VisorCentral.com - Iraqi Ministry of Oil vs. Iraqi Hospital

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Iraqi Ministry of Oil vs. Iraqi Hospital (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=33349)

Posted by Toby on 05-09-2003 03:51 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
[...] So abstinance IMHO is only a theoretical sollution.. it goes against human nature (against nature in general actually...)

Sounds like pacifism.

That's the interesting thing about us humans. We have this thing called reason which can override instinct. We also seem to have lots of logical inconsistencies as a species, though. We do a pretty good job at rationalizing differences between some of them, but they only seem to hold up when evaluated by those sympathetic to those rationalizations. JAFO.

Posted by KRamsauer on 05-09-2003 02:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Technically you are 100% right.. if you dont have sex you cant get a (purely) sexually transmitted disease...

However, people will have sex. period... some people may even have sex against their will.
So abstinance IMHO is only a theoretical sollution.. it goes against human nature (against nature in general actually...)

That's bad reasoning, in my opinion. Just because something is natural is not enough to convince me it is right. After all it is "natural" to kill, have affairs, abandon children and steal. I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just the way by which you got there.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by septimus on 05-09-2003 08:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

By definition, without regard to stigma, religion, social mores, etc, the best prevention of spread of any sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.

On an individual basis, sure, that's obvious. The point here is that as a social policy abstinence is not effective. Actually, the point here is that the FBOs are promoting abstinence as a part of a whole other schema that stigmaticizes AIDS.

...its similar to the "just say no" campaign, short-sighted. If you draw a thick black line and say "thou shalt not cross" it can only work if that line is in a reasonable place and if people are allowed to discuss what's on the other side of the line. Teaching "abstinece only" isn't education, it's the spread of ignorance about the true complexity of the situation.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-09-2003 10:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
...its similar to the "just say no" campaign, short-sighted.

How is it short-sighted?

quote:
Teaching "abstinece only" isn't education, it's the spread of ignorance about the true complexity of the situation.

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I teach my teenage girls that abstinence is the ONLY option? Give me a break! There are several real world situations where abstinence IS a valid option.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago I would have felt differently, but parenthood has a funny way of changing the way you look at things.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by Toby on 05-09-2003 10:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
On an individual basis, sure, that's obvious. The point here is that as a social policy abstinence is not effective.

Please expound upon this in relation to my pacificism example.

quote:
Actually, the point here is that the FBOs are promoting abstinence as a part of a whole other schema that stigmaticizes AIDS.

Well, much as I dislike the monopoly that such things think they have on such morality, I'm a bit more pragmatic than saying that they're useless.

quote:
...its similar to the "just say no" campaign, short-sighted.

...much like the 'just say no to wars' campaigns.

quote:
If you draw a thick black line and say "thou shalt not cross" it can only work if that line is in a reasonable place and if people are allowed to discuss what's on the other side of the line. Teaching "abstinece only" isn't education, it's the spread of ignorance about the true complexity of the situation.

I think most extremes ignore the complexity of most situations. <insert obligatory Ferris quote about isms>

Posted by septimus on 05-10-2003 06:01 PM:

er, I'm not a pacifist... I think you and I are mostly together on this one, Toby...

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 05-10-2003 06:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
Are you saying I'm ignorant because I teach my teenage girls that abstinence is the ONLY option? Give me a break! There are several real world situations where abstinence IS a valid option.

I'm not saying you're ignorant, what I am saying is that you're potentially setting up your girls to be profoundly sexually ignorant. Unless they become nuns, they will have sex someday, shouldn't they be prepared for what the options are?

Obviously, especially for children of your own, having sex later is much preferable to having it sooner. Teaching abstinence-only may have that effect in the short-run... but in the long run it has the possible side efffect of stigmatizing sex.

but hey, what do I know, I don't have kids yet, as you mention.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 05-10-2003 06:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
er, I'm not a pacifist... I think you and I are mostly together on this one, Toby...

I didn't say I thought you were, necessarily. I was just interested in hearing another perspective on it.

Posted by Toby on 05-10-2003 06:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
I'm not saying you're ignorant, what I am saying is that you're potentially setting up your girls to be profoundly sexually ignorant. Unless they become nuns, they will have sex someday, shouldn't they be prepared for what the options are?

That depends on the context. Mark didn't say he wasn't informing them of things. But, the point remains that the only way to completely and effectively avoid STDs is to avoid their method of transmission. How one deals with the morality/reasoning behind that is a totally separate matter, IMO.

quote:
Obviously, especially for children of your own, having sex later is much preferable to having it sooner. Teaching abstinence-only may have that effect in the short-run... but in the long run it has the possible side efffect of stigmatizing sex.

It depends on how one approaches it. There are strong physiological and psychological reasons for encouraging abstinence in minors (physiological reasons weigh significantly heavier on the female side).

quote:
but hey, what do I know, I don't have kids yet, as you mention.

Well, I have a rather young one, and have thought quite a bit about how I plan to approach this. Other than the obvious weapon-based methods of intimidation for suitors, I feel that my daughter knowing the _entirety_ of the reasons that intercourse under less than ideal circumstances is a bad idea is important. ...and that she should know at least 10 different methods of rendering a man incapable of motion in case he's not listening to reason.

Posted by septimus on 05-10-2003 08:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
...and that she should know at least 10 different methods of rendering a man incapable of motion in case he's not listening to reason.

I fully agree. Women being able to kick ass is imo always a good thing.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-10-2003 11:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
That depends on the context. Mark didn't say he wasn't informing them of things.

Exactly. We try to give them as much information as we feel is prudent. I've always maintained that they need to know ALL the facts so that they can make (hopefully) intelligent decisions on their own, knowing full well the consequences of their actions.

quote:
It depends on how one approaches it. There are strong physiological and psychological reasons for encouraging abstinence in minors (physiological reasons weigh significantly heavier on the female side).

Absolutely... for starters, boys don't come home pregnant.

quote:
Well, I have a rather young one, and have thought quite a bit about how I plan to approach this.

Funny how that works... suddenly we want to protect them from the likes of ourselves!

quote:
Other than the obvious weapon-based methods of intimidation for suitors

My father-in-law had a 357 magnum and a 12 gauge shotgun in plain view the first time we met (true story... of course, he was joking, but didn't let on right away).

quote:
I feel that my daughter knowing the _entirety_ of the reasons that intercourse under less than ideal circumstances is a bad idea is important.

I couldn't agree more. As I said above, they need to know ALL the facts. Today's society is not what it was when I was a teen.

quote:
...and that she should know at least 10 different methods of rendering a man incapable of motion in case he's not listening to reason.

Definitely!

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-11-2003 12:06 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
I'm not saying you're ignorant, what I am saying is that you're potentially setting up your girls to be profoundly sexually ignorant. Unless they become nuns, they will have sex someday, shouldn't they be prepared for what the options are?

Sure, they should be prepared. But, IMHO, under the age of 18, there is no other option besides abstinence. Yes, they should know what condoms and contraceptives are, and when and where they're acceptable, but they are NOT options.

quote:
Obviously, especially for children of your own, having sex later is much preferable to having it sooner.

Unfortunately, today's society has made sex a commodity. The peer pressure is absolutely mind-boggling. I've actually listened to 8th grade girls talking about their conquests like you and I would discuss the weather!

quote:
Teaching abstinence-only may have that effect in the short-run... but in the long run it has the possible side efffect of stigmatizing sex.

Agreed. I think that all too often, parents go too far to protect their children that they end up making sex a bad thing, and that leads to potential problems later in life.

quote:
but hey, what do I know, I don't have kids yet, as you mention.

Actually, I never mentioned that, but it wasn't hard to tell.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by Toby on 05-11-2003 01:48 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
[...] Absolutely... for starters, boys don't come home pregnant.

Well, although that's certainly an issue, it's only the surface layer. There are all sorts of risks for girls associated with early sexual activity. After all, the reproductive system for boys is much simpler and fully formed at an earlier age (for better or worse). Hmm...although maybe there's a reason the prostate cancer rates for men are so high.

quote:
Funny how that works... suddenly we want to protect them from the likes of ourselves!

Speak for yourself.

I'd be ecstatic if my daughter found someone like me when she hits her teen years.

quote:
My father-in-law had a 357 magnum and a 12 gauge shotgun in plain view the first time we met (true story... of course, he was joking, but didn't let on right away). [...]

heh...well, I was planning to hit them with the laser sight on my plinking gun. It's only a Ruger 10-22, but with the stock and kit it has, it looks downright ornery.

Posted by yardie on 05-11-2003 04:15 PM:

While this is true, I think its a waste of time and money to preach abstitence. People are going to have sex because it is normal. Resources would be better spent on protection.

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

By definition, without regard to stigma, religion, social mores, etc, the best prevention of spread of any sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 05-11-2003 04:22 PM:

What do you think would happen to civilization if everyone abstained from having sex? Sex is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be equated to affairs, abandoning children etc.

Besides how can one obtain from sex if we are constantly being bombarded with it. They use it to sell beer, cigarette, cars, music..everything under the sun.

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
That's bad reasoning, in my opinion. Just because something is natural is not enough to convince me it is right. After all it is "natural" to kill, have affairs, abandon children and steal. I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just the way by which you got there.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 05-11-2003 04:24 PM:

I think your teenage girls will find out sooner or later that abstinence is not the only option. They are at a stage where their friend's and colleagues words also carry some weight.

quote:
Originally posted by MarkEagle
How is it short-sighted?

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I teach my teenage girls that abstinence is the ONLY option? Give me a break! There are several real world situations where abstinence IS a valid option.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago I would have felt differently, but parenthood has a funny way of changing the way you look at things.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by Toby on 05-11-2003 04:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
While this is true, I think its a waste of time and money to preach abstitence. People are going to have sex because it is normal. Resources would be better spent on protection.

Please expound upon this theory as it relates to pacifism.

Posted by yardie on 05-11-2003 04:28 PM:

I do not think there are any true pacifists out there. Most so called pacificist are of the war-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-war variety.

quote:
Originally posted by septimus
er, I'm not a pacifist... I think you and I are mostly together on this one, Toby...

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-11-2003 06:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
I think your teenage girls will find out sooner or later that abstinence is not the only option. They are at a stage where their friend's and colleagues words also carry some weight.

They already know of the other options. That's not the point, however. The point we stress as parents is that there is only ONE choice at this stage of their lives (my house, my rules... yes, it's old fashioned logic, but it still applies even today). While their friends may carry some weight, hopefully ours outweighs it.

quote:
What do you think would happen to civilization if everyone abstained from having sex? Sex is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be equated to affairs, abandoning children etc.

Of course sex is natural. But where's it written that, in the face of STD's, teen pregnancies, or whatever else, abstinence can't be a viable option? In terms of STD's (which is what we were talking about to begin with), if you know you're in a high-risk environment, why wouldn't you at least consider abstinence? While it may not be the only option, it's certainly at the top of the list.

quote:
Besides how can one ob[s]tain from sex if we are constantly being bombarded with it. They use it to sell beer, cigarette, cars, music..everything under the sun.

Just because it's out there doesn't make it right. IMHO, it all begins in the home. We need to teach children to make their own informed decisions, and hope that our words are heard. I admit, my job as a parent is a whole lot tougher than my parents' was.

Again, if you're not a parent, you have NO idea what I'm talking about. Parenthood does strange things to otherwise normal people!

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by KRamsauer on 05-11-2003 08:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
What do you think would happen to civilization if everyone abstained from having sex? Sex is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be equated to affairs, abandoning children etc.

Besides how can one obtain from sex if we are constantly being bombarded with it. They use it to sell beer, cigarette, cars, music..everything under the sun.

If you read closely, I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what was said. I was simply saying the logic was flawed.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page