Spending Cuts

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:51 am

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-New ... ast-minute

Regardless of what you've read or seen about who did what or what was going on, the deal was made to make massive cuts to Federal spending. This is a victory for liberals, conservatives, moderates, whoever you are as we finally take steps to back off of uncontrolled spending expansion of your tax dollars.

There will be a few more big fights in the coming years, over the 2012 budget and the debt ceiling (the max amount of public debt the US may go into), but at least Congress was able to make this cut.

Let us all hope for more responsible government activities in the future. Don't let the government buy your vote!
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:37 am

Ok, so it was an incredibly small victory.
Image
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:23 pm

I'm disappointed. We should've gotten healthcare reform repeal attached to this. They pulled out all the stops to get their way, time for us to.

I don't like how the deal gives Obama and Dems a clear sign we're not willing to shut the government down... leading up to the debt ceiling limit fight and the 2012 budget fight =(.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:31 pm

kiryan wrote:I'm disappointed. We should've gotten healthcare reform repeal attached to this. They pulled out all the stops to get their way, time for us to.

I don't like how the deal gives Obama and Dems a clear sign we're not willing to shut the government down... leading up to the debt ceiling limit fight and the 2012 budget fight =(.


So who was it that raised the debt ceiling last time? Oh yeah, Republicans. Good to know they are telling you to be against it now!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:43 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:I'm disappointed. We should've gotten healthcare reform repeal attached to this. They pulled out all the stops to get their way, time for us to.

I don't like how the deal gives Obama and Dems a clear sign we're not willing to shut the government down... leading up to the debt ceiling limit fight and the 2012 budget fight =(.


So who was it that raised the debt ceiling last time? Oh yeah, Republicans. Good to know they are telling you to be against it now!

That's because they raised it enough last time.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:15 pm

Sarvis, I want the GOP to use the debt ceiling as leverage.

1. To get rid of Obama care.
2. To reduce the federal deficit / budget.

I'm not experessing an opinion on whether we should raise it or not outside of its use as leverage on the two items above. Win at all costs right Reid/Pelosi/Obama?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Corth » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:56 am

I have a problem using the debt ceiling vote as leverage. A default by the US on it's debt would be financial armageddon. The mere fact that it's even up for serious debate is probably damaging. Obama was irresponsible voting against it in 2006, but that isn't an excuse for others to be irresponsible now. This isn't something you fuck around with. Regardless on how you feel about the size of the government you have to honor previous committments which means that you have to raise the debt ceiling.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:24 pm

I would not ordinarily adopt the position of using it as leverage on non budgetary issues, but healthcare reform really pissed me off. I want the repeal shoved down their throat just like it was shoved down ours.

I think using it as leverage to choke off #2 spending and deficits is perfectly valid although one wishes brinksmanship wasn't necessary to win any concession let alone meaningless ones like in the current 38 billion "deal"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110412/D9MI4KNG1.html

The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

== big surprise

Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.

Still, Obama and his Democratic allies accepted $600 million in cuts to a community health centers programs, $414 million in cuts to grants for state and local police departments, and a $1.6 billion reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency budget, almost $1 billion of which would come from grants for clean water and other projects by local governments and Indian tribes.

The National Institutes of Health, which funds critical medical research, would absorb a $260 million cut, less than 1 percent of its budget, instead of the $1.6 billion cut sought by House Republicans. Family planning programs would bear a 5 percent cut rather than being completely eliminated.

Homeland security programs would have to take their first-ever cut, though much of the 2 percent decrease comes from a $786 million cut to first responder grants to state and local governments. The IRS would see its budget frozen but be spared the 5 percent cut sought by House Republicans.

About $10 billion of the cuts already have been enacted as the price for keeping the government open as negotiations progressed; lawmakers tipped their hand regarding another $10 billion or so when the House passed a spending bill last week that ran aground in the Senate.

For instance, the spending measure reaps $350 million by cutting a one-year program enacted in 2009 for dairy farmers then suffering from low milk prices. Another $650 million comes by not repeating a one-time infusion into highway programs passed that same year. And just last Friday, Congress approved Obama's $1 billion request for high-speed rail grants - crediting itself with $1.5 billion in savings relative to last year.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:42 pm

kiryan wrote:Family planning programs would bear a 5 percent cut rather than being completely eliminated.


Without referring to Christian morality can you please explain why it's good for lots of girls to have unplanned pregnancies?

This is what really pisses me off. We cut out things that actually do good for our society, but the largest budget items are left untouched.

More than a quarter of every tax dollar goes to the military: http://nationalpriorities.org/publicati ... 1/pennies/

Why does no one say "we don't need another jet today, let's save up and get it next year!"
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:21 pm

If a nation is going to insist on placing its troops into war like situations, those troops should have the BEST training and equipment available to them, to help ensure that they make it home alive. If you want to cut military spending INSIST on a cut back of military action as well.

This is one thing that really bugs the hell out of me about Canada, our troops are some of the worse equiped of any nation that participated in the afganistan mission, we were also in one of the worse areas. When we went into Afganistan our troops did not have desert camo, instead they had arctic camo that they had to spray paint and make look like desert camo. there are all kinds of problems with maintaining our equipment and troops in the canadian military, but we cant be bothered to increase thier budget to allow for our troops to have the proper camo when going into a deadly situation.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:41 pm

amena wolfsnarl wrote:If a nation is going to insist on placing its troops into war like situations, those troops should have the BEST training and equipment available to them, to help ensure that they make it home alive. If you want to cut military spending INSIST on a cut back of military action as well.

This is one thing that really bugs the hell out of me about Canada, our troops are some of the worse equiped of any nation that participated in the afganistan mission, we were also in one of the worse areas. When we went into Afganistan our troops did not have desert camo, instead they had arctic camo that they had to spray paint and make look like desert camo. there are all kinds of problems with maintaining our equipment and troops in the canadian military, but we cant be bothered to increase thier budget to allow for our troops to have the proper camo when going into a deadly situation.


Was actually thinking that too. If our budget isn't balanced, what are we doing in Libya at all? We can't afford it.

As far as equipment goes... back in the Iraq war families would hold fundraisers to buy body armor for troops because we don't want to pay for equipment either. Not as bad as Canada, but still sad when you consider we spend more on the military than any other nation in the world. I guess all the cash goes to research on new weapons or something... :(
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:49 pm

The US military budget is not very efficient. Many of the R&D projects end up becoming moneypits, some are just blatant porkbarrel that end up producing little usable for the armed forces. We could probably cut the budget by 10-20% in the right places and notice no difference in capability or capacity.

I'd rather see the existing funds simply being put to better uses, rather than watch them build soldier systems, vehicles, and equipment that are never ready to be deployed, or retired before they existed (and producing a dubious amount of new information/ideas in the process).
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Family planning programs would bear a 5 percent cut rather than being completely eliminated.


Without referring to Christian morality can you please explain why it's good for lots of girls to have unplanned pregnancies?


On the same basis its good for lots of girls to be taught that they're free to have sex whenever and however they want and we'll even give them free condoms and sexual healthcare. Pregnancy is consistent with what we teach and idolize in society, having sex often with as many people as possible.

Sarvis wrote:This is what really pisses me off. We cut out things that actually do good for our society, but the largest budget items are left untouched.

More than a quarter of every tax dollar goes to the military: http://nationalpriorities.org/publicati ... 1/pennies/

Why does no one say "we don't need another jet today, let's save up and get it next year!"


I'm not really sure on cutting the military. I think I'm with you, but I really haven't looked at the justifications for all the military bases and spending all over the world. Maybe we could cut here... a lot... I don't know. Clinton did... and then he resisted getting involved with the genocide in Rwanda... Makes sense if you cut your military, you can't get involved in as many conflicts...

Are we really worried that some country is going to decide to take over the USA militarily? What exactly do we "lose" if China attacks Taiwan and we respond too late to make a difference... or not at all? What business do we have protecting billions of dollars of private commercial shipments from somali pirates? SHouldn't they pay for their own protection?

I just don't know... what the actual ramifications would be of cutting military spending. Does it mean industrial espinoage runs unchecked? Does it mean the middle east blows up and we just watch Israel commit genocide against Palestinians, Iran, Syria?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:33 pm

kiryan wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Family planning programs would bear a 5 percent cut rather than being completely eliminated.


Without referring to Christian morality can you please explain why it's good for lots of girls to have unplanned pregnancies?


On the same basis its good for lots of girls to be taught that they're free to have sex whenever and however they want and we'll even give them free condoms and sexual healthcare. Pregnancy is consistent with what we teach and idolize in society, having sex often with as many people as possible.


That really doesn't address the question. Is it good for society for lots of girls to be having unplanned pregnancies? I know you think we're somehow teaching everyone they should have sex constantly, but that really doesn't address the issue. Family Planning is basically telling them "You're not ready to have kids yet."

But I'm sure you'll be happy when the wellfare rolls increase, or if you really get your way, when there are street urchins pickpocketing crowds just so they can eat.



Sarvis wrote:I'm not really sure on cutting the military. I think I'm with you, but I really haven't looked at the justifications for all the military bases and spending all over the world. Maybe we could cut here... a lot... I don't know. Clinton did... and then he resisted getting involved with the genocide in Rwanda... Makes sense if you cut your military, you can't get involved in as many conflicts...

Are we really worried that some country is going to decide to take over the USA militarily? What exactly do we "lose" if China attacks Taiwan and we respond too late to make a difference... or not at all? What business do we have protecting billions of dollars of private commercial shipments from somali pirates? SHouldn't they pay for their own protection?

I just don't know... what the actual ramifications would be of cutting military spending. Does it mean industrial espinoage runs unchecked? Does it mean the middle east blows up and we just watch Israel commit genocide against Palestinians, Iran, Syria?


Funny how you ignore the biggest budget item yet constantly scream to reduce the same budget items the GOP wants you to. Maybe you should learn about where our military spending goes and actually form your own opinion on something for a change.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Kifle » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:44 pm

Just a random thought/question, but could the military budget be reduced even further if there were more competing contractors? Even further, would you say that the military budget is monopolized by a buddy system in that the cheapest contracts aren't sought, but, rather, the contracts go to the buddies which charge more? Realistically, a simple machine such as a standard gun should not cost what it does -- especially when the technology used is outdated by decades. Body armor is another old technology which shouldn't necessarily cost what it does. The cost of a single missile, to me, seems to be very overpriced. This is just speculation of course, but I would imagine that transparency in defense contracts would lead to a much lower defense spending budget. Once the contractor is chosen, all bids would then become public record, and a judgment decision written and publicly offered for each contractor decision. After all, it is our money they are spending, so answering for such large decisions, which don't hurt national security, should be given as public record. This would, in turn, allow for a healthier competitive market, the budget would be reduced, etc.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:53 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Family planning programs would bear a 5 percent cut rather than being completely eliminated.


Without referring to Christian morality can you please explain why it's good for lots of girls to have unplanned pregnancies?


On the same basis its good for lots of girls to be taught that they're free to have sex whenever and however they want and we'll even give them free condoms and sexual healthcare. Pregnancy is consistent with what we teach and idolize in society, having sex often with as many people as possible.


That really doesn't address the question. Is it good for society for lots of girls to be having unplanned pregnancies? I know you think we're somehow teaching everyone they should have sex constantly, but that really doesn't address the issue. Family Planning is basically telling them "You're not ready to have kids yet."

But I'm sure you'll be happy when the wellfare rolls increase, or if you really get your way, when there are street urchins pickpocketing crowds just so they can eat.


Is it good to teach girls and boys that they should be having sex, that its perfectly normal or within their rights, to educate them on technique and to teach them that sex is no longer just vaginal intercourse but anal and oral as well is just sex? pregnancy is a result of our societies attitudes towards sex shaped in a large part by academia..

so if its good to teach sex, its good for unplanned pregnancies.

Sarvis wrote:I'm not really sure on cutting the military. I think I'm with you, but I really haven't looked at the justifications for all the military bases and spending all over the world. Maybe we could cut here... a lot... I don't know. Clinton did... and then he resisted getting involved with the genocide in Rwanda... Makes sense if you cut your military, you can't get involved in as many conflicts...

Are we really worried that some country is going to decide to take over the USA militarily? What exactly do we "lose" if China attacks Taiwan and we respond too late to make a difference... or not at all? What business do we have protecting billions of dollars of private commercial shipments from somali pirates? SHouldn't they pay for their own protection?

I just don't know... what the actual ramifications would be of cutting military spending. Does it mean industrial espinoage runs unchecked? Does it mean the middle east blows up and we just watch Israel commit genocide against Palestinians, Iran, Syria?


Funny how you ignore the biggest budget item yet constantly scream to reduce the same budget items the GOP wants you to. Maybe you should learn about where our military spending goes and actually form your own opinion on something for a change.[/quote]

The national defense is constitutional even if its reached overreach... healthcare reform, your eating habits at school, NPR, planned parenthood are all things that are of questionable constitutionality or are constituional by result of court interpretation rather than constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, the defense budget is huge and most of the actual reasons why x or y is done are probably classified. Do we really know the real reason why we have bases in Japan and Korea? Is it just to have troops nearby, is it for spying operations, is it logistics? Where are our nuclear missiles, do we really need that many, what threats are we facing that we have no idea of because they don't want us and the enemy to know what we know...

Its easy to take positions on these programs and challenge their spending. That doesn't make it wrong to look there even if its not the "best" approach to cutting. If you note, I haven't complained at all about Petraeus' and Obama's recommendations for cuts in military spending...

Also, I wonder Do you know anything about the military budget? What are you basing your suggestion to cut it based on? sheer size? Wouldn't it be more intelligent and logical to look at in terms of necessity to provide for constituional concerns like the common defense?
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:50 am

Kids will have sex wether you teach them or not, sex is everywhere, on TV in pop culture, how many pop songs are all about sex? Everyother lady gaga song is about sex, katy perry, and every other pop icon have sex ridden lyrics. If you think your going to shelter your child from those your crazy, its heard all over the place in schools on radios everywhere. Teens will have sex, wether you want them too or not.

Im not advocating telling them that its okay to have sex, but they will make that choice when they feel they are ready, a parents roll is to ensure that they have the knowledge and understanding of the ramification of that choice. Now is it better to teach these teens and help provide them with the safe means neccassary? Or do you encourage back alley abortions like they had in the 70s?
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:04 am

Kiryan thinks pre-marital sex was invented in the 70's by Liberals. No teenager ever had sex in the 1950's, for instance. :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:27 am

With defeatists like you guys, of course nothing will ever change for the better.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Kifle » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:43 am

Teflor Lyorian wrote:With defeatists like you guys, of course nothing will ever change for the better.


When what has been tried failed miserably, again and again, there's nothing defeatist about it. It's common sense to stop sticking your hand in fire if you get burned, especially after numerous times. I don't remember who said it, but the saying goes something like, 'insanity is performing the same action over and over expecting different results.' Take that as you will in this case.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:29 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:With defeatists like you guys, of course nothing will ever change for the better.


When what has been tried failed miserably, again and again, there's nothing defeatist about it. It's common sense to stop sticking your hand in fire if you get burned, especially after numerous times. I don't remember who said it, but the saying goes something like, 'insanity is performing the same action over and over expecting different results.' Take that as you will in this case.

Leela: Ow! Fire hot!
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: The professy will help.
[reaches into fire]
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Ahh! Fire indeed hot!
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am

madness is of course the abstinence position, not the continued sexualization of our society and the entitlement mentality. well here you go, 11 year olds can get free condoms in Philly, I think some elementary school district in Boston hands out condoms to anyone, even kindergartners. but yea pushing abstinence is stupid.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13/ph ... latestnews

"Playing it safe just got easier," the website reads. "If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19, you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE. Maybe it's difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you're just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms."

"I think it is," he told FoxNews.com. "If children are old enough to be having sex, which they are in that age range [ages 11-19], they need to have protection."
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:06 pm

kiryan wrote:madness is of course the abstinence position, not the continued sexualization of our society and the entitlement mentality. well here you go, 11 year olds can get free condoms in Philly, I think some elementary school district in Boston hands out condoms to anyone, even kindergartners. but yea pushing abstinence is stupid.


Yes, it is. It doesn't work. Areas with comprehensive sex ed have LOWER rates of sexually active teens as well as lower teen pregnancy rates. People have been having sex since before society was actually invented, Kiryan. It's one of our most basic and primal urges, and it's no more likely that people will stop wanting to have sex than it is for people to stop getting angry. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I get that your religion demonizes sex, but your religion also states that we are incapable of not commiting sin. Your religion basically says the same thing I am: You shouldn't have sex before marriage, but you probably will anyway because you are weak.

For that matter, did you avoid sex before marriage? You've only slept with one woman your entire life, and with her you waited until you were married? Somehow I doubt that.

Oh, and let's not forget that when that whole "no sex before marriage" thing was written people got married pretty much right after puberty. In those days sex before marriage basically amounted to pedophilia. Times have changed rendering your rule book is out of date and ineffective, even harmful.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13/ph ... latestnews

"Playing it safe just got easier," the website reads. "If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19, you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE. Maybe it's difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you're just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms."

"I think it is," he told FoxNews.com. "If children are old enough to be having sex, which they are in that age range [ages 11-19], they need to have protection."


Yes, that is 100% correct. Unfortunately something about the modern diet (possibly all the fat, possibly all the hormones added to increase profits) is causing children to enter puberty much, much sooner than they have traditionally. So while 11 sounds shocking, the reality is 11 year olds really are having sex these days. I don't know how many adolescents you know, but one thing they aren't known for is following seemingly arbitrary rules. I've always felt that rules need to be explained, and comprehensive sex ed does that. Tell a 13 year old not to do something and he'll want to do it. Tell him that if he does something X, Y, and Z are the probable results and they'll think twice.

Or you can just keep telling them "God said not to!"
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:18 pm

And frankly, Kiryan, if you want to stop the sexualization of society then Planned Parenthood is the wrong target. You need to regulate and corporate America, which packages everything in sex these days.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/for_adults_only.html

"Bill Johnson, president of the Michigan-based, family advocacy group American Decency Association, which is boycotting the retailer, calls the underwear "pornographic" and says they would fit a child as young as seven. He adds: "There is an ongoing trend to sexualize youth. There are clearly a core of marketers who will go as low as they are permitted to go."

Music, movies, billboards, TV, clothing... sex is everywhere Kiryan. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are simply trying to mitigate the effects of that.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Kifle » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:36 pm

kiryan wrote:madness is of course the abstinence position, not the continued sexualization of our society and the entitlement mentality. well here you go, 11 year olds can get free condoms in Philly, I think some elementary school district in Boston hands out condoms to anyone, even kindergartners. but yea pushing abstinence is stupid.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/13/ph ... latestnews

"Playing it safe just got easier," the website reads. "If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19, you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE. Maybe it's difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you're just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms."

"I think it is," he told FoxNews.com. "If children are old enough to be having sex, which they are in that age range [ages 11-19], they need to have protection."


Kiryan, you're handing out condoms, not penises and vaginas. Unless you hover over a child 100% of the time, you can't control a child -- you just can't. You either blindly allow the damage to happen, assuming you've done everything you can to stop it, or you can realize the simplicity of human nature and attempt to mitigate the damage as best you can with the tools you are given.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:28 pm

In addition, you must expect logically that at least 1/2 of the parents are going to be below median parents.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:35 am

There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.

Sarvis, I agree with the corporations being complicit in sexualizing our society. That being said, liberals tend to support and encourage society to become more permissive especially in sex and conservatives against it. So I consider liberals a big part of the problem.


"Yes, it is. It doesn't work. Areas with comprehensive sex ed have LOWER rates of sexually active teens as well as lower teen pregnancy rates. People have been having sex since before society was actually invented, Kiryan. It's one of our most basic and primal urges, and it's no more likely that people will stop wanting to have sex than it is for people to stop getting angry. Why is that so hard for you to understand?"


== it doesn't work huh. Some studies would disagree. Also, its of no wonder that teaching abstinence doens't work when liberals are going around teaching that everyone has the right to have sex at any age. Its like going into a room full of candles and pouring gas all over the floor then claim that you have to give everyone fire extinguishers to prevent fires. Of course fire without fire extinguishers, you soaked the god damn room in gas.

I get that your religion demonizes sex, but your religion also states that we are incapable of not commiting sin. Your religion basically says the same thing I am: You shouldn't have sex before marriage, but you probably will anyway because you are weak.


== christianity doens't demonize sex. No where does god say sex is evil. It says there are rules that should govern your sexual activity. Even you agree that there should be rules on sex, you shouldn't rape people, you shouldn't have sex with children. Now we may disagree what the exact rules for sexual behavior are, but we both agree there are rules. How is it demonizing when christianity puts rules on sex but not our modern day society?

Do your liberal friends think that married individuals should have sex with other people? Some do, but I highly doubt its a common belief. In essence most of the "rules" in the bible regarding sexual behavior are flat out good even if the justification, becaues god said so, are "bad". WHo thinks pregnant unwed girls is a good idea? WHo thinks people running around having sex with your wife/husband even gf/boyfriend, children is good? Couldn't we basically cure HIV and most STDs in one generation if people would stop having sex with multiple people? Sure it could never happen, but the principle of having sex with only one person, after you've made a long term committment to them would solve a lot of problems... but no, its stupid because God said so. Its brilliant, its just impossible due to human nature.

"Oh, and let's not forget that when that whole "no sex before marriage" thing was written people got married pretty much right after puberty. In those days sex before marriage basically amounted to pedophilia. Times have changed rendering your rule book is out of date and ineffective, even harmful."


== so are you saying pedophilia should be legal again since we have never been able to stop 11 year olds from having sex? It seems your rule book is out of date and ineffective, even harmful. The bible is a good rule book, idealistic, impossibly difficult to consistently meet the standard, but its a good rule book. Instead of dumbing down the rules, shouldn't we elevate ourselves to a higher standard?


"Yes, that is 100% correct. Unfortunately something about the modern diet (possibly all the fat, possibly all the hormones added to increase profits) is causing children to enter puberty much, much sooner than they have traditionally. So while 11 sounds shocking, the reality is 11 year olds really are having sex these days. I don't know how many adolescents you know, but one thing they aren't known for is following seemingly arbitrary rules. I've always felt that rules need to be explained, and comprehensive sex ed does that. Tell a 13 year old not to do something and he'll want to do it. Tell him that if he does something X, Y, and Z are the probable results and they'll think twice.

Or you can just keep telling them "God said not to!""


==or possibly its simply because we have much better nutrition today than we ever had. organisms of all kinds tend to start their reproductive cycles faster when they have abundant energy.

== again with the 11 year olds, so again should we change pedophilia laws since the reality is 11 year olds are ready to have sex under our current society? if an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old, I'm not sure why 20 and 11 isn't legal.

== i agree with you that the rules need to be explained. why shouldn't those rules be A) you're not ready B) you're not ready C) the risk of pregnancy and having a child is something you are SERIOUSLY NOT READY FOR. I'm not advocating we teach in school don't have sex cuz god said so. I'm advocating that don't have sex should be the standard. Not have sex when you feel like you're ready for it, or have sex when you love the other person or everyone has sex at your age so dont feel bad for doing what everyone else does or you have the right to have sex and we'll give you free condoms so you can "consequenceless" sex.

11 year olds are not ready to have sex with or without condoms and safe sex education
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:40 pm

kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

Sarvis, I agree with the corporations being complicit in sexualizing our society. That being said, liberals tend to support and encourage society to become more permissive especially in sex and conservatives against it. So I consider liberals a big part of the problem.


Yes, the GOP has convinced you we're Satanic Communists. We get it.

== it doesn't work huh. Some studies would disagree. Also, its of no wonder that teaching abstinence doens't work when liberals are going around teaching that everyone has the right to have sex at any age. Its like going into a room full of candles and pouring gas all over the floor then claim that you have to give everyone fire extinguishers to prevent fires. Of course fire without fire extinguishers, you soaked the god damn room in gas.


Suddenly people don't have the right to control what they do with their own bodies? Oh sure, they're children so they should only do what you say... but again, the problem is that adolescents DON'T do what you say. Do you get it yet? They are going to do it anyway! Show me these studies of yours, and when I stop being too lazy to google it I'll show you the real world statistics showing reduced teen sex/pregnancy rates in areas with comprehensive sex ed.

You keep expecting teens to avoid doing something just because you said so. What happens is they do it behind your back.


== christianity doens't demonize sex. No where does god say sex is evil. It says there are rules that should govern your sexual activity. Even you agree that there should be rules on sex, you shouldn't rape people, you shouldn't have sex with children. Now we may disagree what the exact rules for sexual behavior are, but we both agree there are rules. How is it demonizing when christianity puts rules on sex but not our modern day society?


Bullshit. I've heard about Catholics that feel so guilty after having sex with their wives they cry. Sex is something necessary for procreation, and in several sects of Christianity it is the only reason you should ever have sex. The Bible and God may not have said sex is evil, but the Church thinks it is and has convinced the populace that it is.

Do your liberal friends think that married individuals should have sex with other people? Some do, but I highly doubt its a common belief. In essence most of the "rules" in the bible regarding sexual behavior are flat out good even if the justification, becaues god said so, are "bad". WHo thinks pregnant unwed girls is a good idea?


If only there were ways to prevent that... but no, you should object to ALL methods of prevention because God suggested one 2000 years ago before anything else existed. (Actually condoms probably did exist, but they probably sucked even more than they do now...)

WHo thinks people running around having sex with your wife/husband even gf/boyfriend, children is good?


Not sure the Bible cares about sex with Children. Those experts of yours, aka Catholic Priests and the Vatican, certainly never saw a problem with it.

Couldn't we basically cure HIV and most STDs in one generation if people would stop having sex with multiple people?



Yes, and we could also have limitless, clean and safe energy if we invented a perpetual motion device. Remember your beliefs Kiryan: People will sin. They will make mistakes. They will cheat, they will have premarital sex, they will fuck more than one person.


Sure it could never happen, but the principle of having sex with only one person, after you've made a long term committment to them would solve a lot of problems... but no, its stupid because God said so. Its brilliant, its just impossible due to human nature.


No, it is not stupid because God said so. It's stupid because it's unrealistic. You even just SAID it could never happen. You want to depend on something you believe will never happen. THAT is stupid. I don't care who said it. It's unrealistic and won't work. You're advocating a fantasy land solution to real world problems. You might as well try and find a Cleric to cast Cure Disease.

so are you saying pedophilia should be legal again since we have never been able to stop 11 year olds from having sex?


You don't know what pedophilia is do you? Oh wait, you didn't realize that 12-13 year old girls were married off to older men back then. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The bible is a good rule book, idealistic, impossibly difficult to consistently meet the standard, but its a good rule book. Instead of dumbing down the rules, shouldn't we elevate ourselves to a higher standard?



The standards you think "will never happen?" No, we shouldn't because, as you said it "will never happen" and, as the Bible says, we are incapable of living perfect lives.

What we CAN do is use the tools at our disposal to lessen the Earthly consequences of our mistakes. Nowhere does the Bible say that we have to suffer on Earth for our mistakes, we are called to account in Heaven after all. And Frankly if the Bible's goal was just to reduce teen pregnancy we've got more effective methods of doing that 2000 years later. It's not like Jesus could have said "Makest sure thou takest thy birth-control pill" 2000 years ago. If we'd invented it maybe he would have.

==or possibly its simply because we have much better nutrition today than we ever had. organisms of all kinds tend to start their reproductive cycles faster when they have abundant energy.


Yes, possibly. Point is children are going through puberty earlier and getting married later.

again with the 11 year olds, so again should we change pedophilia laws since the reality is 11 year olds are ready to have sex under our current society? if an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old, I'm not sure why 20 and 11 isn't legal.


Here's the funny thing: The reason those laws exist is because an 11 year old isn't emotionally equipped or experienced enough to properly make that decision. They exist because the older person has experience and can easily manipulate the 11 year old acquiescing.

Now for the funny part: When you put two eleven year olds together, they ALSO aren't experienced and mature enough to make the decision... but they have hormones telling them to do it and will very likely make the wrong decision. Why? Because they aren't mature enough to know what they are doing.

So you can have them get into that situation without a condom, or with one handy. Which do you think ends better?

Oh, and how do you feel about a 16 year old boy and a 12 year old girl? Think he might be able to manipulate her into it? Think she should just live with the consequences?


== i agree with you that the rules need to be explained. why shouldn't those rules be A) you're not ready B) you're not ready C) the risk of pregnancy and having a child is something you are SERIOUSLY NOT READY FOR.


A) Sure baby, you're ready. It's the next step to adulthood. You want to be an adult right? (Ok, clearly I never got laid in high school... but some guys knew what to say, right?)
B) See A
C) Don't worry, if you jump up and down after sex you won't get pregnant!

Kiryan, again: Comprehensive sex ed works. It gives them everything they need to know about sex to make an INFORMED decision. Informed kids tend to avoid sex longer than uninformed kids.

I'm not advocating we teach in school don't have sex cuz god said so. I'm advocating that don't have sex should be the standard. Not have sex when you feel like you're ready for it, or have sex when you love the other person or everyone has sex at your age so dont feel bad for doing what everyone else does or you have the right to have sex and we'll give you free condoms so you can "consequenceless" sex.


Don't have sex is the primary message of Comprehensive Sex Ed. The rest comes from their peers, the media, and their hormones. I don't see why you insist on forcing life altering consequences on kids because they made one wrong decision.

You say you don't think sex is evil, but you DO think that if a teenager chooses to have sex her life should be ruined. Well the girl's life should be anyway, the boy can always just move away in college and move on with his life. Because yeah, that's MUCH better than if they had a condom.


11 year olds are not ready to have sex with or without condoms and safe sex education


But they'll do it anyway.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:48 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Kifle » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:20 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."


No, but they do fight for the right of gun stores to do it.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:37 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.


Uh huh, when was the last time you looked at the curriculum of a sex ed class or are you just talking out of your ass? I've done it 3 times in 5 years at 3 different schools. The message is sex is good sex is natural men can love men, and women women, masturbation is good and natural, you shouldn't have sex until you feel that you're ready and you shouldnt feel guilty about having sex, this is how you have sex if you have sex then make sure you do this this and this to avoid the consequences, if you need birth control or healthcare you can get it here (and from at least one of my kids, I heard that they verbally said you can get it without your parents knowing).

so i call bullshit on your claim.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:54 pm

kiryan wrote:The message is sex is good sex is natural men can love men, and women women, masturbation is good and natural, you shouldn't have sex until you feel that you're ready and you shouldnt feel guilty about having sex, this is how you have sex if you have sex then make sure you do this this and this to avoid the consequences, if you need birth control or healthcare you can get it here (and from at least one of my kids, I heard that they verbally said you can get it without your parents knowing).



Ok, so what's your problem?

Teaching that you shouldn't have sex until you're ready AND giving them all the information they need to realize they aren't ready comes pretty close to what I said.

I noticed you dropped the rest of the argument to focus on that one perceived weakness. So have you stopped wanting to punish young girls for making a single bad decision?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:09 pm

I'm trying to get some work done, I don't always have time or feel like countering every single point. also if i can't win something that is obviously wrong, I'm unlikely to make any headway on subtler points.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:15 pm

kiryan wrote:I'm trying to get some work done, I don't always have time or feel like countering every single point. also if i can't win something that is obviously wrong, I'm unlikely to make any headway on subtler points.


Ah, so you DO want a girl's life to be ruined by one bad decision. Got it.

For someone who's "trying to get some work done" you're spending a lot of time trolling on the forums. How many new threads today? Or maybe that's the "work" you're trying to get done.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:51 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."


No, but they do fight for the right of gun stores to do it.

That's my point. If Sarvis is defending the condom logic, he should also start defending the NRA.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:52 pm

Sarvis wrote:Ah, so you DO want a girl's life to be ruined by one bad decision. Got it.

If they are that weak, then they deserve it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Kifle » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:33 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."


No, but they do fight for the right of gun stores to do it.

That's my point. If Sarvis is defending the condom logic, he should also start defending the NRA.


There are slight differences -- such as people being born with penises and vaginas whereas guns must be purchased. So, selling the bullets would be accurate, selling and owning guns would not.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:40 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."


No, but they do fight for the right of gun stores to do it.

That's my point. If Sarvis is defending the condom logic, he should also start defending the NRA.


There are slight differences -- such as people being born with penises and vaginas whereas guns must be purchased. So, selling the bullets would be accurate, selling and owning guns would not.


Also, I do support gun ownership so....
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:13 pm

Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:There is a difference between the inability to control a child and not even trying. We don't even try anymore, we simply hand out condoms while at the same time telling 11 year olds they are able to choose to do whatever they want. I'd be much more open to handing out condoms if we were at least telling kids don't have sex.


We are. The message is, always will be, and always has been: Don't have sex, but if you do then use protection.

By that logic, the NRA must be saying "don't shoot people, but here's some guns and ammo."


No, but they do fight for the right of gun stores to do it.

That's my point. If Sarvis is defending the condom logic, he should also start defending the NRA.


There are slight differences -- such as people being born with penises and vaginas whereas guns must be purchased. So, selling the bullets would be accurate, selling and owning guns would not.

Ok, we'll go with your line of thought then, it works for me.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby kiryan » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:45 pm

So then I take it you would disagree with the advertising and marketing campaign / website Philly is engaged in. From the article

"And let's face it, sex is more fun when you're not worried about getting pregnant or getting an STD," says the website. "If you feel you and your partner are ready to have sex, it is important to use protection every time. That means using a condom -- and using it right.

== sex is fun! If you feel you and your partner are ready then go for it.

The city also launched a custom-wrapped condom, called "The Freedom Condom" to bring attention to their campaign.

== you know what they might want to try, including free toys with every condom. it worked for McDonald's so well SF banned free toys.

I heard today that the figure in Philly is 20% of 11 year olds are having sex. This article indicates that 2009 CDC put 15% of children aged 13 had already had their first sexual experience so its at least in the ball park.

Since several of you have supported encouraging kids not to have sex, I'd like to know what you propose. We've had sex ed for couple decades now at least, and even if its true that comprehensive sex ed makes kids delay having sex, the rate still seems to only go up. So what are we going to do about it? Resign ourselves to sexually active 10 year olds? 9 year olds? 5 year olds?

When do you want to do something about it and what do you suggest.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:05 am

The push for contraception and abortion is simply one advocated by the wealthy elite to ensure the population of the poor and stupid people they're taking advantage of don't reproduce enough to overwhelm their power structure.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Spending Cuts

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:53 am

kiryan wrote:When do you want to do something about it and what do you suggest.


You really still don't get it.

Comprehensive sex ed IS doing something about it. It's the most effective way to reduce teen sex.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest