Over the weekend Obama said that if his daughters made a "mistake" (meaning having a baby) he would not want them to be punished with a kid.
Exact quote:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
After listening to that I literally want to kick his ass.
I guess that is what it takes to support abortion, consider kids punishments.
Ever consider adoption?
How the hell can you vote for such a jerk?
Add this to the list...
as far as media bias...
maybe the liberal media doesn't care because they must value life so little as well...
But pretend they do value life and a Republican said this, it would be front page news for WEEKS...
The media should be ashamed and this shows why liberal media bias is so helpful to Dems...
If they reported on Obama like McCain, Obama would be done...period.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Obama thinks kids are a punishment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
I've heard that expression before by abortion advocates. It's sickening. But this is the really goofy part:
"...I am going to teach them first about values and morals..."
Those poor girls. Barry needs to learn about values and morals first before he can teach them.
Actually, I want to kick your ass for taking things out of context.
First of all, he was referring to his own children. If he thought kids were punishment, as you have pathetically interpretted, he wouldn't have had kids! Secondly, he was talking about having safe sex to avoid STD and unwanted pregnancy.
It's pathetic to see how right-wing has turned this into an abortion issue!! LOL Sorry, dude!
Obama is pro-abortion. He even voted against the "born-alive" act. How can any parent hear his stupid diatribes and still vote for him is beyond me.
Never fear, Game listened to Obama for 10 minutes. I'm sure he presented the comments in full comments, especially since he neglected to provide a link to these quotes.
Everyone should disagree with Obama on this one...sorry to hear that you don't...how sad are you.
In Springfield, Barack Obama voted NO on SB 1661 (2002). This was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Planned Parenthoods often will induce a birth, just to let a 6 or 7mo fetus die on a table. This mean and vicious act is a crime against humanity -- my sister was born prematurely at 7mo, miraculously survived through medical care, and now is a total babe with a career on the East coast.
Barack Hussein Obama supports this procedure. He is the filth of the filth.
no you are!
Words mean things! What Obama said, was nothing more than a calculation - ”punished”.
By saying this, he solidifies himself amongst many liberals. The kind of person whom doesn’t want to “suck it up and do what’s right” when faced with ones actions. And/or the kind of person who needs justification to do that which they know deep down inside is so very, very wrong. Obama is in essence saying “elect me, I’ll give you confirmation and justification!”
So for him it was a calculated risk, with much to gain (more Hillary supporters), and little to lose - those that know him for what he is, including those strong in perceptual skills, whom he had little chance of winning over to start with.
Of course it all boils down to those whom have a basic understanding of underlying reasons for “the way things are” versus the legions of those whom walk this earth in a perpetual haze. Kind of a conservative versus liberal philosophy “thing”. I think we all know which side Obama comes down on.
Yes, Obama's anti-life views and his stupid racist pastor should make people shudder.
Blamin's comment reminds me of William Burroughs' story about the man who taught his rectal sphincter to talk.
In the context of this comment, he was discussing the importance of educating our children about the dangers of unprotected sex, knowlege that the republiecans would love to see suppressed.
It is obvious to the 70% of Americans that aren't rabid unthinking partisans that he was not saying that children are a punshment, in view of the fact that he went on to refer to his daughters as miracles.
Anyone who is not an IDIOT can see that he was saying that
-An unplanned, unwanted pregnancy can FEEL like punishment to a teenage girl who neglected to protect herself with contraceptives due to the republiecan-enabled ignorance of sexual health and reproduction.
-Democrats are the ones that are enabling teens to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS by educating them to make wise choices, for example, by living in the real world, where teenagers WILL HAVE SEX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THEM NOT TO.
By living in an "abstinence only" fantasy world, you have abdicated your responsibility to teach teens how to make responsible decisions. THIS IS EVIDENT BY THE MUCH HIGER PREGNANCY RATES IN STATES THAT HAVE ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION.
Now, you are trying to pretend that a teenage girl that gets pregnant is not going to feel "punished" by bad decisions made in ignorance, an ignorance that republiecan policies enabled, enforced and spread
"WILL HAVE SEX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THEM NOT TO"
Typical liberal attitude. The only evil in the world comes from those who try to do good, right?
"An unplanned, unwanted pregnancy can FEEL like punishment"
We're not talking about feelings. Either a pregnancy is a punishment, or it is not. Logic is binary. Liberal-emotobabble has no place in the real world.
By the way, how can you defend sex education for KINDERGARTEN like your Lord and Savior Barack Hussein? You people are taking the sexual liberation agenda WAY to far.
We'll see if middle America really agrees with this during the fall. I suspect they don't, since the Democrat media is keeping America in the dark about Hussein's voting record in Springfield.
Realism,
Very humorous, especially coming from a man (?) who taught his mouth to defecate as evidenced by practically every comment you’ve left on this blog.
Our society has always encouraged abstinence amoung the young. It’s nothing new, no matter how much you believe your personal experiences and perceptions are new or unique (a common failing among those who are history challenged).
What is new over the past several decades, and it just so happens to coincide with the rise in teen pregnancy rates is the permissiveness encouraged and actively promoted by the more left leaning members of those considered influential in our society. The same persons who wish to abolish responsibility when it comes to immoral behavior and promote a feeling of “if it feels good do it” because an easy way out has been provided. They attempt to redefine immoral behavior as acceptable, while simultaneously “re-educating” the public to believe a horrendous solution is perfectly normal, even desired!
Jason’s use of the word “filth” is a very appropriate way to describe these fiends.
We all know some teenagers “WILL HAVE SEX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THEM NOT TO”, you have to ask yourself, what is more beneficial to society? Discouraging or encouraging destructive behavior.
"It is obvious to the 70% of Americans that aren't rabid unthinking partisans that he was not saying that children are a punshment..."
Two things about this comment:
1. When did you poll the nation to arrive at this figure?
2. He did indeed say that having the child would be a punishment for the mistake of getting pregnant. What kind of idiot pretends there's a contextual problem here? Unwanted? Unplanned? "Yeah, I pointed the loaded gun at the dude's head and pulled the trigger. But I didn't plan to kill him. His death was unwanted." One engages in the very act designed for procreation and then says the pregnancy was unplanned? Typical liberal abdication. Kids who "have sex anyway" don't believe they are accountable to anyone for their actions. They lack discipline in controlling their emotions and desires. They have no real sense of right and wrong in regards to intimate relations. They are usually raised by nincompoops who themselves were lacking all of the above and thus never had morals and values passed on to them.
As an antidote to the stupid, racist, Wright, I have been reading Clarence Thomas' book, "My Grandfather's Son." It is so inspiring and hopeful. This wonderful American transcends race.
When Vernon Jordan, the former head of the Urban League called him to declare him an "Uncle Tom" and urged him to develop a constituency, Thomas balked that he doesn't need one. He told him that he did not "care to use the woes of my people to advance my own career." (p. 183)
Oh, I wish that he could run for Preseident!!!!
"Typical liberal attitude. The only evil in the world comes from those who try to do good, right?"
Typical republiecan response - a non sequitur paired with an absolute.
"We're not talking about feelings. Either a pregnancy is a punishment, or it is not. Logic is binary. Liberal-emotobabble has no place in the real world."
Just because you are not capable of thinking beyond narrow absurd dualities, doesn't mean that the rest of us are unable to use our more highly developed thinking skills.
You obviously didn't think that comment out, because it's obvious that there are many things that are could be punishment to one person and pleasure to another.
Please stop trying to spread your ignorance. Binary logic is one form, however, there is also Trivalent logic and fuzzy logic. I'm sure you aren't familiar with the native Americans in the Andes whose language structure is built around trivalent logic. But I digress
The point is, you republiecans live in an ego infested fantasy world where saying something makes it so.
We live in the real world where teenagers (and Iraqi politicians) don't always do what you want them to do. Rather than just ordering them to not have sex, we like to, you know, EDUCATE our children to the risks and harms of sex outside of marriage. Then, we give them the tools and knowledge to NOT GET PREGNANT.
Your party's ignorant "abstinence only" outlook creates higher rates of unwanted pregnancy.
But that's ok. You are more concerned with picking and choosing which antiquated moral codes you want to follow than with actually raising healthy, well adjusted children.
And regarding the kindergarten sex-ed slur against Obama, all I can say is that Jason Boden is a sick pervert. It has been pointed out numerous times that the context was teaching kids to understand that some kinds of touching are wrong and that they need to tell an adult if someone touches them in a certain way.
Sick craven liars like Jason would love to have people believe that Obama wants all 5 year olds to learn how to put on condoms without using their hands.
Americans are waking up finally and seeing these evil tactics for what they are.
And to Blamin - what is more beneficial to society? Discouraging or encouraging destructive behavior.
Obviously, discouraging destructive behavior is beneficial. That's why liberals are DISCOURAGING unprotected sex (destructive behavior). You republiecans, by ignoring the issue, are allowing it to happen far too often, as evidenced by the higher teen pregnancy rates in the 'red' states.
The sex education issue is very complicated.
I agree, for those who ONLY want to teach abstinence, that is not going to work.
I also agree that if you are a liberal and ONLY want to teach about contraception you are ENCOURAGING poor behavior.
Some say it is sending mixed messages, but starting in about 5th or 6th grade with a strong abstinence program WORK...as the years go on you can add contraception but CONTINUE abstinence.
I did research on this, and the kids who had abstinence classes in middle school had better attitudes regarding sex and waiting longer.
The point some conservatives are making is that liberals give up and want to take the easy way out (as usual).
it's easier to just give up and not even talk about abstinence...just put a condom on a banana be done with it.
That is not helpful at all.
Realism...if you are saying abstinence should be a big part of sex education, even early on, but you just don't agree that contraception should NEVER be taught, then I agree with you.
I don't think that there are ANY credible liberals saying that we shouldn't be discouraging kids from having sex. Even when they are physically ready to have sex, they are almost never ready emotionally, even if they think they are.
realism--
There is a clear reason why some civilizations never got beyond primitive savagery, while others produced men like Euler and Newton.
States of affairs either obtain, or they do not. As a result, propositions either correspond to reality, or they do not. There is a difference between imagination and thought-- you definitely confuse the two. You think because you can imagine something, then it is.
I am fully aware of what fuzzy logic is. I consider myself an empiricist and a Bayesian.
The problem with you throwing out words like "fuzzy logic" to justify your personal refusal to think is that fuzzy logic itself depends on a precise idea of set membership. Suppose an arbitrary set membership function, we'll call it μ(x), had a value of 0.7. The question then becomes -- is that true? Well, yes. And one needs to reason on classical logic in order to make any program or machine based on fuzzy logic possible. You can't assign the function μ(x) the values of 0.7 and 0.6 simultaneously and expect a program or machine built on this idea of class inclusion not to crash.
Philosophers like Reichenbach, who tried to reduce truth to probability, face the same problem. For anything to be probable, something must be certain, including the principles on which probability theory is based.
What really makes me really cringe is when people draw wild conclusions from quantum theory. An electron fired through a double-slit appears to interfere with itself when we consider its likely trajectory. Hippies infer from this that the electron does not exist! Nothing is real! Strawberry fields forever!
"Your party's ignorant "abstinence only" outlook creates higher rates of unwanted pregnancy."
This view is completely ignorant of history, as Thomas Sowell noted in Vision of the Anointed. The facts show before the sex educators arrived on the scene, fertility rates among teenage girls had actually been declining for more than a decade since 1957. The rate of infection for gonorrhea declined every year from 1950 through 1959, and the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950.
Critics had opposed sex education programs on the grounds of common sense, claiming that sex education would lead to more sexual activity, not less, and to more teenage pregnancy.
What were the results of sex ed? As sex education programs spread, between 1970 and 1984 birth rates rose 29% among unmarried 15- to 17-year-old girls. There was a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled during the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974. The percentage of unmarried teenage girls who had engaged in sex was higher at every age from 15 through 19 by 1976, than it was just five years earlier. The rate of teenage gonorrhea tripled between 1956 and 1975.
As usual, liberal programs generated the exact OPPOSITE result of the explicit goal of their programs. And as usual, the conservatives who predicted the result are scapegoated for liberal failure. Progressives are enemies of change -- they have an interest in keeping the status quo.
i'm live in a fairly liberal area. our middle school teaches sex education based on the premise of "postponing sexual involvement." that is abstinence. but the curriculum also teaches safe sex practices.
i agree with realism that no credible liberal eschews the teaching of abstinence.
realism wrote - "Blamin's comment reminds me of William Burroughs' story about the man who taught his rectal sphincter to talk."
One of the funniest lines I read over here...especially knowing how 'blamin' responds on issues!!
Well, coming back to the point - I still can't believe rightwing doesn't get the point. Yes, Obama is for pro-choice. But, this perticular comment was in reference to 'safe sex'. I guess, you will never get it unless it comes from one of the republicans.
Realism,
It’s time to face the music. If there were truly any credible liberals discouraging teen sex, they’d also be trying to do something about the constant bombardment of imagery we subject our young to. Instead they attempt to defend it.
It’s like you send a naked nubile young lady into a room full of horndog young boys and have her say “wait to have sex”. Then you pat yourselves on the back, congratulating each other on all you do to discourage teen sex.
Remarkable!
hey blamin! are you for free speech or not?
"hey blamin! are you for free speech or not?"
I know I am, if by free speech you mean what the founders meant. The right of free speech was to enable us to criticize the government and to express ourselves in the public square, not for the purpose of saying "FUCK" in the movies, or showing naked women (as enjoyable as that might be).
This whole concept of kids being unable to control themselves is absolute crap. In the area of sex, they are indeed made to believe that engaging in sexual behavior is acceptable. But if we were to return to the notion of higher moral standards in our media and entertainment, as well as in our education at home and in schools, and more importantly if we as adults lived by those higher moral standards, the kids will follow as they do in every other area of life.
anon,
Nothing is absolute.
except your opinions, of course.
Ah grasshopper, I can understand your confusion.
But, there’s a big difference between assuredness and inflexibility.
And one needs to reason on classical logic in order to make any program or machine...
There is the heart of your faulty reasoning. Humans are not computers. Your limited, reductionist mindset seeks to simplify the whole of human interaction into a series of absolutes.
To understand whether the proposition that Obama was implying (unwanted pregnancy is a punishment), you need to recognize what the "precise idea of set membership" is in this situation. The set membership is the state of punishment. To add precision to this state, we need to identify properties of this state. I think that we can all agree that punishment can be physical or emotional. We should also be able to agree that punishment is a negative consequence of actions in response to some sort of law, rule or code.
Now that we have established your sacred "precision", we can turn our attention to whether this proposition "correspond[s] to reality" or not.
Can a woman with an unwanted pregnancy suffer emotionally - Yes
Can a woman with an unwanted pregnancy suffer physically - Yes
Does this suffering occur due to a negative consequence of actions in response to some sort of law, rule or code - Yes, whether you want to refer to the laws of nature or some religious or moral laws, the woman's actions were the cause (except, of course, in the case of rape or incest).
Now, obviously, some women are not going to experience "suffering" as a result of the unwanted pregnancy, so they would not be members of this class. But, we can see that to claim that it is impossible for an unwanted pregnancy to be punishment is foolish.
But at least someone was willing to refute your B.S. like that slur about Obama and sex ed for kindergarteners.
This view is completely ignorant of history, as Thomas Sowell noted in Vision of the Anointed. The facts show before the sex educators arrived on the scene, fertility rates among teenage girls had actually been declining for more than a decade since 1957... As sex education programs spread, between 1970 and 1984 birth rates rose 29% among unmarried 15- to 17-year-old girls. There was a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled during the same period.
Of course, citing higher pregnancy rates tells us nothing about the relative benefits of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex ed.
The only way to really get an accurate idea of which program works better is to compare statistics for states that have the two different programs.
Of the 5 states with the highest teen pregnancy rates, all 5 are have sex education programs that are legally required to stress abstinence, and none of them are required to cover contraception.
Of the 5 states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, 4 of them cover abstinence and contraception equally. The 5th mandates that they stress abstinence, but also covers contraception.
In addition, your comments illustrate that you are more concerned with imposing your moral code (American Taliban) than with making sure that our children are educated. Your entire view of the sex ed debate seems focused on preventing pregnancy. However, reducing STD infection rates is also important to those of us who care about children. Teenagers have the highest rates of STD infection. 25% of teenagers have been infected with some STD.
Comprehensive sex ed is vastly more effective at reducing STD rates than abstinence only.
So, yeah, another comment by Jason, another easily-disproved lie.
Realism, I could be more on your side regarding this issue if you could tone down the person attack stuff (and no, I don't care if someone else did it first).
Abstinence only in HS is not effective...okay, you happy with that.
this is MY field, MY job. I wrote a 100 page thesis research paper on this EXACT topic.
Realism, write back and address these points one at a time.
1. A strong abstinence program in the middle school grades is effective at changing attitudes regarding abstinence in later years. My research showed that kids who had abstinence only or a strong focus on abstinence before high school were much more open to the concept of waiting longer to engage in sex. They understood how tramatic it can be, they understand that a kid is not a fun new toy, they understand that sex at a young age with someone almost always ends that relationship.
2. Therefore, the conservative idea of abstinence only is correct for the middle school crowd. It seems like liberals don't even want to try...but kids do listen to this stuff if it is started early enough and is consistant.
3. I agree that contraception needs to be added in high school, maybe 8th grade as well. My research showed that the kids who got BOTH abstinence AND contraception in high school had a more complete understanding about the consequences of sex but also a better understanding on how to not get pregnant. Around 60% of kids will have sex in HS, and they need to know the facts and not the stupid crap they learn on the street.
4. I have the exact same stats you cite when trying to compare abstinence only states to comprehensive states. I would argue that is not a good arguement since different states have much different cultures and groups of people. An effective stat would look at kids from the same state and similar demographic.
I agree with your comment, Game. In middle school, parents and teachers have a lot more influence with kids, whereas older teens are more influenced by their (horny, inexperienced, know-it-all) peers.
What concerns me more, however, is the sexualization of EVERYTHING in American culture today. Looking dispassionately at the culture, you can see that everything from children's toys to tv news is using subconscious and not-so-subconscious sexuality to gain market share.
I think that part of the reason is that the marketplace is the only strong structure in our society today. Obviously, sex sells, and it always has. But, in the past, we had other influences working to balance out the base pleasures offered by the market.
For example, we had strong families to help nurture emotionally healthy indivduals, a functioning educational system to help develop the intellect, relevant religious institutions to instill spirituality.
Today, there is just the "Free Market" with its focus on physical gratification. And since the commercial media controls so much of what our children see, and since they are committed to using sexual imagery to maximize demand, it is an obvious outcome that children will be engaging in sexual activity more often and at an earlier age.
realism--
"There is the heart of your faulty reasoning."
You miss the irony of your statement. Is my statement absolutely false? If it isn't, then I speak truth. If it is, then you recognize truth and falsehood come in only one flavor.
I suspect what you fear is not really the absolute, since you people have no problem denouncing Bush and the pro-democracy elements in Iraq is the most absolute terms. What you're against is intolerance -- if not all perspectives are true, then some must be false, and that is unfair. In addition, liberals think all evil comes from people who think they have the truth. Therefore it is better not to think one is right at all, and just denounce those who do.
That's the premise of sex education. It isn't about obtaining some utilitarian goal -- you people failed on your own terms decades ago. Our culture is still feeling the fallout from the relentless free love crusade pushed by moron educators and the socialists in Hollywood. In short, sex ed is about about instilling the message that anything goes and removing any sort of standard.
And Obama wants to make sure he gets them when they're in Kindergarten. That's SICK. If Obama was really pushing for making kids wary of stranger-dangers, he would have said so plainly. But liberals are responsible for nothing-- not their own words, and not their own positions.
For the record, my ontological mindset is anti-reductionist. I believe in calling a spade a spade, rather than claim two different realities are magically the same. This spans philosophy of mind to politics -- the soul is not the brain, international capitalism is not national socialism, etc.
jason said:
you people failed on your own terms decades ago. Our culture is still feeling the fallout from the relentless free love crusade pushed by moron educators and the socialists in Hollywood
wow...that is perfect
Jason says:
"You miss the irony of your statement. Is my statement absolutely false? If it isn't, then I speak truth. If it is, then you recognize truth and falsehood come in only one flavor."
regarding this:
"And one needs to reason on classical logic in order to make any program or machine...
There is the heart of your faulty reasoning."
As a web application developer, I wouldn't say that your statement is false, rather, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Humans are not machines. If I pass an argument to two instances of the same function, the results will be the same, so in that instance, you are correct. But human beings are not computers, and they are not ruled by the confines of binary logic. That is the fallacy in your reasoning.
"What you're against is intolerance -- if not all perspectives are true, then some must be false, and that is unfair."
The egotism in that statement is breathtaking. The reason that I am more tolerant than you is because I recognize that there are SOME situations where, although I may have a strong opinion, I am not egotistical and callous enough to pass judgement on someone else.
In addition, liberals think all evil comes from people who think they have the truth. Therefore it is better not to think one is right at all, and just denounce those who do.
Your weak-minded dependence on absolutes aside, yes, I do agree that a great deal of evil in the world comes from those who, just like you, believe that they know what is best for everyone (like abstinence-only sex ed).
Fortunately, those of us with more nimble minds are able to recognize that a single proposition can be true sometimes and not others. My 5 year old can reason well enough to know that certain actions can be wrong in some circumstances and permissible in others. It's too bad that you lack the same reasoning ability.
"That's the premise of sex education. It isn't about obtaining some utilitarian goal"
Actually, you have it backwards. Sex ed is PRECISELY about obtaining a utilitarian goal - educating the youth so that they will be better equipped to avoid pregnancy and STD's when they inevitably begin to have sex. Abstinence only sex ed, OTOH, is NOT utilitarian, because it seeks to impose a moral code WITHOUT REGARD TO THE UTILITY OF THOSE SPECIFIC MORES I see by your reluctance to address the lack of utility of abstinence only programs that I illustrated that you must be willing to concede this point.
In short, sex ed is about about instilling the message that anything goes and removing any sort of standard
This is factually incorrect. Rather than teaching that ANYTHING goes, sex ed teaches that using condoms and other contraceptives is good, unprotected sex is bad.
If Obama was really pushing for making kids wary of stranger-dangers, he would have said so plainly
""Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it," said Obama in 2004, according to a Daily Herald clip provided by the Obama campaign. "If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."
I believe in calling a spade a spade, rather than claim two different realities are magically the same.
And yet, here you are, spending a great deal of time arguing that two very different realities (A person who is unexpectedly impregnated and views it as a blessing VS. another person who views it as a punishment) are, in fact, precisely the same...
You say that you "call a spade a spade", but emotional states in individuals are not objects that can be so easily named. In the language of programming, they are more closely related to methods, which are processes, not THINGS.
"But human beings are not computers, and they are not ruled by the confines of binary logic."
I agree. Passion, imagination, habit, custom, loyalty, etc. do play a role in human life. However, logic is not passion. Logic is not imagination. Logic is not habit. Etc.
"Sex ed is PRECISELY about obtaining a utilitarian goal"
Well, liberals failed. Sex ed was introduced, and teenage pregancy, rates of venereal disease, abortion etc skyrocketed after its introduction. You'd think after the millions of $$$ we poured into these braindead liberal programs, these problems would be a thing of the past today. At least we're entitled to even an *increment* of improvement after the introduction of these programs. But then again, you reject classical logic, so any failure is the same as a non-failure.
If you believe A and ~A, you're an Orwell-style doublethinker. Rand once remarked that
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
I agree completely.
So Realism,
After remembering that the teaching of abstinence was around before the drastic upward trend in teen pregnancies you settle on the “free market” as culprit.
But as with abstinence, the free market has been around for some time.
The difference between “now” and “then” is the relaxing of standards in advertising (among other things), which just so happens to coincide with the rise in power and prevalence of liberal beliefs.
So reach into your bag and pull out another right wing boogey man to blame this mess on if you wish. I’m afraid it will do you no good, because anyone with competent perceptive abilities, and a few years behind them, know exactly the main reason behind this destructive problem
The difference between “know” and “then” is the relaxing of standards in advertising (among other things), which just so happens to coincide with the rise in power and prevalence of liberal beliefs.
So, regarding that "relaxing of standards in advertising" were not due to the free market? Are you seriously saying that liberals FORCED the market to start using sex in a pervasive manner to sell products and services?
LOL
_______________
I agree. Passion, imagination, habit, custom, loyalty, etc. do play a role in human life. However, logic is not passion. Logic is not imagination. Logic is not habit. Etc.
Yes, but we are talking about human perception (pregnancy as punishment), which perception, of course, is ruled by emotion.
Sex ed was introduced, and teenage pregancy, rates of venereal disease, abortion etc skyrocketed after its introduction.
As a supposedly "logical" person, you should know that correlation does not imply causality. The period of skyrocketing teen pregnancy was a time of massive social and cultural changes that were the CAUSE of the liberal policies that you detest so much, not the RESULT.
Face it, the real failure has been Abstinence-Only sex ed.
Abstinence only sex ed is has been shown in study after study to have NO effect on rates of teen sexual activity.
Comprehensive sex ed reduces teen pregnancy and STD rates.
You claim to be so logical, yet you reject the program that has greater utility. Perhaps you like to THINK that you are logical, but in reality, your outlook is informed by rigid ideological bias.
Realism,
You’re trying to obfuscate based on the universal understanding that some will do anything for money (or power, but that’s a different discussion), thinking that you’re being more persuasive by pointing out the obvious..
The fact is that even back in the good old days of “the suppression of the individual” (sarcasm inserted here), the pursuit of money was tempered by a moralistic code, or at least a perceived code. When liberalism relaxed the standards, the floodgates were opened.
You can twist and turn, hem and haw, point to the greed of man, or beseech your fellow comrades to believe it was all a Rockerfellean plan. The bottom line is modern liberalism is the root cause of today’s teen pregnancy problem, to name just one of present societies problems.
Stretch and strain, scream and shout, rack your brain for another good argument, it will do you no good in the end. (Most of) Today’s society’ problems’ has a clear backtrack to the rise of liberalism. History and correlation is against you.
I’m not saying that Conservatism, or any ‘ism, is perfect, just that liberalism/socialism, as history has taught us, should be shunned and ridiculed. It’s a failed-ism, there’s no way that a free-thinking society would ever let it bloom to maturity – but that’s a whole other debate – given today’s government educational system, I’m thinking you people have a plan for the “free-thinking society” mentioned above.
the pursuit of money was tempered by a moralistic code, or at least a perceived code.
Yes, and it was LIBERALS that were leading the push to temper the pursuit of money.
So you expect people to believe that the group that, in your view, is AGAINST the free market and excessive profiteering is the same group that encouraged those same pursuits?
That is simply incoherent
It matters not what liberals say on the one hand. What matters is what they do on the other hand.
Liberals aren't one dimensional, they know what's effective and are willing to use it.
On the one hand they say they're trying to temper the pursuit of money. On the other hand they're willing to use the vehicle ("Madison Ave") to further their own beliefs.
Bottom line - even other liberals don't believe the free market is the root cause of teen pregnancy rates. They know what the root cause is and are perfectly OK with it. They also won't hesitate to misdirect when assigning blame.
Bottom line - even other liberals don't believe the free market is the root cause of teen pregnancy rates.
Yes, people like you who force abstinence only sex ed, leaving our children ignorant and uninformed about how to avoid pregnancy.
You're regressing. Focus, focus.
You're the one that needs to focus.
You are claiming that liberal ideology and policies are caused the teen pregnancy problem in the U.S.
That is absurd and incoherent. States with liberal policies regarding sex-ed (comprehensive sex ed) have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
States with conservative policies regarding sex-ed (abstinence only) have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion.
The liberal european countries that you love to paint as being hotbeds of sexual degeneracy have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and abortion.
"In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany."
"In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France."
"In the United States, the teen birth rate is nearly 11 times higher than that of the Netherlands, nearly five times higher than the rate in France, and nearly four times higher than that in Germany"
I don't think it could be any clearer to a person not blinded by ideology and moralistic self righteousness. Liberal sex ed policies result in better outcomes.
Post a Comment