Pure in heart abstinence only education

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

From what (..............)be available as an option.

You stated

"Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails"

Please provide a source for this claim.

catallus

http://www.rfsu.se/en/Engelska/

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_10contraceptivrmind.html

Here, knock yourself out. If you are not willing to do your own homework on such issues and then try and derail a discussion by vapidly looking for sources which you should be aware of yourself you might, if you're going to spout nonsense, at least have some manners about it.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

http://www.rfsu.se/en/Engelska/

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_10contraceptivrmind.html

Here, knock yourself out. If you are not willing to do your own homework on such issues ...........

You raised the claim, it's therefore incumbent upon you to back it up.

The first site does not back your claim

The second is an opinion piece from a gentleman on a pro-life catholic website, not a collection of facts etc.

Now - do you have anything to back up your remark or would you like to withdraw the claim?

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

You raised the claim, it's therefore incumbent upon you to back it up.

The first site does not back your claim

The second is an opinion piece from a gentleman on a pro-life catholic website, not a collection of facts etc.

Now - do you have anything to back up your remark or would you like to withdraw the claim?

The first site backs up my claim perfectly and the second link I provided is not "pro-life catholic" in any sense of the word.

It would be incumbent on you to stop your nonsense and maybe add something to the discussion apart from half-truths and mis-informed intolerance against any sort of initiative which helps young people to think for themselves outside the depressing world-view that they all have to bang each other senseless if they need to fit in.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

The first site backs up my claim perfectly .

Perhaps I missed it then. You might quote and link to the section I've overlooked

catallus wrote: »

]and the second link I provided is not "pro-life catholic" in any sense of the
word.

....the bottom of the front page says its "in association" with the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
http://www.omiworld.org/

"There are crucial issues that face us today: abortion, aids, bioethics, birth control, when life begins, population concerns, post-abortion healing, etc. But far too often our public debates are long on emotion and short on clear thinking. Along the way, respect for the dignity of human life gets lost in the rhetoric. Our purpose is to promote a “Culture of Life” in which human freedom will find its authentic meaning by joining forces with truth, life and love. This culture “needs new lifestyles which will show respect for the dignity of every individual, especially the weakest, and which will recognize the value of human sexuality in the development of the person.” (Evangelium Vitae) "
http://www.lifeissues.net/purpose.html

Evangelium Vitae is an encyclical from Pope John Paul II.....

The author of the piece you linked is one Brian Clowes. Mr Clowes is head of research for "Human Life International" -

Human Life International is an American-based Roman Catholic activist pro-life organization. Founded in 1981 by Father Paul Marx (1920–2010), HLI is located in Front Royal, Virginia. Human Life International describes itself as "the largest international pro-life organization in the world", noting that it has affiliates and associates in over 80 nations worldwide.[1] It has collaborated with secular organizations as well as those of various other religious denominations.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
Its mission is to train, organize and equip pro-life leaders around the world. The organization is faithful to the Vatican, but works with people of all faiths to advance the pro-life cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_International

Google reveals he has it in for the Gay community as well. So yes, catholic and pro-life.

catallus

How about you go and actually read the articles instead of looking for shít to throw around in a sorry attempt to disguise the fact that there are other valid points to be made in relation to the issue other than your own?

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

How about you go and actually read the articles instead of looking for shít to throw around in a sorry attempt to disguise the fact that there are other valid points to be made in relation to the issue other than your own?

The second is, as I described, an opinion piece from a catholic pro-life site from a conservative catholic writer who objects to contraception etc. It's thus of no value.

The first is more hopeful, and of it you've said "The first site backs up my claim perfectly ".

As you're more familiar with this site than myself, and have seen the relevant section, please quote and link to it so I can read it. My own search seems to have missed any relevant information. Or you can withdraw your remark.

catallus

Who the hell are you to deem any opinion on the internet as having no value?

Seriously you are coming across as being a bit of a pedant; are you not willing to accept that the Scandanavian model that you hold so dear (and which seems to be the whole basis of any argument, if one could call it that, that you are putting forward, apart from your childish request for sources, which I'll begrudgingly admit is enraging but is not a valid form of debate) is based on damage limitation and is not the only viable option available?

I have no intention of withdrawing my remark, as you so pithily request. It is a valid remark and even your own double-tongued sources prove that to be the case.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Who the hell are you to deem any opinion on the internet as having no value? .

The mere fact that it is an opinion piece means that its of no value in this context. The fact that you couldn't admit to the nature of the site and the contributor doesn't create a good impression.

You made a clear statement, and I want you to back it up.

catallus wrote: »

Seriously you are coming (............)prove that to be the case.

You made a clear statement, and I want you to back it up. You stated that the Swedish site backs this statement, and all I'm asking for is a link and quote to/of the specific section. As you've seen it, this should be no trouble. Now, if you would please.....

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

The mere fact that it is an opinion piece means that its of no value in this context. The fact that you couldn't admit to the nature of the site and the contributor doesn't create a good impression.

You made a clear statement, and I want you to back it up.


You made a clear statement, and I want you to back it up. You stated that the Swedish site backs this statement, and all I'm asking for is a link and quote to/of the specific section. As you've seen it, this should be no trouble. Now, if you would please.....

nodin you seem to be under the impression that I owe you an explanation for what should be very easily recognised facts and arguments as put forward by the links I offered to you. I made a clear statement, just because you don't like the ideas behind it does not give you the right to demand from me never-ending links and sources; if you can't extend the effort to try and at least engage with what is being said without resorting to idiotic and impetuous demands for links, (just because you can't be bothered to read a few lines of text), in an effort to derail a discussion then that is a sad reflection on you and your values, such as they are.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

nodin you seem to be under the impression that I owe you an explanation for what should be very easily recognised facts and arguments as put forward by the links I offered to you. .

Your second link is irrelevant for reasons already given.

catallus wrote: »

I made a clear statement, just because you don't like the ideas behind it does not give you the right to demand from me never-ending links and sources; if you can't extend the effort to try and at least engage with what is being said without resorting to idiotic and impetuous demands for links, (just because you can't be bothered to read a few lines of text), in an effort to derail a discussion then that is a sad reflection on you and your values, such as they are.

You made a clear statement, and made another clear one as regards where proof could be found.
This is the link to the site you stated "backs up my claim perfectly"
http://www.rfsu.se/en/Engelska/

It goes to the (English language) home page. There is nothing in the articles on this page that back what you say. Could you please link to this "few lines of text" you claim exist, so that I and others can read them? Or - again - would you care to withdraw your remark?

catallus

I've provided you with all the links you're going to get; do your own homework. If you can't see what is shown to you then that's your problem.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

I've provided you with all the links you're going to get; do your own homework. If you can't see what is shown to you then that's your problem.

You made the claim, it's for you to back it up.

In the link to the Swedish site you haven't shown me anything, just linked to the front page. Considering your statement that it "backs up my claim perfectly" it really is extraordinary you cannot tell me where this specific section is by means of a quote and link. In the absence of proof it appears you are not only incapable of backing up your original remark, but have misrepresented the content of a website.

Now - you can prove me wrong by providing the quote and link, or do the decent thing and withdraw what now seems to be a baseless claim.

catallus

My claim was "The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking" : the context was that it depended on education about diseases preventing pregnancy. Now if you can't understand the simple point I was making, if you can't manage to join up the dots on this then don't expect me to waste my time walking you through it. Pretending to be a fool, whilst making for easy arguments, is not a valid approach to this debate.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

My claim was "The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking" : the context was that it depended on education about diseases preventing pregnancy. Now if you can't understand the simple point I was making, if you can't manage to join up the dots on this then don't expect me to waste my time walking you through it. Pretending to be a fool, whilst making for easy arguments, is not a valid approach to this debate.

No, this is your claim here.

"Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails."

I want proof, obviously enough, as making false claims is something anyone can do, and not the basis for a reasoned discussion.

catallus

Well if you want to change what you want me to "prove" when I give a valid answer, fine.


Yes, when I consider it, I refer you back to the links I have previously provided.

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails.

Do you know what is a hell of a lot less effective than contraception catallus [sic]? Abstinence only education, because those "educated" by this means are no less likely to have sex (and at the same age) but are far less likely to either use contraception when having sex, or know the consequences of having sex.

If you seriously want to see more teens having children, I hope you're willing to go out and adopt the children of parents unable to take care of them, because it is the likes of you and JC who are causing the problem, catallus [sic].

catallus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Do you know what is a hell of a lot less effective than contraception catallus [sic]? Abstinence only education, because those "educated" by this means are no less likely to have sex (and at the same age) but are far less likely to either use contraception when having sex, or know the consequences of having sex.
.....

Absolute nonsense!

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Well if you want to change what you want me to "prove" when I give a valid answer, fine.


Yes, when I consider it, I refer you back to the links I have previously provided.

No, that's what I've been asking you all along. Your links are either inappropriate or don't seem to contain the information you state they do. Now luckily you can get two birds with one stone here, as providing a link to the text which supposedly backs your claim would not only prove your point, but show that you haven't lied about the content of the website.

Or you could withdraw the remark - always an option.

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

Absolute nonsense!

Oh, I see you are again avoiding the point of the debate and just trotting out random nonsense and trying to shout down anybody who disagrees with you.

Well I'll tell you this catallus [sic]. You are wrong, a lot. From the spelling of your name, to the regurgitation of statements which are flatly contradicted by the facts and evidence, you nearly always end up espousing views which run perpinduclar to reality. I'd have thought by now you'd have copped on and actually read up on an issue before commenting, but I guess there's no helping some people.

catallus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, I see you are again avoiding the point of the debate and just trotting out random nonsense and trying to shout down anybody who disagrees with you.

Well I'll tell you this catallus [sic]. You are wrong, a lot. From the spelling of your name, to the regurgitation of statements which are flatly contradicted by the facts and evidence, you nearly always end up espousing views which run perpinduclar to reality. I'd have thought by now you'd have copped on and actually read up on an issue before commenting, but I guess there's no helping some people.

Brian, I'm trying to talk here in a serious manner. Seriously.

Just because somebody takes a stance that is against something you believe (however misguidedly) doesn't mean they don't understand reality. You need to take a solid look at what you believe to be facts and evidence rather than saying, "well if people I like think this, and I like that thinking too,then it must be true."

It seems you have a bit of a small grudge against my posts; that's ok, but you need to be open-minded about a few things..... I'm all for educating kids about the dangers of unprotected sex; nobody in their right mind would be against that; but the topic is about the idea of telling kids that there is an option available to them that is separate from the idea that you must engage in sexual activity before you are ready for it, within a relationship with one person that you care about. It is pretty basic stuff. It isn't a religious plot to make young people into robots.

Corkfeen

catallus wrote: »

Well if you want to change what you want me to "prove" when I give a valid answer, fine.


Yes, when I consider it, I refer you back to the links I have previously provided.

But only one link is applicable to your point however I'm struggling to find where it is proven valid on that site.

gaynorvader

catallus wrote: »

http://www.rfsu.se/en/Engelska/

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_10contraceptivrmind.html

Here, knock yourself out. If you are not willing to do your own homework on such issues and then try and derail a discussion by vapidly looking for sources which you should be aware of yourself you might, if you're going to spout nonsense, at least have some manners about it.

These links don't support your argument at all, as has been pointed out. The first link is just a bunch of headlines and links to random articles. The second link contains a man's (or possible woman's) opinion, not backed up by any evidence, facts or studies, just more opinion and is not useful for backing up your claim, which as I understand it is:

The Scandinavian approach advocates using abortions as a solution for underage sex.

If that's not your intended meaning, could you let me know what you did mean by "The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails."

catallus

catallus wrote: »

The education is aimed at young people, who are all by definition impressionable; the system came about as a form of social control in the face of huge gathering pressure on the youths to become involved in sexual activity at ever younger ages and with the advent of widely available porn which glamourises all kinds of sexual activity (including unsafe practices) it is no real wonder that some parts of society would turn to a more conservative approach to youthful sexual activity.

It all comes down to control; it just so happens that the current abstinence campaign is a reaction to the idea that kids should be made responsible for their own sexual activity when they have no real idea about how to protect themselves, regardless of all of the education thrown at them and all the free condoms available.

Just because you didn't need it doesn't mean there are not a lot out there who benefit from it.

Nodin wrote: »

It's puberty. Unless there's a cure for that, I'd suggest once more the Scandanavian approach.

catallus wrote: »

Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails.

This is the context in which I made my statement: nodin dismissing my point in his usual withering stylé in an objectionable and rude attempt to undermine the legitimacy of what I was saying.

What I said about his "Scandinavian Approach" stands; the fixation on medical solutions to the effects of "safe sex", rather than the preventative measures espoused by the abstinence movement is a fact.

Nodin's links are less substantial than mine, what with their "live births" stats

"The scandanavian approach works. Yours doesn't."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...0318/26sex.htm

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/teen-p...-all-time-low/

(Post 69 in this thread)

For what it is worth, the links I provided illustrated my point about the preventing of disease and pregnancy as being the most salient focus of "The Scandinavian Approach" quite well.

gaynorvader

catallus wrote: »

This is the context in which I made my statement: nodin dismissing my point in his usual withering stylé in an objectionable and rude attempt to undermine the legitimacy of what I was saying.

What I said about his "Scandinavian Approach" stands; the fixation on medical solutions to the effects of "safe sex", rather than the preventative measures espoused by the abstinence movement is a fact.

Nodin's links are less substantial than mine, what with their "live births" stats

"The scandanavian approach works. Yours doesn't."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...0318/26sex.htm

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/teen-p...-all-time-low/

(Post 69 in this thread)

For what it is worth, the links I provided illustrated my point about the preventing of disease and pregnancy as being the most salient focus of "The Scandinavian Approach" quite well.

I think you may be reading into Nodin's response more than is necessary. I would like to point out that the abstinence movement has been around a lot longer than "the widespread availability of porn". There are studies that show that abstinence doesn't work, however I'd be more inclined to say that more studies are needed than to accept the few studies that are out there.
As to the links. Maybe you are getting a different page in the first link, here's a screenshot of what I see:



The second page merely gives the opinion of someone who agrees with you, it doesn't really support your point of view.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

This is the context in which I made my statement: nodin dismissing my point in his usual withering stylé in an objectionable and rude attempt to undermine the legitimacy of what I was saying.

What I said about his "Scandinavian Approach" stands; the fixation on medical solutions to the effects of "safe sex", rather than the preventative measures espoused by the abstinence movement is a fact.

.

Try not to rewrite history

"Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails."

You mentioned the scandanavians specifically, and offered two sites back your point. One - the one linked by gaynorvader - of which you stated it " backs up my claim perfectly". Where does it do so? A link and quote please.

catallus

No, nodin, you were the one who mentioned the Scandinavians specifically. And you linked your own biased sites aswell.

It is just another transparent attempt to derail a discussion where you and your fellow-travellers wilfully miss the point; cue talking about biscuits. C'est la Vie.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

No, nodin, you were the one who mentioned the Scandinavians specifically. ........

And you made a comment about them -which I queried - and you have quite noticeably been unable to back up.

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

And you made a comment about them -which I queried - and you have quite noticeably been unable to back up.

Your query was at first unlearned, and when your insolent and infantile demands for education were graciously met you deemed them unacceptable.

The facts are there for all to see. Your impetuous requests have made this debate too laborious to continue.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

Who the hell are you [...] Seriously you are coming across as being a bit of a pedant [...] I have no intention of withdrawing my remark, as you so pithily request. It is a valid remark and even your own double-tongued sources prove that to be the case.

catallus wrote: »

Your query was at first unlearned, and when your insolent and infantile demands for education were graciously met you deemed them unacceptable.

I'm not sure if you're aware of how polite debate works on the internet, or at least, how it works here in A+A.

For the avoidance of doubt, if a poster makes some claim of fact, then he or she may be asked to justify the claim and that's what Nodin has done here. But instead of answering the question and justifying the claim in good faith, you've reacted aggressively and failed to justify anything. In the cases like this, where a poster who's made a claim has failed to justify it, and especially where continued requests to justify it are met with continued aggression and misdirection, people are free to conclude that the poster in fact can't justify it, and that the claim of fact therefore lapses.

That's what's happened here. And while you're still free, of course, to justify your claim, at this point, it's looking unlikely that you will.

catallus wrote: »

The facts are there for all to see.

Indeed, they are.

catallus wrote: »

Your impetuous requests have made this debate too laborious to continue.

You're not doing much for your credibility, or for the credibility of your point of view, by telling the forum that instead of answering a fair question, you're packing your bags and running away.