Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 306 (312137)
05-15-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
05-15-2006 6:48 PM


You've got to remember, Faith is from the old school. You know, the "I know what the truth is, don't try to confuse me with the facts" school.
Doesn't matter what anyone else says or what statistics you can marshal, she's already made up her mind.
And there goes subbie with a typical evc ad hominem, no content, all personal smear.
Lessee how far this thread is going to go sliding on this greasy stuff.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 05-15-2006 6:48 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 05-15-2006 7:10 PM Faith has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 306 (312141)
05-15-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
05-15-2006 6:59 PM


I'm confused
Well, I'm quite surprised to hear that you consider my statement a smear. I really thought I was simply stating your opinion as you yourself have laid it out.
EvC Forum: Why are literalists literalists?
In that message, as I understood it, you said that it's not possible for there to be any factual innaccuracy in the bible. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that there is nothing that could conceivably ever happen to make the bible inaccurate. Thus, you have made up your mind about the bible and no facts could ever change your mind.
Now you seem to be describing your own belief as a smear. Have you changed your mind from your previously stated opinion?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:24 PM subbie has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 306 (312144)
05-15-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by CK
05-15-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
So shocked that the ACLU found a way to create a test case in 1967 against old Southern miscegenation laws and dug up some guy who still believed in them? If most people still held to those laws you can be sure they wouldn't have won the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 6:48 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:40 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 306 (312151)
05-15-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by subbie
05-15-2006 7:10 PM


Yes, you ARE confused
I HAVE all the facts about the Bible. You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring that my opponents' arguments are correct. That's a smear. ABE: And then putting arguments about the Bible in the same class as social statistics. Cheap stuff there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 05-15-2006 7:10 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-15-2006 7:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 05-15-2006 7:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by nator, posted 05-17-2006 12:21 PM Faith has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 20 of 306 (312152)
05-15-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
05-15-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Yes, you ARE confused
I HAVE all the facts about the Bible.
The hubris is defeaning and disgusting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:24 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 306 (312158)
05-15-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
05-15-2006 7:14 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
Re-writing history again Faith? Thanks to the Christian Pulpit those laws were not only still on the books, they were actively being upheld by the Good Christians. In 1967 I was fired and black-balled from the industry for joining in a sit-in in a local resturant. Even into the 70's you still found billboards on the roads leading into towns that said "N... , don't let the sun set on you here! signed the Sheriff".
Abstince only sex education is about as stupid as anyone could possibly imagine. It is based on foolishness and lies, and is a total complete failure. One of the biggest lies is that the 60's made a change in behavior. As one that was there, that is simply bull. The advent of the Pill may have reduced the incidence of unintended pregnancy, but it had NO effect on folk having sex. That went on before, and after. To think it didn't is simply more wilfull ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:51 PM jar has replied
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-15-2006 7:55 PM jar has replied
 Message 50 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2006 10:06 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 306 (312159)
05-15-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CK
05-15-2006 6:01 PM


Re: The Pill
I have no idea what the relevance is of your quotes in your post. Attitudes toward sex changed in a culture-wide way in the sixties. That is simply true. You seem to be trying to pretend it was said that nobody ever heard of sex or abuses of sex before the 60s.
The OP says nothing about pregnancies, it's about STDs. Those have increased dramatically over the last four decades or so, stuff the general population never even heard of before. This is a direct result of the increase in promiscuity. Birth rates may certainly have been reduced by the pill. Says nothing about attitudes toward sex, which was "liberated" to be treated by some as a form of casual recreation with no obligations. Single mothers, unmarried couples, serial daddies, "blended" families, all that is commonplace now. Not that it never happened before -- it was always Avant Garde to live the "free" life. But now the average person tries to live it without any of the hifalutin rationalizations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 6:01 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2006 8:04 PM Faith has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 306 (312163)
05-15-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
05-15-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Yes, you ARE confused
I never said a word about your opponents' arguments, therefore I didn't claim victory by declaring anyone correct.
You say you have all the facts about the bible, the only logical conclusion to draw fomr that is that no further facts will matter to you. Thus, my statement about you is correct.
It seems to me that you are the one who put arguments about the bible in this thread when you made the outrageous claim that "if our national leaders support immoral behavior the nation will be exposed to God's punishment. This is the real reason for the health problems already created by the sexual freedom of the last few decades -- it's judgment, the kind of judgment that is built into the sin in this case."
The only possible explanation I can think of for ignoring 100s of years of medical advances in epidemiology and reverting to the dark ages for your medical knowledge is your insistance that you already have all the facts.
If there's any smearing going on, dearie, it's you smearing yourself.
If you insist on claiming that I have smeared you, I ask that you provide the quote, the context and your analysis of how my statement is a smear.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:24 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 306 (312167)
05-15-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
05-15-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
Let's get something straight about the 60s. The point is that's when the trends under discussion STARTED. They didn't impact the entire culture right away, although it did spread surprisingly rapidly. It took that generation's growing up for it to be the culture-wide phenomenon it is now.
And stop reducing this to poeple "having sex." But I am certain there were more virgins, both male and female, at the ages of 18, 19, 20, in the country in the late fifties and even through the sixties than there are any more. And mostly I'm talking about the attitude toward sex as having changed. The philosophical position that it's just a recreation, and that personal obligation is just the vaporings of the old oppressive patriarchal culture. Doesn't mean EVERYBODY went that direction, but the basic philosophy certainly got itself dug in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:58 PM Faith has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 306 (312169)
05-15-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
05-15-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
The advent of the Pill may have reduced the incidence of unintended pregnancy, but it had NO effect on folk having sex. That went on before, and after. To think it didn't is simply more wilfull ignorance.
You mean a big reduction in the 'unwelcome risks' associated with sex would have no impact on a persons decision making process? You mean to say that if there were no pill tomorrow that woman (and to a lesser extent men - for they don't have to bare the brunt) would carry on unaffected by the increased risk.
You seem to be giving women less than due credit in the good sense department.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 8:05 PM iano has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 306 (312172)
05-15-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
05-15-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
And stop reducing this to poeple "having sex." But I am certain there were more virgins, both male and female, at the ages of 18, 19, 20, in the country in the late fifties and even through the sixties than there are any more.
Maybe in some deep dark cavern where there was only one person. LOL
But I can tell you where the best hunting was. Head for a Christian Girls School. The more Fundie the school the easier trolling. Man, they would put out AND pay for dinner and the gas.
You may think there was a change in mores, but that's just more wilfull ignorance and rewriting history. The only thing that changed in the 60's was perhaps there was a small reduction Hyprocracy.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 05-15-2006 8:05 PM jar has not replied
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 8:10 PM jar has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 306 (312173)
05-15-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-15-2006 7:43 PM


Re: The Pill
The OP says nothing about pregnancies, it's about STDs. Those have increased dramatically over the last four decades or so, stuff the general population never even heard of before.
In the United States the incidence rate of all syphilis has varied from a high of 447.0 in 1943 to a low of 26.5 in 1995.
http://uhavax.hartford.edu/bugl/histepi.htm#syph
The overall incidence of gonorrhea has steadily declined in the U.S. since 1975
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
AIDS wasn't in North America 40 years ago. Chlamydia wasn't recognized as an STD then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 8:19 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 8:27 PM Coragyps has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 306 (312174)
05-15-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
05-15-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
Oh, I give women lots of credit. They know the Pill is possible today and I certainly hope they will be smart enough to keep the fudies from taking it away.
Hell, sex happened. It happened in the 50's and in the 60's. It happened when the pill was in existence but when the women were prohibited by parents and laws from having access. It still happens even though the Christian Fundies try their hardest to keep folk from being educated or having access to birth control devices, information and education.
I give credit to everyone out there but those who so joyfully embrace wilfull ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-15-2006 7:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 05-15-2006 8:16 PM jar has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 29 of 306 (312175)
05-15-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
05-15-2006 7:58 PM


Re: Since the 60s?s
But I can tell you where the best hunting was. Head for a Christian Girls School. The more Fundie the school the easier trolling. Man, they would put out AND pay for dinner and the gas.
Is there any reason why they shouldn't pay for dinner and gas?
Boy, you ain't scoring points with the sisterhood of any hue tonight Jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:58 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 306 (312177)
05-15-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
05-15-2006 7:58 PM


Poisoning the well again I see
Your m.o. is just namecalling jar. Funny your buds don't seem to see it. You ridicule your opponent's opinion, label his views "willful ignorance" on the basis of nothing but your own personal opinion, accuse him or her of rewriting history when all you have for a rebuttal is your own personal memory of the times. Funny you get away with this stuff when some of us would be suspended for it. I forget who labeled your tactics as "poisoning the well" but how right on that guy was. Start right off with personal ridicule, poison the reader's mind against the opponent. Most of your contribution to most arguments here is of this sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 7:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 8:23 PM Faith 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