Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Which has on Pg 3:
    Yes, I know you get this. But again, that's not the Morehouse Report -- the WinStart report just a couple of short quotes from it, which do not say what Dobson says is in the report. And which you quoted to me that "boys without fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to go to jail, and nearly four times as likely to need treatment ..." (etc).

    They are social problems which affect black citizens of the USA only and there is no evidence that this is applicable worldwide, like Dobson implies, and you seem to think.


  • Options
    #123
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, I know you get this. But again, that's not the Morehouse Report -- the WinStart report just a couple of short quotes from it, which do not say what Dobson says is in the report.

    I edited my last post since you posted this. But I believe it has been found.


  • Options
    #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I edited my last post since you posted this. But I believe it has been found.
    A quick glance through that report (thanks) shows that it contains no research of its own, but simply quotes other research which I don't have time to check out now -- I'm already half an hour late for a party and I haven't left home yet -- will take it up later, if I'm still sober :)


  • Options
    #125
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    A quick glance through that report (thanks) shows that it contains no research of its own, but simply quotes other research which I don't have time to check out now -- I'm already half an hour late for a party and I haven't left home yet -- will take it up later, if I'm still sober :)

    LOL. :D


  • Options
    #126
    hairyheretic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Yep, the way our society portrays sex as being love and love as being sex.

    I would have to disagree with that. I can see the differences between love and sex being easily apparent. Its quite possible to have love without sex, or sex without love.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    It based on looks, it takes away personality and character. It doesn't talk about the struggles that married couple go through and the highs and lows of a long term commited relationship. The benfits of working through the troubled times with someone at your side and even being ahead of and behind you on whatever occurs.

    Initial attraction, generally speaking, is going to be based solely on looks. When you look at a person, and feel attracted to them, the only thing you have right at that instant is their looks and how you rate attractiveness.

    That is what makes you want to get to know a person more, and from that you'll learn about their qualities, good and bad alike, and from the whole package you decide if its someone you want to have a relationship with.

    If you don't want a relationship, but simply a night of enjoyment, then you're unlikely to be concerned with anything more than looks.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Our society teaches that as soon as you fall out of love as soon as the 'feeling' subsides, then break it up.

    Again, I'd disagree. If a relationship does go bad though, then at some point it makes no sense to keep trying. You have to admit that it is over.

    I'm not saying you give up immediately, but some couples simply aren't compatable, and a relationship only based on looks isn't likely to last.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    I see these values in our young. Girls that just talk about the 'hot' guy or the guys who are just interested in a girl because of her assets.

    We get lessened to a package of rated hotness in which to judge our worthiness of receiving love.

    When it should be character that determines and the choice to look for someone with that character to love and cherish.

    And again, I disagree. I think I've alredy adequately replied to these points above though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Absolutely, because it is by choice and not animal instinct.
    I'm with bluewolf on this one; love is an emotion, not a verb. I cannot CHOOSE to love someone any more than I can choose not to feel physical pain.
    robindch wrote: »
    So, I conclude that Dobson has behaved completely dishonestly in selectively mis-quoting research, no doubt for for grubby political ends.
    Wouldn't be the first time; James Dobson is notorious for misrepresenting research findings.


  • Options
    #128
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Funny how all of those social issues get pinned on absentee fathers. Every single one of them (drugs, crime, lack of education, gang affiliation, ghettoisation whatever) is directly attributable to poverty.

    Education: In America, if you dont have money, you dont go to college. Scholarships are not plentiful enough to cover everyone and there are no real grant or subsidy facilities like we have in Europe.

    Health: If you are poor in the US, you are more likely to be unable to gain access to proper medical treatments. You will be unlikely to have insurance to cover medication.

    Crime: If you are poor you are likely to live in a poor neighbourhood. The US is extremely prejudicial to such things (regardless of discrimination laws) and as such you are less likely to be able to find decent paying work. If you can not make money honestly, crime eventually becomes the only viable alternative.

    Gangs: If you are poor, you are more likely to live in a poor neighbourhood. Such neighbourhoods are a breeding ground for gangs because they provide an identity and a sense of security in an insecure life. Gangs also provide operatunities to make money through crime (see above for the key to this self propagating cycle).

    Drugs: Being poor, many activities and passtimes will be unavailable in the US do to the prohibitive costs. Drugs, by comparisson offer a cheap recreational activity which can be social in its own way. Further, the "high" produced by such substances are, for many people, preferable to the crushing fear, depression and hopelessness associated with being poor and living in a poor neighbourhood.

    Sex & Fatherless families: these are more likely to occur in poor neighbourhoods and amongst poor people due to lack of education, lack of money, poorer health and anyone of the examples given. In many cases, marriages and relationships break up due to lack of money, the single most common cause of arguments.

    Poverty is the cause of these things, not a result.

    Consider that much of this can be seen in certain parts of Dublin, ethnic populations (contrary to what the Daily Mail readers would have you believe) are actually quite low and the vast majority of the crime, gangs, drug dealing and bastard children are produced by white people with low incomes.

    While there will usually be more income in a family where there are two people and the absence of a second income can be cause for poverty - it would ignore the fact that this would remove BOTH parents from the life of the child due to their responsibilities to their jobs.


Advertisement