Affirmative action can't truly said to have worked until it's no longer necessary, so in that case it's not the logic behind the argument that's wrong, it's the false premise.
In the case of birth control, however, things are very different.
Not long ago, <a href="http:\/\/www.rawstory.com\/rs\/2013\/01\/17\/why-is-pushing-creationism-so-damn-important-to-wingnuts\/" target="_blank">Pandagon</a> pointed out that in relation to the religious right&#039;s war on evolution:
<blockquote>What always interests me about defenders of creationism is how they clearly don&rsquo;t think of children as people in their own right, but instead property that you use to enact your ideological obsessions.</blockquote>
That observation has powerful explanatory effect here, too.
Yeah, but there is also &quot;My worry is that by removing potential consequences from rampant premarital sex, schools will serve to increase it, not to mention the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.&quot; Because kids everywhere are abstinent when sex has potential consequences.
<blockquote>This is an outrageous infringement on the rights of parents to <strike>care for</strike> exert total domination over every aspect of the lives of their children</blockquote>
FTFY, scold.
<blockquote>Giving out powerful, potentially harmful drugs</blockquote>
... which actually on average improve the health of those who take them.
And now, some Philip Larkin:
<blockquote>They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had, And add some extra, just for you.</blockquote>
Some more than others. Yes, IWF, I&#039;m looking at you.
It&#039;s as if somebody is just stringing together a bunch of complete nonsense in a pathetic attempt to conceal their real motives, or something?
Of course, it&#039;s completely impossible that abusive men might use condoms, despite that apparently the only conceivable way they could get caught is conception.
I suppose these morons are at least semi-consistent, given that their response to endemic gun violence has always been &quot;just don&#039;t shoot anyone&quot;, too. Of course, that&#039;s got a pretty terrible track record as well.
Is waltzing a requirement before they dispense the birth control? So schools should stop the ballroom dancing lessons. There, problem solved. You&#039;re welcome.
the only reason to read the new york post is for page 6.
Affirmative action can&#039;t truly said to have worked until it&#039;s no longer necessary, so in that case it&#039;s not the logic behind the argument that&#039;s wrong, it&#039;s the false premise.
In the case of birth control, however, things are very different.
Not long ago, <a href="http:\/\/www.rawstory.com\/rs\/2013\/01\/17\/why-is-pushing-creationism-so-damn-important-to-wingnuts\/" target="_blank">Pandagon</a> pointed out that in relation to the religious right&#039;s war on evolution:
<blockquote>What always interests me about defenders of creationism is how they clearly don&rsquo;t think of children as people in their own right, but instead property that you use to enact your ideological obsessions.</blockquote>
That observation has powerful explanatory effect here, too.
Yeah, but there is also &quot;My worry is that by removing potential consequences from rampant premarital sex, schools will serve to increase it, not to mention the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.&quot; Because kids everywhere are abstinent when sex has potential consequences.
I heard it was a painful subject.
<blockquote>This is an outrageous infringement on the rights of parents to <strike>care for</strike> exert total domination over every aspect of the lives of their children</blockquote>
FTFY, scold.
<blockquote>Giving out powerful, potentially harmful drugs</blockquote>
... which actually on average improve the health of those who take them.
And now, some Philip Larkin:
<blockquote>They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had, And add some extra, just for you.</blockquote>
Some more than others. Yes, IWF, I&#039;m looking at you.
Limbo.
Something something &quot;with my pains behind me&quot;
I know, right?
It&#039;s as if somebody is just stringing together a bunch of complete nonsense in a pathetic attempt to conceal their real motives, or something?
Of course, it&#039;s completely impossible that abusive men might use condoms, despite that apparently the only conceivable way they could get caught is conception.
I suppose these morons are at least semi-consistent, given that their response to endemic gun violence has always been &quot;just don&#039;t shoot anyone&quot;, too. Of course, that&#039;s got a pretty terrible track record as well.
Is waltzing a requirement before they dispense the birth control? So schools should stop the ballroom dancing lessons. There, problem solved. You&#039;re welcome.
I didn&#039;t even get that. Had to learn it on my own time.
Students are &quot;waltzing into health centers?&quot; Would that be the Blue Vein Waltz?
I know. I could never get in.
<i>&quot;(The rate of teen pregnancy in the city has dropped more than 25 percent in a decade.)&quot;</i>
I&#039;m no intellectual at the NYPost level of reasoning, but doesn&#039;t this unravel her argument?