WASHINGTON -- A scenario for an unspecified day in 2005: One of President Bush's judicial nominations is brought to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist makes a point of order that only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. The point is upheld by the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic Leader Harry Reid challenges the ruling. Frist moves to table Reid's motion, ending debate. The motion is tabled, and the Senate proceeds to confirm the judicial nominee -- all in about 10 minutes.  This is the so-called "nuclear option" that creates fear and loathing among Democrats and weak knees for some Republicans, including conservative opinion leaders. Â
Now there'sa visual I didn't need -- you two "combined."
One study frequently cited in the ongoing abstinence-education debate was done by Columbia's School of Public Health. It determined that although teens who take abstinence pledges do tend to delay having sex for about a year more than those who did not, 88% of them do wind up having premarital sex. When they do have sex, they are considerably less likely to use condoms -- probably because having condoms around would mean you're thinking about having sex, and that would be bad.
If they have the willpower to wait a year or more they should have the willpower to wait until they can get back from the drug store.
jethro, I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately what seems to happen is the "We weren't really planning to have sex, but one thing led to another . . . " scenario. Yes, they should have the knowledge and the willpower to wait 'til they can get to a drugstore, but from what I have seen of abstinence-only teaching materials on their websites, the overriding message is that premarital sex is bad, period. This tends to make simple things like the purchase of condoms an emotionally wrenching experience, which leads to unprotected sex.
This tends to make simple things like the purchase of condoms an emotionally wrenching experience... Oh how horrible! The trauma! How can they get through even one day with such emotional turmoil?
You just don't want to discuss anything in a rational manner, do you, jethro?
The people who find the purchase of condoms too uncomfortable to go through with are the ones who will get more diseases and have more unwanted pregnancies -- and in general they are more likely to have had abstinence-only "sex-is-bad" education than "if you are going to have sex, do it responsibly" education.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 20, 2004 at 01:59pm.]
If they have the willpower to wait a year or more they should have the willpower to wait until they can get back from the drug store.
so basically, you're admitting that it really has nothing to do with the abstinence only sex ed they received, but rather how much willpower they have.
without abstinence education why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
ahh, but that's not what you preach. you advocate abstinence-only education. big difference there. huge.
I mean they are taught to "just do it," aren't they?
no, its actually hormones that preach that. i've never heard of anysex ed program that teaches kids to "just do it" (and since you're gonna mention it anyway, nike is a provider of footwear, not sex ed).
ahh, but that's not what you preach. you advocate abstinence-only education. big difference there. huge. I wonder if you can read: This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education"why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
I mean they are taught to "just do it," aren't they?
no, its actually hormones that preach that. No
it s people like you that say you are going to do it anyway here have some condoms. That is just irresponsible horses**t. I believe people can control themselves. You apparently don't. i've never heard of anysex ed program that teaches kids to "just do it" (and since you're gonna mention it anyway, nike is a provider of footwear, not sex ed). They get the message to "just do it" when you hand them a condom and teach them how to use it.
which is mroe irresponsible? giving the teen on his/her way to have sex a condom in an effort to protect them, or denying it? either way the sex is going to happen.
face it. teenage sex is a reality. were it not, we wouldn't have as many high school students with children or pregnant as we do. preaching up and down the street that you should abstain from it will not make it go away, contrary to what you might want. step out of your utopia for one minute and experience the real world around you
This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education" why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
yeah i can read. but like i said there's a huge difference between the "abstinence education" you were referring to in that post, versus "abstinence-only" education.
the former discourages it, giving logical reasons, risk of std transmission, pregnancy, etc.
the latter, however, preaches that abstinence is the only way to be. now, i spent quite a bit of time as a babysitterlifeguard when i was in high school and college, and the one thing i learned there more often than anything else was that the quickest way to get a teenager to do something was to tell them they can't do it.
which is mroe irresponsible? giving the teen on his/her way to have sex a condom in an effort to protect them, or denying it? either way the sex is going to happen. No you don't know that the "sex is going to happen." That is just away to get around the fact that sometimes adults have to take a stand. (But I don't think you would know about that becuase you have to be an adult first.) Fact is there are many kids that do say no. Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
face it. teenage sex is a reality. were it not, we wouldn't have as many high school students with children or pregnant as we do. preaching up and down the street that you should abstain from it will not make it go away, contrary to what you might want. step out of your utopia for one minute and experience the real world around you You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
They get the message to "just do it" when you hand them a condom and teach them how to use it.
so you'd rather have kids having sex who don't know how to use a condom? now thatis a bunch of irresponsible horseshit.
You encourage the behavior when you teach it. How fricking dumb are you?
This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education" why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
yeah i can read. but like i said there's a huge difference between the "abstinence education" you were referring to in that post, versus "abstinence-only" education.
the former discourages it, giving logical reasons, risk of std transmission, pregnancy, etc.
Abstinence education also gives the logical reason to not have sex, STD's and pregnancy. Abstinence only simply doesn't give false security.
You encourage the behavior when you teach it. How fricking dumb are you?
you say that as if not teaching it somehow discourages it.
 You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
no, dipshit, the real world is what is out there right now, not some delusional world you live in when you put your hed into the ground like an ostrich.
Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
actually you ought to know full well that i'm for legalising them. and since you mentioned it, there's plenty of evidence out there that shows that teaching an anti-drug message (i very much doubt that there's a teen alive today that hasn't been through some sourt of drug abuse education in school), doesn't prevent drug use from occurring. what reason would i have to believe that teaching abstinence only is going to make abstinence only happen? fat fucking chance.
you say that as if not teaching it somehow discourages it.
You act is if the problem is being ignored. It isn't There is taching about the subject and that teaching is to NOT do AND and the possible consequences if they do.
 You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
no, dipshit, the real world is what is out there right now, not some delusional world you live in when you put your hed into the ground like an ostrich.
There is no delusions, jacka** . Everyone knows what the f*** is going on, you fricking idiot! The question is do you put up a standard of what is the right behavior or do you abdicate moral responsibility.Â
Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
actually you ought to know full well that i'm for legalising them.I didn't know but I expected it from all the idiotic crap you that you consistently post.
and since you mentioned it, there's plenty of evidence out there that shows that teaching an anti-drug message (i very much doubt that there's a teen alive today that hasn't been through some sourt of drug abuse education in school), doesn't prevent drug use from occurring. what reason would i have to believe that teaching abstinence only is going to make abstinence only happen?Â
Well no s*** sherlock. Telling them to go ahead is not being principled. If you don't expect more you don't get more. When you grow up you'll understand.
The question is do you put up a standard of what is the right behavior or do you abdicate moral responsibility.Â
ya know what? take your moral responsiblity bullshit and shove it up your ass. i don't find it to be beneficial for myself or society as a whole. people have sex. its a totally natural function, that nature expects at a point of sexual maturity in all creatures. for humans that starts to happen around middle school age. deal with it. but to try and change nature's course on the grounds of some arbitrary moral standard just doesn't work.
 If you don't expect more you don't get more.
obviously expecting more when it comes to drug users isn't getting us any more there, is it?
ya know what? take your moral responsibility bullshit and shove it up your ass. spoken like a true adolescent.i don't find it to be beneficial for myself or society as a whole.you will when you grow up. people have sex. its a totally natural function, that nature expects at a point of sexual maturity in all creatures. for humans that starts to happen around middle school age. deal with it. but to try and change nature's course on the grounds of some arbitrary moral standard just doesn't work. no one is trying to change nature's course. nature has given man, whether you realize it or not, self control. You are advocating immature behavior whether you know it or not. Not surprising since you are immature.
 If you don't expect more you don't get more.
obviously expecting more when it comes to drug users isn't getting us any more there, is it? Just think how bad it could be and would be if society followed your recommendations.
The most comprehensive peer-reviewed study to date demonstrates that teens who receive abstinence-only teaching and sign virginity pledges wait about a year longer than non-pledgers to start having sex, but 88% of them do wind up having premarital sex anyway.
Rounded off, that's a 90% failure rate for "just say no" sex education. I'd say that the "they're going to do it anyway, so let's at least give them the information they need to protect themselves" position has been pretty well proven.
I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
jethro, if you heard that the health department was giving out free needles, would you decide to become a junkie? Of course not. Nor would any of your friends, most likely. Nor would most of us here, whether we agree with you or not. The reason for needle-exchange programs is to attempt to slow the rate of HIV infection in IV drug users, and by doing this, to slow the spread of HIV to unsuspecting partners -- in many cases married partners -- of IV drug users. I don't think "you married a secret junkie, so your HIV is your fault" is a very enlightened -- dare I say "Christian"? -- attitude.
The reason for needle-exchange programs is to attempt to slow the rate of HIV infection in IV drug users, and by doing this, to slow the spread of HIV to unsuspecting partners -- in many cases married partners -- of IV drug users.
The reason for needle exchange programs is a lack of common sense.
I am not surprised then that you approve.
He and Rich rip into virginity pledges, claiming kids don’t keep their promises and that when they break them, they do so without condoms. You would think the condom industry ... well, never mind. It turns out that nearly eight in 10 girls do keep their pledges through high school and that kids who take the pledge are just one-fourth as likely to have sex during high school as kids who don’t. Again, that’s from the National Longitudinal Survey, the bellwether on these matters.
Just because you don’t want a thing to be true doesn’t make it untrue. I don’t want my bank statement to be true every month, but, sadly, it is. And the truth of the matter is that the instincts of the 91 percent of parents in America who want their kids to receive a genuine abstinence-ed message are right. Telling kids to say no is and always has been the best way to get them to say no.
Just think how bad it could be and would be if society followed your recommendations.
or you could look to the 1920s when alcohol was prohibited in this country. and then compare it with the decades surrounding prohibition. and then draw parallels to what we have with the prohibition scene today.
assuming of course you possess those critical thinking skills.
or you could look to the 1920s when alcohol was prohibited in this country. and then compare it with the decades surrounding prohibition. and then draw parallels to what we have with the prohibition scene today.
If you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down. I know you don't want to believe it and you will dismiss it out of hand, but it is the truth.
If you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down. I know you don't want to believe it and you will dismiss it out of hand, but it is the truth.
ooh. the illegal consumption went down. whoop-de-fucking-doo. violent crime went up during the same period. now, if you can sit there on your high horse and say that getting
<insert your favorite chemical here> consumption down, in exchange for a significantly higher crime rate is a good thing, then i'd suggest you go find yourself a private island somewhere and live there.
ooh. the illegal consumption went down. whoop-de-fucking-doo. violent crime went up during the same period. now, if you can sit there on your high horse and say that getting
<insert your favorite chemical here> consumption down, in exchange for a significantly higher crime rate is a good thing, then i'd suggest you go find yourself a private island somewhere and live there.
The crime rate argument is way overblown. Crime went up because a product became illegal and of course there are going to be those that will see the opportunity to make a few bucks and take a the risk. But if you take your argument to its logical conclusion you would get of all laws. I mean if there were no laws there would be no crimes.Â
The man who talks about liberals seeing conspiracies everywhere sees safe-sex education as a conspiracy by the condom manufacturers. All righty, then.
jethro's the eternal optimist --- if you wish it so, and wish hard enough, human nature will go away. Optimism is fine, but maintaining it in the face of centuries of contradictory information and experience borders on insanity.
Would a drop in consumption be enough to define prohibition as a success, jethro?
depends on what it is that was desired to be achieved. prohibition reduced alcohol consumption and since that was the goal of those that implemented it it was a success.
The man who talks about liberals seeing conspiracies everywhere sees safe-sex education as a conspiracy by the condom manufacturers. All righty, then. I don't know what you are talking about. Are you out of your head again?
jethro's the eternal optimist --- if you wish it so, and wish hard enough, human nature will go away. Optimism is fine, but maintaining it in the face of centuries of contradictory information and experience borders on insanity. You simply don't understand or don't want to understand what I have been saying IF you bleieve this.
 you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down.
Barely
Some interesting info on prohibition.
This is taken from the posted article:
Second, consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933
The statement is patently false. See: http://www.vis-res.com/job1/Alc%20Chart2000.pdf Alcohol consumption had decreased from that prior to its implementation. It took a number of years for consumption to get back to preprohibition levels.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 08:46am.]
"Love is in the air..."
:: notice that jethro didn't deny it ::
Is there any reason to deny the posts of dip s***s? It is better just to ignore them. It has been working quite well for me in regards to crabs.
WASHINGTON -- A scenario for an unspecified day in 2005: One of President Bush's judicial nominations is brought to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist makes a point of order that only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. The point is upheld by the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic Leader Harry Reid challenges the ruling. Frist moves to table Reid's motion, ending debate. The motion is tabled, and the Senate proceeds to confirm the judicial nominee -- all in about 10 minutes.
Â
This is the so-called "nuclear option" that creates fear and loathing among Democrats and weak knees for some Republicans, including conservative opinion leaders. Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20041220.shtml
Lucky 7 Joe.
And man, I could use it.
But of course I didn't get it.
[Edited by on Dec 20, 2004 at 11:29am.]
:-)
There you go, Rick.
Didn't know you could do that.
Haven't had any luck yet.
Now there'sa visual I didn't need -- you two "combined."
One study frequently cited in the ongoing abstinence-education debate was done by Columbia's School of Public Health. It determined that although teens who take abstinence pledges do tend to delay having sex for about a year more than those who did not, 88% of them do wind up having premarital sex. When they do have sex, they are considerably less likely to use condoms -- probably because having condoms around would mean you're thinking about having sex, and that would be bad.
If they have the willpower to wait a year or more they should have the willpower to wait until they can get back from the drug store.
Now there's a visual I didn't need -- you two "combined."
I was talking to you, Pieter.
:-)
[Edited by on Dec 20, 2004 at 12:30pm.]
Â
[Edited by on Dec 20, 2004 at 12:48pm.]
jethro, I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately what seems to happen is the "We weren't really planning to have sex, but one thing led to another . . . " scenario. Yes, they should have the knowledge and the willpower to wait 'til they can get to a drugstore, but from what I have seen of abstinence-only teaching materials on their websites, the overriding message is that premarital sex is bad, period. This tends to make simple things like the purchase of condoms an emotionally wrenching experience, which leads to unprotected sex.
This tends to make simple things like the purchase of condoms an emotionally wrenching experience... Oh how horrible! The trauma! How can they get through even one day with such emotional turmoil?
You just don't want to discuss anything in a rational manner, do you, jethro?
The people who find the purchase of condoms too uncomfortable to go through with are the ones who will get more diseases and have more unwanted pregnancies -- and in general they are more likely to have had abstinence-only "sex-is-bad" education than "if you are going to have sex, do it responsibly" education.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 20, 2004 at 01:59pm.]
I made my point. If you don't like the way I made it-tough.
That's funny. Little pieter actually accusing someone of not discussing something in a rational manner.
fold has never heard of self control.
If they have the willpower to wait a year or more they should have the willpower to wait until they can get back from the drug store.
so basically, you're admitting that it really has nothing to do with the abstinence only sex ed they received, but rather how much willpower they have.
without abstinence education why should they refrain from engaging in sex? I mean they are taught to "just do it," aren't they?
without abstinence education why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
ahh, but that's not what you preach. you advocate abstinence-only education. big difference there. huge.
I mean they are taught to "just do it," aren't they?
no, its actually hormones that preach that. i've never heard of anysex ed program that teaches kids to "just do it" (and since you're gonna mention it anyway, nike is a provider of footwear, not sex ed).
ahh, but that's not what you preach. you advocate abstinence-only education. big difference there. huge. I wonder if you can read: This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education"why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
I mean they are taught to "just do it," aren't they?
no, its actually hormones that preach that. No
it s people like you that say you are going to do it anyway here have some condoms. That is just irresponsible horses**t. I believe people can control themselves. You apparently don't. i've never heard of anysex ed program that teaches kids to "just do it" (and since you're gonna mention it anyway, nike is a provider of footwear, not sex ed). They get the message to "just do it" when you hand them a condom and teach them how to use it.
That is just irresponsible horses**t
which is mroe irresponsible? giving the teen on his/her way to have sex a condom in an effort to protect them, or denying it? either way the sex is going to happen.
face it. teenage sex is a reality. were it not, we wouldn't have as many high school students with children or pregnant as we do. preaching up and down the street that you should abstain from it will not make it go away, contrary to what you might want. step out of your utopia for one minute and experience the real world around you
They get the message to "just do it" when you hand them a condom and teach them how to use it.
so you'd rather have kids having sex who don't know how to use a condom? now thatis a bunch of irresponsible horseshit.
This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education" why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
yeah i can read. but like i said there's a huge difference between the "abstinence education" you were referring to in that post, versus "abstinence-only" education.
the former discourages it, giving logical reasons, risk of std transmission, pregnancy, etc.
the latter, however, preaches that abstinence is the only way to be. now, i spent quite a bit of time as a
babysitterlifeguard when i was in high school and college, and the one thing i learned there more often than anything else was that the quickest way to get a teenager to do something was to tell them they can't do it.which is mroe irresponsible? giving the teen on his/her way to have sex a condom in an effort to protect them, or denying it? either way the sex is going to happen. No you don't know that the "sex is going to happen." That is just away to get around the fact that sometimes adults have to take a stand. (But I don't think you would know about that becuase you have to be an adult first.) Fact is there are many kids that do say no. Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
face it. teenage sex is a reality. were it not, we wouldn't have as many high school students with children or pregnant as we do. preaching up and down the street that you should abstain from it will not make it go away, contrary to what you might want. step out of your utopia for one minute and experience the real world around you You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
They get the message to "just do it" when you hand them a condom and teach them how to use it.
so you'd rather have kids having sex who don't know how to use a condom? now thatis a bunch of irresponsible horseshit.
You encourage the behavior when you teach it. How fricking dumb are you?
This is what I wrote:"without abstinence education" why should they refrain from engaging in sex?
yeah i can read. but like i said there's a huge difference between the "abstinence education" you were referring to in that post, versus "abstinence-only" education.
the former discourages it, giving logical reasons, risk of std transmission, pregnancy, etc.
Abstinence education also gives the logical reason to not have sex, STD's and pregnancy. Abstinence only simply doesn't give false security.
You encourage the behavior when you teach it. How fricking dumb are you?
you say that as if not teaching it somehow discourages it.
 You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
no, dipshit, the real world is what is out there right now, not some delusional world you live in when you put your hed into the ground like an ostrich.
Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
actually you ought to know full well that i'm for legalising them. and since you mentioned it, there's plenty of evidence out there that shows that teaching an anti-drug message (i very much doubt that there's a teen alive today that hasn't been through some sourt of drug abuse education in school), doesn't prevent drug use from occurring. what reason would i have to believe that teaching abstinence only is going to make abstinence only happen? fat fucking chance.
you say that as if not teaching it somehow discourages it.
You act is if the problem is being ignored. It isn't There is taching about the subject and that teaching is to NOT do AND and the possible consequences if they do.
 You advocate giving in to "the real world." It is just easier than doing what is right. The "real world" is what you make it.
no, dipshit, the real world is what is out there right now, not some delusional world you live in when you put your hed into the ground like an ostrich.
There is no delusions, jacka** . Everyone knows what the f*** is going on, you fricking idiot! The question is do you put up a standard of what is the right behavior or do you abdicate moral responsibility.Â
Just like drugs. I suppose you are for giving out needles for the same reason. Hey what the hell they are going to do the drugs might as well give them the equipment?
actually you ought to know full well that i'm for legalising them.I didn't know but I expected it from all the idiotic crap you that you consistently post.
and since you mentioned it, there's plenty of evidence out there that shows that teaching an anti-drug message (i very much doubt that there's a teen alive today that hasn't been through some sourt of drug abuse education in school), doesn't prevent drug use from occurring. what reason would i have to believe that teaching abstinence only is going to make abstinence only happen?Â
Well no s*** sherlock. Telling them to go ahead is not being principled. If you don't expect more you don't get more. When you grow up you'll understand.
The question is do you put up a standard of what is the right behavior or do you abdicate moral responsibility.Â
ya know what? take your moral responsiblity bullshit and shove it up your ass. i don't find it to be beneficial for myself or society as a whole. people have sex. its a totally natural function, that nature expects at a point of sexual maturity in all creatures. for humans that starts to happen around middle school age. deal with it. but to try and change nature's course on the grounds of some arbitrary moral standard just doesn't work.
 If you don't expect more you don't get more.
obviously expecting more when it comes to drug users isn't getting us any more there, is it?
wouldn't the parents have something to say about it?
ya know what? take your moral responsibility bullshit and shove it up your ass. spoken like a true adolescent.i don't find it to be beneficial for myself or society as a whole.you will when you grow up. people have sex. its a totally natural function, that nature expects at a point of sexual maturity in all creatures. for humans that starts to happen around middle school age. deal with it. but to try and change nature's course on the grounds of some arbitrary moral standard just doesn't work. no one is trying to change nature's course. nature has given man, whether you realize it or not, self control. You are advocating immature behavior whether you know it or not. Not surprising since you are immature.
 If you don't expect more you don't get more.
obviously expecting more when it comes to drug users isn't getting us any more there, is it? Just think how bad it could be and would be if society followed your recommendations.
Lance Brown "Fund Drive Questions & Discussion" 12/21/04 6:56am
PF lockout in the works.
The most comprehensive peer-reviewed study to date demonstrates that teens who receive abstinence-only teaching and sign virginity pledges wait about a year longer than non-pledgers to start having sex, but 88% of them do wind up having premarital sex anyway.
Rounded off, that's a 90% failure rate for "just say no" sex education. I'd say that the "they're going to do it anyway, so let's at least give them the information they need to protect themselves" position has been pretty well proven.
jethro, if you heard that the health department was giving out free needles, would you decide to become a junkie? Of course not. Nor would any of your friends, most likely. Nor would most of us here, whether we agree with you or not. The reason for needle-exchange programs is to attempt to slow the rate of HIV infection in IV drug users, and by doing this, to slow the spread of HIV to unsuspecting partners -- in many cases married partners -- of IV drug users. I don't think "you married a secret junkie, so your HIV is your fault" is a very enlightened -- dare I say "Christian"? -- attitude.
I've never used a needle in my life, and I'm a diabetic.
Democrats claim they stole it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142257,00.html
The reason for needle-exchange programs is to attempt to slow the rate of HIV infection in IV drug users, and by doing this, to slow the spread of HIV to unsuspecting partners -- in many cases married partners -- of IV drug users.
The reason for needle exchange programs is a lack of common sense.
I am not surprised then that you approve.
He and Rich rip into virginity pledges, claiming kids don’t keep their promises and that when they break them, they do so without condoms. You would think the condom industry ... well, never mind. It turns out that nearly eight in 10 girls do keep their pledges through high school and that kids who take the pledge are just one-fourth as likely to have sex during high school as kids who don’t. Again, that’s from the National Longitudinal Survey, the bellwether on these matters.
Just because you don’t want a thing to be true doesn’t make it untrue. I don’t want my bank statement to be true every month, but, sadly, it is. And the truth of the matter is that the instincts of the 91 percent of parents in America who want their kids to receive a genuine abstinence-ed message are right. Telling kids to say no is and always has been the best way to get them to say no.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brianmcnicoll/bm20041222.shtml
Just think how bad it could be and would be if society followed your recommendations.
or you could look to the 1920s when alcohol was prohibited in this country. and then compare it with the decades surrounding prohibition. and then draw parallels to what we have with the prohibition scene today.
assuming of course you possess those critical thinking skills.
or you could look to the 1920s when alcohol was prohibited in this country. and then compare it with the decades surrounding prohibition. and then draw parallels to what we have with the prohibition scene today.
If you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down. I know you don't want to believe it and you will dismiss it out of hand, but it is the truth.
If you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down. I know you don't want to believe it and you will dismiss it out of hand, but it is the truth.
ooh. the illegal consumption went down. whoop-de-fucking-doo. violent crime went up during the same period. now, if you can sit there on your high horse and say that getting
<insert your favorite chemical here> consumption down, in exchange for a significantly higher crime rate is a good thing, then i'd suggest you go find yourself a private island somewhere and live there.
Would a drop in consumption be enough to define prohibition as a success, jethro?
Is stopping people from having a beer the role of government like it is in Saudi Arabia?
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 07:18am.]
ooh. the illegal consumption went down. whoop-de-fucking-doo. violent crime went up during the same period. now, if you can sit there on your high horse and say that getting
<insert your favorite chemical here> consumption down, in exchange for a significantly higher crime rate is a good thing, then i'd suggest you go find yourself a private island somewhere and live there.
The crime rate argument is way overblown. Crime went up because a product became illegal and of course there are going to be those that will see the opportunity to make a few bucks and take a the risk. But if you take your argument to its logical conclusion you would get of all laws. I mean if there were no laws there would be no crimes.Â
The man who talks about liberals seeing conspiracies everywhere sees safe-sex education as a conspiracy by the condom manufacturers. All righty, then.
jethro's the eternal optimist --- if you wish it so, and wish hard enough, human nature will go away. Optimism is fine, but maintaining it in the face of centuries of contradictory information and experience borders on insanity.
If you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down.
Barely
Some interesting info on prohibition.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Shifting quickly from argumentum ad hominem to reductio ad absurdum. Great footwork there -- do we have an instant replay from another angle?
Would a drop in consumption be enough to define prohibition as a success, jethro?
depends on what it is that was desired to be achieved. prohibition reduced alcohol consumption and since that was the goal of those that implemented it it was a success.
The man who talks about liberals seeing conspiracies everywhere sees safe-sex education as a conspiracy by the condom manufacturers. All righty, then. I don't know what you are talking about. Are you out of your head again?
jethro's the eternal optimist --- if you wish it so, and wish hard enough, human nature will go away. Optimism is fine, but maintaining it in the face of centuries of contradictory information and experience borders on insanity. You simply don't understand or don't want to understand what I have been saying IF you bleieve this.
Saudi Arabia is successful, too. Do you admire the country's success?
 you would bother to look up the stats when alcohol was illegal consumption went down.
Barely
Some interesting info on prohibition.
This is taken from the posted article:
The statement is patently false. See: http://www.vis-res.com/job1/Alc%20Chart2000.pdf Alcohol consumption had decreased from that prior to its implementation. It took a number of years for consumption to get back to preprohibition levels.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 08:46am.]