PDA

View Full Version : Policy Change on Abortion Deadlocks Congress



resolve
9th March 10, 02:13 PM
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 52 mins ago
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's health care bill would change federal policy on abortion, but not open the spigot of taxpayer dollars that some abortion opponents fear.

Major anti-abortion groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee say the Senate provisions expected to come before the House shortly are a backdoor taxpayer subsidy for abortion. Other abortion opponents disagree.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100308/capt.e9a38edfd2cb4e9ab9d7ba122965913e.aptopix_obam a_pacd107.jpgThe bitter dispute could derail Obama's quest to remake the health insurance system after a yearlong campaign. It is vexing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as she and other Democratic leaders try to find enough votes to pass Obama's domestic initiative.

"I actually think the Senate bill will more effectively prohibit federal funds from going to abortion," said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America in Washington. "That legislation will actually reduce the demand for abortion in the United States."

Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America oppose the limits on abortion contained in the House and Senate versions of the health care bill, yet their efforts to defeat the legislation has been minimal.

Here's a look in question and answer form at a simmering conflict:

Q: Obama said he wouldn't tamper with the status quo on abortion, so what's the problem?

A: That's what he said, but it's not exactly what happened.

Current law known as the Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The first drafts of the Democratic health care bills, written by abortion rights supporters in Congress, would have allowed health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies to cover abortion as a legal medical procedure. They couldn't get the votes to advance, so eventually Democratic abortion foes took over writing the language. But any trust abortion opponents might have had in the administration was gone.

The House and Senate ended up passing different provisions.

Q: OK, what are some of the differences?

A: Both bills would set up a new health insurance marketplace for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own, with government subsidies to help keep premiums affordable. That's the similarity.

Here's the key difference: The House provision, written by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., would prohibit health plans receiving subsidies from covering abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women who want coverage for abortion would have to buy a separate policy.

The Senate language, written by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., would allow the plans to cover abortion with private funds collected directly from policyholders. People who want the coverage would have to write two checks to their health insurance plan, and the plans would keep the money in a separate account from taxpayer funds.

With the Senate bill going back to the House, Obama is asking Democrats to unite behind it.

Q: Would the Senate bill change the status quo?

A: Yes. The federal employee health benefits program is seen as the model for the new insurance marketplace, and none of the plans available to government workers may cover abortion, except as allowed by Hyde.

"It would be a pretty significant change," said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Stupak and Nelson, both longtime abortion foes, serve on the group's advisory board. Day said Stupak's approach is preferable, because it closely follows existing law. But the Senate rejected it, forcing Nelson to develop his plan as a fallback.

Q: Does that mean the Senate bill allows taxpayer money for abortions?

A: Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says money is fungible, and the separation between taxpayer funds and private premiums is only a fig leaf.

"The Senate bill departs from long-standing federal policy by authorizing tax subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy private health plans that could cover abortion on demand," said Johnson. "Anyone enrolling in such plan would be required to make separate payments into an abortion fund."

But Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, analyzed the two bills and concluded the only difference is an administrative technicality.

"What Stupak says is you have to buy a separate policy, and what Nelson says is you have to write two checks," said Jost. "There's no public funding of abortion."

And people who don't want to pay for other people's abortions wouldn't be forced to do so, Jost added. They could simply pick a plan that doesn't cover it.

Q: What are the odds that health plans which don't cover abortion would be available?

A: There would definitely be a demand for them, and not just from people with moral objections. Single men and older women would have no reason to pay an extra premium for abortion coverage.

"Because this is such a hot political issue, my expectation is that insurance companies would definitely offer it both ways," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant.

Abortion coverage is now widely available through workplace health plans, but many women who have abortions pay out of pocket instead of using their insurance.

Q: Don't abortion opponents have other concerns about the bill?

A: A major one has to do with $11 billion that Obama wants to pump into community health centers serving low-income people and the uninsured. As the bill is currently written, those funds are not explicitly covered by the Hyde amendment.

White House health overhaul spokeswoman Linda Douglass says Obama is willing to clarify the language.

Q: What are the odds that these disputes can be worked out?

A: Stupak sounded optimistic Monday. "The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "I think we can get there."

Abortion opponent Rev. Derrick Harkins, pastor of the Nineteenth St. Baptist Church in Washington, said he believes it ultimately could hurt the anti-abortion cause if the health care bill collapses because of the divisive issue.

"You can't be blanket pro-life and not address those things that encourage women to make the choice of having an abortion," said Harkins, a board member of World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. "If you are really looking to reduce the number of abortions in America, one of the things that will make that happen is to have comprehensive health care coverage."


Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_abortion_q_a;_ylt=AnTa0D8cir9GK 1ncUJ56TQNn.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTNrOTV2dDMyBGFzc2V0A2FwL zIwMTAwMzA5L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bF9hYm9ydGlvbl9 xX2EEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMxBHNlY wN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYXBvbGljeWNoYW5n

I highlighted what I thought was important to me, a pro-lifer. I think health insurance is important to be available to people who don't have it or access to it. I also think having a seperate pay-out private plan to cover abortions is an interesting sideways move.

While it seems they originally stuck their own foot in their mouth with the original bill's form on abortion they are doing some interesting things to amend that to get votes to pass the healthcare bill as a whole.

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 08:34 PM
I cannot believe what a monolith for evil the anti-abortion ideology has become. It spreads HIV/AIDS and protects the unsustainable status quo of American health care. It also blocked stem cell research. The anti-abortion lobby is like this sinister force seeking to maximize human misery.

Robot Jesus
9th March 10, 10:21 PM
what do you mean by "like".

Wounded Ronin
9th March 10, 10:26 PM
Like, like, evil, man!

Ajamil
10th March 10, 12:23 AM
But God said promiscuous people should be miserable. Or will be...whatever.

WarPhalange
10th March 10, 11:28 AM
Condoms are like a giant slap in the face of God and his plan.

KhorneliusPraxx
10th March 10, 11:42 AM
Yeah, Gridlock is the only thing that protects us.

Cullion
11th March 10, 05:58 AM
It spreads HIV/AIDS

The anti-abortion lobby spreads AIDS? whut?

partyboy
11th March 10, 12:44 PM
thread title -

DEADLOCK??

http://www.extremeexperts.com/sql/images/DeadLockDetection_03.jpg



anti- abortion lobby = http://blog.filmrot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/cobra_commander_colors.jpg?

Robot Jesus
11th March 10, 02:59 PM
The anti-abortion lobby spreads AIDS? whut?


not exactly, but the overlap between the "distribute condoms to poor people" lobby has a lot of crossover with the "get poor people access to abortions" lobby.

this is exacerbated by the crossover between the abortion lobby and the "we hate sex" lobby.

Kiko
11th March 10, 06:35 PM
Something's puzzling me and I'm sure one of you may be brilliant enough to explain it to me.

Abortion is a very controversial issue in the US. This health-care bill seems very important to quite a few members of our Congress and to out President. I do understand that legislation is often voted on as a package of laws instead of treating each thing separately. What I don't get is why weigh down the health-care plan by including provisions one way or another involving abortion. It COULD have been proposed separately.

Just sayin'....

Another thing is um.. I haven't ever had one, but I doubt anyone really WANTS to go through an abortion, despite how much it's fought for as a right. Even once is enough to be traumatic. For the difficulty and cost of the procedure, wouldn't it make more sense for most women to use contraception/protection? There's lots of options.

Cullion
11th March 10, 06:58 PM
The liberal myth force-fed to people like WR at college about this is that it's all about freedom and equality for the poor, but basically it's the American Eugenics Institute in it's 'family planning' guise packaging their poison up for the impressionable.

Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms and telling people that shame is an outdated concept. Easy access to abortion never works as well as a culture of abstinence and/or fatherly responsibility in the single-motherhood stakes either.

But indoctrinated modern liberals don't care about data, they just keep insisting that having other people pay to clear up after people's stupid choices (even if it involves de facto murder) is the only 'rational' option. Even when figures show it's not.

Ultimately, it's not about the lives of the poor. It's about a decadent upper middle class not wanting to be bound by the restrictive social mores of their grandparents and just flagrantly making stuff up when challenged by the results.

<meh> who cares. They're probably going to lose on this one. Shame the republican religious hicks can't be trusted not to let down the other side of the equation when it comes to pointless wars and corporate welfare.

Kiko
11th March 10, 07:12 PM
Thanks.

The freedom to fuck around inevitably leads to the freedom to become pregnant, share/trade/spread STDs and then to ask someone else to help clean up the mess. A bit of forethought and wiser choices are a freedom I wish more folks would exercise.

Even without the murder aspect, abortion leaves nasty scars on women, physical, emotional and psychological. Hell the hormonal aftermath is nasty, too.

HappyOldGuy
11th March 10, 09:54 PM
Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms and telling people that shame is an outdated concept.

Horseshit that you keep repeating no matter how often we rape you on it.

WarPhalange
11th March 10, 10:54 PM
Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms and telling people that shame is an outdated concept. Easy access to abortion never works as well as a culture of abstinence and/or fatherly responsibility in the single-motherhood stakes either.

Handing out condoms =/= people USING condoms. There clearly wouldn't be as many unplanned pregnancies if people actually used the damn things. Yes, they break and aren't fool-proof, but you wouldn't see the rates of STDs and pregnancies as high as they are if people used them.

The cause for this is abstinence-only teaching. It's fucking retarded to think telling people "don't have sex" is going to override their natural raging hormones.

Ideally yes, your method would be better. But that's just not going to happen.

Aphid Jones
11th March 10, 10:56 PM
Poops, I don't think that the people who physically have the condoms are the ones persuaded to have unprotected sex via abstinence teaching unpreparedness.

HappyOldGuy
11th March 10, 11:26 PM
Cullions whole argument is based on the notion that catholic majority countries in africa have less AIDS than protestant majority countries. Somehow this vindicates the catholic churches position on condoms. Besides the logical holes you cand rive a truck through. the problem is that all of the countries in africa with the lowest AIDS rates are majority muslim.


durka durka durka

Robot Jesus
12th March 10, 12:17 AM
Ive always felt that abortions are inefficent

WarPhalange
12th March 10, 02:11 AM
Poops, I don't think that the people who physically have the condoms are the ones persuaded to have unprotected sex via abstinence teaching unpreparedness.

Your reasoning is like that of a hairy plumb.

Condoms are available in stores and for free in various places. People don't know enough about sex and condoms so they don't bother buying. They don't know about this because of abstinence-only teaching. Ergo, they don't buy or acquire the condoms and end up with HIV babies.

Cullion
12th March 10, 05:00 AM
Horseshit that you keep repeating no matter how often we rape you on it.

You've never raped me on it. You simply blustered after you were presented with the statistical evidence.

Cullion
12th March 10, 05:02 AM
STD infection rates and single teen motherhood are lower in countries with a culture of abstinence, including in our own past in the West. Modern secular sex education has been appallingly unsuccessful. It doesn't matter how many times you wish it were not so.

Cullion
12th March 10, 06:05 AM
Cullions whole argument is based on the notion that catholic majority countries in africa have less AIDS than protestant majority countries. Somehow this vindicates the catholic churches position on condoms.

It drives a truck through your counterfactual assertions about the value of modern 'family planning'.

[quote]the problem is that all of the countries in africa with the lowest AIDS rates are majority muslim.

Hell yeah! That really proves my point that the restrictive sexual mores of traditional religions are less effective than modern secular liberal programmes.

You're just not trying hard enough.

There are no logical holes in my argument. It boils down to this: Liberal propaganda has it as axiomatic that a person cannot become more restrained in their behaviour when you scare them with supernatural stories from an early age. Clearly they can, and this often works better than modern sex education.

This grips liberals shit for one of two reasons:-

i) They're deeply indoctrinated in their views thanks to modern secular education. They simply refuse to accept data pointing to the fairly clear conclusions above.

ii) They don't want to live in a world where people are scared into behaving a certain way by telling them frightening fairy tales.

Point ii) is certainly understandable, but it isn't a credible basis on which to refute data. It amounts to saying 'this isn't true because I don't want it to be true'.

If you really gave a shit about all those people (in your own country, as well as abroad), you'd be trying to work out how to reintroduce self-restraint in child rearing without resorting to religious imagery. The current secular approach simply isn't working. American STD infection rates have soared above population growth.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 12:25 PM
Hell yeah! That really proves my point that the restrictive sexual mores of traditional religions are less effective than modern secular liberal programmes.


So by your logic, the decadent west should have the highest rates of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases. Guess your logic is kinda shit then, no?

Condoms work when used. And use depends on people having the baseline scientific education or having trust in the institutions that tell them to wrap their willie. Neither is terribly common in sub saharan africa, which is why people don't use them, and why condoms alone will never solve the crisis. Condom focused education campaigns have been ridiculously successful in southeast asia and among the gay population here in the west.

Doritosaurus Chex
12th March 10, 12:45 PM
Culture of abstinence has really helped this family:

http://bristolpalinpregnant.com/images/bristol-palin-pregnant.jpg

Cullion
12th March 10, 01:16 PM
So by your logic, the decadent west should have the highest rates of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases.

No, they should simply see their STD rates decreasing instead of increasing.



Condoms work when used.

So does sexual restraint.


And use depends on people having the baseline scientific education or having trust in the institutions that tell them to wrap their willie.

It's not working in the West. You know this really.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 01:50 PM
It's not working in the West. You know this really.

Ehh, sure it is. Transmission rates are flat in spite of more people living with the infection (and thus more opportunities for transmission). There has been some backsliding by those bad little gayboys, but mostly something that could have been catastrophic is at an easily managed (if expensive) level.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93224781

Cullion
12th March 10, 06:13 PM
Ehh, sure it is. Transmission rates are flat in spite of more people living with the infection

No they aren't. Check the CDC site yourself. It just goes up faster than population growth, consistently, every year from when published records are available (1993).

Go on and look.

My views make you angry because you think I'm arguing for some kind of stern, unforgiving, Huckabee style social conservativism based on myths and bullshit.

I'm not talking about HIV infection rates solely, as you know. I'm pointing out the real flaws in what people like us have replaced it with and trying to go one better.

When you find the CDC figures showing overall STD infection has almost doubled during a period of about 15% population growth, then we can have a real talk about why. But I won't brook any of your usual wiggling.

If you choose the wrong side, this is going to be like 'global warming' all over again, for you.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 06:22 PM
No they aren't. Check the CDC site yourself. It just goes up faster than population growth, consistently, every year from when published records are available (1993).

Go on and look.
okay


Researchers found that the HIV transmission rate has declined dramatically since the early days of the epidemic. In 1980, for example, when the disease was still undetected, the transmission rate was 92 percent, meaning there were 92 transmissions per 100 persons living with HIV at the time. After the identification of AIDS, and later HIV, and the implementation of HIV testing and other prevention efforts, transmission rates began to decline.
Since the peak level of new infections in the mid-1980s, just prior to the introduction of HIV testing, the transmission rate has declined by approximately 89 percent (from 44 transmissions per 100 persons living with HIV in 1984 to five transmissions per 100 persons living with HIV in 2006). Over the last decade, as prevention efforts have been expanded and improved treatments for HIV became available, the transmission rate has declined by 33 percent (from an estimated eight transmissions per 100 persons living with HIV in 1997 to five in 2006). Five transmissions per 100 persons living with HIV in 2006 means more than 95 percent of persons living with HIV did not transmit the infection that year.
These data underscore the importance of reaching all infected individuals with HIV testing and prevention services. Previous research has shown that the majority of people who know they are infected take steps to prevent transmission to their partners.3 (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm#ref3) CDC currently estimates that approximately one in five persons living with HIV in the US is unaware of their infection and may be unknowingly transmitting the virus to others.1 (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm#ref1)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

Cullion
12th March 10, 06:31 PM
I was talking about the overall STD rate, as you well know HoG. The figures are publicly available on the CDC site. I'll give you one more chance to find the 1993-2008 overall STD figures yourself, and if you try to fuck around any more, I'll humiliate you.

Go to it.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 07:02 PM
I was talking about the overall STD rate, as you well know HoG. The figures are publicly available on the CDC site. I'll give you one more chance to find the 1993-2008 overall STD figures yourself, and if you try to fuck around any more, I'll humiliate you.

Go to it.
Okay, gonorhea is slightly lower, syphilis is flat, chlamydia is much higher.

Oh yeah, and AIDS is lower.

So exactly how does that support your contention that condom use isn't a good way to fight AIDS. You know, like you said.



Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms and telling people that shame is an outdated concept.

I'm not feeling much risk of humiliation here.

Cullion
12th March 10, 07:05 PM
I don't know why you're capitalising AIDS like it's a majority of the cases. It isn't, as you probably well know. My point does not solely concern AIDS. But if we're just limiting ourselves to AIDs, you're wrong, again

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite-KB-ref.jsp?page=kb-01-03&ref=kb-01-03-tb-01&no=1

Rate almost doubling. Population increasing by ~10% over the time period. Despite new drugs being introduced.

I'll give you another half day before I post the CDC table that makes my point. I'm giving you time to recant, because I'm merciful.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go ? Maybe you need a little more google time ?

Your espoused mechanisms are failing to control the spread of STDs and single, welfare dependant, motherhood, across the West. You can be my rape victim on this point, or you can think your way out of it by being brave enough to re-assess cherished, though false, beliefs. You never win at this.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 07:17 PM
Math failure. Number of people living with aids increasing <> rate of infection increasing. The number of people living with AIDS is increasing cause they are living longer.

Cullion
12th March 10, 07:19 PM
Number of people living with AIDS increasing faster than population. Number of people receiving drug treatment that prevents HIV turning into full-blown AIDS also increasing faster than population. This is not a win for you.

That special Berkley bubble you live in isn't a very accurate simulacrum of the real world.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 07:22 PM
Number of people living with AIDS increasing faster than population. Number of people receiving drug treatment that prevents HIV turning into full-blown AIDS also increasing faster than population. This is not a win for you.

That special Berkley bubble you live in isn't a very accurate simulacrum of the real world.

I guess you have to live in a Berkeley bubble to know the difference between rate and count.

Cullion
12th March 10, 07:24 PM
I guess you have to live in the Berkeley bubble to not see the difference between HIV infection rate and AIDs count when new drugs are becoming available all the time and thereby conclude that ones political view on lifestyle advice is flawless.

STD rates are increasing faster than population in the US. Fact. So is single teen pregnancy.

Your ideals are failing the young.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 07:27 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60P0XS20100126

wrong as usual.

But please, get back to explaining how a rising incidence rate for an STD known not to be effectively controlled by condom use proves that condoms are useless in controlling one proven to be prevented by condoms.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/159/3/242

Robot Jesus
12th March 10, 07:31 PM
I'll try to dig it up, but i read an article about sex-ed and abstinence. it said that according to their numbers the most effective form of education focused on abstinence, not until marriage but for now because having a kid really sucks. take the morality out of the class room and focus on practicality.

I think the study was based in Chicago.

Cullion
12th March 10, 07:36 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60P0XS20100126

wrong as usual.

Oops, it's always the little details the fuck things up for you, isn't it?
Compare single teen pregnancy rate by decade.

Don't try and mix things up by conflating 'condom effectiveness when used' with 'condom availability'. That's the magic gap in your whole theory.

Systems which merely provide tools without a psychological framework to encourage their use, are pretty much worthless. And that's the whole problem with the drippy-noodle liberal approach to the education of the young.

I guess next you'll be saying that everything's okay because the AEI has massively increased the rate of abortion to compensate for the failings in the new 'truth' you think the young should be taught.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 07:41 PM
Oops, it's always the little details the fuck things up for you, isn't it?
Compare single teen pregnancy rate by decade.

Okay, they hit their peak in 1980. How does that make you less wrong.

The rate that has gone up is unmarried pregnancy. Not teen.

Pesky facts.

Cullion
12th March 10, 07:45 PM
No they didn't. Teen pregnancy hit it's peak in 1980, but single teen pregnancy and abortion rates are still going up.

P.S. Arguing that I'm being irrational because the CDC STD rates I quoted include something that condoms don't protect against, in the context of this thread, takes a special kind of myopia.

Face it, your revolution is still born and rotting. It's hurting the young around you.

Wounded Ronin
12th March 10, 09:01 PM
STD infection rates and single teen motherhood are lower in countries with a culture of abstinence, including in our own past in the West. Modern secular sex education has been appallingly unsuccessful. It doesn't matter how many times you wish it were not so.

Cullion, are we living on different planets? I thought the conventional wisdom was that abstinence only education delayed the age at which first sex occurred but didn't actually lower rates, and also resulted in poorer rates of condom use, therefore increased disease and pregnancy rates.

Seriously, I thought the above was pretty much a given.

HappyOldGuy
12th March 10, 09:02 PM
No they didn't. Teen pregnancy hit it's peak in 1980, but single teen pregnancy and abortion rates are still going up.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

How many times are you going to be proven wrong in this thread, it's approaching a record.


It's hurting the young around you.

There are lots of ways that you could make a solid case for this. Education, economic growth, wealth inequality, various environmental challenges, but trying to claim that we are failing our children by teaching them to use condoms is laughably provably wrong.

Wounded Ronin
12th March 10, 09:06 PM
Sigh, just read the previous page of this thread. Cullion, even if we accept for the sake of argument that all these bad sexual things are on the rise in our society, don't you think it would be a little silly to blame sex education and availability of condoms for those problems? The nature of society and community has changed in many ways over the past 50 years ago or so and part and parcel of it may be more sexual problems. But there's no turning back the clock and whining about how things were better when people had "values" or whatever isn't a solution. "Sex education caused all our problems!" isn't a helpful statement, just a comedic/sad one.

Cullion
13th March 10, 07:35 AM
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

How many times are you going to be proven wrong in this thread, it's approaching a record.

HoG, you've got to start mixing with smarter people in real life. 'Haha look you're wrong I have a link!11!!' only works on people too intellectually lazy to click on the link and read what you're linking to.

The article isn't about single teen pregnancy at all, it's about abortion rates.

This is just sloppy. I expect more of you.




There are lots of ways that you could make a solid case for this. Education, economic growth, wealth inequality, various environmental challenges, but trying to claim that we are failing our children by teaching them to use condoms is laughably provably wrong.

Not with any stats you've yet been able to produce. Besides, I'm not saying that teaching them to use condoms is the problem. It's that we stopped teaching them self-restraint at the same time. Religious hocus-pocus used to be a very effective way of doing that. We haven't replaced it with anything effective.

I completely understand the modern liberal position that teaching people how to behave by frightening them with spooks and flames is unhealthy on some levels. But that isn't a get out of jail card for the apparent failure of that social mechanism's replacements. You cannot ignore the fact that almost everything the modern sex education schemes were designed to improve are actually getting worse.

You and HoG are basically putting your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalalala'.

Wounded Ronin
13th March 10, 10:10 AM
If you want to scare kids off sex without spooks and flames, you can either scare them with gross out STI pictures, or else show them this:

pT9t5nkZn8I

Cullion
13th March 10, 10:16 AM
Did it work for you?

Wounded Ronin
13th March 10, 10:19 AM
Did it work for you?

Actually, I think you can say that it did. I've been sexually abstienent for the vast majority of my adult life. I spent over 2 years in one of the most sexually promiscuous parts of the world but didn't give myself any mucous membrane exposures. It's like a doctor I knew when he was a med student once said, everything you learn about sex and the things that can go wrong from medical-type study is enough to turn you off of sex.

HappyOldGuy
13th March 10, 01:04 PM
The article isn't about single teen pregnancy at all, it's about abortion rates.

This is just sloppy. I expect more of you.
Yeah, I can't imagine what would make me post an article about abortion rates going down in direct response to a quote where you claimed they were going up. Silly me.





Besides, I'm not saying that teaching them to use condoms is the problem. It's that we stopped teaching them self-restraint at the same time. Religious hocus-pocus used to be a very effective way of doing that. We haven't replaced it with anything effective.

No, the problem is that we let women get jobs out of the home. A woman who is self sufficient is not going to stay in a bad marriage for financial reasons, and her kids aren't going to get as much of her attention as they would have otherwise. Kids with two parents and a stay at home mom do better by every conceivable measure.

Damn that pesky fairness and democracy.

Cullion
13th March 10, 01:11 PM
Yes. Silly you. I guess the self-sufficient women are responsible for the STD increase too.

WarPhalange
13th March 10, 01:11 PM
Goddamn women are stealing our jorbs!!!

Cullion
13th March 10, 01:15 PM
They're spreading diseases and travelling back in time to get pregnant in their teens too, apparently.

Doritosaurus Chex
13th March 10, 01:21 PM
If we're going to stop time travelling women from stealing our jobs and infecting everyone with STDs, there's only one way to stop them:

http://i29.tinypic.com/1zokppj.jpg

Robot Jesus
13th March 10, 02:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html?hpid=topnews

basically backing what C-dog's been saying. it takes till almost the end of the article to get to the point, but abstinence education works when:

1 it's not wait until marriage, just keep it in your pants for now mmmkay
2 it's because babies and chlamydia suck, not because it makes Jesus cry
3 condoms are awesome, *classic banana demo*, but they can break; so lesson 1 because of lesson 2

but the religious lobby would still oppose it because it's far too realistic.

HappyOldGuy
13th March 10, 05:53 PM
Yes. Silly you. I guess the self-sufficient women are responsible for the STD increase too.

There is no general STD increase, there is a chlamydia increase.

An easily treated STD with minor complications even when untreated is a great reason to put women back in the kitchen.

Cullion
13th March 10, 08:26 PM
There is an increase in sexually transmitted diseases and single teen motherhood. Nobody is proposing women be put back in the kitchen. But by all means, keep fighting the battles of 1915 if it makes you feel rebellious in middle age.

Single teen mothers are not liberated. They are young people who've been cheated of a better life by the failure of their elders to raise and protect them properly.

I know that any mention of social decline in the absence of our prior behavioural norms being enforced is a spooky and paranoid concept to you, but if you really care about the poorest in countries like the US and the UK, you need to think about it carefully. You need to spend more time with Thomas Sowell.

nihilist
14th March 10, 03:27 AM
Clearly education is not the answer. Thank you Lord Cullion.

nihilist
14th March 10, 03:34 AM
Perhaps Lord Cullion can explain why the STD rates are the highest in the Bible Belt.

osnap.

nihilist
14th March 10, 03:46 AM
Perhaps Lord Cullion would like to comment on the fact that there are higher rates of STDs, crime, teen pregnancy, and abortion among religious democracies.

nihilist
14th March 10, 03:55 AM
Perhaps Lord Cullion should address this as well:

STD infection lower among atheists:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Less than 0.25% of prisoners are atheist
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Poverty rate lower among atheists:
Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)

Illiteracy rate lower among atheists:
United nations Human Development Report (2004)

Average Income higher among atheists: United nations Human Development Report (2004)

Divorce rate lower among atheists:
www.religioustolerance.org

Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists:
www.americablog.com

Abortions lower among atheists:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

Crime rate lower among athiests: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

Homicide rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

nihilist
14th March 10, 03:58 AM
The anti-abortion lobby spreads AIDS? whut?

Yes.

Yes they do.

nihilist
14th March 10, 04:01 AM
Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms and telling people that shame is an outdated concept.

Feel kind of silly now, don't you?

bob
14th March 10, 04:05 AM
I'm just glad that the Western world is no longer ruled by people whose decisions are firmly grounded in the tertiary stages of Syphilis.

nihilist
14th March 10, 04:06 AM
Well how can you be so sure?

Cullion
14th March 10, 07:41 AM
Perhaps Lord Cullion would like to comment on the fact that there are higher rates of STDs, crime, teen pregnancy, and abortion among religious democracies.

Which ones ? And have those rates increased as the influence of religion has decreased? Why, yes, yes they have.

I know you're a hardcore atheist Reese, but your argument is counterfactual.

Cullion
14th March 10, 07:41 AM
Feel kind of silly now, don't you?

No, because it's true.

Cullion
14th March 10, 07:42 AM
Clearly education is not the answer. Thank you Lord Cullion.

Clearly the type of education so far being used as a replacement for religion isn't working. This is not an argument for the reintroduction of religion. If you concentrate very hard somewhere quiet, you may be able to hold this extremely complex idea.

Cullion
14th March 10, 08:07 AM
Perhaps Lord Cullion can explain why the STD rates are the highest in the Bible Belt.

osnap.

Perhaps jester Reese can provide a source for this and demonstrate that it's a correlation with 'bible belt' and not 'african american population'. Because African American STD rates are much higher than in Caucasian and Asian groups in the US

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

And funnily enough, guess which states have higher African American populations as a percentage ?

Or perhaps a bit of badly researched liberalism and knee-jerk atheism is doing exactly what I suggested it would, and making you leap to silly counterfactual conclusions that you find personally satisfying ?

Next time you find yourself at a liberal circle jerk, and some smug twerp brings out the '<snork> why does the bible belt has higher STD rates??!!!??', I dare you to reply 'It's because more black people live there, and they have a higher prevelance of STDs by a factor of 10'. I double dare you.

That's the scary elephant in the room that you dorks are either unaware of or wilfully ignoring.

The next thing I expect at least one of you to do is to jump to a silly conclusion about the inference to be drawn from that data because you find the data itself deeply offensive and just wish it wasn't true.

Because, y'know, this would hardly be the first time I've had to patiently and lovingly rape libruls over their willful misinterpration of statistical data, particularly where reproductive health is concerned.

Your argument is a long winded version of 'b.. but rednecks!' and 'b.. but going to church is not cool!'.

C-, Must try harder. You just haven't really thought about this in any depth.

nihilist
14th March 10, 12:32 PM
My argument isn't long-winded at all. It's pretty cut and dried. You would like it to be long-winded so that you can have something to do on a Sunday afternoon but perhaps you should spend that time reconsidering your blanket use of the term "liberal".

Cullion
14th March 10, 12:33 PM
Your arguments, such as they were, didn't stand up to the tiniest scrutiny.
They were made of rice paper and dreams. All you did was repeat some secular canards you'd never really analysed the basis of.

nihilist
14th March 10, 12:38 PM
Secularism rules.

Religion sucks.

Contemplate this on the tree of priestrape.

Cullion
14th March 10, 12:42 PM
That's a great argument Reese!

(were you touched by a priest?)

nihilist
14th March 10, 12:43 PM
If I was, I would have been banned from the site for posting hardcore gay porn and would be championing stupid usless concepts like abstinence.

Cullion
14th March 10, 12:56 PM
I see. You wish you'd been touched by a priest.

Your purpose here is served. You've given a full demonstration of the entrenched secularist with no facts to support his view that I've described previously. Being irrational and counterfactual in defence of a belief one insists is grounded in reason takes a special lack of reflectiveness. I'm going to set you Thomas Sowell for homework too.

nihilist
14th March 10, 01:06 PM
That's a sucessful, happy, STD free entrenched secularist to you, mister.

As far as reflectiveness goes, I never look back, darling.
It detracts from the now.


Now if you will excuse me, I must spend some time doing some irrational garage sale shopping.

HappyOldGuy
14th March 10, 07:43 PM
Next time you find yourself at a liberal circle jerk, and some smug twerp brings out the '<snork> why does the bible belt has higher STD rates??!!!??', I dare you to reply 'It's because more black people live there, and they have a higher prevelance of STDs by a factor of 10'. I double dare you.

That's the scary elephant in the room that you dorks are either unaware of or wilfully ignoring.

They also go to church around 50% more than white folks do.

And graduate from high school about 40% less.

So score one more for church over educat... oh wait.

nihilist
14th March 10, 08:00 PM
So to sum up, Lord Cullion proposes that the STD problem is because they're black and ignorant and the best way to keep them safe is to spook them.

Cullion
15th March 10, 02:37 PM
The next thing I expect at least one of you to do is to jump to a silly conclusion about the inference to be drawn from that data because you find the data itself deeply offensive and just wish it wasn't true.

BINGO! lol.

Now seriously, Reese, I didn't propose that about the STD rates, the statistics did. Did you read different statistics to me ?

HOG, are you really trying to correlate going to church with STD infection more than: lifetime number of sexual partners, intravenous drug use, rates of bi/homo sexuality and incarceration within an ethnic group ? Really ? Even after seeing that's not how it works in Africa?

Have you considered that perhaps churchgoing is not what's leading to higher rates of school dropout amongst that ethnic group in the US ?

I'm prepared to be very patient about this. I honestly like you guys and I'm prepared to do what it takes to stop you believing silly things.

HappyOldGuy
15th March 10, 03:15 PM
HOG, are you really trying to correlate going to church with STD infection more than: lifetime number of sexual partners, intravenous drug use, rates of bi/homo sexuality and incarceration within an ethnic group ? Really ? Even after seeing that's not how it works in Africa?



Catholic doctrine (loltastic though it may be) works better for preventing HIV spread than handing out condoms

Game, set, match.

Cullion
15th March 10, 04:24 PM
You're well aware that it works better than secular education, within a given population, because I've demonstrated it to you several times.

Are you actually going to argue that African American church attendance is what causes them to drop out of high school, use drugs, get incarcerated and have more sexual partners and prison sex?

Or better yet, are you going to say 'yeah whatever, but it's not those things that cause the STD rates, it's the church-going!'

Because I want to see this. You do this just right, and it might merit a sticky thread.

Come on HoG, You're just making yourself look dumb now.

There's a more rational view you know. One that doesn't require you to believe in God or suggest anybody else should be tricked into believing in God, whilst at the same time acknowledging that there's clearly a severe problem with current secular sex education.

Can you figure it out?

HappyOldGuy
15th March 10, 06:38 PM
You're well aware that it works better than secular education, within a given population, because I've demonstrated it to you several times.


Actually that is the exact point where your fail reaches maximum. To show the effect within a given population you need to isolate the effect of a given intervention within that population. Not compare North African circumcised Muslims with Southern African uncut protestants. I have posted several links to studies or articles about studies that do exactly that. You have posted exactly nothing except your own assertions which I have repeatedly shown to be false on the facts.

Stop trying to defend your mistaken recollection of some editorial you read 10 years ago, and do some frickin research.

Cullion
15th March 10, 06:47 PM
Oh I remember refuting your nonsense in that thread too. We compared Southern and West African Catholics too.

Post your actual arguments from data.

At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that blaming the anti-abortion lobby for African American promiscuity and incarceration rates is a fucking dumb proposition not born out by any real evidence.

HappyOldGuy
15th March 10, 07:13 PM
At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that blaming the anti-abortion lobby for African American promiscuity and incarceration rates is a fucking dumb proposition not born out by any real evidence.

So dumb I never did it. And you're not allowed to talk about intellectual honesty while constantly trying to change the subject. You claimed that catholic dogma was better at preventing AIDS than condoms. That's the subject. Prove it.

Cullion
15th March 10, 07:16 PM
Already did, last year (and the term you're looking for is 'current practice secular sex education' not 'Condoms').

I'm not going to let your fading memory drag us around in circles until the TV finally confirms for you that I'm right like we had to for that Global Warming hocus-pocus you were in love with.

I haven't changed the subject at all.

nihilist
16th March 10, 12:01 AM
There's a more rational view you know. One that doesn't require you to believe in God or suggest anybody else should be tricked into believing in God, whilst at the same time acknowledging that there's clearly a severe problem with current secular sex education.

Can you figure it out?

[slaps head] I GET IT NOW!

THE SEX-ED CLASSES NEED TO BE WRITTEN IN EBONICS!

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 11:34 AM
Already did, last year (and the term you're looking for is 'current practice secular sex education' not 'Condoms').


Link or STFU.

Cullion
16th March 10, 02:04 PM
You always start to claim 'last time you were proven wrong' when you're losing an argument.

You come up with the link.

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 02:22 PM
I'm claiming that you have never backed up your abortion claims, so I'm not sure how I can link to you doing so. Here is (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51885&highlight=abortion) a link to another abortion thread where you couldn't get your facts right.

nihilist
16th March 10, 06:03 PM
By blaming STDs on condom education Cullion hopes to come off as less racist.

Cullion
16th March 10, 07:37 PM
Not at all Reese. By showing you the actual stats involved, I'm just gently nudging you to the realisation that one of your cherished views has been based on bluff that works amongst like minded people.

There's nothing racist about pointing out that black people in the US have higher incarceration, school dropout and promiscuity rates.

You just rang that little 'willfully leap to the wrong inference' bell again.

Now, I can see you're trolling and I'll raise you another refutation:

You're so angry with the society you live in, and have accepted such comforting answers as to why from the 'outer party' (as opposed to the 'prole')-targetted media, that you're now living with demonstrably irrational beliefs.

I think you can do better.

Your whole concept of 'the bible belt' regarding STDs is demonstrably foolish.

It's not people voluntarily going to church causing these problems. It's the social conditions of black America. And one of the most powerful forces working against that in these communities is organised religion, as it is in Africa. It doesn't matter whether it's theoretically pure or not. I get that you find almost everything about broadcasted 'mandatory beliefs' irritating and oppressive on a... a spiritual level.

So do I. But I'm prepared to look reality in the face here.

But you can let that pissed off feeling blind you to reality. And in this thread, it looks like you are (I'm assuming you're sincere because this isn't CTC).

You want to take irrational though heartfelt faith out of any social equation, you're quite right to want to, but you've got to have something damn good to replace it. So far, we largely don't. I think the statistical data is plain as day.

This is not a call to retreat into superstition, this is a call to move things on to a higher plane. Something that's based on reason and that works. The Dawkins of this world have no answers for us here. They're just angry children still rebelling against the boring and oppressive creeds of their youth.. still.

That's kind of pathetic, no?

Are you truly interested in the truth ? Or do you want to wallow in comforting insults about hicks and rednecks ?

Cullion
16th March 10, 07:41 PM
I'm claiming that you have never backed up your abortion claims, so I'm not sure how I can link to you doing so. Here is (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51885&highlight=abortion) a link to another abortion thread where you couldn't get your facts right.

Oh Hog, but that isn't the thread where I made you look like a 4 year old who pissed their pants in front of teacher and tried to blame their imaginary friend (once again).

You know the thread I mean. The one where we talked about Africa. About catholic countries vs secular education. You got raped. And that's the thread you keep having selective memory failures over.

That thread you linked above? Anybody who actually reads it sees me trouncing you again.

Remember: This is sociocide. The people who matter click on links and read them.

And you've been completely unable to refute any data presented in this thread.

Go back to your simplistic world of 'red state' vs 'blue state'. You're more comfortable there. If you swim in a small enough pond, it's always possible to appear smart.

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 08:11 PM
Oh Hog, but that isn't the thread where I made you look like a 4 year old who pissed their pants in front of teacher and tried to blame their imaginary friend (once again).

You know the thread I mean. The one where we talked about Africa. About catholic countries vs secular education. You got raped. And that's the thread you keep having selective memory failures over.

That thread you linked above? Anybody who actually reads it sees me trouncing you again.

Remember: This is sociocide. The people who matter click on links and read them.

And you've been completely unable to refute any data presented in this thread.

Go back to your simplistic world of 'red state' vs 'blue state'. You're more comfortable there. If you swim in a small enough pond, it's always possible to appear smart.
You're halfway witty on the insults. But this is sociocide. Almost everyone here knows ad hominem when they see it.

You haven't posted a single data point here or in that thread, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to refute.

Besides, NOB agrees with you. That's when you know you're in trouble.

Cullion
16th March 10, 08:15 PM
I haven't posted a single data point in this thread?

You're fucking tripping. Away with you, back to comfort-zone.

I consider you beaten, and I don't need to say anything until you post more data for me to refute.

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 08:24 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qFzF_aZOuMw/SdHTF378wVI/AAAAAAAAARk/FGUgL7lr5DU/s320/black_knight.jpg

Cullion
16th March 10, 08:36 PM
I know you are but what am I?

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 08:46 PM
http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/tyndale/condom-snack.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xGjA0_6-DIU/SQ66Riu4FVI/AAAAAAAAAgY/wPBz8UUpkFQ/s400/Sniffing+Glue.jpg

Cullion
16th March 10, 08:52 PM
this is you

http://www.nyoatrader.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/muslim-pussy.jpg

you want to destroy our society in the name of feeling you have permission to be a drug-taking gay muslim.

HappyOldGuy
16th March 10, 08:55 PM
JZC4rikKddk

nihilist
16th March 10, 09:04 PM
Are you truly interested in the truth ? Or do you want to wallow in comforting insults about hicks and rednecks ?

I know what the truth is. I'm trying to troll you out of your conveniently ambiguous and ever shifting rhetoric.

Make a logical argument for once and see it I refute it.

Cullion
16th March 10, 09:28 PM
I made several you couldn't refute, based on real data, and you hid in comfortable MTV-liberal land. You even broke out 't3h racism!!!'. That's a little bit pathetic. Complaint's about 'isms' are for bitches, as you well know.

I don't think you actually make serious points any more. It's all just layers of cynicism and troll. You could do better.

'I could debate with you, but whatever, I'm too fucking cool and I'm not going to explain why' is actually a much lower level of argument than MJS puts forward, mainly because it's less witily expressed, and for a guy of your life experience that ought to be embarrassing. At least he's an active participant in the threads he takes an interest in rather than purely a critic.

You hide behind trolling and being faux-jaded when you've been stumped in debate.

Is there more to you than that ? I'm not sure. It's been a very long time since you tried to refute a study.

nihilist
16th March 10, 09:32 PM
There's a "Because" argument phase that I didn't quite catch. Could you kindly point that out for me?

Cullion
16th March 10, 09:40 PM
It's all there in my post above yours. You can read it as many times as you need. It's not like this thread will suffer if you take a long time to reply. Maybe you will feel up to supplying the 'because' eventually ?

nihilist
16th March 10, 09:42 PM
You can fool some of the people some of the time...

You know the rest.

Cullion
16th March 10, 09:44 PM
You can fool some of the people some of the time...

You know the rest.

But you can't fool me.

I think you're suffering from depression.

nihilist
16th March 10, 09:50 PM
Finish these simple sentences. (that is unless you can't)

Blacks have 7 times more STDs BECAUSE:

Catholic doctrine is more effective than secular sex education BECAUSE:

nihilist
16th March 10, 09:55 PM
Take as much time as you like.

Cullion
17th March 10, 05:53 PM
Blacks have 7 times more STDs BECAUSE:

You tell me. You're all upset about those statistics, almost as if you think I invented them. I didn't. It just happens to explain bible-belt std stats better than 'bcuz people there go to church'.

Other things African Americans are more likely to have happen to them which I think are likely to have an impact on STD rates are :-

Go to prison
Get raped in prison
Have many sexual partners
Take drugs

Now there's a whole range of complex factors affecting why those things are more likely to happen to African Americans, but I don't believe that 'going to church' is one of them. If you think it's racist to point these statistical truths out, then, well, you're a whiney faggot basically.



Catholic doctrine is more effective than secular sex education BECAUSE:

It uses supernatural imagery to scare people into a greater degree of abstinence. This isn't very nice, but so far the statistics show that it works better than having the noodle-drips who generally deliver secular sex education lecture people non-judgementally.

nihilist
17th March 10, 10:39 PM
You tell me. You're all upset about those statistics, almost as if you think I invented them. I didn't. It just happens to explain bible-belt std stats better than 'bcuz people there go to church'.

I'm "upset" about statistics? you must be high.
No, you didn't invent the statistics, however you seem to cherry pick the reasons for the statistics and you offer no logical explanation how you arrive at your conclusions. Did you even consider the fact that after two terms of GWB's abstinence funding (which 66% of schools used) yielded no positive results?

What schools do you think used abstinence only education? Secular ones?

The stats are more of an indictment on 'abstinence only' failing miserably.


Other things African Americans are more likely to have happen to them which I think are likely to have an impact on STD rates are :-

Go to prison
Get raped in prison
Have many sexual partners
Take drugs

Do you have any numbers for these assertions or is it some innate ability you have for divining percentages out of thin air?





Now there's a whole range of complex factors affecting why those things are more likely to happen to African Americans, but I don't believe that 'going to church' is one of them. If you think it's racist to point these statistical truths out, then, well, you're a whiney faggot basically.

Again, "a whole range of complex factors" and "I don't believe" is weaksauce.
I think you can do better.




It uses supernatural imagery to scare people into a greater degree of abstinence. This isn't very nice, but so far the statistics show that it works better than having the noodle-drips who generally deliver secular sex education lecture people non-judgementally.

No, the stats do not show that at all.

Abstinence only is a dismal failure.

nihilist
18th March 10, 12:35 AM
For the record, I think the ABC (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr060504.html) approach makes the most sense. If that makes me a brainwashed liberal then so be it.

Zendetta
18th March 10, 01:27 PM
I'll bet Teenage Reese could have never imagined Adult Reese saying that teenage girls shouldn't be trampy little whores.

Cullion
18th March 10, 02:59 PM
I'm "upset" about statistics? you must be high.
No, you didn't invent the statistics, however you seem to cherry pick the reasons for the statistics and you offer no logical explanation how you arrive at your conclusions. Did you even consider the fact that after two terms of GWB's abstinence funding (which 66% of schools used) yielded no positive results?

What schools do you think used abstinence only education? Secular ones?

The stats are more of an indictment on 'abstinence only' failing miserably.



Do you have any numbers for these assertions or is it some innate ability you have for divining percentages out of thin air?






Again, "a whole range of complex factors" and "I don't believe" is weaksauce.
I think you can do better.





No, the stats do not show that at all.

Abstinence only is a dismal failure.

You don't actually read stats. I think you should admit you got owned on your dumb 'it's going to church that has the bigger STD rates lol' brainwashed idiocy , and then shut the fuck up until you produce some relevant research of your own.

Disputing African American incarceration rates? Do your own googling you lazy 'tard.

HappyOldGuy
18th March 10, 03:14 PM
Did I miss Cullion actually posting stats?

Cullion
18th March 10, 03:16 PM
Apparently. Reese is flumoxed by me destroying his 'lol bible-belt' schtick and now he wants me to do more googling for him.

HappyOldGuy
18th March 10, 03:39 PM
Either I'm going blind or you're hallucinating things that aren't there. But I don't see a single post under your name with any sort of reference, link, or statistic in it.

You sure you're not confusing yourself with one of your sock puppet accounts (like mine).

Cullion
18th March 10, 04:02 PM
Yes, you're going blind. Now be a good sock puppet and pipe down.

nihilist
18th March 10, 10:53 PM
You don't actually read stats. I think you should admit you got owned on your dumb 'it's going to church that has the bigger STD rates lol' brainwashed idiocy , and then shut the fuck up until you produce some relevant research of your own.

Oh Cullion, I didn't say going to church gives people higher STD rates.
I merely pointed out that the rates for STDs were higher in the EXACT SAME REGION as the highest concentration of schools and households who believe that abstinence only education is the only acceptable method.
You conveniently sidetracked to the predictable: "Well, Blacks..."

Either the method works or it doesn't. Make up your mind.





Disputing African American incarceration rates? Do your own googling you lazy 'tard.
You are making a claim.
Either show that incarceration somehow negates abstinence only education or shut your whore mouth.

Cullion
19th March 10, 04:53 PM
Oh Cullion, I didn't say going to church gives people higher STD rates.
I merely pointed out that the rates for STDs were higher in the EXACT SAME REGION as the highest concentration of schools and households who believe that abstinence only education is the only acceptable method.

Yes, but the cause and effect was all screwed up.



You conveniently sidetracked to the predictable: "Well, Blacks..."

I quite correctly pointed out that you cannot make the comparison without taking ethnicity into account, and I was right.



Either the method works or it doesn't. Make up your mind.

Within a given demographic it does. Even on other continents.

You're either just confused because you don't understand that poor southern African Americans have a different social backdrop to northern suburban white kids or you're just blinded by your hatred of organised religion.



You are making a claim.
Either show that incarceration somehow negates abstinence only education or shut your whore mouth.

Are you this fucking stupid? really ? You can't see a link between being incarcerated and prison sex? And you don't see a link between prison sex and HIV infection ?

You're wasting my time now. Go and resolve your issues with priests and rabbis on somebody else's time.

Kiko
19th March 10, 07:37 PM
See, if this thread is any example. WHY the hell did they tack any abortion related stuff onto this healthcare bill if they wanted it to get passed? Why???

Cullion
19th March 10, 07:39 PM
The aim of the healthcare bill is clearly to make 'merkins to pay what's effectively a new tax to private companies with good political contacts.

In other words 'Change!'

You poor bastards. Listen to me before it's too late.

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 07:40 PM
In my opinion if you want to make uneducated people have less unsafe sex, show them big nasty STI pictures many times, and THEN educate them on the signs and symptoms of STI while at the same time emphasizing that a lot of them can be asymptomatic especially in women. At least said uneducated people will be empowered to look before they leap. Maybe they can actually check your glans for a syphillictic chancre before inserting it onto mucous membrane.

Cullion
19th March 10, 07:41 PM
What evidence can you cite that this works better than traditional 'u r so going to hell' methods ?

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 07:42 PM
The aim of the healthcare bill is clearly to make 'merkins to pay what's effectively a new tax to private companies with good political contacts.

In other words 'Change!'

You poor bastards. Listen to me before it's too late.

Yeah, it will never be "too late" with the current status quo. Goddamn, everyone acts like we don't have a critical problem with health care costs going on right now due to emergency rooms, medicare, medicaid, lawsuits, etc etc...a lot of the people out there opposed to the legislation are muppets going on about their fear of the federal government while apparently having no knowledge that the current system is untenable.

Kiko
19th March 10, 07:42 PM
So... are you gonna put these pictures on McDonald's wrappers or on American Idol, or what?

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 07:47 PM
What evidence can you cite that this works better than traditional 'u r so going to hell' methods ?

I'm just stating my opinion. To my knowledge nobody has done a study of this, probably because "gross them out and tell them how to look before they leap" would probably be laughed out of a meeting staffed by academic establishment WHO types.

But hell, I have trouble understanding why people go and have unsafe sex in the first place. I'm more inclined to agree with a doctor I know who back when he had been a med student and we did kickboxing together told me something along the lines that once you learn about sexual health issues it's enough to turn you off of sex. Plunging your penis into a vagina of unknown qualities seems dangerous in the same way as putting an unknown handloaded cartridge into an unknown old firearm you found in the attic and pulling the trigger.

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 07:48 PM
So... are you gonna put these pictures on McDonald's wrappers or on American Idol, or what?

Ideally the images would accompany cottage cheese, sausages and gravy, pasta with cream sauce, etc.

Kiko
19th March 10, 07:49 PM
Why cottage cheese? Who the hell eats that AND has lots of sex?


I thought you were trying to reach the masses....

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 07:51 PM
Why cottage cheese? Who the hell eats that AND has lots of sex?


I thought you were trying to reach the masses....

Sorry, I'm pretty exhausted from the week. You're right, fast food would be better. But I'd go for Burger King honestly. Not only is it sloppier, but the people who eat it are probably stupider and less health conscious than McDonalds clients.

Kiko
19th March 10, 07:53 PM
You think? I mean BK offers customization, while McD's is all about conformity. Hell, we could cover both of 'em, but they'll probably wolf down the burger, wipe their greasy face with the wrapper and ignore whatever is printed on the paper.

Wounded Ronin
19th March 10, 10:04 PM
You think? I mean BK offers customization, while McD's is all about conformity. Hell, we could cover both of 'em, but they'll probably wolf down the burger, wipe their greasy face with the wrapper and ignore whatever is printed on the paper.

See, now I'm just paralyzed imagining what it would be like to eat a greasy ass slimy Burger King burger while looking at a full color image of some unkempt vulva oozing cottage cheese.

Ajamil
20th March 10, 01:09 AM
I haven't been inside a BK or McDs in years. Thank you for reminding me why.

nihilist
20th March 10, 01:11 AM
Yes, but the cause and effect was all screwed up.

You have not even remotely demonstrated cause and effect. "obviously" only convinces those who believe without proof. Like Bible students for example.




I quite correctly pointed out that you cannot make the comparison without taking ethnicity into account, and I was right.


That has yet to be demonstrated.





Within a given demographic it does. Even on other continents.

Please, elaborate on your theory.




You're either just confused because you don't understand that poor southern African Americans have a different social backdrop to northern suburban white kids or you're just blinded by your hatred of organised religion.

How many poor, Southern African Americans do you think are free from the religion-soaked ignorant thinking that promotes abstinence-only education and the notion that praying can cure you of disease or protect you from evil?

Surely you can't be this obtuse.




You can't see a link between being incarcerated and prison sex? And you don't see a link between prison sex and HIV infection ?
Have you crunched any numbers yet or are you still guessing as to whether there are that many more incarcerated ppl in the bible belt with HIV?

You really haven't thought this through, have you?



You're wasting my time now. Go and resolve your issues with priests and rabbis on somebody else's time.

Whenever you start losing ground in a debate the ratio of insults increases.

bob
20th March 10, 01:45 AM
This thread makes baby Ignatius Loyola cry.

nihilist
20th March 10, 01:49 AM
"That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtingly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same ..." - Baby Ignatius

bob
20th March 10, 02:52 AM
Damn straight.

Cullion
20th March 10, 04:14 AM
Reese, I'm going to let you look for some figures for a change. It's about time you did some work here instead of just wryly responding to other people's content.

I consider your case destroyed. It's for you to prove otherwise.

nihilist
20th March 10, 06:39 AM
Cullion, I'm going to let you look for some figures for a change. It's about time you did some work here instead of just wryly responding to other people's content.

I consider your case destroyed. It's for you to prove otherwise.

Kiko
20th March 10, 06:54 AM
See, now I'm just paralyzed imagining what it would be like to eat a greasy ass slimy Burger King burger while looking at a full color image of some unkempt vulva oozing cottage cheese.
So it works against morbid obesity, too! YAY MARKETING!

Btw, don't be so sexist. Include pics of pustular peckers as well!

Wounded Ronin
20th March 10, 11:18 PM
So it works against morbid obesity, too! YAY MARKETING!

Btw, don't be so sexist. Include pics of pustular peckers as well!

I think those would work best at Weinerschnitzel. Especially when and if they serve sausages with both mustard and mayo on them.

Cullion
21st March 10, 08:27 AM
Don't you dare troll me Reese. You don't want me to bring it. Because I can bring it.

nihilist
21st March 10, 10:53 AM
That actually wasn't a troll.
Your conclusions were reached somewhat hastily and someone needs to point that out.

Cullion
21st March 10, 02:02 PM
My conclusions about 'bible belt has higher STDs' are much better founded than 'it's bcuz they go to church'. That's born out in the African stats in the last thread on this, the religious approaches were working better there too.

I'm not espousing religion here, I'm pointing out that there's a lot of evidence that the utilitarian, secular replacements for it's influence aren't very well developed yet.

People's minds are complicated, and calm logical education isn't always the best tool for persuading them to behave a certain way.

The US bible belt has a higher STD rate because more African Americans live there, and their higher STD rate is not caused by them going to church. Your conclusion about the bible belt STD rates was basically a liberal talking point based on extremely shallow mishandling of statistical data.

nihilist
21st March 10, 04:50 PM
I'm not espousing religion here, I'm pointing out that there's a lot of evidence that the utilitarian, secular replacements for it's influence aren't very well developed yet.

Hence my joke about sex-ed in Ebonics. The question remains as to how religious families, schools, communities can make decisions on information when that information is withheld and/or discounted by nearly everyone acting in the capacity of edifier.


... calm logical education isn't always the best tool for persuading them to behave a certain way.

Neither is the propagation of ignorance which I believe is a disservice to humanity.


The US bible belt has a higher STD rate because more African Americans live there, and their higher STD rate is not caused by them going to church. Again, the abstinence only education is the only game in town down there so how can you say that a rounded approach would not change those stats?

You keep talking past that point and I won't let you do it.

It's not necessarily "t3h 3bil church" but the lack of complete education that I think is failing these people. If you can prove that black atheists have more STDs then I will post video of me flushing my head down the toilet.

Cullion
21st March 10, 05:00 PM
Hence my joke about sex-ed in Ebonics. The question remains as to how religious families, schools, communities can make decisions on information when that information is withheld and/or discounted by nearly everyone acting in the capacity of edifier.

You can get people to do something that's good for them by immoral means that cause other problems. That's how I think scaring people with spooks manages to reduce some social problems without being a logical or true description of the world.



Neither is the propagation of ignorance which I believe is a disservice to humanity.

That's a value judgement I'd agree with, but it's not a utilitarian argument for the secular educational methods currently being employed.



Again, the abstinence only education is the only game in town down there so how can you say that a rounded approach would not change those stats?

I'm not, I'm pointing out that when you have a polarised choice between scaring people with spooks and calm secular education, when it comes to stopping people putting their pee-pee where they shouldn't, irrational fear seems to do a bit better at the moment.



It's not necessarily "t3h 3bil church" but the lack of complete education that I think is failing these people. If you can prove that black atheists have more STDs then I will post video of me flushing my head down the toilet.

Do completely disenfranchised nihilists with drug problems who quit school in their early teens count as atheists ?

In the thread where I debated HoG about the catholic message on Condoms I showed him that in sub-saharan African countries where Catholic 'ur pee-pee stays in ur wife or u burn in t3h hellfire' sex education predominates had lower STD rates than ones where western secular sex education and condom distribution dominate.

I can also show you that nice whitebread protestant populations tend to have increasing STD rates as they become secularised in countries like the UK, too.

Within a given socioeconomic strata, scaring the shit out of people with myth seems to work better as a behaviour-modification method than calm liberal reason at the moment. This is not an argument in favour of unreason, it is a warning note suggesting the secular methods need improving.

If educated secular people bury their head in the sand about the stats and just assume that their methods will work, whilst making kind of snide in-jokes about the bible belt etc.. which aren't actually based in fact, then no improvement can occur. It's an irresponsible basis for social policy. It's exactly the kind of thing that leads to widespread working class hatred of what they'll come to see as a decadent liberal elite that don't really care about them, which is exactly what I'm worrying about in that BNP artist/philosopher thread.

nihilist
21st March 10, 07:30 PM
You can get people to do something that's good for them by immoral means that cause other problems. That's how I think scaring people with spooks manages to reduce some social problems without being a logical or true description of the world.[quote] The fact remains that in bibleland, poverty, illiteracy, inequality, crime and disease reigns supreme. Yes, sure. religion has nothing to do with it.



[QUOTE]That's a value judgement I'd agree with, but it's not a utilitarian argument for the secular educational methods currently being employed. Which methods are you referring to, exactly?
The ABC method has compelling evidence in it's favor.



:deadhorse: I'm not, I'm pointing out that when you have a polarised choice between scaring people with spooks and calm secular education, when it comes to stopping people putting their pee-pee where they shouldn't, irrational fear seems to do a bit better at the moment.:deadhorse:
It's not working for the very people who are affected most by disease.
That's not much of a utility.



Do completely disenfranchised nihilists with drug problems who quit school in their early teens count as atheists ?

No. According to you atheists are pretty much the opposite.


In the thread where I debated HoG about the catholic message on Condoms I showed him that in sub-saharan African countries where Catholic 'ur pee-pee stays in ur wife or u burn in t3h hellfire' sex education predominates had lower STD rates than ones where western secular sex education and condom distribution dominate. Tell me about how ABC failed in Uganda.


I can also show you that nice whitebread protestant populations tend to have increasing STD rates as they become secularised in countries like the UK, too. No one cares about the UK, in fact, most of us are hoping that Ireland will turn it into a sheet of glass for it's horrible human rights record.
Ok, maybe we don't hate the UK that much.


Within a given socioeconomic strata, scaring the shit out of people with myth seems to work better as a behaviour-modification method than calm liberal reason at the moment. This is not an argument in favour of unreason, it is a warning note suggesting the secular methods need improving.
Of course they need improving. there is more to overcome than just ignorance.

The sarcastic side of me wants to present the facts and let social Darwinism take over. Some things are better left to nature.




If educated secular people bury their head in the sand about the stats and just assume that their methods will work, whilst making kind of snide in-jokes about the bible belt etc.. which aren't actually based in fact, then no improvement can occur. It's an irresponsible basis for social policy. It's exactly the kind of thing that leads to widespread working class hatred of what they'll come to see as a decadent liberal elite that don't really care about them, which is exactly what I'm worrying about in that BNP artist/philosopher thread.

:rolleyes:

Cullion
21st March 10, 07:42 PM
Which methods are you referring to, exactly?
The ABC method has compelling evidence in it's favor.

The ABC Uganda case was addressed in the other thread and HoG ran away from it the moment he realised what had caused the statistics to look like that.



It's not working for the very people who are affected most by disease.
That's not much of a utility.

You just said 'the methods which prevent disease aren't working very well for people who already caught the disease'. Think about that.



No. According to you atheists are pretty much the opposite.

People being taught by atheists aren't, unfortunately, that's why disease and nihilism is spreading through our societies like a plague.



Tell me about how ABC failed in Uganda.

Sure. This is what everybody ran away from in the last thread on the subject . The Lancet catalogued the flaws in the statistical methodology used to claim success in that programme, and then the programme's own survey methodology reported rising HIV rates a couple of years later. Sorry.




No one cares about the UK, in fact, most of us are hoping that Ireland will turn it into a sheet of glass for it's horrible human rights record.

Oh, you'd love the Irish Republic, Reese, you being a comitted non-racist, secularist and all. No really you would. I guess you just haven't sobered up since St. Paddy's day, you being 'about half irish' and all. Lolz.

Just promise me one thing.. you didn't put any money in any of those 'Free Ireland' collecting tins ever, did you? At least let me know you weren't that fucking disconnected from reality.



The sarcastic side of me wants to present the facts and let social Darwinism take over. Some things are better left to nature.

The sarcastic side of you is an intellectually lazy smartass who'se used to getting away with counterfactual bullshit amongst other libertards who don't check figures.

nihilist
21st March 10, 08:03 PM
The ABC Uganda case was addressed in the other thread and HoG ran away from it the moment he realised what had caused the statistics to look like that. I don't know what "the other thread" is. I don't spend all my waking hours on the internet. Link plz.




You just said 'the methods which prevent disease aren't working very well for people who already caught the disease'. Think about that.
You know what I meant even though it was poorly worded.



People being taught by atheists aren't, unfortunately, that's why disease and nihilism is spreading through our societies like a plague.

This rhetoric is as ridiculous as your mistaken notion that I believe all of societies ills are because of religion. Just stick to the facts.








Oh, you'd love the Irish Republic, Reese, you being a comitted non-racist, secularist and all. No really you would. I guess you just haven't sobered up since St. Paddy's day, you being 'about half irish' and all. Lolz.

Just promise me one thing.. you didn't put any money in any of those 'Free Ireland' collecting tins ever, did you? At least let me know you weren't that fucking disconnected from reality.

I would only give money to Ireland if it could promise to take a big shit on England like we did.




The sarcastic side of you is an intellectually lazy smartass who'se used to getting away with counterfactual bullshit amongst other libertards who don't check figures.

See, this is when shit gets eerie. Whenever you attack me on that fact it sounds like you are speaking to the guy in the mirror.

Cullion
21st March 10, 08:09 PM
I don't know what "the other thread" is. I don't spend all my waking hours on the internet. Link plz.

Search function, noob.



You know what I meant even though it was poorly worded.

What you said didn't actually make any sense. Reword it.



This rhetoric is as ridiculous as your mistaken notion that I believe all of societies ills are because of religion. Just stick to the facts.

I am. I've posted links to stats in this thread and pointed at studies. So far you've said 'nuh-uh' and cited a case study of a single African country (which I've refuted already) and completely ignored STD rates everywhere else.



I would only give money to Ireland if it could promise to take a big shit on England like we did.

I'm 1 generation away from catholic family born in the republic. You're an American 'St Paddy's day' fantasist who's watched too many movies. Don't bring the Irish troubles into this because you'll come out feeling guilty, and a little bit nauseous, after I recount some unpleasant casualties and post some nasty film footage.

I've been evacuated by the police during an IRA bomb warning and had relatives (some from the Irish catholic side of my family) serve in uniform in Ulster and been shot at. You're somebody from the West Coast of the US who likes the occasional whiskey or guiness and has probably seen 'The Commitments'. GTFO with your 'authentic corned beef' and TV-based political awareness you fucking yankee fool.



See, this is when shit gets eerie. Whenever you attack me on that fact it sounds like you are speaking to the guy in the mirror.

I'm still waiting for you to refute something with a link to statistical data. I already have, you haven't. It's that simple.

HappyOldGuy
21st March 10, 08:14 PM
The ABC Uganda case was addressed in the other thread and HoG ran away from it the moment he realised what had caused the statistics to look like that.

Increased condom use, delayed sexual activity, and high mortality levels caused by lack of anti-retroviral drugs. Pretty much in that order. Exactly what am I running away from in your fevered mind. Note, delayed sexual activity among the young was a major feature. Sexual fidelity in relationships was not. Nor was Ugandas abc program primarly faith based.

Reese, the other thread is one that Cullion creates in his mind where he actually wins debates. But you'll notice he never links it. We always have to find it ourselves.

Cullion
21st March 10, 08:19 PM
I know that's hard for you, but considering I'm the only one who'se referenced any unrefuted stats in this thread, I don't feel too guilty about letting you oldsters do a little work now and then.

'That other thread' has a wealth of other information where you were soundly refuted. Your whole argument is based on a single African country where you're still trying to make excuses for the increasing HIV rate.

It's absurd.

nihilist
21st March 10, 11:12 PM
Search function, noob.

Yuo = faygut




What you said didn't actually make any sense. Reword it.
How simple do I need to make this?

ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION FAILS THE BIBLE-BELT CITIZENS WHO ARE MOST AT RISK OF CONTRACTING DISEASE. THIS IS A DOUBLE FAIL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?




I am. I've posted links to stats in this thread and pointed at studies.

That is why you fail, and not only that, you fail by the very standards that you impose upon others.



I'm 1 generation away from catholic family born in the republic. You're an American 'St Paddy's day' fantasist who's watched too many movies. Don't bring the Irish troubles into this because you'll come out feeling guilty, and a little bit nauseous, after I recount some unpleasant casualties and post some nasty film footage.

I've been evacuated by the police during an IRA bomb warning and had relatives (some from the Irish catholic side of my family) serve in uniform in Ulster and been shot at. You're somebody from the West Coast of the US who likes the occasional whiskey or guiness and has probably seen 'The Commitments'. GTFO with your 'authentic corned beef' and TV-based political awareness you fucking yankee fool. This is a sad new low for you. You might check into a clinic that deals with terminal postulators.



I'm still waiting for you to refute something with a link to statistical data. I already have, you haven't. It's that simple.

http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/coljgl15&div=6&id=&page=

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18

Cullion
22nd March 10, 02:52 PM
Y
ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION FAILS THE BIBLE-BELT CITIZENS WHO ARE MOST AT RISK OF CONTRACTING DISEASE. THIS IS A DOUBLE FAIL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

No, because you haven't demonstrated it yet, you've just typed it all in caps.




That is why you fail, and not only that, you fail by the very standards that you impose upon others.

I fail by reading studies? Oh, right.



This is a sad new low for you. You might check into a clinic that deals with terminal postulators.

Does it sting when I'm so accurate ? I hope so. I can picture the vein in your temple throbbing.




http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/coljgl15&div=6&id=&page=

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18

I'm going to refute these one at a time. Whilst you puzzle over why STD rates and single teen pregnancy are increasing in countries employing secular methods.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 06:53 PM
First study excluded the married cohort (~2% of the sampled age group) all the homosexuals (~15% of the sampled age group), and all of the people who received only contraceptive education with no mention of abstinence (~5% of the sampled age group).

Even then, they don't claim success of comprehensive vs abstinence at reducing STDs:-


, but also showed no impact on likelihood for
STD associated with either abstinence-only or comprehensive
sex education.

This study emphatically does not support this claim of yours


ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION FAILS THE BIBLE-BELT CITIZENS WHO ARE MOST AT RISK OF CONTRACTING DISEASE. THIS IS A DOUBLE FAIL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

However, I didn't for one minute think you'd actually read this paper before posting the link.

They do claim reduced pregnancy rates for comprehensive education, however, and I will investigate this further.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 09:02 PM
They discussed the STD issue at greater length in the study. There was an observed effect, but it wasn't strong enough to be statistically significant. Again, because when you group all STD's together by incidence, non condom prevented mostly asymptomatic nuisance chlamydia buries all other STD's.

nihilist
22nd March 10, 11:50 PM
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2145/aosx.jpg

nihilist
23rd March 10, 12:13 AM
Let's see what our 1.5 BILLION dollar abstinence only program is buying us:

"AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact."
-Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Teacher's Guide, Unit 5, p. 1

"Game Plan does not promote the use of contraceptives for teens. No contraceptive device is guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Additionally, students who do not choose to exercise self-control to remain abstinent are not likely to exercise self-control in the use of a contraceptive device." -Game Plan, Coach's Clipboard, p. 27

"At the least, the chances of getting pregnant with a condom are 1 out of 6."

-Me, My World, My Future , Revised HIV material, p. 257


"Condoms provide no proven reduction in protection against Chlamydia, the most common bacterial STD."

-Choosing the Best PATH , Leader Guide, p. 18


"That means the virus [HIV] may be in your body a long time (from a few months to as long as 10 years or more) before it can be detected, either by a test or by physical symptoms."

-Sex Respect, Student Workbook , p. 60

"A young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone...females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well."

-Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11

"A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts??"

-Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 94

"Each time a sexually active person gives that most personal part of himself or herself away, that person can lose a sense of personal value and worth. It all comes down to self-respect."

-Choosing the Best PATH, Teacher's Guide, p. 7

What a fucking crock of taxpayer-funded shit.

Cullion
23rd March 10, 01:56 PM
Reese, so you concede that your statements about STD rates in the bible belt was wrong and the study didn't support your opinion?

HoG, in a sample that small 'lack of statistical significance' means 'scientifically irrelevant'.

Even when you try and reduce this to a single public school programme rather than wider secularisation of your society, you cannot provide evidence to support your point about STDs.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 02:15 PM
Even when you try and reduce this to a single public school programme rather than wider secularisation of your society, you cannot provide evidence to support your point about STDs.

About STD's other than chlamydia, I already did in earlier links that you chose to ignore. So to recap. Condom access, and condom focused education does not stop chlamydia. It does reduce AIDS. It does reduce teen pregnancy, and it does reduce teen abortions. Abstinence only education does basically nothing. 'Abstinence plus', especially when it focuses on real world consequences rather than 'just say no' can be the most effective approach of all.

Zendetta
23rd March 10, 05:39 PM
Abstinence only education does basically nothing.

Not true. It leads to much higher incidences of anal sex.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 05:40 PM
Not true. It leads to much higher incidences of anal sex.

Where do you think the plus comes from?

Cullion
23rd March 10, 06:05 PM
About STD's other than chlamydia, I already did in earlier links that you chose to ignore.

Yes, because they're not relevant.


It does reduce AIDS.

AIDs isn't reducing in the US, and we already did the Africa comparison.



, and it does reduce teen abortions. Abstinence only education does basically nothing. 'Abstinence plus', especially when it focuses on real world consequences rather than 'just say no' can be the most effective approach of all.

Do you really believe that you can compare the panoply of supportive and guiding social structures in a pre-corporate non-secular society to a single type of public school sex education as practiced in the US ? I don't think you actually do.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 06:24 PM
AIDs isn't reducing in the US, and we already did the Africa comparison.



I've already posted the direct CDC links proving you wrong on this.

Cullion
23rd March 10, 06:28 PM
No you didn't, you posted links showing a recent drop in transmission rates, with no demonstration that it's due to the effect of new sex education programmes. AIDS cases continue to increase.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 06:33 PM
nm, you're not worth the effort.

Zendetta
23rd March 10, 06:34 PM
Where do you think the plus comes from?

I agree that its an upside that Jeebus wants your pious girlfriend to take it up the hershey highway.

Cullion
23rd March 10, 06:36 PM
nm, you're not worth the effort.

That's as close to graciously conceding that you've ever come. Better luck next time old boy.

nihilist
24th March 10, 12:56 AM
Yeah, better back off, HOG, Cullion has The Washington Post, World Net Daily and Fox News' studies backing him up.
You don't wanna mess with that, bro.

nihilist
24th March 10, 01:01 AM
No you didn't, you posted links showing a recent drop in transmission rates, with no demonstration that it's due to the effect of new sex education programmes. AIDS cases continue to increase. It's due to the "increased secularization" that you were referring to earlier which is also causing blacks to be buttfucked at an alarming rate because Lord knows, religion has nothing to do with it.

Cullion
24th March 10, 10:18 AM
Don't worry Reese, if I want to find out who's been buttfucking all those black teenagers, I know exactly who to ask.

nihilist
24th March 10, 10:05 PM
I use a condom and lots of lube so unfortunately for your case the burden of proof goes right back to you.

nihilist
24th March 10, 10:25 PM
Well since I have proven that secular folks have less poverty, ignorance and anal rape I'm going to have to claim victory in this thread.

nihilist
25th March 10, 12:46 AM
UW researchers analyzed records of 1,719 straight teens aged 15 to 19 taken from a 2002 federal survey on families. Sixty-seven percent of the adolescents had taken comprehensive sex-education classes; 24 percent had received abstinence-only education, which emphasizes the safest sex is no sex and which discourages premarital sex. The remaining 9 percent received no sex education.

When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who'd had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group.

But, hey, what's a few illegitimate brats born to teen mothers, eh Cullion, or should I say... SATAN?

nihilist
25th March 10, 12:58 AM
I just read an article that claims that a study of middle-school students that found for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation and is already beginning to shake up the longstanding debate over how best to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Now, armed with this new evidence abstinence-only educators could, possibly, help kids put off pregnancy and disease till later when the itch proves too enticing not to scratch, or that first beer, you know, whichever comes first.

bob
25th March 10, 02:18 AM
Being raised catholic makes you 60% more likely to have a sexual initiation aged 11 as an altar boy.

nihilist
25th March 10, 02:25 AM
Psshhh. If that were true, Cullion would have been temp-banned for posting hardcore gay pr0n by now.

Oh, wait... nm.

Ajamil
25th March 10, 07:35 AM
Being raised catholic makes you 60% more likely to have a sexual initiation aged 11 as an altar boy.Non-Catholics can be altar boys?

Kiko
25th March 10, 07:50 AM
Opening a whole other can of worms here...

Assuming that you have children, what do YOU teach them. If it matters whether they're male or female, please do elaborate.

Ajamil
25th March 10, 08:01 AM
No kids, can't say. However I was raised to think condoms are effective, don't get `em pregnant, and the less partners you have, the less you are at risk. This coming from the father who had a child at 14, and the sometimes Planned Parenthood employee mom.

Kiko
25th March 10, 08:06 AM
Humor me and pretend you have teenagers.

Ajamil
25th March 10, 08:24 AM
Hrmm...I would teach the basics of sex at probably a much younger age than most would agree with. Not about the experience, or the surrounding hubub, but the mechanics of baby-making. Pre to early teens (12-14) is when I would talk on the dangers and responsibility. From then on, I would ask questions and try to make myself available for counsel. At some point it isn't how you plan to deal with sex ed that'll make or break you, it's the rest of your parenting. Do your kids approach and ask you questions? Overall I guess I'd say sex wouldn't be illegal in my house, and I hope to god if I had a daughter she'd tell me when she becomes sexually active so we could get her on the pill.

Kiko
25th March 10, 08:27 AM
See, if more folks did this (and I mostly agree with you, Arjuna) then we wouldn't have to waste time/money arguing about how or if this should even be taught in schools.

Parenting FTW!

nihilist
25th March 10, 10:10 AM
I taught my kid to be discerning, to have fear of death and disease and to be monogamous.
I also taught him that if he touched himself, he would not spend an eternity in Hell.

He is seventeen now and I am not a grandpa.
I also have not had to take him to the Chlamydia shop.

Ajamil
25th March 10, 10:25 AM
Unitarian Sunday School included a year called AYS - About Your Sexuality. We learned all about teh gayz, and teh lezbefrendz, and one slide had many many names for penis, and another many many names for vagina, and we learned that teh AIDS was NOT just for teh gayz. We played with condoms, and we had colored M&Ms in paper bags and we learned about passing diseases through "sex." I had teh syphillis bag. :(

nihilist
25th March 10, 10:29 AM
Yeah, that's a great idea! Teach kids that disease is like tasty candy!

Kiko
25th March 10, 10:31 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rQverMXlHlY/ScuLwNtMt2I/AAAAAAAAALY/jIAbUoBRAvc/s320/candycig1.jpg

nihilist
25th March 10, 10:36 AM
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8754/mileycyrushaspeniscandy.jpg

HappyOldGuy
25th March 10, 10:44 AM
I must spread more syphillis around before I can give some to reese for Hannah montana cockmikes.

nihilist
25th March 10, 10:51 AM
Yeah, I can't infect you or Goon or Kiko or any of my favorite posters.

It's like someone put a condom on the rep system.

nihilist
25th March 10, 10:52 AM
Sorry Cullion, I know you would have preferred a comparison to abstinence education.

Ajamil
25th March 10, 11:58 AM
The tan M&Ms were condoms. I did eat a lot of those. Lesse...what are the M&M colors? Red was AIDS. I think yellow was herpes. Are there orange M&Ms? I think I had orange.

nihilist
25th March 10, 12:03 PM
Herpes. The gift that keeps on giving.

Cullion
25th March 10, 02:20 PM
Well since I have proven that white folks have less poverty, ignorance and anal rape I'm going to have to claim victory in this thread.

Nazi. (although unfortunately that's what the figures actually say)

Cullion
25th March 10, 02:21 PM
lots of lube

Blood and saliva are not safe forms of lube.

bob
25th March 10, 03:33 PM
Opening a whole other can of worms here...

Assuming that you have children, what do YOU teach them. If it matters whether they're male or female, please do elaborate.

I have friends with a four year old who literally spends much of his time walking around with his pants half down and his hand on his... inheritance. They're mortified, especially when he walks around a shopping center doing it. I can see the attraction of the whole 'going to hell' thing for situations like that.

Kiko
25th March 10, 04:42 PM
I'm trying to recall being told that 'doing X' = going to Hell. Nope, can't think of any. Dogma teaches that dying while in a state of mortal sin (un-confessed, of course, because confession makes your soul bright and shiny like new!) would be a ticket to Hell, but then there's the confession bit.

Anyhow, Faith has to be practiced within the real world. I believe it was George Carlin, who said if God didn't want us to touch our... inheritance, He wouldn't have made our arms just the right length, would He?

nihilist
26th March 10, 12:00 AM
I believe it was George Carlin, who said if God didn't want us to touch our... inheritance, He wouldn't have made our arms just the right length, would He?

If you weren't able to inspect your gadget then that wouldn't truly be free will.

nihilist
26th March 10, 12:02 AM
Blood and saliva are not safe forms of lube.

Huh, I can rep you now...must be a sign from gawd.

bob
26th March 10, 05:20 AM
Anyhow, Faith has to be practiced within the real world. I believe it was George Carlin, who said if God didn't want us to touch our... inheritance, He wouldn't have made our arms just the right length, would He?

If God really favoured us he would have made our flexibility a little more like dogs, no?

But then, most males would never get out of the house.

EuropIan
5th April 10, 01:39 PM
AIDS rates in Africa:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Africa_HIV-AIDS_300px.png

Catholicism in Africa:
http://www.religiouslyremapped.info/map6/images/small-image.jpg


Me: Huh, doesn't seem to matter either way.

Cullion
5th April 10, 06:25 PM
It's been analysed in more detail before.

Wounded Ronin
5th April 10, 09:30 PM
bzl0zIPDD_E