Re: O.T. kids say the darndest things

You know, it has gotten to the point that it is useless to attempt to carry on an intelligent discussion. Your selective snipping of text to "prove" your point. The name calling. Pointless and futile.

If you want bragging rights that you "won" this discussion, go for it.

Enjoy,
Glen

Jim Carr wrote:
"Glen" <gNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:%3Yfi.900$tj6.540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/actionpages/positionpapers/repro_abstinenceonly.cfm

Amusing little article, quite biased, quite one sided. It does not, however, state where these faith based programs actually take place. Most curious. We all know, however (I believe we all know it, at least) that the type of programs they are advocating do exist. Maybe you would like the idea of some individual talking to your fifteen year old daughter telling her about condoms and having her practice putting them on cucumbers (yes, this has been a part of the sex ed program in many schools), but I don't want it for my daughter.

Yes, I want it for my daughter, son, and anyone they are going to date. Like it or not, some 15 year olds ***. It's been that since the dawn of mankind. If you want to opt out your daughter, go right ahead. I know of no system that doesn't give you that choice. Why do you want to take away education from everyone because you don't want *your* daughter to learn?

Condoms are safe sex in terms of disease? I think not! Safer than unprotected sex, yes, but safe, NO! What is 100% safe? Abstinence.

That is SO stupid. Really. What makes you think that sex education classes present condoms as being 100% safe? They don't. They teach students how effective they are when used properly. They present them with information so they can make reasoned choices, hopefully with the moral guidance of their parents.

Have you considered how incredibly insulting it is to tell a kid that the only way to prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to not have sex? Duh! That's like telling them the only way to avoid getting killed jumping out of an airplane is to not jump out an airplane. They are not idiots, so don't treat them like idiots by telling them the obvious. Besides, it's wrong anyway. Some STDs like herpes can also be spread without sexual contact. It's not common, but it can and does happen. I guess that blows away your 100% safe claim, huh? Sounds like *your* sex education was lacking.

Furthermore, they don't teach abstinence for life, they teach abstinence until marriage. Even if both parties abstain, they can still spread STDs since it's possible to contract them at birth from an infected mother as well as some nonsexual means. That, too, blows away your 100%. Note: Please don't tell me it's not an STD if it can be transmitted in additional ways besides sex.

Realistically, even if one party abstains, that person has no way of knowing that the other person abstained. The FACT is that 75% of women and 83% of men have had more than one sexual partner in their lifetime. So, if you're daughter is one of the 25%, she's still far more likely to fall in love with a guy who's already had a partner. Getting married won't prevent her from catching an STD.

Even after she is married, she had better know about birth control. Unless, of course, you expect her to push out a dozen babies before she's 35.

Abstinence until marriage by definition discriminates against homosexuals since there are only a few places where they can marry. Like it or not, some people are homosexual. It's been that way since the dawn of mankind.

I'd much rather you be honest about it and say that you promote abstinence on moral grounds. What I find despicable is people disguising their agenda behind bad science.


No, but I do like some of the anti-crime measures that are being taken in some locales, where they use bait cars with remote controlled kill switches and wait for the bad guys to steal them. It takes the scum off the street.

What has that got do with the discussion?

I do not object to the gov't using electronic surveillance to catch terrorists. Actually, I want them to. I believe that is better than waiting until after they blow up another 3000 Americans.

Again, you seem ignorant of the issues. Nobody is objecting to electronic surveillance. The objection is to surveillance without a warrant. There is a system in place to handle time critical situations. They can start the surveillance without first getting a warrant, but have to get court approval within a certain period of time. This allows them to deal with imminent threats, but keeps the checks and balances in place. The Bush administration has done secret surveillance without ever getting a warrant. They refuse to use this system. That doesn't bother you?


Again, an interesting article. An opinion piece, really. It tells all about Jose Padilla and how he is being held without trial.

So, you were wrong. Again.

Maybe you havent heard:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135780,00.html


"The defendants were members of a secret organization, a terrorism support cell, based right here in South Florida," Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier told the jury in his opening statement. "The defendants took concrete steps to support and promote this violence."

Read further, Glen:

"Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, has been in federal custody since his May 2002 arrest at O'Hare International Airport. He was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant at a Navy brig, but those allegations are not part of the Miami indictment."

He was held for 3 /12 years without good cause. Without a lawyer. Without any rights. That's fucked up. If they had a criminal case to start with, then they should have charged him with that and put him in the system without bail.

I don't know about you, but I am glad to see scum like this behind bars. I like the fact that he was held, until the case was ready to precede.

Ah, presumption of guilt. Gotta love it.

As a side note, wasn't it HRW that condemned the trial of Saddam Hussein as being unfair? Isn't it the same group that criticized Israel for fighting back after terrorists entered Israel, kidnapped and murdered its soldiers, and endured hundreds of rocket attacks, day after day. Wow, HRW has earned a lot of credibility with me! (sarcasm intended)

It's obvious to me that you're just learning about this stuff for the first time and are grasping at straws to prop up your argument. Now you're dismissing the facts contained in an opinion piece by a group you don't agree with. You've been parroting a party line without knowing even a smidgen of what's really happening around you. Feel free to respond and have the last word. I am tired of trying to argue with someone has somewhat reasonable logic but little grasp of the facts and no desire to see things another way.


.

Loading