Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


(2)
Message 29 of 117 (639860)
11-04-2011 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
11-04-2011 1:25 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Jon writes:
But, of course, I was talking about actual abstinence, not attempted abstinence.
The law prescribes, and the OP addresses, public policy.
In your formulation, we could substitute "death" or "impotence" or "sterility", and the result would be equally valid--and, like any tautology, have as little applicability to useful public policy. The law at hand is a tactic to increase the number of schoolkids who receive abstinence-only sex ed.
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.
All proponents of abstinence-only sex ed should practice actual abstinence. The situation would improve in just a few decades.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

"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 27 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 1:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2011 1:56 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 2:02 PM Omnivorous has not 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

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


Message 92 of 117 (640462)
11-09-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Artemis Entreri
11-09-2011 12:32 PM


Truth
AE writes:
just another example of slander and name calling.
keep this place classy omnivorous
Slander commonly defined is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement.
Truth is commonly considered a strong defense against charges of slander.
You, like most conservatives, are convinced of your own victimimization, all the while mocking those whom you feel seek gain from an "ideology of victimology."
I rest your case.

"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 90 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-09-2011 12:32 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2011 11:16 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 97 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-11-2011 2:48 PM Omnivorous has replied

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


Message 94 of 117 (640465)
11-09-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
11-09-2011 11:16 PM


Re: Truth (uncorrected)
Coyote writes:
Slander commonly defined is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement.
Slander is oral, libel is written. Posts on this board would come under the latter.
AE chose the term slander: if you want to preface your post with pettifoggery, direct it at him. My point stands. Truth stands as well against accusations of libel as it does against accusations of slander.
Leaving social conservatives out of the conversation as not being real conservatives in most any respect..
And how many true conservatives does that leave you with? Do any of them want to conserve anything?
...how can you claim that, for example, small government conservatives feel to be victims? They're mostly hard-working middle-American who are just trying to stay ahead of the tax and spend crowd.
It would be exceptionally tedious to search for and post quotes from "small government conservatives" who feel themselves victimized by persons of poverty, persons of color, persons of other ideologies, persons of other nations, persons of other sexual persuasions...
I won't bother.
On the other hand, what I have seen around a lot of colleges is a plethora of "victims" who claim to want "social justice." And portraying themselves as victims is one of their main tools to acquiring that "social justice." And anything they claim to want comes usually at someone else's expense...
Odd. What I mostly see at college campuses are young people who know they are fortunate to have the opportunities they enjoy, and who object strenuously to the denial of those opportunities to young people born into less fortunate circumstances.
Of course, they do also object to the notion that they should take on $50,000 in debt to obtain an undergraduate degree, the selfish little pricks.

"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 93 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2011 11:16 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 98 of 117 (640684)
11-11-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Artemis Entreri
11-11-2011 2:48 PM


Re: Truth
I didn't expect you to agree. We live in different worlds.
If you would like to have a Great Debate on these two points...
1. Conservatives in the U.S. consistently decry a culture of victimhood among others.
2. Conservatives in the U.S. consistently complain of being victimized by liberal media, Hollywood, government, minorities, etc., ad infinitum.
...I'd be happy to have that discussion.
Otherwise, we'll agree to disagree.
You have a great Veterans Day, and may you, like me, be showered with thanks from a grateful nation.

"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 97 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-11-2011 2:48 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2011 6:41 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2011 8:34 PM Omnivorous has replied

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


(3)
Message 101 of 117 (640687)
11-11-2011 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
11-11-2011 6:41 PM


Re: Truth
Most vets feel their service was honorable because it was intended to defend freedom, however poorly their honor was served in the event.
Many of us, as you suggest, found the missions we were given instead a waste of blood and treasure.
Some of us found a bit more honor in resisting the illegal orders of some superiors and the criminal impulses of some peers.
You're welcome.

"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 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2011 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2011 7:11 PM Omnivorous has replied

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


Message 107 of 117 (640699)
11-11-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
11-11-2011 8:34 PM


Re: Thanks
Regular Army, early 70s, both Combat Engineers ("Build and Destroy") and Information Specialist (photojournalist and troop newspaper editor):
"You mean you got film in that thing?"
I trained at Ft. Knox and Ft. Harrison and toured old New England, beautiful SE Asia, and Korea.
Thanks for the kind words.

"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 105 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2011 8:34 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 108 of 117 (640701)
11-11-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
11-11-2011 7:11 PM


NP
crashfrog writes:
And I'm sorry. A better people would not have put you in that position.
Truly, truly sorry.
Yet a worse people would not have awakened to the waste and injustice of Vietnam and forced the politicians to end it.
Much of the blame for our military misadventures since WWII belongs to our leadership, both military and civilian. Politicians, like Johnson, pursued folly out of fear of being "the first president to lose a war." The generals rarely find a war they aren't prepared to fight. The media too often fail to report or delay reporting essential information the American people need to understand the "facts on the ground" until someone like Cronkite goes to the Nam and reports, "This is a clusterfuck."
Our nation's military misadventurism certainly predates the second half of the 20th century: the Spanish-American War, the Philippine and Hawaiian conquests, and much more. We honed our military tradition by carving a new world out of the American Indian.
I answered my own call to arms with deep reservations, having already participated in anti-war protests and being filled with a revulsion for violence after a childhood replete with it. Ultimately, I decided that if only those who serve for the wrong reasons agree to serve, then our armed forces would be filled with exactly the wrong people. Canada looked good, but, astoundingly, I discovered that I had a sense of honor that could not abide running away.
Like many vets of that era, I sometimes envied the clear-cut wars of our fathers against almost cartoonishly evil aggressors; but I was also philosophically puzzled by folks who thought that the U.S. had no need of armies in a world of armed nation states.
A soldier has to swear to obey lawful orders. That is a more difficult task than one might imagine, since many orders are foolish yet legal. But a world in which soldiers fight only honorably is a world several steps closer than our own to peace.
So don't be sorry--you're too young to answer to the sins of the past. Just keep speaking out. America's warriors have necessarily (and now voluntarily) submitted themselves to the will of others, short of unlawful and dishonorable orders, and a people that questions the need for their sacrifices and the conduct of their leaders is their best ally.
Sorry if that sounds preachy: I'm feeling the wisdom of about a liter of oak-aged reminiscence and too many decades of perspective.

"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 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2011 7:11 PM crashfrog 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