Young adults and being sexually responsible [slight rant]

[LindyHopper]

Hey there drew! Back again! I was worried that you were gone for good. You know, the sharks.

In any case, it appears that after stewing on this matter for the better part of a week, you've come up with nothing more than your usual slew of anti-LindyHopper personal attacks. Nothing to refute my original argument (that teaching young people to use condoms is a social good that helps prevent pregnancy and STDs rather than spreading them); nothing to acknowledge that your brothel practices (namely, trusting in the honesty of prostitutes in a war zone) might have been a bit short on common sense; and nothing to retract what was so offensive about your comments in the first place (your opinion that we should avoid teaching kids about condom use, and then "let the stupid bastards get AIDS, HERPES, and pregnant" so we can make an example out of them).

So congratulations on another content-free return. 🙄 My opinions on sexual responsibility still stand.

 

[chicago]

If Wikipedia were a trusted resource, I'd be able to use it in my research papers here at my school.

But, that's not the case, as my university, which educates nearly 30,000 students, advises against using Wikipedia for the very reasons people have previously stated.

 

[drew70]

Hey there drew! Back again! I was worried that you were gone for good. You know, the sharks.

Ah, but it's certainly nice to be missed. 😀 But not to worry, the sharks are frequenting shallower waters these days. Smell of bodily fluids, you know. 😉

In any case, it appears that after stewing on this matter for the better part of a week, you've come up with nothing more than your usual slew of anti-LindyHopper personal attacks.

Anti-LindyHopper?? Personal attacks?? Oh pshaw to the nth degree! Why, I'm just trying to have a conversation, same as you. 🙂 And I ruefully concur I've offered nothing new everybody here doesn't already know. I shall heed your admonishment and endeavor to improve the content of my posts! Never let it be said that drew70 can't take constructive criticism!

Nothing to refute my original argument (that teaching young people to use condoms is a social good that prevents pregnancy and STDs rather than spreading them);

I've already made my points. I obviously regard yours as completely without sense or any basis in reality. Sometimes the best way to make a point is to step back and let your opponent drone on, and let the nonsense flow for all to see. In short, your continual haranguing about condoms speaks more for abstinence than anything I might say.

nothing to acknowledge that your brothel practices (namely, trusting in the honesty of prostitutes in a war zone) might have been a bit short on common sense;

You've misunderstood. I never said I trusted in their honesty. I trusted the VD card I'd ask them to present, which has their picture and a stamped seal by official US Military medical officers. I know you have real difficulty in wrapping your head around any concept of safety that doesn't rely on the holy grail of condoms, but I'm here to tell you, my methods worked 100% reliably for two and a half years. Anybody who's been there knows that NOBODY is that lucky.

and nothing to retract what was so offensive about your comments in the first place (your opinion that we should avoid teaching kids about condom use, and then, "let the stupid bastards get AIDS, HERPES, and pregnant" so we can make an example out of them).

Perhaps that was a bit extreme, but face it Lindy. You find ANY opinion offensive that doesn't line up with your philosophy of sexual fulfillment taking priority over all else.

So congratulations on another content-free return. 🙄 My opinions on sexual responsibility still stand.

Or lie on their backs, as the case may be. 😉

 

[Redmage]

To quote myself exactly...

Wikipedia is an authority on nothing squared, because the sources are nearly always people who just log on and type. Most times any corrections are done because the person doing it disagrees, not because they're right and the first was wrong.

Yes, that's the part that I took issue with, because in most cases it's not true. If someone makes a correction on a point of fact in Wikipedia then they had better have something to back it up. Most often they'll be raising a question because they feel that something isn't properly cited. Or, as in the case you mentioned, it's cited but the author didn't quote the source correctly. Or in some cases the editor will have another source to cite whose opinions differ from those of the original source (this sometimes happens in articles about controversial issues). The proper procedure in that case is to leave both statements in the article and explain that different authorities have different opinions on the matter.

Just changing something because you don't like it or don't happen to believe it, with no citation to back that up, is "original research," and it's a Wikipedia no-no. Edits like that tend to cause a lot of fuss, and will often be removed by a Wikipedia staffer once they're reported.

There was one famous case cited on this forum about a film whose name escapes me now. One of the facts in the list after the definition was "is a piece of crap", rather hillariously. I haven't checked it for a long time and can't even remember what the title was (although I suspect you do, if you didn't actually remove it yourself) but it lasted some time as I recall.

No, I never fiddled with anything like that. However that sort of editorializing is also verboten at Wikipedia. If it lasted any length of time then chances are the article was one that no one much cared about or read very often. The editing cycle on backwater articles like that is longer simply because there are fewer eyes on it. However articles about topics that are of wide or current interest tend to be corrected very quickly.

 

[Redmage]

If Wikipedia were a trusted resource, I'd be able to use it in my research papers here at my school.

I'm old enough that I can remember when personal computers first made their debut. I happened to be in college at that time, and my professors refused to accept papers that had been printed by computer. They felt that it was "too easy," and that the simplicity of cut and paste was an invitation to wholesale plagiarism. It wasn't until a few years after I graduated that my old college finally emerged from the IBM Selectric Dark Ages.

My point here is that new technologies often take a little while to filter through the conservative minds of college professors. The most common gripes that I hear from teachers at all levels about Wikipedia have nothing to do with its reliability. If you want to cite Pat Robertson as an authority on Islam, or Madeleine Murray O'Hair as an authority on Christianity, most professors won't bat an eye (even though they know perfectly well that these are horribly biased sources for those topics). Reliability isn't much of an issue, as long as you can make your case. If you make a statement that a professor knows is flat wrong, she'll call you on it, but she won't exclude your source.

Rather, the complaints that I hear about Wikipedia are very similar to those that I heard about computers 25 years ago: It's too simple (that is, it doesn't teach students essential research skills) and it's too easy to plagiarize.

 

[chicago]

I'm old enough that I can remember when personal computers first made their debut. I happened to be in college at that time, and my professors refused to accept papers that had been printed by computer. They felt that it was "too easy," and that the simplicity of cut and paste was an invitation to wholesale plagiarism. It wasn't until a few years after I graduated that my old college finally emerged from the IBM Selectric Dark Ages.

My point here is that new technologies often take a little while to filter through the conservative minds of college professors. The most common gripes that I hear from teachers at all levels about Wikipedia have nothing to do with its reliability. If you want to cite Pat Robertson as an authority on Islam, or Madeleine Murray O'Hair as an authority on Christianity, most professors won't bat an eye (even though they know perfectly well that these are horribly biased sources for those topics). Reliability isn't much of an issue, as long as you can make your case. If you make a statement that a professor knows is flat wrong, she'll call you on it, but she won't exclude your source.

Rather, the complaints that I hear about Wikipedia are very similar to those that I heard about computers 25 years ago: It's too simple (that is, it doesn't teach students essential research skills) and it's too easy to plagiarize.

The reasons they give us, is that it's not reliable since articles can be written and changed by just about anyone.

 

[Iggy pop]

The reasons they give us, is that it's not reliable since articles can be written and changed by just about anyone.

That is the exact reason. I've never heard a professor complain that it was too easy. Now you can use Wikipedia, but you have to find the sources cited and look them up.

 

[LindyHopper]

Sometimes the best way to make a point is to step back and let your opponent drone on, and let the nonsense flow for all to see.

I think that's the most sensible thing I've heard you say in this thread. I'll be heeding that excellent advice now. 😉

 

[Redmage]

The reasons they give us, is that it's not reliable since articles can be written and changed by just about anyone.

Possibly they offer different justifications to their students than they do in private. I can only go by what teachers tell me, and I'm not one of their students.

However if that's really how your professors feel then as I suggested they're behind the times. As I said to Big Jim, the fact that it can be edited by anyone is an asset, not a liability, because most people actually care about getting their facts straight. For every dimbulb who just posts what the voices in his head tell him, there are five more diligent fact-checkers coming along to correct his errors. Several surveys have demonstrated that Wikipedia is as accurate overall as most major print encyclopedias.

In this specific case, the information on coitus interruptus that Wikipedia presents is in line with that from numerous other sources, and it doesn't make a very favorable showing against more conventional methods of birth control. It doesn't do any good at all at preventing STDs.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

I just thought I'd post this because it deals with the topic. It's from cnn.com.

Teen tried to hire hit man to kill ex-girlfriend's fetus

COLVILLE, Washington (AP) -- An 18-year-old pleaded guilty to trying to hire a hit man to kill his ex-girlfriend's nearly full-term fetus and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

Charles D. Young received 76½ months in prison Tuesday after pleading guilty to first-degree solicitation to commit manslaughter. State law allows for such a count when a viable fetus is the intended target.

Prosecutors allege Young, then 17, offered an undercover officer posing as a hit man $3,250 last October to injure his estranged 17-year-old girlfriend so badly that her fetus would die.

Young was arrested after a classmate learned of his plan and went to police, who arranged to have Young and the undercover officer meet, prosecutor John Troberg said. Young told the officer in a recorded conversation that he didn't care whether his former girlfriend survived the attack, Troberg said.

Young, of Suncrest, Washington, northwest of Spokane, apologized to the girl and her family at sentencing, Troberg said.

Young, who learned of the pregnancy after breaking up with the girl, initially expressed interest in raising their child but later told his ex-girlfriend he wanted nothing to do with the baby, the prosecutor said.

Young's attorney, Bevan Maxey, said his client is an intelligent young man who got bad advice.

 

[chicago]

I just thought I'd post this because it deals with the topic. It's from cnn.com.

Teen tried to hire hit man to kill ex-girlfriend's fetus

COLVILLE, Washington (AP) -- An 18-year-old pleaded guilty to trying to hire a hit man to kill his ex-girlfriend's nearly full-term fetus and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.

Charles D. Young received 76½ months in prison Tuesday after pleading guilty to first-degree solicitation to commit manslaughter. State law allows for such a count when a viable fetus is the intended target.

Prosecutors allege Young, then 17, offered an undercover officer posing as a hit man $3,250 last October to injure his estranged 17-year-old girlfriend so badly that her fetus would die.

Young was arrested after a classmate learned of his plan and went to police, who arranged to have Young and the undercover officer meet, prosecutor John Troberg said. Young told the officer in a recorded conversation that he didn't care whether his former girlfriend survived the attack, Troberg said.

Young, of Suncrest, Washington, northwest of Spokane, apologized to the girl and her family at sentencing, Troberg said.

Young, who learned of the pregnancy after breaking up with the girl, initially expressed interest in raising their child but later told his ex-girlfriend he wanted nothing to do with the baby, the prosecutor said.

Young's attorney, Bevan Maxey, said his client is an intelligent young man who got bad advice.

Well look at that! Now you've got an even better solution in case your "pull-out" method don't work!

 

[Tickle Fiend]

Well look at that! Now you've got an even better solution in case your "pull-out" method don't work!

Get over that shit. I have money saved up just in case I need to have someone get an abortion.

 

[chicago]

...just in case I need to have someone get an abortion.

Hmm....

 

[starfires]

Strangers would approach me at parties~"You're her, right? The condom girl? I have five bucks..."

So they were offering you five bucks for the condoms, right?
*ducks*

 

[BigJim]

No, I never fiddled with anything like that. However that sort of editorializing is also verboten at Wikipedia. If it lasted any length of time then chances are the article was one that no one much cared about or read very often. The editing cycle on backwater articles like that is longer simply because there are fewer eyes on it. However articles about topics that are of wide or current interest tend to be corrected very quickly.

I must be interested in more than a few backwater topics then, because I've seen it happen more than once.

 

[BigJim]

Get over that shit. I have money saved up just in case I need to have someone get an abortion.

Which completely fucks you if you ever put someone up the duff who thinks it's wrong and won't contemplate it.

 

[BellaRisa]

Which completely fucks you if you ever put someone up the duff who thinks it's wrong and won't contemplate it.

That kind of woman wouldn't be sleeping with him condom-free in the first place. Chances are the female who doesn't care what diseases he might have could be paid enough to dispose of the life they created...

 

[Redmage]

I must be interested in more than a few backwater topics then, because I've seen it happen more than once.

Well, yeah, you are. Didn't you know that already?

 

[Cid]

Well now I don't know where we are in this little topic of ours, but I think I can shed a light here. Minors, sex, No no! There's did I simplify it enough for everyone.

And what's with all the hating people? Let's show some love, and compassion! No more swearing, no more cussing, no more raised eyebrows either, or sarcasm!

Did that ryme?

 

[starfires]

You see, at that time in Korea, all of the working girls were required to get a medical checkup once a week. Ahjimah pays for this. Also the girls were required to present a VD card stamped with their most recent test results upon request of any prospective client. Ahjimah will have all her girls inspected on the same day and pay a flat fee. For example, the girls from The Lion's Den went every Tuesday, while the girls from the Crown Club went every Thursday. So Tuesday nights I was at the Lion's Den, and Thursday nights I was at the Crown Club. I'd make sure they were checked that day plus I knew most of their history. All the girls were either on birth control or had hysterectomies, so pregnancy wasn't an issue.

Like I said. Common sense. No rocket science. Simply keeping in mind the potential consequences and never letting your dick take control. The other guys there were catching shit right and left because their dicks would lead and they would follow.

Ok, looks like you found a safe way have sex. Great! Would you have no objection, then, if your way was taught to the children in highschool as an alternative to abstinence, instead of the condom way?

 

[Cid]

Here's a great way not to have sex. Zip it up! Too many chances to make too many teenaged mothers. Zip it up.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

No one is going to be able to tell minors not to have sex. The other day i read about some kids in the 5th grade having sex in class while the teacher stepped out. You tell them not to have sex, and give them all the reasons not to, but you've got to teach them about protection also. It's too easy nowadays for young people to have sex.

 

[starfires]

Here's a great way not to have sex. Zip it up! Too many chances to make too many teenaged mothers. Zip it up.

Indeed, that's a great way. Unfortunately it only works on yourself. It doesn't help you make somebody else not have sex, unless you're talking about chastity belts.

 

[Iggy pop]

I guess we also have the option of moving the marrying age back down 13 where it was in most states a hundred years ago. Maybe this would prevent unwed teenage mothers.

 

[CurtWild]

i`ve had quite a few friends use abortion as a way of birth control which certainly does bug me.some have done it multiple times and some have had kids after having an abortion out of fear that another may do serious damage.

i have always stuck to my policy of "no glove,no love".