Mockingbird 0 #876 December 10, 2006 I'm very serious. The history of syphillus has nothing to do with worthy expectations. All you're saying is that not everyone lived up to society's expectations; that goes without saying.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #877 December 11, 2006 >I think it's worse to tell people you can trust condoms 100% and give >them a false sense of security. I'm glad we don't take such an approach in skydiving! Imagine not teaching students how to use a reserve because sometimes they fail. "Hey, if you want to be safe - just don't jump rigs that are going to malfunction!" >The results-- huge increase in std's . . . You do realize that there are fewer serious cases of STD's today than there were 200 years ago, right? Syphilis used to kill a lot of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #878 December 11, 2006 The point of your analogy was what? Quote>The results-- huge increase in std's . . .> You do realize that there are fewer serious cases of STD's today than there were 200 years ago, right? Syphilis used to kill a lot of people. Or course it did. Used to be incurable. But now we have antibiotics, condoms, and education. It is avoidable, but can be treated, if contracted. However, I stand by my original point--- that a monogamous sexual relationship (you know, as in commitment) is the only sure prevention of STDs, provided neither enters the relationship already infected. (edited to add: "of STDs")Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,274 #879 December 11, 2006 Quote The point of your analogy was what? . . . However, I stand by my original point--- that a monogamous sexual relationship (you know, as in commitment) is the only sure prevention of STDs, provided neither enters the relationship already infected. That is true. But the rate of success in making people be monogamous is, and always has been unacceptably low. People do not sleep around because they have condoms, people sleep around because they are people. Condoms make it much less likely that they will spread diseases like HIV in the process. When an authority like the Vatican wades in saying "Meh, don't bother with those, they don't help at all" and waving around false 'scientific' data then that is a major problem. How can you defend that?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #880 December 11, 2006 QuoteAre you saying that marital-sex-only is an unrealistic goal?For one person, it's a realistic goal. On a social scale, without draconian laws and moral enforcement (e.g. puritan or taliban-style enforcement), it's completely unrealistic. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #881 December 11, 2006 Are you saying that marital-sex-only is an unrealistic goal? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteFor one person, it's a realistic goal. On a social scale, without draconian laws and moral enforcement (e.g. puritan or taliban-style enforcement), it's completely unrealistic. The stove is hot, don't touch it. I told you so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #882 December 11, 2006 QuoteExpecting abstinence until marriage didn't use to be asking or expecting too much from people! Yeah. Its dead easy when you get hitched up at 13!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #883 December 11, 2006 Where is the semi-quasi-christ in this thread? did he go away? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #884 December 11, 2006 >The point of your analogy was what? Do you really think skydiving would be safer if we did NOT teach skydiving students how to use their reserve? Because following your train of reasoning, telling them that their reserve exists will lead them to rely on something that is not 100% reliable. >that a monogamous sexual relationship (you know, as >in commitment) is the only sure prevention of STDs . . . Well, no. A lot of STD's can be passed on by other methods (blood transfusions, needle sharing by drug users.) Abstinence/monogamy with only one partner is a very good way to avoid STD's but is not 100% effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #885 December 12, 2006 QuoteThat is true. But the rate of success in making people be monogamous is, and always has been unacceptably low. People do not sleep around because they have condoms, people sleep around because they are people. Condoms make it much less likely that they will spread diseases like HIV in the process. See, I just disagree with you about this. Being monogamous hasn't always been unacceptably low. People sleep around because society says it's OK, "If it feels good, do it." If it became unacceptable, as it used to be (not that no one did it, but it was NOTHING like what you see today), people would show restraint. I especially disagree with the idea that "people sleep around because they are people." This is a low view of human beings. We can be better than that. We are capable of being honorable and ethical and commited. But if you tell people, "Well, you're just people-- basically animals without self control or scruples-- you'll want to have sex with who-knows-how-many different people, and you may want it so badly that you won't be able to resist; so just go ahead and do it, but don't forget your condom!", then they'll think: "COOL! I don't have to try to be a better person." Which I guess is what you believe. (I mean, that's what it sounds like you believe.) Human beings are capable of being and doing better.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #886 December 12, 2006 QuoteI especially disagree with the idea that "people sleep around because they are people." This is a low view of human beings. We are wired to like sex. We're wired to like sex a lot. Maybe more than anything else. Orgasms feel good for a reason. The only thing we have to do before we die is pass on our genetic code. If we fail to do that, we are evolutionary failures, no matter how great our contributions to society.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #887 December 12, 2006 QuoteFor one person, it's a realistic goal. On a social scale, without draconian laws and moral enforcement (e.g. puritan or taliban-style enforcement), it's completely unrealistic. I disagree. Once again. sexual self-control isn't unrealistic. And no, your draconian laws and moral enforcement aren't necessary! Boy, you make it sound like we, as human beings, are so morally weak and helpless that we'd need LAWS in order to curb our passions! Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #888 December 12, 2006 > (not that no one did it, but it was NOTHING like what you see today) Believe it or not, our generation has not invented sex, promiscuity or hedonism. You want sheer debauchery? Check out Rome towards the end of the Roman Empire. More recent example? The flappers of the roaring 20's were famous for their sexual excesses. (Google "petting parties.") If anything, civilization moves in cycles. The 20's and 60's were very free and open times; everyone seemed to be having sex with everyone. The 40's and 50's were pretty repressed. The 80's and 90's saw a retreat to conservatism, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way again. Fear not. In another few decades, your kids will be lamenting how everyone is so uptight about sex nowadays, and how everyone has these boring old-fashioned morals. And the cycle will repeat again. >We can be better than that. We are capable of being honorable and >ethical and commited. Absolutely. > they'll think: "COOL! I don't have to try to be a better person." People are not that dumb. Telling people that condoms can help prevent STD's is no different than telling them that an airbag or seatbelt can save their life. Would you purposely not tell your children about airbags and seatbelts in the hopes that they will make better decisions as drivers? (After all, if they know airbags will save them, maybe they'll just plain drive into walls for fun!) >Human beings are capable of being and doing better. Yes they are. And the more they know, the better they are able to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #889 December 12, 2006 QuoteDo you really think skydiving would be safer if we did NOT teach skydiving students how to use their reserve? Of course not. QuoteBecause following your train of reasoning, telling them that their reserve exists will lead them to rely on something that is not 100% reliable. Sorry, you've lost me. I've never said anything like this. There's no reason that people shouldn't be told about condoms, etc. But your reserve is a last resort. You don't make it a habit to deploy your reserve unless you're in trouble... or unless you assume that you're too morally weak to deploy your main.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #890 December 12, 2006 >There's no reason that people shouldn't be told about condoms, etc. OK. You seemed to suggest otherwise a bit further back when you defended the church's actions concerning condom usage. Guess I misunderstood you, sorry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #891 December 12, 2006 QuoteWe are wired to like sex. We're wired to like sex a lot. Maybe more than anything else. Orgasms feel good for a reason. The only thing we have to do before we die is pass on our genetic code. If we fail to do that, we are evolutionary failures, no matter how great our contributions to society. Agreed. But being wired to enjoy sex doesn't mean that we HAVE no control. Sex in the right context IS a good thing... and yes, extreeeeemely enjoyable. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #892 December 12, 2006 QuoteOK. You seemed to suggest otherwise a bit further back when you defended the church's actions concerning condom usage. Guess I misunderstood you, sorry. 'S OK. Like I said, I can't defend Rome's actions or dogma because I'm not Catholic. Half the time I don't even know what's going on in those circles. What I did say was that it would be just as bad or worse to tell people that condoms are foolproof and can be counted on 100%. That would lead to rampant reserve deployments. And then it's too late to cut away if the reserve fails. Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #893 December 12, 2006 Quote>Human beings are capable of being and doing better. Yes they are. And the more they know, the better they are able to do. The more they know, the better they are able to do. And the higher we set the bar, the better quality they'll be.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #894 December 12, 2006 QuoteBut being wired to enjoy sex doesn't mean that we HAVE no control. Over a period of time, in a large population, yes, it means we have no control. At the individual level that control may exist in some people, but it is unrealistic to expect that control to exist in all people. QuoteSex in the right context IS a good thing... and yes, extreeeeemely enjoyable. Like when Clinton got a blowjob? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #895 February 11, 2007 LOST! Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gontleman 0 #896 February 11, 2007 QuoteLOST!Now you're just trying to stir things up again. You bumped both of the "and proud of it" threads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #897 February 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteLOST!Now you're just trying to stir things up again. You bumped both of the "and proud of it" threads. Thomas Jefferson-"The christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man."we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #898 December 21, 2007 Who's been poking a stick in the hornets nest? It's so fun isn't it. It seems more and more that I was right though in my gut instinct. This planet and all of existance while we are on the subject is in fact 'NOT' centred around human beings. Pretty plain and simple really isn't it. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #899 December 21, 2007 QuoteWho's been poking a stick in the hornets nest? It's so fun isn't it. It seems more and more that I was right though in my gut instinct. This planet and all of existance while we are on the subject is in fact 'NOT' centred around human beings. Pretty plain and simple really isn't itSo what you're saying is that the universe and the Earth will run just fine without our help? How self centered of us to think that we can actually control it, but then, that's another religion all by itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,675 #900 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteWho's been poking a stick in the hornets nest? It's so fun isn't it. It seems more and more that I was right though in my gut instinct. This planet and all of existance while we are on the subject is in fact 'NOT' centred around human beings. Pretty plain and simple really isn't itSo what you're saying is that the universe and the Earth will run just fine without our help? How self centered of us to think that we can actually control it, but then, that's another religion all by itself. You are right. The Earth will do just fine after we have destroyed ourselves. The Earth and the Universe care not whether our species lives or dies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
