Study: Teenage 'Virginity Pledges' Are Ineffective

[Psychoblues]

I knew this would happen but some need to see the facts for themselves.

Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection

By Rob Stein

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.......................................... ........

Much More including additional articles and links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28415602

Can I get a witness?!???!??!??!????!???!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Mr. P]

A Teenage 'Virginity Pledge' lasts as long as a New Years resolution. :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

You owe me a beer and monitor cleaner, Mr. P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:



A Teenage 'Virginity Pledge' lasts as long as a New Years resolution. :laugh2:

Can I offer you something to enhance your contemplations?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

My question to this issue is, does it delay the onset of sexual relations? My guess, informed, is yes. Rather than 14 much more likely to be 17 or older. I don't know about you men, but would assume you'd agree that's a good thing.

[avatar4321]

Youth who practice abstinence dont need protection. They arent doing anything.

[Psychoblues]

Maybe that would be a good question to ask of Bristol Palin and her hick mama, Kat.



My question to this issue is, does it delay the onset of sexual relations? My guess, informed, is yes. Rather than 14 much more likely to be 17 or older. I don't know about you men, but would assume you'd agree that's a good thing.

Even though the article doesn't discuss it in the same words that you use it does state that the data reflects no change in sexual behaviour and I think that includes age of onset. Like you, I would prefer that activities would at least be postponed until more mature ages and ideologies but I really don't think that's gonna happen regardless the education, availability of medical treatments, counseling, restrictions, preaching, etc.

How's your Cosmos holding up?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[stephanie]

Maybe that would be a good question to ask of Bristol Palin and her hick mama, Kat.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psycho Blues

you've really turned into a nasty dog..

there was a time when candidates children were left out of the politics of their parents...

you are a disgrace of a man...

[Psychoblues]

There was a time when any respectable candidate would have never dragged their unmarried pregnant teenage daughter onto the international stage and made such a spectacle for the entire nation and world to witness, stevie.



you've really turned into a nasty dog..

there was a time when candidates children were left out of the politics of their parents...

you are a disgrace of a man...

As far as what you think of me as a man is concerned, I could not care less. You certainly have your own problems.

You're still cut off the Cods, stevie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[stephanie]

There was a time when any respectable candidate would have never dragged their unmarried pregnant teenage daughter onto the international stage and made such a spectacle for the entire nation and world to witness, stevie.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psycho Blues

since when does that bother the liberals, I guess because she didn't make her have an abortion is what you all are upset about...

when she didn't bring her daughter along, you all accused her of trying to cover it up, then when she did you all put her and her daughter down for that..

you Liberals are such hypocrite it sickening...and you have turned into a big NASTY DOG...woof woof

[Psychoblues]

You make a lot of sleazy accusations and assumptions, stevie.



since when does that bother the liberals, I guess because she didn't make her have an abortion is what you all are upset about...

when she didn't bring her daughter along, you all accused her of trying to cover it up, then when she did you all put her and her daughter down for that..

you Liberals are such hypocrite it sickening...and you have turned into a big NASTY DOG...woof woof

All of which are entirely innacurate and purposefully ignorant.

Them Cods ain't gonna help you with any of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[stephanie]

You make a lot of sleazy accusations and assumptions, stevie.




All of which are entirely innacurate and purposefully ignorant.

Them Cods ain't gonna help you with any of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psycho Blues

oh my assumptions are right on, I see it with my big ole baby blues..
you all just don't like to called out on it, is all..

for you to dump on a child who made a mistake as do a lot of other girls her age is DISGUSTING, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but we know you have no shame...

totally pathetic little man you've reduced yourself to..not a pretty thing to watch..

[Psychoblues]

My remarks were entirely appropriate for the subject matter and the conversation, stevie.



oh my assumptions are right on, I see it with my big ole baby blues..
you all just don't like to called out on it, is all..

for you to dump on a child who made a mistake as do a lot of other girls her age is DISGUSTING, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but we know you have no shame...

totally pathetic little man you've reduced yourself to..not a pretty thing to watch..

It is you that is making such a big deal of nothing but considering nothing is about the extent of your contributions in these conversations I am not surprised at all.

Sober up sometimes, girlie, and you might find there is life beyond that bottle.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[stephanie]

My remarks were entirely appropriate for the subject matter and the conversation, stevie.




It is you that is making such a big deal of nothing but considering nothing is about the extent of your contributions in these conversations I am not surprised at all.

Sober up sometimes, girlie, and you might find there is life beyond that bottle.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psycho Blues

go back to dumping on some kids...or better yet, go back to dumbing on Sarah Palin's daughter, you seem real good at that..

I'm done with you for tonight...you are DISMISSED...

[Psychoblues]

Sorry, stevie, but you ain't in charge of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


go back to dumping on some kids...or better yet, go back to dumbing on Sarah Palin's daughter, you seem real good at that..

I'm done with you for tonight...you are DISMISSED...

And I don't dump on kids. That's more like what some ignorant ass like you seems plenty capable and willing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

Youth who practice abstinence dont need protection. They arent doing anything.

<blockquote>A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.

By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat." - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003_pf.html>The Washington Post</a></blockquote>

As it turns out, "abstinence only" programs don't work. <a href=http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm>Effective Sex Education</a> programs work, except the social and religious conservatives find that fact contradicts their views on the matter and are thus to be dismissed.

[Psychoblues]

We're all waiting for an answer, bp,,,,,,,,,,,,Just what will stop teenagers from having sex?!?!?!?!?!??!??!??!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

My question to this issue is, does it delay the onset of sexual relations? My guess, informed, is yes. Rather than 14 much more likely to be 17 or older. I don't know about you men, but would assume you'd agree that's a good thing.

Today, I would have to agree with you. But! when I was 16? Heck no. :lol:

Immie

[Immanuel]

There was a time when any respectable candidate would have never dragged their unmarried pregnant teenage daughter onto the international stage and made such a spectacle for the entire nation and world to witness, stevie.



Sorry, PB, but the way I remember it is that she didn't drag her daughter out on the stage. The liberals and the media did it for her just as they try to drag every candidate's (especially those they don't like er... want to win) skeletons out of the closet.

Surely, you are not suggesting that she should not have run simply because her daughter didn't meet the media's idea of "The Perfect Daughter".

Immie

[Psychoblues]

And you would certainly be wrong about that, immie.



Sorry, PB, but the way I remember it is that she didn't drag her daughter out on the stage. The liberals and the media did it for her just as they try to drag every candidate's (especially those they don't like er... want to win) skeletons out of the closet.

Surely, you are not suggesting that she should not have run simply because her daughter didn't meet the media's idea of "The Perfect Daughter".

Immie

Sarah Palin dragged her out there for all to see. She had a point to make and she made it. If you have a problem with that I don't see any way that you can somehow now blame that hicktown piece of nonsense on any liberal as you are so obviously attempting. As I recall, the media would have been perfectly content to just leave her alone on that issue but Mrs. Palin made a point of it. It couldn't have worked out better for whomever was concerned at the time, other than poor Bristol.

And, I'm not suggesting anything other than what I have already said. Your delusions are your own so stop blaming me for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

And you would certainly be wrong about that, immie.




Sarah Palin dragged her out there for all to see. She had a point to make and she made it. If you have a problem with that I don't see any way that you can somehow now blame that hicktown piece of nonsense on any liberal as you are so obviously attempting. As I recall, the media would have been perfectly content to just leave her alone on that issue but Mrs. Palin made a point of it. It couldn't have worked out better for whomever was concerned at the time, other than poor Bristol.

And, I'm not suggesting anything other than what I have already said. Your delusions are your own so stop blaming me for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

They have a term for historians like you---revisionists. :D

And, where did I blame you for anything? I was simply contradicting something you said. You made a mistake and I was pointing it out. Nothing wrong with that.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

Seriously, immie, I haven't revised anything that I can think of.



They have a term for historians like you---revisionists. :D

And, where did I blame you for anything? I was simply contradicting something you said. You made a mistake and I was pointing it out. Nothing wrong with that.

Immie

Perhaps you can refresh my memory to the point where we can agree?!?!?!?!??!????!????!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

Seriously, immie, I haven't revised anything that I can think of.




Perhaps you can refresh my memory to the point where we can agree?!?!?!?!??!????!????!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Probably not, but it is besides the point.

We will probably never agree who it was that drug Bristol Palin out into the National Spotlight and it might simply be a matter of interpretation. You see Gov. Palin entering the race as opening the door to criticism for her family. I see it as the media's efforts to "make the news" and drag people "in the news" through the mud as being the problem here.

I doubt we'll ever agree on the problem but suffice it to say... I'm right ;) so have another beer on me and enjoy. :beer:

Immie

[red states rule]

And you would certainly be wrong about that, immie.




Sarah Palin dragged her out there for all to see. She had a point to make and she made it. If you have a problem with that I don't see any way that you can somehow now blame that hicktown piece of nonsense on any liberal as you are so obviously attempting. As I recall, the media would have been perfectly content to just leave her alone on that issue but Mrs. Palin made a point of it. It couldn't have worked out better for whomever was concerned at the time, other than poor Bristol.

And, I'm not suggesting anything other than what I have already said. Your delusions are your own so stop blaming me for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You have it wrong as usual. Gov Palin loves her daughter, and she is a member of the family

If she kept her locked away, the liberal media and rabid left would be saying how ashamed she is of her daughter

The liberal media went out of there way to target her, and they are the ones who dragged her into the national spotlight

[Psychoblues]

You continue to make aspersions about what I might think or say withour any foundation, immie.



Probably not, but it is besides the point.

We will probably never agree who it was that drug Bristol Palin out into the National Spotlight and it might simply be a matter of interpretation. You see Gov. Palin entering the race as opening the door to criticism for her family. I see it as the media's efforts to "make the news" and drag people "in the news" through the mud as being the problem here.

I doubt we'll ever agree on the problem but suffice it to say... I'm right ;) so have another beer on me and enjoy. :beer:

Immie

I appreciate the beer but I'd rather see some truth out of you and to hell with all that guesswork you're doing right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Immanuel]

You continue to make aspersions about what I might think or say withour any foundation, immie.




I appreciate the beer but I'd rather see some truth out of you and to hell with all that guesswork you're doing right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

No guesswork at all my friend. The media is responsible for throwing Bristol Palin to the wolves although, I suppose that the lunatic left might be equally responsible because they certainly enjoyed the feeding frenzy that came out of it.

Immie

[Psychoblues]

You both suck and lie about it, rsr.



You have it wrong as usual. Gov Palin loves her daughter, and she is a member of the family

If she kept her locked away, the liberal media and rabid left would be saying how ashamed she is of her daughter

The liberal media went out of there way to target her, and they are the ones who dragged her into the national spotlight

Take your neg reps and stick 'em in your ass, OK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

You both suck and lie about it, rsr.




Take your neg reps and stick 'em in your ass, OK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You are a very angry liberal, and your debate skills are showing again PB

Try some decaf :laugh2:

[red states rule]

No guesswork at all my friend. The media is responsible for throwing Bristol Palin to the wolves although, I suppose that the lunatic left might be equally responsible because they certainly enjoyed the feeding frenzy that came out of it.

Immie

Here is one example of the liberal media bringing family into the camapign

NYT: Daughter's Pregnancy Fair Game, Asks How Palin Can 'Juggle Those Responsibilities'
By Clay Waters (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 09:52 ET

Meet the newly minted traditionalists at the New York Times, two female reporters who seem to doubt whether or not a woman can have it all -- at least if she's a Republican vice-presidential nominee.

The Labor Day edition of the Times's "Political Points" podcast, recorded at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn, was hosted by Jane Bornemeier with commentary from reporters Jackie Calmes, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David Kirkpatrick. The conversation was predictably dominated by "baby-gate" -- the news that Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol was pregnant. Some choice excerpts in which the two female reporters question the judgment of McCain and Palin and find the issue of a teenager's pregnancy fair game:

Host Jane Bornemeier:

"Jackie you were just talking to Steve Schmidt, the senior advisor for the McCain campaign. What does he say about how this will affect the convention going forward, and what the fallout is among Republicans?"


Reporter Jackie Calmes:

"Well, to hear Steve talking, [unintelligible] think there will be no fallout, and that he attacks -- the questions -- as offensive, and that the American people will respect the privacy and will in fact turn against the media and anybody else who tries to make an issue of this. But it's a difficult argument to make, considering that in the days since Sarah Palin was announced as Senator McCain's running mate, the campaign has made a very big deal of every other element of her personal life, and her personality and her family life, and so it would be highly unrealistic to think that the public wouldn't be hugely interested in this."

It was up to the lone male, reporter David Kirkpatrick, to make an aside that "we feel a little bit bad for Bristol Palin, I mean I don't think this is something that anybody particularly relishes reporting" and that attacking the media for its focus on it might work.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/09/02/nyt-daughters-pregnancy-fair-game-asks-how-palin-can-juggle-those-respo

[Psychoblues]

What makes you think I am angry, dumbo?


You are a very angry liberal, and your debate skills are showing again PB

Try some decaf :laugh2:

And what makes you refer to me as "liberal"? Do you spit it out like your saviour?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

So the liberal media did not drag Gov Palin's daughter into the campaign?


PBS's Shields Slams Palin for Choosing Ambition Over Her Daughter
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 21:24 ET

The gloves came off and the punching of Republican vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin began early in the night on PBS. Just after the Pledge of Allegiance, the analyst team of Mark Shields and David Brooks got into a squabble over Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter Bristol. Shields insisted a callous Gov. Palin chose national ambition over "love and consideration for her daughter...By accepting John McCain’s offer she guaranteed that her daughter would be known globally as the best known 17-year-old unwed teenager in the world, and that decision many people question."

Brooks suggested we don't know enough to judge the Palin family values, and even suggested that the children of vice presidents have had problems, and that the media that usually lays off the children are covering this story in a "big massive way."

Shields began by suggesting that people in both parties can agree that making an issue out of candidates' children is "really out of bounds." He then turned around and made the mother's allegedly unseemly ambition an issue:

There is another question though which essentially I’ve heard expressed here many times today and from calls elsewhere, and that is the decision made by Sarah Palin herself, when knowing her daughter’s condition, by accepting John McCain’s offer she guaranteed that her daughter would be known globally as the best known 17-year-old unwed teenager in the world, and that decision many people question.

I mean, Republicans, it’s not a partisan question. It’s just a question of whether in fact family values, and whether family values collide in this case. All candidates – David and I have talked about this – have healthy if not overly healthy ambitions. But there had to be some tension here. The ambition of going on a national ticket, and her love and consideration of her daughter, being known once and for all as ‘Aren’t you the daughter who was pregnant of the vice presidential candidate in 2008?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/09/02/pbss-shields-slams-palin-choosing-ambition-over-her-daughter

[Psychoblues]

The article seems to chastise Mrs. Palin for choosing personal power over the welfare of her daughter, dickhead. You gotta problem, take it up with Sarah.

And you can still stick your senseless neg reps up your ignorant ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The article seems to chastise Mrs. Palin for choosing personal power over the welfare of her daughter, dickhead. You gotta problem, take it up with Sarah.

And you can still stick your senseless neg reps up your ignorant ass!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

and you ignore how they are bringing in her daughter to attack her

Here is more


Examiner.com Attacks Gov. Palin’s Unborn Grandchild
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
October 5, 2008 - 05:10 ET

Ben Kamin: In Year 2024 Palin's Grandchild a 'Bastard,' Loser Palin Operates a 'Lenscrafters,' Hates Grandson

Apparently, Rabbi Ben Kamin thinks he's a funny guy. Yes, he must be auditioning for SNL with his latest column on the Examiner.com, a Denver based, Internet news service. You see, to devise the newest way to smear Governor Sarah Palin, the "Rabbi" thought it would be hilarious to wonder what the life of Palin's grandchild, son-to-be of Palin's daughter Bristol, will be like in the year 2024. This odious attack piece imagines the boy being called "bastard" by everyone, imagines Palin to be a washed up, loser who fakes her love for the boy, presents Todd Palin as distant, disgruntled, loveless and depressed, and pits the boy in the role of a downtrodden, suicide risk without a father. All these smears against a child not yet even born!

Despite his obscene attempt at political analysis, this Kamin fellow somehow achieved the title of "Spiritual Life Examiner" with the Internet news outlet. I guess this so-called Rabbi is the Jewish version of Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright, because it just goes to show that claiming to be a man of God and actually living that charge are not necessarily one and the same.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/10/05/examiner-com-attacks-gov-palin-s-unborn-grandchild

[Psychoblues]

Take it up with newsbusters, cowgirl. They are about as paranoid as you. At least you have an excuse. They don't.

Have I told you lately to kiss this: :pee: rsr

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Take it up with newsbusters, cowgirl. They are about as paranoid as you. At least you have an excuse. They don't.

Have I told you lately to kiss this: :pee: rsr

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

and they site such liberal outlets like PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS. You tend to ignore the facts like you usually do

Here is more


http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/09/2008-09-02-ABCPalin.jpg

ABC Pounds Away At Palin Pregnancy, 'Skeleton In the Closet'
By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 11:52 ET

ABC’s Good Morning America on Tuesday aggressively pushed the story about how Sarah Palin’s teenaged daughter is pregnant, leading their broadcast with that topic rather than the hurricane that slammed into Louisiana yesterday morning. ABC’s David Wright suggested the McCain camp was trying to bury the “skeleton in the closet” by putting the news out as the hurricane hit: “This was a political bombshell, timed to go off on a day when the McCain campaign knew that America would be focused on other news.”

The confrontational approach further revealed itself in co-host Diane Sawyer’s interview with a McCain campaign spokeswoman. Sawyer twice asked when McCain himself learned about the pregnancy, and tried to use the case of Palin’s daughter to lobby against abstinence-only education in public schools and suggested that it “was a mistake” not to include the news of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy in Friday’s introduction of Sarah Palin to the nation.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/02/abc-pounds-away-palin-pregnancy-skeleton-closet

[Psychoblues]

Like you, rsr, they pick and choose without regard to truth or respectability. I read them sometimes but I find more faux than truth there. Again, like you.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Like you, rsr, they pick and choose without regard to truth or respectability. I read them sometimes but I find more faux than truth there. Again, like you.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

I post the facts PB -you are the one who has a problem with them. I know the liberal media gave up any hint of objectivity in this election, and the polls show the viewers/readers agree

Can you show one thing I have posted that is factually wrong - or a source that is wrong?

Here is another example

Newsweek's Alter Defends Media's Reporting of Palin Pregnancy
By Lyndsi Thomas (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 15:39 ET

On Tuesday's "Morning Joe," Newsweek's Jonathan Alter appeared as a guest for a discussion about Governor Sarah Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter, Bristol. Alter defended the media's actions in heavily reporting on the pregnancy, saying of the Palin's: "This, to quote the Godfather, this is the business they have chosen."

Alter also defended the media's lack of reporting on former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards's affair. The columnist argued that Edwards was no longer running for president when the scandal broke and therefore the media was right in avoiding stories on it. However, in regards to Governor Palin, Alter scoffed, "They know it's all gonna come out if they're running for president or vice president. If they don't want it to come out they shouldn't get in the ring, I hate to tell you that." It seems Alter forgot that Edwards's affair began in 2006 according to his own admission, just before Edwards announced his candidacy for president. Nevertheless, as Joe Scarborough pointed out, Edwards was going to play a big role at the Democratic National Convention and was even slated to speak when the story broke. But Alter stuck with his argument that Edwards's affair was not as newsworthy as Bristol's pregnancy.

In responding to Joe Scarborough's request to "name one minor that has been exposed on the front page of the New York Times in presidential politics," Alter named former Vice President Al Gore's son, who was caught smoking marijuana. While the story did appear in the New York Times and Washington Post, it was essentially a non-story and was not the subject of three front page stories on one day like Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Later in the segment, Alter and Scarborough got into a disagreement about whether the media, specifically the New York Times, would cover Bristol's pregnancy so heavily if she were the daughter of a Democratic candidate. Alter argued that the press coverage would be just as heavy while Scarborough rebuked the mainstream media for talking about stories which appeared on the Daily Kos Web site


SCARBOROUGH: The difference is you would not see it on the front page of the New York Times in three different stories.

ALTER: Absolutely you would.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Well you know what, when we go to break, I'm going to give you the example that I'm not gonna say on air. I'm gonna - when we go to break, because I'm not gonna expose somebody else. There's a double standard. There is a rancid double standard and it is offensive and it was offensive to both of us. The fact that you have some of the best journalists in America running around two nights ago talking about Daily Kos and being thrilled that networks and newspapers - this is where we've come. Mike Barnicle was talking about a guy that we hired for a - helped hire for a newspaper, called him up all excited. "Did you see what's on Daily Kos? This is huge!"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/09/02/newsweeks-alter-defends-medias-reporting-palin-pregnancy

[stephanie]

the fake outrage over Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter having a baby by the leftist liberals is such a joke..

they belong to a party who freely believe government funded abortions is ok for children as young as TWELVE years old, so they won't be PUNISHED with a baby..as their little "boy wonder king", said about his own daughters if they ever got pregnant..

what a pathetic bunch...

[red states rule]

the fake outrage over Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter having a baby by the leftist liberals is such a joke..

they belong to a party who freely believe government funded abortions is ok for children as young as TWELVE years old, so they won't be PUNISHED with a baby..as their little "boy wonder king", said about his own daughters if they ever got pregnant..

what a pathetic bunch...

Well, at least one person at CNBC saw the fake outrage Steph


CNBC Anchor ‘Embarrassed’ by Media Obsessions with Palin Pregnancy
By Paul Detrick (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 11:17 ET

Sex sells, even during a presidential election. But that doesn't mean journalists have to be happy about it.

CNBC's "Squawk Box" co-host Joe Kernen took a moment during a panel discussion September 2 to take a shot at the onslaught of coverage over presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy.

You know as a member of the media I'm just kind of embarrassed with the media. The media says, "Yeah it shouldn't matter, it's not going to matter, we're not going to cover it" and then they put it on the cover of every paper.

Earlier in the broadcast Kernen told chief Washington correspondent John Harwood he did not think the family incidence was as big a deal as the media was making it out to be:

Felt a little bit like the guy in Casablanca, shocked, you know: teen sex in Alaska, John. Probably not that much of a shocker I guess, right? Not a whole lot. I guess bowling, yeah, It's a little lonely probably up there, right, John? ... I don't understand everybody at the same time saying that this is not going to be a big deal ... the press is going to be responsible about this, Barack Obama please don't make anything of this, but then it's the cover of every paper like it, you know, like matters.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/09/02/cnbc-anchor-embarrassed-media-obsessions-palin-pregnancy

[Psychoblues]

Two birds with one stone? In my neck of the woods they call that pretty good rock chunkin', dumbo.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Libs proclaim their innocence, but their actions and words tell a different story


'Today' Show Again Bashes Palin: Shortchange Family or America?
By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
September 3, 2008 - 16:11 ET

Less than an hour after reporter David Gregory incorrectly huffed on Wednesday's "Today" show that the media have not questioned whether Sarah Palin can balance motherhood with serving as vice president, NBC correspondent Amy Robach explicitly did just that during a segment on how moms were reacting to the Alaska governor. Operating under a loaded either/or premise, she derided, "The broader question if Sarah Palin becomes vice president, will she be shortchanging her kids or will she be shortchanging the country?"

Labeling the segment "the mommy wars," Robach, a former beauty pageant contestant, went on point out that Palin is running despite having an infant child with Down's Syndrome and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter. She asserted that "the news has sparked both pride and condemnation." Robach also featured New York Times writer Jodi Kantor, who authored a piece on the subject in the September 2 edition of the paper. In a clip, Kantor discussed the fact that Palin went back to work only a few days after giving birth this past April. According to the journalist, "fellow mothers" found this "a little bit hard to fathom, a little bit hard to identify with."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/09/03/today-again-bashes-palin-shortchange-family-or-america

[Psychoblues]

Absurdity to sillyness doesn't improve your position, dumbo.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[stephanie]

the saddest part in all this, is that the liberals would sit back and allow the MEDIA destroy a 17 year old's life, for Politics..

the liberals and the lamestream media have crawled so far into the gutter, I'm surprised they all haven't choked to death on the turds..

[red states rule]

Absurdity to sillyness doesn't improve your position, dumbo.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Like your buddy BP - you ignore facts, and the words and actions of your fellow libs - and attack

ABC Anchor Impugns Sarah Palin As a Neglectful Mother
By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive)
August 30, 2008 - 09:45 ET

On ABC’s Good Morning America on Saturday, co-anchor Bill Weir bristled with hostility during an interview with a McCain campaign spokesman about the choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate, suggesting she was unqualified and too conservative. At one point, Weir even suggested that by running for Vice President, the Governor would be jeopardizing her four-month old daughter, who has Down’s Syndrome.

Weir confronted McCain political director Mike DuHaime: “Adding to the brutality of a national campaign, the Palin family also has an infant with special needs. What leads you, the Senator, and the Governor to believe that one won't affect the other in the next couple of months?” When DuHaime offered a general answer about Palin’s “incredible life story,” an obviously irritated Weir jumped in, exclaiming “She has an infant -- she has an infant with special needs. Will that affect her campaigning?”

Just a few moments later, that line of questioning was quickly criticized by ABC’s Cokie Roberts as sexist. Without mentioning Weir, Roberts said questions “about who’s taking care of the children...traditionally has very much angered women voters when women candidates are asked those questions and male candidates never are.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/08/30/abc-anchor-impugns-sarah-palin-neglectful-mother

[avatar4321]

<blockquote>A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.

By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat." - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003_pf.html>The Washington Post</a></blockquote>

As it turns out, "abstinence only" programs don't work. <a href=http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm>Effective Sex Education</a> programs work, except the social and religious conservatives find that fact contradicts their views on the matter and are thus to be dismissed.

Name any abstinent person who has had a child or gotten an STD.... Im waiting.

[avatar4321]

We're all waiting for an answer, bp,,,,,,,,,,,,Just what will stop teenagers from having sex?!?!?!?!?!??!??!??!??!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Teach them correct principles rather than the BS we get fed.

[Psychoblues]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!



Name any abstinent person who has had a child or gotten an STD.... Im waiting.

Absurdity to silliness doesn't hold a candle to your ignorance, a'21!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[avatar4321]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!




Absurdity to silliness doesn't hold a candle to your ignorance, a'21!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

So should I take the fact that you havent named any abstinent person who got pregnant, that you cant?

[Psychoblues]

I have certainly read enough of your work to understand that education is not your problem, a'21.



So should I take the fact that you havent named any abstinent person who got pregnant, that you cant?

Perhaps an obstinate refusal to understand humanity is more your dilemma??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Or more simply an aversion to recognition of life in general? Or maybe it's simply a programmed propensity to repeat impossible questions without regard to the futilities and inappropriateness of any answer given?!?!????!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Whatever, you're about as dumb as they come, a'21!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[avatar4321]

I have certainly read enough of your work to understand that education is not your problem, a'21.




Perhaps an obstinate refusal to understand humanity is more your dilemma??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Or more simply an aversion to recognition of life in general? Or maybe it's simply a programmed propensity to repeat impossible questions without regard to the futilities and inappropriateness of any answer given?!?!????!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Whatever, you're about as dumb as they come, a'21!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Still not answering. Seems I understand you well enough to know that you are dodging the question because you dont understand it.

I also understand humanity enough to know that you cant get pregnant if you dont have sex.

You'd think this would be obvious, yet you guys struggle with this so much.

[Psychoblues]

Maybe I was wrong about the education part.



Still not answering. Seems I understand you well enough to know that you are dodging the question because you dont understand it.

I also understand humanity enough to know that you cant get pregnant if you dont have sex.

You'd think this would be obvious, yet you guys struggle with this so much.


Obviously you are not inclined towards the average recognition of the human condition?!?!??!?!??!???!?!?

There is help for you but you have to seek it out for yourself. Until then, que sera sera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

Name any abstinent person who has had a child or gotten an STD.... Im waiting.

Sure...abstinence is the perfect solution. The problem is people aren't perfect...teenagers even less so. That imperfection renders abstinence only sex education almost totally useless.

[Missileman]

I also understand humanity enough to know that you cant get pregnant if you dont have sex.


Yet greatly misunderstand humanity in thinking that a significant number of teens will actually practice abstinence.

[5stringJeff]

Kathianne asked the pertinent question: does the study show that abstinence education and/or virginity pledges delay teens from having sex? If not, then the education/pledges are little good. If so, they may still be some good.

[bullypulpit]

Name any abstinent person who has had a child or gotten an STD.... Im waiting.

No question about it...don't screw and you won't get STD's or pregnant. But you're dodging the issue (Suprise! Not.)...Abstinence only programs DON'T WORK. A solid sexed program based on medical fact and presented in a factual, non-nonsense manner does more to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD transmission than wishing teens won't have sex.

<blockquote>Sex education programs do work to help discourage many teens from becoming sexually active before age 15, according to data released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Formal programs -- such as those presented in schools and church groups -- did appear to delay onset of sexual activity. For example, teen girls in the nationally representative sample were 59 percent less likely to start having sex before age 15 if they had received sex education, while teen boys were 71 percent less likely, the study found.

"We were obviously hoping to find that sex education is effective. We're glad to see the strong associations," said lead author Trisha Mueller, a CDC epidemiologist. She emphasized that in order to be successful, sex education should take place before young people become sexually active. - <a href=http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071220/sex-ed-does-delay-teen-sex-cdc.htm> US News & World Report</a></blockquote>

[Yurt]

why don't we abolish the criminal justice system, it doesn't work, people still commit crimes...

[Kathianne]

No question about it...don't screw and you won't get STD's or pregnant. But you're dodging the issue (Suprise! Not.)...Abstinence only programs DON'T WORK. A solid sexed program based on medical fact and presented in a factual, non-nonsense manner does more to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD transmission than wishing teens won't have sex.

<blockquote>Sex education programs do work to help discourage many teens from becoming sexually active before age 15, according to data released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Formal programs -- such as those presented in schools and church groups -- did appear to delay onset of sexual activity. For example, teen girls in the nationally representative sample were 59 percent less likely to start having sex before age 15 if they had received sex education, while teen boys were 71 percent less likely, the study found.

"We were obviously hoping to find that sex education is effective. We're glad to see the strong associations," said lead author Trisha Mueller, a CDC epidemiologist. She emphasized that in order to be successful, sex education should take place before young people become sexually active. - <a href=http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071220/sex-ed-does-delay-teen-sex-cdc.htm> US News & World Report</a></blockquote>

and in schools with a decent sex ed program and active organization to encourage abstinence, might the age of onset of sex be higher? I think so, based upon the schools my kids went to. They had progressive sex ed classes and 2 took abstinence pledge. Both waited until in college to have sex, which puts the age at 17/18, much better. Yes, I wish that they didn't have multiple partners, which is nearly inevitable even at those ages, but at least they were old enough to 'get it.'

[Abbey Marie]

Why is it so common to the point of predictability that our liberal members will be:
1. Belittling of abstinence education
2. Convinced that all teens will have sex no matter what you do or say
3. Unhappy when people express moral objections to pre-marital sexual behavior. Or restated, are only happy when we all sink down to the lowest common denominator of morality?

This is not a rhetorical question. Have any of you examined your almost knee-jerk "it's inevitable" response to anything on the topic of teens & sex? I once posted a thread about the appalling activities that went on at a homecoming "dance", and was called all kinds of names by some of our liberal members for it. It's like some of you are thrilled at the thought of teens having sex. That's disturbing.

[OCA]

Why is it so common to the point of predictability that our liberal members will be:
1. Belittling of abstinence education
2. Convinced that all teens will have sex no matter what you do or say
3. Unhappy when people express moral objections to pre-marital sexual behavior. Or restated, are only happy when we all sink down to the lowest common denominator of morality?

This is not a rhetorical question. Have any of you examined your almost knee-jerk "it's inevitable" response to anything on the topic of teens & sex? I once posted a thread about the appalling activities that went on at a homecoming "dance", and was called all kinds of names by some of our liberal members for it. It's like some of you are thrilled at the thought of teens having sex. That's disturbing.

Abbey, document for me 10 instances where a teen, be it male or female, had the opportunity to get laid and and decided "no" and i'll show you a thousand that said yes.

Teens are horrible decision makers, I know I made a few bad ones believe it or not, and making abstinence a priority or other such foolish notions such as "virginity pledges lol" is just not realistic. Sounds great but doesn't address any problem.

[avatar4321]

Abbey, document for me 10 instances where a teen, be it male or female, had the opportunity to get laid and and decided "no" and i'll show you a thousand that said yes.


Which of course is why they need to be taught facts, and not to be promiscuous.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, document for me 10 instances where a teen, be it male or female, had the opportunity to get laid and and decided "no" and i'll show you a thousand that said yes.

Teens are horrible decision makers, I know I made a few bad ones believe it or not, and making abstinence a priority or other such foolish notions such as "virginity pledges lol" is just not realistic. Sounds great but doesn't address any problem.

Well, for starters, there was me. :)

[Yurt]

Abbey, document for me 10 instances where a teen, be it male or female, had the opportunity to get laid and and decided "no" and i'll show you a thousand that said yes.

Teens are horrible decision makers, I know I made a few bad ones believe it or not, and making abstinence a priority or other such foolish notions such as "virginity pledges lol" is just not realistic. Sounds great but doesn't address any problem.

do you support abolishing the criminal justice system....it doesn't work

[Missileman]

Which of course is why they need to be taught facts, and not to be promiscuous.

Are you suggesting that only "abstinence only" based programs are factual?

[Missileman]

do you support abolishing the criminal justice system....it doesn't work

Are you advocating a "just say no to crime" legal system?

[LiberalNation]

The crux in this debate depends on what you want to get out of sex education. Handing out the pill and condoms to all teen willing to take them would be far more effective at preventing teen pregnancy and stds than your standard abstinence only however it prolly wont be as effective at stopping the few teens who might listen to your abstinence talk from having sex.

So are you worried more about the teens morals or stopping the pregnancy and stds. Pick one and then use the corresponding sex ed.

[Yurt]

Are you advocating a "just say no to crime" legal system?

is there a "just say yes to crime" legal system?

[Mr. P]

The crux in this debate depends on what you want to get out of sex education. Handing out the pill and condoms to all teen willing to take them would be far more effective at preventing teen pregnancy and stds than your standard abstinence only however it prolly wont be as effective at stopping the few teens who might listen to your abstinence talk from having sex.

So are you worried more about the teens morals or stopping the pregnancy and stds. Pick one and then use the corresponding sex ed.

Tis easy, LN. The "abstinence" crowed push for morality, while the "education" crowed push for education.

Neither side is wrong, both mean well, but one side does have their "eyes wide shut" to the reality of Homo sapien actions.

[Kathianne]

Tis easy, LN. The "abstinence" crowed push for morality, while the "education" crowed push for education.

Neither side is wrong, both mean well, but one side does have their "eyes wide shut" to the reality of Homo sapien actions.

Sorry about that, I think I addressed both. Just saying...

[Mr. P]

Sorry about that, I think I addressed both. Just saying...

And you expect me to read the whole damn stupid thread to see "YOU" address that? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

is there a "just say yes to crime" legal system?

If abstinence education is so wonderful, it should be applied to crime also, right?

[Yurt]

If abstinence education is so wonderful, it should be applied to crime also, right?

it is applied...you do the crime you do the time...in fact it is applied even more prophylactically than abstinence as you can be convicted of attempting or conspiring to commit a crime...

that is why i asked you if there is a say yes to crime system....is there?

[Missileman]

it is applied...you do the crime you do the time...in fact it is applied even more prophylactically than abstinence as you can be convicted of attempting or conspiring to commit a crime...

that is why i asked you if there is a say yes to crime system....is there?

I would say that there are certain policies that do very little to discourage crime if not encourage it.

[Kathianne]

And you expect me to read the whole damn stupid thread to see "YOU" address that? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Shoot, I'm rather taken with myself, you aren't? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

I would say that there are certain policies that do very little to discourage crime if not encourage it.

so you're saying there is a yes to crime system in place.... fascinating

any examples

[Missileman]

Neither side is wrong, both mean well, but one side does have their "eyes wide shut" to the reality of Homo sapien actions.

Exactly. If abstinence only education was even remotely realistic, then Christians should be able to go to church once, hear "go, and sin no more" and be set for life. It truly amazes me that people whose religion is based in the fallibilty of man expect their teenagers to be infallible.

[Yurt]

so then we should abolish our criminal justice system...

[Missileman]

so then we should abolish our criminal justice system...

Based on your false assertion that it doesn't work? Nope, don't think so.

[Yurt]

Based on your false assertion that it doesn't work? Nope, don't think so.

people still commit crimes....

you never answered me about the yes to crime system...have any examples?

[Missileman]

people still commit crimes....

you never answered me about the yes to crime system...have any examples?

I think the willingness of prosecutors to plea bargain down to lesser offenses which then leads to perps getting probation or a slap on the wrist contributes to some people committing their first offense. There's really no deterrent. Mandatory sentences would go a long way to correcting that.

[actsnoblemartin]

hahahahahahahaha :coffee:


A Teenage 'Virginity Pledge' lasts as long as a New Years resolution. :laugh2:

[Des]

Duh ;). Not only are "pledgers" less likely to use contraception, they are more likely to lie about having sex in the first place to their parents...the people who failed to realize that the real value in sex education was teaching their kids that abstinence wasn't the best choice for the parents or for a god...but for the kids themselves. Since when did it become a good idea to take a major life decision and turn it into pleasing an authority figure?

[OCA]

Which of course is why they need to be taught facts, and not to be promiscuous.

Facts are great, they will still wanna get laid because dammit it feels good.

[OCA]

Well, for starters, there was me. :)

Great, there is 1.

But i'm not sure, you didn't have the opportunity to put out or you just didn't put out?

And as you always know Abbey, I consider your word gold, you are the only person here I consider as such.

[OCA]

do you support abolishing the criminal justice system....it doesn't work

LMFAO! Strawman.

[Mr. P]

Great, there is 1.

But i'm not sure, you didn't have the opportunity to put out or you just didn't put out?

And as you always know Abbey, I consider your word gold, you are the only person here I consider as such.

:eek: I'm so hurt..

[Yurt]

LMFAO! Strawman.

i guess you are not familiar with analogies, too bad, you could have understood and argued comparable abstinence only systems and argued why the criminal system, abstinence only, should remain in force while the sex abstinence only programs are bull

unfortunately it is clear that you don't even know what a strawman is...i never once misrepresented anyone's argument in this thread...i offered what i consider an analogy, you don't like the analogy feel free to argue why it is not comparable, but don't call it a strawman :cool:

[Abbey Marie]

Great, there is 1.

But i'm not sure, you didn't have the opportunity to put out or you just didn't put out?

And as you always know Abbey, I consider your word gold, you are the only person here I consider as such.

Plenty of opportunity, M. I just didn't think it was morally right. I had the same (horny) boyfriend when I was 15 through 17 years old. And he turned 18 not long after we started going out. Yes, he eventually dropped me when he started associating with all those "available" coeds. I'm pretty sure you can guess why. Great guy; just couldn't take it anymore, I think.

Thank you so much for the kind words. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/246.gif

PS I think that my daughter makes 2. I know that some here think that makes me very naive.

[OCA]

i guess you are not familiar with analogies, too bad, you could have understood and argued comparable abstinence only systems and argued why the criminal system, abstinence only, should remain in force while the sex abstinence only programs are bull

unfortunately it is clear that you don't even know what a strawman is...i never once misrepresented anyone's argument in this thread...i offered what i consider an analogy, you don't like the analogy feel free to argue why it is not comparable, but don't call it a strawman :cool:

There is no such thing in America as an "abstinence only" justice system, there are many examples of programs that prevent an idividual from a life of crime and that protect businesses and individuals from crime since crime will always be existent..................especially in a society as corrupt and crime ridden such as America is.

Therefore your argument was indeed a strawman.

[OCA]

Plenty of opportunity, M. I just didn't think it was morally right. I had the same (horny) boyfriend when I was 15 through 17 years old. And he turned 18 not long after we started going out. Yes, he eventually dropped me when he started associating with all those "available" coeds. I'm pretty sure you can guess why. Great guy; just couldn't take it anymore, I think.

Thank you so much for the kind words. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/246.gif

PS I think that my daughter makes 2. I know that some here think that makes me very naive.

Hope you are right Abbey but..................as a parent of two middle schoolers now i'm not naive that they are hearing things on subjects such as sex, drugs etc. etc. and I want them to know that there are things available to them besides my constant harping on the evils of such(even though that harping makes me a hypocrite because lord knows I was no angel).

[Yurt]

There is no such thing in America as an "abstinence only" justice system, there are many examples of programs that prevent an idividual from a life of crime and that protect businesses and individuals from crime since crime will always be existent..................especially in a society as corrupt and crime ridden such as America is.

Therefore your argument was indeed a strawman.

no, it was not a strawman, it was an analogy....analogies are not perfect, hence why they are called analogies...a strawman is creating a false argument of your opponent, i never created a false argument. you should really bone up on this debate stuff....

i'll ask you the same as missleman then...if there is not an abstinence only justice system, are you saying that we have a yes to crime justice system? that we promote and educate crime but hand out crime condoms?

for your further reading....


Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw man

[Mr. P]

no, it was not a strawman, it was an analogy....analogies are not perfect, hence why they are called analogies...a strawman is creating a false argument of your opponent, i never created a false argument. you should really bone up on this debate stuff....

i'll ask you the same as missleman then...if there is not an abstinence only justice system, are you saying that we have a yes to crime justice system? that we promote and educate crime but hand out crime condoms?

for your further reading....



http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw man

I see yer argument as a strawman, Yurt. The justice system is in place for wrongful actions committed, not for those crimes not committed (abstinence).

[Yurt]

do we teach our children to not commit crime? yes or no?

or do we teach them that if they commit crime here is a safe and protective way to commit crime....afterall, we know plenty of teens commit crimes, so why not teach them a safe and protective way to commit crimes....

also mr. p, how is it a strawman given no one has made that argument, nor have i suggested anyone has made that argument? maybe i am not doing a good job of conveying my argument, which is "argument by analogy"....i have attempted to show the commonalities between two different systems so that we can have a more full discussion on the issue teaching absinence, self-restraint/discipline.....etc

that is why i continue to ask questions instead of making direct statements or attributing any of my arguments to any one person, hence, why there is no strawman, IMHO.

i look forward to you and oca's answers to the above questions

[LiberalNation]

do we teach people how to prevent being the victims of crime because we recognize crime is going to happen no matter how much we preach against it, that is just as good of a crime anology to sex ed as yours.

[Mr. P]

I see yer argument as a strawman, Yurt. The justice system is in place for wrongful actions committed, not for those crimes not committed (abstinence).


do we teach our children to not commit crime? yes or no?

or do we teach them that if they commit crime here is a safe and protective way to commit crime....afterall, we know plenty of teens commit crimes, so why not teach them a safe and protective way to commit crimes....

also mr. p, how is it a strawman given no one has made that argument, nor have i suggested anyone has made that argument? maybe i am not doing a good job of conveying my argument, which is "argument by analogy"....i have attempted to show the commonalities between two different systems so that we can have a more full discussion on the issue teaching abstinence, self-restraint/discipline.....etc

that is why i continue to ask questions instead of making direct statements or attributing any of my arguments to any one person, hence, why there is no strawman, IMHO.

i look forward to you and oca's answers to the above questions

I don't get it, Yurt. Are you saying "abstinence only" works? Or what?

[Yurt]

do we teach people how to prevent being the victims of crime because we recognize crime is going to happen no matter how much we preach against it, that is just as good of a crime anology to sex ed as yours.

yes we do teach people about that...you know, watch out for strangers, call 911, self defense courses...i had quite a few talks growing up and some classes in college in self defense

good analogy! of course the analogy is not perfect, but that is why it is an analogy...there is nothing exactly like two people consenting to have sex...there is nothing like telling people to abstain....there is nothing like telling peopel not to commit crime or this will happen...

that is why i am using argument by analogy

[Yurt]

I don't get it, Yurt. Are you saying "abstinence only" works? Or what?

honestly, i don't get why you won't answer my simple questions....:cool:

or have you discerned what i am really getting at?

[Mr. P]

honestly, i don't get why you won't answer my simple questions....:cool:

or have you discerned what i am really getting at?

I said I don't get it. What IS your intent? You REAL question? I'll be happy to give my opinion.

[Yurt]

I said I don't get it. What IS your intent? You REAL question? I'll be happy to give my opinion.

you seem to be saying you don't get my intent, my "real" question....not that you don't get my questions....maybe that is why you won't answer because you know my questions have intriguing answers:


do we teach our children to not commit crime? yes or no?

or do we teach them that if they commit crime here is a safe and protective way to commit crime....afterall, we know plenty of teens commit crimes, so why not teach them a safe and protective way to commit crimes....

also mr. p, how is it a strawman given no one has made that argument, nor have i suggested anyone has made that argument? maybe i am not doing a good job of conveying my argument, which is "argument by analogy"....i have attempted to show the commonalities between two different systems so that we can have a more full discussion on the issue teaching abstinence, self-restraint/discipline.....etc

1. not strawman argument

2. abstinence only education is bad...but abstinence only crime education is good....this is my opinion and why i keep asking you guys if this is true. do my questions really strike a sore spot with you mr. p? i can't figure out why you won't answer simple questions...as your confusion only related to my intent not the questions themselves....

3. my REAL questions are as repeated above. if you can't answer the questions because of lack of understanding, tell me what you don't udnerstand about the question and i will be happy to explain

4. my intent should be of no issue in you answering a question, unless of course you know the answer the to the question is dangerous

[Abbey Marie]

do we teach people how to prevent being the victims of crime because we recognize crime is going to happen no matter how much we preach against it, that is just as good of a crime anology to sex ed as yours.

The "victim" analogy is false, because these teens are making a purposeful decision to engage in a particular behavior. They are not victims of behavior foisted upon them by others. That would be a different circumstance, with a different set of arguments. Arguments such as, "is it right to engage in such activites?"; a rationale that makes no sense in your "victim of crime" example.

Since the person we are talking to is a teen who must decide whether or not to engage in sexual activity, the logical and most reasonable analogy is Yurt's:

"Do we teach teens that it is wrong and dangerous for them to commit crimes?"

compared to:

"Do we teach teens that it is wrong and dangerous for them to have sex?"

[LiberalNation]

and his anology is bad because sex does not = crime. There are no victim from consenual sex either, there are possible "bad" side effects that can be negated thru modern medicine/science/technology/education but that is not the same thing.


"Do we teach teens that it is wrong and dangerous for them to have sex?"
teens having sex is neither necesserly wrong or dangerous.

[LiberalNation]

And yurt if you want a question answered your intent does matter when it comes to someone being willing to give you your answer.

[Yurt]

And yurt if you want a question answered your intent does matter when it comes to someone being willing to give you your answer.

really? so if i ask a question, my intent has to be given to you? that is not a question, that is a statement....

since you are in college i suggest you check out the "socratic method"....

you might learn a thing or three

[Yurt]

The "victim" analogy is false, because these teens are making a purposeful decision to engage in a particular behavior. They are not victims of behavior foisted upon them by others. That would be a different circumstance, with a different set of arguments. Such as "is it right to engage in such activites", a rationale that makes no sense in your "victim of crime" example.

Since the person we are talking to is a teen who must decide whether or not to engage in sexual activity, the logical and most reasonable analogy is Yurt's:

"Do we teach teens that it is wrong and dangerous for them to commit crimes?"

compared to:

"Do we teach teens that it is wrong and dangerous for them to have sex?"

good point, i should have called her analogy false. in my immature gusto i said not perfect in order to keep the analogy thing going, but you are correct.

you write well...thanks for extrapolating my analogy. a step further would be to add prophylactic measures to the analogy...in that, do we teach our children that it is wrong and dangerous for them to commit crimes while we teach them safe ways of commiting crimes.

[Missileman]

good point, i should have called her analogy false. in my immature gusto i said not perfect in order to keep the analogy thing going, but you are correct.

you write well...thanks for extrapolating my analogy. a step further would be to add prophylactic measures to the analogy...in that, do we teach our children that it is wrong and dangerous for them to commit crimes while we teach them safe ways of commiting crimes.

A better analogy is driving. We don't throw kids behind the wheel and only tell them to not have an accident.

[LiberalNation]

really? so if i ask a question, my intent has to be given to you? that is not a question, that is a statement....\

when it's a loaded question with a point behind it yep.

[Psychoblues]

Back to the original topic and we can argue about semantics and legalities or not of crime in a different place when it is more appropriaate for the discussion.

Teenagers tend to fuck around,,,,,,a lot,,,,,,and the study as quoted in the OP indicates that "abstinance only" programs and "virginity pledges" simply do not work and competent and qualified measurements prove that out. In other words, the jmillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the promotion of such programs is rather like pissing in the wind.

It would seem to me that genuine conservatives would appreciate a study that would lead to successful prevention of teenage sexual participation and not waste valuable resources on programs that are proven ineffective. Instead, it looks like many of you are trying to say, "No,no, let's keep spending money on ridiculous studies until we find one that says what we want to hear". Don't feel so all alone. I saw this on pretty much a daily basis in the corporate world and besides that, everybody must get stoned.

It's rather like the old conservative electoral metaphor of only counting the votes until a particular purpose is ascertained. See what I mean?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Or is this another one of those zoom zoom right over your head moments?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anybody up for a toddy??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

A better analogy is driving. We don't throw kids behind the wheel and only tell them to not have an accident.

excellent...you are getting the argument by analogy....

however....an accident involves, usually, one person making a big mistake....quite different than two people consensually engaging in sex....

or do you believe that a penis and a vagina simply accidentally collide?

[Yurt]

when it's a loaded question with a point behind it yep.

it is only your bias that makes it loaded, that fact you think it is loaded makes you afraid...a pathetic loaded question can be dealt with easily...

[Yurt]

why can no one address the abstinence only crime education we have? does the liberal left sell crime condoms?

[LiberalNation]

yes they sell crime prevention programs and a better way.

if crime is going happen anyway most would rather it be a simple robbery over a murder.

[Psychoblues]

Yuk said:
why can no one address the abstinence only crime education we have? does the liberal left sell crime condoms?

Because your argument is still a straw man, yuk, and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear or maybe you recall the story about putting lipstick on a pig?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!

Did you read this post above, yuk? why don't you address it and keep your criminally inclined mind on the crimes committed by expecting American taxpayers to fork over valuable resourses for programs and projects that are proven unsubstantial and failures even on their premises?!??!??!??!??!?!




Back to the original topic and we can argue about semantics and legalities or not of crime in a different place when it is more appropriaate for the discussion.

Teenagers tend to fuck around,,,,,,a lot,,,,,,and the study as quoted in the OP indicates that "abstinance only" programs and "virginity pledges" simply do not work and competent and qualified measurements prove that out. In other words, the jmillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the promotion of such programs is rather like pissing in the wind.

It would seem to me that genuine conservatives would appreciate a study that would lead to successful prevention of teenage sexual participation and not waste valuable resources on programs that are proven ineffective. Instead, it looks like many of you are trying to say, "No,no, let's keep spending money on ridiculous studies until we find one that says what we want to hear". Don't feel so all alone. I saw this on pretty much a daily basis in the corporate world and besides that, everybody must get stoned.

It's rather like the old conservative electoral metaphor of only counting the votes until a particular purpose is ascertained. See what I mean?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Or is this another one of those zoom zoom right over your head moments?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anybody up for a toddy??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

excellent...you are getting the argument by analogy....

however....an accident involves, usually, one person making a big mistake....quite different than two people consensually engaging in sex....

or do you believe that a penis and a vagina simply accidentally collide?

They aren't comparable because they involve accidents. They are comparable because neither should be attempted without proper training.

But if you insist on missing the point, instead of telling the kids to jump in the car and "don't have an accident", just for you, we can make it telling the kids to jump in the car and "don't crash on purpose".

[Abbey Marie]

and his anology is bad because sex does not = crime.
...


Of course sex does not equal crime. That's why it's called an analogy, LN. Yurt used sex and crime for their similarities for the purpose of the argument at hand. No one is saying they are the same.

[LiberalNation]

and the opposing analoglies everyone else has given are just as good as his.

[Missileman]

Of course sex does not equal crime. That's why it's called an analogy, LN. Yurt used sex and crime for their similarities for the purpose of the argument at hand. No one is saying they are the same.

Sex and crime aren't really comparable though.

[Abbey Marie]

Sex and crime aren't really comparable though.

I think they are, for the purpose of (as I said), the argument of this thread.

[Missileman]

I think they are, for the purpose of (as I said), the argument of this thread.

Maybe in that neither one can be prevented by telling someone they should abstain...other than that, I can't see how they are.

[Psychoblues]

abby, consensual sex and crime are not even similar and therefore would only be used in any comparison for a stated purpose and considering their only possibly very odd similarities of which I know of none in this case.



Of ocurse sex does not equal crime. That's why it's called an analogy, LN. Yurt used sex and crime for their similarities for the purpose of the argument at hand.No one is saying they are the same.

The crime that needs to be considered in this case is the criminal activities of those that require American taxpayers to fund programs and projects that clearly do not, have not and will not work.

The mistaken comparison by one poster or a dozen posters here do not constitute any credibility on the subject and is as noted earlier, clearly a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and intended to make a false comparison for the sole purpose of confusing the issue. This, however, is a common practice on this board by certain posters and lends little or nothing to comprehensive and/or otherwise credible discussions.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could I offer you something to cool the jets?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[manu1959]

when it's a loaded question with a point behind it yep.

aren't all question guilty of this......

[manu1959]

you all don't like the comparative with crime because it makes his point......

how about we don't teach people not to shoot each other we just issue everyone bulletproof vests....

[Missileman]

you all don't like the comparative with crime because it makes his point......

how about we don't teach people not to shoot each other we just issue everyone bulletproof vests....

Makes as much sense as telling kids they don't need to know about birth control and disease prevention until they're married.

[manu1959]

Makes as much sense as telling kids they don't need to know about birth control and disease prevention until they're married.

as i said you don't like the comparative because it is accurate......if everyone wore bulletproof vests we could shoot each other without consequence.....

[LiberalNation]

and since that is so much more practical than sex ed we should get right on it........

[manu1959]

and since that is so much more practical than sex ed we should get right on it........

sex ed......fire arms training......bullet proof vests....condoms......

don't buy a gun....don't have sex......

get it....

[Psychoblues]

The comparison, comparative as you call it, is not even close to accurate, m'59, but given that you think it is why don't we pressure our legislators to declare consensual sex among teenagers illegal and a crime?!??!??!????! And relegate severe punishment for infractions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



as i said you don't like the comparative because it is accurate......if everyone wore bulletproof vests we could shoot each other without consequence.....

To date it is not a crime and there has been no evidence put forth other than innuendo by a misguided poster that it is a comparable issue to what is otherwise considered a "crime".

Straw Man in the classic sense, IMHO.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!???!???!??!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[manu1959]

The comparison, comparative as you call it, is not even close to accurate, m'59, but given that you think it is why don't we pressure our legislators to declare consensual sex among teenagers illegal and a crime?!??!??!????! And relegate severe punishment for infractions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To date it is not a crime and there has been no evidence put forth other than innuendo by a misquided poster that it is a comparable issue to what is otherwise considered a "crime".
Straw Man in the classic sense, IMHO.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!???!???!??!!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues

couple of things ...... the age of consent is different in differnt states so to make a banket satement that consensual sex between tenagers is not illeagal is incorrect ...a 19 year old drillin a 13 year old is rape among other things......

why cant consenting teanagers shoot each other in the chest with guns if they are wearing bulletproof vests...

[Yurt]

can someone define strawman argument?

[Psychoblues]

I recall that the article in question here is generally concerned with the ineffectiveness of "abstinance only" and virginity pledge" policies and programs. The article does advocate Sex Ed and I believe in your post you seem to be in agreement with that.



sex ed......fire arms training......bullet proof vests....condoms......

don't buy a gun....don't have sex......

get it....

Let's get over the stuff that is measurably shown to be ineffective and get on with education that indicates a more promising outcome, why don't we?!?!???!??!?!??!??! I don't think anyone would argue with that, would they? Not to mention the savings to the taxpayers by eliminating programs that are clearly demonstrated to be failures?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! Wouldn't that be the clearly conservative viewpoint and desired policy regardless what anyone else thought about it?!?!?????!?!??!?!?!??!? Uhhhhhh, just so you know, I don't think this an appropriate thread to obfuscate with gun legislation either?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

why don't we teach a condom only program....

[manu1959]

I recall that the article in question here is generally concerned with the ineffectiveness of "abstinance only" and virginity pledge" policies and programs. The article does advocate Sex Ed and I believe in your post you seem to be in agreement with that.
Let's get over the stuff that is measurably shown to be ineffective and get on with education that indicates a more promising outcome, why don't we?!?!???!??!?!??!??! I don't think anyone would argue with that, would they? Not to mention the savings to the taxpayers by eliminating programs that are clearly demonstrated to be failures?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! Wouldn't that be the clearly conservative viewpoint and desired policy regardless what anyone else thought about it?!?!?????!?!??!?!?!??!? Uhhhhhh, just so you know, I don't think this an appropriate thread to obfuscate with gun legislation either?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

sex education should teach abstinence only....it should encourage virginity pledges.....it should teach the consequences of sex .. all kinds of sex .....handing out condoms to underage kids seemsa bit like passing out keys to cars to those too young to drive ..... or beers to kids to young to drink .... after all driving and drink abstinence pledges just don't work.....

[Psychoblues]

Why don't you agree to pay for it while you do your studies that will ultimately prove it to be ineffective as a program but somewhat beneficial as a tool?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


why don't we teach a condom only program....

It's easy to see why you were actually fired from that lawfirm, yuk.


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!???!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I suggest you go back and actually read the report, m'59. You wouldn't sound nearly so dumb if you just knew a little about what you're spitting between your teeth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



sex education should teach abstinence only....it should encourage virginity pledges.....it should teach the consequences of sex .. all kinds of sex .....handing out condoms to underage kids seemsa bit like passing out keys to cars to those too young to drive ..... or beers to kids to young to drink .... after all driving and drink abstinence pledges just don't work.....


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!??!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[manu1959]

I suggest you go back and actually read the report, m'59. You wouldn't sound nearly so dumb if you just knew a little about what you're spitting between your teeth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!??!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues


ah yes i forgot ...... people are only allowed to have an opinion of something if it matches yours ..... how tollerant and open minded of you ..... also are you aware that your always resort to insults .....

[Psychoblues]

Not at all, m'59!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you getting pissed because I realized that you clearly haven't read the report/article and you're just in here spouting bullshit and trying to pass it off as fact?!?!?!????!??!?!?!



ah yes i forgot ...... people are only allowed to have an opinion of something if it matches yours ..... how tollerant and open minded of you ..... also are you aware that your always resort to insults .....

Read the report/article, refrain from making statements about it that it doesn't suggest or discuss, deliver a competent overview of how you feel about what is said there and leave all the bullshit to yourself as it only allows the rest of us that did read the report/article to know that you don't have a danged clue as to the topic of discussion or the gist of the information contained therein!!!!!!!!!!!! Just a few suggestions, m'59!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Relax, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Need somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

as i said you don't like the comparative because it is accurate......if everyone wore bulletproof vests we could shoot each other without consequence.....

It isn't accurate...kids aren't born with firearms. Their bodies aren't being flooded with hormones that cause SHOOTING urges.

As for not liking arguments, I noticed no one wants to talk about the infallibility of teenagers.

[manu1959]

It isn't accurate...kids aren't born with firearms. Their bodies aren't being flooded with hormones that cause SHOOTING urges.

As for not liking arguments, I noticed no one wants to talk about the infallibility of teenagers.

they arn't born with condoms either but you seem to want to hand these infallible teenagers condoms and say i know you can't control yourself so here.....and people wonder why teenagers become less accountable every year....

[manu1959]

Not at all, m'59!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you getting pissed because I realized that you clearly haven't read the report/article and you're just in here spouting bullshit and trying to pass it off as fact?!?!?!????!??!?!?!
Read the report/article, refrain from making statements about it that it doesn't suggest or discuss, deliver a competent overview of how you feel about what is said there and leave all the bullshit to yourself as it only allows the rest of us that did read the report/article to know that you don't have a danged clue as to the topic of discussion or the gist of the information contained therein!!!!!!!!!!!!
Relax, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Need somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
:beer::cheers2::beer:
Psychoblues

read the article....still have my opinion.....

[Psychoblues]

Good, m'59!!!!!!!! I applaud both your ability to read and to formulate an opinion!!!!!!!!!!!


read the article....still have my opinion.....

Can we now return to a conversation concerning the credibility and information contained in the article and leave all these innuendos, straw men, ridiculous assertions, etc. about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand and possibly agree to approach the issues with some small degree of competence and without the outrageous disruptions that you and others seem to be using to avoid the topic and change the subject to something that was never intended or intimated within the report/article?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

This is not meant in any way by me to diminish the importance of a progressive and living conversation but some of these disruptions are entirely out of place and lack any degree of intellectual honesty as it relates to the original topic.

Maybe I'm just talking above your head and if I am please accept my sincere apologies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not and has not and would never be my intention. As you know, m'59, I do try and carry on credible conversations on this board as is evidenced by the fact that I remain after so many years. The fact that I am often completely overwhelmed and attacked from all sides is no small secret. I don't apologise for my inabilities leading me to sometimes make grave mistakes as I am what I am as you are what you are. My admonishment and suggestion for you to return to the article was purely constructive from my point of view.

Although I never really noticed it before, how long have you been such a drama queen?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!?!??!?????!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[manu1959]

Good, m'59!!!!!!!! I applaud both your ability to read and to formulate an opinion!!!!!!!!!!!
Can we now return to a conversation concerning the credibility and information contained in the article and leave all these innuendos, straw men, ridiculous assertions, etc. about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand and possibly agree to approach the issues with some small degree of competence and without the outrageous disruptions that you and others seem to be using to avoid the topic and change the subject to something that was never intended or intimated within the report/article?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
This is not meant in any way by me to diminish the importance of a progressive and living conversation but some of these disruptions are entirely out of place and lack any degree of intellectual honesty as it relates to the original topic.
Maybe I'm just talking above your head and if I am please accept my sincere apologies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not and has not and would never be my intention. As you know, m'59, I do try and carry on credible conversations on this board as is evidenced by the fact that I remain after so many years. The fact that I am often completely overwhelmed and attacked from all sides is no small secret. I don't apologise for my inabilities leading me to sometimes make grave mistakes as I am what I am as you are what you are. My admonishment and suggestion for you to return to the article was purely constructive from my point of view.

Although I never really noticed it before, how long have you been such a drama queen?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Somethin' to cool the jets?!?!?!?!??!?????!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

does being condescending and insulting bring a lot of people to your cause....

if i pledge not to do something and keep my pledge is making such a pledge effective…..

of course…..

now if someone makes a virginity pledge and does not keep it …. is it the fault of the pledge or the person ….. care to start a pool as to who on this board will take which side …..

but more interestingly why is it that our teens have no willpower and do not hold themselves accountable for their actions …. they must be learning this somewhere

[Psychoblues]

Condescending and insulting? That is not my purpose and it is certainly a tactic I rarely see on other boards as their moderators/administrators do not and will not permit it and the boundaries are generally understood from the get go. This board, on the other hand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quite common, used extensively by posters and moderators and by this point in time is certainly expected by me anytime I sign on to post or read. There occasionally seems to be some effort to bring some of it under control but even then it is selective and short lived. Jimbo is a strong 1st amendment type and personally, I applaud him for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thin skin? Clock out is my suggestion and I don't mean that in any condescending or insulting way!!!!!!!!!!

If you pledge something, then that is your pledge, m'59, and not to be confused with anyone else's pledge/s or their respect for them. What are you implying or questioning on this point?

The virginity pledge as addressed in the article should be neither the concern or the responsibility of anyone beyond the person making that pledge. The article addresses that in great detail. What in the article do you disagree with and/or how does the information there somehow offend you?!?!?!??! Or, do you actually agree with the report and thus nullify this discussion?!??????!

The lack of sexual/behavioural willpower among teenagers is legendary and has been prevalent and heavily documented in ALL cultures for time immemorial, m'59. To deny that and claim otherwise is folly at best and naive to the extreme. Considering that many if not a very strong majority of teenagers will and do push the boundaries of behaviour to the limit and beyond I think it absolutely prudent to give them the education and the tools necessary to protect themselves from certainly undesirable consequences. They should know better and many do but they do it anyway. It's called the human condition. Accountability? Different strokes for different folks. I always held my kids accountable but to be honest most parents don't. I cannot explain that circumstance to you beyond my own experience.

What they learn is what WE as parents, guardians, teachers, their peer groups, etc., teach them, m'59. As desperately as we try most of them pick up on things that we never imagined for them. Again, the human condition prevails.



does being condescending and insulting bring a lot of people to your cause....

if i pledge not to do something and keep my pledge is making such a pledge effective…..

of course…..

now if someone makes a virginity pledge and does not keep it …. is it the fault of the pledge or the person ….. care to start a pool as to who on this board will take which side …..

but more interestingly why is it that our teens have no willpower and do not hold themselves accountable for their actions …. they must be learning this somewhere

I think the article/report makes some excellent observations and credible argument as to the folly of "abstinance only" and "virginity pledges" as sole sources of sexual behaviour and biological certainties education. That was my purpose here, to hear what you all had to say or feel about the article and it's information. As is prone on this board the conversation is/was sidetracked, hijacked and otherwise destroyed by many that obviously don't want to hear about it or discuss it with any degree of intellectual honesty.

I am not totally offended by that as I understand it is common practice on this board and even encouraged whether inadvertently or not by the management. What does offend me is when I make some attempt to bring the conversation back to it's original focus and then be accused of being condescending or insulting or worse. One monkey don't stop no show, don't you know?!??!??!???????!?!?

How about a nightcap?!?!?!??!??!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

they arn't born with condoms either but you seem to want to hand these infallible teenagers condoms and say i know you can't control yourself so here.....and people wonder why teenagers become less accountable every year....

And the real geniuses of the world want to hang their kids' futures, both in unwanted pregnancy and disease, on the faith that though they'll make errors in judgement when they're little kids and errors in judgement when they're adults, that some magical, possibly divine, period of time exists for teenagers between puberty and marriage where they're incapable of errors in judgement.

[manu1959]

And the real geniuses of the world want to hang their kids' futures, both in unwanted pregnancy and disease, on the faith that though they'll make errors in judgement when they're little kids and errors in judgement when they're adults, that some magical, possibly divine, period of time exists for teenagers between puberty and marriage where they're incapable of errors in judgement.

makes you wonder how people grew up in the good old days....now we just assume they are irresponsible and stupid.....

[Abbey Marie]

they arn't born with condoms either but you seem to want to hand these infallible teenagers condoms and say i know you can't control yourself so here.....and people wonder why teenagers become less accountable every year....

http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/basket.gif

[bullypulpit]

And the real geniuses of the world want to hang their kids' futures, both in unwanted pregnancy and disease, on the faith that though they'll make errors in judgement when they're little kids and errors in judgement when they're adults, that some magical, possibly divine, period of time exists for teenagers between puberty and marriage where they're incapable of errors in judgement.

You need to remember that, after all is said and done, religion is nothing more than the magical thinking of children run amok in the hands of adults. So it's only natural for the religiously based social conservatives to engage in magical thinking regarding this issue.

[Missileman]

makes you wonder how people grew up in the good old days....now we just assume they are irresponsible and stupid.....

If you think pre-marital and teen sex weren't routine in the "good old days" you're sadly mistaken. And that you would prefer your kid risk contracting HIV rather than know how to protect themself from disease tells me your priorities are in desperate need of re-alignment.

[actsnoblemartin]

i wanna see a shirt (word by a teenage boy) that says: I broke your daughter's virginity pledge :lol:

that would be funny

[Psychoblues]

I'm still awaiting an answer to what a good friend of mine told me in 1972 when his 15 year old pregnant daughter told him that she only got a little on her leg?!?!??!?!??!??!?


i wanna see a shirt (word by a teenage boy) that says: I broke your daughter's virginity pledge :lol:

that would be funny

Beats me, don't you know?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!????!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/basket.gif

C'mon Abbey! You found that lame reply compelling? Kids aren't born with child restraints or seatbelts either.

[OCA]

I see yer argument as a strawman, Yurt. The justice system is in place for wrongful actions committed, not for those crimes not committed (abstinence).

:clap:

[Yurt]

:clap:

no surprise you clap at that and ignore the answer to that post...cause that would show you still don't know what a strawman argument is :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

strawman, tinman, whatever.

[avatar4321]

btw does it really surprise anyone that pledges are ineffective? We dont need people to say things, we need them to actually do them to be effective.

[Kathianne]

btw does it really surprise anyone that pledges are ineffective? We dont need people to say things, we need them to actually do them to be effective.

My point, most 13-16 year olds who 'take the pledge' may well carry it out, for a time. Most will abandon at 17-20 or so, but it delays the onset of sexual relations. Contrary to earlier posts, with a decent sex education, when they DO become sexually active, less likely to engage in risky behaviors.

The risky set is most likely to have sex ed, but think they will 'wait' for real love. Which of course is controlled by hormones for many years. Thus 'love the one you're with', ready or not.

[Missileman]

My point, most 13-16 year olds who 'take the pledge' may well carry it out, for a time. Most will abandon at 17-20 or so, but it delays the onset of sexual relations. Contrary to earlier posts, with a decent sex education, when they DO become sexually active, less likely to engage in risky behaviors.

The risky set is most likely to have sex ed, but think they will 'wait' for real love. Which of course is controlled by hormones for many years. Thus 'love the one you're with', ready or not.

I'm more inclined to think the risky set those kids denied "real" sex ed who only know the urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time", etc.

[Kathianne]

I'm more inclined to think the risky set those kids denied "real" sex ed who only know the urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time", etc.

those kids are urban legend. Are there kids that aren't prepared? Sure, but as I said, the younger the more likely.

[OCA]

no surprise you clap at that and ignore the answer to that post...cause that would show you still don't know what a strawman argument is :laugh2:

Because it was spot on Yurt, I just call em as they are.

[Yurt]

Because it was spot on Yurt, I just call em as they are.

can you explain the difference between argument by analogy and strawman argument...and after that can you explain how exactly my argument was a strawman

[manu1959]

can you explain the difference between argument by analogy and strawman argument...and after that can you explain how exactly my argument was a strawman

your analogy may have been a stretch but it wasn't a straw man.....for it to be a straw man it would need to have been a deviation of the argument originally presented and a weaker deviation.....google is your friend.....

[Trigg]

My point, most 13-16 year olds who 'take the pledge' may well carry it out, for a time. Most will abandon at 17-20 or so, but it delays the onset of sexual relations. Contrary to earlier posts, with a decent sex education, when they DO become sexually active, less likely to engage in risky behaviors.

The risky set is most likely to have sex ed, but think they will 'wait' for real love. Which of course is controlled by hormones for many years. Thus 'love the one you're with', ready or not.

I agree with you.

[Yurt]

your analogy may have been a stretch but it wasn't a straw man.....for it to be a straw man it would need to have been a deviation of the argument originally presented and a weaker deviation.....google is your friend.....

absolutely...i was pushing the envelope with the analogy, then again, that is often done using analogy and no analogy is perfect that is why i was waiting for someone to explain how the analogy should not work at all.

:cool:

[Said1]

absolutely...i was pushing the envelope with the analogy, then again, that is often done using analogy and no analogy is perfect that is why i was waiting for someone to explain how the analogy should not work at all.

:cool:

Instead, why don't you explain how it would work?

[Said1]

Didn't realize the thread was 12 pages long. :coffee:

[Yurt]

Instead, why don't you explain how it would work?

did

[Psychoblues]

did

Did not.

You attempt to relate biological activities that all of us have in our lives with "crime". Even you admit to things that I would consider sodomy. That is a crime in many cultures and several American states. But, that's a different subject for a different thread and a different time.

This thread attempts to discuss the fallacies and ineffectiveness of "abstinance only" and "virginity pledges". You go off on some crime delusion and expect the rest to agree.

You really do suck, yuk, and that's why that law firm fired you. And, stick your neg reps in your butt with your other butt buddie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beer is not a good lubricant, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

since when does that bother the liberals, I guess because she didn't make her have an abortion is what you all are upset about...

when she didn't bring her daughter along, you all accused her of trying to cover it up, then when she did you all put her and her daughter down for that..

you Liberals are such hypocrite it sickening...and you have turned into a big NASTY DOG...woof woof

Um, did you see the republican moves against Obama? They're all hypocrites, period. One side doesn't get to claim immunity, it's both that are continuing the squabble, and the People who allow it to continue by constantly rehiring them

[DragonStryk72]

I knew this would happen but some need to see the facts for themselves.

Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection

By Rob Stein

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.......................................... ........

Much More including additional articles and links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28415602

Can I get a witness?!???!??!??!????!???!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

You know, having gone to Catholic school, I can honestly say we never got hit with abstinence pledges, they didn't even bludgeon us with the topic. Also conversely, there just wasn't as much sex going around my high school. Funny how constantly bringing up the same subject all the time puts it more fervently in people's heads. It's almost like we learn by repetition..... Nah, couldn't be, that's just crazy

[Psychoblues]

Maybe it was just you that wasn't gettin' any, DS'72?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!


You know, having gone to Catholic school, I can honestly say we never got hit with abstinence pledges, they didn't even bludgeon us with the topic. Also conversely, there just wasn't as much sex going around my high school. Funny how constantly bringing up the same subject all the time puts it more fervently in people's heads. It's almost like we learn by repetition..... Nah, couldn't be, that's just crazy

Nah, couldn't be, that's just Psycho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

Did not.

You attempt to relate biological activities that all of us have in our lives with "crime". Even you admit to things that I would consider sodomy. That is a crime in many cultures and several American states. But, that's a different subject for a different thread and a different time.

This thread attempts to discuss the fallacies and ineffectiveness of "abstinance only" and "virginity pledges". You go off on some crime delusion and expect the rest to agree.

You really do suck, yuk, and that's why that law firm fired you. And, stick your neg reps in your butt with your other butt buddie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beer is not a good lubricant, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

what happened to you? you used to be funny, if a bit caustic, but now you just spout lies, and lies that are personal insults...pity really

btw, you got dinged for lying, well deserved

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.

By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat." - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003_pf.html>The Washington Post</a></blockquote>

As it turns out, "abstinence only" programs don't work. <a href=http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm>Effective Sex Education</a> programs work, except the social and religious conservatives find that fact contradicts their views on the matter and are thus to be dismissed.

What...? No takers? No one wants to discuss the facts of the matter? I was expecting too much, wasn't I.

[Hobbit]

I took a closer look at this study, and it's dishonest. They only compared people of faith who took the pledge vs. people of faith who didn't. People of faith are raised abstinence and are pretty much going to behave the same whether they get a pledge or not. I have a feeling the conclusion of this study was written before they even started gathering data.

[5stringJeff]

I think elsewhere I read that this study proves that having a religious upbringing does significantly affect the decision to have sex. Religious kids lost their virginity at age 20, as compared to 17 for non-religious kids. So the study did show something - just not the thing the media wanted to report.

[Mr. P]

I think elsewhere I read that this study proves that having a religious upbringing does significantly affect the decision to have sex. Religious kids lost their virginity at age 20, as compared to 17 for non-religious kids. So the study did show something - just not the thing the media wanted to report.

Dispels that the preaches kid is ALWAYS the most misbehaved I guess. Just saying.

[manu1959]

Dispels that the preaches kid is ALWAYS the most misbehaved I guess. Just saying.

well i am friends with a pastor that has a son my boys age.....lest just say he isn't the most misbehaved.....but he makes my kid look like a saint.....

[namvet]

Proper Use Of A Condom

KRa6WxVWc34

:lol::laugh2:

[manu1959]

the pledge is effective....it is teenagers that are the problem......

[DragonStryk72]

The problem is the idea of upkeep on the pledge. See, without the pledge, you have your normal degree of sexual thoughts, but with the abstinence pledges, they almost enforce thinking about sex more often.

Second, you have to look at how these pledges are being gotten from teens, because if they are pushed into either through directly forcing it, or just nudged repeatedly until they do it, then they are vastly more likely to drop the pledge than if they honestly and whole-heartedly gave their word.

[manu1959]

The problem is the idea of upkeep on the pledge. See, without the pledge, you have your normal degree of sexual thoughts, but with the abstinence pledges, they almost enforce thinking about sex more often.

Second, you have to look at how these pledges are being gotten from teens, because if they are pushed into either through directly forcing it, or just nudged repeatedly until they do it, then they are vastly more likely to drop the pledge than if they honestly and whole-heartedly gave their word.

like i said.....:poke:

[Yurt]

The problem is the idea of upkeep on the pledge. See, without the pledge, you have your normal degree of sexual thoughts, but with the abstinence pledges, they almost enforce thinking about sex more often.

Second, you have to look at how these pledges are being gotten from teens, because if they are pushed into either through directly forcing it, or just nudged repeatedly until they do it, then they are vastly more likely to drop the pledge than if they honestly and whole-heartedly gave their word.

so, with a pledge of no sex... you have a """"normal"""" degree of sex thinking and sex doing....but if teens promise not to have sex, then they will have more sex....

if the pledge is given under duress, doesn't count, hence it is not a pledge....

are you saying that a teen cannot give a true pledge to not have sex? that such a pledge cannot possibly exist?

[LiberalNation]

it can exist, some may even keep it, the majority wont, it may put off sex for a short time but is not a good solution considering it's fail rate.

Would you use and promote birth control that failed 85% of the time......

[Missileman]

it can exist, some may even keep it, the majority wont, it may put off sex for a short time but is not a good solution considering it's fail rate.

Would you use and promote birth control that failed 85% of the time......

Even better way of asking it: Would you hire or recommend a lawyer who only won 15% of his cases?

[5stringJeff]

it can exist, some may even keep it, the majority wont, it may put off sex for a short time but is not a good solution considering it's fail rate.

Would you use and promote birth control that failed 85% of the time......

No. But abstinence works 100% of the time, which is why I recommend it.

[Noir]

No. But abstinence works 100% of the time, which is why I recommend it.

No, it works 99.999...% of the time, don't forget the poor virgin Mary.

[5stringJeff]

No, it works 99.999...% of the time, don't forget the poor virgin Mary.

Well, since there was a 700-year-old prophecy about that one, she should have known better!!! :D

[Missileman]

No. But abstinence works 100% of the time, which is why I recommend it.

If only teenagers were 100% infallible...then it'd be worth recommending.

[namvet]

If only teenagers were 100% infallible...then it'd be worth recommending.

no shit !!! their at their sexual peak. someone needs to get a grip. (not you)

:lame2:

[DragonStryk72]

so, with a pledge of no sex... you have a """"normal"""" degree of sex thinking and sex doing....but if teens promise not to have sex, then they will have more sex....

if the pledge is given under duress, doesn't count, hence it is not a pledge....

are you saying that a teen cannot give a true pledge to not have sex? that such a pledge cannot possibly exist?

If of their own volition, yes, they can, but if not, then the teens are in fact more likely to dig in going in the opposing direction.

But then, the teens that are doing the pledges of their own volition are already not having sex, so it's rather a moot point for them anyhow. It's like me promising not to eat babies, it's doesn't affect anything, since I wasn't doing it to begin with.

Also, I only said thoughts increase, not actions, so don't try to add words to mine, thanks. But yes, you are more likely to do something you think about more often, simply due to the way the human brain works.