|
On December 04 2006 23:42 5HITCOMBO wrote:
I love how Leo thinks it's his duty to protect the little kids on this forum from the punk menace of 5HITCOMBO. What if you saw a rational adult try to convince a child of something that is common sense for an hour and a half, then begin to get frustrated and make bold statements at the child because the kid wasn't listening?
Again, your metaphorical language doesn't address the reality of the situation: I've been supporting a common-sense, empirically backed viewpoint for 13 pages or so, and the only reason I resorted to stupid insults was because nothing else seemed to be working. Like in your case, I tried to debate rationally, but you flamed, so I flamed back, but better and with more wit and sense.
not really. the caps sucked.
as much as i agree with you on the topic (condoms = good) you really did a poor job of 'our' side of the arguement. I had to spend valueable time reading all your horseshit to get to the end of the thread.
If people stuck to relevant posts instead of resorting to personal flaming (or, even worse, responding to those flames) we would have a shorter read and maybe a concensus after 16 pages!.
that being said, i don't understand why any issue needs to be addressed before the awesome post of Chill!:
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%?
|
Rofl, there's a difference from being a parent and being a bully. A parent shouldn't yell at his kid for not understanding something that is "common sense," when what you say is "common sense" isn't universally shared amongst everyone. And a parent never "resorts to insults."
You also made statements that were not only close-minded in that failed to take into consideration infinity's moral viewpoints, but also had loopholes.
I thought I made sure that my caps lock key was off when I posted, so I don't remember anything about flaming. Maybe you can point that out to me.
Anyways, nice non sequitur[edit: red herring. whoops] post right there. Shows that awesome "wit and sense" you have.
|
On December 04 2006 23:48 Teroru wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2006 23:42 5HITCOMBO wrote:
I love how Leo thinks it's his duty to protect the little kids on this forum from the punk menace of 5HITCOMBO. What if you saw a rational adult try to convince a child of something that is common sense for an hour and a half, then begin to get frustrated and make bold statements at the child because the kid wasn't listening?
Again, your metaphorical language doesn't address the reality of the situation: I've been supporting a common-sense, empirically backed viewpoint for 13 pages or so, and the only reason I resorted to stupid insults was because nothing else seemed to be working. Like in your case, I tried to debate rationally, but you flamed, so I flamed back, but better and with more wit and sense. not really. the caps sucked. as much as i agree with you on the topic (condoms = good) you really did a poor job of 'our' side of the arguement. I had to spend valueable time reading all your horseshit to get to the end of the thread. If people stuck to relevant posts instead of resorting to personal flaming (or, even worse, responding to those flames) we would have a shorter read and maybe a concensus after 16 pages!. that being said, i don't understand why any issue needs to be addressed before the awesome post of Chill!: Show nested quote +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%?
I agree. Safe sex is always better than unsafe sex. But the original issue was with handing out condoms in schools, when they are already provided by organizations such as planned parenthood. I seriously don't think it's going to get passed, because parents are going to sue so hard if it does.
|
i guess it depends on where your from.
my highschool had several condom dispensers. usually located in the washroom.
no lawsuits here.
edit - and i have never heard of planned parenthood.
edit 2 - realized i didn't really address anything you had to say.
I don't understand your point. Is it that schools should not hand out condoms because there are other organizations who do such, or that schools should not hand out condoms for another reason?
If it's the former, it's a really bad reason, as this 'planned parenthood' is not found everywhere; schools, everywhere however, should have free condoms.
|
Leo, will you acknowledge my points if I apologize for flaming you and anyone else in this thread? Or at least read them thoroughly and consider them? Here they are in a more concise form.
1) Free condoms help prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs.
2) More people having safe sex is better than less people having unsafe sex.
3) Passively providing condoms does not mean that a school is promoting sex. They can reinforce this point by attatching flyers to the condom packages or simply distributing them at the same time.
4) The best method to teach would be to provide contraception and adequate knowledge about said contraception, but still promote abstinence.
Please consider these points, along with the other good points that have been made for distribution of condoms, and realize that no lawsuits can arise from this, because you can't sue the government. It's the legal principle of sovereign immunity, and it's taught in most basic law classes. You can only sue an agent of the government for negligence - not the government as a whole. So basically, parents can't file a lawsuit against the school (unless they consent, under sovereign immunity, which is probably not going to happen, realistically) for distributing condoms.
|
Also, I support developing healthy sexual behavior at the earliest stages of sex, which passive provision of condoms along with sex education would do.
|
On December 04 2006 23:56 LeoTheLion wrote:
Rofl, there's a difference from being a parent and being a bully. A parent shouldn't yell at his kid for not understanding something that is "common sense," when what you say is "common sense" isn't universally shared amongst everyone. And a parent never "resorts to insults."
You also made statements that were not only close-minded in that failed to take into consideration infinity's moral viewpoints, but also had loopholes.
I thought I made sure that my caps lock key was off when I posted, so I don't remember anything about flaming. Maybe you can point that out to me.
Anyways, nice non sequitur[edit: red herring. whoops] post right there. Shows that awesome "wit and sense" you have.
When did I say I was a parent? I made a metaphor about being an adult. And a flame is a post that's mostly made of bashing and insulting, which you have done your fair share of.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
leo, stop retreading stuff. not only are the "moral viewpoints" in question, they also have been discounted because of the argument in chill's post that i tried explaining but he did a better job of.
since the whole "increased sexual frequency" thing has already been answered (basically, more people having safe sex > very few people having unsafe sex) your argument for no condoms in schools then boils down to the "planned parenthood has them!" and "parents will sue!"
and those are not solid arguments at all. just reading over this thread you're the one with the most loopholes and flawed logic, you go in circles and don't address all the points.
|
You know what? Fuck this, I've made my points for 13 pages now, I've tried flaming, being patient, explaining things, using irony, supporting other people's posts, trying to compromise with someone's pre-nubile "moral" views, and being as clear as humanly possible, and none of it seems to be able to get posters like Leo to even acknowledge the fact that regardless of whether or not distribution of condoms promotes premarital sex, it stops the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Many other people have reiterated my points, and I've regurgitated theirs, in a basically futile attempt to convince someone who isn't very smart and posts on a forum simply to bash people who... bash people... that their strategy, regardless of how moral it is, runs a much higher risk of pregnancy and STDs than ours does, statistically. And the worst part about it is that he has no say in whether or not it really happens anyway. So I'm done posting in this thread. The smart people already know which strategy works better, and the people who don't understand it aren't worth expending any more energy on.
I'm sorry I flamed whoever I did. It was because I thought your post sucked. Even if it did, that's no excuse to insult you, and I'm sorry.
But goddamn, there are some stupid people in the world.
|
On December 05 2006 01:20 5HITCOMBO wrote:
You know what? Fuck this, I've made my points for 13 pages now, I've tried flaming, being patient, explaining things, using irony, supporting other people's posts, trying to compromise with someone's pre-nubile "moral" views, and being as clear as humanly possible, and none of it seems to be able to get posters like Leo to even acknowledge the fact that regardless of whether or not distribution of condoms promotes premarital sex, it stops the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Many other people have reiterated my points, and I've regurgitated theirs, in a basically futile attempt to convince someone who isn't very smart and posts on a forum simply to bash people who... bash people... that their strategy, regardless of how moral it is, runs a much higher risk of pregnancy and STDs than ours does, statistically. And the worst part about it is that he has no say in whether or not it really happens anyway. So I'm done posting in this thread. The smart people already know which strategy works better, and the people who don't understand it aren't worth expending any more energy on.
I'm sorry I flamed whoever I did. It was because I thought your post sucked. Even if it did, that's no excuse to insult you, and I'm sorry.
But goddamn, there are some stupid people in the world.
Heh, it's cool dude. I agree with you, but I didn't like how you were so condescending toward infinity. But we're done now. You acted like a man and apologized. Since I did do some bashing too, I'm also at fault, so I apologize as well.
And Hotbid, condoms are great. Safe sex is great. And I think that if people want condoms to be distributed in schools, that's fine. The reason why I mentioned that it probably wouldn't get passed was because parents of middle to upper class families (who vote on these things) probably wouldn't pass something like this in the US. But I think that it would be awesome in low-income communities. I never argued about any of that. Sorry if I misled you in any way.
Good discussion, folks. I'm off to bed.
|
If you don't want the consequences, don't have the sex. Plz make everyone an adult from the age of 12 legally, so we don't have to clean up she shit the teenagers create for themselves. I feel people are talking like these teens have a right to have sex, be totally ignorant about it and and we should protect them from the dangers.
Besides, I'm not paying any tax money for this, plz spend it on people who do need it. Maybe this is a job for the parents of those kids? I know many kids won't tell their parents (that's unhealthy in itself) but in that case they can just get a side job. Twice a week sex is 100 condoms a year, which doesn't cost very much, maybe $50? Teenagers nowadays spend much more in a month.
|
|
|
kids with no game are still not gonna have sex, protect the children. holla.
|
kids should not have sex they do it for the wrong reasons anyway
fizicaly a person fully matures sexualy at , or around the age of 18-19 (less in US ? )when most of them leave highschool
psihicaly they are far from mature and actualy have sex for really fucked up reason : fear of being a virgin freak  , bets , personal chalenge , 'cause the other person ask her(him) to , from curiosity , they are pissed of someone ...etc
one should have sex for the pleasure that it provides fizical or(and) psihical fully aware of the consequences
'if someone want to do it theyll do it anyway' its not true ; they do it when most (or some) circumstantial needs are meet (someone to do it with , where to do it , comdom availability , some sort of parental permision (even tacit) ....
no one died from not having sex at 14-15-16 years nor they remember that period for being the best sex period he,(she)had
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
5HITCOMBO, I see your point. And I respect your reasons. Yes, number-wise, the # of people who have STDs might go down. Safe sex is good. It's much better than having sex with random people you don't know without a condom. I agree with all that.
What I was trying to say was that, on top of my morals and ideals, I don't want to see high schools (i.e. the government, the law) handing out condoms to students, ultimately promoting sex. Yes, it promotes safe sex, I know. But safe sex is still sex. The government currently does not promote sex prior to 16, or 18 (depending on countries).
Currently, they only go as far as telling students, "if you're going to have sex, make sure you're protected". But handing out condoms? What else would they use condoms for other than sex? (apart from all the "practical" usage, such as putting it over door handles, that is) That act implies "go have sex, but make sure it's safe". Having it there will always remind them that safe sex without any immediate consequences is possible. And it will increase the number of people having sex, as the government knows.
You might ask, "they'll have sex anyways, so why not protect them?" I ask you, why do we need to protect these people? They knew the consequences. They knew condoms were available for a very affordable price. The choice that they made is purely their own, without any external forces. Teenagers may be pressured to smoke weed, or have sex, but they're not pressured to not wear a condom while having sex.
It's like handing a chocolate bar to a starving teenager and saying "You're hungry right? Yeah, don't eat it yet. I'm not going to watch you, but you can't eat the chocolate until a month has passed". Some people will follow that instruction, most probably won't. The government contradicts itself when they start handing out condoms. So until the generally accepted age of consent becomes 14, I don't think schools should be handing out condoms and saying "go have sex".
I think this argument is pretty logical. Please correct me if I go wrong somewhere.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On December 05 2006 13:42 infinity21 wrote:
It's like handing a chocolate bar to a starving teenager and saying "You're hungry right? Yeah, don't eat it yet. I'm not going to watch you, but you can't eat the chocolate until a month has passed". Some people will follow that instruction, most probably won't. The government contradicts itself when they start handing out condoms. So until the generally accepted age of consent becomes 14, I don't think schools should be handing out condoms and saying "go have sex".
I think this argument is pretty logical. Please correct me if I go wrong somewhere.
TL.net needs to take a lesson on analogy.
You can eat a chocolate bar by yourself. The only thing stopping you is your morals/believes. This is not analgous to sex at all. If masterbation was causing some sort of health risk, and the schools were handing out pornography magazines, then your analogy would make sense. But of course, that would never happen because porn magazines further the problem and don't help anything. Condoms do help and barely further the problem.
Also, eating is something we do every day and experience from birth. So picking a chocolate bar as your analogy makes no sense at all.
Here's a better analogy:
A school hands out clean syringes and tells people not to do drugs. This is more logical because you can't do anything with a syringe. You need to go find drugs (hard) after you've gotten the syringe (easy). Is the handing out of syringes going to stop disease and infection? Of course. Will a few students who didn't think about drugs before now take an interest? Of course. Will the net effect be a positive one? Of course.
See, you're not looking at the net effect. You're saying "Handing out condoms is promoting sex, which I don't agree with; so I don't agree with handing out condoms." That's great, that's like saying "Jailing makes inmates sad, which I don't agree with; so I don't agree with jailing people." You have to look at the whole picture. Sure, sex is promoted a little bit. And, as a result, safety is promoted a whole lot. The good from the safety vastly outweights the bad from the sexual promotion (which I dont even see what you have a problem with but thats a whole different issue). You can't plug your ears and close your eyes after seeing part of the story, that makes no sense.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 14:22 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2006 13:42 infinity21 wrote:
It's like handing a chocolate bar to a starving teenager and saying "You're hungry right? Yeah, don't eat it yet. I'm not going to watch you, but you can't eat the chocolate until a month has passed". Some people will follow that instruction, most probably won't. The government contradicts itself when they start handing out condoms. So until the generally accepted age of consent becomes 14, I don't think schools should be handing out condoms and saying "go have sex".
I think this argument is pretty logical. Please correct me if I go wrong somewhere. TL.net needs to take a lesson on analogy. You can eat a chocolate bar by yourself. The only thing stopping you is your morals/believes. This is not analgous to sex at all. If masterbation was causing some sort of health risk, and the schools were handing out pornography magazines, then your analogy would make sense. But of course, that would never happen because porn magazines further the problem and don't help anything. Condoms do help and barely further the problem. Also, eating is something we do every day and experience from birth. So picking a chocolate bar as your analogy makes no sense at all. Here's a better analogy: A school hands out clean syringes and tells people not to do drugs. This is more logical because you can't do anything with a syringe. You need to go find drugs (hard) after you've gotten the syringe (easy). Is the handing out of syringes going to stop disease and infection? Of course. Will a few students who didn't think about drugs before now take an interest? Of course. Will the net effect be a positive one? Of course. See, you're not looking at the net effect. You're saying "Handing out condoms is promoting sex, which I don't agree with; so I don't agree with handing out condoms." That's great, that's like saying "Jailing makes inmates sad, which I don't agree with; so I don't agree with jailing people." You have to look at the whole picture. Sure, sex is promoted a little bit. And, as a result, safety is promoted a whole lot. The good from the safety vastly outweights the bad from the sexual promotion (which I dont even see what you have a problem with but thats a whole different issue). You can't plug your ears and close your eyes after seeing part of the story, that makes no sense.
Why don't you read my post properly next time? I say the school contradicts itself when they start handing out condoms. My opinion on whether or not I like schools handing out condoms is irrelevant. I'm strictly using logic here. The only opinion of any sort I gave in that post was that I don't like things to be hypocritical.
To summarize, I said:
Handing out condoms promotes sex.
Schools have taken a stance that doesn't allow sex before 16 (depending on the state)
Therefore, the school is contradicting itself, and it shouldn't hand out condoms while their AOC is above 14.
And TL.net need to find better analogies? At least point at me directly when you say that. You're also a part of TL.net, are you not? You're the one who's making up things I haven't even said and creating your own analogies that is irrelevant to my original point.
Regardless of that, how is my analogy bad? The things restricting you from eating that chocolate are your morals, beliefs, worries about consequences, and RULES. It's still a rule not to eat that chocolate. Just like there are really no restrictions over you having sex with another girl other than than your morals, beliefs, worries about consequences, and RULES (parents? school? teachers? relatives? if the two wants to have sex, these people are just a minor nuisance). The RULES that were imposed on you that told you not to have sex.
Please, read properly before you post next time.
|
|
|
The age of consent is 16 in the US.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On December 05 2006 15:20 Dknight wrote:
The age of consent is 16 in the US.
Thanks, corrected.
I looked it up and apparently it's 16-18 everywhere in the US except for Colorado (15/17), Iowa (14/16), Missouri (14/17), South Carolina (14/14), (male/female). Any the average age of consent is 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
