Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Terraius]

What Bendict was getting at, was that by claiming condoms are the only way for people to prevent spreading STD's, your going to end up causing more harm then good. Condoms are not 100% effective, and the idea about it being that condoms do promote fornication because ignorant people (Which Africa has alot of given its status as a 3rd world continent and lack of any real education) will think that they are 100% effective and dont have to worry about it.

And empirical evidence proves him wrong.

Comprehensive sex education has been compared with abstinence-only indoctrination time and time again, and the numbers say that the abstinence-only campaigns have the net result of increasing STD rates.

People will keep having sex. The way to reduce AIDS transmission rates is to teach people about condoms and promote using condoms.

And of course you have the documentation and sources as well as locations of institutions that promote abstinence only that can relate to the higher rates of incidents, yes?

And yes, people will keep killing other people, but we dont educate them on safer ways to not get caught, either. The 'safe' morality compromise is defunct and useless.

Teaching people about sex is not the solution, abstinence or condoms, whether you want to believe it or not. Indeed, people will keep having sexual relations, however the solution is not to pass out condoms to kids or to tell them to keep their legs closed until they are married and established. It would be more effective to teach the risks involved.

In law, emphasis is not put on the morality or way about obeying a law. No. The emphasis is put on the consequences of breaking said law. If we sat around and just educated people on safer ways to get around the law or the morality of not breaking the law at all and ignored the risks, then you would be wasting your breathe.

Which is what this argument of condoms vs. abstinence, amounts to, as it negates the true meaning of the argument to begin with.

[DaWoad]

And empirical evidence proves him wrong.

Comprehensive sex education has been compared with abstinence-only indoctrination time and time again, and the numbers say that the abstinence-only campaigns have the net result of increasing STD rates.

People will keep having sex. The way to reduce AIDS transmission rates is to teach people about condoms and promote using condoms.

And of course you have the documentation and sources as well as locations of institutions that promote abstinence only that can relate to the higher rates of incidents, yes?

And yes, people will keep killing other people, but we dont educate them on safer ways to not get caught, either. The 'safe' morality compromise is defunct and useless.

Teaching people about sex is not the solution, abstinence or condoms, whether you want to believe it or not. Indeed, people will keep having sexual relations, however the solution is not to pass out condoms to kids or to tell them to keep their legs closed until they are married and established. It would be more effective to teach the risks involved.

In law, emphasis is not put on the morality or way about obeying a law. No. The emphasis is put on the consequences of breaking said law. If we sat around and just educated people on safer ways to get around the law or the morality of not breaking the law at all and ignored the risks, then you would be wasting your breathe.

Which is what this argument of condoms vs. abstinence, amounts to, as it negates the true meaning of the argument to begin with.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
also, are you trying to claim that sex is equivalent to murder? Sorry if your particular brand of Neo-con Christianity doesn't like this but Sex is not illegal.

[Tahar Joblis]

And of course you have the documentation and sources

Start here. Once you're done reading, let me know.

Blathering on about abstinence has on the whole no statistically significant effect on sexual behavior and a bad (& statistically verifiable) effect on STD transmission rates. This is empirically solid. It's been verified.

If you want to reduce sexual activity out of wedlock, educate and make prosperous the population.

[The Chaos Heart]

And of course you have the documentation and sources as well as locations of institutions that promote abstinence only that can relate to the higher rates of incidents, yes?

And yes, people will keep killing other people, but we dont educate them on safer ways to not get caught, either. The 'safe' morality compromise is defunct and useless.

Teaching people about sex is not the solution, abstinence or condoms, whether you want to believe it or not. Indeed, people will keep having sexual relations, however the solution is not to pass out condoms to kids or to tell them to keep their legs closed until they are married and established. It would be more effective to teach the risks involved.

In law, emphasis is not put on the morality or way about obeying a law. No. The emphasis is put on the consequences of breaking said law. If we sat around and just educated people on safer ways to get around the law or the morality of not breaking the law at all and ignored the risks, then you would be wasting your breathe.

Which is what this argument of condoms vs. abstinence, amounts to, as it negates the true meaning of the argument to begin with.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
also, are you trying to claim that sex is equivalent to murder? Sorry if your particular brand of Neo-con Christianity doesn't like this but Sex is not illegal.

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

[Tahar Joblis]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
also, are you trying to claim that sex is equivalent to murder? Sorry if your particular brand of Neo-con Christianity doesn't like this but Sex is not illegal.

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

His purpose is to endorse the use of scare tactics as "sex education." Which is what no small number of abstinence-only programs did - with predictable results, as I pointed out. No impact on frequency of sexual behavior, increased STD rates, etc etc.

[DaWoad]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
also, are you trying to claim that sex is equivalent to murder? Sorry if your particular brand of Neo-con Christianity doesn't like this but Sex is not illegal.

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

Bull, he's promoting abstinence ed. but couching it terms of "Teach them the consequences of their actions!!!" which works exactly as well as any abstinence only education (ie. not very)

[Terraius]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
also, are you trying to claim that sex is equivalent to murder? Sorry if your particular brand of Neo-con Christianity doesn't like this but Sex is not illegal.

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

Im glad someone here actually reads what I post, I was starting to feel like I was screaming on an island all the way out in the middle of the ocean and noone hearing me.

[AiliailiA]

What, this?



If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

Ive actually been on mission trips with my dad to Latin America and Africa. Im well aware of the education there (Or, lack there of, 90% of the places had no schools, and we were the teachers.)

Your argument is really deconstructive.

Wat?

To put it in perspective:

'Dont do drugs.' opposed to
'Go ahead and do drugs but only smoke X / only smoke X in Y fashion to be safe'

No. This is what I asked you. Those are not the only two alternatives: there is another one which I specifically mentioned.

I don't think "don't do drugs" is a lesson. I think it is either advice, or an order. But there is a way to discourage kids from doing drugs, and that's to teach them about the risks. The real risks, as determined by medical studies and by wide experience of both legal and illegal drug use. Oddly enough, two legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) have well known risks and these should be taught too.

But guess what. Despite knowing the risks, some kids will do drugs just as some kids will have sex.

So if you're not also teaching the safer ways to do drugs, the risks of some drugs relative to other drugs, and the lifestyle dangers (ie, risk of getting busted, entanglement with criminals, the cost in time and money) ... if you're hiding all that and relying only on the students taking your advice not to do drugs, you are not educating them and you are not doing all you can to keep them safe.

'Dont Steal' opposed to
'Dont get caught'

The idea of abstinence is a simple one. If you want to be 100% sure you dont want to get an STD or pregnant, then dont have sex. If you are willing to take the risk with condoms, do so at your own risk.

Firstly, you have a zero percent chance of getting pregnant from sex ... if you're a guy. That's relevant, since after all education is for both sexes. If you teach abstinence to boys and to girls, and one of the reasons you give for it is "so you don't get pregnant" you're making it really obvious that it is the girl who has to say no, because it is her who will suffer the consequences. Same goes for HIV actually, since unprotected sex deposits bodily fluids from a male into a female, the risk of male-to-female transmission is higher than female-to-male.

But the really important point is what you call "at your own risk". People who have been specifically instructed in how to use condoms (and yes, practiced it right there in class) are far less likely to have them fail.

So do you, or do you not agree with the mandatory teaching of safe sex in high school?

If you can produce a method that is 100% effective at not riskin STD transfer or pregnancy outside of not having sex, then by all means present it.

If you dont want lung cancer, dont smoke.

If you dont want to risk X consequence, dont do Y activity.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

The Pope and the Church are not opposed to the idea of condoms themselves. Infact, the Pope did recognize that condoms help prevent, not 100%, but a good percent, of risks.

What the Church opposes is the idea behind condoms, that if they are the only option given to people, voiding any other concepts such as abstinence, that the uneducated and misinformed will be lead to believe that they are 100% effective or that the risks are slim to none, and therefore promote rampant sex. If you think I am wrong, then you can easily look up the statistics and see that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies and STD transfers occurs in the part of our population that is naturally inclined to be uneducated and misinformed - Teenagers and Young Adults.

Yes, you repeat yourself. You seem to be good at that.

"The idea behind condoms" is not that they're the only option given to people. I said, I have no objection to trying to teach abstinence in school, what I object to is the deliberate exclusion of safe sex from teaching. "The uneducated and misinformed" are educated and informed in school, not just ordered to do or not to do x in their private life.

At great length, you have ignored what I said. I think "teaching" abstinence is a waste of time but not actively harmful. Teaching risks and stating the fact that abstinence is the most certain way of reducing those risks is worthwhile. In neither case do I see any harm in it. But Safe Sex should be taught as well ... and you have yet to say yea or nay to that.

If you once more repeat the same two polar approaches (abstinence only, or safe sex only) I will give up. I can't make you engage in argument if you don't want to or are incapable of it.

[Terraius]

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

His purpose is to endorse the use of scare tactics as "sex education." Which is what no small number of abstinence-only programs did - with predictable results, as I pointed out. No impact on frequency of sexual behavior, increased STD rates, etc etc.

Yes, because teaching people that what they do, now matter what bullshit 'fool-proof' sex ed plan you have could lead to unwanted pregnancy, or STD's, is a total scare tactic and waste of time. We should stick to just giving them coaching on either avoiding it or using safe tools to get around the risk, and hope that they dont have to experience the real horror for themselves.

Because as we all know its much better for those pesky sex rabbits to learn the hard way through contracting a life threatening disease or having a kid they cant afford to support rather then allot them the knowledge of the risks to begin with, huuzah.

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

Bull, he's promoting abstinence ed. but couching it terms of "Teach them the consequences of their actions!!!" which works exactly as well as any abstinence only education (ie. not very)

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

[DaWoad]

.

Bull, he's promoting abstinence ed. but couching it terms of "Teach them the consequences of their actions!!!" which works exactly as well as any abstinence only education (ie. not very)

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

nope, that actually works pretty dmn well as it turns out.
See my citations for proof if you like.

[The Chaos Heart]

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

Bull, he's promoting abstinence ed. but couching it terms of "Teach them the consequences of their actions!!!" which works exactly as well as any abstinence only education (ie. not very)

All I said was he wasn't comparing sex to murder. You went overboard there.

I'm not part of this debate. Don't try to draw me in. I'm simply correcting the fallacy that I saw. Nothing more.

[Tubbsalot]

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

No, that works way better than abstinence ed.

[AiliailiA]

No, he's not. You missed the entire purpose of his post. Which was to state that, like is done in with the law, we need to increase knowledge of the risks of sex, not waste time on an abstinence vs. condoms debate.

His purpose is to endorse the use of scare tactics as "sex education." Which is what no small number of abstinence-only programs did - with predictable results, as I pointed out. No impact on frequency of sexual behavior, increased STD rates, etc etc.

And the same problem with Just Say No.

When the kids realize the "information" given to them was cherry picked and exaggerated to the point of being lies, they dismiss the whole lot as propaganda. Seems like a great way to make them go find out for themselves by having sex or doing drugs.

It's got to be fact-based, or it doesn't deserve to be called education.

[Osoaribbean]

I think they are going about it all wrong.

First offense, non-violent criminals that are not guilty of felonies.....I'm going to guess these folks are the group that is probably most likely not to re-offend provided you show them where it leads.

Don't hold back or give them an easy way out. Show them, in no uncertain terms, where they may end up should they keep going.

Don't throw them to the lions but DO show them the murders, rapist and just how little an individual life is worth in our prison system as it stands now. Introduce him to his potential, future cellmate who is going to cornhole him every night and twice on Sundy who may, just for lulz, cut his throat some night because he's bored.

First time offenders like described in the OP don't need to be rehabilitated, they aren't hardened criminals yet. What they do need is to have the HOLY LIVING SHIT scared out of them.

[Terraius]

.



And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

nope, that actually works pretty dmn well as it turns out.
See my citations for proof if you like.

You linked a shitty thrown together opinionated report from the Guttmacher Institute, a forerunner pro-choice lobbyist group, and a report from the Aids institute which does little more then support my stance.

I stop carrying about your argument, here.

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

No, that works way better than abstinence ed.

And at this point I question why I even argue here to begin with.

This is the reason why society is in decline. Uneducated people jumping to one extreme or another. Reason, logic, and constructive compromise approach have become archaic forms of thinking.

Observing and participating in debates in NationStates is about as productive and educational as Hitler and Stalin trying to take the higher moral ground on their ideologies.

Or better yet, its like watching a child molester and serial killer try to argue who has committed the worse crime. In the end both are generally radical psychopaths and should be thrown in a fire regardless.

'Abstinence is useless! Handing out condoms barring comprehensive education on risks, no matter how equally idiotic or useless the concept, is much better, of course, for I am.. the INTERNET PHILOSOPHER!'

[Another Flag Thief]

'Abstinence is useless! Handing out condoms barring comprehensive education on risks, no matter how equally idiotic or useless the concept, is much better, of course, for I am.. the INTERNET PHILOSOPHER!'

FUCKING SIGGED

Also how did this go from an accusation of state supported theology to a debate about abstinence and condoms.

Just sayin.

[Another Flag Thief]

Oh, and nice flag Ailiailia.

[AiliailiA]

'Abstinence is useless! Handing out condoms barring comprehensive education on risks, no matter how equally idiotic or useless the concept, is much better, of course, for I am.. the INTERNET PHILOSOPHER!'

FUCKING SIGGED

Also how did this go from an accusation of state supported theology to a debate about abstinence and condoms.

Just sayin.

Someone dissed the Pope and Terraius got up on his warhorse.

I do see some connection still to the subject, because the one year of religious instruction will certainly include moralism about sexuality, and spiritual concepts, and all the other panoply of religion which has NOTHING to do with following the law. I think it's relevant that this kind of moralism is what the offenders will be exposed to when they go to church, not just "don't murder and don't steal".

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, because teaching people that what they do, now matter what bullshit 'fool-proof' sex ed plan you have could lead to unwanted pregnancy, or STD's, is a total scare tactic and waste of time.

Yes, it is. It's bullshit and harmful bullshit to use scare tactics.

Yes, there is a small minute risk that a condom will fail. This risk is, coincidentally, much smaller when one is educated in the proper use thereof.

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

No, actually, that works much better. See, again, actual empirical evidence.

See, what's important when it comes to actually helping people isn't getting on your high horse and dictating terms to them. It's doing what works to improve their situation. Comprehensive good sex education will. Information, not ignorance.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Apparently saying "Here are the risks of unprotected sex, objectively measured. Here are the risks of sex with improperly used condoms, objectively measured. Here are the risks of sex with properly used condoms, objectively measured. Here's how you actually use a condom properly." is apparently the equivalent of passing out condoms and telling kids to go wild.

[Tahar Joblis]

Apparently saying "Here are the risks of unprotected sex, objectively measured. Here are the risks of sex with improperly used condoms, objectively measured. Here are the risks of sex with properly used condoms, objectively measured. Here's how you actually use a condom properly." is apparently the equivalent of passing out condoms and telling kids to go wild.

In his mind, yes.

But actually passing out condoms and telling kids to go have fun with them still works better than the abstinence-only scare tactic brigade.

[Four-sided Triangles]

And yes, people will keep killing other people, but we dont educate them on safer ways to not get caught, either. The 'safe' morality compromise is defunct and useless.

Which only works if you assume that people having sex is inherently bad. If we could completely eliminate the consequences of murder, then murder wouldn't be wrong either. Killing people is bad because, by definition, it involves removing people from existence. It also causes economic damage and emotional damage to the loved ones of the murder victim. If we lived in a universe where everyone had an "infinite lives" cheat code, killing wouldn't really be a big deal. You cannot coherently separate moral considerations from consequences. Not even deontology succeeds in so doing, and divine command theory is circular nonsense.

The only real reason to not want sex to be safer is if you think sex is bad and that people should be punished for having it. Oh, sex has "consequences," you say? Sure it does, but those consequences are contingent upon the context in which the act takes place. The consequences of drinking water today are vastly different from what they were before we had the germ theory of disease. Would you suggest that we get rid of water treatment so that people come to terms with the "real" consequences of drinking water? Or do you, like all rational people, recognize that consequences are not absolute, but contingent upon society, technology, and infrastructure? How is this a hard concept to grasp?

Teaching people about sex is not the solution, abstinence or condoms, whether you want to believe it or not. Indeed, people will keep having sexual relations, however the solution is not to pass out condoms to kids or to tell them to keep their legs closed until they are married and established. It would be more effective to teach the risks involved.

1. In all but a very few situations, like the knowledge on how to build chemical weapons, more factual information is ALWAYS a good thing. Ignorance is almost always worse than knowledge.

2. Proper sex education DOES teach the risks of sex. However, it teaches the real risks of sex in a sober manner, always balanced against empirical evidence, rather than in a sensationalist manner, balanced against Augustinian and puritanical erotophobia.

[AiliailiA]

Yes, because teaching people that what they do, now matter what bullshit 'fool-proof' sex ed plan you have could lead to unwanted pregnancy, or STD's, is a total scare tactic and waste of time.

Yes, it is. It's bullshit and harmful bullshit to use scare tactics.

Yes, there is a small minute risk that a condom will fail. This risk is, coincidentally, much smaller when one is educated in the proper use thereof.

And exactly as well as passing out a condom and wishing them the best of luck, right?

No, actually, that works much better. See, again, actual empirical evidence.

See, what's important when it comes to actually helping people isn't getting on your high horse and dictating terms to them. It's doing what works to improve their situation. Comprehensive good sex education will. Information, not ignorance.

I think Terraius is unwilling to give up the punishment consequence for what he believes is morally wrong behavior.

So you're wasting your time talking about harm reduction. Terraius likes the harm. The sinners should suffer.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I think Terraius is unwilling to give up the punishment consequence for what he believes is morally wrong behavior.

So you're wasting your time talking about harm reduction. Terraius likes the harm. The sinners should suffer.

If that's what he thinks, then I see no reason to argue with him. A desire for people to suffer because they committed a consensual act which isn't even inherently harmful is profoundly immoral. Such priorities are simply too deranged to logically argue with.

Note for the slow: No, I'm not saying that IS his position. I'm saying that IF that's his position, I see no reason to continue debating, though I'll keep arguing anyway because this is the Internet, where beating dead horses is a favored pastime.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

nope, that actually works pretty dmn well as it turns out.
See my citations for proof if you like.

You linked a shitty thrown together opinionated report from the Guttmacher Institute, a forerunner pro-choice lobbyist group, and a report from the Aids institute which does little more then support my stance.

I stop carrying about your argument, here.

No, that works way better than abstinence ed.

And at this point I question why I even argue here to begin with.

This is the reason why society is in decline. Uneducated people jumping to one extreme or another. Reason, logic, and constructive compromise approach have become archaic forms of thinking.

Observing and participating in debates in NationStates is about as productive and educational as Hitler and Stalin trying to take the higher moral ground on their ideologies.

Or better yet, its like watching a child molester and serial killer try to argue who has committed the worse crime. In the end both are generally radical psychopaths and should be thrown in a fire regardless.

'Abstinence is useless! Handing out condoms barring comprehensive education on risks, no matter how equally idiotic or useless the concept, is much better, of course, for I am.. the INTERNET PHILOSOPHER!'

rofl

this entire post is fucking hilarious and kinda sad

Abstinence has been proven to not work.

Just tell kids what the fuck happens when you have unprotected sex. If they do it anyways, who gives a fuck. Not your problem, tbh. If parents want their kids to follow abstinence, they can teach it at their house, just like religion, and just like intelligent design. It doesn't belong in places of learning and education. But yeah, you go ahead and ignore blatantly obvious data that disproves your position. This is the Internet after all.