Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2813 »

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Also, the best thing about people who argue based on Constitutional purism is that they will vehemently resist any and all efforts to amend the Constitution, even though that was the intent from the very beginning. Once you begin to argue a hypothetical amendment, they will prove that they only argue from the Constitution when it supports their ideology.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 20:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:55

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

archangelwar posted:

Also, the best thing about people who argue based on Constitutional purism is that they will vehemently resist any and all efforts to amend the Constitution, even though that was the intent from the very beginning. Once you begin to argue a hypothetical amendment, they will prove that they only argue from the Constitution when it supports their ideology.

Honestly the only things most of them are aware of Constitutionally are:

"Checks and Balances!!1!"
"First Amendment"
"Second Amendment"
"Tenth Amendment"

With the last being the most important. ARE STATES WRITES!!

# ? Feb 22, 2012 20:57

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

I didn't read all of that dudes verbal diarrhea so maybe I'm just as bad as "they" are (or worse!?) but isn't welfare a state system anyway? I mean I know money comes from the federal government, but don't the states administer it and also make up their own rules? Aren't most things (a lot of things?) "the government" does actually run this way?

# ? Feb 22, 2012 21:06

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

myron_cope posted:

I didn't read all of that dudes verbal diarrhea so maybe I'm just as bad as "they" are (or worse!?) but isn't welfare a state system anyway? I mean I know money comes from the federal government, but don't the states administer it and also make up their own rules? Aren't most things (a lot of things?) "the government" does actually run this way?

Most of the social programs in America are state administered with matching Federal funds. In order to get the funds, the state must meet certain criteria.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 21:09

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

Sarion posted:

Honestly the only things most of them are aware of Constitutionally are:

"Checks and Balances!!1!"
"First Amendment"
"Second Amendment"
"Tenth Amendment"

With the last being the most important. ARE STATES WRITES!!

The Republican base claims to hold the Constitution just as sacrosanct, but they don't even like those few things. Crowds at Republican debates cheer at the thought of anti-gay marriage amendments, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry nullifying courts that disagree with them, and forbidding mosques because Saudi Arabia does that sort of thing too.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 21:10

Corb3t: Jun 7, 2003

Sarion posted:

And if he claims that the Founding Fathers didn't mean that Congress was meant to have the power to spend for the benefit of the general welfare... Mr. Alexander Hamilton would like a word with him.

I don't really interact with many libertarians/"states rights" people - is Alexander Hamilton generally hated by them?

# ? Feb 22, 2012 21:52

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Oh yes definitely. Andrew Jackson is one of the heroes of the libertarian movement in the United States.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 21:57

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

My friend continues with an... interesting position :psyduck:

quote:

Referring to my post (6 posts above this one) and the ensuing discussion, this is exactly why the republican(not the party, the style) system of government in the United States was so brilliant in its original conception. [Friend name] and [my name] can live in different states with different taxation and welfare laws, both can be happy, and both can be 'Merican! Win for republicanism, fail for democracy & socialism. That is kind of the idea behind freedom. It makes the U.S. a multi-cellular organism and not an amoeba. Nations with power centralized at the Federal level can never appease as many people as a republican government with the power in the hands of the people and their states. And with 50 states, there can be a lot of diversity to appease a wide range of ethical and monetary tastes.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:01

Frog Act: Feb 10, 2012

Do people really have this idea that one state can be a bastion of whateverism right next to a state with opposing views without conflict? I don't mean violence, I'm just referring to the incredibly porous nature of states and their fundamentally interconnected existence.

Dude sounds full of naivete and influenced by impractical ideas. "Why don't you just live in a liberal state if you're a liberal, dogg? Whats wrong with you?" just sounds like such nonsense to me.

Also: monetary tastes. I have a taste for poverty, it just happens to be my bailiwick!

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:06

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

That's not the definition of republicanism.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:07

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

This guy does not loving know the definition of words.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:12

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

I think he meant Federalism?

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:14

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

euphronius posted:

I think he meant Federalism?

Of course he did, but even if you substitute Federalism into his little rant, he still betrays his ignorance as to why Federalism was desired in the first place.

Edit: and he is more or less an advocate of a "Confederacy"

Edit 2: I bet he is one of those assholes that believes "the Confederate Constitution was better if you just take out the word 'slavery'"

archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Feb 22, 2012

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:19

24-7 Urkel Cosplay: Feb 12, 2003

archangelwar posted:

Of course he did, but even if you substitute Federalism into his little rant, he still betrays his ignorance as to why Federalism was desired in the first place.

He just straight up wants to make Republican_ism sound good while bashing democratcy and socialism. That's all he wanted to do.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:21

Frog Act: Feb 10, 2012

People who idolize the Confederate states / their legacy freaking nauseate me. Especially here in Richmond (southern Virginia in general, really) because there's nowhere else in the U.S. where the consequences of the civil war and reconstruction are more obvious, but hurf durf big government south will rise again.

It's just go no basis in fact. Really, it runs directly contrary to fact.

e: This post is in reference to archangel's post up yonder about people who want more of a "confederacy." Whenever I hear that seriously proposed I just wanna plug my ears and throw history textbooks at people.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:25

ThePeteEffect: Jun 12, 2007; I'm just crackers about cheese!; Fun Shoe

archangelwar posted:

Of course he did, but even if you substitute Federalism into his little rant, he still betrays his ignorance as to why Federalism was desired in the first place.

Edit: and he is more or less an advocate of a "Confederacy"

Edit 2: I bet he is one of those assholes that believes "the Confederate Constitution was better if you just take out the word 'slavery'"

The Confederate Constitution was basically the US Constitution, just with a few revisions. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Maybe he's thinking of the Articles of Confederation, which were an abysmal failure.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:27

Olanphonia: Jul 27, 2006; I'm open to suggestions~

DarkHorse posted:

My friend continues with an... interesting position

I, too, live in a time when the economies of each state were completely disconnected from not only other states, but the world at large.

Your friend should just come out and say that he wants social programs abolished because he hates the underprivileged and stop trying to frame it as just wanting the most efficient and best solution. A few other posters have mentioned this, but it absolutely bears repeating: federal assistance for programs that affect low income peoples is an absolute must if you want them to be effective at all. If a state has a very low median income/high poverty rate, there is very little it can do to assist those people.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that states are constitutionally mandated to maintain balanced budgets from year to year. They are unable to provide assistance when people need it most (during a recession) because that recession also fucks their tax revenues up severely. One of the first things that goes when revenues fall is, unfortunately, social services because it's pretty much impossible for states to meaningfully raise taxes (most of the time anyway). The problem only gets worse on a local level, since they get the double whammy of lower property values depreciating their tax base and large drops in state transfers. Short of giving state governments the power to deficit spend like the federal government does, federal assistance in social programs is the only way to make these programs viable.

This doesn't even begin to touch the issues with the actual fact of state/local governance of social programs. Having 50 distinct methods to running the variety of social safety nets has a whole host of issues. For example, a person who qualifies for medicaid and SNAP that decides to move to another state in order to pursue a job lead faces a multitude of issues. Things such as different regulations regarding benefit time limitations, work requirements, benefit amounts, etc. Not to mention the basic problem of benefit lag when switching from one state system to another one (proving citizenship of a new state and then waiting for the approval process to go through and then for the actual benefits to arrive in hand). Having basic federal standards allows for some of these problems to at least be mitigated and gives those who need the benefits time and concentration that can be used to help improve their situation.

While it is admirable to want programs to be administered at the lowest level possible in order to better serve people; the reality is that doing so opens up a whole slew of additional problems that your friend apparently either hasn't thought of, or simply does not care about. In order to make these kinds of programs actually effective under the American system of governance, they absolutely require not only federal funding, but federal oversight as well.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 22:33

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

ThePeteEffect posted:

The Confederate Constitution was basically the US Constitution, just with a few revisions. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Maybe he's thinking of the Articles of Confederation, which were an abysmal failure.

That is why people who say that are assholes, it is just dog whistle Confederacy worship disguised as "States Rights" rhetoric (which is often the same thing anyway).

# ? Feb 22, 2012 23:04

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

If I recall my poli sci correctly, the thing about confederacies is that either one of two things happen:

1). One faction gets most of the power and uses it to advance their own interests to the detriment of the other factions (e.g. Athens in the Delian League).

2). Power becomes so decentralized that nothing effective can get done (e.g. the American Confederacy).

# ? Feb 22, 2012 23:09

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

I prefer living in poverty, in a state that can't teach many kids to even read, while having no access to healthcare and practically no access to clean water or healthy food. That's why I CHOOSE to live in "States Rights" version of Mississippi instead of Mass. No, of course it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to find work there or even being able to afford to move.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 23:15

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Sarion posted:

I prefer living in poverty, in a state that can't teach many kids to even read, while having no access to healthcare and practically no access to clean water or healthy food. That's why I CHOOSE to live in "States Rights" version of Mississippi instead of Mass. No, of course it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to find work there or even being able to afford to move.

Drop everything and hitch, Massachusetts is loving awesome. I came here last year. Until I got a good enough paying job they put me on MassHealth and I got EBT. That helped me to establish myself and now I have a great job with full health benefits and don't need food stamps. The system works.

# ? Feb 22, 2012 23:31

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

rscott posted:

Oh yes definitely.

This is mainly a Federal Reserve thing though, right?

# ? Feb 22, 2012 23:34

The Rokstar: Aug 19, 2002; by FactsAreUseless

"Screw democracy, give the power to the people!" --That guy on Facebook

I understand the actual reason why wingnuts don't like democracy (they don't get their way all the time), but what is their justification for it? I don't get it.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 00:28

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

Would you guys mind looking over my argument? I get the feeling this response was a little schizophrenic and I may have been arguing out both sides of my mouth :ohdear:

quote:

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement with military and international policy! I simply included it to show that the large standing military was a much newer development than the federal income tax and that following the logic "powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution should be forbidden" is fallacious. Besides, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;*" (emphasis mine).

I'd also like to point out Article 1, section 8, clause 18, where "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper clause has been approved by the system of checks and balances when the Supreme Court has upheld it and cited it multiple times in our country's history for a variety of legal challenges. The founders were cognizant of the fact that things would change and there may be situations for which the document wasn't prepared and gave Congress the responsibility to address those needs. What worked for an 18th century agrarian society where 50 miles was a day's travel and individual cities were isolated may not be appropriate for a modern one connected by highways and fiber-optic lines that allow instant communication.

It would do well to point out that Medicare and Social Security are the only "social welfare" programs that exist at the Federal level. TANF ("welfare"), SNAP ("food stamps"), and Medicaid are all managed at the state level, and as you recommend they are all managed slightly differently depending on the state. Now, there is some funding from the Federal level, but it's usually just contingent on adhering to anti-discrimination law or other criteria. Each state has authority over how these social welfare programs are run, so they already operate precisely how you suggest they should.

If running a deficit is the concern, it's important to note that Social Security and Medicare are not paid for from Income Tax but rather FICA; the income tax pays primarily for the military, with "welfare" being a fractional portion of what is called "discretionary spending." Eliminating them will not really change the Federal budget requirements in the least, except by pushing them onto the states. This may seem an attractive solution, but states are prevented from running a budgetary deficit. In cases like the current fiscal crisis, this means that funding and help would be unavailable precisely when it was needed most! Even in good times, those states with the least revenues also tend to have the most people in trouble. How can states like South Carolina and Alabama deal with their poor when most of the people don't earn enough to be taxed to help the people that are REALLY in trouble?

Those people don't have the option of moving to another state - the poor are the least able to vote with their feet. To be workable there would first have to be perfect labor mobility - that a person could pick up sticks at any time and move to another state without any complication. Forget familial ties, or ties to property, what about practical issues like the cost of moving and feeding yourself across potentially hundreds of miles? Are we assuming the states will not take any measures restricting movement and will be providing support while people relocate? If not, it will be little consolation to a person trying to move somewhere with social welfare if they starve before they can leave.

The national Federal Income tax was enacted precisely for the general welfare of the entire United States. Money from prosperous regions of the country goes to suffering ones, and the nation as a whole benefits because those regions have access to better education, better health, and better living conditions. How people live, learn, and grow in Texas influences every other state, because some of those people will move to other states and become coworkers. On a more practical level, those receiving assistance still generate demand for products and will generate increased demand if their basic needs for survival are met. For this to be at all practicable, however, requires interstate oversight - basically, Federal oversight.

I disagree with your analogy using students; as a counterexample, you may have experienced large lectures with hundreds of students in a hall. The reason they have such large classes is precisely because of efficiency - a professor's time is limited and valuable, and it is important that information be consistent across the entire class. This information is then supplemented by smaller, personal instruction by TAs. In this analogy, the Federal government would be the professor providing general oversight and direction, while the TAs would be the individual state programs. While I agree that trying to teach 500 students to the capability of those tutored individually would be impossible, it also doesn't take into account that the 495 students that aren't tutored by the professor are likely receiving inadequate instruction and getting information that is contradictory between groups.

Regarding your addendum: I agree that the bank bailouts were a waste, especially in light of how J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and several other institutions have treated the money and their abuse of arbitrage for lending rates to profit instead of passing it along to consumers. However, the bailout for GM seems to have worked well. In their case, letting them go under would have displaced 200,000 employees immediately as well as the many thousands of derivative jobs like ACDelco and other parts suppliers AND all the machine shops that supply them. By keeping them solvent, GM was able to retain all those employees and prevent them from landing on the social safety net and stressing it further, and for who knows how long.

One last detail: the terms "liberalism" and "republicanism" have been misused in a few posts. From wikipedia, "Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights... generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion." "Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by means other than heredity, often elections." I believe the appropriate term for what you were describing would be federalism: "a political concept in which a *group of memebrs are bound together by a covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists."

To summarize: liberalism favors equal rights, republicanism is a means of appointing leadership, and federalism is a particular means of organizing division of power over and between separate polities. Another term I've heard used is "Confederation."

# ? Feb 23, 2012 00:44

blackmet: Aug 5, 2006; I believe there is a universal Truth to the process of doing things right (Not that I have any idea what that actually means).

Sarion posted:

I prefer living in poverty, in a state that can't teach many kids to even read, while having no access to healthcare and practically no access to clean water or healthy food. That's why I CHOOSE to live in "States Rights" version of Mississippi instead of Mass. No, of course it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to find work there or even being able to afford to move.

I think that's something that they currently forget. For the bottom 50% of the country, moving from, say, Alabama to Washington, or even Colorado to Nebraska, is about as feasible as moving from the U.S. to Sweden.

The entire argument basically smacks of a smaller version of "AMURIKA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" Except now it's "Your State: Love it or Leave it." Why don't these idiots leave their states and go off to Arizona or Nevada or South Dakota if they're not happy with how their state is run?

# ? Feb 23, 2012 01:55

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

I was Tweeting during the debate last night, and my Tweets push to FB, and my Mom's boss (a priest; she's the receptionist at a Catholic church in town) responded to a comment I made about abstinence-only education being completely ineffective. He's a really cool person, and I've met him and had long conversations with him a ton of times; hence why we're FB friends. It kinda surprised me that he commented because I post really crazy-lefty poo poo all the time and he never has. Must've pushed some buttons.

Let me know if my response is worth a drat (I dunno why I revert to the writing style and word-choice I do when I "debate" people I know IRL, I think I think that the cold academic style makes it seem less confrontational?)

Oh, he had a little "P.S. Maybe reflect on using the f-word on a public forum" (I called Santorum a fuckhead)

Me posted:

(Aw c'mon Father--my FB page is locked-up and private aside from fewer than 20 people; ostensibly, it's not a public forum with regards to me.)

When one looks objectively at studies and research performed by legitimate academic and social institutions, one finds that there is simply no evidence that abstinence-ONLY education is effective. I agree that abstinence should indeed be put forth as an option, but only within the bounds of a wider discussion about sexual health.

Studies performed by the US Department of Health and Human Services (under President Bush II), found that "abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy and STD-transmission rates."

In addition, a 2007 study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy published a comprehensive meta-study of research surrounding abstinence-only education and concluded that "studies of abstinence programs have no produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

While there are outlying studies that I would be remiss to not mention in this discussion, it sould be noted that in the research and scientific fields, scholarly conclusions only hold water if they undergo the peer-review process; one which aims to weed out organizations who intend to use science and pure research for political gain as opposed usage for the betterment of the understanding of our world. By and large, studies which conclude in the net positive for abstinence-only education are not peer review and are thus widely discredited.

Abstinence-only sex education programs are, in my personal opinion and in the academic and sexual health fields (including leading OBGYN and Women's Sexual Health centers and organizations), woefully inadequate and inept. Dogmatically and theologically I have no grounds upon which to stand; and I have nothing but the deepest respect for those principles which guide the faithful, regardless of their religious sway. However, when public policy is concerned, I favour analytical and pure research approaches to determine the best course of action for sexual health and education of our nation's youth.

Organizations (both educational and otherwise) who don't recieve federal funding are free to inform and educate in ways that they see fit; but where public funds are concerned, a more rigorous and thorough approach to sexual education is needed.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 16:47

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

I think your response is reasonable, well written and respectful.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:04

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

I think its a perfectly good argument for why you feel the way you do. But as a Priest he has to believe that abstinence only is the only approach, it's required of him by God (or at least he believes it is). So you're not going to persuade him, but I think you already know that.

Another issue regarding abstinence only is that it makes the very very wrong assumption that only teenagers need to know about sex, because once you're married you can just have tons of sex with no problems. Married couples in monogamous relationships still need to know what their options are with respect to birth control. And while I know the Priest thinks their only option is abstinence as well, most people don't feel this way. Yet there's no other place people can be guaranteed to get properly educated on this. Once you graduate from High School and get married, no one gives you a crash course on not getting pregnant when married. And a lot of children born into married homes come from unintended pregnancies, which can lead to all kinds of problems. Plus, 20% of women who get abortions are married. So there's obviously a need for better sex education/contraceptive use among married couples. But gently caress that, abstinence-only!

e: Also, Santorum is a fuckhead. It's just a fact.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:19

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

Sarion posted:

I think its a perfectly good argument for why you feel the way you do. But as a Priest he has to believe that abstinence only is the only approach, it's required of him by God (or at least he believes it is). So you're not going to persuade him, but I think you already know that.

Another issue regarding abstinence only is that it makes the very very wrong assumption that only teenagers need to know about sex, because once you're married you can just have tons of sex with no problems. Married couples in monogamous relationships still need to know what their options are with respect to birth control. And while I know the Priest thinks their only option is abstinence as well, most people don't feel this way. Yet there's no other place people can be guaranteed to get properly educated on this. Once you graduate from High School and get married, no one gives you a crash course on not getting pregnant when married. And a lot of children born into married homes come from unintended pregnancies, which can lead to all kinds of problems. Plus, 20% of women who get abortions are married. So there's obviously a need for better sex education/contraceptive use among married couples. But gently caress that, abstinence-only!

e: Also, Santorum is a fuckhead. It's just a fact.

Yeah, I understand he's bound by, well, being a priest with regards to his opinions. I think what spurned him to respond at all was that my sister (was married in the church) 'liked' my comment which was:

Me posted:

Hey heads up Rick: teenagers are going to have sex *NO MATTER WHAT*. Teach them how to do it safely instead of being a fuckhead tia

So maybe he thought he had to lay down the party-line as it were?

Who knows. He's a pretty legit dude; he's really pop culture savvy, pretty funny and an absolute blast to talk philosophy with--but obviously he (a Catholic priest) and I (former Catholic--an altar boy even--now atheist) couldn't be more different in a lot of ways.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:29

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

Yeah, I don't really get that. So people are just supposed to wing it and guess when it comes to sexual health? Is your priest who has never had sex supposed to teach you?

I know it's a dumb analogy, but it's like telling kids that they don't need driver's education because they can always just abstain from driving.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:31

goku chewbacca: Dec 14, 2002

Debating with an avowed virgin about sex. Some of you are are either masochists or love to hear yourselves speak.

Thousands of victimized alter boys could have benefitted from comprehensive sexual education. Never too early to talk about good touch/bad touch. Never to late to buy your kid condomns and tell them not to gently caress anywhere they can be charged with public exposure.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:46

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

goku chewbacca posted:

Debating with an avowed virgin about sex. Some of you are are either masochists or love to hear yourselves speak.

There's nothing wrong with the exchange of ideas and conversation. Obviously nothing I'm going to say is going to make a fuckin' Priest change his mind; but at the very least my sister will see my response and hopefully not be swayed by the dogma hammer.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 17:52

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

I think religious people (or at least religious people against contraceptives and/or sex ed) are completely ok with married people not knowing how pregnancy works and having a bunch of kids. Don't they always talk about how that's the only real point of marriage?

# ? Feb 23, 2012 18:01

goku chewbacca: Dec 14, 2002

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Also, the calendar method (menstrual cycle planning) is the Vatican approved family planning method. So is withdrawl. Facials--they're not just for porn.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 18:13

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

goku chewbacca posted:

Also, the calendar method (menstrual cycle planning) is the Vatican approved family planning method. So is withdrawl. Facials--they're not just for porn.

I don't get this, if every sperm is sacred, why does the Catholic Church approve of you "wasting" your sperm on days you know they won't fertilize eggs? What is the difference between putting a condom on to block your sperm and pulling out so your sperm doesn't reach its target?

# ? Feb 23, 2012 18:44

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

Leon Einstein posted:

I don't get this, if every sperm is sacred, why does the Catholic Church approve of you "wasting" your sperm on days you know they won't fertilize eggs? What is the difference between putting a condom on to block your sperm and pulling out so your sperm doesn't reach its target?

"Every sperm is sacred" is a caricature of the Catholic Church's position. The point is you aren't using any artificial means to prevent pregnancy. If you had sex on a non-fertile day and didn't plan it that way, the woman naturally wouldn't get pregnant. So it's "natural" birth control.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 18:47

babies havin rabies: Feb 24, 2006

So re-evolving estrous would bring the human race closer to God?

Noted.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 18:50

AFewBricksShy: Jun 19, 2003; of a full load.

goku chewbacca posted:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Also, the calendar method (menstrual cycle planning) is the Vatican approved family planning method. So is withdrawl. Facials--they're not just for porn.

My wife and I had to do the pre-cana classes before we could get married. (A different rant all together).

There was a lady there talking about how even when you are married, contraception was technically a sin, and that natural family planning was the only approved method. They did a nice 30 minute presentation on all of this, then opened it up for questions.

I asked the first question: "How many kids do you have". The answer was 8. Even the priest laughed.

They weren't preachy or anything, and pretty much admitted that most catholics use contraceptives, but they were there showing the "church approved" method, unfortunately also showing it doesn't work so well either.

(I wasn't being the "angry athiest" or anything with the question, everything was very light hearted and done with good spirits, no ill will on anyone's part)

AFewBricksShy fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 23, 2012

# ? Feb 23, 2012 19:15

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

AFewBricksShy posted:

My wife and I had to do the pre-cana classes before we could get married. (A different rant all together).

There was a lady there talking about how even when you are married, contraception was technically a sin, and that natural family planning was the only approved method. They did a nice 30 minute presentation on all of this, then opened it up for questions.

I asked the first question: "How many kids do you have". The answer was 8. Even the priest laughed.

They weren't preachy or anything, and pretty much admitted that most catholics use contraceptives, but they were there showing the "church approved" method, unfortunately also showing it doesn't work so well either.

(I wasn't being the "angry athiest" or anything with the question, everything was very light hearted and done with good spirits, no ill will on anyone's part)

As an aside, using one of the calendar based methods can actually work very well. The Standard Days method has something like 95% effectiveness when properly used, which is pretty drat good for not using chemical contraception or a barrier.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 19:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:55

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

Kim Jong III posted:

As an aside, using one of the calendar based methods can actually work very well. The Standard Days method has something like 95% effectiveness when properly used, which is pretty drat good for not using chemical contraception or a barrier.

The downside is that most people don't like scheduling sex.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 19:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2813 »