|
On December 04 2006 17:08 _PulSe_ wrote:OOOooo I got one for you 5HITCOMBO. What about the fact that i think its Ohio not quite shure you can check. But there is a program that is slowly kicking more and more people off welfare and forcing them to get jobs or lose any mony the gov't gives them. While the people are on welfare they are forced to attend job training classes. The plan is to eventally only have people on welfare for say 2 years and kick them off to let them fend for themselves. Just had to throw that in > 
I'm sorry; what point were you trying to make? I don't really want to argue or anything, and I know a lot about welfare, being an alcohol and drug studies major with a minor in sociology, so please, state your point clearly and I'll try to address it.
|
Wait who was that last one directed to. lol. He doesnt need to get laid ......... maybe just needs to wack one off. Thats all. If he doesnt want to engage in sex thats his choice and i'd respect it.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
On December 04 2006 17:11 _PulSe_ wrote:
Wait who was that last one directed to. lol. He doesnt need to get laid ......... maybe just needs to wack one off. Thats all. If he doesnt want to engage in sex thats his choice and i'd respect it.
Yes, but he needs to get the negative stigma of sex out of his mind. I respect his choice very much. I think it shows a very strong moral character.
|
On December 04 2006 17:11 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 17:08 _PulSe_ wrote:OOOooo I got one for you 5HITCOMBO. What about the fact that i think its Ohio not quite shure you can check. But there is a program that is slowly kicking more and more people off welfare and forcing them to get jobs or lose any mony the gov't gives them. While the people are on welfare they are forced to attend job training classes. The plan is to eventally only have people on welfare for say 2 years and kick them off to let them fend for themselves. Just had to throw that in > I'm sorry; what point were you trying to make? I don't really want to argue or anything, and I know a lot about welfare, being an alcohol and drug studies major with a minor in sociology, so please, state your point clearly and I'll try to address it.
Nope, no point i just was trying to have a little fun with it. I guess kinda giving infinity21 a handicap of sorts.
|
this is like one of the bests desicions a goverment can make, if people who are horny want to get laid they will even if they dont have condoms, i say go for it, and bitchy parents are just as ignorant, they should be the first ones to start teaching today's fucked up teens about the risks of unprotected sex, STD's, pregnancy and fucking up your life..so yeah CONDOMS FTW!!
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 17:10 5HITCOMBO wrote:
If there are no consequences to safe sex, then what's wrong with it?
It seems that you have a problem with sex. You should maybe ask a girl if she would help you come to terms with it, safely. Maybe you could both get tested at a clinic for STDs first, and then use a condom. It's really not that bad.
Just because there are no consequences, it doesn't necessarily make it right.
For example, when you're writing a test, and you're given the opportunity to cheat, would you? It's not like you're going to get caught and punished for it. But some people will not cheat even if they're given the opportunity and some others will. It's because they have morals and values that says no to cheating.
Now it then comes down to whether or not having sex during high school is right or wrong. I think it's wrong, you think it's right. We'll probably never convince each other, but I'll still respect your opinion, not necessarily agree with it.
|
Finally its an agreement to disagree. Good arguments guys and GG ...... no re
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 17:11 Chibi[OWNS] wrote:
His arguement is also that there is a moral side that schools should uphold the wossname of the law. If the law says kids shouldnt have sex then the school should not in anyway be a part of what can be considered assisting kids to have sex. It sends out the wrong message to people.
<- dumb arguement
Thank you for summarizing my argument somewhat. However, I don't think it's a dumb argument.
edit: wait, someone's not going to like it because it's my OPINION. oh well
|
I don't think any viewpoint on premarital sex is more valid than any other, but I do think that regardless of whether or not your personal choice is for waiting, you shouldn't make contraception less available or try to prevent it from being readily available.
The reason we want it in schools is because that's where most of the high school population goes to. If it's already readily available from sources such as doctors' offices and medical clinics (who are in charge of your health - I would consider these places as "pretty good sources of advice"), why not save the kids the hassle of going to the clinic? If it prevents one unwanted birth, it's worth it. It's especially important to provide access to the condoms, not just the condoms.
The way I see it, if they're provided at doctor's offices and clinics and stuff, but not available in school - like you're arguing - kids will think sex is okay but have a harder time getting the condoms than if they were in a bowl in the office or something.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 17:19 _PulSe_ wrote:
Finally its an agreement to disagree. Good arguments guys and GG ...... no re
Well, yes. There really isn't a perfect solution to this. Otherwise, it would have been set on stone already.
|
Please realize that all I'm trying to argue for is the availability of contraception to any person who wants to have safe sex.
I'm not trying to attack your character or anything, but you argued with me for 8 pages and it got hard not to, because everything else I did failed.
|
The closest you can get to a perfect solution is to PROMOTE abstinence but PROVIDE contraception.
|
On December 04 2006 17:17 infinity21 wrote:
Just because there are no consequences, it doesn't necessarily make it right.
For example, when you're writing a test, and you're given the opportunity to cheat, would you? It's not like you're going to get caught and punished for it. But some people will not cheat even if they're given the opportunity and some others will. It's because they have morals and values that says no to cheating.
Now it then comes down to whether or not having sex during high school is right or wrong. I think it's wrong, you think it's right. We'll probably never convince each other, but I'll still respect your opinion, not necessarily agree with it.
I don't think it's right. I know it happens. That's why I want the condoms available.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 17:23 5HITCOMBO wrote:
The closest you can get to a perfect solution is to PROMOTE abstinence but PROVIDE contraception.
Exactly what society is doing. I'm fine with the fact that, if I ever want to, I can buy a condom from the nearest store. What I'm against is schools handing out condoms for free, when really, sex before 18 is wrong (i.e. illegal). Unless sex before 18 is legal O_o; correct me if I'm wrong. That's a lot of money wasted on condoms that go over people's locker handles or w/e they would do with them for fun and laughs. Instead, I'm saying we can just go buy the condom with our own money and everyone's happy.
edit: my gosh, I'm so happy we're arguing like "civilized" people now..
|
Canada3819 Posts
The age of consent varies in many countries...
Most countries it's 16.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 04 2006 17:29 Smurg wrote:
The age of consent varies in many countries...
Most countries it's 16.
I see. Thanks.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
I'm basing my argument from the assumption that just about any high school student has access to or is able to purchase condoms. But I think that's a pretty safe assumption.
|
Again, I bring up the point - why shouldn't schools provide the means to practice safe sex if the doctors' office is doing so?
And "right" and "wrong" are your personal views on a subject. "Legal" and "illegal" are two completely different entities. That's where you lose your argument on - you're basing your views on your morals, not logic. In a debate, that's fatal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
