Sarah Palin Resigns as Governor
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
No not because she had an affair, but because she's focusing full time on a Presidential run in 2012. She's burned her ships. There's something you need to understand about a woman like Sarah. When a woman like her gets attacked, she doesn't cower in hurt. She gets motivated. You can't win giving a person like this negative energy. They only convert it to motivation and the more you attack, the more you support them.
Happy Fourth of July!
Tim
I couldn't disagree more and I can't wait for the chance to see it. Obama is as big of a joke as this country has ever seen.
From bowing down to the saudi king, to declaring that we are "Not a Christian nation", to disarming our military, to not not doing ANYTHING about north korea etc.
This guy is more of a national security risk then Bin Laden because he is killing our country from the inside.
Jeff
OK. Here is my 2 cents to this disease prevention argument.
1. No doubt that condoms work. Maybe not 100% but they work. There are various studies that show significant reduction in STD in Africa where condom programs put in place.
2. There are also evidence of youth who supposedly practice abstinence performing other sexual acts believing ( Like one former president...) that what they do is not considered sex. These practices are even more dangerous because of simple ignorance.
I see no one speaking here to the obvious failures of the condom. The sexual act fills the condom soo fast that it expands, which in turn expands the holes, allowing for even larger particles to pass through them due to the larger holes. That combined with the "glue" so to speak that is also produced does keep most of them in the condom itself, except that the force involved also produces an "equal and opposite" reaction that pushes those same particles back and out the backside of the condom allowing them to spill onto and get pushed into the ******l section where they can infect or impregnate someone.
This is the three main ways that they are not 100% effective.
But if no sex is had it is 100% affective period.
The CDC report only concentrates on the breakage aspect of effectiveness and not the two other ways, which were proven in the very beginning of the studies but do not seem to be available to anyone today, I guess do to the sheer amount of time that has passed, or maybe since the government funds the CDC they do have an interest in the results of any such study.
The only logical conclusion is that we teach BOTH abstinence and safe sex, and let the children decide among them (as a couple people have already said that children are going to do what they want anyway).
Why do people have an issue with teaching both of these forms of birth-control?
I did find that and specifically left it out, hoping you would say exactly what you just did. :lol: You're too easy Jason. Congratulations on your science degree. I was studying science too - Biology in fact until I got bored with it and realized that during my genetics course I was more interested in science novelists like Richard Preston and switched to studying English literature. In my cross study of both disciplines I learned why it is that scientists, in the publication of their findings, specifically use adverbs like "essentially" which allows for the possibility of aberration. If it was truly, unquestioningly impermeable, they wouldn't have to qualify their findings with the term "essentially". You probably don't know this but scientists are legally responsible for the publishing of their findings and any falsification or misleading of their findings can result in punishments up to and including prison terms - not to mention the CDC could incur civil penalties. If they were as confident as you are, they wouldn't need to use weasel clause adverbs like "essentially" in the publication of their reports. However, the CDC and the scientists who wrote this particular piece could say with all confidence that abstinence was the "most reliable" method of preventing infection. "Most" is not an unequivocal position.
As for #3 you left out conviently the last paragraph which states that the cdc conclusion is about the breakage faultyness of condoms.
As for #1 we are clearly seeing here what Tim made comments upon. Anytime something is smaller than something else it can and does make its way through effectively!!
As for #2 no one can predict the amount and force involved wheather it be a first time or not for a long time which is also why there is breakage. Not due to faulty condoms but due to faulty assumptions on the amount and force applied to the latex by the "average" person.
Therefore creating three different ways for an correctly used condom to less effective than the 100% that abstinence is when used effectively.
The only logical conclusion is that we teach BOTH abstinence and safe sex, and let the children decide among them (as a couple people have already said that children are going to do what they want anyway).
Why do people have an issue with teaching both of these forms of birth-control?
I find it quite interesting that this part of the discussion began as teaching one method vs the other. I am glad you have come around to the best way of thinking that both methods should always be taught, but this is not what is allowed is the public system as their teachings have not allowed the abstinence teachings usually due to a fear of allowing a faith based teaching into the public system. To allow that choice being taught as an alternative is all that they have tried to do, not to force it as the only teaching.
And teaching anything is never 100% effective, but practicing that which is taught can be 100 % effective.
And abstinence is always 100% effective. Anyone who becomes pregnant chose not to use abstinence, period. When used it is always 100% effective period. And that is scientifically proven.
Great comeback...fighting science with semantics...a simple, "You were right, I was wrong" would have sufficed.
I now see why you switched to English Lit...good choice...
And based on Tim's statements earlier that abstinence is 100% effective, he apparently agrees with us that the immaculate conception story never really happened.
See, there IS something that we can all completely agree on! :)
Good night!
I do enjoy your attempts to change the conversation. We are speaking scientifically possibilities for humans, and not faith based or godly terms. In keeping things in the correct context, which is the purpose of the sematics of english, abstinence is always 100% when used, and it can not be used incorrectly like the other methods can be. You can use it or not use it. If you get pregnant you did not use abstinence. That is a fact that can not be disputed.
As far as water leaking through a condom, it does!!! You will not see it though. Try filling a condom and tying it off. Measure the size if it and leave it hanging so there can be no water leakage through the tied off part. Maybe a month later go back and measure it again and you will find a difference. If it did not leak out where did it go, it is no longer there!!!! This can be proven scientifically also by measuring the amount of water that is put inside and waiting a while and measuring the amount that comes out. It will be different,
Imagine that, water does go through latex just as air does and other things do also, the only question is at what rate does this occur.
You can't just say, "God did it, so it doesn't count towards our statistical analysis of the phenomena." If you can say that, I can just say that condoms are 100% effective when God doesn't choose to break them.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's 100% effective (in which case you agree that it's NEVER happened in the history of the universe), or it's not 100% effective.
I'm not sure why this bothers you so much...I'm agreeing with you that it's 100% effective!
Based on research, abstinence fails about 50% of the time; condoms much, much less than that...
Seems like Sarah Palin's days are up, since we can't even find things to argue about concerning her . . . .
If you guys want to talk condoms, please start a new topic (and yes, put it in the politics forum, since it will likely become a political debate).
Otherwise, I've got to close this thing.