160 replies to this topic

[canas is back]

really to me it does not, but what bugs me is more, why would you want to be a snoty brat and not have kids?? I mean, not only are you depriving yourself of kids, but you are potentially destroying your chances of being able to retire (lolsocialsecuritylol)

So now you're stereotyping people who don't want children? It's no more realistic than saying progressives want to kill God.

EDIT: What does this have to do with you saying the problem would be a nation of immigrants?

to the edit:
the only problem is more of a mental one with the original inhabitants thinking "OMG WE ARE BEING TAKNE OVER" which leads to racial tensions and general (lol smileys)

to the actual post:
nah it's just the people who I talk to usually, those that don't have kids are usually like "why would I want to have snot nosed brats running around" or "because I don't want to have to pay for them" and are complete idiots and usually treated thier parents like garbage (not the other way around)

[Oberon Storm]

Perhaps they could also fess up to their damn "safe sex 'pass the condoms around'" sex ed courses being partly to blame for the willy-nilly promiscuity which has turned STDs into a real problem and HIV into an absolute catastrophe.

Perhaps we won't admit anything like that because studies have shown people are going to have sex. Teach abstinance they wills till have sex. Teach true sex education and safe sex practices and they wills till have sex. If you want to tell them they should have known better after learning about sex and safe sex practices then by all means do so, but do not try and tell me abstinane education really works.

Were you suggesting earlier that we should try to enforce some sort of ban on promiscuous or premarital sex?

[Pushtrak]

exepting it dwindles the population in places where it doesn't need to be, the places where things are overpopulated are in third world countries, yet that is where most childbirths come from, in places like the US wed have no need to cut back on making children but we do, so pretty soon we'll have nothing but third-world countries because the first world countries decided not to have children.

I think you are overplaying the card just a tad.

no I meant physically, not nessacarily cultrally.

The great humanitarian

But I'm waiting til after college for kids. I'm single now, but if I end up in a relationship and accidentally get pregnant, I know I'm getting an abortion. No way I'm letting kids get in the way of my education. Selfish, yes.

Or, selfish, not really. Or, at worst enlightened selfishness.

[CID Farwin]

Hence the woman's argument: "Stop telling me what to do with my body."

Hooh, almost went on a religious tangent there.

And also: "]I like to smoke crack, who are you to tell me I shouldn't smoke crack, stop telling me what to do with my body."

Seriously, for the parties not involved, it's none of their business. If I got pregnant and got an abortion, Selena's life isn't going to be affected. And... well, if I kept it, the worst that she'd see is baby pictures posted up on LA to go "omg aww" at.

But I'm waiting til after college for kids. I'm single now, but if I end up in a relationship and accidentally get pregnant, I know I'm getting an abortion. No way I'm letting kids get in the way of my education. Selfish, yes. But it means that I can have more time (and money hopefully) to devote to children after I graduate.

This. This is exactly what I take issue with. Aside for the obvious solution to this dilemma, it's not birth control. Killing your child and having another one later that will inconvenience you less doesn't change the fact that you killed the first one; It's not like they're the same kid, just later.

But that's why I have the IUD. Long term and far more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy, even

Personally, I'm also of the shared belief that real, proper sex ed, not this abstinence bullshit, will lead to more responsible sexually active teens and adults. If the damn conservatives will get their heads out of their ass and see that it's necessary and won't encourage sexual activity, just encourage safe sexual activity, things could get a lot better.

I fail to see how you can encourage "safe" sexual activity and not (at least inadvertently) encourage sexual activity.

Next time, keep reading - the sentence directly following reads "Darwinian methods of natural selection, whether they're psychologically induced to allow us to have and continue to have abortion, or more externally based like hunger and disease."

Unless you're arguing that humans are outside the scope of nature anymore, that primitive instincts like abandoning an offspring are outside of our vastly superior mindset.

Well, I thought I saw something to the extent of: it's just a psychological mechanism of self-preservation because the world's getting too overcrowded, so that's why abortions happen.

//If you meant something else, please explain further and disregard the following, because that's what I'm responding to.

And quite honestly, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Not only does it imply that people have no control over their thoughts/feelings/urges/actions, it's trying to somehow justify abortion by saying it's "natural."

And also:

...on the other hand, if the "damn" liberals would "get their heads out of their ass" (sic) and see that the purpose of sex is to make babies...then perhaps they wouldn't be so damn shocked when it works. (God. How stupid can you be?) Perhaps they could also fess up to their damn "safe sex 'pass the condoms around'" sex ed courses being partly to blame for the willy-nilly promiscuity which has turned STDs into a real problem and HIV into an absolute catastrophe. [/two edged sword ad hominem]

I'd say it's more due to the fact that sex is everywhere in the media

[Oberon Storm]

I fail to see how you can encourage "safe" sexual activity and not (at least inadvertently) encourage sexual activity.

One could say, "We don't encourage you to go around having sex as much as you like, but if you insist on having sex please do so safely."

[Pushtrak]

I fail to see how you can encourage "safe" sexual activity and not (at least inadvertently) encourage sexual activity.

One could say, "We don't encourage you to go around having sex as much as you like, but if you insist on having sex please do so safely."

Yep, agreed. And treating it like the elephant in the kitchen isn't solving any problems.

[Selena]

Educating people on safe sex, as CFS is getting into, does not automatically translate to "go out and screw as much as you like." In fact, a good sex education system would involve teaching people about more than just the naughty bits and birth control. I think we could all agree, regardless of our own moral beliefs, that sex is a huge part of society on multiple levels. Even during the time periods where sex wasn't publicly talked about or put into the media, it was still a major part of individual motives and behavior. Education about sex on the emotional level is just as important as the more obvious physical level.

That can involve making teenage girls more secure and confident in themselves, as some will have sex to either keep a boyfriend content or to be more popular with boys in general. Not because they as individuals were actually enthusiastic about it or felt ready. I can recall a few friends of mine who fell victim to that. It can also involve teaching young men to be more respectful to women, and that it's not proper conduct to treat them as sperm receptacles. And that having too much sex with a wide variety of partners can rapidly increase your chances of getting a surprise baby out of it, as, after all, it's an act of reproduction.

I agree that the media is a large part of the problem. Not simply because there's sex in the media. When done well, it's very effective and mature. Romantic, even. When done poorly, the characters come across as if they're getting as much practice as they can before the Sex Olympics. The rampant and (sometimes) downright irresponsible sex that can drench some shows has a very negative effect towards young people. The biggest problem is probably society's stigma on virgins. If you don't have sex before you're 16 or 18, you're a loser who obviously couldn't get laid if they tried. Because that's clearly the only reason. Not religious reasons, an attempt to be as responsible as possible, not wanting to have sex unless you're in love, whatever. None of those options tend to exist in the media, and if they do, they're severely frowned upon and made fun of. Which is bullshit, and it can make young people feel as if they have to have sex in order to fit in.

That mentality coupled with abstinence education is probably a very bad combination.

Sex ed needs a retooling on multiple levels, not just in going back to teaching the physical stuff. Sexual health extends to both mental and emotional levels. As such, that should also be covered. Naturally, teenagers are still going to fool around no matter what moral lessons you give them (they always have). But there are ways to tone it down from being as over-the-top.

[Egann]

Perhaps they could also fess up to their damn "safe sex 'pass the condoms around'" sex ed courses being partly to blame for the willy-nilly promiscuity which has turned STDs into a real problem and HIV into an absolute catastrophe.

Perhaps we won't admit anything like that because studies have shown people are going to have sex. [b]Teach abstinance they wills till have sex. Teach true sex education and safe sex practices and they wills till have sex. If you want to tell them they should have known better after learning about sex and safe sex practices then by all means do so, but do not try and tell me abstinane education really works.

Were you suggesting earlier that we should try to enforce some sort of ban on promiscuous or premarital sex?

Do you mind proof-reading? It took me forever to realize that "wills till" really was "will still." Spell check is knot infallible, yew no, particularly if every ward used is a reel won.

If history be true, you will respond to this with this. If you read the fine print, the former says that the net rate of sexual intercourse dropped and the latter is complaining because 86 percent of decline is "due to an increase in contraception use"...which means that 14 percent was due to other things. Ceteris paribus, it was probably the abstinence program.

Saying it's not as effective as it's cracked up to be is one thing, but saying it "doesn't work" also flies in the face of the evidence. Besides, how sex is dealt with is entirely culturally determined. What I propose is not "illegalizing" anything, but forming a counter-culture. Obviously I can't count on your support. In fact, I can expect you to resist any changes. So much for "change."

[Selena]

Right. People have been getting way too testy and dickheaded in the last couple of pages. Most people are doing fine, so I don't want to do anything to interfere, but the rest of you are getting awfully close to the line. People from both sides. So I'm going to have to revisit a tactic I had to use in the Zelda sections a while back, as people there were getting equally snotty with each other as their thread progressed.

This thread has evolved a bit from its original purpose, and that's fine. But there is absolutely no reason for some people to post they way they have been. It's a stressful topic, and I expect people to get a little tense, but there is no reason to start getting personal with each other. If your posting gets to that level, then you clearly haven't put much (if any) effort into making a mature argument. In fact, the moment you do start being a jerk is the moment your actual arguments stop being seriously considered by everyone else. Essentially, you're shooting off your own foot when you cross the line. Some of you have been warned about this very behavior before. Others are just letting the thread get to them. Either way, it has to stop. There's no excuse for being so blatantly disrespectful to the people you're trying to have a discussion with. If you're going to have an intense argument, make it about the actual argument and position, not each other.

Personally, I'm also of the shared belief that real, proper sex ed, not this abstinence bullshit, will lead to more responsible sexually active teens and adults. If the damn conservatives will get their heads out of their ass and see that it's necessary and won't encourage sexual activity, just encourage safe sexual activity, things could get a lot better.

Tip 1: Try to avoid damning an entire political party and telling them to get their heads out of their asses. As far as most arguments go, it tends not to be very convincing. In fact, it mostly just causes more probl--

...on the other hand, if the "damn" liberals would "get their heads out of their ass" (sic) and see that the purpose of sex is to make babies...then perhaps they wouldn't be so damn shocked when it works. (God. How stupid can you be?) Perhaps they could also fess up to their damn "safe sex 'pass the condoms around'" sex ed courses being partly to blame for the willy-nilly promiscuity which has turned STDs into a real problem and HIV into an absolute catastrophe. [/two edged sword ad hominem]

Tip 2: Remember when you were a kid at recess, and somebody shoved you? The "but he started it!" excuse didn't fly then. It's not going to fly now. Adults are supposed to conduct themselves in a mature fashion, which doesn't usually involve descending to the same level as the person who insulted them.

Unless you're arguing that humans are outside the scope of nature anymore, that primitive instincts like abandoning an offspring are outside of our vastly superior mindset. rolleyes.gif

Tip 3: Rolling your eyes in a debate is not only unnecessary and disrespectful, but it gives the opposition the overwhelming urge to rip your eyeballs from your sockets and stomp on them repeatedly. This reaction is especially common for teachers who work at a high school. For your own safety, as well as for proper conduct in general, I do not recommend this tactic.

really to me it does not, but what bugs me is more, why would you want to be a snoty brat and not have kids??

Tip 4: Insulting a whole group of people with a wide variety of beliefs (in this case, people who do not have children) is generally a bad move. If you've got an opinion about such matters, at least put some effort into making a statement that won't needlessly infuriate a large part of the population.

The great humanitarian whistle.gif

Tip 5: A blatant insult that adds nothing to the debate should probably be avoided at all costs. If the other person said something asinine, refer to Tip 2.

Do you mind proof-reading? It took me forever to realize that "wills till" really was "will still." Spell check is knot infallible, yew no, particularly if every ward used is a reel won.
....
Obviously I can't count on your support. In fact, I can expect you to resist any changes. So much for "change."

Tip 6: If you feel tempted to sandwich your real argument in between this kind of nonsense, I suggest finding additional willpower before you hit the submit button. This is never okay. Especially if you've been warned about it many, many, many, many times.





And lastly, Tip 7:

If you can't say anything nice (or constructive), maybe you shouldn't say anything at all. Or else the rabbit gets to kick you in the face before I suspend/ban you.






Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the thread. Maturely. Also, a thank you to people who have kept their cool so far.

[CID Farwin]

Educating people on safe sex, as CFS is getting into, does not automatically translate to "go out and screw as much as you like." In fact, a good sex education system would involve teaching people about more than just the naughty bits and birth control. I think we could all agree, regardless of our own moral beliefs, that sex is a huge part of society on multiple levels. Even during the time periods where sex wasn't publicly talked about or put into the media, it was still a major part of individual motives and behavior. Education about sex on the emotional level is just as important as the more obvious physical level.

That can involve making teenage girls more secure and confident in themselves, as some will have sex to either keep a boyfriend content or to be more popular with boys in general. Not because they as individuals were actually enthusiastic about it or felt ready. I can recall a few friends of mine who fell victim to that. It can also involve teaching young men to be more respectful to women, and that it's not proper conduct to treat them as sperm receptacles. And that having too much sex with a wide variety of partners can rapidly increase your chances of getting a surprise baby out of it, as, after all, it's an act of reproduction.

I agree that the media is a large part of the problem. Not simply because there's sex in the media. When done well, it's very effective and mature. Romantic, even. When done poorly, the characters come across as if they're getting as much practice as they can before the Sex Olympics. The rampant and (sometimes) downright irresponsible sex that can drench some shows has a very negative effect towards young people. The biggest problem is probably society's stigma on virgins. If you don't have sex before you're 16 or 18, you're a loser who obviously couldn't get laid if they tried. Because that's clearly the only reason. Not religious reasons, an attempt to be as responsible as possible, not wanting to have sex unless you're in love, whatever. None of those options tend to exist in the media, and if they do, they're severely frowned upon and made fun of. Which is bullshit, and it can make young people feel as if they have to have sex in order to fit in.

That mentality coupled with abstinence education is probably a very bad combination.

Sex ed needs a retooling on multiple levels, not just in going back to teaching the physical stuff. Sexual health extends to both mental and emotional levels. As such, that should also be covered. Naturally, teenagers are still going to fool around no matter what moral lessons you give them (they always have). But there are ways to tone it down from being as over-the-top.

I think I can pretty much agree with everything here.

[Oberon Storm]

Ceteris paribus, it was probably the abstinence program.

Saying it's not as effective as it's cracked up to be is one thing, but saying it "doesn't work" also flies in the face of the evidence.

Fourteen percent is hardly what I would cal successful. Besides, I said they are going to have sex either way. If 86% of the decrease in the rate of teen pregnancy was contraception use and only 14% was pure abstinence education then I think that still makes true sex education, which in my opinion would include a great deal about abstinence anyway, the better choice.

What I propose is not "illegalizing" anything, but forming a counter-culture. Obviously I can't count on your support. In fact, I can expect you to resist any changes. So much for "change."

If you mean getting the media to stop portraying sex in the ways Selena pointed out I'm with you. Considering all the STD's, the hardships that come with being a single teen mother and/or father, the hardships that come with being a single mother and/or father period, teaching people that sex is not to be taken lightly I think is a plus.