Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Palin


dairygirl4u2c

Recommended Posts

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660079' date='Sep 20 2008, 11:36 AM']Doctors denounce abstinence-only education
Teens need access to birth control, pediatrician group says
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/[/url]


consider the lustful nature of people, esp teens. does it suprise you that they'd be just as sexually active? if just as sexually active,,, wouldn't it be wiser to ensure they are better informed etc?


[[i'm pretty sure you're misstating the effectiveness of the condoms etc, btw, but it's not that central of a point. cause no contraceptives is surely less effective. this study probably includes folks citing stuff such as you.
]][/quote]


Sorry, I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about, but I need to talk about this. Anybody who dares make the comment about abstinence-programs leading to pregnant children always seem to forget that the entire world outside of the home encourages teens to have sex. Every piece of mainstream media is oversexualized. Even a blind person can see this, but yet somehow you, Dairygirl, and people like you seem to forget this. "consider the lustful nature of people" really? People aren't like this as a default.

This is the best though: "In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.[13"

REALLY?! NO SH#T!

it all comes down to what you think is the problem in order to find an appropriate solution. Like you, people in favor of abstinence-only education do not hate pregnancy or think it's evil, but do think that teens are too young/imature to have to deal with such issues. UNLIKE you, and everyone like you, we think that problem here is promiscuity, not procreation. I really cant stress it enough how pressured kids are to have sex. This pressure doesnt come from themselves, but from being blasted in the face with it 24 hours a day. I for one think its remarkable and commendable that, as far as we know, only one of her kids has become pregnant.

Abstinence education is an effort to get at the REAL problem, the only thing is it can't work on its own. You talk to a kid for 20 minutes about the proper definition of love (ie: not lust) encourage them to wait, and then for the next 23 hours and 40 minutes of the day they are saturated in a culture telling them to have sex and exault lust. There needs to be tons of more effort on all fronts to encourage true love and true respect for women and the proper role of masculinity. Abstinence education isnt the whole solution, but it's a start.

You would rather give them a condom, condone promiscuity, encourage bad habits that undermine marraiges and seriously risk their own health, grow a consumer base to keep places like planned parenthood in business, and many more - esentially you do not want to fix the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don John of Austria

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1655082' date='Sep 13 2008, 11:14 PM']which is significant because the consensus by far is that it is man made. and it's irrefuted that it looks like it is man made.
"global warming is a hoax" is itself a hoax.[/quote]

Really?

Thats the consensus?

Thats funny because I was under the impression that Earth had been warming up this the middle of the last Ice Age, except for a few brief mini Ice Ages. In fact back in my under graduate days my geology teacher taught us that we still WERE in an Ice Age, that having polar ice caps was not actually the norm for Earth and that the earth would likely continue to heat up for sometime. This was before there was any significant "Global Warming" debate and he was not the only geologist I knew back at that time that had that opinion. You say you are an empirical person, then the fact that the Glaciers do not strech down into the ohio valley should prove without much doubt that Golbal wariming is indeed a natural process. It is possible that mankind has made the process faster, or increased the heating, but that global warming itself, is man made is not only not the consensus, its simply idiotic, and blatantly unscientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1660430' date='Sep 21 2008, 12:46 AM']Katie, Please rest assured that the fish that you get in the store or resturants are not abused. These fisherman serve a purpose. I do not approve of abuse, at all, in any form ,to anything, or anyone. Define abuse though? I would think that the netting of fish is much more abusive and aggressive then the commercial fishing industry. As far as aerial hunting goes,we don't live there to know the circumstances. Hunting and consuming the animal is not an evil ,destroying human life is. So really is it "hard to vote"?....don't get so sick over it,it's pretty clear![/quote]


I guess it's my turn to jump in!

"we don't live there to know the circumstances"

Well... I live there :). Alaskan born and raised.

Circumstances:
The wolf population in Alaska, if it was not controlled, would build up to such a high number that not only would humans not have any animals left to hunt for food (specifically Native Alaskan's which some still hunt as their PRIMARY food source), but the other animal predators would have no prey left. The climate for Alaska is almost perfect for wolves. There are actually ALREADY problems with wolves not having enough prey due to the high wolf population in Alaska.

Wolves can also be dangerous to the humans living in the vicinity of the wolves, especially as food continues to grow short for them (which if Alaskan's were to stop hunting, the problem would still exist for wolves and prey, so don't try to play that card). Of course blah blah livestock ect is all at risk of being attacked as well.

Alaska is 1/3rd the size of the continental United States, and the state of Texas easily fits into Alaska 2 1/2 times. The human population in Alaska is less than 700,000. Try hunting mass amounts of wolves with so few humans around on a land mass that could easily hold the population of the entire United States. Aerial hunting is [b]necessary[/b] for the safety of humans and other animals in Alaska.

Hands down, Alaska and Aerial hunting is not an area one can have *SERIOUS* issues with Palin on. Although you may still disagree, it isn't like she views wolves as horrible creatures that we should just kill for the sake of killing. The intent behind aerial hunting is not disrespect for animal life, but safety of humans, and even to an extent for wolves (if wolf populations continued to grow and they hunted all their food, the prey could no longer sustain the amount of wolves, and therefore over time they would starve).

Commercial fishing:
There are already strict rules on both the amount of fish that can be caught, the size of the fish, and the means of fishing. Fishing laws in Alaska are already very strict (coming from an Alaskan) for how big of an industry it is. When it comes to care for the planet, is it damaging? Yes. As damaging as most other industries? No. Fishing is really the only industry Alaska has as well. We have no oil refinery's (even with all the oil we pump), no factories, or any other large industries (I think we have a few brewery's, but they don't produce much waste, and what is produced is taken care of in an environment safe fashion). Out of every state, Alaska is one of the most environment friendly.

ANWR (drilling in the wildlife refuge): If you have paid attention to ANWR at all, you would realize that the area of the refuge that the drilling would infringe upon is TINY. I'm talking SUPER SMALL. The wildlife reserve is huge and I couldn't imagine the drilling infringing on more than 1% of it (don't have that statistic though). Realistically, there would be no damage done to the wildlife refuge that could not be made up for through other means. I support it as an Alaskan. Also... my state in general supports the drilling. It is only congress that has stopped us. If it wasn't a national reserve, we'd already be pumping the oil.



I don't think i missed anything I was going to comment on. Really though, as an Alaskan, and a Catholic, I'm proud to support Palin.

-Marcus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing:
The other option that people have taken as opposed to commercial fishing is called farmed fishing. Instead of going out into the wildlife and catching fish, they basically breed fish in a giant tank, kill them, and sell them. Which of the two sounds more animal friendly? I'll take commercial fishing any day.

Also... farmed fish don't taste nearly as good =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Slappo' post='1661089' date='Sep 22 2008, 03:31 PM']I guess it's my turn to jump in!

"we don't live there to know the circumstances"

Well... I live there :). Alaskan born and raised.

Circumstances:
The wolf population in Alaska, if it was not controlled, would build up to such a high number that not only would humans not have any animals left to hunt for food (specifically Native Alaskan's which some still hunt as their PRIMARY food source), but the other animal predators would have no prey left. The climate for Alaska is almost perfect for wolves. There are actually ALREADY problems with wolves not having enough prey due to the high wolf population in Alaska.

Wolves can also be dangerous to the humans living in the vicinity of the wolves, especially as food continues to grow short for them (which if Alaskan's were to stop hunting, the problem would still exist for wolves and prey, so don't try to play that card). Of course blah blah livestock ect is all at risk of being attacked as well.

Alaska is 1/3rd the size of the continental United States, and the state of Texas easily fits into Alaska 2 1/2 times. The human population in Alaska is less than 700,000. Try hunting mass amounts of wolves with so few humans around on a land mass that could easily hold the population of the entire United States. Aerial hunting is [b]necessary[/b] for the safety of humans and other animals in Alaska.

Hands down, Alaska and Aerial hunting is not an area one can have *SERIOUS* issues with Palin on. Although you may still disagree, it isn't like she views wolves as horrible creatures that we should just kill for the sake of killing. The intent behind aerial hunting is not disrespect for animal life, but safety of humans, and even to an extent for wolves (if wolf populations continued to grow and they hunted all their food, the prey could no longer sustain the amount of wolves, and therefore over time they would starve).

Commercial fishing:
There are already strict rules on both the amount of fish that can be caught, the size of the fish, and the means of fishing. Fishing laws in Alaska are already very strict (coming from an Alaskan) for how big of an industry it is. When it comes to care for the planet, is it damaging? Yes. As damaging as most other industries? No. Fishing is really the only industry Alaska has as well. We have no oil refinery's (even with all the oil we pump), no factories, or any other large industries (I think we have a few brewery's, but they don't produce much waste, and what is produced is taken care of in an environment safe fashion). Out of every state, Alaska is one of the most environment friendly.

ANWR (drilling in the wildlife refuge): If you have paid attention to ANWR at all, you would realize that the area of the refuge that the drilling would infringe upon is TINY. I'm talking SUPER SMALL. The wildlife reserve is huge and I couldn't imagine the drilling infringing on more than 1% of it (don't have that statistic though). Realistically, there would be no damage done to the wildlife refuge that could not be made up for through other means. I support it as an Alaskan. Also... my state in general supports the drilling. It is only congress that has stopped us. If it wasn't a national reserve, we'd already be pumping the oil.



I don't think i missed anything I was going to comment on. Really though, as an Alaskan, and a Catholic, I'm proud to support Palin.

-Marcus[/quote]

Thanks for the explanations. I totally see your point about the need for control of the wolf population and although I'm not from Alaska I obviously realize that at times measures need to be taken. However, I do still have serious problems with Palin and this issue, not only in and of itself (I think there must be a more humane way) but I think it could easily open the door to progressively less and less rights for wolves and other wildlife and I realize most people think this is a hippy dippy way of thinking, but in my opinion they have just as much right to be here as we do. I realize there are no simple answers but I have to stick to my conscience. Also, I am not attacking Alaska specifically for its commercial fishing, the whole industry is bad business as far as I'm concered. The drilling may be a small part but I think it's a bad decision and it leads me to assume that Palin would possibly disrupt other wildlife habitats/refuges for industry, thus I cannot support it. We all have to vote our conscience. -Katie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Slappo' post='1661090' date='Sep 22 2008, 03:33 PM']Oh, one more thing:
The other option that people have taken as opposed to commercial fishing is called farmed fishing. Instead of going out into the wildlife and catching fish, they basically breed fish in a giant tank, kill them, and sell them. Which of the two sounds more animal friendly? I'll take commercial fishing any day.

Also... farmed fish don't taste nearly as good =)[/quote]

Though I'm not in favor of fishing myself, I concede that commercial fishing is the lesser of two evils here-farmed fishing is definitely cruel stuff. -Katie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

princessgianna

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1660963' date='Sep 22 2008, 09:55 AM']Abstinence education is an effort to get at the REAL problem, the only thing is it can't work on its own. You talk to a kid for 20 minutes about the proper definition of love (ie: not lust) encourage them to wait, and then for the next 23 hours and 40 minutes of the day they are saturated in a culture telling them to have sex and exault lust. There needs to be tons of more effort on all fronts to encourage true love and true respect for women and the proper role of masculinity. Abstinence education isnt the whole solution, but it's a start.[/quote]

very nicely put Sirklawd!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Slappo' post='1661090' date='Sep 22 2008, 02:33 PM']Oh, one more thing:
The other option that people have taken as opposed to commercial fishing is called farmed fishing. Instead of going out into the wildlife and catching fish, they basically breed fish in a giant tank, kill them, and sell them. Which of the two sounds more animal friendly? I'll take commercial fishing any day.

Also... farmed fish don't taste nearly as good =)[/quote]

Farmed fish have dye in them and all sorts of other nastys! :fishslap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1660963' date='Sep 22 2008, 09:55 AM']Sorry, I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about, but I need to talk about this. Anybody who dares make the comment about abstinence-programs leading to pregnant children always seem to forget that the entire world outside of the home encourages teens to have sex. Every piece of mainstream media is oversexualized. Even a blind person can see this, but yet somehow you, Dairygirl, and people like you seem to forget this. "consider the lustful nature of people" really? People aren't like this as a default.

This is the best though: "In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.[13"

REALLY?! NO SH#T!

it all comes down to what you think is the problem in order to find an appropriate solution. Like you, people in favor of abstinence-only education do not hate pregnancy or think it's evil, but do think that teens are too young/imature to have to deal with such issues. UNLIKE you, and everyone like you, we think that problem here is promiscuity, not procreation. I really cant stress it enough how pressured kids are to have sex. This pressure doesnt come from themselves, but from being blasted in the face with it 24 hours a day. I for one think its remarkable and commendable that, as far as we know, only one of her kids has become pregnant.

Abstinence education is an effort to get at the REAL problem, the only thing is it can't work on its own. You talk to a kid for 20 minutes about the proper definition of love (ie: not lust) encourage them to wait, and then for the next 23 hours and 40 minutes of the day they are saturated in a culture telling them to have sex and exault lust. There needs to be tons of more effort on all fronts to encourage true love and true respect for women and the proper role of masculinity. Abstinence education isnt the whole solution, but it's a start.

You would rather give them a condom, condone promiscuity, encourage bad habits that undermine marraiges and seriously risk their own health, grow a consumer base to keep places like planned parenthood in business, and many more - esentially you do not want to fix the problem.[/quote]

really, who's at fault and failing are people like you and me for not preventing them from living of the flesh. maybe you and me individually are convincing them, but people like us, are not doig their jobs properly. and even if we were, and hte kids were just as promiscuous, we'd still have to prevent their fate by teaching contraception.

you can cry idealism, but you're being unrealistic. if hte world is of the flesh, you have to prepare kids of what they should be doing if they're of the flesh. it doens't mean you can't teach abstinance too.


so your argument fails, because your arguments are tenuous. not only tenuous, but bad judgment.
ie, your argument essentially boils down to teaching contraception encourages promiscuity. but the statistics i cited showed that that was not the case. your argument would have ot be that teaching contraception to group A causes bad effects to the rest of the non-tuaght groups. i could concede there's some bad effect, but the world is of the flesh anyway, that's why it's bad, not cause of teaching contraception. you're defying the statistics trying to weasle your preconceived notion that abstinance only is the efective way to prevent promiscuity etc.

you could plausibly be right, but it's counter what the statistics indicate. it's counter what the world is expected to be anyway.

your arguments are far fetched.

if you want to argue the ends don't justify the means etc, then go for it. just don't pretend iyour position has substantial merit as per effectiveness etc unless you cite the stats as wrong, or make a better argument that you are making.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1661066' date='Sep 22 2008, 01:49 PM']Really?

Thats the consensus?

Thats funny because I was under the impression that Earth had been warming up this the middle of the last Ice Age, except for a few brief mini Ice Ages. In fact back in my under graduate days my geology teacher taught us that we still WERE in an Ice Age, that having polar ice caps was not actually the norm for Earth and that the earth would likely continue to heat up for sometime. This was before there was any significant "Global Warming" debate and he was not the only geologist I knew back at that time that had that opinion. You say you are an empirical person, then the fact that the Glaciers do not strech down into the ohio valley should prove without much doubt that Golbal wariming is indeed a natural process. It is possible that mankind has made the process faster, or increased the heating, but that global warming itself, is man made is not only not the consensus, its simply idiotic, and blatantly unscientific.[/quote]

well i meant consensus as in it's the far wide ranging accepted theory, not that everyone believed it. i maybe shouldn't have said consensus, as i'm not sure what it technically means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it solidified some of his base. but i'm not sure how popular she is past the initial boom. it could also alienate some people. and she's becoming known as ditzy and not able to withstand reporters or scrutiny or publicity generally.

i'm a moderate and never really said firmly who i stood for, and won't until more details were gotten into. but she pushes me away.
granted, the pandering to the prolife thing made me wonder if mccain really wanted to rid of roe. but i remind myself his first two picks were prochoice VPs and that she was last minute choice.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that syndrome you cite, if it refers to irrational responses to palin, i strongly disagree with.

she's hiding from publicity, why do you think that is? she can't hack it, she's not capable of saying anything intelligent.

the most she has said "i'm prolife" "free market is good" "tax cuts are good". "global warmig i changed my mind on cause of politics" "ditto john mccain on foregin stuff"

none are very intelligent in and of themselves. even if you think the world is simple, you have to be able to defend why it's the case everyone else is wrong.

if she wants to cut spending ,she has to say why and what. if she wants no spending like ron paul, she needs to make the argument.

all these little things add up, that i psted in this thread. but it's not just these little things, it's the big things too. notably how she went from no debt in alaka to a ton of debt, at her directive.

her debate with biden is her last chance to redeem herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...