Rubber labels - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2005, 12:29 PM   #16
Babyface
 
Doc Ocho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belfast, Ireland.
Posts: 28
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
fistly, the chances are very, very, very rare that mutual masturbation will cause pregnancy. of course it is possible...
A minute ago you called it a lie...

And I know what your posts said... I just don't think that it is fair that you whitewash us all for what right wing fundementalists in your own country get on like!!!

Or should I assume that you, like some of your countrymen, get off on War?
__________________

__________________
Doc Ocho is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:30 PM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:50 AM


Irvine very, VERY specifically stated that it is certain groups within the larger Christian community responsible for these moves.

For heaven's sake.

Read, THEN post.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:31 PM   #18
Babyface
 
Doc Ocho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belfast, Ireland.
Posts: 28
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
Read, THEN post.
I did just that, mate, like I said.
__________________
Doc Ocho is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:35 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Let's get things straight:

1) Abstinence-only programs are a failure. Period.

2) While there are "creative" ways to get pregnant, you are statistically more likely to contract an STD or get pregnant if you *don't* use a condom.

3) Religious organizations are clearly operating within a specific agenda that they choose to espouse; and it is not the place of religious organizations to set scientific labels. Their bias is blatantly obvious.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:36 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc Ocho


Certain being the right word here, not all of us!!!!



Actually, as someone who has studied many religions around the world.... You do find them doing just that.



1. and i go to great lengths, each and every time, to make that distinction.

2. yes, they do that to THEIR FOLLOWERS, not as a matter of national education policy.

what's really going on here is prosthetizing. it's a method of trying to legitimize control over what choices you make. essentialy, i am very happy to let all Christians of all stripes live however they choose. however, there are certain elements of Christianity that are not willing to let me live how i choose. they are growing ever more shrewd and ever more sophistocated at dressing up what is a subjective Biblical message (not agreed upon by all Christians) and calling it science and then translating that into public policy via a very sympathetic WH administration and Congress.

in a secular society, we give people facts, not sermons, and allow them to make their own decisions.

there are many Republicans who sincerely disagree with that. Rep. Santorum is on record saying that what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults is in the government's interest to regulate, since he feels that what he views as immoral sexual behavior creates a climate where other immoral behavior takes place. he views it to be in the nation's best interests to regulate all kinds of human behavior -- and this goes beyond saying that some kinds of sexuality are illegal (like pedophilia). instead of saying "this is wrong and it is illegal" he wants to say "this is the only way sexuality should be and this is therefore the only form of it that is legal."

and governments do that. in theocracies.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:03 PM   #21
Babyface
 
Doc Ocho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belfast, Ireland.
Posts: 28
Local Time: 10:50 AM
I guess it's an American thing. The Church and State are really quite seperate here. There are some Judeo-Christian ideals, but not many!

I see that you try to point out that it is [I]certain[I] elements twisting things, but we Christians can get quite shirty about the use of the word "Christians"...

Personally, I prefer Right Wing Christians, even Fundamentalist as a prefix works.

I don't know you from the next guy, but I can sense that you are a good guy. Maybe next time, you should try to ensure that you don't vote in a w*nker like GW.
__________________
Doc Ocho is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:09 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it is in the best interests of groups like Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council who promote a Biblically-based, abstinence-only (their words, not mine) approach to sexual education to advance the legitimacy of their agenda by distorting factual information that makes sexual behavior appear to be more risky than it actually is and to make birth control devices less reliable than they actually are. through distortions of science, they engender fear, and through fear, they can push an ideology based in faith not science.

huge thread on this a while ago -- some materials used as "fact" by these groups said that HIV can be transmitted through sweat and tears, that mutual maturbation can cause pregnancy, and that half of all gay teenagers have HIV.

all lies.

deady lies, too, for when you withold information on birth control and condoms, the more likely one is not to use anything should one choose to have sex.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I've been a Christian my entire life and have never come into contact w/ any of these groups, nor have I ever been taught those lies about HIV and masturbation. My only knowledge of these people and their teachings is from threads like this here in FYM. Our sex ed classes (yes, I had sex ed classes at multiple grade levels in my private schools) taught about condoms and other birth control and anything you want (or didn't want) to know about any STD. Of course, they push abstinence as the BEST option, but IMO that IS the best option for birth control and STD prevention regardless of religion. They would never withhold info or change information. Parents would find out and would NOT be pleased. They won't pay thousands of dollars a year for their kids education only to find out their kids are being lied to about sex. I don't understand how anyone, Christian or not, would find that acceptable.

The way I see things, something either works, or it doesn't. If a condom isn't 100% effective, I personally would not consider it the best option to use as birth control and STD protection. I don't mean to say I just wouldn't have my partner use condoms and still have sex, but I think If you want to be 100% sure, have each partner do their part by each using some form of birth control and you're good to go. As for STD prevention...I guess I have no comment there since I don't think I'd ever have sex with someone without having him tested first.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:11 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc Ocho

Personally, I prefer Right Wing Christians, even Fundamentalist as a prefix works.
Hey now, I'm a right-leaning Christian who has more in common with Islam than Fundamentalist Christianity.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:18 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic



The way I see things, something either works, or it doesn't. If a condom isn't 100% effective, I personally would not consider it the best option to use as birth control and STD protection. I don't mean to say I just wouldn't have my partner use condoms and still have sex, but I think If you want to be 100% sure, have each partner do their part by each using some form of birth control and you're good to go. As for STD prevention...I guess I have no comment there since I don't think I'd ever have sex with someone without having him tested first.


i agree with you.

it is factual to point out that the only way to be sure that you will never contract an STD or get pregnant is through abstinence. however, it is not factual to distort information about the efficacy of birth control or fear-monger in regards to STDs. i wish i could source it, but i do believe (and i could be wrong, relying on memory here) that the Concerned Women for America is actually concerned that they might soon have a vaccine for HPV (genital warts). they view STDs as a method to encourage abstinence, so they actually want *more* STDs in order to advance their agenda.

as for myself, since marriage is really not an option, and since i think sexual activity is both enjoyable and a great way to build a relationship as well as explore both my body and my soul, i do have sex, but i am armed to the teeth with condoms and knoweldge.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:19 PM   #25
Babyface
 
Doc Ocho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belfast, Ireland.
Posts: 28
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Hey now, I'm a right-leaning Christian who has more in common with Islam than Fundamentalist Christianity.
Not the same thing!!
__________________
Doc Ocho is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc Ocho


Not the same thing!!
exactly
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:52 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Hey now, I'm a right-leaning Christian who has more in common with Islam than Fundamentalist Christianity.
We have just made a reservation for you to have an extended stay in a tropical climate, with appropriate meals and worship time.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:57 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
no. all this stuff comes from certain right wing Christianist elements (enough adjectives there? of course i don't mean all Christians, or even Christianity). you don't see Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists or agnostics twisting facts in order to promote their interpretation of how their religion views human sexuality.
Actually, you can. I understand your beef with certain "right wing Christian elements" (and acknowledge that lack of use of the adjectives would be flame bait). The other groups listed have their own interpretations of human sexuality and freely espouse them (we just don't discuss it here).

The article is not about Biblical views of sexuality. It is about placing a label on a package of condoms. Frankly, I find the argument that we shouldn't warn of a condom's imperfections because it will increase the spread of AIDS quite weak.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:24 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Actually, you can. I understand your beef with certain "right wing Christian elements" (and acknowledge that lack of use of the adjectives would be flame bait). The other groups listed have their own interpretations of human sexuality and freely espouse them (we just don't discuss it here).

The article is not about Biblical views of sexuality. It is about placing a label on a package of condoms. Frankly, I find the argument that we shouldn't warn of a condom's imperfections because it will increase the spread of AIDS quite weak.

the difference is that the above religious groups don't have the political weight and power and the ear of the White House that do explicitly "Christian" groups like Focus on the Family and the others i've listed in the past. all religions are free to espouse their views to their followers, but they are not free to translate those views into public policy as we are currently seeing under the Bush administration and the advance of abstinence-only curriculum in many states and it brought about the ire of Rep. Waxman (D-NY) who was astonished to see that the Bush administration has used taxpayer dollars to support grotesquely misleading, distorted facts about sexuality peddled as "education" to teenagers. as we've seen repeatedly, much of the abstinence-only legitimacy is predicated upon the discrediting of legitimate forms of birth control and STD protection via the distortion of the effectiveness of condoms. and regardless of what is explicitly stated in the article, the discussion has moved on from there (as such discussions do).

can you see the difference between saying "condoms are not 100% effective" vs. "condoms can fail up to 15% of the time"?

one is fact, the other is a distortion of fact that corresopnds, intentionally, with an agenda.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:41 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Is the 15% pulled out of thin air, or is there some basis in fact? Dismissing it as pure agenda is equally misleading.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com