I was actually planning to post a joke comment about the environmental dangers of "stealing" water from mother nature. Ah well, it wouldn't have been funny, anyway...
And the thing that stands between that useful and needed knowledge and our kids, is religious groups who think that knowing actual facts is the same as being brainwashed into sexual deviance.
I disagree. I think the problem is twofold: the prudish reactionaries don't want to talk about sex at all (I can't imagine how there could be so many of them in the U.S., though...but then, I'm not American), while the "liberals" insist on contraceptive-use. No one wants to compromise, so you Americans end up the way you are. That's why I think both sides of the religious debate is at fault. If only you'd agree on educating your children about sex first (i.e. the biological, social, legal aspects of it), without teaching them how to safely live against their religious beliefs, maybe there will be progress.
Yes, I know that there will be kids who'd want to do it regardless of what they are taught. We can go on and on debating about how to deal with those people, but that won't get us anywhere. Start with a compromise first, and then you can move your way up from there.
Then's who's fault is it? Guess? Anyone? The parents!
Exactly. It's a bit more complicated than that, but did you think I'd disagree?
Us? Point fingers? Who just pointed their finger?
Look, the whole point was that I am offended when atheists wrongfully point at religion everytime believers do something wrong (and contrary to their religion). Simple as that. Are you going to argue that I shouldn't be offended? Man...
About the rest of your reply, boy, don't you have the talent of putting Fundamentalist crap in my mouth and deriding me based on those planted crap. Unless you're going to argue that I can't have negative views of people I disagree with (not to say that they're necessarily going to hell; read the Cathecism, will you?), that's all I'm going to say.
Of course preaching is not enough! Why do you think I disagree with your condom-preaching? You talk about having pre-marital sex as "one of the reasons they're doing it". So? Do we fix the problem of rebelliousness by adding another taboo for them to break? When it becomes normal for parents to nag their children not to have sex w/o condoms, that will be another thing for the adventurous ones to do. Besides, as you say, they can always ask Dad for child-support. So what the heck is the difference?
Education is enough for people who have sense. Nothing, not even the PowerPoint presentations of the more-liberal-than-thou sex-ed teachers, is enough for those without sense.
Let me clarify things for you. I don't object (not too much, anyway) if certain poor souls want to engage in consensual and legal fornication. I don't even see why I should care about them using condoms, since that'll just add to an already existing wrong. People have the right to do legal yet stupid things, even when they are wrong in doing so.
What I object to is when these people make the mistake of getting pregnant without wanting to, and then guys like you start blaming it on religion. I mean, if I was going to break my religion's teachings, I wouldn't do it half-assed and get myself into trouble. Only a dimwit would say "God, I'm sorry I fucked her, but at least I didn't use a condom".
As I say, even though it's likely that reactionary Christians are at fault for the lack of awareness in kids by banning all talk about sex, the emphasis is on reactionary. Atheists could prevent the spread of knowledge just as much as theists, and many atheists do... mainly by their incessant finger-pointing.
The first step is to slow down the number of unwanted pregnancies, and that takes education, and that takes contraception
I think we might agree that proper education is enough for the first step. Also, I'm quite sure the Church (well, the Catholic Church, at least) doesn't mind teens knowing that having sex will most probably lead to pregnancy. Nor does the Church mind kids learning some basic Economics that should deter them from wanting to have babies too soon. So I'm pretty sure your anti-religious statements about the big bad church's "method of dealing with the problem" and how religion's "anti-sex ed" is part of the problem is just plain bullshit.
It's not religion. It's just plain ol' White American reactionism, stupid.
Um, you sure someone who had access to your PC and who knew your password (or was very lucky) didn't delete those messages just for fun? Of course, it might be Google's fault, but it really is odd that no one else seems to have experienced your problem...
Slashdot Mirror
I for one welcome our new open-sourced robotic overlords.
What, "The Billgate Scandal"?
I was actually planning to post a joke comment about the environmental dangers of "stealing" water from mother nature. Ah well, it wouldn't have been funny, anyway...
I was eating chips when I read that!
I disagree. I think the problem is twofold: the prudish reactionaries don't want to talk about sex at all (I can't imagine how there could be so many of them in the U.S., though...but then, I'm not American), while the "liberals" insist on contraceptive-use. No one wants to compromise, so you Americans end up the way you are. That's why I think both sides of the religious debate is at fault. If only you'd agree on educating your children about sex first (i.e. the biological, social, legal aspects of it), without teaching them how to safely live against their religious beliefs, maybe there will be progress.
Yes, I know that there will be kids who'd want to do it regardless of what they are taught. We can go on and on debating about how to deal with those people, but that won't get us anywhere. Start with a compromise first, and then you can move your way up from there.
Exactly. It's a bit more complicated than that, but did you think I'd disagree?
Look, the whole point was that I am offended when atheists wrongfully point at religion everytime believers do something wrong (and contrary to their religion). Simple as that. Are you going to argue that I shouldn't be offended? Man...
About the rest of your reply, boy, don't you have the talent of putting Fundamentalist crap in my mouth and deriding me based on those planted crap. Unless you're going to argue that I can't have negative views of people I disagree with (not to say that they're necessarily going to hell; read the Cathecism, will you?), that's all I'm going to say.
Of course preaching is not enough! Why do you think I disagree with your condom-preaching? You talk about having pre-marital sex as "one of the reasons they're doing it". So? Do we fix the problem of rebelliousness by adding another taboo for them to break? When it becomes normal for parents to nag their children not to have sex w/o condoms, that will be another thing for the adventurous ones to do. Besides, as you say, they can always ask Dad for child-support. So what the heck is the difference?
Education is enough for people who have sense. Nothing, not even the PowerPoint presentations of the more-liberal-than-thou sex-ed teachers, is enough for those without sense.
Let me clarify things for you. I don't object (not too much, anyway) if certain poor souls want to engage in consensual and legal fornication. I don't even see why I should care about them using condoms, since that'll just add to an already existing wrong. People have the right to do legal yet stupid things, even when they are wrong in doing so.
What I object to is when these people make the mistake of getting pregnant without wanting to, and then guys like you start blaming it on religion. I mean, if I was going to break my religion's teachings, I wouldn't do it half-assed and get myself into trouble. Only a dimwit would say "God, I'm sorry I fucked her, but at least I didn't use a condom".
As I say, even though it's likely that reactionary Christians are at fault for the lack of awareness in kids by banning all talk about sex, the emphasis is on reactionary. Atheists could prevent the spread of knowledge just as much as theists, and many atheists do... mainly by their incessant finger-pointing.
I think we might agree that proper education is enough for the first step. Also, I'm quite sure the Church (well, the Catholic Church, at least) doesn't mind teens knowing that having sex will most probably lead to pregnancy. Nor does the Church mind kids learning some basic Economics that should deter them from wanting to have babies too soon. So I'm pretty sure your anti-religious statements about the big bad church's "method of dealing with the problem" and how religion's "anti-sex ed" is part of the problem is just plain bullshit.
It's not religion. It's just plain ol' White American reactionism, stupid.
Old fart.
Which would be deleted as well. D'oh!
Um, you sure someone who had access to your PC and who knew your password (or was very lucky) didn't delete those messages just for fun? Of course, it might be Google's fault, but it really is odd that no one else seems to have experienced your problem...