Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on November 29, 2004, 09:15:54 am
-
http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1236892&location=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26cid=558%26ncid=718%26e=2%26u=/ap/20041129/ap_on_go_su_co/supreme_court_ap_poll
The poll found that 59 percent say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
-
I'm somewhat surprised it's as few as 59%, myself.
-
Kazan, I would not trust *any* poll like that... they're very, very easy to distort/mislead people.
-
yeah, look at organized religion - it's been misleading people for thousands of years and morons still think their one is the "ONE TRUE RELIGION" and are willing to become fascistic and impose it on other people
-
Wow, Kazan. He said something, and now you just opened a big ass can of worms.
I suggest you edit your post so it has to do A) With what he said, B) this thread, and C) so it doesn't start a big flame war (again)
-
it has everything to do with this thread
the only reason we have to worry about Roe v Wade is because of right wing fundamentalist christian fascists
-
Kaz, I voted Kerry, don't jump me on politics, please. Have you had a statistics course? I, having not seen the stuff for 18 months, could easily engineer a misleading poll... or distort the interpretation of it very easily.
-
:lol:
I'm gonna love watching another pointless debate of name calling.
-
I'm not, BD. And I'm not getting involved with this one any further unless he calms down somewhat.
-
i wasn't jumping on you moonsword - just the issue in general, and yes i have a stat class, and yes i know how a poll can be manpilated
this one is probably right
-
To be honest, the polls accuracy or not shouldn't matter a jot.
I don't think majority rule should apply to anything as fundamental as abortion, anyway; even if the majority was against it, it wouldn't mean the principles behind the decision that legalised it was wrong.
-
Kaz, got it, but it looked that way for a while there. You really need to calm down some. Rational arguments are a better choice than insults, my friend.
-
and why exactly should i calm down when the christian version of the taliban is trying to take over my country?
aldo_14: yeah, the entire point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and why exactly should i calm down when the christian version of the taliban is trying to take over my country?
Because you tend to sound a bit...er...rabid at times. Which means people are sometimes a wee bit less inclined to listen to you & thus consider any sources you present.
No offense or owt.
-
Kazan, there are a lot of people ignoring you or just laughing at you because of how you say things, even when they (like I do much of the time) agree with what you say.
You're perceived as a nut by many (not me, but many), and politics is far more often based on the shadows of perception and belief than concrete facts. This is the same basic problem that screwed over Kerry in the last election... and several Democrats in my state-level elections that I voted for or would have voted for if they'd been on my ticket.
Your facts are usually at least of fair validity/accuracy. The way they're presented is what colors it so badly much of the time. I am not your enemy here, Kazan. And to be honest, the fact that you feel passionately, and you're well informed, puts you ahead of a lot of people in this country on *both* sides of the aisle.
EDIT:
*looks at Aldo's post* What he said, expanded, basically.
-
you have always had this problem, you react, violently, in such a way that even if your right no body is willing to beleive or even listen to you.
it's why you have that title.
you debate style, while might technicaly work in an organised sort of situation, is not very good at reaching anyone who doesn't already agree with you in a real world environment.
-
I should damn well hope it would be something like that. Let a woman choose whether she wants an abortion or not...don't thrust your own morals on the entire country.
-
What effect would overturning Roe v. Wade have?
Little or none, actually. It's the aftermath and the possiblity of state or federal laws against abortion that are what you should fear, not the court decision. A court decision is meaningless without attendant legislation.
-
Unless it finds certain laws unconstitutional... then it's a very big deal. And Roe v. Wade is the foundation for a number of laws.. a finding that overturns it could (conceivably) ban those laws as well.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To be honest, the polls accuracy or not shouldn't matter a jot.
I don't think majority rule should apply to anything as fundamental as abortion, anyway; even if the majority was against it, it wouldn't mean the principles behind the decision that legalised it was wrong.
By the same token, even if the majority was for abortion in every circumstance, it wouldn't mean that the principles that legalized abortion were right.
-
mongoose: that arguement is pointless and silly
we have better things to measure such off of -- like the simple fact that until something is a seperate entity it cannot be considered such by a court, and the simple fact that courts don't deal in "what could be" and a million other compelling LEGAL reasons
I fully agree with the "if you get into a situation where you need an abortion you've been irresponsible" - but i also know a more about law and im more realistic so i know that
A) abortion must remain legal for legal reasons
B) abortion must remain legal for safety reasons
C) abortion would not be stopped by it becoming illegal
if you really want to reduce the abortion rate then listen to us - because while we support legalized abortion, we also support a sex education policy that is proven beyond a doubt to lower the number of teen pregnancies and other unwanted pregnancies and thereby LOWER the abortion rate
it is also conclusively proven that Bush's sex ed policy of "Abstinance Only" RAISES the teen pregnancy rate along with other unwanted pregnancies and Bush's policy thereby RAISES the abortion rate
-
How about this: if teens would stop acting stupid and keep it in their pants, the abstinence program would work perfectly. Don't blame the stupidity of the masses on a policy. Personally, I don't see how you can blame a program telling teens not to have sex for increased sex rates; teens are mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions, and therefore it's their own fault.
-
it hasn't increase sex rates - it's increase unsafe sex rates
sex education has ZERO effect on how much people ****, and it never will - but it has a significant effect on whether they do so SAFELY
anyone who thinks that ANYTHING can change how often teens screw is naive
----------------
PS: Getting 85% of americans to be rational is impossible - why do you think it should be any different for teenagers
----------------
PPS: I screw my fiance constantly for the last two years -- guess what NO PREGNANCY
condoms when she's off birth control
birth control the rest of the time
wow what a concept - but of course you HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES TO USE THEM
-
SEX!!! WOOOOHHHHOO!!
-
Not to make an example of myself, but I, for one, know full well about contraceptives and choose not to have sex. There are more teens out there who think likewise than you might think. And don't tell me a 15-year-old isn't going to know what a condom is; now that's being naive. If they're old enough to be having sex, they're old enough to know what contraception is. Besides, such decisions should be kept in the hands of parents, not school administrators.
-
Basically... (In response to Kracker's post)
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Not to make an example of myself, but I, for one, know full well about contraceptives and choose not to have sex.
and that's your choice - that's between you, and you
Originally posted by Mongoose
There are more teens out there who think likewise than you might think.
that's between them, and them
Originally posted by Mongoose
And don't tell me a 15-year-old isn't going to know what a condom is; now that's being naive.
no - it's naive to think otherwise -- you have to find out about them SOMEHOW and you also have to know how to _properly_ put them on
do you know the proper technique for putting a condom on? no googling!
Originally posted by Mongoose
If they're old enough to be having sex, they're old enough to know what contraception is.
Good! then let's teach them about it instead of just saying "don't have sex" and telling them nothing else!
Originally posted by Mongoose
Besides, such decisions should be kept in the hands of parents, not school administrators.
parents have the option of opting their children, individually, out of sex ed -- but this has been proven to be an incredibly bad idea (except in the EXTREMELY rare circumstances that a parent who pulls their child out of sex ed actually teaches it themselves)
-
just to clarafy, you are not opposed to telling them not to have sex in *addition* to contraception (ect) education, just to the *exclusion* of it, corect?
-
yeah - saying "the best way not to worry about std's pregnancy is to not have sex at all" is fine
but when they don't teach anything other than "don't have sex" it is a problem
-
Just look at the problems in Africa with AIDs for an example of how much of a problem 'abstinance only' eduction is. You can't overrule thousands of years worth of behavioural instinct with a few hand-holding seminars, after all.
-
Unfortunately, that applies to contraceptives as well. So everything is screwed equally, really.
...and I swear I did not intend that pun.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Unfortunately, that applies to contraceptives as well. So everything is screwed equally, really.
...and I swear I did not intend that pun.
?
But the point is that, in Africa, the focus upon encouraging abstinance and not educating people on contraception has led to an AIDs/HIV epidemic.
-
aldo, at the very least, the abstinence focus may have done nothing to help the problem, but it didn't cause it in the first place. The epidemic was there before efforts were taken to slow it.
-
You simply can't expect people not to have sex, especially kids. It's just... what people do. If you live in an imaginary, naive world where people only have sex when it's prudent, then you can expect disease epidemics and unwanted pregnancies. If however, you accept the way people are, then you can help deal with the problem by educating people about how to have sex without ****ing themselves over. (Pun intended.)
-
I just don't feel that way; I don't see sex as something that people "just do." I know it's most likely naive, but I'd like to see humanity start holding itself to a higher standard than two dogs in the street.
-
*rolleyes* it's already a higher standard than "two dogs in the street"
it's your problem with being "merely human" that is the real problem
-
Kazan, do NOT make me turn this car around!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it hasn't increase sex rates - it's increase unsafe sex rates
sex education has ZERO effect on how much people ****, and it never will - but it has a significant effect on whether they do so SAFELY
anyone who thinks that ANYTHING can change how often teens screw is naive
----------------
PS: Getting 85% of americans to be rational is impossible - why do you think it should be any different for teenagers
----------------
PPS: I screw my fiance constantly for the last two years -- guess what NO PREGNANCY
condoms when she's off birth control
birth control the rest of the time
wow what a concept - but of course you HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES TO USE THEM
I think those STD videos made a difference... :lol: *shudders at the thought of it*
-
yeah they convince you to make sure your partner is clean and that you wear protection
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
aldo, at the very least, the abstinence focus may have done nothing to help the problem, but it didn't cause it in the first place. The epidemic was there before efforts were taken to slow it.
So you're suggesting staying the course with a 'solution' that isn't one? Regardless of your view on the morality of pre-marital sex, surely you must agree it's better to save lives by teaching contraception rather than sit back and rely on a strategy that has been proven to do nothing to help?
I mean, I'm not saying they should stop encouraging abstinance. But why the hell can't they also teach the purpose of contraceptive devices in stopping the transmission of a deadly disease? The church has it's objections to that - fine. But the people who are dying because of this don't listen to the church anyways, so why should we abandon them by not providing an alternative?
-
Aldo: people have been having unsafe sex longer then abstinance has been preached by anyone, religious or otherwise.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Aldo: people have been having unsafe sex longer then abstinance has been preached by anyone, religious or otherwise.
And the preaching of abstinance has done nothing to prevent the spread of Aids in Africa and been condemned as acerbating the problem due to the churches unwillingness to condone parallel teaching of contraception.
In fact, the Catholic church has deliberately tried to prevent the use of condoms; methods which are known to have effectiveness in reducing the spread of the disease.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3843797.stm)
-
I know. I'm merely pointing out the fact that you cannot expect either one, or even both in concert, to be wholly effective.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I know. I'm merely pointing out the fact that you cannot expect either one, or even both in concert, to be wholly effective.
But you can justifiably expect both in concert to be more effective than abstinance alone. And certainly more effective than when one is used, and the other is actively being discouraged.
-
I know that too. (Which rather follows from my above statement.)
And I am in favor of it. But claiming either and/or both as 100%, or even 75%, effective, which is where those in favor of contraceptives are headed, is false.
-
nobody said that comprehensive sex education would be 100% effective, but abstinance only, when compared to comprehensive, is 0% effective
-
And that's crap too. Abstinance has to have some effect. It can't NOT have an effect, otherwise there would be no point to having it as part of comprehensive education. Maybe it isn't as effective, but it does have an effect.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yeah they convince you to make sure your partner is clean and that you wear protection
Protection doesnt really "protect" from STD's you know. In fact, it's got like, what, less than 10% chance? Even smaller? Honestly, seeing some guys dick hanging off what skin he had left on it just drove me mad for the next few weeks. But I dont think teenagers are going to take the time to check if they are STD Free.
"Hey there, what can I do for you?"
"I need to see if I have any sexual diseases."
"What for?"
"Just for the sake of knowing. ~_^"
-
I think it's highly likely that many of those who would listen to what is in effect the churches message, are the same people who would already have adopted abstinance based on their own religious beliefs.
It could be very effective, or completely ineffective and pointless; as far as I know there is no comprehensive study either way.
i.e. i imagine a lot of it will be preaching to the converted. Especially as that age group in particular have a high tendency to reject what they are told to do.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Protection doesnt really "protect" from STD's you know. In fact, it's got like, what, less than 10% chance? Even smaller? "
Between 80 & 99% effectiveness depending on how much you belief you put in the catholic churches propaganda.
Barrier contraception also acts to prevent infection, it's a very simple principle; no mixing of the bodily fluid that can carry STDs.
-
The church is against protection, though. I doubt they rate it that highly.
I've heard a lot of different figures, midline being about 60%.
-
Ignore the christian propaganda. The World Health Organisation has repeatedly called the vatican to task for spreading lies.
What the vatican did was to test novelty condoms and other such condoms that specifically state that they shouldn't be used to prevent STD infections and published the results of those tests.
Proper medical tests show that when used correctly a condom has an over 90% chance of preventing infections (IIRC it's higher than that. I remember it being 90-something).
What does drag the effectiveness down is improperly used contraceptives but we all know what's to blame for that!
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Between 80 & 99% effectiveness depending on how much you belief you put in the catholic churches propaganda.
Barrier contraception also acts to prevent infection, it's a very simple principle; no mixing of the bodily fluid that can carry STDs.
Didn't get the information from a Church "Propoganda" Instruction Seminar, it was actually in the 7th grade when they show you the videos of all the stuff that you can "catch".
-
properly used normal condoms have a 99.99% chance of preventing pregnancy, and well over a 95% (but im not certain of that one) of preventing STD transmission
//edit: mesa stupid, too many things on mind
-
I know they can stop pregnancy, but I was refering to sexually transmitted diseases.
-
i left off a words at the end of my last post
"well over 95% chance of preventing STDs"
the only STD had tends to get around condoms is HPV (yes hPv aka Genital Warts)
and it's generally easy to tell when your partner has that so you can say "whoa! no way!"
-
"Did you catch your dick on fire or am I just seeing things?"
"No seriously, it's totally fine."
"I dont think so..."
-
Using this virus assay, FDA scientists tested many different types of male condoms and showed that condoms are highly effective barriers to virus passage with a very small chance of leakage (76, 77).
total 'condom failures' are estimated at between (slippage or breakage) 1.6% and 3.6%
estimated "relative risk" factors between 0.006 for a breakage to 0.00000004 a for viral-barrier defect
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
-
Assuming, of course, you aren't a numbskull, and you read the directions.
And we all know how likely that is. Humanity's own stupidity will kill it yet.
-
yes that was assuming proper usage
which is why comprehensive sex education is important -- so they know how to properly use it
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Didn't get the information from a Church "Propoganda" Instruction Seminar, it was actually in the 7th grade when they show you the videos of all the stuff that you can "catch".
Nope, but that's where I picked up those numbers from. Bear in mind the Catholic Church actively scaremongers over condoms to try and prevent their use, and even their highest 'estimate' was about a 20% risk. This number is from an article linked in a previous post on this thread, I believe. (same article was about the EU commissioners' condemnation of Vatican 'bigotry' over the issue)
Kazans' figures are obviously much, much more reliable and independent enough to trust in that.
Obviously your 7th grade video was badly misinformed... albeit 7th grade is, IIRC, quite young so maybe they were simply lying in order to put you off shagging at that age.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Assuming, of course, you aren't a numbskull, and you read the directions.
And we all know how likely that is. Humanity's own stupidity will kill it yet.
wtf
You'd have to be an utter idiot not to figure out how to put a condom on. Hell, when I was 16, I had no problem at all getting one on. (and no, I didn't read the directions) Then again, I was probably in the deeper end of the gene pool....