Continuation on the Reproductive Rights Topic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

502

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[/quote]

Because statistics and surveys backup what I think.

I would care what you thought if you could back it up with evidence.[/quote]Our decaying society is evidence against all your “evidence”. You don’t accept that evidence though because… oh nevermind.
[/quote]

Correlation =/= causation.

503

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.

504

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy then I would be against it.

505

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.

506

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.

507

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.[/quote]

So if they are currently teaching stuff like that to 10 year olds, you support it?

508

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.[/quote]

So if they are currently teaching stuff like that to 10 year olds, you support it?
[/quote]

My opinion hasn’t changed from the post above.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.
[/quote]

I’m far from convinced it is required though.

509

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.[/quote]

So if they are currently teaching stuff like that to 10 year olds, you support it?
[/quote]

My opinion hasn’t changed from the post above.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.
[/quote]

I’m far from convinced it is required though.[/quote]

So you require proof of each element and it’s benefit individually. Now I need to see all your evidence for each of the elements you are supporting. You treated it as a whole before, you are backing out of that now?

510

Ok time to throw a basic question in here.

Do any of you know what the curriculum is for 10-11 year olds?

Just curious…

511

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok time to throw a basic question in here.

Do any of you know what the curriculum is for 10-11 year olds?

Just curious…[/quote]

I posted some links and Quotes from the PP website.

512

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok time to throw a basic question in here.

Do any of you know what the curriculum is for 10-11 year olds?

Just curious…[/quote]

I posted some links and Quotes from the PP website.[/quote]

I can speak from experience PP isn’t what is used in all schools.

513

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.[/quote]

So if they are currently teaching stuff like that to 10 year olds, you support it?
[/quote]

My opinion hasn’t changed from the post above.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.
[/quote]

I’m far from convinced it is required though.[/quote]

So you require proof of each element and it’s benefit individually. Now I need to see all your evidence for each of the elements you are supporting. You treated it as a whole before, you are backing out of that now?[/quote]

No. I’m a rational and thinking person. I can be reasonably sure of what likely would be required to see benefits, what likely wouldn’t be required to see benefits with a few minor topics in the middle where I may not be sure. I would also discuss this with experts in the field.

I don’t need a study to tell fisting will add no benefit to lowering teen pregnancy and STD rates.

514

Oral sex doesn’t count as sex.

Teaching kids where to find low cost lube if they are gay…

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/abstainers-are-killers

515

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]

There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.

Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.

What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?

The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.[/quote]

Nice cut and paste job.

Your hypothetical is unrealistic which I pointed out. You’ve essentially “cornered” me in a situation where if teaching fisting were required to realize the benefits of sex education I would support it.

But we both know that’s not the case, so really you haven’t proven anything.

[/quote]

lol. I know it’s not the case. You were lying to get out of a corner instead of admitting that statistics aren’t that important to you. You go by gut feel don’t have the rational high ground. BTW I did post some PP links.[/quote]

They do matter to me. It’s the whole basis for me want sex education in school. If comprehensive sex ed did nothing, or proved to increase sexual activity or increase teen pregnancy or taught something I didn’t like then I would be against it.

[/quote]

Fixed again.[/quote]

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.

I don’t like the idea of teaching children about contraceptive use at such a young age. But I realize it’s necessary.[/quote]

So if they are currently teaching stuff like that to 10 year olds, you support it?
[/quote]

My opinion hasn’t changed from the post above.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I already told you I would be for fisting in sex ed if it were required to realize the benefits of sex and had no demonstrable downside.
[/quote]

I’m far from convinced it is required though.[/quote]

So you require proof of each element and it’s benefit individually. Now I need to see all your evidence for each of the elements you are supporting. You treated it as a whole before, you are backing out of that now?[/quote]

No. I’m a rational and thinking person. I can be reasonably sure of what likely would be required to see benefits, what likely wouldn’t be required to see benefits with a few minor topics in the middle where I may not be sure. I would also discuss this with experts in the field.

I don’t need a study to tell fisting will add no benefit to lowering teen pregnancy and STD rates.
[/quote]

Okay, I bow to your superior intuition. You just know, how could I argue with that.

516

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[/quote]

Because statistics and surveys backup what I think.

I would care what you thought if you could back it up with evidence.[/quote]Our decaying society is evidence against all your “evidence”. You don’t accept that evidence though because… oh nevermind.
[/quote]

Correlation =/= causation.[/quote]Not necessarily but in this case it does.

517

Here is an “enlightened” Europe teaching sex to 5 year olds. Anybody think this isn’t where we are headed?

518

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Oral sex doesn’t count as sex.

[/quote]

That’s what all the catholic school girls used to say…

519

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Here is an “enlightened” Europe teaching sex to 5 year olds. Anybody think this isn’t where we are headed?

Sex education: Do you want your 5-year old child 'given explicit lessons'¿? | Daily Mail Online [/quote]

All the material has been recommended by councils for use at ages ‘seven-plus’.

Children at these ages are already subjected to sexuality through the various media-outlets.

There’s nothing wrong with teaching them about sexuality in a controled environment like a classroom.

If the covers of the books are anything to go by I’d say it’s age-appropiate.

520

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t say anything about the end of the world Ephrem. You did. See how subconsciously YOU exalt and idolize the United States to the point where someone predicting HER demise sounds to you like the demise of the earth? I am not so crass or arrogant myself. This nation is entirely expendable to the God who could extinguish the universe simply by ceasing to uphold it’s existence. We haven’t had an age of reason ol buddy.[/quote]

The end of civilisation as we know it might very well be the end of the world, and whether you like it or not, all our fates are connected to the fate of the USA.

And yes, you are that arrogant.
[/quote]Are you saying that planet earth, or at least civilization cannot survive unless the United States survives Ephrem? I love my country, but NO country is that important. Yes there would be and IS a profound impact. Unlike your Scandinavian communes which could disappear tomorrow and what Kim Kardashian wore somewhere would get more press. However, if the Lord tarries we will be here loooong after after my beloved Red White and Blue is a distant memory. We will be studied for centuries as the super power that sunk herself into the same groovy pit of irrelevance your heroes have been in all along. And for the same reasons.
[/quote]

If the USA collapses it will mean a global economic collaps which we’ve never seen before.

It won’t mean the end of humanity, but it will mean the end of society as we currently know it.

If/when that happens I’d rather be in Scandinavia.