Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Good Idea: Citing existing scientific evidence to back up your claims about contraceptives and pregnancy rates. Bad idea: Citing a racist loon to back up your claims about contraceptives and pregnancy rates. The End   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 245
    More: Dumbass, pregnancy rate, loons, scientific evidence  
•       •       •

5778 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Feb 2012 at 1:26 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-23 02:46:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But look at all the problems this girl caused by having a baby at 18.


To be fair, back then, 18 looked like 30.
 
2012-02-23 02:46:49 PM  

Codenamechaz: You're missing the point though. What you're basically saying is "Well you can't protect against all of it so you may as well not bother."


How the hell did you get that from what he wrote?

In fact, it doesn't seem to me that lennavan was arguing against either contraception OR prophylaxis.

You seem to be reading more into what's written than is actually there.

/also, exacerbating
 
2012-02-23 02:47:06 PM  

Codenamechaz: lennavan: Codenamechaz: lennavan: Codenamechaz: lennavan: Trivia Jockey: In an age where STDs exist, there is simply no defensible argument against contraception abstinence only. None. Period.

Uh, what? I don't think you thought that through entirely. Not sure if you're aware, most contraception methods don't actually help against STDs. I'm not an abstinence only advocate, it's farking stupid. But using STDs as the rationale for contraception is just as stupid.

PSA: Condoms are a form of contraceptives.

They also protect against most STDs

ProTip: most does not mean all.

No, but it does protect against a lot of the major ones, like HIV/AIDS, some forms of herpes, pregnancy, and so forth.

Unless you've got the will of a monk, abstinence alone doesn't work, and it's best to have a fighting chance at avoiding the nasty shiat than be left unware and have no chance.

Double ProTip: When discussing multiple instances of the word "most" go with the one I bolded. This time I underlined, italicized and made it BIG so you couldn't possibly miss it. Please don't miss it.

You're missing the point though. What you're basically saying is "Well you can't protect against all of it so you may as well not bother."

Properly used, condoms can protect against the most common stds both from oral and vaginal/anal activity. Yes, they're not perfect, 100% complete protection, but then again, nothing is. It's still possible to pick up an std while being abstinent, as some are transferred by blood, saliva and other bodily fluids, while some can be transferred just by contact with an infected surface (Like crabs or bacterial infections, for instance).

By not teaching kids about contraceptives and saying "You'll be safe if you don't do anything", you're only exasperating the problem further because when it comes that time when they do actually have sex regardless of this education, they'll do so unprotected and catch who knows what.


Dude. Re-read my post. I bolded, underlined and made it BIG for you. Tell me which part of the bolded you disagree with. Quote it and explain why you disagree with it.
 
2012-02-23 02:47:51 PM  

magusdevil: bindlestiff2600: i read the bell curve

one item of interest for you all

between a black and white of equal iq measured
the black is twice (thats 2 times) as likely to get a college degree

yes indeed racist (snicker)

on side note from same book
how many female phd's does it take to have one child (4)

The central theme of the book is that resilient ethnic differences in intelligence exist. The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.


And THAT is why hearing "race card" makes the hairs on my neck stand up. The people who say that we're playing the race card usually don't know literal racism unless it's dropping an n-bomb. And even then there's an excuse at the ready.

/Do some people exaggerate and make crap up to get attention? Yes.
//Is some racism so insidious that you wouldn't see unless you've been beaten over the head with it all of your black, brown, or yellow life? YES.
///"race card" does not know the difference between the two
//slashies
 
2012-02-23 02:47:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But look at all the problems this girl caused by having a baby at 18.


Paul McCartney in drag?
 
2012-02-23 02:50:10 PM  

lennavan: Jackson Herring: lennavan: The problem he outlined is indeed a problem.

The problem he outline is at an all time low

Fair enough. Yet it's still a problem:

Number of live births to 15-19 year olds: 409,802


Hey, I'll be 37 when my kid goes off to college. Then I'll have an empty nest and a ton of years to enjoy the finer things in life while still being well within my completely healthy years and prime earning potential. Plus, I had the best odds against birth and mental defect by having my child young.
 
2012-02-23 02:51:54 PM  

Trivia Jockey: lennavan: Therefore, STDs are a major rationale for contraception condoms. See, e.g., African continent.

I fixed that for you. For factual accuracy. You're welcome. I really really hope I don't need to explain further.

You're splitting hairs, badly. But whatever.


When you consider that condoms are one of more than a dozen different kinds of contraception, it's not "splitting hairs" to suggest that you should have specified condoms instead of just saying "contraception" since condoms are the only form of contraception that also protect against STDs. If you tell someone that they need a commercial driver's licence to legally drive "a car", it's not "splitting hairs" to point out that it only applies to certain types of cars. If you tell someone that it's illegal in Boston for them to own "a dog", it's not "splitting hairs" to point out that it only applies to certain breeds of dog.
 
2012-02-23 02:53:32 PM  

lennavan: Codenamechaz: lennavan: Codenamechaz: lennavan: Codenamechaz: lennavan: Trivia Jockey: In an age where STDs exist, there is simply no defensible argument against contraception abstinence only. None. Period.

Uh, what? I don't think you thought that through entirely. Not sure if you're aware, most contraception methods don't actually help against STDs. I'm not an abstinence only advocate, it's farking stupid. But using STDs as the rationale for contraception is just as stupid.

PSA: Condoms are a form of contraceptives.

They also protect against most STDs

ProTip: most does not mean all.

No, but it does protect against a lot of the major ones, like HIV/AIDS, some forms of herpes, pregnancy, and so forth.

Unless you've got the will of a monk, abstinence alone doesn't work, and it's best to have a fighting chance at avoiding the nasty shiat than be left unware and have no chance.

Double ProTip: When discussing multiple instances of the word "most" go with the one I bolded. This time I underlined, italicized and made it BIG so you couldn't possibly miss it. Please don't miss it.

You're missing the point though. What you're basically saying is "Well you can't protect against all of it so you may as well not bother."

Properly used, condoms can protect against the most common stds both from oral and vaginal/anal activity. Yes, they're not perfect, 100% complete protection, but then again, nothing is. It's still possible to pick up an std while being abstinent, as some are transferred by blood, saliva and other bodily fluids, while some can be transferred just by contact with an infected surface (Like crabs or bacterial infections, for instance).

By not teaching kids about contraceptives and saying "You'll be safe if you don't do anything", you're only exasperating the problem further because when it comes that time when they do actually have sex regardless of this education, they'll do so unprotected and catch who knows what.

Dude. Re-read my post. I bolded, underlined and made it BIG for you. Tell me which part of the bolded you disagree with. Quote it and explain why you disagree with it..


I bolded the part I've been responding to. That simple little line you keep ignoring each time you rebold your post.

That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional.
 
2012-02-23 02:54:03 PM  

bhcompy: I don't particularly care if they cite a racist if the data points are factual. Ad hominems are ad hominems.


The problem with this book (I'm not going to dredge up The Bell Curve) is that it's data points without any exploration of "why". That's what allows Santorum types to apply it to their Grand Unified Theory of Bullshiat. In Santorum's case, it's licentiousness.
 
2012-02-23 02:54:05 PM  
Geez. There are still people who defend the "Bell Curve". I wonder if they are anti-evolutionists, too. I can see a lay person defending the book in 1978 - but today? Read a book or something, you idiots.
 
2012-02-23 02:56:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: When you consider that condoms are one of more than a dozen different kinds of contraception, it's not "splitting hairs" to suggest that you should have specified condoms instead of just saying "contraception" since condoms are the only form of contraception that also protect against STDs. If you tell someone that they need a commercial driver's licence to legally drive "a car", it's not "splitting hairs" to point out that it only applies to certain types of cars. If you tell someone that it's illegal in Boston for them to own "a dog", it's not "splitting hairs" to point out that it only applies to certain breeds of dog.



If the social conservative position on contraceptives made any distinction between condoms and other forms of contraception, you'd be right. But they don't make any such distinction - they simply say NO contraception should be used. Ergo, they say that condoms shouldn't be used.

Therefore ,because of the risk of STDs, I stand by my statement that there is no valid basis for this argument: "Contraception shouldn't be used."

The end.
 
2012-02-23 02:59:21 PM  

Codenamechaz: "But using STDs as the rationale for contraception is just as stupid."

That simple little line you keep ignoring each time you rebold your post.

That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional. ...




THANK YOU. Precisely.
 
2012-02-23 02:59:40 PM  

Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional.


I would love to know how dental dams fall under "contraception".
 
2012-02-23 03:00:23 PM  

Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea.


It is a bad idea because it promotes confusion. People need to understand the difference between prophylaxis and contraception and be taught accordingly. The idea that contraception prevents STDs is the reason hormonal contraceptives are forced to put in bold that they do "not protect against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases." Same goes with IUDs like Mirena.
 
2012-02-23 03:00:30 PM  

keylock71: Murray co-authored The Bell Curve, which argues that black people score lower on IQ tests because they are genetically inferior to whites. To reach this conclusion, Murray relied on studies backed by the Pioneer Fund, whose original mission was to pursue "race betterment" for people "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution."

Wow... I don't even have words.


To be fair, he also said whites were intellectually inferior to Asians, but yeah, racist guy is racist.
 
2012-02-23 03:01:59 PM  

Teufelaffe: Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional.

I would love to know how dental dams fall under "contraception".


If their use follows fellatio?
 
2012-02-23 03:02:04 PM  

max_pooper: Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: I remember it being pretty legit from a science/logic perspective.

The folks who promoted eugenics thought they were speaking from a logical and scientific perspective as well.

From a purely logical and scientific stand point eugenics would create a stronger human race. Unfortunately there are moral and ethical issues that need to be added into the equation. .


No. The scientific basis for eugenics is flawed. There's no simple way to define what to select for or to decide how much variation to maintain. One could be extreme and weed out certain genes linked to certain cancers but we can't predict the consequences. Do you favour certain HLA types or foster diversity? Some provide better immunity against currently known threats but what about the next virus that comes along? It can't be predicted. There simply isn't a formula to identify "better".
 
2012-02-23 03:02:25 PM  

magusdevil: The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.


That's overly broad. It's not racist to know that American blacks are at greater risk of sickle-cell anemia, or that whites are at greater risk of cystic fibrosis, or that Askenazi Jews are at greater risk of Tay-Sachs, even though each of these examples (and many others) are examples of areas in which one race may be said to have an advantage over another.

It's not racism to point out that there are differences between races. It's racism if you conclude from that that members of one race therefore have more value or worth or rights or dignity as human beings.
 
2012-02-23 03:04:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional.

I would love to know how dental dams fall under "contraception".


Because if you whip some of that out in front of her, no one is getting laid that night.

Jokes aside, I was mostly listing protective items off the top of my head.
 
2012-02-23 03:04:31 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Teufelaffe: Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea. STDs are not the primary reason for contraception, but they're one of the major reasons for it. Dental dams, condoms, Microbicides if they can get them to be functional.

I would love to know how dental dams fall under "contraception".

If their use follows fellatio?


Using that logic, running water, toothpaste, and/or mouthwash also count as "contraception".
 
2012-02-23 03:06:21 PM  

Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.

That's overly broad. It's not racist to know that American blacks are at greater risk of sickle-cell anemia, or that whites are at greater risk of cystic fibrosis, or that Askenazi Jews are at greater risk of Tay-Sachs, even though each of these examples (and many others) are examples of areas in which one race may be said to have an advantage over another.

It's not racism to point out that there are differences between races. It's racism if you conclude from that that members of one race therefore have more value or worth or rights or dignity as human beings.


The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

The LITERAL dictionary definition of racism.
 
2012-02-23 03:06:54 PM  

eraser8: Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea.

It is a bad idea because it promotes confusion. People need to understand the difference between prophylaxis and contraception and be taught accordingly. The idea that contraception prevents STDs is the reason hormonal contraceptives are forced to put in bold that they do "not protect against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases." Same goes with IUDs like Mirena.


Information like that would likely be part of the packaging anyway simply due to the fact that people would confuse it anyway, even if a difference was made between contraception and prophylaxis.

As it stands, likely as a cause of prophylaxis not being in common use in sex ed, the word has evolved over the last generation, becoming a catch-all term for items that protect against pregnancy and/or disease, but if that makes it easier to understand that they need to wrap their shiat up before sex, I'm fine with that.
 
2012-02-23 03:10:53 PM  

magusdevil: Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.

That's overly broad. It's not racist to know that American blacks are at greater risk of sickle-cell anemia, or that whites are at greater risk of cystic fibrosis, or that Askenazi Jews are at greater risk of Tay-Sachs, even though each of these examples (and many others) are examples of areas in which one race may be said to have an advantage over another.

It's not racism to point out that there are differences between races. It's racism if you conclude from that that members of one race therefore have more value or worth or rights or dignity as human beings.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

The LITERAL dictionary definition of racism.


So according to your definition, it is racist to believe that people of European descent are at lower risk of sickle-cell anemia and diabetes? Even if that is actually true?

I think your definition is inaccurate.
 
2012-02-23 03:12:33 PM  
Back in the day when the Bell Curve came out, all of the racist Republican acquaintances that I was unfortunate to know were all using it to justify their racism and every conservative book club that was selling it was doing so using racist dogwhistle terms. Let's just say that I'm not buying that frothy didn't know that baggage when he cited Murray as a source.
 
2012-02-23 03:13:37 PM  

Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.

That's overly broad. It's not racist to know that American blacks are at greater risk of sickle-cell anemia, or that whites are at greater risk of cystic fibrosis, or that Askenazi Jews are at greater risk of Tay-Sachs, even though each of these examples (and many others) are examples of areas in which one race may be said to have an advantage over another.

It's not racism to point out that there are differences between races. It's racism if you conclude from that that members of one race therefore have more value or worth or rights or dignity as human beings.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

The LITERAL dictionary definition of racism.

So according to your definition, it is racist to believe that people of European descent are at lower risk of sickle-cell anemia and diabetes? Even if that is actually true?

I think your definition is inaccurate.


It's not my definition it is the LITERAL dictionary definition. Do you know what literal is? Do you know what a dictionary is?
 
2012-02-23 03:15:01 PM  

Codenamechaz: I bolded the part I've been responding to. That simple little line you keep ignoring each time you rebold your post.


It's funny that you point out what I'm ignoring, meanwhile you ignored the entire bolded part of my argument. You even thought I was advocating abstinence only education, even though I called it "farking stupid" in my post.

Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea.


It is. Spreading the idea that contraception prevents STDs is wrong and dangerous. What if someone actually believed the shiat you write and thought taking the pill prevented HIV? Your reason being so stupid and wrong reflects poorly on the conclusion. It opens you up to someone who actually is abstinence only correctly identifying you as a farking moran, posting the numerous forms of contraception that do nothing for STDs and then you're stuck backpedaling.

With so many good reasons to promote contraception, why do you make shiat up?
 
2012-02-23 03:15:23 PM  

Teufelaffe:
I would love to know how dental dams fall under "contraception".

If their use follows fellatio?

Using that logic, running water, toothpaste, and/or mouthwash also count as "contraception".


I was kidding.
 
2012-02-23 03:15:40 PM  

Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: Doc Daneeka: magusdevil: The notion that one race is genetically superior to another race in some way, say for example intelligence, is the literal dictionary definition of racism.

That's overly broad. It's not racist to know that American blacks are at greater risk of sickle-cell anemia, or that whites are at greater risk of cystic fibrosis, or that Askenazi Jews are at greater risk of Tay-Sachs, even though each of these examples (and many others) are examples of areas in which one race may be said to have an advantage over another.

It's not racism to point out that there are differences between races. It's racism if you conclude from that that members of one race therefore have more value or worth or rights or dignity as human beings.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

The LITERAL dictionary definition of racism.

So according to your definition, it is racist to believe that people of European descent are at lower risk of sickle-cell anemia and diabetes? Even if that is actually true?

I think your definition is inaccurate.


Dictionary.Com: Racism (new window)

noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


Not racist: Pointing out that people of European decent of lower risk of sickle-cell.

Racist: using that information to correlate that non-Europeans are therefore inferior.
 
2012-02-23 03:17:15 PM  

lennavan: Spreading the idea that contraception prevents STDs is wrong and dangerous.


Aha, but that's not what I said! I said in a world where STDs exist, you shouldn't argue against contraceptive use. You made a little bit of a leap from that to me saying that 'all contraception prevents STDs.'
 
2012-02-23 03:21:43 PM  

indylaw: Then no one but those who want children will have sex.


headbangorgtfo.files.wordpress.com
?
 
2012-02-23 03:22:00 PM  
To be fair, there are racist loonies that have done perfectly good science, they just haven't done good science relating to race. Francis Crick is a bigoted old dingbat, but that doesn't magically mean that DNA no longer coils in a double helix and has four component monomers.

magusdevil: It's not my definition it is the LITERAL dictionary definition. Do you know what literal is? Do you know what a dictionary is?


Using the literal definition doesn't help if you have a shiat dictionary that's giving you the wrong definition. There's the dictionary.com version:


noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.


And the M-W version:

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Note that in both cases the actual attribution of cultural achievement to biological fitness is necessary in both definitions. I don't know what dictionary you're using but you should consider getting a new one.
 
2012-02-23 03:22:12 PM  
This who "controversy" really disgusts me....
I mean, this is 2012. Contraception should not even be an issue of discussion at this point.

Fark you, GOP. Fark you.
 
2012-02-23 03:22:54 PM  

Codenamechaz: As it stands, likely as a cause of prophylaxis not being in common use in sex ed, the word has evolved over the last generation, becoming a catch-all term for items that protect against pregnancy and/or disease, but if that makes it easier to understand that they need to wrap their shiat up before sex, I'm fine with that.


Confusing the terms confuses their use...which makes them less effective in promoting sexual health. There are many types of contraceptives; only a few are any good for prophylaxis. And, there are many types of prophylactics; only a few are any good for contraception.
 
2012-02-23 03:24:29 PM  

Trivia Jockey: lennavan: Spreading the idea that contraception prevents STDs is wrong and dangerous.

Aha, but that's not what I said! I said in a world where STDs exist, you shouldn't argue against contraceptive use. You made a little bit of a leap from that to me saying that 'all contraception prevents STDs.'


My little leap did not require the use of the word all. The vast majority of contraception methods DO NOT prevent STDs. If most of them did, I got no beef with you writing that. When condoms are pretty much the only exception and even condoms don't stop everything, that's when you're farking stupid.

Premise: STDs exist (and are bad)
Implied premise: Contraceptives do anything whatsoever relevant with respect to STDs.
Conclusion: Contraceptives are good.

I called your implied premise farking stupid because with a single exception, they do nothing relevant with respect to STDs. The word condom requires less typed characters and is significantly more accurate. You farked up dude, stop digging.

Good idea: Citing existing scientific evidence to back up your claims about contraceptives and pregnancy rates. Bad idea: Making shiat up.
 
2012-02-23 03:26:37 PM  
lennavan:

Let me give you an example so you cen finally see my point...

"In a world where polio exists, it's indefensible to argue against vaccinations."

Obviously, not all vaccinations prevent polio. In fact, only one of them does. But this statement still makes perfect sense.
 
2012-02-23 03:28:56 PM  

lennavan: Codenamechaz: I bolded the part I've been responding to. That simple little line you keep ignoring each time you rebold your post.

It's funny that you point out what I'm ignoring, meanwhile you ignored the entire bolded part of my argument. You even thought I was advocating abstinence only education, even though I called it "farking stupid" in my post.


You can say whatever you want that helps you sleep at night, but that's exactly what you're doing. Downplaying the effectiveness of protective items agains STDs and claiming the only way to be protected is by abstaining, which is promoting abstinence.

It's like saying "Look, I'm not a racist, but what's the deal with jews?"

Of course, when you go around proving my point for me by saying: "Spreading the idea that contraception prevents STDs is wrong and dangerous.", it's kinda amusing

Codenamechaz: That somehow STDs being a rational to be promote contraception is a bad idea.

It is. Spreading the idea that contraception prevents STDs is wrong and dangerous. What if someone actually believed the shiat you write and thought taking the pill prevented HIV? Your reason being so stupid and wrong reflects poorly on the conclusion. It opens you up to someone who actually is abstinence only correctly identifying you as a farking moran, posting the numerous forms of contraception that do nothing for STDs and then you're stuck backpedaling.


Your problem is that you equate "contraception" to "the pill". Especially when in all cases, any form of "the pill", including intrauterine generally say "DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST STDs" and such, and doctors prescribing such medication will usually inform the patient of this.

You keep intentionally not including condoms as part of the options for contraceptives, which actually does protect against stds.

But I don't think I have much more to say to you. I've made my point clear, and since you've devolved into name calling, I think I'm done.
 
2012-02-23 03:29:24 PM  

rynthetyn: Back in the day when the Bell Curve came out, all of the racist Republican acquaintances that I was unfortunate to know were all using it to justify their racism and every conservative book club that was selling it was doing so using racist dogwhistle terms. Let's just say that I'm not buying that frothy didn't know that baggage when he cited Murray as a source.


The people who are going to believe Santorum wasn't aware of the racist nature of the book he's using to back up his regressive nonsense are the same people who believe he really said, "Blah people"... Delusional, partisan morons.
 
2012-02-23 03:29:49 PM  
A racist Republican? GTFOOH!
 
2012-02-23 03:30:08 PM  

Jim_Callahan: To be fair, there are racist loonies that have done perfectly good science, they just haven't done good science relating to race. Francis Crick is a bigoted old dingbat, but that doesn't magically mean that DNA no longer coils in a double helix and has four component monomers.

magusdevil: It's not my definition it is the LITERAL dictionary definition. Do you know what literal is? Do you know what a dictionary is?

Using the literal definition doesn't help if you have a shiat dictionary that's giving you the wrong definition. There's the dictionary.com version:


noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

And the M-W version:

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Note that in both cases the actual attribution of cultural achievement to biological fitness is necessary in both definitions. I don't know what dictionary you're using but you should consider getting a new one.


Again those definitions are the exact thesis of the book.
 
2012-02-23 03:30:16 PM  

Codenamechaz: Not racist: Pointing out that people of European decent of lower risk of sickle-cell.

Racist: using that information to correlate that non-Europeans are therefore inferior.


Isn't that more or less exactly what I wrote in an earlier post?
 
2012-02-23 03:32:06 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Codenamechaz: Not racist: Pointing out that people of European decent of lower risk of sickle-cell.

Racist: using that information to correlate that non-Europeans are therefore inferior.

Isn't that more or less exactly what I wrote in an earlier post?


Couldn't say. I was responding more directly to that immediate post to show you that is literally what the definition is and attaching it to the example you gave.
 
2012-02-23 03:39:24 PM  

Trivia Jockey: lennavan:

Let me give you an example so you cen finally see my point...

"In a world where polio exists, it's indefensible to argue against vaccinations."

Obviously, not all vaccinations prevent polio. In fact, only one of them does. But this statement still makes perfect sense.


A great example. There are a 20 different vaccinations. Only one prevents polio, the rest do abso-farking-lutely nothing for polio. What's more, the one does not prevent all forms of polio and indeed only reduces your risk for polio.

Vaccines do not prevent polio. One very specific vaccine prevents polio. It is incorrect and stupid to write "vaccines prevent polio." Further, I'm saying it is dangerous to write "vaccines prevent polio" because there are people who would actually believe other vaccines might prevent polio rather than just one very specific one. And finally, there are specific strains of polio that the polio vaccine offers no protection from whatsoever, including the most dangerous form of polio Polio Immunodeficiency Virus (PIV).

Instead, I would recommend you write an argument that vaccines prevent diseases. You know, like contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Get it?
 
2012-02-23 03:40:34 PM  
"Murray's latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, is a similarly rigorous work of scholarship."

And there you have it.
 
2012-02-23 03:40:48 PM  

magusdevil: Again those definitions are the exact thesis of the book.


Oh, yeah, the book is overtly racist, it states that Blacks are, among other things, less intelligent than whites due to biological differences (which isn't true, in addition to being offensive). I was under the impression that you were asserting that pointing out basic medical differences was racist, which it is not.
 
2012-02-23 03:42:50 PM  

Trivia Jockey: "In a world where polio exists, it's indefensible to argue against vaccinations."


lennavan: It is incorrect and stupid to write "vaccines prevent polio."




Can you please point out where in my statement I said "vaccines prevent polio"?
 
2012-02-23 03:43:54 PM  

Jim_Callahan: magusdevil: Again those definitions are the exact thesis of the book.

Oh, yeah, the book is overtly racist, it states that Blacks are, among other things, less intelligent than whites due to biological differences (which isn't true, in addition to being offensive). I was under the impression that you were asserting that pointing out basic medical differences was racist, which it is not.


That was someone else's red herring.
 
2012-02-23 03:44:47 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Yakk: I saw Murray on Charlie Rose last week, he didn't seem like a wacko racist. I never heard of or read the Bell Curve and really don't know much about it though.

You should check out Stephen Jay Gould's "The mismeasure of man"
or Fisher and Hout's "Inequality by design: Cracking the Bell curve"

\why do I know those authors and titles by memory?


I think the most recent edition of Lewontin's "Not In Our Genes" also includes a chapter addressing the Bell Curve. (and by most recent, the one I read most recently which was about 15 years ago in grad school...)
 
2012-02-23 03:45:44 PM  

Fart_Machine: mongbiohazard: I remember it being pretty legit from a science/logic perspective.

The folks who promoted eugenics thought they were speaking from a logical and scientific perspective as well.


Like that rabid right-winger and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger?

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-23 03:47:46 PM  

Codenamechaz: You can say whatever you want that helps you sleep at night, but that's exactly what you're doing. Downplaying the effectiveness of protective items agains STDs and claiming the only way to be protected is by abstaining, which is promoting abstinence.


Actually, I'm downplaying the effectiveness of contraception in protecting against STDs. Contraception prevents pregnancy dude. It's even in the farking definition of the word:

Contraception is the prevention of the fusion of gametes during or after sexual activity. The term contraception is a contraction of contra, which means against, and the word conception, meaning fertilization

Codenamechaz: Your problem is that you equate "contraception" to "the pill".


No, your problem is you equate "contraception" to "condoms." I equate it to an enormous list of things:

Abstinence
Birth Control Implant (Implanon)
Birth Control Patch (Ortho Evra)
Birth Control Pills
Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera)
Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge)
Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing)
Breastfeeding as Birth Control
Cervical Cap (FemCap)
Condom
Diaphragm
Female Condom
Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs)
IUD
Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
Outercourse
Spermicide
Sterilization for Women
Vasectomy
Withdrawal (Pull Out Method)

Guess how many of these protect against STDs, dipshiat. The very farking first question on PlannedParenthood.com in choosing a method for contraception:

Do you want protection from STDs? (Condoms are the only birth control methods that can reduce your risk of getting HIV and other STDs)

1) No. I'm not worried about STDs.
2) Yes. So I will use a condom to protect myself against STDs.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-23 03:51:07 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Trivia Jockey: "In a world where polio exists, it's indefensible to argue against vaccinations."

lennavan: It is incorrect and stupid to write "vaccines prevent polio."



Can you please point out where in my statement I said "vaccines prevent polio"?


Premise: Polio exists (and is bad)
Implied Premise: Vaccinations prevent polio
Conclusion: Therefore vaccinations are good.

By all means, what else did you imply?
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report