Distributing condoms in high schools? - Page 16

On December 04 2006 22:50 LeoTheLion wrote:
I was just addressing that specific post. You were trying so hard to make infinity sound illogical (and he was a little), so I wanted to bash you a little. You made bold statements. I proposed counterexamples.

A little reorganization for your convenience:

1. "Kids will have sex regardless of whether or not school promotes it. You know this."

Kids will have sex whether the school promotes it or not. Yes. However, more kids will have sex if the school promotes it. Uncontrollable makes a very good point. You remember the peer pressure in high school. People will start having sex simply because everyone else is doing so (hell, if the school's giving out condoms, everyone must be having sex).

2. "By handing out condoms, the school is promoting safety, not sex. Lubricant and dildos would promote sex. Condoms are more on the safety side."

By handing out condoms, the school not only promotes safe sex, but promotes sex in general. School is viewed to be lame. It's where teenagers are obligated to spend 7 hours every day listening to boring teachers talk about random crap they'll never use again in their lives. And then one day, they start handing out condoms? If they do this, they will be promoting sex. You don't have to hand out condoms to promote safety. You can educate kids about safe sex and tell kids where to go if they want condoms (planned parenthood).

3. "Schools promote a lot of things that kids don't listen to. But by providing condoms, safety only goes up, because people who are having sex now have free condoms, people who aren't for premarital sex are still not having sex, and those who can now have sex due to the availability of condoms are having safe sex with condoms."

Condoms have always been available, and from some sources, free. Those 5% of the kids who don't engage in premarital sex due to feer of STDs, or even the kids without a standing, just might, due to peer pressure.


And "There are no serious consequences to healthy sexual behavior, even if it is premarital." is debatable.

On December 04 2006 22:58 5HITCOMBO wrote:

Debate it, then.

I just addressed your post, and you posted it back at me like it was brand new material - AFTER I JUST ADDRESSED THOSE SAME POINTS ON PAGES 4-14.

And I'd rather have 5% more kids engaged in safe sexual behavior with an overall greater percentage of safe sex practicioners than 5% not having sex with a lower safe sex ratio.

On December 04 2006 23:01 Hot_Bid wrote:
Leo, all your statements are under the assumptions:

a) condom distribution will promote sex in schools
b) promotion of sex in schools will lead to increased frequency of sex
c) the increase in frequency of sex will have negative consequences

and...

d) the increase in frequency of sex, which may be very minimal, even as you admitted, because teens have sex anyway, will have more negative consequences than those same teens having unprotected sex (which is PROVEN to happen).

it's not even close, it's much worse to have a few kids having unprotected sex and completely ruining their lives (proven) through STD contraction or pregnancy than a very small % of kids "possibly" being mentally unready for some safe sex, which isn't even proven to have negative consequences.

On December 04 2006 23:05 LeoTheLion wrote:


Rofl, I didn't say it was brand new material. I said that the point of my post was just to provide counterexamples to your statements. That was it. I wasn't discussing whether premarital sex was good or bad, sex was good or bad, safe sex was good or bad... none of that. Just saying that your statements were extremely bold.

On December 04 2006 23:06 LeoTheLion wrote:


a) In Uncontrollable's high school, this did happen.
b) Does promotion not imply an increase in frequency?
c) I didn't say anything about negative consequences.
d) Same as c).

DUDE
I JUST TOLD YOU
I DON'T THINK HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE STUPID
I THINK THEY'RE VERY INTELLIGENT
BUT IN PAGES 6-10 INFINITY BRINGS UP HOW HIS POINT IS THAT HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE TOO STUPID TO HAVE SAFE PREMARITAL SEX
I USED A DEVICE KNOWN AS IRONY TO POINT THE FLAW IN HIS LOGIC OUT

On December 04 2006 23:12 Hot_Bid wrote:

ok... so then whats the problem with it if there are no negative consequences?

plus unc's example is just a subjective opinion too, theres nothing showing that the increase, IF ANY, was significant enough to outweigh the pregnancy/STD risk with "negative consequences" of premarital sex, whatever those may be (which may not even exist)

On December 03 2006 23:53 LeoTheLion wrote:
It'll definitely make it easier for kids to have premarital sex, and probably increase the numbers. I say it's fine, as long as the parents agree. The US doesn't want to be an institution that makes decisions for the kids without parental consent... that would mean lawsuits up the chimney.

On December 04 2006 23:14 LeoTheLion wrote:


Unc's example shows that assumptions a) and b) can be correct. Condom distribution --> increase in sexual activity.

Reiteration: I did not mention anything about negative consequences. That was an assumption you made.

On December 04 2006 23:12 LeoTheLion wrote:


He bashed infinity like 23049802394832 times, and some of his posts had flaws too. Sorry, but I don't like it when people bash.

On December 04 2006 22:50 LeoTheLion wrote:
I was just addressing that specific post. You were trying so hard to make infinity sound illogical (and he was a little), so I wanted to bash you a little. You made bold statements. I proposed counterexamples.

On December 04 2006 23:06 LeoTheLion wrote:
c) I didn't say anything about negative consequences.
d) Same as c).

On December 04 2006 23:05 LeoTheLion wrote:
And "There are no serious consequences to healthy sexual behavior, even if it is premarital." is debatable.

On December 04 2006 23:22 5HITCOMBO wrote:


He was very illogical. Just like you're being right now. No, wait, I think a better term would be "childish" or "stupid".



Bitch, please. Don't get all technical. You implied it. Stop posting.

On December 04 2006 23:23 LeoTheLion wrote:
Did I say that an increase would matter or not?

Nope.

You said:

a) condom distribution will promote sex in schools
b) promotion of sex in schools will lead to increased frequency of sex

In Unc's school, a) and b) did happen, did it not?

"some people thought everyone was having sex b/c of the condoms so they had sex"

That kind of implies that this group of "some people" didn't have sex before, but since they "thought everyone was having sex", "they had sex."

I said nothing about c) or d).

On December 04 2006 23:24 LeoTheLion wrote:


Quote my implied points, please.

On December 04 2006 23:05 LeoTheLion wrote:
And "There are no serious consequences to healthy sexual behavior, even if it is premarital." is debatable.

On December 04 2006 17:04 Chill wrote:
Two people are going to have sex. They have no option, and must do it unprotected. A certain percentage do it unprotected. Call them X. The risk associated with this is B.

Two people weren't going to have sex, but now they have a condom so they do. Call them X+Y. The risk associated with this is C.

Are you telling me that the increase in people having safe sex is a greater risk than just letting people be unsafe? That's insane. If that actually is your argument, you are illogical and borederline insane.

Let's throw some numbers at this. Say the risk of something bad happening when using a condom is C=0.1% (high) and the risk of something bad happening unproected is B=2% (low). Say 4 people out of 100 decide to risk it with unprotected sex; X=4
BX = 0.02*4 = 0.08 chance of risk.
(X+Y)C = (4+Y)0.001 = 0.004 + 0.001Y
Set them equal: 0.004 + 0.001Y = 0.08
0.001Y = 0.076
Y = 76

Ok, so I've skewed the data in your favour, and the result is this: In order for the risk of condoms to be justified, you would need 4% of people decide to have unprotected sex, and then a whopping 76% of them suddenly start having sex when you gave them condoms. Does that make sense? Do 19 times the amount people start having sex when you give out condoms?

You don't even need numbers, it should be common sense to anyone who fully understands it. Safe sex is not dangerous. Unsafe sex is relatively dangerous. You need a massive increase in sexually activity once you give out condoms to warrant worrying about it (which doesn't happen).

Unless your argument isn't about safety and it's more about "them not being ready", in which case condoms have nothing to do with that. What percentage of people don't have sex until they are given a condom by a school? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

On December 04 2006 23:29 5HITCOMBO wrote:


It's right above the "Bitch, please." You might be too stupid to see it, so here it is again:

On December 04 2006 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:

i already covered this.

stop arguing about stupid technical points. i understand that there may be an increase. what i stated was that theres no proof that the increase is enough to outweigh the risks of unsafe sex. and that's assuming the increase leads to negative consequences, which again are debatable.

i also said you CANNOT separate the negative consequences from the increase itself (which you did again, here). it seems like you're just trying to score debate points, break up quotes and catch people in single sentence fallacies instead of actually forming a counter argument.

if there are no negative consequences to the increase, then the condom distribution is fine. why are you still arguing then?

...because you simply "dont like it when people bash"

awesome.