micro

Well spoken, sir. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I can see how you were so easily confused, since 50 Cent and Blue Oyster Cult sound SO FREAKIN SIMILAR, you moron!!!!! HAHAHAHAH - that was great! Lindercles better start fearing the reaper! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I can see how you were so easily confused, since 50 Cent and Blue Oyster Cult sound SO FREAKIN SIMILAR, you moron!!!!! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

which says what about the people buying his crap? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Like he was treated as described in this article, I'm assuming? Yes, for the last four and a half years, despite our not having any evidence that he was a terrorist (according to the article). Personally, as an innocent man, I can think of few things that would make me more likely to become an "anti-government guerilla" than 4.5 years of being treated worse than a zoo animal without a legitimate reason. Blues, Dave Freakin incredible isn't... and even on the plane... chained and surrounded by how many? was it a dozen or so? Sheesh. Probably didn't even get an apology when they let him go. More likely, a kick in the ass to speed him on his way. Lordie. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Not much hope? That's bull. I've known countless couples for whom it has worked flawlessly. No "accidents" no "mistakes" (as if a child should ever be called such a thing). Again, when NFP fails ( which is really a misnomer, but anyway, but meaning they got pregnant when they weren't intending to), almost 100% of the time, it's b/c the couple took a risk and had sex when there were signs of fertility. The misnomer: NFP didn't fail in those instances, the couple did. If they didn't want a possible unplanned pregnancy then, they shouldn't have ignored the signs of fertility, i.e. change in mucous texture and viscosity, basal body temperature shift, etc. etc. Other possibilities are, did the instructors misread their charts? Did they chart correctly? Did they make a mistake? If they're doing basal body temp, did the woman take temp at the same, consistent hour every morning every day? Personal disclosure time... don't read on if talk of body fluids and stuff grosses you out. My wife and I have ONLY gone on external vaginal mucous signs (as opposed to cervical mucous) because it's the most conservative way and Lori doesn't like to wake up early every morning to take her temperature nor does she like to try and examine the firmness or dilation of her cervix during to see when she's ovulated. So, on that ONE symptom, checked after going to the bathroom, we've been able to avoid or achieve pregnancy w/ a success rate of 100% for over 11 years. And our history is not rare. I can't even tell you how many of our friends and acquaintances have the same experience. No pills, no awkward fumblings for rubbers. No strong hormones. No unnecessary and serious exposure to health risks as w/ the pill. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Like he was treated as described in this article, I'm assuming? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

And as for the birth control you espouse, history has shown that no other form is less reliable. Please back up this statement w/ facts and I'll pull my literature of NFP in the meantime, mk? Remember dear friend, we are NOT talking about the rhythm method. We're talking about the sympto-thermal method of BC, aka the Billings Method or NFP. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it properly. Otherwise it rivals every other method of BC. And you admit to condom failure. And when they DO fail, and STDs are acquired, what then? Or if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, just trot on down to the abortion clinic to take care of the "accident" as if something has gone wrong w/ the act of sex (when in reality, something has gone RIGHT!). The answer is sexual continence. The answer is chastity (which differs from celibacy, BTW) before, during and after marriage. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Well, has the advent of birth control and condoms made for happier marriages? I'd say not. The divorce rate certainly doesn't reflect that (I know that the there are more factors in that, but it's part of it). There's a lot more to this that I don't have time to continue on now, although I'd like to come back to this when I have more time. As for your other point, the billings ovulation method or the sympto-thermal method of detecting ovulation is extremely effective in family planning. It's natural, no devices, no pills, no hormones. You want to avoid pregnancy, don't have sex when the female is fertile. But see, that smacks right in the face of our "convenience," "I want it now" society, doesn't it. We're not very good in this society at restraint and self-control. My wife and I have used Natural Family Planning (NFP), the sympto-thermal method, which is NOT the rythm method, all of our marriage. Each and every time we wanted a kid, boom. For five years when we did not want to conceive, no kids. It works just as well w/ irregular cycles, b/c it's NOT RYTHM. It's driven by the symptoms of fertility. Also, in your example of the 5 vs 11 kids... in MOST cases in our society, that argument is simply spurious. MOST of the time, we want to limit the number of kids not because "they'll die of starvation" if we have more, but b/c we want to maintain a certain style of life... a certain level of convenience and luxury. Yes. Not only am I her husband but I am also her kids father. They rely on me to provide for them which I cannot do if I'm unhealthy as well. It would be a very difficult but simple choice to make. But see, that's where you and I differ... I see the view of sex as recreational as detrimental to individuals, marriages, families and society. You can help to prevent people from shooting others and from engaging in self-destructive behavior with proper education, good parenting, etc. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

The problem I've always had with this argument - both re: clean needles and re: birth control - and it's also used by some to discourage education about safe sex and birth control - is the premise that giving people these things will increase the frequency of the conduct, or the corollary, that depriving people of these things will reduce the conduct. I think that basic premise is a fallacy. To the contrary, people who are already inclined to engage in that behavior will do so anyway, so giving them the devices (or education) to do it more safely promotes a net social good, whereas depriving them of those devices (or education) is just sticking one's head in the sand. Two problems I have w/ your statement: "... behavior [they] will do...anyway..." "... net social good..." I think both of those are debatable. Sure, there will always be promiscuity and probably always drug use. However, I'm not advocating taking those things away and not educating on the importance of abstaining from drugs and promiscuity. Abstinence programs work. Also, it has to do w/ how you view humanity, IMO. "Well, they're gonna do bad things anyway, might as well make a BAD thing as SAFE as possible." Why not work on helping people see that a BAD thing is a BAD thing, period? That has NOTHING to do w/ being an osterich and everything to do w/ trying to help people A) realize their fullest potential and B) avoid a road that is full of pain and suffering. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

But it feels soooo good i'll continue doing it. I also love when the doctor sticks the lighted ear instrument in my ear. Hrm...ear stuff gets me all excited, i might be a bit weird. Ya think? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

actually you do. BASE jumpers do it all the time, and malfunctions are extremely rarely an issue. Whether having a reserve is morally neutral is obviosly debatable . But malfunctions can be cut to effectively zero with careful personal choices. Wendy W. I thought your analogy was regarding skydiving. Even so, you said "effectively" zero. That's not zero. Malfunctions can and do happen do to variables outside the jumpers realm of controllability. Not so the case with human behavior and volition. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

No way. Is there REALLY a product called "Nads?" for waxing your sack? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

aw yeah baby! nothing beats walking around w/ a mentholated ballsack with a smile from ear to ear. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Not a fair analogy Wendy. People HAVE control over their behavior. They don't HAVE to engage in promiscuity or adultery. They CHOOSE to. You don't have nearly as much volitional control over your canopy malfunctioning. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I agree w/ almost everything you said. But we're not trying to change NATURE... we're trying to get the BEST of what human nature IS in front and what is WORST behind. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Sooo true... and if you're lucky you can watch the big nasty glob come out of your ear. It's been a while since I had a good ear flushing. MMMM!!! Ear wax globs!!! Mmmmmm! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I am talking about a monogamous relationship where both partners know the score and love each other. Should they never get to be intimate in that way because they cannot use protection? Each person is an autonomous being w/ free will and can do whatever they please. However, we now get into the argument of is this some form of "involuntary suicide?" Is that ethical/moral/lawful/whatever? And, what if the relationship breaks up after they have been engaging in monogamous sex and the person w/o AIDS is now infected? What if he/she doesn't think they are infected but the virus hasn't shown up yet? Now the person is in ANOTHER sexual relationship... and the problems start all over again... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Rob, I understand what you're saying. I know that promiscuity didn't begin w/ the advent of the condom. But your argument presupposes that promiscuity is either morally neutral or morally good. IMO, it is neither. Unplanned pregnancies, STDs, emotional trauma, unfaithfulness in marriage, divorces, etc. Sexual licentiousness is not a good thing. Giving people condoms so that they can safely engage in a "bad thing" is as bad as giving junkies clean needles. "Keep killing yourself w/ herion, but at least your needle is clean so you don't harm anyone else!" The problem is that you can't guarantee that the needle WON'T be used again when it ISN'T clean and you CAN'T guarantee that the condom will be used correctly. It's a bandaid for a gaping wound. It doesn't contain or correct the problem. Better, IMO, to try and help people see WHY promescuity is harmful in the beginning. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Oh really! It is not a lot of work for me Maybe you're just really big. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

So, if you make a conscious decision to be with someone who has AIDS, no sex for you? Or do you just have to get AIDS too? I mean, you are taking a chance regardless, but at least with a condom you are TRYING to keep from getting a disease. Um... You may be TRYING to keep from getting the disease but Rob, condoms break. They slip off. They are no panacea. Having sex w/ someone who has AIDS is playing Russian Roulette. Having AIDS and having sex is the pinnacle of irresponsibility, IMO

I think that is REALLY reaching. Was there infidelity before condoms were around? Of course there was. You take away the condoms, you will NOT stop premarital sex. You will just make it less safe. Do you think the a spouse thinks, "Well, I would not cheat but since we got these handy condoms things, I think I will?" I don't really think that goes through his/her mind. If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat. And if they are worried about pregnancy and they have no comdoms...well, blowjobs are still cheating. Yes, there has always been infidelity. But I really don't think this is reaching. If you think about it for a minute or two, it begins to make sense. Take away some of the external controls that would otherwise keep someone from taking that step and it is easier for them to make it. True, even if condoms weren't around, people will STILL cheat. If infidelity is in your heart, it's in your heart. It's like this... I'm late for work but if I speed up just a bit on the freeway, I could make it into the office on time. No, can't do it. There's always this state trooper sitting on the other side of that overpass over there. He'll catch me and give me a ticket. Only today, I get over the overpass, no state trooper so I accelerate and I speed up, breaking the law, to get into work on time. Lack of external controls helped this person act in an unlawful manner. And you're right... BJs are still cheating. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I don't quite understand what you're asking for w/ regard to alcohol and fat foods. Your example of couches is rediculous and doesn't deserve an answer. As for guns: making it harder for people to get them also makes it harder for people to shoot others - INCLUDING innocent law abiding citizens who shoot perpetrators while defending themselves and their families. That's hardly a good thing. As for condoms: if you need a BARRIER in order to safely engage in the most intimate, loving act that two human beings can engage in, so as to protect yourself from some possible disease you might get, should you really be having sex w/ this person anyway? At root, IMO, what condoms do is denegrate sex to a recreation activity. "Let's engage in all the pleasure that sex can give us w/o the possibility of any of the responsibility of it." Where is the mutual self-donation, the mutual self-giving? It's not there. There is a barrier between the lovers. They aren't even touching. They're feeling but what they're touching is latex or whatever condoms are made of. There's just something so impersonal about it. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...