Ron Paul 2008

shane · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:21 pm

cheebs wrote:

Izu wrote:

I know what abstinence is. Teaching abstinence is not going to prevent horny teenagers from having sex. It hasn't and it won't.

it does work, i've seen it work. will it work with everybody? of course not, some people are just idiots. that doesn't mean it should be given up completely.

i'm just saying that these idiots shouldn't be getting abortions. if you're a stupid teenager that gets knocked up, you need to deal with the consequences. i don't think holding people responsible for their actions is taking away any rights. IMHO "it's my body and i can do what i want" shouldn't be an excuse to get away with irresponsible behavior. but hey, if you think that, more power to ya.

when it comes to rights, everybody has a right to be educated. teaching abstinence only is retarded (as would be teaching [any subject] only), but i can at least understand where they're coming from. it isn't the fact that people are teaching abstinence only that's causing teenagers to have more sex. what's causing teenagers to have more sex is the fact that sex is no longer taboo. we all watch american pie etc. now and learn that if you aren't having sex, you just aren't cool. that's what i think they're trying to fight against. they're just trying to reinforce the fact that sex comes with responsibility. even though their attempts at social engineering are poor at best, at least their intentions are good.

the thing is you're really trying to argue with nature at this point. humans aren't meant to live as long as they are and naturally we would be reproducing at a young age due to the nature of nature (sounds weird).

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:28 pm

it's not about nature, it's about culture.

shane · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:33 pm

hormones in teenagers > culture

kids are hardwired to fuck early.

shane · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:38 pm

teaching abstinence is fine and dandy but teaching safe no-diseases-no-babies sex is much better suited to the problem.

catholics can teach their kids whatever the fuck they want though, they're crazy. (i know i was raised catholic)

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:42 pm

we're also hardwired to kill stuff for food, compete physically for alpha male status, war with rival tribes, etc...

if you're going to say what we're hard-wired for is "right" then you're talking about going back to the cultural equivalent of barbarians.

kids need direction and discipline as part of their socialization. many aspects of that socialization and culture go against instinct. saying we shouldn't even bother with it just because it takes effort is not a valid argument.

.Andrea. · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:42 pm

shane wrote:

(i know i was raised catholic)

me too

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:43 pm

shane wrote:

safe no-diseases-no-babies sex

you mean RELATIVELY safe ;-)

cheebs · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:50 pm

.Andrea. wrote:

shane wrote:

(i know i was raised catholic)

me too

that explains a lot. catholicism is an easy culture to reject (i.e. martin luther :silly:

)

Continuum Entertainment · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:38 pm

Abstinence does work if you have the resolve, but the fact is that most people and teenagers especially do not. It should not be abandoned as an option but should be considered as just that... One of many options.
Abstinence as an only option for birth control and STD prevention will fail miserably every time in ANY general population whether it be grown adults or teenagers.

Let's keep the drama alive and discuss some other issues such as foreign policy or illegal taxation.

a c i d.f l y · **Posted:** Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:00 pm

shane wrote:

hormones in teenagers > culture

kids are hardwired to fuck early.

Don't get me started on Nature vs. Nurture.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:02 am

cheebs wrote:

we're also hardwired to kill stuff for food, compete physically for alpha male status, war with rival tribes, etc...

if you're going to say what we're hard-wired for is "right" then you're talking about going back to the cultural equivalent of barbarians.

denying that you're seeing these things on a daily basis? have you watched the news lately?

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:05 am

cheebs wrote:

.Andrea. wrote:

shane wrote:

(i know i was raised catholic)

me too

that explains a lot. catholicism is an easy culture to reject (i.e. martin luther :silly:

)

christianity in general is easy to reject if you look at it objectively at all.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:05 am

a c i d.f l y wrote:

shane wrote:

hormones in teenagers > culture

kids are hardwired to fuck early.

Don't get me started on Nature vs. Nurture.

get started.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:44 am

nature vs. nurture = instinct to live vs. brainwashing to serve and consume?

.Andrea. · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:15 am

i have mixed beliefs on nat vs nurt.

for instance, a friend and i got to talking about what makes a person gay. he thinks it's nature and I think it's a combination and there are different factors to determine what kind of gay. ..if that makes sense

cheebs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:25 am

shane wrote:

denying that you're seeing these things on a daily basis? have you watched the news lately?

so you think we should just go with it then?

cheebs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:27 am

shane wrote:

christianity in general is easy to reject if you look at it objectively at all.

you've obviously never spoken to a true apologetic then ;-)

seriously, give me one objective criticism of christianity that holds water. and i swear, if you bring up levitical law i'm going to beat you with a proverbial shellfish.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:39 am

cheebs wrote:

shane wrote:

denying that you're seeing these things on a daily basis? have you watched the news lately?

so you think we should just go with it then?

i'm saying it is still happening regardless of how many institutions have tried to "nurture" it out of us while at the same time furthering the "alpha male" (power and control, money).

the need to kill for food has become relatively obsolete with the convenience we have today, but it is still strong within us when need be (i'd hope so at least, never got to put this to the test).

and warring with our neighbors toes the line as instinct. it has some qualities of self preservation if you're being attacked or invaded but an offensive attack is just that.

human nature vs animal instinct is an interesting conversation in itself. human nature has been completely convoluted by greed. our animal instinct is still there but our goals have been realigned thanks to shiny metals that we deemed valuable.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:44 am

cheebs wrote:

shane wrote:

christianity in general is easy to reject if you look at it objectively at all.

you've obviously never spoken to a true apologetic then ;-)

seriously, give me one objective criticism of christianity that holds water. and i swear, if you bring up levitical law i'm going to beat you with a proverbial shellfish.

telling me you want an answer and then telling me what i'm not allowed to use as a basis is kind of funny.

to me, christianity holds as much water as greek mythology or aesop's fables, we've been over this before. despite the fact that anything in the bible that makes it "holy" is completely unprovable, i have more faith in extraterrestrials then i do in god and the second coming of jesus. jesus never crashlanded in new mexico.

faith is a great thing if it makes people do good with their lives (although they should be doing good with their lives even if they don't feel they're being watched all the time by the man in charge) or if it makes people quit self destructive behaviour.

faith is a horrible thing when it makes you blindly kill millions of people and impose your will ("faith") on people who want nothing to do with it.

cheebs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:38 pm

shane wrote:

human nature vs animal instinct is an interesting conversation in itself. human nature has been completely convoluted by greed. our animal instinct is still there but our goals have been realigned thanks to shiny metals that we deemed valuable.

do you think greed and valuables are new concepts to humanity?

cheebs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:40 pm

shane wrote:

telling me you want an answer and then telling me what i'm not allowed to use as a basis is kind of funny.

we can talk about it if you really want, i just said that because anti-christians bringing up levitical laws is not just ignorant (they're taking things out of context) it's so cliche it's just stupid to talk about anymore.

if you really want to bring it up be my guest, i've been over it a bajillion times.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:44 pm

well your point is understandable but plenty of christians use levitical law as an argument for all sorts of asinine things. it gets taken out of context by all parties involved.

but to go through the bible and pick and choose what should be obeyed and what should not is a bit contradictive considering it is the holy book that the religion is based off of.

shane · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:44 pm

cheebs wrote:

shane wrote:

human nature vs animal instinct is an interesting conversation in itself. human nature has been completely convoluted by greed. our animal instinct is still there but our goals have been realigned thanks to shiny metals that we deemed valuable.

do you think greed and valuables are new concepts to humanity?

as new as the ability to place worth on shiny metals.

cheebs · **Posted:** Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:04 pm

shane wrote:

well your point is understandable but plenty of christians use levitical law as an argument for all sorts of asinine things. it gets taken out of context by all parties involved.

but to go through the bible and pick and choose what should be obeyed and what should not is a bit contradictive considering it is the holy book that the religion is based off of.

actually if you read leviticus you'll understand that the laws given during that time were for specific reasons during a specific time. it's not a pick and choose thing.

i think the main problem is that so many people reference the bible who have never even read it or the passages that they're talking about before they go shooting their mouth off about it.

Izu · **Posted:** Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:11 am

cheebs wrote:

Izu wrote:

I know what abstinence is. Teaching abstinence is not going to prevent horny teenagers from having sex. It hasn't and it won't.

it does work, i've seen it work. will it work with everybody? of course not, some people are just idiots. that doesn't mean it should be given up completely.

i'm just saying that these idiots shouldn't be getting abortions. if you're a stupid teenager that gets knocked up, you need to deal with the consequences. i don't think holding people responsible for their actions is taking away any rights. IMHO "it's my body and i can do what i want" shouldn't be an excuse to get away with irresponsible behavior. but hey, if you think that, more power to ya.

when it comes to rights, everybody has a right to be educated. teaching abstinence only is retarded (as would be teaching [any subject] only), but i can at least understand where they're coming from. it isn't the fact that people are teaching abstinence only that's causing teenagers to have more sex. what's causing teenagers to have more sex is the fact that sex is no longer taboo. we all watch american pie etc. now and learn that if you aren't having sex, you just aren't cool. that's what i think they're trying to fight against. they're just trying to reinforce the fact that sex comes with responsibility. even though their attempts at social engineering are poor at best, at least their intentions are good.

I know this is kind of old news... but I just think that instead of preaching absintence, students should learn how to to deal with the consequenses of having sex (i.e. what to do if they get pregnant or get an STD, their options for oral contraceptives, or morning after pills, along with heightened awareness about organizations like Planned Parenthood) in place of excessive teachings on abstinence. One of the PRIMARY failings of education is not preparing teenagers for the REAL WORLD. Why teach something that is mostly innefective? Prevention does help, but it's not preventing the teenage girls in poverty from having babies. I know it would be absurd to completely abandon abstinence, but one sentence about the benefits of not having sex is quite enough. It's just an ideology to prevent sex before marriage. Every dumbfuck knows that NOT having sex will prevent STDs and pregnancy. The educational can enforce the message of responsibility by teaching about the consequences of having sex and concluding with how to deal with such events if they happen to arise.

Ron Paul 2008

Who is online

Social Network

Night Club Culture

GlobalBeatz.net