Those Zany bush inc. Folks....

Centroles wrote:

can we get back on topic please. There are very good reasons to dislike most of Bush's policies. But this isn't such a policy I don't think.

I see no problem with making the fact that condoms fail about 4% of the time even when properly used more apparent. I think people should be taught to supplement their condoms with a birth control pill as well to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't occur. If that happens, the incidence of abandoned children, abortions, and poverty all go down significantly.

centroles

Yes, it is a lousy policy idea. It's duplicitous in motivation and it will be, with certainty, negative in it's health consequences.

As you know, this administration is forwarding a 'social conservative' ideology as regards sex education. As you also know, the public health community is overwhelmingly opposed to the administration's policies on sex ed because those policies are known to be deleterious from a public health standpoint. The problem is as follows...

Quote:

But some lawmakers feared that such labels could turn people away from using condoms, thereby increasing the risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS, chlamydia and gonorrhea.

"Anything that undermines the effectiveness of condoms for these uses will have serious public health consequences," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California. "Are condoms perfect? Of course not. But reality requires us not to make a public health strategy against protection, but rather to ask a key question: compared to what?"

link
Consider the example of automobiles as a public health issue (and we'll ignore the vast environmental issues here). In the US, 117 people are killed each day in autos, not to mention the number who are crippled and maimed. But I'm confident that this administration isn't going to insist that each Chrysler comes with a warning on the dashboard.

So it is not a health concern that is driving this policy at all. That's the pretense, but it can be accurately described as a lie.

0 Replies

everyone knows that condoms reduce the risk of getting pregnent or most STDs a good bit. any one concerned about these risks isn't going to stop using them simply because there is a chance they might fail.

but there is a widespread belief out there among less educated people that condoms are very near 100% effective at stopping pregnancies or STDs. Don't say that just because you know better, that most people do too. They don't. I know relatively intelligent people who went to private school and got good grades through out high school and college who had no idea condoms had such a high risk of failure.

Ignorance of this is causing people to have sex with high risk individuals and is greatly contributing to pregnancy and AIDs transmissions.

There is nothing wrong with squashing this myth asap.

0 Replies

Centroles said:

Quote:

Ignorance of this is causing people to have sex with high risk individuals and is greatly contributing to pregnancy and AIDs transmissions.

I said:

Quote:

I'm sorry, but you'll have to show data to back up that claim.

Centroles said:

Quote:

it's basic common sense.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough. Claims made by people who insist that their perception of 'common sense' must entail a particular conclusion have a lousy history. You said 'greatly contributing'. That's a quantitative claim. There's no way your argument can be considered credible unless you present factual information from the public health community which supports your intuition.

0 Replies

it's basic common sense.

if someone thinks that wearing a condom would make it next to impossible for them to end up with an unplanned kid, and would make it next to impossible for them to contract an std, they're a lot more likely to go out there, wear a condom, and have sex even with high risk individuals.

if they were aware that condoms sometimes fail, they would be make sure to supplement the condom with some other safe sex method such a pill, planning on pulling out eary or keeping track of the periods. and they would reconsider having sex someone that they barely know or know sleeps around with people like crazy.

and many many people are deluded about jsut how effective condoms really are. if you don't think so, you're giving americans WAY too much credit.

0 Replies

Centroles you have totally missed the point of my post which is that the government doesn't want the food industry, who obviously are big campaign contributors to have to go the expense of labeling food which has been genetically modified because it would be to expensive and troublesome and therefore it would be bad for business and people might lose jobs.

And yet, they want the condom industry,something we know a LOT more about, to go through the same expensive time consuming process, which would no doubt be bad for their business as well and cause the loss of jobs potentially.

I'd be willing to bet the condom industry does not donate NEARLY as much money to the GOP.

It's not equitable, and typical big business ass sucking by the bush inc. They are deplorable.

0 Replies

Centroles you have totally missed the point of my post which is that the government doesn't want the food industry, who obviously are big campaign contributors to have to go the expense of labeling food which has been genetically modified because it would be to expensive and troublesome and therefore it would be bad for business and people might lose jobs.

And yet, they want the condom industry,something we know a LOT more about, to go through the same expensive time consuming process, which would no doubt be bad for their business as well and cause the loss of jobs potentially.

I'd be willing to bet the condom industry does not donate NEARLY as much money to the GOP.

It's not equitable, and typical big business ass sucking by the bush inc. They are deplorable.

0 Replies

i don't think the two issues are really comparable.

eating genetically modified foods isn't really dangerous, especially since they require years of testing to be approved. it's actually safer than the alternative, eating pesticide infested foods. it's like the irradition thing i mentioned in my first post. the labels would do more harm than good.

but misconceptions about condoms being completely effective against diseases and pregnancy do contribute to disease, death, ruined lives and abandoned children. there is nothing wrong with labels to correct these misconceptions. if you already know that condoms aren't 100% effective, you're not being hurt by the labelign so why are you complaining? but many others do not. the public is widely ignorant about the issues of safe sex. i mean many people think you can transmit AIDs by kissing for godsake.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

This is bill HR2916...it is being stonewalled by the GOP...

http://www.thecampaign.org/HR2916.pdf

1) Can you differentiate between "stonewalled" and "argued against" for me?

2) Can you offer me any justification for requiring this labeling?

0 Replies

Yes I can, there has been no long term studies on the safety of these procedures and I have a right to know exactly what's going in the bellies of me and my children as do you. It's that simple.

I resent the government telling me I can't put THC or Ephreda in my body(just two examples) when the overwhelming body of evidence is split down the middle at best on pros and cons but from the other side of their mouths telling me what I put on the table three times a day is exempt from me knowing exactly what it is because it might be bad for business.

0 Replies

Okay, you argue that the evidence is spit down the middle on Ephedra and THC. What's the split on the evidence with GM foods?

0 Replies

Doesn't matter scrat....why does the government stick it's nose into one thing I put in my body and another I don't? Why does the government force one industry to label and protect another from it? If the government is interested in full disclosure on something that a small segment of the population puts in their bodies, in the interest of taking every possible precaution, why is it interested in protecting an industry that provides food, something that EVERYONE including those too young to make their own choices, from the same disclosure?

Could it have to do with who donates and who doesn't ? hmmmmmmm....

0 Replies

No one has defeated Bi-Polar Bear's argument here. The government doesn't have the power, supposedly, to hide from us what we are consuming, or impose on us what we can consume. Freedom to choose and able to know fall under the wrap of "for the good of the general welfare" in the Constitution, where denial or secrecy does not. Are the corporations above the Constitution now? Does the government have the power to regulate how we interact in the marketplace, or what we can know about that marketplace, or what is legal or not in that marketplace?

Some Americans are hell bent on throwing ALL their freedoms away to make a lousy buck. I guess we deserve what is coming then. Not all of us, of course, but most from the way people argue in favor of slitting their own throats for not being able to grasp the concept working against them.

0 Replies

Man, the detractors on this thread really are pinheads, and have irritated me. I've decided I'm going to go get me some THC, after being dry for months on end...It's getting to the point where paying attention is an exercise in futility. America is going down the tubes and a great many Americans are defending the fall. Why NOT get stoned?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Doesn't matter scrat....why does the government stick it's nose into one thing I put in my body and another I don't? Why does the government force one industry to label and protect another from it? If the government is interested in full disclosure on something that a small segment of the population puts in their bodies, in the interest of taking every possible precaution, why is it interested in protecting an industry that provides food, something that EVERYONE including those too young to make their own choices, from the same disclosure?

Could it have to do with who donates and who doesn't ? hmmmmmmm....

Are you arguing against government regulation? I think we could find some common ground there! Very Happy

0 Replies

Umbagog wrote:

No one has defeated Bi-Polar Bear's argument here.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to "defeat" anything; I'm trying to have a discussion with my good friend. I hope that's okay with you.

Umbagog wrote:

The government doesn't have the power, supposedly, to hide from us what we are consuming, or impose on us what we can consume.

Ah, but they do, and they have it as a result of well-intentioned liberals ceding more and more power to a government they want to take care of their every need, including wiping their behinds for them.

Umbagog wrote:

Freedom to choose and able to know fall under the wrap of "for the good of the general welfare" in the Constitution, where denial or secrecy does not.

ROFLMAO. Please show me where you find the phrase "for the good of the general welfare" in the Constitution. Rolling Eyes

Umbagog wrote:

Are the corporations above the Constitution now?

Umbagog wrote:

Does the government have the power to regulate how we interact in the marketplace, or what we can know about that marketplace, or what is legal or not in that marketplace?

In fact, that is one of the powers they actually are explicitly given by the Constitution. (Have you ever read it? I'm guessing from your comments that you have not.)

Umbagog wrote:

Some Americans are hell bent on throwing ALL their freedoms away to make a lousy buck.

And some are hell bent on throwing them away to create a socialist nanny-state where the government pays people for making bad decisions.

0 Replies

um

Pipe coming around from the left...help yourself.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Doesn't matter scrat....why does the government stick it's nose into one thing I put in my body and another I don't? Why does the government force one industry to label and protect another from it? If the government is interested in full disclosure on something that a small segment of the population puts in their bodies, in the interest of taking every possible precaution, why is it interested in protecting an industry that provides food, something that EVERYONE including those too young to make their own choices, from the same disclosure?

Could it have to do with who donates and who doesn't ? hmmmmmmm....

Are you arguing against government regulation? I think we could find some common ground there!

I'm not necessarily against government regulation in all cases, what I resent is an un-even handed application of it, if that makes sense, and I think this is a classic case of that very thing. I think we have common ground in a great many cases of regulation however. How could we not, since your IQ, like mine, is above room temperature.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

um

Pipe coming around from the left...help yourself.

don't mind if I do.....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I'm not necessarily against government regulation in all cases, what I resent is an un-even handed application of it...

Like tax policy that punishes achievers and rewards the slothful? :wink:

But yes, great minds do of occasion think alike! Cool

0 Replies

Real veterans (such as myself) know that properly used, condoms prevent genetically altered foods from turn us all into Rethuglicans.

0 Replies

Those Zany bush inc. Folks....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know