but... :D

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Sixty. Six. Percent. Sixty. Six. Percent.

Hey moron .... comprehend before you post.


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I'd have no problem at all if programs taught about abstinence and protection

To me, in order to satisfy either side of center ... you teach it all or you get jack shit from our tax dollars.


Also from the article is that the 66% number is out of 50% of the total money spent on general AIDS prevention. So rest assured, other methods of infection are covered (if people follow the guidelines).

Not to the same audience. Teach it all to the same audience in the same curriculum ... or get jack.

Brush up on your semantics ... it's getting old.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I'd have no problem at all if programs taught about abstinence and protection, as well as focusing on methods of infection ... unfortunately:violin:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
:violin:

I guess it's better to post a lame smiley than to retort with "I got nothin".

Way to go champ.

[Latrinsorm]

I guess it's better to backpedal furiously and throw insults than to debate rationally. Way to go sport.