Religious clerics extend their grip over the people

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
House OKs birth control funding ban
on Thu, Mar. 16, 2006
Low-income women would be affected

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.

Critics jumped on the proposal, saying it would lead to more abortions and more unwanted children on welfare.
But the proposal’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. “If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,” Phillips said. “But we don’t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.”

The change was the most controversial amendment adopted during the second day of debate on next year’s state budget. The Republican majority also turned back several efforts to boost funding for health-care programs by trimming farm and agribusiness subsidies.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14109047.htm

So ... the solution to SAVING taxpayer dollars is to stop issuing contraceptives, and instead support MORE children on welfare, let alone the hospital costs of delivering that child picked up by the taxpayer. Just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.
 
Wow, a second article from the same area today:

State says parents must sign off on sex ed
Kansas rules parents must give permission; abstinence instruction proposed

Updated: 9:26 a.m. ET March 16, 2006
TOPEKA, Kan. - School districts in Kansas must get parents’ written permission before teaching their children sex education, the state Board of Education decided Wednesday.

The board adopted the policy in a 6-4 vote. Up to now, most Kansas districts had an “opt-out” policy — they enrolled children in sex ed unless a parent objected in writing.

Only a few other states have such “opt-in” requirements on sex education, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a group that promotes sex education. Among them: Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Board members who voted for the new policy said some parents told them they did not know their children were taking sex education until the classes had started.

“It’s about empowering parents. That’s the bottom line,” said board chairman Steve Abrams.

One board member wants the new policy to go further and require abstinence-only courses. “We need to send the correct message,” Kathy Martin said.

Under her proposal, a school could lose its state accreditation if it did not offer nine weeks of instruction on “abstinence until marriage” at least once in grades 6-9.

The board said it would discuss Martin’s proposal at a later meeting.

In November, after a debate that attracted worldwide attention, the board adopted standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11856589/

That's just dangerous for everybody.
 
Funny, you have to opt-in for sex ed, info that can potentially alter your life for the better. Yet even a parents note won't let kids opt out from bio disections, something else that some people morally oppose.
 
That's because fundies bitch and scream until they get their way. Just look at Roe v. Wade.
 
Seriously, how much more conservative can this country get?!?! How much longer till they repeal women's suffrage? I wonder, if Bush propsed that repeal tomorrow what Ann Coulter would have to say about it?
 
I remember when I was in 5th grade, if the student didn't want to take sex ed, they didn't have to. But after that it was manditory.

Isn't there a study out there that says teaching just absitnence until marriage increase teen sex, or something like that?
 
Abstinence-only education's average effect is to delay the first occurrance of sexual intercourse by 18 months, but with the negative side-effect of greatly reduced usage of condoms/practicing of safe sex.

Dunno what the effects of abstinence education may be on reduction of "singles," "doubles," and "triples" to use the old baseball parlance, however.

EZB, the latest Harper's (I think) had a blurb about the Bush administration saving a whopping 9.5 million dollars (see! They *are* fiscal conservatives!!!) by cutting funding for cancer detection clinics. These clinics helped discover early cancer in a lot of people (and it's ain't the rich going to these clinics), which meant a greatly reduced taxpayer burden for any surgery/therapy, relative to those who have later developed cancers. This 9.5 million cut is going to cost a lot more money and a lot more lives, just like the OP's philosophy. fuckin' genius.
 
Every kid in every heath class in america should be issued a crying newborn baby or most technologically advanced facsimile and all the responsibility that goes with it for 4 weeks. I guarantee they won't ever want have sex again, or at least they'll be damn sure to find out for themselves what protection is and get it before they get some.
 
I had to look in the bathroom to see if someone was using my shitter, but apparently thats just the sound of our future being flushed away.

While I agree that providing contraceptives really isn't the best use of tax dollars, it sure does beat the alternative. Honestly, if these people can't afford $10 for a 12 pack of condoms, what the fuck are they going to do when they get knocked up? Ideally, these people would have the common-fucking-sense to not get in these situations to begin with. However, considering the people leading the country and teaching our school... common sense is a bit much to hope for.


Speaking of that, when are they going to change it 'not-as-common-as-it-used-to-be' sense?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Every kid in every heath class in america should be issued a crying newborn baby or most technologically advanced facsimile and all the responsibility that goes with it for 4 weeks. I guarantee they won't ever want have sex again, or at least they'll be damn sure to find out for themselves what protection is and get it before they get some.[/QUOTE]

Boy, I bet you're fun at parties. :roll:
 
[quote name='Kayden']Honestly, if these people can't afford $10 for a 12 pack of condoms, what the fuck are they going to do when they get knocked up?[/QUOTE]

You win the prize pacakge, bebe.

[quote name='bmulligan']Every kid in every heath class in america should be issued a crying newborn baby or most technologically advanced facsimile and all the responsibility that goes with it for 4 weeks. I guarantee they won't ever want have sex again, or at least they'll be damn sure to find out for themselves what protection is and get it before they get some.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: You think people are rational creatures that can be deterred. :rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] :rofl: You think people are rational creatures that can be deterred. :rofl:[/QUOTE]

We are all rational creatures, myke. Some of us, namely many of my adversaries on this board and mostly those not worthy of the title, choose to deny their rational capacity and behave like animals. Or at the very least, expect the worst from human beings and are never disappointed.
 
So, we're rational creatures, except when we aren't? Is that what you're telling me?

Or, perhaps this is what you're telling me: human beings are limited to only rational kinds of behavior, due to their rational natures.

Or this: any behavior humans participate in is de facto rational because it is, in fact, being done by humans.

Rationality is a useless tautology that assumes a universal actor, and, ironically enough (since you're the one arguing it), does not permit for individual-level variance either theoretically or analytically.

"Hey, you carried the baby wets-her-self doll for four weeks! You couldn't have gotten your girlfriend pregnant! It's not rational!"

Perhaps if you step away from such a bland tautology, you may have a point somewhere in there. Get back to me.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Every kid in every heath class in america should be issued a crying newborn baby or most technologically advanced facsimile and all the responsibility that goes with it for 4 weeks. I guarantee they won't ever want have sex again, or at least they'll be damn sure to find out for themselves what protection is and get it before they get some.[/QUOTE]

Pssssst. I don't know if you know this or not, but we're humans -- animals. Our goal, as an animal, is to survive... neglecting carrying capacity theories and dark areas of psychology, of course.

Sex is mating; procreation. Trying to stifle something so natural, as you're suggesting, is akin to psychological trauma -- that is, if it worked.

Now, I don't think having someone carry around a crying, piss doll around for four weeks will not make someone not want to have sex, it might make someone think twice about having a kid (which, I doubt). My point is, our minds don't bridge the gap of sex and mating (procreating).

When rubbing one out to Hustler, I doubt one is thinking, "Oh, man! I'd love to have a child with that foxy bitch!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, we're rational creatures, except when we aren't? Is that what you're telling me?[/quote]

No, myke, that's your philosophy, that we are rational creatures when we choose to turn on our brains, so that excuses everything. You're the one who thinks we just turn off our brains at random intervals and revert to animals. However, judging your posts on this board is leading me to give some credence to your theory.

Or, perhaps this is what you're telling me: human beings are limited to only rational kinds of behavior, due to their rational natures.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that, save for legitimate mental incapacity, irrational behavior is a conscious choice, while you believe it's human nature. Some of us choose to blank-out and use it as a rationale to excuse bad behavior.

Or this: any behavior humans participate in is de facto rational because it is, in fact, being done by humans.
Click to expand...

Wow, you actually get it. Glad I don't have to restate it again for it to sink into your brain while you are in a period of self induced retardation.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, myke, that's your philosophy, that we are rational creatures when we choose to turn on our brains, so that excuses everything. You're the one who thinks we just turn off our brains at random intervals and revert to animals. However, judging your posts on this board is leading me to give some credence to your theory.[/quote]

Check it out! I finally found a :yawn: smiley!
yawn3pf.gif



I'm saying that, save for legitimate mental incapacity, irrational behavior is a conscious choice, while you believe it's human nature. Some of us choose to blank-out and use it as a rationale to excuse bad behavior.
Click to expand...

Except that you're deciding what is rational and what is irrational. Imagine you have three adult males with children. One puts his paycheck in mutual funds after paying the bills. One cashes his paycheck and hits up the liquor store, the titty bar, and the horse track. One decides to pay some bills, and takes the residual and blows it on a 360. For you to say "this is rational, while this is not" denies the very core concept of rational thinking: a person consciously weighs the costs and benefits of engaging in behaviors A, B, or C, and after deciding which one will be the most beneficial to them, engages in one of the three. The mutual funds, the 360, and the liquor are all "rational" decisions at the individual level. That's why I call rational choice a tautology; because it wants to explain how people make the decisions they make, but in doing so theoretically, can not differentiate between an upright citizen and a drug abuser. All actors are acting rationally, since they made the decisions themselves.

So, if you get to decide what is rational and what is not, you're contradicting your point that you bring up below, that humans engage in rational thinking.

Wow, you actually get it. Glad I don't have to restate it again for it to sink into your brain while you are in a period of self induced retardation.
Click to expand...

What is it that I get? Your point that you want to decide what "rational" behavior is, or that individuals get to decide for themselves what "rational" behavior is? ;)
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Wow, you actually get it. Glad I don't have to restate it again for it to sink into your brain while you are in a period of self induced retardation.[/quote]

We know humans are rational because they act rational, and we know they act rational because they are human beings, and human beings are rational.

Ya, no problem with that logic. Many common sense assumptions are made about humans, but they're often lacking in evidence.

If hormones, neurotransmitters and other biological issues didn't play any significant role in human behavior then maybe you'd have a better argument. But due to the fact that biological processes can significantly alter human behavior, such a blanket statement has little support. Now if you want to say that within the confines of human biology they act rationally then I still wouldn't agree, but at least there's an argument to be made, even if I find it to be a weak one.
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']just for that i'm gonna get an extra abortion today[/QUOTE]

You ARE an abortion. Just like Myke's excuse for an explanation that rational thinking doesn't even really exist:

For you to say "this is rational, while this is not" denies the very core concept of rational thinking: a person consciously weighs the costs and benefits of engaging in behaviors A, B, or C, and after deciding which one will be the most beneficial to them, engages in one of the three. The mutual funds, the 360, and the liquor are all "rational" decisions at the individual level. That's why I call rational choice a tautology; because it wants to explain how people make the decisions they make, but in doing so theoretically, can not differentiate between an upright citizen and a drug abuser. All actors are acting rationally, since they made the decisions themselves.
Click to expand...

No one's talking about the value judgement of who is a good person and who is a bad one. The "rationaliry" of choice is everpresent, as you stated, and describes the process by which we walk the path of behavior. You conciously choose to spend your money at the titty bar instead of food for your family. You consciuosly choose to buy an xbox instead of a college education. You consciuosly choose to murder a passing stranger to take what he has as your own. It is not a lack of rationality, or a force acting upon you beyond your control that makes you a bad or good person, it's within you.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We are all rational creatures, myke. Some of us, namely many of my adversaries on this board and mostly those not worthy of the title, choose to deny their rational capacity and behave like animals. Or at the very least, expect the worst from human beings and are never disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Mm-hmm.
 
To quote Jurassic Park [insert laughing through nose here]:

Nature finds a way.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
No one's talking about the value judgement of who is a good person and who is a bad one. The "rationaliry" of choice is everpresent, as you stated, and describes the process by which we walk the path of behavior. You conciously choose to spend your money at the titty bar instead of food for your family. You consciuosly choose to buy an xbox instead of a college education. You consciuosly choose to murder a passing stranger to take what he has as your own. It is not a lack of rationality, or a force acting upon you beyond your control that makes you a bad or good person, it's within you.[/quote]

But do you think the choice is always rational? Or that it is even a choice in the true sense of the word?

For example, if a person were to choose to start smoking entirely on their own, without any social influence, then that would be a personal choice and could be considered rational. But check back on that person 5 years later. Is their decision to smoke still rational? Is it even a true choice? Aren't there various other factors influencing their decision? If it were a rational decision, then why is quitting so hard?

Your ideas of individual control, rational thinking etc. may very well be a good way to think, especially in regards to your own actions. Your way of thinking is no doubt beneficial in many situations, but fails in terms of evidence.

It's like the parent telling their mentally handicapped child "you can be anything you want to be". That exactly what any good parent should do, and it's very likely that they have the capability to be productive, self sufficient citizens. They'll go much further with that line of thinking than understanding the truth, which may be outright harmful to them.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Seriously, how much more conservative can this country get?!?![/quote]

Look at the Taliban, we've got a-ways to go but ironically Bush and Git-R-Done nation is working hard to realize the new dream! Subjugation of women and plenty of poor uneducated babies HOORAY!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']For example, if a person were to choose to start smoking entirely on their own, without any social influence, then that would be a personal choice and could be considered rational.[/QUOTE]

Must you deny me my daily satisfaction by taking out such an impossibly-removable thing such as social influence!?!?! Research shows that feral children are less likely to smoke that regular children.

That last sentence isn't true, but I'll bet if tested it would be. ;)

The thing about rationality is this: everyone can come up with a cognitively rational explanation for behaviors, good and bad.

Why do you smoke? Why don't you smoke?
Why do you go to church? temple? mosque? Why did you join Heaven's Gate?
Why did you drink all the christmas money? Why did you buy your children gifts?
Why did you hit your wife? Why don't you hit your wife?
Why do you exercise and work out? Why don't you exercise?

In the end, because at an individual level, any behavior within a particular range of behaviors can be explained with "rationalism," then really nothing can be explained. You can not predict behavior using this mindset because anything is possible under rationalism. When you explain *everything*, you explain *nothing* (by the inability to exhibit where your explanation may not be the case).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Must you deny me my daily satisfaction by taking out such an impossibly-removable thing such as social influence!?!?! Research shows that feral children are less likely to smoke that regular children.

That last sentence isn't true, but I'll bet if tested it would be. ;)[/quote]

Well there are better examples out there, but you can always remove something just for the sake of argument.

Though, also, be aware of the target audience. I don't think mulligan is going to agree that society effects virtually everything we do in some fashion, but he does agree that society plays some role. If a child decides to smoke without any peer pressure and just decides he/she wants to try a cigarette, then I don't think mulligan is going to argue that there was still a social influence.

The thing about rationality is this: everyone can come up with a cognitively rational explanation for behaviors, good and bad.

Why do you smoke? Why don't you smoke?
Why do you go to church? temple? mosque? Why did you join Heaven's Gate?
Why did you drink all the christmas money? Why did you buy your children gifts?
Why did you hit your wife? Why don't you hit your wife?
Why do you exercise and work out? Why don't you exercise?

In the end, because at an individual level, any behavior within a particular range of behaviors can be explained with "rationalism," then really nothing can be explained. You can not predict behavior using this mindset because anything is possible under rationalism. When you explain *everything*, you explain *nothing* (by the inability to exhibit where your explanation may not be the case).
Click to expand...

That's mostly true, but questionable in some instances. For example, most people with obsessive compulsive disorder know their behavior is irrational, know it's affecting their life and want to stop, but just can't. They are unlikely to be able to rationally explain why they do those things, other than to say doing them reduces their anxiety, but they won't be able to explain it beyond that. In really severe cases people will spend the majority of the day going through the same ritual over and over.
 
[quote name='camoor']So does a horny 16 year old[/QUOTE]

That's my point, among others.

Stifle reproduction with condoms, men claim they think it "feels better" sans-condom, disregarding the fear of STDs. Of course, it does, but it's more than preference, in my opinion -- subconscious; making excuses to ejaculate inside a woman. Studies say that women have a better disposition after sex if they had unprotected sex -- the studies never made mention of men, probably 'cos we'll take it any way we can get it.

Because we're thinking animals - most of us with internal-dialogues, to boot - we, naturally, try to rationalize our thinking. Having sex solely out of love or lust is desperately rationalized... but, subconsciously, we're doing it because we find a mate (or potential mate) attractive enough to mix our genetics with.

I'm not saying we're soulless, mindless animals - and you can have sex out of love, or lust - but it's easier to accept once you realize that we have unseen urges in our archaic minds, helping us make life decisions, while our somehow transcended minds (thanks to speech and internal dialogue / advanced thinking) fills in the logical blanks and gaps, thus "rationalizing"

"Rational" is a subjective term, anyway. Hell, we created the concept.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's mostly true, but questionable in some instances. For example, most people with obsessive compulsive disorder know their behavior is irrational, know it's affecting their life and want to stop, but just can't. They are unlikely to be able to rationally explain why they do those things, other than to say doing them reduces their anxiety, but they won't be able to explain it beyond that. In really severe cases people will spend the majority of the day going through the same ritual over and over.[/QUOTE]

Rationality doesn't have to be that way to you and I. You don't even need to go as far as OCD; ask someone why they go to church and you'll find plenty of rationalisms that, sooner than you think it, seem like absurdities to those of us who, *ahem*, "consider ourselves grounded in reality." That doesn't mean they aren't rationalisms, because while they seem silly to others, to the acting individual it makes perfect sense. I'd argue the same is the case for OCD people too. They don't have a muscle condition that keeps them doing what they do, it's psychological/cognitive. They may hate it (and I'm sure many do), but they do rationalize it, after all. The proof, of course, is evident the moment you interfere with their rituals (and watch out for those temper tantrums! oy vey!)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Rationality doesn't have to be that way to you and I. You don't even need to go as far as OCD; ask someone why they go to church and you'll find plenty of rationalisms that, sooner than you think it, seem like absurdities to those of us who, *ahem*, "consider ourselves grounded in reality." That doesn't mean they aren't rationalisms, because while they seem silly to others, to the acting individual it makes perfect sense. I'd argue the same is the case for OCD people too. They don't have a muscle condition that keeps them doing what they do, it's psychological/cognitive. They may hate it (and I'm sure many do), but they do rationalize it, after all. The proof, of course, is evident the moment you interfere with their rituals (and watch out for those temper tantrums! oy vey!)[/quote]

Actually, with OCD, the reason they do it is because anxiety continues to build until it becomes unbearable. It's not a rational choice they're making, and the overwhelming majority of sufferers understand that.

If I ask someone why they go to church it's usually:

A. I enjoy it, or benefit from it, because it brings me closer to god (rational)
B. I go because I fear god will punish me if I don't (depends why)
C. I have to go due to a family members insistence (rational)

There's always a debate over how rational, and irrational, humans are. My opinion on the above situations is listed. Humans are capable of both rational and irrational thought. It's often difficult to find a distinction, and sometimes they are both rational and irrational at the same time.

Though evidence suggests low serotonin levels may be the cause of OCD, and SSRI's are a common treatment for it. Cognitive behavior therapy can work, but it's often used in conjunction with drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top