|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2007, 08:48:32 AM » |
|
The last Shah of Iran had our genuine support for decades until that jackass Carter botched things royally. Wow. Seriously. Just wow. US support for Shah Palavi of Iran is exactly the kind of thing that has prevented democracy from arising in the Middle East. As 2.DOH indicates this is spectacularly false. I'm not even sure we can say it had a minor role in preventing democracy. History indicates that governments like the Shaw's are transitionary to democracies. As for the rest, I just don't see anything productive here if you are going to blame the Iranian Revolution on Carter. That's just too far out there for me to pretend this is a serious discussion.
Carter incorrectly saw no good reason to support the Shaw and failed to comprehend the nature of Islamic rule. He therefore refused to continue to support the Shaw and radical Islam took over in Iran. To this day he still does not seem to understand why the Iranian revolution does not thank his administration for allowing them to oust the Shaw. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,067
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2007, 11:00:06 AM » |
|
I will agree that Islam is a far less moral religion than Christianity, but given the historical/political context of both Islam and Christianity I think they both are a "threat" to the modern world. Unless you ignore the 40% of Americans that believe that the world will end within their lifetimes.
Where do you get "40%" from? What specific "threat to the Modern World" does Christianity pose? The threat posed to the modern world is dogmatic thought. This is by no means unique to Christianity, nor is Christianity necessarily a dogmatic thing. I do however take issue with positions taken by some on the religious right. As far as instantiations of this threat, I would point to a few things. Opposition to condom distribution programs. Realistically, people are going to have sex, and this includes teenagers. IMO, reliance on "abstinence" is foolhardy, using condoms will cut down on the risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancies (and hopefully, abortions). Armageddon. I see great danger in having any policy controlled by those who see it as their place to bring about some sort of war to end all wars in the middle east. The idea of having someone who believes doomsday prophecies with control over the nuclear football is unnerving to me. I don't see Christianity itself as the threat so much as the way some practice it, but I do see a problem when politicians start wanting to make policy decisions based on their faith. Again, Christianity is far from alone in posing a threat to the world, but it is a bit more relevant here as it is the dominant religion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2007, 12:24:26 PM » |
|
I do however take issue with positions taken by some on the religious right.
As far as instantiations of this threat, I would point to a few things.
Opposition to condom distribution programs. Realistically, people are going to have sex, and this includes teenagers. IMO, reliance on "abstinence" is foolhardy, using condoms will cut down on the risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancies (and hopefully, abortions). I find tow faults with your example: 1. Are you presuming that those who oppose condom distribution have as a final goal overall reduction in the risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancies? Are you presuming these two goals are the only valid goals? 2. It is not clear that condom distribution will or does have the desired effect you set as your goals. The overall number of unwanted pregnancies is a function of the number of girls/women refusing to have sex and those agreeing to have sex and the frequency and the timing with respect to ovulation and the number of times a countermeasure is used and the effectiveness of the countermeasure when properly used and the percentage of time it is used correctly and a failure factor and a number of other factors. If condom distribution changes the habits of girls/women with respect to these other factors and these factors are more significant than the increase in couples using countermeasures then your plan will be a failure. The same is true of STD risk. You have some work to do in order to show that condom distribution is effective and likewise that conservative Christians are a treat with respect to this point. Armageddon. I see great danger in having any policy controlled by those who see it as their place to bring about some sort of war to end all wars in the middle east. The idea of having someone who believes doomsday prophecies with control over the nuclear football is unnerving to me. Fair enough, I agree. Do you suggest that some Christian political leaders in the US take this view? I don't see Christianity itself as the threat so much as the way some practice it, but I do see a problem when politicians start wanting to make policy decisions based on their faith. Everyone is guided by the principles and tenants of their worldview. It is unavoidable. You do it, I do it. Politicians don't "start wanting", they make principled decisions from the very beginning. This is why the choice of our leaders is important. Your venue for redress is the ballot box. Again, Christianity is far from alone in posing a threat to the world, but it is a bit more relevant here as it is the dominant religion.
Your examples seem flawed or perhaps incomplete. Have you demonstrated that Christianity actually poses an increased threat over other popular worldviews here? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,067
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2007, 01:29:57 PM » |
|
I do however take issue with positions taken by some on the religious right.
As far as instantiations of this threat, I would point to a few things.
Opposition to condom distribution programs. Realistically, people are going to have sex, and this includes teenagers. IMO, reliance on "abstinence" is foolhardy, using condoms will cut down on the risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancies (and hopefully, abortions). I find tow faults with your example: 1. Are you presuming that those who oppose condom distribution have as a final goal overall reduction in the risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancies? Are you presuming these two goals are the only valid goals? Not necessarily. They are nonetheless valid. I view spread of STD's, and unwanted pregnancies as problems in society. I am open to the ideas of other goals, but the negative effects of these two problems warrant them being at the forefront in regards to teen sexuality. Personally, I don't go for the moralistic view that sex (the out of wedlock variety) is wrong. The problems are the consequences. If there are other problems that I'm forgetting I would be interested to hear them. 2. It is not clear that condom distribution will or does have the desired effect you set as your goals. The overall number of unwanted pregnancies is a function of the number of girls/women refusing to have sex and those agreeing to have sex and the frequency and the timing with respect to ovulation and the number of times a countermeasure is used and the effectiveness of the countermeasure when properly used and the percentage of time it is used correctly and a failure factor and a number of other factors. If condom distribution changes the habits of girls/women with respect to these other factors and these factors are more significant than the increase in couples using countermeasures then your plan will be a failure. The same is true of STD risk.
You have some work to do in order to show that condom distribution is effective and likewise that conservative Christians are a treat with respect to this point. From an abstract for Condom distribution: a cost–utility analysis The study examines a condom distribution program in LA (the state, not the city). The programme was estimated to prevent 170 HIV infections and save 1909 QALYs. Over $33 million in medical care costs were estimated to be averted, resulting in cost savings. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were quite stable over a range of estimates for the main parameters. Another article brief I found suggests that condom distribution does not influence rates of sexual activity. From Pediatrics for parents: An argument against distributing condoms in high schools is that it leads to increased sexual activity. A recent study of over 4,100 high school students found this isn't the case.
Students who have access to condoms and instruction in their use were no more likely to have sexual intercourse than students at schools without condom distribution programs. Students with access to condoms were twice as likely to use them when having intercourse than students who don't. Another benefit of condom distribution programs is that students in those schools received more HIV instruction.
The pregnancy rate in both groups of students was about the same. The reason may be that students with access to condoms were less likely to use other means of birth control. Although, it does seem that there isn't much more support for the idea that condom programs will prevent teen pregnancy's. I'll be on the lookout for more info on this one. As far as the threat posed by Christians (or more accurately, IMO, the threat posed by dogmatic thought), here is a small example of what I'm talking about: In October 2002, CDC replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on condom use and efficacy. The original information, titled Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs, included sections on the proper use of condoms, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity. It noted that “a World Health Organization (WHO) review . . . found no evidence that sex education leads to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people.”
A revised fact sheet was subsequently posted entitled Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The new fact sheet lacks instruction on condom use and specific information on the effectiveness of different types of condoms. It begins by emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. It also drops the discussion of the evidence that sex education does not lead to increased sexual activity. (citation numbers edited from above article in an attempt to get the whole quote to appear) This, I do have a problem with, and if I haven't made it clear enough yet, this isn't so much a problem with Christians or conservatives, but one of letting dogma into policy. Armageddon. I see great danger in having any policy controlled by those who see it as their place to bring about some sort of war to end all wars in the middle east. The idea of having someone who believes doomsday prophecies with control over the nuclear football is unnerving to me. Fair enough, I agree. Do you suggest that some Christian political leaders in the US take this view? Well see soon enough by whether we attack Iran before Bush is out of office. Past that, I don't really have any desire to go on any witch-hunts. I don't see Christianity itself as the threat so much as the way some practice it, but I do see a problem when politicians start wanting to make policy decisions based on their faith. Everyone is guided by the principles and tenants of their worldview. It is unavoidable. You do it, I do it. Politicians don't "start wanting", they make principled decisions from the very beginning. This is why the choice of our leaders is important. Your venue for redress is the ballot box. And I do use it. Someone's faith isn't likely to dissuade me from voting for them. Unless of course they're making a big deal of it or announce that they intend to mix religion into politics. Again, Christianity is far from alone in posing a threat to the world, but it is a bit more relevant here as it is the dominant religion.
Your examples seem flawed or perhaps incomplete. Have you demonstrated that Christianity actually poses an increased threat over other popular worldviews here? Has there been a sudden mass conversion to Islam amongst elected officials or America at large that I'm unaware of? Very similar to how Islam poses a greater threat than Christianity does in most ME countries. Again though, it isn't really Islam posing the threat, but the people who do terrible things in the name of Allah. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 11, 2007, 02:02:22 PM by illy »
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2007, 03:07:19 PM » |
|
Not necessarily. They are nonetheless valid. I view spread of STD's, and unwanted pregnancies as problems in society. I am open to the ideas of other goals, but the negative effects of these two problems warrant them being at the forefront in regards to teen sexuality. Personally, I don't go for the moralistic view that sex (the out of wedlock variety) is wrong. The problems are the consequences.
There are consequences associated with promotion/passive acceptance of sex out of wedlock as well. The fact that you don't find them a concern does not make those who do a threat to society. 2. It is not clear that condom distribution will or does have the desired effect you set as your goals. The overall number of unwanted pregnancies is a function of the number of girls/women refusing to have sex and those agreeing to have sex and the frequency and the timing with respect to ovulation and the number of times a countermeasure is used and the effectiveness of the countermeasure when properly used and the percentage of time it is used correctly and a failure factor and a number of other factors. If condom distribution changes the habits of girls/women with respect to these other factors and these factors are more significant than the increase in couples using countermeasures then your plan will be a failure. The same is true of STD risk.
You have some work to do in order to show that condom distribution is effective and likewise that conservative Christians are a treat with respect to this point. From an abstract for Condom distribution: a cost–utility analysis The study examines a condom distribution program in LA (the state, not the city). The programme was estimated to prevent 170 HIV infections and save 1909 QALYs. Over $33 million in medical care costs were estimated to be averted, resulting in cost savings. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were quite stable over a range of estimates for the main parameters. I happen to live in LA and am quite involved in local school activities. On a study team a short time ago, I was presented with the entire report. the analysis and the data set of this study along with the survey questions and detailed results. One of the big problems with research like this is that the results are highly sensitive to the methods and design of the research underlying it. Because this is so, it was not a surprise when I read that a full 50% of scientific research reports incorrect results and conclusions. This report seems to fit that category. The report did not consider many factors that would go into the kind of behavior modification they were attempting to study. The results were not properly normed and there was no control group. the most troubling was the leading nature of the questions contained in the survey distributed to those being studied. (I signed a letter that said I would not disclose the questions). It was the survey questions that we were evaluating as the research team was anxious to do follow-up and wanted to include students in our district. We declined to participate. The pregnancy rate in both groups of students was about the same. The reason may be that students with access to condoms were less likely to use other means of birth control. This is exactly the issue I raised and at least this research acknowledge that it is an issue. At the same time they admit that they did not account for these secondary effects in the study. If you are going to use these kinds of reports to support your position, please be prepared to go through them in detail. If you still claim they support your position, then help me to locate the entire report and the analysis. If you are not interested in this time investment, then I am happy to leave it as an open question as to how to best prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD. My view is the abstinence works 100% of the time it is tried. As far as the threat posed by Christians (or more accurately, IMO, the threat posed by dogmatic thought), here is a small example of what I'm talking about: In October 2002, CDC replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on condom use and efficacy. The original information, titled Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs, included sections on the proper use of condoms, the effectiveness of different types of condoms, and studies showing that condom education does not promote sexual activity. It noted that “a World Health Organization (WHO) review . . . found no evidence that sex education leads to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people.”
A revised fact sheet was subsequently posted entitled Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The new fact sheet lacks instruction on condom use and specific information on the effectiveness of different types of condoms. It begins by emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence. It also drops the discussion of the evidence that sex education does not lead to increased sexual activity. (citation numbers edited from above article in an attempt to get the whole quote to appear) This, I do have a problem with, and if I haven't made it clear enough yet, this isn't so much a problem with Christians or conservatives, but one of letting dogma into policy. What you find here is a very different viewpoint on what information should be emphasized. Government leadership and the subsequent policies are influence by who wins at the ballot box. It is not driven by what you call dogma. I could call your view dogma too but it won't add to this conversation. It sounds to me like you just don't like the policy and you find it helpful to call it dogma to discredit it. Armageddon. I see great danger in having any policy controlled by those who see it as their place to bring about some sort of war to end all wars in the middle east. The idea of having someone who believes doomsday prophecies with control over the nuclear football is unnerving to me. Fair enough, I agree. Do you suggest that some Christian political leaders in the US take this view? Well see soon enough by whether we attack Iran before Bush is out of office. Past that, I don't really have any desire to go on any witch-hunts. Surly there are other valid reasons why America has problems with Iran and why it might choose to resolve it with force than the one you suggest. Your examples seem flawed or perhaps incomplete. Have you demonstrated that Christianity actually poses an increased threat over other popular worldviews here?
Has there been a sudden mass conversion to Islam amongst elected officials or America at large that I'm unaware of? Very similar to how Islam poses a greater threat than Christianity does in most ME countries. Again though, it isn't really Islam posing the threat, but the people who do terrible things in the name of Allah. Are Islam and Christianity the only significant worldviews? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,067
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2007, 07:29:32 PM » |
|
Sure, you can disqualify a study over leading questions, but you "signed a letter" and can't really get into it.
I, on the other hand must gather and present the full study. How generous of you to allow me a gracious out, in which you don't consider my viewpoint, but state the obvious.
Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2007, 07:38:23 PM » |
|
1. xianity poses a threat to reason, as all relgions do.
2. xianity poses the same threats that it always has: history has shown that xianity can, when followed more closely to its fundimental idea, be as brutal as any other religion.
3. with xianity affecting the government of the most powerful military in history, the threat is huge to non-xians. tell me, how would you feel if an athiest country had an army 3 times as powerful as the next 5 countries? would you be concerned?
4. 80 percent of the military is xian. do you truly believe that they don't consider the life and death of their enemy differently than would a humanist? if you believe in an afterlife, and that your religion is true, death for an infidel is of minor consequence for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2007, 08:05:07 PM » |
|
Sure, you can disqualify a study over leading questions, but you "signed a letter" and can't really get into it.
I, on the other hand must gather and present the full study. How generous of you to allow me a gracious out, in which you don't consider my viewpoint, but state the obvious.
Whatever.
Look, this is your doing. You claim people like me are a threat to society because I don't accept your form of family planning and sex education. You cite a report I happen to know a great deal about and then you whine about it. Swell. I can send you a copy of the report or you can buy it online for $15 or some such thing. I just can't discuss the survey questions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,067
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2007, 05:41:47 AM » |
|
Sure, I "claimed" you were a threat.
No, your dogma is the threat.
For someone who likes to break into semantics game as much as you, you seem to mix my words up an awful lot.
Condoms prevent HIV and other STD's if used properly. This is medical fact. You claimed they increase sexual activity, you have shown nothing to prove this. When I post studies, you disqualify them, referencing confidentiality. Of course, you did agree with the one part of the other study that backed up what you were saying. (wonder why it is you thought that one conclusion of that one study was sound)
You are a hypocrite. You hold yourself, your worldview, and the information you present (you yourself presented two abstracts two jpn over in the SETI thread) to different standards than you do others, their philosophies, and their information.
Actions that endanger the public health are indeed a threat to society. I would count attempts to thwart condom distribution and HIV prevention measures as threatening to the public health.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
2.DOH
Full Member
Karma: +83/-18
Posts: 171
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2007, 06:02:44 AM » |
|
1. xianity poses a threat to reason, as all relgions do. Hogwash. The two can co-exist. I'd imagine Reasoned Faith would agree.  2. xianity poses the same threats that it always has: history has shown that xianity can, when followed more closely to its fundimental idea, be as brutal as any other religion. Using that argument, African Americans in this country better be on the lookout for potential slave traders. Afterall, this nation has a brutal history of human rights abuses against Blacks. 3. with xianity affecting the government of the most powerful military in history, the threat is huge to non-xians. tell me, how would you feel if an athiest country had an army 3 times as powerful as the next 5 countries? would you be concerned? I'd be concerned if any army was three times as powerful. Islam can't lay claim to having that large an army, yet Islamic fundamentalism is currently one of the, if not the largest threat(s) to peace in this world. I'd remind you as well, we switch administrations every 4-8 years. If Hillary or Obama gets the nod, will their religous convictions or lack thereof calm your fears? 4. 80 percent of the military is xian. do you truly believe that they don't consider the life and death of their enemy differently than would a humanist? if you believe in an afterlife, and that your religion is true, death for an infidel is of minor consequence for you.
First, since you nor I have seen any combat, I don't think either of us are qualified to determine what a soldier in the field thinks or doesn't think about his enemy. Second, Mao, Lenin, & Pol Pot were atheists. How did they view the worth of their enemies? In fact, going by your measure of threat according to beliefs of world leaders, I'd say atheism trumps just about every religion you can mention. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 06:17:16 AM by 2.DOH »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2007, 04:49:53 PM » |
|
Atheism is not an ideology that demands violent revolution, however Communism is... Pol Pot and Stalin were Communists first, and Atheists after.
Islam is an ideology that demands violence, and depending on which version of Christianity you believe in...
I will say that Islam is probably one of the most evil religions that has scourged the earth, but Christianity is NOT a shining example of a religion of peace. Only after it had been reformed was its aggressiveness diluted and there are people IN POWER OF THE GREATEST WEAPONS MANKIND HAS EVER KNOWN that believe the bible to be literally true.
To quote Sam Harris "It really is not an exaggeration to say that there is some significant percentage of the American electorate which, if they turned on their television today and saw that a mushroom cloud had replaced Jerusalem, they would see a silver lining in that cloud." This is because they believe Jesus will be returning, religious Armaggedon is an issue which millions of voting Americans believe is an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2007, 05:00:39 AM » |
|
Sure, I "claimed" you were a threat.
No, your dogma is the threat.
For someone who likes to break into semantics game as much as you, you seem to mix my words up an awful lot. Come now we both know that dogma itself is not actionable. It requires people taking action to raise a threat. Condoms prevent HIV and other STD's if used properly. This is medical fact. Reduce the risk. You claimed they increase sexual activity, No I did not. I pointed out that it is possible that free distribution of condoms and promotion of same, in certain settings (particularly with teens) could increase sexual activity. you have shown nothing to prove this. No, I am not in the habit of proving claims I do not make. When I post studies, you disqualify them, referencing confidentiality. Of course, you did agree with the one part of the other study that backed up what you were saying. (wonder why it is you thought that one conclusion of that one study was sound) The full text of the study is available online. Purchase it if you must. Only the proposed next phase survey questions were confidential. I don't recall disputing elements of the second study. The data the second study referenced on pregnancy rates between the two groups does support my proposal. You insinuate that I should not make use of that? I agree that programs that cause people who are already engaging in risky behavior to be more careful will be effective. This is self-evident. But it is not clear to me that promoting condom use is more effective than an abstinence program. It is not clear to me that these same programs will be effective when presented to people who are not sexually active or who would stop In reviewing the research it is not clear to me that any study has set up the research program effectively enough to answer this question. Condoms can be purchased at nearly any store that sells pharmaceuticals. Information on condom use is also readily available. What is the roll of the individual to take care to watch out for their own health? What kind of society do we have when our health education system presumes that people must be given things and pleaded with in order take care of themselves. It is not clear to me that htis is the best long term method to diseminate health information. You are a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite. I do not always do what I know I should. You hold yourself, your worldview, and the information you present (you yourself presented two abstracts two jpn over in the SETI thread) to different standards than you do others, their philosophies, and their information. Not so. If jpn wished to dispute the papers, I would be happy to go into more detail if I am able to locate it. Actions that endanger the public health are indeed a threat to society. I would count attempts to thwart condom distribution and HIV prevention measures as threatening to the public health.
Your beliefs are quite clear. Would you do the same if you knew that the proposed programs don't have the intended result? Of course you would not. We do not disagree about the goal. We do disagree about the methods used to achieve the goal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2007, 07:29:22 AM » |
|
if it is not clear to you,rf, that good sex ed is better than good abstinence programs, despite the empirical data, maybe you are not opening your eyes.
eveyone knows if you don't have sex you won't get pregnant/disease. but the reality, based on empirical data, shows that people do indeed have sex.
any program that ignores this - that blissfully whistles in the wind - is irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2007, 07:44:45 AM » |
|
if it is not clear to you,rf, that good sex ed is better than good abstinence programs, despite the empirical data, maybe you are not opening your eyes.
eveyone knows if you don't have sex you won't get pregnant/disease. but the reality, based on empirical data, shows that people do indeed have sex.
any program that ignores this - that blissfully whistles in the wind - is irresponsible.
absolutly correct and when you throw in HIV/AID's in sub-saharan Africa we are talking about genocidal implications. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,067
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2007, 09:57:25 AM » |
|
Sure, I "claimed" you were a threat.
No, your dogma is the threat.
For someone who likes to break into semantics game as much as you, you seem to mix my words up an awful lot. Come now we both know that dogma itself is not actionable. It requires people taking action to raise a threat. Condoms prevent HIV and other STD's if used properly. This is medical fact. Reduce the risk. You claimed they increase sexual activity, No I did not. I pointed out that it is possible that free distribution of condoms and promotion of same, in certain settings (particularly with teens) could increase sexual activity. you have shown nothing to prove this. No, I am not in the habit of proving claims I do not make. When I post studies, you disqualify them, referencing confidentiality. Of course, you did agree with the one part of the other study that backed up what you were saying. (wonder why it is you thought that one conclusion of that one study was sound) The full text of the study is available online. Purchase it if you must. Only the proposed next phase survey questions were confidential. I don't recall disputing elements of the second study. The data the second study referenced on pregnancy rates between the two groups does support my proposal. You insinuate that I should not make use of that? I agree that programs that cause people who are already engaging in risky behavior to be more careful will be effective. This is self-evident. But it is not clear to me that promoting condom use is more effective than an abstinence program. It is not clear to me that these same programs will be effective when presented to people who are not sexually active or who would stop In reviewing the research it is not clear to me that any study has set up the research program effectively enough to answer this question. Condoms can be purchased at nearly any store that sells pharmaceuticals. Information on condom use is also readily available. What is the roll of the individual to take care to watch out for their own health? What kind of society do we have when our health education system presumes that people must be given things and pleaded with in order take care of themselves. It is not clear to me that htis is the best long term method to diseminate health information. You are a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite. I do not always do what I know I should. You hold yourself, your worldview, and the information you present (you yourself presented two abstracts two jpn over in the SETI thread) to different standards than you do others, their philosophies, and their information. Not so. If jpn wished to dispute the papers, I would be happy to go into more detail if I am able to locate it. Actions that endanger the public health are indeed a threat to society. I would count attempts to thwart condom distribution and HIV prevention measures as threatening to the public health.
Your beliefs are quite clear. Would you do the same if you knew that the proposed programs don't have the intended result? Of course you would not. We do not disagree about the goal. We do disagree about the methods used to achieve the goal. jpn's comment that the two articles linked were to abstracts only went wholly ignored. In fact, it was conveniently left out when you quoted his post. You indeed are holding the information you present to different standards than you hold the information I present to (at least the info you disagree with). I'm beginning to see a pattern int his respect. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
