Moderator: Community Team
whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8 now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything?
I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.
Lootifer wrote:see the wood
whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8 now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything? The reason things have gone downhill in the last 30-40 years is this idea that sexual love is greater than the love of self, family, and God. It's about time we kind of toned things down. I mean, if you look at how much sexuality is promoted by the mass media (most of it from those lib-tards in hollywood), it's just sickening.
I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.
thegreekdog wrote:In the US, legal restrictions to contraceptives are removed (although I'm sure someone will quote some obscure state law in Wyoming restricting condoms for purchase only on weekdays between 9 AM and 12 PM). I agree with that patrticular right to privacy.
But what are cultural and financial restrictions? The phrase "financial restriction" sounds like free condoms to me. And while I like free condoms, I don't want to pay for other people to have free condoms.
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:In the US, legal restrictions to contraceptives are removed (although I'm sure someone will quote some obscure state law in Wyoming restricting condoms for purchase only on weekdays between 9 AM and 12 PM). I agree with that patrticular right to privacy.
But what are cultural and financial restrictions? The phrase "financial restriction" sounds like free condoms to me. And while I like free condoms, I don't want to pay for other people to have free condoms.
financial restriction interferes with access. There can be no financial restrictions.
Sorry, you must pay for other peoples condoms. We can restrict your property and your liberty in order to make sure you do not restrict other peoples right to access contraceptives.
Lootifer wrote:f*ck off Scott. It doesn't mean that and you know it.
A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.
Phatscotty wrote:Lootifer wrote:f*ck off Scott. It doesn't mean that and you know it.
A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.
then pull up your skirt and cough the money up yourself
Lootifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Lootifer wrote:f*ck off Scott. It doesn't mean that and you know it.
A practical interpretation of the financial bit would be, to me, that in the very poor countries they may need some aid related support in order to make contraception not 90% of their weekly income or some such.
then pull up your skirt and cough the money up yourself
Eh I donate to charitys active in Africa. I specify non-religious ones too so I may very well already lifting my skirt if that's what you are on about.
But that's not really the point. You're (deliberately?) missing the point to push your agenda. BBS would call this classic phattism.
Baron Von PWN wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:Should not be a universal human right. I think the idea of contraceptives is abhorrent, as all it does is promote promiscuity for all segments of society. From little whores walking around from the age of, what, 8now? To the foolish frat boys who put their cocks in everything? The reason things have gone downhill in the last 30-40 years is this idea that sexual love is greater than the love of self, family, and God. It's about time we kind of toned things down. I mean, if you look at how much sexuality is promoted by the mass media (most of it from those lib-tards in hollywood), it's just sickening.
I mean, I have never had sex, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I would rather hold out and give myself fully to a person that I'll share my life with than run around putting my pecking in anything that moves, only to regret any physical consequences, but also the hollowness of that non-love sex session.
That's right folks, be ashamed of your bodies, and feel bad for wanting to enjoy them. whitestazn88 knows how disgusting and repugnant sexual promiscuity is on account of his never having had sex. He therefore knows first hand how destructive sex is to people's lives. Although never haven experienced it, he is also fully aware of how hollow and empty you feel after having sex with someone you don't love.
Seriously what is this garbage? contraceptives are causing moral degradation of our society? What retarded bullshit and all manner of other kinds of shit. People have been having as much sex as they possibly could since the beginning of time, with or without contraceptives. It's kindoff why prostitution is called the oldest profession. Either world society has been in constant decline since forever or we've always been more or less the same way.
whitest: 1
Baron: 0
sigh I was trolled.
Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Everything the government does can be rationalized as having a savings to the taxpayer. But this is a sophistry based on an assumption of future obligation.
Anyway, I was very skeptical about Scott's claims as it seemed he was confusing a negative right with a positive right. As I said, I would agree contraception is a negative right (people should have the right to get contraceptives without state interference / people should have a right to wear a crucifix) but not a positive right (the state should be obligated to provide contraceptives / the state should be obligated to buy everyone a crucifix who wants one). However, in reading the UN statement it appears, in fact, that they are promoting this as a positive right:Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.
Clearly the implication here - by reference to "poor" countries instead of religiously authoritarian countries - is that contraception must be paid for by the state. That may or may not be a good policy but to describe this as a "right" weakens - as AoG noted - the meaning of the word "right."
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Everything the government does can be rationalized as having a savings to the taxpayer. But this is a sophistry based on an assumption of future obligation.
Anyway, I was very skeptical about Scott's claims as it seemed he was confusing a negative right with a positive right. As I said, I would agree contraception is a negative right (people should have the right to get contraceptives without state interference / people should have a right to wear a crucifix) but not a positive right (the state should be obligated to provide contraceptives / the state should be obligated to buy everyone a crucifix who wants one). However, in reading the UN statement it appears, in fact, that they are promoting this as a positive right:Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.
Clearly the implication here - by reference to "poor" countries instead of religiously authoritarian countries - is that contraception must be paid for by the state. That may or may not be a good policy but to describe this as a "right" weakens - as AoG noted - the meaning of the word "right."
I don't remember commenting on the negative/positive perspective. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you said here, and could not have said it better myself.
Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666