[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here's some quotage for you that might lead you to changing your mind:

I'm betting that there are more Americans that agree with him than don't. I think by this time, the majority have seen the wacko environmental left for the seamsters they are. You can only go for so long with the same "THE SKY IS FALLING" scams before sane folks start ignoring them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I pretty sure you're missing the point. Girls back in the day where told to use "aspirin". Put one between your knees and hold it there, thus making pregnancy impossible. It's sort of a joke. I think he's pointing out that the only sure way to keep from getting pregnant is to abstain.

Which works awesomely.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

No, Bachmann still has the Batshit Crazy standard in my book. Santorum's statements do have a certain logic to them, even if he uses his logic to arrive at the wrong conclusions. Whereas I could never even begin to understand where Bachmann was coming from.

Are there any Bachmann quotes that come to mind when you say this?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are there any Bachmann quotes that come to mind when you say this?

Warning about Hezbollah putting missiles in Cuba. I heard about that for the first time a few weeks ago, but I guess she said it during the campaign. And she really had no basis to, she just read a few articles about Cuba and Hezbollah (never mentioning missiles) and started improvising, I guess.

I don't think I've talked about that one yet here. I'd go and resurrect the batshit crazy thread, but what's the point? Poor Michele is already out of the race.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Warning about Hezbollah putting missiles in Cuba. I heard about that for the first time a few weeks ago, but I guess she said it during the campaign. And she really had no basis to, she just read a few articles about Cuba and Hezbollah (never mentioning missiles) and started improvising, I guess.

I don't think I've talked about that one yet here. I'd go and resurrect the batshit crazy thread, but what's the point? Poor Michele is already out of the race.

Didn't she also say something about a vaccine causing cancer when it didn't, or something along these lines? There was also her husband's crazy prey away the gay stuff...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

prey away the gay

I see what you did there....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I see what you did there....

Yeah, I definitely misspelled pray on purpose!

[Waragainstsleep]

Its a good job Mel Gibson was born in Oz otherwise I think he'd stand a good chance. Sounds like he'd get all Santorums followers plus a few more.

[subego]

He'd be a sure winner with the often ignored "sugar tits" constituency.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which works awesomely.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. I'm glad you agree.

See, this is why it's hard to take some of you guy's "batshit crazy" remarks seriously. Even reasonable suggestions (which you just may disagree with) get labeled that way due to your inability to come up with anyone with better ideas ,while people like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who have said and done some amazingly dumb things get a pass. You even voted into office a guy (Joe Biden) who can't seem to go a speech without saying something spectacularly stupid, and it's not even "new" anymore when he does.

People in glass houses....

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Abstinence works 100% of the time. I'm glad you agree.

See, this is why it's hard to take some of you guy's "batshit crazy" remarks seriously. Even reasonable suggestions (which you just may disagree with) get labeled that way due to your inability to come up with anyone with better ideas

Teaching abstinence as the only form of 'contraception' has been consistently proven to fail and so there is plenty of reason to argue that persisting with it is indeed "batshit crazy".

The better idea to anything batshit crazy, is usually education.

[Dork.]

Now I wouldn't say an abstinence-only policy is batshit crazy, but I would say that an abstinence-only policy ignores human weaknesses (especially in teenagers), which is why it results in more unwanted pregnancies.

Is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies a worthy goal?

And more to the point, what does any of this have to do with Santorum's porn obsession?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies a worthy goal?

I'm not sure what you are getting at asking this, seems like a silly question.

The batshit crazy part of teaching only abstinence is the insistence on doing it over and over when its proven not to work and expecting the results to somehow change by themselves. Its just banging heads against brick walls.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I pretty sure you're missing the point. Girls back in the day where told to use "aspirin". Put one between your knees and hold it there, thus making pregnancy impossible. It's sort of a joke. I think he's pointing out that the only sure way to keep from getting pregnant is to abstain.

Still don't know the difference between "where" and "were".


I got his "joke," but the problem is that it isn't funny. That's one of the problems with people like Santorum. They think they can, if they just blather on and on, return to the mythical magical days of yesteryear. They obviously think that living in caves and choosing a mate with a club is the method that should still be used.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its a good job Mel Gibson was born in Oz otherwise I think he'd stand a good chance. Sounds like he'd get all Santorums followers plus a few more.

Not that it matters, even in the slightest, but Mel Gibson was actually born in New York.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Abstinence works 100% of the time. I'm glad you agree.

Abstinence only works as long as people don't have sex. And since having sex is natural and a primary need of humans, expecting people to stay abstinent is stupid. Especially when you propose it at an age where more than half of the class already is sexually active (as was the case with me when they tried to sell abstinence during my junior year). Abstinence only programs consistently fail to reduce the number of teen pregnancies. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Not that it matters, even in the slightest, but Mel Gibson was actually born in New York.

Doesn't that make him eligible for the presidency then? Uh-oh.

[olePigeon]

There are no Federal obscenity laws regarding pornography on the internet except in cases of sex abuse. The FCC helps govern airwaves, but only until 10PM. Between 10PM and 6AM, a television station can broadcast hardcore porn if they were so inclined. This is the balance and agreement made to allow children to watch TV on government regulated airwaves.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Abstinence only programs consistently fail to reduce the number of teen pregnancies. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact.

Facts only get in the way of "truth."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There are no Federal obscenity laws regarding pornography on the internet except in cases of sex abuse. The FCC helps govern airwaves, but only until 10PM. Between 10PM and 6AM, a television station can broadcast hardcore porn if they were so inclined. This is the balance and agreement made to allow children to watch TV on government regulated airwaves.

Does wireless internet use government regulated airwaves? Maybe we'll end up with porn sites only at night

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does wireless internet use government regulated airwaves? Maybe we'll end up with porn sites only at night

The spectrum, but not content, is regulated. That's for interference purposes. So no, I don't think so.

If it did, though, then maybe U.S. senators would concentrate on their job instead watching porn during Senate sessions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There are no Federal obscenity laws regarding pornography on the internet except in cases of sex abuse. The FCC helps govern airwaves, but only until 10PM. Between 10PM and 6AM, a television station can broadcast hardcore porn if they were so inclined. This is the balance and agreement made to allow children to watch TV on government regulated airwaves.

It is illegal to transport obscene materials for sale or distribution. Most hardcore porn fits the US legal definition of obscenity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If it did, though, then maybe U.S. senators would concentrate on their job instead watching porn during Senate sessions.

Presumably, Santorum's constituency wouldn't want that, as congressional action only serves to expand government, so congressional inaction is preferable.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

It is illegal to transport obscene materials for sale or distribution...

...between states, within states that have such laws, and only with the U.S. Post Office. If you live in a state without such stupid laws, you can FedEx someone porn. Same goes with television.

[subego]

IIUC, you're correct about it being interstate (which, let's face it, is going to be the vast majority), but are incorrect about the necessity of a state law, and the use of the Post Office. "Interactive computer services" as a means of transport are also covered.

[Waragainstsleep]

An internet porn ban/crackdown is pointless. All it would do is shift a multi-billion dollar industry out of the US (most likely to Mexico) and make a lot more people law-breakers as they proceed to consume the same content anyway. All at great expense.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIUC, you're correct about it being interstate (which, let's face it, is going to be the vast majority), but are incorrect about the necessity of a state law, and the use of the Post Office. "Interactive computer services" as a means of transport are also covered.

Because of how interstate commerce is conducted, the Post Office elected to not ship obscene material because people were ordering stuff outside their state to avoid local laws. When you start doing stuff across state lines, it becomes a Federal matter. That's why the Post Office won't ship. There was a lawsuit over it, and the Post Office won the lawsuit.

However, you can use FedEx to ship porn from California to Nevada, but not to Utah. Each State has different requirements.

As for cyberporn, I'd like to know which law you're referencing. The only Federal laws I can find regarding obscenities on the internet are specifically targeted at sex abuse (child pornography, rape, etc.)

Several senators have tried to get decency acts passed, but they have all be struck down on the grounds that they violate our 1st Amendment. With such precedent, I doubt very much that any Supreme Court would uphold a law to sensor the internet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

An internet porn ban/crackdown is pointless. All it would do is shift a multi-billion dollar industry out of the US (most likely to Mexico) and make a lot more people law-breakers as they proceed to consume the same content anyway. All at great expense.

The policy is idiotic on multiple levels:

- unenforceable
- bad for the economy (like you said)
- invasive, nanny state
- doesn't really accomplish much, except possibly increase sexual tensions and makes some religious prudes happy
- a complete and utter waste of government resources, resources we don't have now

And Santorum has the balls to say that he is about small government...

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Because of how interstate commerce is conducted, the Post Office elected to not ship obscene material because people were ordering stuff outside their state to avoid local laws. When you start doing stuff across state lines, it becomes a Federal matter. That's why the Post Office won't ship. There was a lawsuit over it, and the Post Office won the lawsuit.

However, you can use FedEx to ship porn from California to Nevada, but not to Utah. Each State has different requirements.

As for cyberporn, I'd like to know which law you're referencing. The only Federal laws I can find regarding obscenities on the internet are specifically targeted at sex abuse (child pornography, rape, etc.)

Several senators have tried to get decency acts passed, but they have all be struck down on the grounds that they violate our 1st Amendment. With such precedent, I doubt very much that any Supreme Court would uphold a law to sensor the internet.

18 USC § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Famously used against American Bukkake 13.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The policy is idiotic on multiple levels:

- unenforceable
- bad for the economy (like you said)
- invasive, nanny state
- doesn't really accomplish much, except possibly make some far-left moonbats feel touchy-feelie.
- a complete and utter waste of government resources, resources we don't have now

Funny how all I had to do was change one thing, and now it reads like every other policy and stated goal of the Obama administration. And he's actually in the white house, in comparison to a guy who never will be.

[besson3c]

My mission is to find an issue that Crash Harddrive and turtle777 disagree vehemently on...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Abstinence only works as long as people don't have sex. And since having sex is natural and a primary need of humans, expecting people to stay abstinent is stupid.

I don't think that anyone expects people to remain abstinent forever. It's not stupid to expect people to do things that will benefit them in the end.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Funny how all I had to do was change one thing, and now it reads like every other policy and stated goal of the Obama administration. And he's actually in the white house, in comparison to a guy who never will be.

True.

Like I said, I have no idea how our obscenity laws would be upheld. I know it's possible. If they can go after businesses like Megaupload to stop copyright infringement, then they can do more to keep ISP's from being free and limitless pornography providers. There's a local ISP that filters most of that out. It's not a perfect solution, and you're right, you'll never get rid of it completely, but shutting down a few file sharing sites won't eliminate piracy either and they too have moved overseas some not allowing pirated file sharing by Americans now. It makes it tougher to do, but doesn't stop it.

I don't think most Americans will have a big problem with the government making it harder for our kids to get hardcore pornography. You can try to argue that we should keep easy access to porn for kids, but I don't think you're going to get many votes that way.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Teaching abstinence as the only form of 'contraception' has been consistently proven to fail and so there is plenty of reason to argue that persisting with it is indeed "batshit crazy".

The better idea to anything batshit crazy, is usually education.

Abstinence Works
Abstinence-only programs might work, study says
Abstinence Education Works After All - Linda Chavez - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1
NAEA: Abstinence Education Works in Georgia

So, there is reasonable debate as to it's effectiveness. Again, referring to things as "batshit crazy" just because you might not agree, doesn't really effectively hurt the position of someone else. It just paints you as an extremist who has pre-decided an intolerant stance based just on your political views.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My mission is to find an issue that Crash Harddrive and turtle777 disagree vehemently on...

Actually, I remember one

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Abstinence Works
Abstinence-only programs might work, study says
Abstinence Education Works After All - Linda Chavez - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1
NAEA: Abstinence Education Works in Georgia

So, there is reasonable debate as to it's effectiveness. Again, referring to things as "batshit crazy" just because you might not agree, doesn't really effectively hurt the position of someone else. It just paints you as an extremist who has pre-decided an intolerant stance based just on your political views.

You're missing a very important distinction. There is nothing wrong with encouraging abstinence, its when thats the only thing you do that you get problems. Teaching "Abstinence Only" is batshit crazy.

Your first link is a link to an organisation or a campaign promoting abstinence and therefore does not constitute evidence.
Your second and third link are articles referencing the same study and have been carefully/poorly worded.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

This line is supposed to make us think that teaching abstinence is better than the alternatives. Firstly, this direct quote actually says that 33% of students taught only abstinence abstain from sex for two years, while 50% of students who attended other classes as well/instead abstain from sex. This is actually evidence against teaching abstinence only.

Secondly, the study is claiming that teaching abstinence is good at delaying kids from becoming sexually active. I don't think anyone cares to dispute that. The problem is when the kids who have ONLY been taught to abstain fail, they don't know how to have sex safely or sensibly and so they get pregnant or spread diseases.

The WP article is a mess of typical crappy journalism where the numbers at one end of the piece are different to numbers at the other end. It does however include a quote from someone who I assume has more of a clue than any journalist:

"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy,"

Your last link looks more like it but it jumps to the conclusion that abstinence program is the sole cause of the drop in teen pregnancies without investigating other potential factors and comes from an extremely biased source.

It seems to me that if you insist of focussing on promoting abstinence, then it would make sense to poll the kids at the end and any who say they have no intention of abstaining could then go on to get further education about conraception and disease, though it still makes most sense to make sure that all the kids are armed with the information they need to grow up in the modern world.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually, I remember one

Nice catch!

Not emotionally explosive enough though, maybe it wasn't quite the right subject matter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can try to argue that we should keep easy access to porn for kids, but I don't think you're going to get many votes that way.

You can try to argue we should break the Internet, but I don't think you're going to get many votes that way.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

18 USC § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution | LII / Legal Information Institute.

That statute is apart of the commerce clause and is exactly what I mentioned earlier: the clause enables the U.S. Postal Service to regulate interstate distribution of pornography.

There've only been a couple people prosecuted under that law when it comes to online distribution, and the only reason I remember it was because it happened in Milpitas (and at the time I was into BBSes). Robert Thomas and his wife Carleen Thomas were prosecuted because people could dial in to their BBS from anywhere (and people did), then order pornography and have it shipped. This is not the same as running a website, this is running a mail-order service through a dial up BBS.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can try to argue we should break the Internet, but I don't think you're going to get many votes that way.

The Internet is broken if kids can't get porn? If so, then maybe the Internet needs broken?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This line is supposed to make us think that teaching abstinence is better than the alternatives. Firstly, this direct quote actually says that 33% of students taught only abstinence abstain from sex for two years, while 50% of students who attended other classes as well/instead abstain from sex. This is actually evidence against teaching abstinence only.

You're trying too hard. It says that half of the students that received classes which included contraception became active while a third who only got the abstinence focused instruction became sexually active:

Absentence focused: 1/3 sexually active.
Contraception focused: 1/2 sexually active.

But like I said, there's reasonable disagreement about this subject. It really isn't rational given the facts to call this "batshit crazy." You can believe it's the wrong way to go, but there is a little bit too much hyperbole going on here to handle, and that's a sure sign that someone fears that their position is losing in a debate of ideas.

Secondly, the study is claiming that teaching abstinence is good at delaying kids from becoming sexually active. I don't think anyone cares to dispute that. The problem is when the kids who have ONLY been taught to abstain fail, they don't know how to have sex safely or sensibly and so they get pregnant or spread diseases.

In a day and age where information is available at the touch of a keyboard, I find that extremely hard to believe. I know that when I was a teen, you'd be hard pressed to find any kids who didn't know how pregnancy and disease occurred prior to ANY teaching. Now that everything can be found with a Google search, any of those 1/3 of teens wanting to make sure that they aren't doing anything harmful to themselves, after learning that the best prevention for pregnancy and diseases, can't blame anything other than their own laziness for not getting the information they need.

[stupendousman]

As to Santorum (or Romney, for that matter), if he gets the nomination, Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. It's almost a comedy show, watching these people make fools of themselves.

More rain for the "Obama is a shoo-in" parade:

Americans' Satisfaction Almost as Low as It Was Under Carter - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More rain for the "Obama is a shoo-in" parade:

Americans' Satisfaction Almost as Low as It Was Under Carter - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Of course, there's nothing slanted about that poll.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Of course, there's nothing slanted about that poll.

What is "slanted" about it?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

But like I said, there's reasonable disagreement about this subject. It really isn't rational given the facts to call this "batshit crazy." You can believe it's the wrong way to go, but there is a little bit too much hyperbole going on here to handle, and that's a sure sign that someone fears that their position is losing in a debate of ideas.

All the studies that actually check the effect on pregnancy and STI rates say that Abstinence only doesn't work. The study quoted doesn't even comment on those rates, someone is trying to skirt around the issue by claiming its effective at something slightly different that sounds to those who want to hear it like the desired outcome.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In a day and age where information is available at the touch of a keyboard, I find that extremely hard to believe. I know that when I was a teen, you'd be hard pressed to find any kids who didn't know how pregnancy and disease occurred prior to ANY teaching. Now that everything can be found with a Google search, any of those 1/3 of teens wanting to make sure that they aren't doing anything harmful to themselves, after learning that the best prevention for pregnancy and diseases, can't blame anything other than their own laziness for not getting the information they need.

Finding it hard to believe says more about you than anything or anyone else.

You think a teenager getting hot & heavy in the back of a car on a quiet country lane is going to say "Hold on a minute, let me just Google this to make sure its safe." Does that seem easy to believe to you?

[subego]

I could believe the DoJ's PornoHound™ filter accidentally flagging the info.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

All the studies that actually check the effect on pregnancy and STI rates say that Abstinence only doesn't work. The study quoted doesn't even comment on those rates, someone is trying to skirt around the issue by claiming its effective at something slightly different that sounds to those who want to hear it like the desired outcome.

A 17 percent reduction in the start of sexual activity means that there are 17 percent fewer teens that are capable of getting pregnant or getting an STI. 17 percent fewer are having sex, so there is no need to be concerned about pregnancy or STI's. 100 percent of those teens won't be effected at all by pregnancy or STI's. Like I said, you're trying to hard.

You think a teenager getting hot & heavy in the back of a car on a quiet country lane is going to say "Hold on a minute, let me just Google this to make sure its safe." Does that seem easy to believe to you?

Most teens don't find themselves going straight from celibacy and no interst in sex to "getting hot & heavy" and in need of contraception and if so, they aren't going to be prepared anyways. Those interested in becoming sexually active will generally seek out information if it's available. In the pre-information age, it wasn't readily available. That's simply not the case anymore. It's easy for me to believe that when the interest in sex comes up, a teen will seek out information about it. This isn't the 50's anymore. It's not "taboo" nor is the information hidden.

They already are taught how pregnancy occurs in biology courses, and that you can get diseases from sexual contact in Health class. I don't think it's necessary to go the extra mile to give them a roadmap as to how to best do the thing that common sense dictates that they shouldn't be doing. If they wish to do it anyways, they know that there are risks and have the resources to figure out how to manage those risks. I don't think it's necessary to tell them to do things which could well be 100% against the moral codes of their parents, when school time would be better spent learning to do things that would make them more competitive in the workplace.

So back to my point, "debatable?" Sure. "Batshit crazy," not demonstrable, nor is such an attempt to label such a reasonable disagreement going to hurt it's proponents, and is more likely to backfire and brand those using that type of rhetoric as unreasonable and extreme.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More rain for the "Obama is a shoo-in" parade:

Americans' Satisfaction Almost as Low as It Was Under Carter - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

I wonder what the approval rating of the Congress was during these times when the President had low approval. Or of the opposition party and its candidates. If folks say they're not happy with Obama, but even more aren't happy with the alternatives, then where does that leave us?

(Also consider that a good chunk of the folks who say they are unhappy with Obama think he's too conservative. They're likely to vote for him anyway.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I wonder what the approval rating of the Congress was during these times when the President had low approval. Or of the opposition party and its candidates. If folks say they're not happy with Obama, but even more aren't happy with the alternatives, then where does that leave us?

(Also consider that a good chunk of the folks who say they are unhappy with Obama think he's too conservative. They're likely to vote for him anyway.)

The point is that when someone is not happy with the guy currently in charge, history has shown that people are a lot more willing to try the alternative than stick with the misery they have. People who aren't happy with the guy from their party are also less likely to go and vote as well.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A 17 percent reduction in the start of sexual activity means that there are 17 percent fewer teens that are capable of getting pregnant or getting an STI. 17 percent fewer are having sex, so there is no need to be concerned about pregnancy or STI's. 100 percent of those teens won't be effected at all by pregnancy or STI's. Like I said, you're trying to hard.

You're not trying at all.
For a start you are ignoring the fact that the 33% who still do go and have sex are less well-prepared for it. Arguing that they learn about the biology and STIs in science or health classes or wherever means that we are no longer talking about abstinence ONLY education which I keep telling you is the batshit crazy part.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most teens don't find themselves going straight from celibacy and no interst in sex to "getting hot & heavy" and in need of contraception and if so, they aren't going to be prepared anyways. Those interested in becoming sexually active will generally seek out information if it's available. In the pre-information age, it wasn't readily available. That's simply not the case anymore. It's easy for me to believe that when the interest in sex comes up, a teen will seek out information about it. This isn't the 50's anymore. It's not "taboo" nor is the information hidden.

I don't think you have much of a clue about 'most teens'. I know I don't, and exaggerating my turn of phrase in an attempt to reinforce your point gets you nowhere.
If I cast my mind back to my school days, the girls who got pregnant were pretty much easy to predict from day one. They were not sort of girls who would look anything up on the internet (even nowadays) beyond asking FaceBook and they absolutely were the sort of girls who would put themselves in the sort of situation I was alluding to, usually with pushy, older boys who didn't know much more than they did but pretended otherwise to get what they wanted.

They are however almost infinitely more likely to go on the internet and look up the sort of things which you say aren't necessary to teach them (but really mean should be kept from them at all costs) because those things are fun and reading about condoms and STI symptoms is not. I am sure that even you can see the potential for harm in someone getting their sexual health education from Yahoo! Answers.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So back to my point, "debatable?" Sure. "Batshit crazy," not demonstrable, nor is such an attempt to label such a reasonable disagreement going to hurt it's proponents, and is more likely to backfire and brand those using that type of rhetoric as unreasonable and extreme.

As usual, someone with an irrational and small-minded worldview calling the kettle black.

Here is a nice summary:

My version:

"I have banged my head against a brick wall and it hurt. This has happened a few times during my lifetime and having also received data from other people's experiences, the outcome usually ranges from mild pain, through severe pain with varying degrees of physical damage from superficial to life-threatening."
"My conclusion is that banging my head against a brick wall is a bad idea and I will try to avoid it in future."

Your version:

"Today on Fox News we report on a man who likes banging his head against brick walls and who has discovered that if he repeatedly bangs his head against a brick wall for long enough, he eventually stops feeling any pain, and if he doesn't look in a mirror, he doesn't notice any damage so perhaps banging your head against brick walls repeatedly is the best thing to do after all and the other studies to the contrary were always wrong."