|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related Show nested quote +America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws
So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots?
|
On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him.
No problem 
On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related Show nested quote +America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws
I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying".
Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years.
|
On September 22 2015 02:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots?
let's call them super-idiots because you chose to do so:
super-idiots are super-rare. super-idiots are more likely to be among the set of virgin births than to be in the set of everything else if you account for "per capita", even if that still doesn't make them a majority in that group.
5.6 times more likely if we just take the 28% vs 5% ratio from the end to get a quick idea about it.
On September 22 2015 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him. No problem Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying". Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years.
wouldn't your mom find out anyways? Like 9 months later?
Actually, nevermindAbout 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters they might get away with it
|
On September 22 2015 02:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots? let's call them super-idiots because you chose to do so: super-idiots are super-rare. super-idiots are more likely to be among the set of virgin births than to be in the set of everything else if you account for "per capita", even if that still doesn't make them a majority in that group. 5.6 times more likely if we just take the 28% vs 5% ratio from the end to get a quick idea about it. Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him. No problem On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying". Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years. wouldn't your mom find out anyways? Like 9 months later? Actually, nevermind Show nested quote +About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters they might get away with it
Here is why I think my narrative is superior. These are a self-selected sample of the populace. Start with the unplanned pregnancy, which is a self selecting group, in general (we all know BC can fail, particularly condoms). But then, this group has self-selected a second time: believing their parents are such rubes that they would believe this "virgin birth" story. Given that, the "About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters" seems to me, to be LOW because even their kid knows they are idiots. It should be nearly 100%. Also, the chastity pledge, I actually don't know how many take one at some point in time (in the general pop), but it seems to me that this is also a low % given the implication that these are hyper-religious persons.
|
On September 22 2015 02:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:31 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 02:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots? let's call them super-idiots because you chose to do so: super-idiots are super-rare. super-idiots are more likely to be among the set of virgin births than to be in the set of everything else if you account for "per capita", even if that still doesn't make them a majority in that group. 5.6 times more likely if we just take the 28% vs 5% ratio from the end to get a quick idea about it. On September 22 2015 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him. No problem On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying". Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years. wouldn't your mom find out anyways? Like 9 months later? Actually, nevermind About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters they might get away with it Here is why I think my narrative is superior. These are a self-selected sample of the populace. Start with the unplanned pregnancy, which is a self selecting group, in general (we all know BC can fail, particularly condoms). But then, this group has self-selected a second time: believing their parents are such rubes that they would believe this "virgin birth" story. Given that, the "About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters" seems to me, to be LOW because even their kid knows they are idiots. It should be nearly 100%. Also, the chastity pledge, I actually don't know how many take one at some point in time (in the general pop), but it seems to me that this is also a low % given the implication that these are hyper-religious persons.
you never explained what your narrative other than "lol, they aren't even a majority inside that group". If you did, could you highlight that for me again? What's the problem with the self-selected groups... all you just said is "you know, you are only looking at stupid people in that very specific group, of course they're stupid if you only look at stupid ones!"... well duh. That was my point, people who didn't have sex-ed are more likely to be unknowledgeable about sex. And you just repeated that and said that despite being overrepresented in that group that's not the case?
//edit: Ah I think I get what you're trying to say. Only stupid people would think they could get away with this, so stupid people are more stupid than the ones that realize they'd never get away with a story like that//
Unlike DarkPlasmaBall, who said he thinks it's more likely to be them not wanting to tell their parents than anything else, which is a decent argument and a different narrative. I can certainly see kids being afraid of admiting that in ultra-religious families.
|
On September 22 2015 02:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots? let's call them super-idiots because you chose to do so: super-idiots are super-rare. super-idiots are more likely to be among the set of virgin births than to be in the set of everything else if you account for "per capita", even if that still doesn't make them a majority in that group. 5.6 times more likely if we just take the 28% vs 5% ratio from the end to get a quick idea about it. Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him. No problem On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying". Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years. wouldn't your mom find out anyways? Like 9 months later? Actually, nevermind Show nested quote +About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters they might get away with it
Teenagers are not known for their impeccable long-term planning.
Also, i am confused as to how people manage to become parents without understanding how pregnancy works, at least at a basic level. I guess knowledge of contraception is not necessary for that, but one should really understand the basic mechanics at a level of "Someone puts their dick into you" ---> "There is a chance you get pregnant" after having children.
|
On September 22 2015 03:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 02:56 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 02:31 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 02:24 cLutZ wrote:On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws So...a majority of "virgin births" are not the subset of people you were trying to indicate are super-idiots? let's call them super-idiots because you chose to do so: super-idiots are super-rare. super-idiots are more likely to be among the set of virgin births than to be in the set of everything else if you account for "per capita", even if that still doesn't make them a majority in that group. 5.6 times more likely if we just take the 28% vs 5% ratio from the end to get a quick idea about it. On September 22 2015 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 01:19 IgnE wrote:On September 21 2015 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Because he said sex was nothing special. You're not even trying any more. Not only did I say that sex is special, but I literally listed 3 different ways why someone might think so: On September 21 2015 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2015 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Sex is not nothing special. I feel like there are a bunch of reasons why a person may consider sex to be special (as in, significant and memorable), from pregnancy, to orgasm, to intimacy with a partner, etc. So yeah, I think sex can be special for a bunch of different reasons. None of them require me to dogmatically place my faith in the supernatural or cherry pick from an inaccurate book of mythology that's thousands of years old though, so if that's your metric on what "special" means (as we've already seen your semantics arguments on whatever you choose to define and ignore), then you're just being intellectually dishonest. The fact that we can find value in things doesn't mean that that value has to be supernaturally based. If anything, I find sex to be so important and special, that I think we should make sure that the entire American population is aware of its positive- and negative effects- hence my desire to make sure students have access to a proper sex education, contraception, etc. Oh my B, DBP, I confused your carrier and response with that of Plansix's carrier, since my question was directed at him. No problem On September 22 2015 02:13 Toadesstern wrote:On September 22 2015 01:46 IgnE wrote:
That's pretty much a non-answer. Surely you aren't saying that the only people who are allowed to "pass laws" or "set policy" on certain things are people who find those things profane? Is that some kind of requirement to recuse? On those aspects of life that almost everyone finds sacred (e.g childbirth) we must have a tiny minority of unempathic individuals set policy for all?
It's unclear what you think policy is for, or whether you even think democracy is important. If you think democracy and voting on issues are important, it is unclear why or how you think people ought to set a norm without reference to the sacred. somewhat related America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
[...]
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse. source1 in 200 sounds like a lot. Granted, no idea what the stats are like for Europe and I'm not even trying to compare in the first place. But it seems to be an issue of not even knowing what sex is so either way, you can't possible be trying to tell people that sex-ed is something that should be possible to "pass away" with laws I think that's a mix between "Not understanding how pregnancy works" and "omg my mom might see this and she thinks I'm a virgin so I'm totally going to try and get away with lying". Or maybe God is just bored and we're about to have a shit ton of Messiahs running around in a few years. wouldn't your mom find out anyways? Like 9 months later? Actually, nevermind About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters they might get away with it Here is why I think my narrative is superior. These are a self-selected sample of the populace. Start with the unplanned pregnancy, which is a self selecting group, in general (we all know BC can fail, particularly condoms). But then, this group has self-selected a second time: believing their parents are such rubes that they would believe this "virgin birth" story. Given that, the "About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters" seems to me, to be LOW because even their kid knows they are idiots. It should be nearly 100%. Also, the chastity pledge, I actually don't know how many take one at some point in time (in the general pop), but it seems to me that this is also a low % given the implication that these are hyper-religious persons. you never explained what your narrative other than "lol, they aren't even a majority inside that group". If you did, could you highlight that for me again? What's the problem with the self-selected groups... all you just said is "you know, you are only looking at stupid people in that very specific group, of course they're stupid if you only look at stupid ones!"... well duh. That was my point, people who didn't have sex-ed are more likely to be unknowledgeable about sex. And you just repeated that and said that despite being overrepresented in that group that's not the case? //edit: Ah I think I get what you're trying to say. Only stupid people would think they could get away with this, so stupid people are more stupid than the ones that realize they'd never get away with a story like that// Unlike DarkPlasmaBall, who said he thinks it's more likely to be them not wanting to tell their parents than anything else, which is a decent argument and a different narrative. I can certainly see kids being afraid of admiting that in ultra-religious families.
So, there are, essentially two stats: The first is that the girls who are part of the 1/200 virgin mothers are 6x more likely to have parents incapable of explaining sex and pregnancy to their child. These are (in my mind) basically the same stat, because its the kid saying "my parents might be dumb enough to think this" (its not like hyper religious, smart, families like Mitt Romney would fall for this). Then we have a stat saying that the parents whos kids think they are dumb, are, in fact, dumb. Ok. Nothing to see here.
The other stat is that a significant % of them took chastity pledges. This is a proxy for them being uncomfortable discussing sex. And, as our friend Simberto said above, there is no need for sex education to prevent pregnancy, people are aware of the mechanics. The reason that places with bad sex ed also have bad pregnancy rates is because this is all tied into their comfortableness (or lack thereof) with sex. It causes them to fail to plan for it, regardless of if you shoved all those kids in with a teacher explaining with bananas or whatever. The 16 year olds in those communities are too embarrassed to buy condoms, and too embarrassed to talk with their Doctors about birth control.
#1 way to help those communities: Condom vending machines, like, in the mens bathroom at Wal-Mart (or in the school). In any case, it has to be super discreet so no one can see them buying condoms.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Martin Shkreli, the real life Danglars
|
This isn't even the first time he has done this. He is a terrible person who lives to get rich off the literally suffering of others.
|
On September 22 2015 04:29 oneofthem wrote:
Martin Shkreli, the real life Danglars
That's kinda harsh to Danglars yo
Unless you mean the Count of Monte Cristo character, then probably yeah
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 22 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:
This isn't even the first time he has done this. He is a terrible person who lives to get rich off the literally suffering of others.
more gaming the insurance system but yea.
also yea the montecristo character not the poster. the poster may or may not be a danglars irl
|
They really need to stop using the line "I'm the only one who..."
I mean, unless I am different from everyone else and that line actually makes voters think: "Wow, he said that he is the only one who XXX, that makes me want to vote for him!"
Secondly, great article on Rand Paul today:
You could almost hear Democratic ad-makers, getting ready to make a series of 30-second spots in which Rand Paul declares, on national television, “I would throw everybody out, myself included. I’m serious.”
Remember, if the senator’s national ambitions fail – he remains a long shot for his party’s presidential nomination – Paul will return to his adopted home state and ask voters to send him back to Capitol Hill for another six years.
Of course, in context, the Kentucky Republican probably meant he “would throw everybody out” after he’s re-elected to serve through 2022. But his case for term limits nevertheless remains odd, especially for someone with libertarian sensibilities.
After saying he “would throw everybody out,” Paul added, “The status quo remains because the same people remain, decade after decade.” It’s worth noting, of course, that we already have term limits; they’re called elections. Lawmakers are elected by Americans to serve a set term – two years in the House, six in the Senate – at which point Americans get to make another choice.
Rand Paul is of the opinion that the federal government should impose arbitrary constraints on voters’ ability to choose their own members of Congress – constraints that punish popular, experienced officials precisely because they’re popular and experienced.
Why the senator believes that’s consistent with limited government is unclear.
Postscript: Rand Paul’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), served 12 terms in Congress. By the senator’s reasoning, his father should have been kicked out of Congress half-way through his career, regardless of his constituents’ wishes.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-pauls-risky-throw-everybody-out-posture
A glance over at Rand Paul sub on Reddit tells you how weak he is compared to his father when he was running. Literally zero comments on almost every thread and the same few people posting a few lazy links every day, it's kind of sad, really.
|
On September 22 2015 04:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:
This isn't even the first time he has done this. He is a terrible person who lives to get rich off the literally suffering of others. more gaming the insurance system but yea. also yea the montecristo character not the poster. the poster may or may not be a danglars irl
The best part is that if anyone in the government decides they have had enough of his bullshit and decides to pass regulations preventing his little price gouging scheme, he’ll whine about the an attack on the free market.
|
|
|
On September 2
Came here to say this2 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out.
Came here to say this, good riddance
|
On September 22 2015 05:36 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 2
Came here to say this2 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Came here to say this, good riddance
That dude was totally unprepared to compete with 15 of his closest peers and TV personalities. He may have squeaked by in a 2012-era race like Romney did, but with all of these other characters he just fades into the background.
He was also sweaty as shit in last week's debate.
|
How does Turing have a monopoly on the drug even though it has existed since 1953? Seems like the FDA done fucked up.
Wait, yes it has (Shkreli is able to do price-gouge a generic drug by exploiting a few FDA loopholes that give companies exclusive licensing rights to certain older drugs, and allow them to deny other companies the access to those drugs needed to prove that a generic alternative is chemically identical.)
Yup blame a guy for the government's own fuck up because he recognized it.
|
On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out.
Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious.
On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves.
I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way.
So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate?
|
Too bad, but the debates screwed him. He was nowhere to be found. Now if some of the other zero percent people could get out (looking at you Graham).
GH, you are making me want nothing more than for Sanders to go down in flames.
|
At least Sanders still has some fire in him, unlike any of the republican candidates not named Trump or Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
