Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,465
Location: Reading, England

22 Jul 2016, 7:33 am

Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
believing in abstinence/non-promiscuity as a means of preventing the spread of STDs is not incorrect as those things do prevent that. A comment that he made 14 years ago makes him a complete scumbag?

I think the strength of sentiment that Viper used is pretty proportionate considering that discouraging condom use has killed millions of people. Obviously Pence is not responsible for that, but it was very well documented 14 years ago that he was completely wrong. It's also well documented that abstinence-only education doesn't work, it's an unrealistic approach.

In theory, you're right, it's a forgiveable transgression if he acknowledges he was wrong and has grown up.


How is he discouraging condom use? He's not saying have sex and don't use a condom.

Saying "condoms are very very poor protection against STIs" is discouraging their use. People only use condoms because they work. If you tell people that condoms don't work, then more people will have unprotected sex.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

22 Jul 2016, 8:19 am

Jacoby wrote:
Human nature and whats good for human society are not the same thing, moral values are not something found in nature. Nature dictates survival of the fittest even if the that means to rape, to enslave, or to kill so I don't see disapproving what you consider human nature as denying it but rather a recognition of that fact and I don't think it is wrong to aspire to rise above this law of the jungle.


If all the animals in nature where hyper competitive there would be no social species, only cannibalistic ones. Morals arise out of the need for group cohesion, I'd argue every social species has an instinctual morality in the fact that they don't kill each other.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

22 Jul 2016, 8:45 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Fortunately, as I understand it, the Vice President is largely a ceremonial figure unless he needs to cast a deciding vote or the President becomes unable to do their job. Unfortunately, if Pence became Vice President, America would have a real problem on its hands.


Historically yes, but that's not to say a V.P. can't wield enormous power. I'll leave you with this exchange alleged by John Kaisich's campaign manager:

Eric Trump (Donald's 2nd son) to Kaisich: "How would you like to be VP? My dad will let you be in charge of foreign issues AND domestic issues."

Kaisich: "Well if I'm doing foreign and domestic issues what is your dad going to be doing?"

Eric Trump: "He'll be making America great again."

So under a Trump presidency it stands to reason the V.P. will hold an enormous amount of power, merely because Trump has no experience in how the office actually operates. It's easy to criticize the person in the big chair, but exponentially more difficult to actually operate the big chair, and even more so to do it successfully. Even harder for someone like Trump, who wouldn't even have the full backing of his party (a lot seem to be sitting out and "voting morals" this election as Ted Cruz, a.k.a. Fat Dracula, would say.)

edit: grammar



Last edited by Aristophanes on 22 Jul 2016, 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

22 Jul 2016, 10:09 am

The OP, I would think American would go without saying. It also doesn't mean anything descriptive, as nearly everyone in America is an American.

So he put Christian first. So what you'd have to find out is if he'd put the people of America over the Christians of America. So like the gay marriage issue, would that have been opposed or allowed on his watch.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Jul 2016, 10:50 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
believing in abstinence/non-promiscuity as a means of preventing the spread of STDs is not incorrect as those things do prevent that. A comment that he made 14 years ago makes him a complete scumbag?

I think the strength of sentiment that Viper used is pretty proportionate considering that discouraging condom use has killed millions of people. Obviously Pence is not responsible for that, but it was very well documented 14 years ago that he was completely wrong. It's also well documented that abstinence-only education doesn't work, it's an unrealistic approach.

In theory, you're right, it's a forgiveable transgression if he acknowledges he was wrong and has grown up.


How is he discouraging condom use? He's not saying have sex and don't use a condom.

Saying "condoms are very very poor protection against STIs" is discouraging their use. People only use condoms because they work. If you tell people that condoms don't work, then more people will have unprotected sex.


That's really stretching it I think, you are hearing what you want to hear out of it.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Jul 2016, 10:53 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Human nature and whats good for human society are not the same thing, moral values are not something found in nature. Nature dictates survival of the fittest even if the that means to rape, to enslave, or to kill so I don't see disapproving what you consider human nature as denying it but rather a recognition of that fact and I don't think it is wrong to aspire to rise above this law of the jungle.


If all the animals in nature where hyper competitive there would be no social species, only cannibalistic ones. Morals arise out of the need for group cohesion, I'd argue every social species has an instinctual morality in the fact that they don't kill each other.


I suppose you could say the instinctual morality of those other species are of a higher order than mankind



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

22 Jul 2016, 11:43 am

Jacoby wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Human nature and whats good for human society are not the same thing, moral values are not something found in nature. Nature dictates survival of the fittest even if the that means to rape, to enslave, or to kill so I don't see disapproving what you consider human nature as denying it but rather a recognition of that fact and I don't think it is wrong to aspire to rise above this law of the jungle.


If all the animals in nature where hyper competitive there would be no social species, only cannibalistic ones. Morals arise out of the need for group cohesion, I'd argue every social species has an instinctual morality in the fact that they don't kill each other.


I suppose you could say the instinctual morality of those other species are of a higher order than mankind

Lol. I guess you could.

edit: and a good point that will piss off everyone here but probably me, lol.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,906
Location: Long Island, New York

22 Jul 2016, 12:26 pm

Drake wrote:
The OP, I would think American would go without saying. It also doesn't mean anything descriptive, as nearly everyone in America is an American.

So he put Christian first. So what you'd have to find out is if he'd put the people of America over the Christians of America. So like the gay marriage issue, would that have been opposed or allowed on his watch.


It should go without saying is not the same thing as real life where it is not always that way.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,465
Location: Reading, England

22 Jul 2016, 12:37 pm

Jacoby wrote:
That's really stretching it I think, you are hearing what you want to hear out of it.

By all means, if you think "condoms are very very ineffective" doesn't imply "you shouldn't use condoms" then feel free to explain the real meaning to the class. :roll:

Aristophanes wrote:
Eric Trump (Donald's 2nd son) to Kaisich: "How would you like to be VP? My dad will let you be in charge of foreign issues AND domestic issues."

Kaisich: "Well if I'm doing foreign and domestic issues what is your dad going to be doing?"

Interplanetary issues!



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Jul 2016, 12:51 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
That's really stretching it I think, you are hearing what you want to hear out of it.

By all means, if you think "condoms are very very ineffective" doesn't imply "you shouldn't use condoms" then feel free to explain the real meaning to the class. :roll:


He's pretty clearly talking about the effectiveness of sex education policy, not the effectiveness of whether or not condoms literally work. The implication isn't have sex without a condom, that's like implying you're encouraging drug use for opposing mass incarceration as a form of deterrence. Class dismissed. :roll: