Re: FBOFW Letters for May

Gare_NY wrote:
On May 14, 2:26 pm, Heather Fieldhouse <bunnyhug...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <1179163970.891474.136...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Gare_NY <HomeP...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sigh.
You're all wonderful people, and truly, at this point, I feel that
we're simply arguing what is essentially our interpretation of a
particular word, and the usage of said word/action.
>>
But of course we are. Because how words are used is not a trivial
matter. Word usages affect attitudes and, therefore, policy. If
someone argues that abstinence-only sex ed is a bad idea because the
failure rate is too high, and if someone else argues that of course it's
a great idea because the failure rate is zero, then it matters a great
deal how we decide to define the "failure rate."

Heather

Then perhaps the conversation should be moved to how one applies the
term "failure rate".

In the context of our conversation thus far, Heather, we have been
arguing about the definition of abstinence vis-a-vis sexual activity.
My only contention (and some might see it as idealistic or, perhaps
pessimisticly, unrealistic) is this: abstinence, as per it's
definition, means to abstain from an activity. By it's *very
definition*, it can't fail. The failure comes in the form of the
person and their willpower, or lack there-of.

If I might parlay this into another, very similiar conversation I've
had of late:

As some of you might recall, I participate in a hobby of sorts that
has been labelled "Urban Exploration". For the un-initiated, UE is the
exploration (and usually, photographic documentation) of abandoned or
derelict structures. Good examples of such structures would be that
old, abandoned farmhouse back in the woods. We're not talking about
breaking and entering into inhabited or sale-able dwellings, or
building with "No Tresspassing" signs - typically these are places
that have been given up to the elements and are not going to be around
a lot longer.

Now, there isn't necessarily a "UE Handbook" or anything, but in the
community as a whole (and there's a large subculture that participates
in this, oddly enough), there are some very widely held and accepted
tenets: 1) You never break in to any structure. 2) You never take
anything, even things that you might consider to be of value. 3) You
take your pictures, you leave your footprints, to paraphrase the
Sierra Club people.

In UE discussion forums, there are those who will routinely brag about
going to sites that they've found, and pilfering items, or leaving
grafitti, or other acts of general stupidity. In debating these
actions with these people, they've sought to redefine UE, to state
that what they are doing is purely acceptable, no matter whom it might
hurt. In short, these folks are vandals, and they try to hide their
vandalism behind the UE flag.

My recent response to one of these folks seems applicable here: UE has
some very basic, simple rules. If you break those unwritten rules and
damage or steal from a site, then you are no longer participating in
UE. You've crossed the line into something else.

That's all I'm saying here. The word, the definition of abstinence..
when taken at face value - what I'm saying is a truism: in the context
of sexual behaviour, abstinence can't fail. If sexual behaviour does
occur, then you've crossed the line into something else - in this
case, "failure of willpower" territory, let us say.

So in direct response to your comments, Heather - my ideas on the
definition of this word have not changed, and I certainly don't feel
as if I'm 'trivializing' the matter. My concern - again - is the
mixing of apples and oranges that has been occurring in this
conversation. I will certainly concur, however, that the term "failure
rate" is completely open to interpretation, and, like statistics in
general, can be used to bolster both sides of the same argument. So
perhaps we have been arguing the wrong definition.

Gare_NY



I like your UE example, but i think there's a difference. The
abstinence issue may need to have two different sets of rules
(rules for definitions), because for one entity there is control
over usage --which cannot fail-- while for the other entity there
is NO control over usage, and therefore no control over failure rates.

The user has complete control over whether abstinence works for
him/her. Yes, i stand by that. Being carried away by passion still
places responsibility on ...um...each Passionee...to employ
self-honesty about what he/she values morally, how likely he/she is
to fail at upholding the value, or whether in fact he/she doesn't value
abstinence as a morals thing much, and is only doing it under pressure
from the values of others, blah blah blah. This doesn't mean that
human perfection is possible, only that there is no *other* factor
that controls things, outside the person him/herself.

This doesn't work for an institution. It's evaluating the likelihood
of *other* people keeping a commitment to doing it. So it is dealing
with things that are *not* under its control, and therefore it *must*
consider failure of people to keep a commitment to a "fail-proof"
method as...well, as the method's failure rate.

Just a thought.


--
pax,
ruth


Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FBOFW Letters for May
    ... failure rate is failure to actually use the method. ... abstinence shouldn't be held to the same standard. ... not a condom failure but a lifestyle change?? ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: kablooey
    ... Just two nights ago a friend who works in the RAID industry, in Failure ... to the control supply. ... power FETs on every once in a while. ... Not having a crowbar on a multi-thousand $ VME crate that is ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: kablooey
    ... Just two nights ago a friend who works in the RAID industry, in Failure ... to the control supply. ... power FETs on every once in a while. ... Even still, the crowbar should be a totally independent function, just a Zener ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: The OTHER problem with Netgear WGT624 (and probably others)
    ... Given 100 purchases where the failure rate over the usage ... |>then I suppose that is an OK choice for that power size. ... OTOH, if latency is an issue, it might not. ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: Real time scheduler C
    ... where failure to act may result in significant damage to ... Loss of control would probably not have hurt ... directly responsible for the safety of e.g. personnel on oil rigs ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
Loading