Yes, we are glorified animals - no evidence exists to the contrary.
The evidence is blatantly obvious. Look in the mirror. Science has simply promoted an institutionalized ignorance of what is obvious to any rational person and always was until Science got all full of itself in the last century.
But no, we are not at the mercy of our biological forces. That doesn’t follow and no one said that.
Oh yes you did. Your argument was that abstinence can't work because of the strong biological forces the young have to deal with.
Only that these forces will operate to influence the frequency of behaviors when viewed at the level of the population.
Well, if human beings are automatons OR animals, I suppose so. But the real cause will be the IDEA that they are automatons or animals and the refusal of society at large to inculcate and enforce moral rules as was done in saner times.
Abstinence is too extreme an approach to be an effective strategy for manipulating sexual behavior.
One only has to "manipulate" animals or automatons. Human beings are rational creatures who can think about the problem and respond to social standards and ideals. And again, abstinence is simply the OLD standard that has been abandoned. Nobody is saying you'll get perfect abstinence. The human race is a bunch of fallen sinners after all, but you did get a good measure of abstinence until the free for all mentality of the sixties got a foothold in the culture, now buttressed by this conceit called Science, which is apparently just another version of Political Correctness.
Faith writes:
Science is King . and knows it's right about everything.
Did I say that? Sure is true.
Science doesn’t ”know’. It’s simply a *process* for separating fact from fantasy. That’s all.
Oh hardly. When Science arrives at its Scientifically Processed Assessment of what is Fact versus Fantasy it then makes dogmatic pronouncements as if it *knows* them to be true, about for instance how abstinence won't work because of biological factors, and how "these forces will operate to influence the frequency of behaviors when viewed at the level of the population" and so on and so forth, and it further dogmatically pronounces all opposition ignorant, dangerous and the like, as "unnatural and distorted" for instance, as you say farther on. There isn't a shred of civility allowable from the Scientific Perspective. Science PRONOUNCES. It does posture as "knowing" and it condemns all opposition.
Faith writes:
maybe at least a polite and humble "Well wait and see"
Did I say that? Sure is wise.
How long are we supposed to ”wait and see’ if abstinence works. Faith?
That's not the point. "How long" is a distraction. The point is that you've made up your mind on "scientific grounds." You refuse to consider the position suggested at all. You are *certain" it is wrong. Your very question is just the impatience of your certainty. That's the point.
Faith writes:
. what about those who don't accept that they have to be at the mercy of their biological forces?
No one is at the mercy of their biological forces as an individual. That doesn’t mean that biological forces won’t shape the frequency of observed behaviors in the population.
OK, so the culture is at the mercy of biological forces. Same thing basically. I can't begin to say how depressing such language is -- this mechanistic language and concepts given us by Evolution, by Science. Everything human has been reduced to this trivializing bunk. It's a whole worldview that shapes thought, social philosophy, policy, but one can't even get that across.
Faith writes:
an optional recreation that needs no guidance except their own "decision"
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the decision did not need guidance, only that teaching abstinence is a waste of time and money and actually deprives young people of useful information.
Based on your mechanistic Scientific worldview. And you said nothing about useful information, only that there's something fixed and immutable about the frequency of biological behaviors etc.
It derives from this unnatural, distorted, puritanical christian revulsion of sexuality and the impractical desire to see all manner of useful sex education eliminated from the schools.
Yes, another bit of Scientific Dogma there. We haven't even discussed the practicalities of sex education so you can drop that bit of misrepresentation. I haven't said a word on the subject of what should be taught in schools beyond the need to teach abstinence as a moral principle. To you any such idea is just "revulsion" it's not good sense, because Science, being amoral, decrees that kind of stuff. Having no moral perspective it imposes an amoral perspective.
Don’t talk about how sex works or how to do it safely. Just consider it taboo and off the menu until marriage. You will learn all you need to know then. Right?
I haven't said one word along these lines. YOu have no idea what I think about the hows involved. I'm not sure I do myself. I'm engaged here in arguing that the culture is going to hell in a handbasket because of the amoral attitude toward sex that is being taught in the schools as well as everywhere else, and HOW I would approach it myself I don't even know beyond this one point I'm making. Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth.
Faith writes:
Science is right and nothing else could possibly apply.
For the last time Faith, it is not a question of ”science’ itself being right or wrong.
For the last time, EZ, yes it is!. That IS how Science presents itself, as the Last Word, as the Arbiter of All Things, as The Measure of What's Right and True, and Judge and Executioner of anyone who doesn't have the scientific perspective. You guys need to listen to yourselves sometime.
Science is completely amoral - without moral implications.
Yes it is completely amoral but it does have moral implications for that very reason. It TEACHES amorality. It's a cop-out and a delusion to think otherwise.
It’s just a very effective technique for testing ideas. And abstinence isn't testing very well.
Whole worldview there. Wrong goals. Wrong standards. Wrong philosophy. Wrong perspective. "Testing" -- by science's standards, not by standards of humanity and sanity -- except as those might be scientifically defined I suppose. "Effective technique?" That's a scientific perspective. You talk indeed like you think in terms of raising animals, not human beings. That's the way scientists talk. Really. But it's like you don't see any other way of thinking too, so this is impossible to convey.
Faith writes:
So those of us who see it differently just don't count, right?
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth.
No, I am drawing the intelligent inference from your words, not putting anything in your mouth.
You can see it differntly and still count, but you have to make an actual, evidence-based case for the effectiveness of abstinence if you want to convince anyone you’re right about it working.
Ha ha ha. I can "still count" oh thank you King Science for your merciful allowance of the continuing existence of my humble self. As long as I do it the SCIENTIFIC way instead of a way I think better THEN I "still count." Ha ha. You guys are funny.
Otherwise its just another pie-in-the-sky, ”this how the world should be’, unrealistic ideal.
The only evidence-based case that could be made could only be made if it were seriously tried, and that can't happen because few believe in it. In other words it can't happen as long as Science Rules the thinking of everybody. It would require people solidly convinced of the moral perspective. Possibly in the alternative Christian schools I hope will become standard throughout the country. Certainly isn't going to happen in the public schools.
But it's not unrealistic at all. It's been the basic moral code for most societies in the world (of COURSE there are violations, don't even go there). The
pie-in-the-sky, ”this how the world should be’, unrealistic ideal is this fatuous science-based approach to social problems.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
