Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
Larni
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 117 (639866)
11-04-2011 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Artemis Entreri
11-04-2011 12:58 PM


Probably because it's not a conservative stance, this is just a place where people slander us.
Was my explanation and retraction insufficient?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-04-2011 12:58 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Omnivorous, posted 11-04-2011 3:16 PM Larni has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 117 (639869)
11-04-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
11-04-2011 1:43 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
The law at hand is a tactic to increase the number of schoolkids who receive abstinence-only sex ed.
I agree that it is a step in that direction. But as the article states, Wisconsin still requires other contraceptive methods be taught; so this new bill doesn't push reasonable sex ed completely out the door.
We know how well policies of abstinence work, even among those taking the most profound religious vows: not as well as the most failure-prone method of contraception.
Yes, an abstinence only policy/plan is a sure-fire failure. But that isn't what Wisconsin has here.
All proponents of abstinence-only sex ed should practice actual abstinence. The situation would improve in just a few decades.
With the world population just recently hitting the 7 bill. mark, I couldn't agree more.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 11-04-2011 1:43 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 3:12 PM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 33 of 117 (639877)
11-04-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
11-04-2011 1:25 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
But, of course, I was talking about actual abstinence, not attempted abstinence.
Obviously the failure rate of a procedure excluding all failures is zero percent. By this definition, using condoms and excluding all condom failure modes also results in a success rate of 100%.
It has to be apples to apples. If you're going to talk about the failure rates of contraception - and, as you recall, that's what you were talking about - then we have to compare those rates using the same methodology. And when you examine abstinence using that methodology - including, among other modalities of failure, "pledged abstinence but had vaginal intercourse at least once" - the contraception rate is quite low. Condoms may have more failure modalities - there's only two ways to fail at abstinence - but those modalities are all much rarer.
It has to be apples to apples, Jon. Otherwise you're just lying. You wouldn't want to lie to people, would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 1:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 34 of 117 (639882)
11-04-2011 3:09 PM


Um given that you have problems teaching kids what contraceptives are how you use them and their effectivnes, it seems silly to ask but do you have some sort of advanced Sex education??
When i was around 16 in high school we had a really hippy typ of teacher and in his classes of sociology we also discussed erogen zones u know the places on the body when stimulated make you horny.
Like on the face you have the ears, on the sides next to the nose the eye lids, the lips and on the woman if you stimulate her enough her whole body acts as an erogene zone
Stuff like that did you ever cover them in school or no ?
I think it was grate we got to cover this stuff improved my sex life from zero to a man whore

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 117 (639883)
11-04-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
11-04-2011 2:02 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
But as the article states, Wisconsin still requires other contraceptive methods be taught; so this new bill doesn't push reasonable sex ed completely out the door.
The article states no such thing. The article states that the teaching of contraceptive methods is not prohibited. And other sources say that the law would leave no requirement to teach contraception in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 2:02 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 36 of 117 (639886)
11-04-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
11-04-2011 1:59 PM


Larni writes:
Was my explanation and retraction insufficient?
Self-styled martyrs do not accept explanations or retractions.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 11-04-2011 1:59 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-09-2011 12:32 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 117 (639896)
11-04-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NoNukes
11-04-2011 3:12 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Jon writes:
But as the article states, Wisconsin still requires other contraceptive methods be taught; so this new bill doesn't push reasonable sex ed completely out the door.
The article states no such thing. The article states that the teaching of contraceptive methods is not prohibited. And other sources say that the law would leave no requirement to teach contraception in any way.
Perhaps I am misreading this part then:
quote:
Wisconsin Senators Pass Controversial Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception in Sex Ed from Fox News:
A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods.
Is there something about this that I'm not reading right?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 3:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 8:15 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 117 (639897)
11-04-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
11-04-2011 2:45 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Obviously the failure rate of a procedure excluding all failures is zero percent. By this definition, using condoms and excluding all condom failure modes also results in a success rate of 100%.
Good thing I didn't say we should exclude all failures.
What I said was that it is ridiculous to include in a study about the effectiveness of the use of 'X' incidents in which 'X' was never used.
Condoms may have more failure modalities - there's only two ways to fail at abstinence - but those modalities are all much rarer.
You simply cannot say you practiced abstinence but got pregnant/an STD anyway. If you got either of those, you didn't practice abstinence. Just like if you had sex without a condom, you didn't use a condom. If you have sex without practicing abstinence, you didn't practice abstinence.
How does a support beam fail on a nonexistent bridge?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-04-2011 5:46 PM Jon has replied
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 7:54 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 8:22 PM Jon has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 39 of 117 (639898)
11-04-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-04-2011 5:38 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
You simply cannot say you practiced abstinence but got pregnant/an STD anyway. If you got either of those, you didn't practice abstinence. Just like if you had sex without a condom, you didn't use a condom. If you have sex without practicing abstinence, you didn't practice abstinence.
Well what he ment to say is that its harder for teens to practice abstinence then to put on a condom, in fact putting on a condom is wayyyy easier for teens then to practice abstinence
Just remember how horny u used to be in those days so its a good idea to let them learn about other options as well.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 6:24 PM frako has not replied
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 8:26 PM frako has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 117 (639901)
11-04-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
11-04-2011 5:46 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Well what he ment to say is that its harder for teens to practice abstinence then to put on a condom, in fact putting on a condom is wayyyy easier for teens then to practice abstinence
I don't think that's what Crashfrog is saying, but he will have to correct one of us.
Just remember how horny u used to be in those days so its a good idea to let them learn about other options as well.
I'm not really all that old. Plus, I never said it wasn't a good idea to teach 'other options' as well. In fact, I think teaching abstinence only is stupid and that a sex ed course could easily be highly effective without ever mentioning abstinence at all.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-04-2011 5:46 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 8:29 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 41 of 117 (639909)
11-04-2011 7:43 PM


Gotta love Wisconsin: you can go get hammered in a bar on the snowmobile trails when you're 12, but god forbid they give you a good sex education.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 117 (639911)
11-04-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-04-2011 5:38 PM


Jon writes:
quote:
What I said was that it is ridiculous to include in a study about the effectiveness of the use of 'X' incidents in which 'X' was never used.
But that's just it: The failure rates of all other methods of contraception include inconsistent use. Abstinence folks are happy to claim that condoms don't work, citing failure rates of 20% or more, but that's because they are including the population of people who don't use condoms all the time. When you look at only those who do use them all the time, the effectiveness rate is nearly 100%.
So if we're going to talk about "reliability," then we must take into account the entire population, including those who don't practice their method consistently. And in that light, abstinence is a rotten method. Kids who received abstinence sex ed were more likely to have sex without any protection of any kind, had more pregnancies, and had more STDs than those who received comprehensive sex ed.
Thus, the claim that abstinence is the only "reliable" method simply isn't true.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 117 (639913)
11-04-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jon
11-04-2011 5:27 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Jon writes:
quote:
A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods.
Is there something about this that I'm not reading right?
You are doing a fine job of reading the current law.
But you are making the unwarranted assumption that the bill leaves the old law intact. At least according to the article and according to other reporting I've read, the bill does away with the original requirement to teach contraception. Under the Republican bill, teaching abstinence only would be just fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:27 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:35 PM NoNukes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 117 (639914)
11-04-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-04-2011 5:38 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
What I said was that it is ridiculous to include in a study about the effectiveness of the use of 'X' incidents in which 'X' was never used.
No, again, it's no more ridiculous than the fact that condom failure rates include all the people who say they "use condoms" but then have sex without one; the fact that diaphragm failure rates include all the people who own a diaphragm but have sex without putting it in; the fact that hormonal contraception failure rates include all the people who have a prescription for the pill but don't manage to take it regularly.
Apples to apples, Jon. Pledging to practice abstinence and then having sex anyway is a failure modality of abstinence. Pledging abstinence and then getting raped by someone who doesn't care if you're trying to be abstinent or not is also a failure modality of abstinence. Apples to apples, Jon, otherwise you're being dishonest.
You simply cannot say you practiced abstinence but got pregnant/an STD anyway.
Well, you certainly can't say you successfully practiced it. But, again, the failure rate of only successful techniques is, by definition, zero. They're successful!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 117 (639915)
11-04-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
11-04-2011 5:46 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Well what he ment to say is that its harder for teens to practice abstinence then to put on a condom, in fact putting on a condom is wayyyy easier for teens then to practice abstinence
No, what I mean is that the percentage of abstinent teens who have sex anyway is much, much larger than the percentage of condoms that break, leak, aren't used, etc. There's more ways for a condom to fail than for abstinence to fail, but abstinence fails much, much more often which is why its failure rate is so much higher than all other forms of contraception.
Its not that hard to understand. Jon is playing a tautological game where he defines the technique only in its successful practice, and then tries to argue that because the technique (as he's defined it) is only ever successful, the failure rate is zero.
But that's a word-game. When we assess the failure rates of contraceptive methods, we include noncompliance. We always have. An apples to apples comparison means we have to include all the people who pledge to abstain from sex and then have sex anyway. They're using abstinence but are noncompliant with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-04-2011 5:46 PM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024