Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72223)	8/11/2003 12:20:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Bullshit! <gggg> I'll consider that when you either show me evidence of your conclusion and demonstrate that the position you espouse does not spring primarily from inertia, bigotry, paternalism, arrogance, bullying, ignorance, selfishness, religious scripts, hypocrisy, mean-spiritedness, etc. etc. Instead, perhaps you're the one who just needs to accept that this is not the knee-jerk big deal you're making of it. I still haven't heard any more substantial argument than "it offends people." A few years ago (30 or so), the public education system, unable to produce evidence to the contrary, decided that it would be a good idea to educate teens on the proper use of birth control devices. The conventional wisdom was "hey, they are going to do 'it' anyway, we may as well help them do it ....safely." Along with that was the sage advice that people should get to know each other intimately before they made the 'mistake' of getting married and finding out they didn't enjoy each other's company. The adults of the day went willingly along since, after all, their marriages had not turned out to be the paradise promised by Disney movies. There were warnings that this kind of sanctioning of "protected intimacy" by the significant adults in charge would lead to irresponsibility, followed by many unwanted pregnancies, fatherless children, social and medical ills, etc. The warnings were pooh poohed as meritless...after all we were advocating for the opposite, right?..."Safety, and protection. The next generation would have good marriages and the problems of 'unprotected sex' would disappear." Now we have fifty year olds who are still trying people out in the sack, not having found Ms Right....yet. Millions of fatherless children, who fathered millions more fatherless children and the social ills that go along with it....However, I am sure X has a neighbor someplace that is a pillar of the community now that she found Mr. Right at 60; course we wont hear the news of her messy divorce at 62. That horse is out of the barn and the advocates of it have either become silent (too late) or are all busy writing revisions to justify what took place. They did protect our children though, right?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72223)	8/11/2003 3:02:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Bullshit! <gggg> I gave the thread a fairly lengthy substantive post which nobody chose to respond to. I don't see the need to do it again. I'll consider that when you either show me evidence of your conclusion and demonstrate that the position you espouse does not spring primarily from inertia, bigotry, paternalism, arrogance, bullying, ignorance, selfishness, religious scripts, hypocrisy, mean-spiritedness, etc. etc Gee. You got so carried away that you messed up your grammar. Rare for you. Obviously there is no way I can show you evidence that my positions don't spring from any one of those. You believe that, or you don't. Nor can you show me by evidence that your position doesn't spring from a desire to destroy the social fabric of our country so that it ripe for a communist takeover. Not that, frankly, I believe that, as I don't think you believe any of the things you listed. But you can no more prove the falsity of my suggesting than I can prove the falsity of yours. I just don't think that namecalling back and forth is a very productive discussion tactic, though it is certainly popular in the political arena, nor do I think that accusing people of bad motives without clear evidence of justification is helpful to a construct dialogue. Do you? Or did you just sort of fly off the handle and are you sorry now?