I think it might be Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not because I know Latin, but
because it is the name of a column in one of our papers, and I have the enum
list of column names burnt into my retinas.
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/08/04 01:28PM
both
makes sense, thanks. Just means reduce it to the absurd, and in these
times its all too easy, lol.
Dana
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:56:35 -0500, Jerry Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it might be Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not because I know Latin, but
because it is the name of a column in one
How are you killing an innocent life by not getting pregnant? No
fertilization has occurredno life.
What does eating chicken eggs have to do with human life
As for the life begins at fertizilation thing, mmm. Take that a step
further and I am killing innocent life by not running out
I don't think that the bs part of the programs have anything to do
with public schooling, rather its everything to do with the groups who
create these programs have an agenda, and don't do any real fact
checking. Thus you get stupidities like the extra chromosomes and
references about a woman's
Ah yes Human life is more presious than animals...we must kill animals
to survive there for it is ok, but if a woman must abort her baby to
survive apperently this unformed lump of cells should be allowed to
develope further and allowed to kill the mother.
Adam H
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:24:07
When I would leave the house on a date, my mother would yell out the
door as we walked to the car: Remember to put it on before you put it
in! That was brilliant. Birth control through embarrassment.
-Kevin
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:29:35 -0700, Dana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zactly, when I was
Well, thats the exact same type of argument the conservative nuts use to
argue against gay marriage. Its not any more valid in this case.
Also, few people who aren't card carrying members of PETA would consider a
chicken and a human life to be equal.
both potential life. not saying I agree,
both potential life. not saying I agree, just applying redutio ad absurdum (sp?)
Dana
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:24:07 -0600, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How are you killing an innocent life by not getting pregnant? No
fertilization has occurredno life.
What does eating chicken eggs have to
my point is that if it's still in my ovaries it isn't a human life. If
a fertilized egg fails to implant, oh well. Equating the life of a
day-old fetus with its mother's is dehumanizing. That's my point.
Dana
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:09:35 -0600, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, thats the exact
very well put!
Adam H
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:13:08 -0600, Kevin Graeme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with abstinence education isn't that abstinence is bad or
won't work. It's that most of the programs either don't also teach
responsible behavior like wearing a condom or they go so
I am cool with teaching abstenience and all, though I have my serious
doubts on its affectiveness, but what I dislike about the thing that
started this and something that all of the waxman debunks GLOSS over
are the complete lines of Bullshit that the government is trying to
feed kids. 48
: Adam Haskell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:31 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: science bush style
I am cool with teaching abstenience and all, though I have my serious doubts
on its affectiveness, but what I dislike about the thing that started this
and something
negotiators inserted language allowing doctors, hospitals and insurers to
refuse to perform abortions or offer abortion counseling.
Heheh i love the wording...insurers can not perform abortions...I
think I'd rather my insurer jut help pay for it...and not perform it.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:39:08 -0500, Sandy Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Welcome to the 19th century?
I've decided to quit this tech game and get into whaling. We need more
bones for corsets.
-Kevin
~|
Special thanks to the CF
--- Dana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at your other sites, one of them has a
big table with
columns for what works and What doesn't. Guess
where abstinence
was.
And I posted the reason, only one study was done and
more were needed.
But look next to that at Best Bets.
It says:
Focus on developing abstinence values among teens and
encourage them to sign virginity pledges.
Put that signup sheet right next to the Prom Promise signup... Many
will sign, all will violate!
~|
Special thanks to the CF
You input is most usefull.
--- Tangorre, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Focus on developing abstinence values among teens
and
encourage them to sign virginity pledges.
Put that signup sheet right next to the Prom
Promise signup... Many
will sign, all will violate!
Thanks! Glad to help out.
Michael T. Tangorre
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:24 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: science bush style
You input is most usefull.
--- Tangorre, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Yeah, right.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041213-880276,00.html
88%: Percentage of U.S. teens who have premarital sex after taking virginity
pledges
--- On Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:07 PM, Sam Morris scribed: ---
And I posted the reason, only one study was
From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, right.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041213-88
0276,00.html
88%: Percentage of U.S. teens who have premarital sex after
taking virginity pledges
And the other 12% refused to answer!
I remember those surveys from high school. It's amazing that I was able
to consume 4 gallons of vodka and snort approximately 18 tons of cocaine
per calendar year and still function as a student.
- Jim
Howie Hamlin wrote:
Yeah, right.
I'm not agreeing with the report, only using it to
point out that we don't know because not enough
studies have been done. Plus all the new programs out
haven't been fully studied.
As for Time magazine, I'd take everything you read
there with a grain of salt. I wouldn't doubt it if
those numbers
Hmmm, I'm wondering if my wife decided to take one of those recently :)
-Original Message-
From: Tangorre, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:14 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: science bush style
Focus on developing abstinence values among
Focus on developing abstinence values among teens and
encourage them to sign virginity pledges.
Work with adolescents to change their perception that
most peers are sexually active and that sexual
experience elicits respect from peers.
The problem with abstinence education isn't that
counseling.
The budget for abstinence education increased by $30 million, to $105
million.
Welcome to the 19th century?
-Original Message-
From: Adam Haskell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:31 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: science bush style
I
abstinence is great for teens sure, and I hope my daughter will
partake. I think you can look at the data the other way though and say
yanno, there is absolutely no proof that abstinence-only sex education
programs WORK. And this stuff about chromosomes and masturbation,
geesh. People wonder why I
Personally, from experience - no amount of abstinence lecturing could have
prevented me from having sex where the opportunity arose (no pun intended).
It's human nature - the same way that prohibition didn't work and never will.
--- On Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:54 PM, Sam Morris scribed:
Dittobut is preaching abstinence a bad thing? Most would say no.
As for abstinence ONLY programs, thats ridiculous. There isn't now, nor has
there ever been, nor will there ever be, a social problem that has a single
silver-bullet cure.
Personally, from experience - no amount of
--- On Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:57 PM, G scribed: ---
Dittobut is preaching abstinence a bad thing? Most would say no.
I didn't say it was a bad thing but the Neocons want to remove all lecturing
about birth control. I think you need to have a mix of abstinence *and* birth
control
And that's what the data say, multimodal programs, the ones that teach
multiple methods, work the best and have significantly lower pregnancy
rates than single mode programs.
larry
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:57:32 -0600, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dittobut is preaching abstinence a bad thing?
zactly, when I was making phone calls for John Kerry I had a
discussion with some woman about condoms in school. Would I want my
daughter to be able to get birth control without my permission? she
wanted to know. Actually... yes. I'd rather she waited and I'd prefer
she come to me if she wanted
Parents who think like this woman you mentioned on the phone make a very
strange decision, in my opinion.
Basically there are two choices:
1) Give your child protection, and trust that they make the right decisions
on sex.
or
2) Dont give your child protection, and trust that they will make
I whole-heartedly agree.
Dana
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:47:10 -0600, G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parents who think like this woman you mentioned on the phone make a very
strange decision, in my opinion.
Basically there are two choices:
1) Give your child protection, and trust that they make
How about if they told you you'd die from AIDs because
of the sweat :)
Probably make you quit wrestling also.
I agree the lying sucks but I believe it's the
exception not the rule. They should defenitly make
sure the data acurate.
-sm
--- Howie Hamlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, from
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:28:13 -0800 (PST), Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree the lying sucks but I believe it's the
exception not the rule. They should defenitly make
sure the data acurate.
Which is the whole point of the Waxman report. Of the 13 most common
abstinence cirriculum
I'm talking about blatant lies like AIDs from sweat.
One of the statements Waxman claims is a lies is that
life begins at fertilization. I think that debate is
still on going.
Another claim is that condoms don't always protect
against STD and pregnancy. The failure rate of condoms
in the first 12
who says, out of curiosity?
They don't mention condoms are more effective when
used properly just as the sex-ed classes don't mention
how high the numbers are when not used properly.
As for the life begins at fertizilation thing, mmm. Take that a step
further and I am killing innocent life by
Sam,
I said I was trying to ignore you, not that I was succeeding :) Ignore
you as I might, the fact is I see
other people's answers to your posts and it takes a lot of
concentration not not point and laugh :P Of course, all the pointing
and laughing sucks up time and seems sterile, ultimately,
Alright. Har har. I'm still swamped but I am tired of MSDN documents
so I took a look at your links.
Let me do a quick reality check. Your point again was that a
seven-year-old study wasn't very substantive as evidence goes. I am
not sure sociology studies become obsolete at the speed of computer
Dana,
I never said ignoring me made him an asshole.
I said he's being an asshole because he gets nasty
with me every time I question him. No point in having
a discussion if only one view is acceptable. Last
thread was about using a litmus test to hire
professors and he decided to talk about a
Lol.
I love this list.
^_^
Now, of course, my own common sense suggests that telling people Not to have
sex never works.
It's like telling them not to eat.
But it's the only politically correct thing to back for an incumbent government.
If you back Safe Sex education, you run afoul of the
Sam,
I have been doing my best to ignore you and no doubt this makes me an
asshole too. But here is one more attempt to explain things to you
before I write you off again as a terminally closed mind. Discussion
is great and I enjoy it. So apparently do you. But you seem to think
that it suffices
I also presented a lot of reliable data from peer reviewed journals
that support the idea that Abstinence simply doesn't work.
The cite you give is from the heritage foundation. Hell this is a
political lobby not a peer reviewed journal. Try some reliable stuff
not propaganda. Its better to use
Long disturbing story short I was taught abstinence in highschool. I
had sex at 14 with my 13 girlfirend at the time, no protection. Good
job abstenance did... all they do is tell you what sex is and then say
don't do it...Thats like doin a line of crack infront of someone
showing them a good time
Larry wrote:
I also presented a lot of reliable data from peer reviewed journals
that support the idea that Abstinence simply doesn't work.
This is what disturbs me about social conservatives - they think they
can legislate morality and then try to force a proof when none exists.
It doesn't
Of couse if the science disagrees with you then rule by fiat. Look at
what the Republicans did with the recent bill regarding late term
abortions. When the medical and scientific data showed that there are
medically necessary reasons for such an abortion, instead of writing
these exceptions into
Larry wrote:
It seems to me that the social conservatives forgot King Canute's lesson.
Yes, this is similar to one I heard about this famous Hollywood
director that died a year or 2 ago. (I wish someone remembered his
name!)
Anyway, I heard an actor telling a story about him: he was on set
Out of 22 studies 5 showed and increase in
pregnancies.
clipFour abstinence programmes and one school based
sex education programme were associated with an
increase in number of pregnancies among partners of
young male participants
There were significantly fewer pregnancies in young
women who
Do you mean castrate all the boys?
--- Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If social conservatives would put as much effort
into eliminating the
root cause as they do in outlawing the symptom,
there'd be no
discussion to have because there'd be no problem.
Nope it doesn't say that at all. There were significantly fewer
pregnancies in young
women who received a multifaceted programme (0.41;0.20 to 0.83),
though baseline differences in thisstudy favoured the intervention.
Significantly fewer mean that if you could replicate this study an
infinite
It was still just one study using 695 people.
But, if you're going to be an asshole everytime
someone doesn't agree with you then I'll drop it.
Have a nice weekend.
-sm
--- Larry C. Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope it doesn't say that at all. There were
significantly fewer
pregnancies
Sam wrote:
Do you mean castrate all the boys?
That would have a nasty side effect of negative population growth.
Realistically though you could put sterilization drugs in the water
and make the antidote available when proof of environment is given.
The ACLU might get on you for that
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1365262,00.html
Skip to main content
Read today's paper
Sign in Register Go to: Guardian Unlimited homeUK newsWorld newsNewsblogDid
you miss...--Archive
searchArtsBooksBusinessEducationGuardian.co.ukFilmFootballThe
The Washington Post had a similar, but more detailed about Rep. Waxman's report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
The Shrubbery where ideology supplants science.
The sad part of it is that the girls going through these programs are
more likely to become pregnant
You're copy/paste impared. Here's the fun lead in:
The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach
children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching
genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a
thinking person.
Also from this
A quick Google search came up with dozens of reports
debunking Waxmens report.
Here's the first one.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm
Without reading the report I'm under the impression
teching abstinence to stundents is a waste of time? Is
that the message here? Shouldn't we
56 matches
Mail list logo
