Should people with stupid beliefs be mocked and ridiculed?

[RickD]

Mel,

You edited out my main disagreement that I had with your post. So I can't respond to that anymore.

I'm actually glad you deleted it, because I think it was a faulty argument anyways.

I think your misunderstanding stands with what you think I said, compared to what I said. Which I think still upholds in this post.

No. You deleted the part where you said that keeping abortion illegal, makes it unsafe. Implying that legal abortion is safe.

Did you know that in 100% of successful legal abortions, at least one human being is killed? Doesn't sound safe to me.

[PaulSacramento]

Mocking and ridicule are the tools of a feeble intellect.

All that needs to be done is to point out where a person's view is incorrect and why.

There is never any need to mock and ridicule anyone.

[melanie]

Mel,

You edited out my main disagreement that I had with your post. So I can't respond to that anymore.

I'm actually glad you deleted it, because I think it was a faulty argument anyways.

I think your misunderstanding stands with what you think I said, compared to what I said. Which I think still upholds in this post.

No. You deleted the part where you said that keeping abortion illegal, makes it unsafe. Implying that legal abortion is safe.

Did you know that in 100% of successful legal abortions, at least one human being is killed? Doesn't sound safe to me.

Ahh ok. Fair enough. Yes I did state that.
For those wondering, earlier today I was responding on this post then I went to save my draft as it was an unfinished but accidentally hit submit, Rick responded which I didn't realise while I was deleting the post as it was unfinished. In the meantime my internet dropped out and I lost the last part of my post. But to be fair I do remember saying that making abortion illegal would make it unsafer. So I should respond to Rick to be fair and I have no problem with that because I think it is an extremely relevant issue to this debate.
Making abortion illegal makes it much unsafer.
That is not my personal opinion but when one looks at the facts an obvious conclusion.
Countries that have the largest incidence of abortion are also the countries where abortions are illegal. Latin America and Africa account for 29 and 32 per 1000 respectively. Now without having to state percentages what do we think happens in a country when abortion is illegal but extremely prevalent.
Death.
To the tune of conservatively estimated at 65,000 women per year.
Making it illegal does not slow the rate of abortions, but it makes it a russian roulette of death for everyone involved.
That was one of the main contributing factors to the legalisation of abortion in Australia, it wasn't working and women were dying. Like American history there is a clear indication as abortion has been periodically made illegal and legal. Guess what, there wasn't a difference in occurrence but a major difference in the safety and mortality of the woman. I openly invite anyone to refute the stats because I have looked into it extensively and unbiasedly and the same statistics kept presenting themselves.
Limiting unwanted pregnancies is the key to stopping abortion.
The key to limiting unwanted pregnancies is contraception
The European countries with the lowest abortion rate it is legal, but with free contraception and sex education within schools.
The irony is that the tool to really make a difference to the horrible statistics in abortion rates, lies in policy that the right wing conservative christians are also against, free contraception and sex education.
If this argument really lies in saving lives then let's do what it takes.
Education and free and/or affordable contraception to all.

[edwardmurphy]

Thank you for proving my points Mr Ed...Appreciate that.

I'm aware that Mr. Ed is a horse, B.W., and I'm aware that you're calling me that in an attempt to be insulting. It's not a problem for me, but I just thought it merited pointing out, since it's blatantly hypocritical. Do you also have a double standard regarding courtesy?

Anyways, good deeds - which ones? Support of murder of a human fetus with beating hearts and little fingers and toes?

Yes, B.W., because that's a real thing. Abortion clinics actually have people come in off the street to help them murder fetuses, particularly those with little fingers and little toes. You got me.

Reproductive rights to support sexual immorality and the spread of STD's as well as the damaging psychological effects of this lifestyle and then this, according to the federal government’s latest data 2014: Black women have nearly 32 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, at a ratio of 483 abortions per 1,000 live births. White women rate is about 8.6 abortions per 1,000 women at a ratio of 141 abortions per 1,000 live births. Hispanic women had a rate of 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women a a ratio of 218 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Interesting stats and this is called good deeds?

That's correct, B.W. I spend most of my free time advocating reckless behavior, helping to spread sexually transmitted diseases, and trying to convince black women to have as much unprotected sex as their schedules allow in an effort to widen the racial abortion gap. You are 100% correct, and not the slightest bit demented. It's like you can see inside my head.

It is amazing that human beings can measure the laws of nature thru physics and these laws are laws.

The "Laws" of nature are human constructs. They represent our best attempts to explain how and why observable phenomena work the way they do.

Next, tell us why the the below quotes are such evil to you?

Col 3:19, Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Col 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate (provoke) your children, so that they will not lose heart.

How can you say true biblical Christianity supports the oppression of women...and to be thugs in the home?

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

Eph 5:28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes...

How could any woman not respect her husband after being treated so well? Ed are you that way to your wife - I hope so.

Why do you desire to silence Christians, Ed, is that a good work for you to steal their identity justifying such theft due to delusions that Christians are bad people who beat their wives and burn people at the stake and put people under penalty of death if they don't go to church or say merry Christmas?

What is it that you find so repugnant about Col 3:19, Col 3:21, Eph 5:25, Eph 5:28, Micah 6:8? You may contend that one doesn't need a bible to tell you theses things - yet you support murder and the extinction of the human species, demand obeisance, harass, ridicule, mock Christians with a persecutory tone as well as support groups that seek to silence Christian by painting them as mind numbed zombie robots out to do harm is over the top and emotional too way beyond my anything my mere barking can do to stop crazy delusional prejudice against Christianity from metastasizing. You need to seek help and counseling for your anger. You no nothing of real Christianity, nor can you, at this moment.

What do you find so irresistible about spouting nonsense and attributing it to me?

When did I say the Bible was evil? When did I say I supported the extinction of humanity? When did I demand obeisance? When did I ridicule any individual or group of individuals? When did I call anybody a mindless zombie robot? When did I exhibit enough anger to give you the idea that I needed counseling? What on earth are you blathering about?

My words are there to be seen so I'd appreciate if you tried responding to what I actually say rather than wasting my time having a conversation with yourself and blaming me when it gets heated. This is Clint Eastwood and the empty chair all over again.

I pray that you will become born again by God's Spirit so you may find rest for your soul.

That comes across as insincere. I have no idea why...

There are consequences of violating natural law - sleep around and putting it where it was not designed to anyone leads to serious health and mental issues. Look at Miley Cyrus' as an example of this. Then again, you stated that there only 2500 atheist is the USA. Well there are more than a mere 2500 atheist in the USA. There are more than 300 professors in CSU alone and that is but one University in Colorado! What of all the universities professors and staff all over the USA -how many are there that don't believe in God?

I'm pretty sure Miley Cyrus did all that goofy crap to get her name back in the headlines. Her career was starting to fizzle, and people saw her as little Hannah Montana, so she needed to do something edgy. It makes me sad that I have enough information about Miley Cyrus to even draw a conclusion. I don't know how that happened. I don't watch E.

I stated that there were 2,500 members in American Atheists. I've heard that about 5% of the population self-identifies as atheist, which would be about 15 million in total. I don't know if that number is correct, so feel free to double check.

I have no idea how many professors there are at CSU, or in Colorado, or in the nation as a whole. Nor do I have any notion of how many of them are atheists. Nor do I care. I'm not sure what you're point is, or that I should even assume you have one.

I do admire you support of minority rights yet you do not support Christians - wow - hypocritical isn't it?

So you support and condone death, ill health, theft, and are a hypocrite - well no wonder you wish that after death one becomes non-existing decaying heap of vanishment... Good works don't cut it if all is vanity... and even the ones you do simply vanish. Who cares... unless the natural law giver judges but your pride doesn't care right now, but wait...
-
-
-

I condone theft? Usually I can to track down a possible inspiration for your non sequiturs, but here I have no idea.

None of the rest of that merits a response, so I bid you good day.

[FlawedIntellect]

In response to Mel:

Sex education was classically regarded as something parents taught to their children, though with the constant social taboo on the subject matter, parents were rather uncomfortable to talk about it with their children, which made things worse. It's important to discuss these matters without shying away from the matter just because things are "embarrassing", since long-term, the embarrassment is much worse for not talking about it than it is for talking about it. The real problem here is the whole "shelter the kids, think of the children!" mentality, rather than what it should be: "Teach the children responsibility over time and trust them to be responsible as they grow older." There's so much reckless overreacting and over-protectiveness going on. There needs to be an instilled sense of self-discipline, and building trust.

The matter of free contraceptives and the like: You do realize that means of birth control /can/ and /do/ fail sometimes? That risk is always present. Shouldn't self-discipline be taught regarding sexual desires and impulses? Tossing around free contraceptives is basically reinforcing the idea of "You're no more than an animal who can't control yourself. Here." That isn't to say that I'm completely against contraceptives. I like to think that there's a proper context and a place for their usage. HOWEVER, we've got conservative Christians that have been hoodwinked with this over-protective sheltering mentality, and then we've got on the opposite end, a sex education thing that teaches the mechanics of sex, but not the personal responsibility that comes with it. It tends to preach of condoms and birth control as though these were somehow magical anti-pregnancy objects. Condoms and birth control can be effective, but condoms can still fail under certain circumstances, do not always prevent STDs [now renamed STIs for some unknown reason], and birth control provides zero protection against STDs and, by virtue of tampering with female hormones, can have certain side effects, sometimes rather severe ones. On another note, have you ever really seen any news on what some of these sex ed courses are saying? They're not promoting sexual responsibility: They're pushing for hedonism. It's pretty disgusting to look at.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/16/taxpayer ... d-program/
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/19/video-se ... h-graders/

The reason I'm against abortion, aside from that how abortions can cause all sorts of health complications in women, even under sterile conditions, and aside from how it disvalues human life, the most basic and fundamental right that gives law its authority in the first place, is because it promotes irresponsibility.

I don't recall any conservative Christians actually being opposed to women having viable means to financially support themselves and their children, or affordable childcare and medical insurance. The thing is that right-wing conservatives want all of these things to be done privately through charities and private companies.

The thing is that the left-wing school of thought thinks that it's the government's responsibility to enforce and provide these things. The problem is that the government takes money from the people and sticks with one operations model that is (usually) not subject to change, whereas by contrast, private health care companies have operations models that /are/ subject to change, and by virtue of the need to compete to survive, companies will make efficiency their top priority.
This means that if a government is stuck with an inefficient operations model that spends far more money than it needs to in order to deliver whatever quality of care it does, it remains static and unchanging until someone in a government position gets around to fixing it. The problem here is obviously that a government-run system is guaranteed its money because of an in-flow of tax dollars, hence no incentive to improve anything. By contrast, a private company needs to meet a certain bare-minimum standard in order to survive in competition, which means that the incentive is to constantly improve, since money needs to be earned and isn't just going to be blindly given. If there's a better option, then a customer will hear about it, and if it's within their budget, they will be willing to spend more to get higher quality care, as long as the cost-benefit analysis shows that the benefits outweigh the cost.

At least, this is how I look at it.

[PaulSacramento]

I am not a conservative Christian, as most will attest here, but:
There is no reason for free contraceptives.
There are many methods to make sure you do NOT get pregnant, abstinence being the only 100% verifiable method.
It's not sex education that many people are against, it is BAD and reckless sex education that I am against ( can't speak fro anyone else).
Sex EDUCATION means teaching ALL about sex, including all the bad parts and also teaching responsibility for ones actions.
Sex education is part and has been part of the western and european school systems for decades.
I ask:
How is that working out?
EX:
In 2014, 49% of all pregnancies in Portugal ( for example) were to unwed mothers.

And while teenage pregnancies are going down, so is fertility rates so we don't know if that is the why or if the why is better contraception ( probably a combination).

If we want sex education to be about responsibility then that is not what is happening ( unless you mean responsibility to not get pregnant).


The issue with sex education is that all too often it is taught without the notion of responsibility that MUST go with it in a far broader sense than just " don't get pregnant, don't get a disease".

[B. W.]

I am not a conservative Christian, as most will attest here, but:
There is no reason for free contraceptives.
There are many methods to make sure you do NOT get pregnant, abstinence being the only 100% verifiable method.
It's not sex education that many people are against, it is BAD and reckless sex education that I am against ( can't speak fro anyone else).
Sex EDUCATION means teaching ALL about sex, including all the bad parts and also teaching responsibility for ones actions.
Sex education is part and has been part of the western and european school systems for decades.
I ask:
How is that working out?
EX:
In 2014, 49% of all pregnancies in Portugal ( for example) were to unwed mothers.

And while teenage pregnancies are going down, so is fertility rates so we don't know if that is the why or if the why is better contraception ( probably a combination).

If we want sex education to be about responsibility then that is not what is happening ( unless you mean responsibility to not get pregnant).


The issue with sex education is that all too often it is taught without the notion of responsibility that MUST go with it in a far broader sense than just " don't get pregnant, don't get a disease".

The real problem is the sin question. People sin and are lost to its pull and sway and it is humanity that made a mess of the world. So balanced sex education is necessary. Most of it these days is bad and driven from a political agenda. A feel good just do it and you can avoid the consequences so don't be a prude join us, we support fun!

Looking at it all, I am thankful Jesus Christ came to save the lost and restore fellowship with God back to human beings.

John 3:16-21 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB

We all deserve this not... but he came anyways and was nailed to a cross because our human transgressions nailed him there. All our betrayal, mocking, hate, envy, putting folks of trial in our hearts, making others carry heavy loads, passing on how to steal hearts, minds and possessions, all our slandering and bullying - justifying ways that promote death and ruin, all nailed exposing to show what we are like to God and each other. Then Jesus rose from the dead so we to can arise out of our living death and learn a new way to live in this old world that prepares us for the one to come - is amazing to me.

All Christians offer is a choice that one can freely accept or reject. That's it and for this folks condemn us... amazing but not really: "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you." John 15:18 NASB

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." John 16:33 NASB

Mr Ed, Jesus loves you so why will you not listen?
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

The real problem is the sin question. People sin and are lost to its pull and sway and it is humanity that made a mess of the world. So balanced sex education is necessary. Most of it these days is bad and driven from a political agenda. A feel good just do it and you can avoid the consequences so don't be a prude join us, we support fun!

I've been working in and around schools for a long time, and I've observed a sex ed class or two. None of them was remotely similar to the politically motivated hippy love-fest that you're describing. I also did a bit of research and learned a bit about the laws governing sex education in various states. Here are some examples:

School districts may provide comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education from kindergarten through grade 12. The information must be medically accurate, factual, and objective. In grade seven, information must be provided on the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and STIs. A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sex education earlier than grade seven may provide age-appropriate and medically accurate information.

If a school district chooses to provide sex education courses, curricula is required to be developmentally and age appropriate, medically accurate, evidence-based and complete. Requires comprehensive sex education offered in grades six through 12 to include instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and STDs. Requires course material and instruction replicate evidence-based programs or substantially incorporate elements of evidence-based programs. Requires the State Board of Education to make available sex education resource materials. Allows parents to opt out.

Schools shall adopt an AIDS prevention education program using model curriculum or district-designed curriculum approved for medical accuracy by the office on AIDS within the department of social and health services. The curriculum shall be updated as necessary to incorporate newly discovered medical facts.

By September 1, 2008, every public school that offers sexual health education must assure that sexual health education is medically and scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, appropriate for students regardless of gender, race, disability status, or sexual orientation, and includes information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. All sexual health information, instruction, and materials must be medically and scientifically accurate. Abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.

Those are three of the most liberal states in the nation, and none of them takes an "if it feels good, do it" approach to sex ed.

Can you give me an example of a state or city where their sex ed curriculum is as you describe it, or are you just making stuff up?

[B. W.]

The real problem is the sin question. People sin and are lost to its pull and sway and it is humanity that made a mess of the world. So balanced sex education is necessary. Most of it these days is bad and driven from a political agenda. A feel good just do it and you can avoid the consequences so don't be a prude join us, we support fun!

I've been working in and around schools for a long time, and I've observed a sex ed class or two. None of them was remotely similar to the politically motivated hippy love-fest that you're describing. I also did a bit of research and learned a bit about the laws governing sex education in various states. Here are some examples:

School districts may provide comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education from kindergarten through grade 12. The information must be medically accurate, factual, and objective. In grade seven, information must be provided on the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and STIs. A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sex education earlier than grade seven may provide age-appropriate and medically accurate information.

If a school district chooses to provide sex education courses, curricula is required to be developmentally and age appropriate, medically accurate, evidence-based and complete. Requires comprehensive sex education offered in grades six through 12 to include instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and STDs. Requires course material and instruction replicate evidence-based programs or substantially incorporate elements of evidence-based programs. Requires the State Board of Education to make available sex education resource materials. Allows parents to opt out.

Schools shall adopt an AIDS prevention education program using model curriculum or district-designed curriculum approved for medical accuracy by the office on AIDS within the department of social and health services. The curriculum shall be updated as necessary to incorporate newly discovered medical facts.

By September 1, 2008, every public school that offers sexual health education must assure that sexual health education is medically and scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, appropriate for students regardless of gender, race, disability status, or sexual orientation, and includes information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. All sexual health information, instruction, and materials must be medically and scientifically accurate. Abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.

Those are three of the most liberal states in the nation, and none of them takes an "if it feels good, do it" approach to sex ed.

Can you give me an example of a state or city where their sex ed curriculum is as you describe it, or are you just making stuff up?

Stated it clearly, a balanced sex education in schools is necessary. So far, the majority of the bad sex stuff has been beaten back for now but for how long? No one is certain...

From Mayo Clinic - the facts for anyone who has or had toddlers...

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20044104

Bottom line from Mayo - best is for parents teach their own kids...

Example of coming against the bad stuff:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/ ... girls.html

...with an agenda driven Govt / social engineering approach...

Which do you favor?
-
-
-

[B. W.]

More stuff recently happening...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07 ... ist-group/

http://www.myeasttex.com/news/local-new ... wkins-sign

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/29583542/chri ... s-you-sign

Persecution first begins with persistent annoyance and harassment toward a target group on the bases of race, religion, or politics that seeks to eliminate such by slow steady pounding...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Stated it clearly, a balanced sex education in schools is necessary. So far, the majority of the bad sex stuff has been beaten back for now but for how long? No one is certain...

I didn't say you didn't, and I don't disagree. I asked you to support the following assertion:

Most of it these days is bad and driven from a political agenda. A feel good just do it and you can avoid the consequences so don't be a prude join us, we support fun!

So please show me:

1) Some sort of verification that MOST of the sex education in the U.S. is "bad" and/or "driven from a political agenda."

2) An example of an actual educator telling an actual sex ed class in an actual school to stop being prudish, join the fun and just do it, because they can avoid the consequences.

Good luck with that.

From Mayo Clinic - the facts for anyone who has or had toddlers...

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20044104

Bottom line from Mayo - best is for parents teach their own kids...

You're really reaching here. The Mayo Clinic is telling the parents of toddlers to give simple explanations when they engage in self-exploration or ask questions about things like gender, physical changes, and where babies come from. They are in no way advocating for sex education to be the exclusive purview of the parents.

Example of coming against the bad stuff:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/ ... girls.html

...with an agenda driven Govt / social engineering approach...

Oh, look, it's an opinion piece full of manufactured outrage, hyperbolic language, and misleading statements. And your interpretation is great as well. Poor, poor social conservatives, forced to endure having their children told that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist and it's okay. And they can't even opt out! Oh, wait, yes they can.

Which do you favor?

Here's a quote from that Fox News op-ed piece that you claim is an example of bad sex ed, and presumably, of the persecution of Christians in America:

“Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender,” the district’s recommendations state. “Emphasis will be placed on recognizing that everyone is experiencing changes and the role of respectful, inclusive language in promoting an environment free of bias and discrimination.”

And here's a quote from a list of required topics for a public school sex ed class in Alabama:

(8) An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.

The first one is inclusive and anyone who doesn't like it can opt out. The second one is both a blatant example of persecution of homosexuals by ideologically driven lawmakers. I prefer the first one.

If you want an example of what I consider good, balanced sex ed you can scroll up and look at the state requirements that I posted earlier.

By the way, you still haven't given me a link to any law anywhere in the United States that prohibits people from praying in public. Are you ready to admit that you were making stuff up, or are you still looking?

[RickD]

Hey edwardmurphy,

I think I know who you are. Are you a cop in Beverly Hills? And after coming to America, were you a doctor who worked with animals?

[PaulSacramento]

As one teacher put it during a recent PTA meeting in which the new sex ed curriculum was being spoken about here in Ontario:
We are not teaching about good sex or bad sex or if it is right to have sex or what kind of sex is ok or right, we are simply showing that there are different kinds of sex and different kinds of sexual relationships and that as long as it is consensual, then it is between the people doing it.


Read that carefully and understand that what SEEMS to be a reasonable position has lots of very dangerous potential problems.

[edwardmurphy]

More stuff recently happening...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07 ... ist-group/

http://www.myeasttex.com/news/local-new ... wkins-sign

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/29583542/chri ... s-you-sign

Persecution first begins with persistent annoyance and harassment toward a target group on the bases of race, religion, or politics that seeks to eliminate such by slow steady pounding...

Here's a copy of the letter. I agree with them.

This isn't persecution, it's a group that's accustomed to receiving special treatment having a hissy fit because their position of entitlement is being threatened. Persecution would be if a state constitution prohibited Christians from holding elected office, which is the case for atheists in Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

[edwardmurphy]

Hey edwardmurphy,

I think I know who you are. Are you a cop in Beverly Hills? And after coming to America, were you a doctor who worked with animals?

No, I'm Gumby, damn it!