 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
the problem is though ben, despite people taking these formal pledges, and it being a pretty recent thing, divorce hasnt been going down.
and religion can be seperated. I pledge i wont have premarital sex and im areligious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
So i consider your opinion irrelevant because youre a self righteous zealot.
You chose to ignore half of the arguement with your "method". Your invalid ben.
Abstaining from sex doesnt work like you think it should because people are people.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, one can show a correlation between the increase in cohabitation, and the increase in divorce rates.
|
right, but not for the reasons you think. Im not arguing that cohabitation and divorce are correlated. Its the cause for cohabitation and divorce. Religionists dont like cohabitation, and they dont like divorce, rather than living together causes divorce.
Then again is divorce really that bad? Should people stay in unfufilling marriages? Should marriage just be for god and kids? I dont have the answers but i certainly dont like yours.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I do not ignore, rather I say that the method does not work for one-night stands.
It would be obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the link as to why. The method takes time, investment, and trust between the partners, something you do not see when you slap on a condom.
Again, ideally, abstinence is better than condoms. In the real world, people forget to use condoms, just like people decline their pledge. |
and thats the problem with preaching it. ITs unrealistic to expect people who want to explore sex to use a method that involves commitment.
dont be naive and condemn something to uphold your own moral superiority ben.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Perhaps it only works for married couples, but no one but you has assumed monogamous= married. And monogamous realtionships can still involve one partner with an STD and one without.
|
Sorry, my slips showing. 
It could work for any monogamous couples who are willing to take the time and effort to learn the method, and to chart the cycles.
It takes about 3 cycles to get a basis for which types of mucus indicate ovulation and which do not.
As for the STD, some are treatable and some are not. If you are married, then you will have the time to treat your partner to prevent re-infection.
For the uncurable ones, they would be a small sample for whom this method would not help.
quote:
One can safely assume that the real is much lower,
|
Actually, all the tests done on Billings give about a 99% success rate, higher than the 'ideal case' purported by Planned Parenthood.
If one is to accept the figures of the condom advocates as accurate for condoms, one ought to also accept the numbers given by the Billings folks for their method.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
Theben, youre going to pull him out of the beniverse
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
Ben, you argue that it SHOULD be that way but it isnt. Youre idealistic but misguided
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So I consider STD transmission to be irrelevent to the Billings method, because they assume a monogamous relationship. |
You make a lot of assumptions in the Benaverse, that just don't translate to real world attitude and behavior.
The question I think you have to ask yourself, Ben, is how realistic any concept you have of assuming that people will be monogamous will actually translate into the real world?
People WANT to have sex. Casual. Monogamous. Gay. Anal. Dog... any damn way that you can imagine and that they can get it.
Its the sexual imperitive. Built into the human genome.
You are trying to argue that the human race should break from this imperitive.
How do you change this behavior? Essentially, the likelihood of this genetic imperitive being changed in 100% of cases approaches zero.
Abstenance does little to nothing for this, since... it obviously doesn't work at preventing or delaying sex, and when sex happens its generally unprotected.
Its a failure, Ben.
Any method which assumes that a couple got into monogamous relationship... and doesn't require protection, might be well and good, but its not a solution for the foundational problems of young pregnancy, or STD transmission at any age...
Say one of the partners in this monogamous relationship isn't so monogamous, and has unprotected sex (likely since they wouldn't be familiar with, or used to protected sex) with an infected partner. Then the other partner would get infected for sure... because they'd be continuing with this unprotected sex.
You're saying that in the Benaverse this could work.
I'm saying in the real world, it will never work, because...
People. Want. Sex.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 12-03-2004 at 08:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Consequential. The act is fun and that is all you can know.
|
Sure, you can know that you risk catching an std, or conceiving a baby.
If you end up with either you will know which act caused that outcome.
quote:
Though there are problems in terms of effect on the woman of abortion, those are environmental so we can ignore them in this scenario.
|
Eh. A child should be killed so you can avoid the consequences of intercourse? No dice, whaleboy.
quote:
By eliminating those consequences, you get the benefits of sex with no problems!
|
Sure. Even with protection, the risks remain.
quote:
Same goes for everything. Using that logic, I cannot publish a book because the methods of paper production. Nihilism seems to imply that balance in any case.
|
Clever. Very clever, Whaleboy. 
All actions have consequences.
However, I would say that if an action has foreseeable negative consequences, that one ought not to pursue the course of action, unless one can make the case for the good produced by the action would outweigh the bad.
Now, there are many ways looking at this, depending on your theory of the good.
Since you hate Kant, I'll take him up.
One should act as if your action, were to become a universal maxim.
Now, suppose one were to say that one should engage in premarital intercourse, what could we anticipate, if everyone engaged in the action?
First of all, we would see a rampant spread of both stds, and unplanned pregnancies.
While the latter is not negative, per se, the former would be.
quote:
Furthermore in the absense of altruism (egoism shows it to be a fallacy),
|
No, altruism can have selfish benefits, assuming that a reputation for altruism encourages the assistance of others.
quote:
Assuming contraceptives and abortion eliminate personal consequences,
|
Neither assumption holds water.
quote:
the benefits of sex outweigh the problems caused to society and thus back at them by their own actions.
|
Again, if everyone were to engage in premarital intercourse, one would have to deal with many children, as well as stds, both of which become a burden on the state.
quote:
Sex w/o birth control = beneficial but possible consequences outweigh to produce value of 0
|
Health consequences to women on the pill need to be considered.
quote:
Abstinance = Sexual value of 0
|
Positive benefits of lack of std infection, plus formation of relationships.
quote:
Sex is part of the human condition (I would argue that it is the foundation for the human condition but again going off at a tangent), therefore sexual value of >0 is beneficial to human.
|
Again, not everyone has this drive. Is it beneficial to a priest to have a positive value?
quote:
I dare say sexual value is more important than religious value,
|
False dichotomy. Intercourse in marriage satisfies both desires.
Not only do you need to show that intercourse is positive, you have to make the comparision between premarital, and marital intercourse.
I would suggest the latter would be more beneficial than the former.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
The question I think you have to ask yourself, Ben, is how realistic any concept you have of assuming that people will be monogamous will actually translate into the real world?
|
It can be done, ergo, it is realistic.
quote:
People WANT to have sex. Casual. Monogamous. Gay. Anal. Dog... any damn way that you can imagine and that they can get it.
|
So why are you posting here right now? 
quote:
Its the sexual imperitive. Built into the human genome.
|
Genes do not determine behavior. One can always choose to restrain the urge, otherwise, we would have no cause to arrest rapists, as they would simply fulfill their imperative.
quote:
You are trying to argue that the human race should break from this imperitive.
|
For a time, yes. There is a time and place for intercourse.
quote:
How do you change this behavior? Essentially, the likelihood of this genetic imperitive being changed in 100% of cases approaches zero.
|
Again, my rapist case, plus, not everyone has intercourse, ergo, genes cannot determine behavior.
quote:
Abstenance does little to nothing for this, since... it obviously doesn't work at preventing or delaying sex, and when sex happens its generally unprotected.
|
BAM
It does work, for some, it works better than a condom could ever hope.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|