Topic: Politics

[Axelgear]

But having sex with condoms is less unhealthy than smoking.

Depends on who it's with, if it breaks or not, etc. Frankly, though, that still doesn't matter; it's the same message to someone with her morality.

...and we want to encourage sexuality and display it as a natural part of human existence, not a vice.

She wants sexuality displayed as a natural part of human existence too, just not in the same way you do. She's not saying sex is somehow unnatural, just that it has a proper expression, and handing out condoms to children is not encouraging the proper expression.

People aren't naturally pre-diposed to smoking, either. It is not more or less a definite that they will smoke their first cigarette (lasting for an embarrassing mere few seconds)...

It's not a definite that people will have sex. Some are asexual, some are just downright pathetic, some physically incapable, some will never find time for it... One could argue that people aren't naturally disposed to do many things in our society, but cigarette use does arise from a natural urge and cultural (both large and small) impression.

In any case, it's an invalid argument to attempt to diminish the comparison. It's still the government advocating (tacitly, if not actively) a behaviour she finds immoral.


Re: Inkling and Munchkin;

I think you're both right; it's drivel that I cannot understand why anyone would want to watch, but to suggest it's somehow degrading to women is to suggest that Fraiser is somehow degrading to the cultured (or opera fans for that matter), or that Seinfeld is degrading to Jews, or that Everybody Loves Raymond is degrading to Italians, or that the Bernie Mac show is degrading to black people. They're caricatures, not meant to be held up as examples.

[Mr. Consideration]

People are biologically driven to smoke cigarettes?

It is safer that they have the free contraception than that they don't; and people without any governmental, cultural or social influence are still driven to have sex - simply by virtue of biology, and this actual sex drive is not attached or associated with the desire to have children as she might like.

'more-or-less' definite, I did use a qualifier for my statement. I'd estimate the overwhelming majoirty of humans have sex at some point in their lifetime. (A quick Google search hazards 4% die virgins, which is far more than I thought, but based on personal confessions and not exactly the most rigorous evidence.)

In this case, not informing children about contraception is essentially the government, by it's inaction, (if one argued that the education system is duty-bound to explain contraception to students, which I think most liberals would see as a function of the state's education policy) tacitly supporting abstinence - or more likely, unsafe sex. If she does not see inaction as the same as 'advocating', I imagine her opinion woulld change should a state exist that had not actively made homosexuality illegal.

How old are these children?

EDIT: Crappy grammar.

[Clarke]

Note that that 4% is likely including infant/child deaths.

[Mr. Consideration]

I didn't want to make that claim as I know nothing about the study at all - and the source was far from reputable. It could very well be a fabricated statistic.

[Flisch]

But having sex with condoms is less unhealthy than smoking.

Depends on who it's with, if it breaks or not, etc. Frankly, though, that still doesn't matter; it's the same message to someone with her morality.

Then something is seriously wrong with her morality - not with condoms.

[Gnoll]

Indeed. She's just sick and twisted.

[Axelgear]

People are biologically driven to smoke cigarettes?

It could be so argued. That point doesn't matter (it was only meant as an analogy, not a direct comparison); the message is the same. From the candidate's point of view, saying "Here, take condoms to have safe sex" is no different from offering "safe" cigarettes; you're telling them that a bad habit is expected and can be somehow mitigated when it shouldn't be done in the first place.

THAT is her point. No amount of safe sex education in the world can ease what is, from her view, both immoral, psychologically harmful, and culturally damaging. There's nothing somehow crazy about suggesting what is, derived from her ideas, a logically sound conclusion.

To clarify my argument here, I am not agreeing with her; I'm for sex education in schools. However, I am saying that saying that her argument is somehow crazy when it's derived logically from her beliefs is silly.

Then something is seriously wrong with her morality - not with condoms.

Oh Flisch, you appear to have tapped into the perfected understanding of the cosmos - the one true morality! Share with us, oh Mighty One, this grand gift that has eluded mankind since the beginning of its history!

Forgive the sarcasm, but saying her morality is wrong requires some backing up.

[Clarke]

If you think a group of people should be denied rights another has, then that's a pretty good indication that you're morally wrong.

[Inkling]

Just so we're clear, what group are you saying she thinks should have their rights denied?  We're bouncing around on a few different topics.

[Clarke]

Her views on homosexuality.

[eropS]

I'm sticking to my previous statement.  Women may or may not see it that way, but they should be offended by Sex and the City.  If what I've read is true, the show is about four shallow women whose lives revolve around the newest pair of $400 heels and finding the man of the week to sleep with.

The show actually empowers them as well. They are able to be independent and choose who they sleep with. She gets the shoes because she wants them. They have the sex because they want it. They lure the men because they choose to sleep with them. Its a big 'were women, we do what we want' fest.

I dunno, I kind of liked the show when i was like 12-13.

[Axelgear]

If you think a group of people should be denied rights another has, then that's a pretty good indication that you're morally wrong.

On the issue of gay marriage, most certainly; it shows her to be a hypocrite in that area. Does it make her inconsistent or wrong here? Well, it might cast doubts, but it doesn't essentially make it so. What you are doing here is suggesting that because she might be wrong in one area (there are arguments to be made on both sides in the gay marriage debate), she must be wrong in all others. That's faulty logic.



Tangentially related: I need a little tag to put at the bottom of Devil's Advocate posts, but my only current one has swearing...

[Daxx]

They should only be offended by it if they are stupid enough to think that any depiction of a woman is supposed to be a depiction of all women.

This may be the smartest thing you have ever said.

[Inkling]

And now for a topic change and a late night rant I may or may not regret in the morning.

I was talking to a couple of friends about Stewart's Restore Sanity rally, and the comments on the event from Bill O'Reilly and Ariana Huffington.  I agreed with O'Reilly's stance on the event much more than Huffington's.  O'Reilly said (in of course a very snarky way) that he wouldn't attend because he would draw his own people.  His point was for this to be Stewart's and Colbert's events, not to have it overshadowed and the message muddled by other big names.  Ariana Huffington, on the other hand, will bus in as many New Yorkers as want to come.  The founder of the Huffington Post told Stewart, "You worry about the message, let me handle the logistics."  I start to worry.  I was hoping for this to be at least a semi non-partisan event.  But if one of the major liberal blog sites is endorsing this in such a major way, that non-partisanship is in serious jeopardy.

So what so I see before I go to bed tonight?  The freaking President has given the event a thumbs up!
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0910/plea_for_sanity_4def9ab8-7a8d-4d90-aaf3-2d55ac9d743a.html

Dammit Obama, you don't have to weigh in on every single issue.  You did this with that black professor who got arrested, you had to tell us what you thought of Kanye West.  You're the Freaking President, you should be above commenting on certain things.  This will hit the news cycle tomorrow and any chance of these rallies being portrayed as neutral, as not a liberal/democratic event, just got shot straight to hell.

[Mr. Consideration]

Is it crazy to base your philosophy on logical thought within an innately illogical framework? (faith)