We have to just disagree then.

 

I'm trying to tread carefully here. This disagreement frustrates me. On one side, we have evidence from Colorado that expanded access to affordable contraception significantly reduced both the teen pregnancy rate and, necessarily, the abortion rate as well. On the other side, we have an argument that boils down to "premarital sex is bad." "Premarital sex is bad" is a bad basis for policy because there are no facts that support it having any tangible impact on results - reduced teen pregnancy rates.

 

 

 

It's definitely not bannable and I don't feel threatened.

 

Now, would a Nazi find it morally OK to kill me? Yes.

 

This all boils down to where the morals of individuals and then society come from. Applying blanket Christian morality to the entire United States would be the equivalent of Sharia Law.

 

When I say individuals come up with morals, I should clarify: society tends to decide what is morally correct, some through the Bible and others not. Most in society would say pre-marital sex is fine in today's society.

Thanks. I honestly meant no harm to you or anyone else.

 

OK, so if society thinks we don;t need brett05 anymore is that morally right since it is society? Morals must have a standard else they aren't really morals at all and just whims of people.

 

Basically just because 50+ percent of people think pre-marital sex is ok does not mean that it is morally.

I'm trying to tread carefully here. This disagreement frustrates me. On one side, we have evidence from Colorado that expanded access to affordable contraception significantly reduced both the teen pregnancy rate and, necessarily, the abortion rate as well. On the other side, we have an argument that boils down to "premarital sex is bad." "Premarital sex is bad" is a bad basis for policy because there are no facts that support it having any tangible impact on results - reduced teen pregnancy rates.

Allowing more access to contraceptives and the lower teen pregnancy rate do not necessarily correlate. It's a correlation that more than likely cannot be proven.

 

Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.

Thanks. I honestly meant no harm to you or anyone else.

 

OK, so if society thinks we don;t need brett05 anymore is that morally right since it is society? Morals must have a standard else they aren't really morals at all and just whims of people.

 

Basically just because 50+ percent of people think pre-marital sex is ok does not mean that it is morally.

 

who, in your mind, gets to decide the standard for morality?

Allowing more access to contraceptives and the lower teen pregnancy rate do not necessarily correlate. It's a correlation that more than likely cannot be proven.

 

Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.

 

That's essentially saying we should throw our hands in the air and we can't ever really know anything. Solipsism isn't a solid basis for policy, either.

 

We can look at places that have implemented abstinence-only education and compare them to those who haven't. We can then compare what the teen pregnancy and STD rates are both before certain policies are implemented or changed and between the different policies in different places. From that, we can make a very well educated conclusion. In this particular case, the evidence is entirely on the side of abstinence-only education having worse outcomes, if you define "higher teen pregnancy and STD rates" as a worse outcome.

 

The school prayer example actually hurts your case rather than helps it. School prayer was found to be unconstitutional in 62 and 63. Crime rates were already climbing prior to that, which is the first strong point against the idea that school prayer tamps down crime rate. The second is that the crime rate rose to a peak late 80's/early 90's and has since steadily declined despite a lack of change in school prayer policy.

I'm trying to tread carefully here. This disagreement frustrates me. On one side, we have evidence from Colorado that expanded access to affordable contraception significantly reduced both the teen pregnancy rate and, necessarily, the abortion rate as well. On the other side, we have an argument that boils down to "premarital sex is bad." "Premarital sex is bad" is a bad basis for policy because there are no facts that support it having any tangible impact on results - reduced teen pregnancy rates.

 

People have different opinions on things, sometimes evidence isnt enough. The church did not allow books that said the Earth revolved around the sun to be printed in Rome until 1822. Many believe the first scientist, Aristarchus of Samos, theorized this idea in 270 BC. Copernicus was in the 1500s.

 

 

Thanks. I honestly meant no harm to you or anyone else.

 

OK, so if society thinks we don;t need brett05 anymore is that morally right since it is society? Morals must have a standard else they aren't really morals at all and just whims of people.

 

Basically just because 50+ percent of people think pre-marital sex is ok does not mean that it is morally.

 

There are no standards for morality. Morals were an attempt to codify behavior, somewhat like laws. Most "morality" was actually law at some point. If you want to go back further than Christianity (to its predecessor Judaism) you can see how "morality" evolved as a way to "control" people. What is even more interesting is that most of the heavy hitters of Judaism did things that today Christianity considers "immoral." Damn Abraham and his lack of morals. I mean, he had sex with Hagar out of wedlock...

Edited January 24, 20179 yr by Soxbadger

Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.

 

Crime has fallen since irreligion has grown.

who, in your mind, gets to decide the standard for morality?

That's the question for all of us, isn't it?

That's essentially saying we should throw our hands in the air and we can't ever really know anything. Solipsism isn't a solid basis for policy, either.

 

We can look at places that have implemented abstinence-only education and compare them to those who haven't. We can then compare what the teen pregnancy and STD rates are both before certain policies are implemented or changed and between the different policies in different places. From that, we can make a very well educated conclusion. In this particular case, the evidence is entirely on the side of abstinence-only education having worse outcomes, if you define "higher teen pregnancy and STD rates" as a worse outcome.

 

The school prayer example actually hurts your case rather than helps it. School prayer was found to be unconstitutional in 62 and 63. Crime rates were already climbing prior to that, which is the first strong point against the idea that school prayer tamps down crime rate. The second is that the crime rate rose to a peak late 80's/early 90's and has since steadily declined despite a lack of change in school prayer policy.

1) You are only guessing and have missed so many variables. We just have to agree to disagree

 

2) School Prayer actually is the point that the two are unrelated. Other factors can help reduce the crime rate which goes back to my point in #1 you can't possibly know.

Prayer in school won't help children. You know what will? Good parenting!

 

You know what could help most parents? Alleviating life's problems. How does one do that? Good paying jobs, healthcare, and counseling for parents.

 

If mom is too busy working 3 minimum wage jobs to fully vest in her children and their children turn to the streets, no amount of prayer is going to salvage that kid.

 

I can't stand religion and think it's the bane of human existence. I consider myself a morally sound person for the most part and I don't need a mythical sky daddy to tell me how to treat other beings in general.

Edited January 24, 20179 yr by KagakuOtoko

At least you almost admitted your fault.

It didn't change the point, though. Yeah, I goofed, but the comparison of the two administrations remained exactly the same. I see you cherry picked the data which was wrong, but ignored all the information that was correct and refuted every one of your bozo points.

Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.

Stats for this baseless claim?

Stats for this baseless claim?

 

That's his point.

That's his point.

Oh.

 

Holy s***, I was so used to craziness that I assumed craziness. My apologies for misreading.

 

That said, there are no stats to back up the first part of the statement. Not sure if he meant it.

That's the question for all of us, isn't it?

 

If you believe morality is necessary, it's only purpose should be to "police" our own actions.

 

If my moral code says that its wrong to eat meat, then I dont eat meat. But I shouldnt force you not to eat meat as well.

I am just going to get in here for long enough to say that not only are multiple people violating the terms of the filibuster, but there are also personal attacks which are a violation of the sites rules. Suspensions can and will be given out if this keeps up. I know a lot of people aren't happy right now, but that is not an excuse to break the rules that we all know exist here.

Echo these sentiments!!!

That's the question for all of us, isn't it?

NO, it's the question for YOU to answer if you're going to make judgments about what is and isn't moral! Haha come ON.

From Press Sec. Spicer today, on Trump's continued lies about 3-5 million people voting illegal for Clinton:

 

"The president does believe that [there was widespread voter fraud in this election], he has stated that before. I think he's stated his concerns with voter fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign, and he continues to maintain that belief based on studies and evidence that people have presented to him,"

 

This is going to be used as justification for widespread voter disenfranchisement via ending early voting, shuttering polling places in democratic-heavy areas, instituting strict voter ID laws, and purging voter rolls. We'll get zero push back from DOJ and the courts, too.

 

edit: I also don't doubt for a second that Trump 100% believes he "really" won the popular vote and this is how his brain is justifying it because people with NPD can't admit failure or fault.

Edited January 24, 20179 yr by StrangeSox

It's a masterful plan really. Get millions of illegal immigrants to run up the score and vote illegally in Dem-controlled states like NY and California, while completely ignoring key battleground states.

We are living in Goerge Orwell's 1984. A string of science-based tweets from one of the national parks have all been deleted.

 

Edit: Some of their tweets were captured here.

Edited January 24, 20179 yr by BigSqwert

Allowing more access to contraceptives and the lower teen pregnancy rate do not necessarily correlate. It's a correlation that more than likely cannot be proven.

 

Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument.

 

I linked it twice already earlier in the thread (and previously). In CO, when they provided free IUDs across the state, teen pregnancy fell by 42% and abortions fells by 40% statewide. Unmarried women without college degrees, aged 25 and under, saw pregnancy rates fall at a similar rate. This was based on a program, funded by a private grant, that impacted the entire state. The only variable that changed was the access to IUDs. Thus, in this example, free IUDs did correlate to both a lower teen pregnancy rate and a lower abortion rate.

I linked it twice already earlier in the thread (and previously). In CO, when they provided free IUDs across the state, teen pregnancy fell by 42% and abortions fells by 40% statewide. Unmarried women without college degrees, aged 25 and under, saw pregnancy rates fall at a similar rate. This was based on a program, funded by a private grant, that impacted the entire state. The only variable that changed was the access to IUDs. Thus, in this example, free IUDs did correlate to both a lower teen pregnancy rate and a lower abortion rate.

 

And even more amazing considering the moral debasement you would think would happen with the more easily available birth control devices is teens are having less sex than 10 years ago.

Like I said, it's about moral posturing, not outcomes.

We are living in Goerge Orwell's 1984. A string of science-based tweets from one of the national parks have all been deleted.

 

Edit: Some of their tweets were captured here.

Whoever is running that Twitter account right now gives zero f***s

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/BadIandsNPS

Whoever is running that Twitter account right now gives zero f***s

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/BadIandsNPS

 

That's fake. See the I instead of the ole L