CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I would rather have to pay for someone else to have condoms or some pills than have to pay for their accidentally conceived, unwanted bastard children.
What about wanted non-bastard children who, after they've killed a number of people, kill themselves. Are they not a problem?
Also, what about wanted non-bastard children who are/were grotesque serial killers/rapist (Jeffrey, Ted, the usual)? No problem?
What about non-bastard wanted children who are pedophiles and/or child rapist (Warren Jeff, and others convicted pedos who, typ., are mostly white)? Problem free right?
Could this be a detestation of a certain race (I mean... come on... we all know this was racially gestured towards black males) simply because the are much more endowed (if you know what I mean)?
Mommy and daddy instilled racial propaganda, and your simple (albeit 'supreme') mind cannot realize how ridiculous racism is? (Though, let me guess, you probably are an atheist because you realized how ridiculous religion is... right?)
a) My original post was not aimed towards black males, nor do I think any previous posts were.
b) You could be considered racist with your generalization that black males are "much more endowed"
c) I don't have anything against other races; if any of my previous posts seem or are racist, you should take note that I did not intend them to seem or be that way.
d) I like to describe myself as an nihilistic atheistic existentialist
Not much else to say but to call you a cunt and tell you to fuck off so...
"1)That "endowed" generalization is scientifically accurate so don't postulate me being racist because of your scientific ignorance." Actually it isn't. There is no positive correlation between ethnicity and "endowment".
This is an impartial reference. Notably, it is pointing out those who claimed blacks are bigger have ignored evidence contesting claims within their claims (basically, they just are trying to annul their credibility).
I already knew black males on average are typically larger than white and Asian males, moreover you could tell this is inclined to be true based on the average female anatomy in regards to vaginal space differing amongst races. http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/05/racial-differences-in-vaginal.html
I typically would not have used a reference because I have learned this. So I just binged the question and the first thing that came up was answers.com
Just because it says "oxford" does not mean it is entirely true. We can do a "source war" from a bunch of viable sources. But in the end, we all know that race and penis size correlate. You may not like the idea of black males (not all) being superior in the part of the body most women tend to care (sexually) about, but it is what it is.
===
Another point undirected to you: I think white males hate black males so much because out of all the (bad) things in life white males are glad to not experience (racial stigmas etc.) the one most wanted thing (most) white males cannot experience is fully satisfying a girl sexually. And those same males have animosity towards the unworthy "niggers" that can. Of course they won't admit to blacks being better than whites in the most wanted areas, but, hey, life goes on.
---
to clarify: all natural blacks (super dark) are the ones with bigger penises, not the mixtures--which studies like to include when talking about races rendering their conclusion contentious/dubious.
"We all know" is not a legitimate argument, harvard. We have all HEARD that is the case, but that does not mean anyone "knows it". Trying to imply insecurity on my part, without even knowing my gender or ethnicity, is pretty lame as well, especially when you are coming at me with a blog and an unreferenced answers.com article.
And out of curiosity, have you seen some sort of studies on males ability to sexually satisfy women based on ethnicity, or are you just playing off of racial stereotypes.
1) I clearly stated "undirected towards you". Kill the straw mans.
2) In addition to #1 in regards to your straw man I clearly made my second paragraph n "off the record". It wasn't meant to be an argument but of course with straw men you can deter the crux of my argument to be centered toward an off the record.
3) I clearly clarified as to why I used that [answers.com] article. Kill the sophistry.
4) I have anecdotal evidence (and anatomical) that women prefer bigger penises. And since black males generally have bigger penises, then vaginal intercourse with a random black male is inclined to be nevertheless satisfactory.
"You may not like the idea of black males (not all) being superior in the part of the body most women tend to care (sexually) about, but it is what it is."
Clearly, huh? That's why you used the words "you may not like"? You may want to look into what a straw man is, harvard.
And anecdotal evidence means nothing. Women prefer different things depending on a wide variety of factors, you personal experiences don't change that.
And you still haven't provided any legitimate evidence of either high satisfaction from black males, or larger penis size. Just racial stereotypes.
Women prefer different things depending on a wide variety of factors, you personal experiences don't change that.
Sexually, as I said (more straw mans), through intercourse, a larger penis provides more pleasure because it gives a woman a "full" feeling, a felling which they enjoy. If you have a larger penis, such a the general black male populous, you can satisfy (al least in one way) fully (pun intended) , through sexual intercourse.
I never excluded all other possibilities of satisfying women, I clearly was just speaking on intercourse.
You may not like the idea of black males (not all) being superior in the part of the body most women tend to care (sexually) about, but it is what it is.- wasn't the crux of my argument. The point I was trying to get across was that black males on average have larger penises than whites. This could (and does sometimes) cause white males to detest blacks more than they irrationally already do.
Come to realize, I also see that I said "part of the body" implying an appendage. So you see how equated general satisfaction of females with black males is a straw man misrepresenting what I said. I never said black males satisfy all factors regarding sex, I only said on average blacks have bigger dicks, women like dicks that can fill them up, blacks have a thing they like, thus providing services containing high likeability (and Latinos but that's another story, a story witch involves Latino cultures enforcing the ability to dance amongst their ethnic groups starting at a young age. And that ability to dance impacts sexual motor skills in a positive manner, that's real anecdotal evidence ;).
Second, since the size of the vagina differs between women, the optimal size of the penis for said women will obviously change. For a smaller woman, a larger penis will cause pain, for example. Still waiting for evidence of any positive correlation between ethnicity and penis size, by the way.
And while I now recognize the nuance in what you said between psychological vs physiological sexual satisfaction, the failure of recognizing it hardly constitutes a straw man.
Regardless, I am more interested in comparing evidence of a statistical trend than I am in forms of arguments.
And you say this without providing evidence that there isn't? Okay. I provided a source (aside from "answers") which you've disregarded. Of course I cannot show you 3 million black dicks and 3 million white dicks (which you are implicitly suggesting) but I can show you stats from sources. Now you may disregard them all while requesting them (makes sense?) but I guess its a waste of time if you just keep proffering contentious sources that are not even directly refuting what I am saying because even they do not have evidence to provide. So instead they just sit back and say "well you were wrong about this" "and you were wrong about that" instead of actually substantiating the contrary with real evidence.
Second, since the size of the vagina differs between women, the optimal size of the penis for said women will obviously change. For a smaller woman, a larger penis will cause pain, for example
Well done... Like that wasn't obvious. But the truth of the matter is most women have a vagina that accommodates sizes much bigger than 4 inches. I love when people say "a girls vagina is 4in deep so you don't really need that much to please them" while the women are clearly suggesting the contrary. I have never heard a woman claim that she prefers 2-4in penises. I am sure some (albeit extremely rare) do but most will never claim such a thing.
Articles say that to make smaller guys feel better about themselves, but women prefer in the middle average penises (as in the average is 5.3-7in and women prefer around the 6-61/2 region. Any lower can still do but they will have to be extremely talented in other areas if they wish to please.
And women get used to large penises. Not every woman that can take big guys has always had the ability to do so. And it is when the get used to larger penises is when they like it much more than the smaller ones. (Like virgins when they first have sex, it hurts really bad, but the minute they get used to intercourse it feels extremely better.)
You keep claiming you have sources you can cite, and yet you are not citing referenced sources. THAT is my problem with answers.com, it is a notoriously unreliable website and you used it without any material to back it up. Additionally, the source I provided, if you read the whole thing, talks about the problems with the studies that make any claims about ethnic differences in penis size. They talk about WHY there is no evidence for them to provide, because their evidence, like the evidence used in the studies you have cited, would be flawed.
"Well done... Like that wasn't obvious. But the truth of the matter is most women have a vagina that accommodates sizes much bigger than 4 inches. I love when people say "a girls vagina is 4in deep so you don't really need that much to please them" while the women are clearly suggesting the contrary. I have never heard a woman claim that she prefers 2-4in penises. I am sure some (albeit extremely rare) do but most will never claim such a thing." Ok? Not sure what you are trying to prove there, exactly.
"Articles say that to make smaller guys feel better about themselves, but women prefer in the middle average penises (as in the average is 5.3-7in and women prefer around the 6-61/2 region. Any lower can still do but they will have to be extremely talented in other areas if they wish to please." And yet you claimed that women prefer larger penises, not ones that accommodate the average length of the vagina.
"And women get used to large penises. Not every woman that can take big guys has always had the ability to do so. And it is when the get used to larger penises is when they like it much more than the smaller ones. (Like virgins when they first have sex, it hurts really bad, but the minute they get used to intercourse it feels extremely better.)" Are you implying that the vaginal lining stretches over time? If so, I've got some sources for you :P
I gave you TWO sources after I clarified why I used "answers". Yet you are constantly regressing back to answers.com as if that is the only source I provided.
reread those two paragraphs to get the point.
Are you implying that the vaginal lining stretches over time? If so, I've got some sources for you :
have you head the phrase "no walls"? As in, the vagina feels looser for a smaller guy from being penetrated (regularly) by a much bigger guy.
have you head the phrase "no walls"? As in, the vagina feels looser for a smaller guy from being penetrated (regularly) by a much bigger guy.
A little more to it than that.
It's not just being penetrated regularly by a bigger guy, but relatively recently. It does not take a long dry spell for the lining to return to (close to) their original dimensions, barring severe trauma (childbirth, prolonged intercourse with a very large member with insufficient lubrication, etc).
It's also indicative of a foreplay failure on the guys part. A womans anatomy is very responsive. A woman who is too tight is typically loosened up somewhat during foreplay by inserting an increasing number of fingers; she gradually stretches to accomodate these without having to stretch all at once to accomodate the penis painfully. This can work in reverse as well, in a sense; stimulating the vagina with a small object (say, two fingers, one finger, etc) will encourage the tissue to expand somewhat; this type of foreplay makes her very tight on entry, almost regardless of her past experiences.
And of course, a woman's own practices have an effect as well; a woman who does kegels (or similar excercises regularly) will have a firmer, tighter, and more flexible fit.
Of all these factors, I can tell you with certainty that foreplay is the foremost of these, and any guy with a current partner can observe the effect I've mentioned with their current partner. If your partner is willing to try kegels, you can observe the effect that those have directly as well. As far as the 'recently' bit goes, well... you'd need to find a girl already used to someone larger than you and remain exclusive with her for a good while to test this, but it should be doable in theory. For me, it was noticing the changes in an on-and-off relationship I had with a girl over the course of years, with different partners in between for both of us.
I was going to address most if not all of your post, but you seem to be too much of a cunt to see past your irrationality. I will not reply to anymore of your posts due to the reason I have given. My last statement to you is GTFO and KYS.
Since when did serial killers have anything to do with the nature of this debate? We were discussing how much money an illegitimate, bastard child who was accidentally conceived by people who can't support it themselves would cost the state. Not the likelihood of a child born out of wedlock turning out to be a murder, pedophile, rapist compared to one born in wedlock. You've really gone way beyond the point.
You are speaking about yourself of course. The world would be a better place without you correct? The self love and arrogance of pro choice loonies is beyond rational. The utter inhumanity of any people to sacrifice others for their own sake is beyond hideous.
Hate on prochoice people all you like the fact is a fetus has no right to live. If you live of another persons body, like a parasite, then that person has every right to remove the parasite if they want to. Furthermore this is considering the most fetuses do not have minds so cannot even be considered alive more than any other insentient organism such as a jellyfish or a plant.
Talk about parasites! The Left is made up of parasites living off Government. You total hypocrite. Is your answer to kill all the parasites on the Left? These parasites also have no minds to think with. They think between their legs and social services locations.
Don't just assume I am left-wing just because I support the abortion. I am actually very right wing. I hate the leftie shirkers who live off the dole while the hardworking middle class support them.
We shouldn't kill the left wing people who live off the state just remove their benefits or "welfare" or "social security" or whatever you call it in the US and make them stand on their own two feet.
The existence of these left-wing parasites is a reason to support abortion because an unwanted child is likely to become a parasite who lives off the state.
Listen, I'm glad you are not a mindless Liberal who supports the insanity of easy welfare for able bodied people. What you need to understand is that killing our most innocent children is NOT THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM. You must be God to know what the future would bring for a Baby aborted. Do you have clue how many great people came form poverty? Many affluent mothers who can easily support their children have abortions. What you re saying is a pathetic excuse to allow the inhumanity to continue. A very selfish mindset. Are you glad your mother did not think that way with you?
It is no different to killing pond-life. The early stage fetus can't think. It is not sentient, it has no mind.
You must be God to know what the future would bring for a Baby aborted
You believe that all aborted children go to heaven. If this is true then women are doing them a favor my aborting them.
Do you have clue how many great people came form poverty
There is a great difference between coming from poverty and coming from an arsehole family who chose a slovenly, lazy life. There are some kids my age that have never had a parent in work. With an example like that to follow there is no way for them to go far in life.
Lets say we have a young child named something like "Charmaine", whose parents detest the idea of working and are on benefits Whose parents conceived her accidentally, before their time and never wanted a kid. Who live in a rundown flat in a dodgy area. Whose school if full of the vile, misbehaved offspring of the underclass where over two in three of the kids there fail their GCSEs (or high-school diploma or whatever the US equivalent is). Is it really likely that, in these conditions, Charmaine will get anywhere in life at all? I'm going to say that in all likelihood Charmaine will just be another benefits scrounger like the rest of lower-class people.
While there are many out there who will say "I don't want to pay for someone else's sex", the reality is that free birth control would not only pay for itself, but would over all save the country money. It would decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, which would help cut the costs to our social safety net. It would also decrease crime rates, as unwanted or unexpected children in lower income areas quite often coincide with increased crime rates (for reasons that should be rather clear).
Your clear reference was to free birth control leading to fewer unwanted births.
the reality is that free birth control would not only pay for itself, but would over all save the country money. It would decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms aren't the issue when it comes to free birth control. The cost of birth control can't be an issue condoms are already dispensed for free in our schools.
So why not try to help fix the ISSUE.
Hmmmm lets see, condons aren't the issue, free condoms are already available ----------- What was that issue we gota fix again.
It would also decrease crime rates, as unwanted or unexpected children in lower income areas quite often coincide with increased crime rates (for reasons that should be rather clear
Again, CONDOMS aren't the issue when it comes to free birth control, generally speaking the pill is.
And are you saying it isn't clear why an increase in unwanted and unsupported children contributes dramatically to an increase in crime in lower income areas?
I don't know how much they are in the US, though, and the UK is the place where they are the most expensive (although you can get them for free at various places).
I agree that they are not rights, but look at it pragmatically Daver: Would you rather pay for women to get the pill, or would you rather pay (directly or indirectly) for the consequences of these unwanted children? One way or another (be it social services, law enforcement, societal cost from crime, etc) you will pay for it, but the amount you pay will differ depending on how proactive you'd like to be.
IMO the government need not be in the business of paying for contraception, nor a baby born to someone who can't / won't care for it. Safety nets are needed, but support nets for people making poor choices are not in the purview of government.
Would you rather pay for the deaths of families in their homes when not allowed to have guns for protection and are killed by intruders? If they could not afford guns should Government pay for the guns for their own self protection? Do you people EVER get some semblance of awareness of the ludicrous arguments you make when it comes to things you want paid for by Government? When it comes to things you don't like, you always find an excuse why it should not be covered. It is truly boring bantering words with such one sided hypocrites.
Why are you making up a fake comparison instead of arguing the ACTUAL topic? Again: I SUPPORT gun rights. I am pro-2nd amendment.
And again: Do you recognize that paying for birth control would save this country MONEY? Or are you just against it on principal, regardless of the utility of the matter?
And why do you keeping calling me a hypocrite when it doesn't make sense? I am failing to see how you think that word is defined.
Population growth is at an alarming rate that poses innumerable threats to the economy and ecology. The government should do whatever to help push prevention methods. It's not a mere matter of personal responsibility, it is a global crisis that needs to be dealt with carefully.
Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust. I'm sure you are for forcing tax payers to fund abortions through medicaid, etc. If you are so afraid of population growth, start your own free birth control condom banks for the people ok? I mean gee, a condom costs a whole dollar or free in most places. NAHHH, YOU WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO PAY FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTIONS.
"Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust." Wow. That is so, SO far off. The Nazi's believed the Jews had TOO much power, and TOO much wealth, and that they were taking advantage of the German people. Which is the exact opposite of the poorly done comparison you made.
And you will be paying, indirectly or directly, for the repercussions one way or another. If you are proactive, you will pay less. If you are reactive, you will pay more. You can pitch a fit if you want, but the societal cost will remain, be it through government action, or through social repercussions (crime, unemployment, etc).
I'm sure you are for forcing tax payers to fund abortions through medicaid, etc.
I am not a big fan of abortion either, but making it illegal is one of the worst solutions. Abortion made illegal just goes underground where it is more dangerous. The right solution is to make prevention extremely accessible to everyone, and to boost sex education. Sex ed is disastrous right now. I didn't take sex ed until I was 17, and it was one class about 30 minutes long.
If you are so afraid of population growth, start your own free birth control condom banks for the people ok? I mean gee, a condom costs a whole dollar or free in most places. NAHHH, YOU WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO PAY FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTIONS.
We already have a system where people can decide to create condom banks for people, and as you can tell it isn't working.
Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust.
Hmmmm, so your argument is that making abortions illegal would take it underground where some women might accidentally die? So you have no problem with the MILLIONS of Babies being killed every year. That's your reasoning?
You do realize that the GOP only wants laws to prevent abortions on demand past five months(unless life of mother)? If you say you are not a big fan of abortions, you should support this correct?
I always get a laugh at people who say they are not big fans of abortions, or they say they are personally against abortions for themselves, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.... tell me, why are these people not big fans of or personally opposed to abortion if it is not killing an innocent living growing human being. Ask yourself why you are not big fan of abortions. If the answer is because you know it is killing another living human being, HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF OTHERS TO KILL INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS?
"Hmmmm, so your argument is that making abortions illegal would take it underground where some women might accidentally die? So you have no problem with the MILLIONS of Babies being killed every year. That's your reasoning?" You don't seem to realize that people have different beliefs on when life begins. Many don't think that a zygote is a life.
"You do realize that the GOP only wants laws to prevent abortions on demand past five months(unless life of mother)? If you say you are not a big fan of abortions, you should support this correct?" Some in the GOP only want that, others want to outlaw abortion ENTIRELY.
"I always get a laugh at people who say they are not big fans of abortions, or they say they are personally against abortions for themselves, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.... tell me, why are these people not big fans of or personally opposed to abortion if it is not killing an innocent living growing human being. Ask yourself why you are not big fan of abortions. If the answer is because you know it is killing another living human being, HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF OTHERS TO KILL INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS?" Again, because people have different beliefs regarding human life. You need to get that through your head.
If you want to understand the GOP read their intellectuals. I really doubt that the GOP, who has as its main intellectual Ayn Rand, is going to be a big anti-abortion pusher. I mean, have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? That's who Rand Paul is named after.
Birth control should be free With all the greed in this world, a budget for free birth control is not only necessary because of rape, experimentation of sexuality (aka human nature) and any other miscellaneous reasoning to one's bennefit, but plausible to women and society. How? Let me tell you. For one rape happens every few minutes, this means children are accidentally conceived, the solution is birth control. You can not control human nature either, sex is going to happen, birth control should be available the moment a girl gets her period. Complain all you want about where your money goes. You have no idea where your money even does go, do it for a good cause. Stop being greedy. Do not even call me greedy for a second because I am only worrying about us women and what benefits us, you should too.
I can see it coming a mile away! Liberals declaring that a woman has a constitutional right to have a cock put in her vagina without a condom attached and without risk of pregnancy. Therefore, she has a right to free birth control pills or any other method she so desires. It is a privacy issue after all, just like abortion.
Personally I'm on the pill because it stops my periods and allows me to concentrate on studying, not being in a ridiculous amount of pain. And yes, I get it for free because contraceptives are free on the NHS and I don't pay for prescription being a full time student.
Talking about people that actually have sex, condoms (which are also birth control) break. People get drunk and forget them, and if a child is produced the state has to pay out for education, child support or quite likely their care home.
I'm guessing that in your opinion BC pills should be free. The reasons being that you want to avoid menstrual pain (which can be severe in some some women) plus the pill provides better protection than condoms. Further the pill provides protection in case someone makes two poor decisions at the same time (drunken sex). I agree that those are significant benefits, but I'm failing to understand why you believe taxpayers should provide them to you at their expense. :-/
Returning to the posted topic and my comment: Tax money is not extra cash that people have lying around. It is money they pay to provide for the essential functions of government. Quite clearly for the common good.
When governments start dispensing, so called free things to individuals, a line is crossed that leads to unfairness, misuse, division, mistrust. Virtually all of the division and ranker that currently beset the US government, pitting citizen against citizen, is rooted in this overextending of governments essential role.
I think most people actually do want to pay for things. Most people would feel bad for stealing or mooching. With taxes, people feel they are not getting a value equivalent to what they pay. There's a big difference between taxes other forms of payment.
Basically what GenericName said was succinct, but additionally I'm guessing that most tax obligated citizens who go out of their way to pay taxes (to the point of breaking the law) wouldn't collectively contribute more than a percent of our revenues.
Yes, people CHOOSE to get drunk and then have a ludicrous excuse to do stupid irresponsible things. I never got drunk when I was young..... gee how is that possible? According to those on the Left there is no fault for anything people choose to do. That's the problem with this sickening new age political correct drivel.
Idiots tell people that alcoholism is a disease and no one's fault. What a crock! If that person chose not to drink too much, he would have never become an alcoholic. No fault!
They tell everyone it's not your fault when you choose to have sex with losers who would never be a father to their child, and when you get pregnant you run down to the tax payers to bail you out. No fault!
You choose to buy houses you could never afford and the Government blames the banks.... No fault!
This left wing America is a dead man walking. The no fault ideology will be the death to this nation. We will die from within. No foreign power needed.
You know it is incredibly hard not to use the name fool with you. But I'm trying. Hey wait a minute, I will just call you an incredibly angry person and in your self absorbed world it is not an insult. That's a nice thing to say to someone. Insults hurt people, but calling them an incredibly angry person is a kind uplifting thing to say.
Can you explain how calling someone angry is insulting?
I'll admit it is no compliment, but considering how you spend your time on this website screaming at people, or about people, I fail to see how pointing out the overwhelming amount of negativity emanating from your posts constitutes an insult.
I've never been drunk either. (I've had a small amount of alcohol and suddenly became terrified of all the extra attention I was having to put into walking and started drinking ridiculous amounts of water and eating bitter things (like willow bark, or instant coffee granules))
I just accept that there are some things I don't understand. The desire to be drunk one of them, probably because I'm a control freak. I do know however that 'young' people get drunk and end up doing stupid things like sleeping with other people without contraception. I do know that people can get addicted to alcohol and that addiction is very hard to break. In the UK, when industries like fishing and steel collapse, the rise in unemployment brings a rise in alcoholism as the people turn to drink because their livelihoods have been taken away. I have yet to understand the amount of pain someone must feel in order to give their life away to a drug. Of course this has nothing to do with the party culture (of which my experience is zero) which this is all about, off track, off track. I can only guess at why people start drinking so much informally: thinking that they know better, overestimating their capacity to drink, competition, conformity? Of course it's their fault that they drink too much. But let's face it. They're citizens of a state and the state has to look after its citizens. It can't just say 'ah, do what you want, what do I care anyway?', it has to look at ways to alter culture to ensure safety and reduce expenditure. The citizens are the country.
That is the typical answer to no fault Liberals who basically say, some people will do stupid irresponsible things and therefore we will force others to pay for the consequences.
Do you have a clue how damaging that kind of bleeding heart thinking has been to this nation?
Imagine if we used that same type of reasoning to things hypocrite Liberals are against. Lets use your reasoning and put it into action for those who do stupid things such as getting drunk and driving. Are you against laws that say getting drunk is no excuse for drunk driving because you are taking a chance you might harm others. But I thought you said getting drunk and doing stupid things is not something to condemn. You say "They're citizens of a state and the state has to look after its citizens". Hmmmmmmm..... does choosing to get drunk, sleeping with an idiot dead beat who would probably abandon his child, taking the chance of getting pregnant, etc. harm others? Yes it harms that child who never asked to be fatherless and never asked to live a demeaning life of welfare, living off charity from others. It hurts the tax payers and society as a whole when they are forced to support the mother and child. But in your world, that analogy does not resonate.
How about when someone gets drunk and then sets a Forrest on fire by accident. Not his fault right? We won't condemn him or fine him will we? Not his fault?.... people do stupid things don't you know? Another analogy that just does not resonate with Liberal thinking. People such as yourself have no problem forcing accountability for those types of things but when it comes to sex or drugs or drinking irresponsibly, etc. you say let them be, don't shame them, they are citizens of the state don't you know?
Liberals are so quick to judge and punish those who dare break their rules, but choosing to get drunk, having irresponsible sex, living off the tax payers and sentencing an innocent child to a lousy life is no one's fault. We will say and do nothing about it.
I didn't say once that getting drunk wasn't someone's fault. Indeed, I said the exact opposite. What you seem to disagree with is that there are situations that make it more likely for people to drink: like unemployment, poor education etcetera. You seem to like stereotyping and ignore anything that doesn't fit in the little boxes. People are like electrons. They bounce around and do their own thing but they can be directed and controlled. When creating electronic devices, engineers try to make them as efficient as possible by reducing any resistance.
In many parts of the world access to birth control is a barrier. It is a barrier to women's equality and health. It is a barrier to the growth of the country. In developed countries access to birth control is also important. $20 a week is a lot of money. Condoms can be expensive, although if condoms were not available free I think more competition would drive the price down. The economic argument is simple. If free birth control encourages more people to use it, the state does not have to spend as much money and the people also have more disposable income which is good for the economy.
About the whole drunk thing, a lot of people get drunk regularly. The intelligence of their choice is not the subject of this debate. If a woman gets drunk and ends up sleeping with some random guy while on the pill: no pregnancy, no abortion, or no child in care. Or maybe she slept with her boyfriend, or even husband. Whoever it was, if she got pregnant and couldn't afford to keep another child the outcome is the same.
EDIT: Do you care so little for debating that you copy and paste your arguments?
If free birth control encourages more people to use it, the state does not have to spend as much money and the people also have more disposable income which is good for the economy.
That argument is based, not only on the assumption that government should take on the responsibility of shielding citizens from the consequences of their poor decisions, but also that the government should take a step that encourages poor decision making. I reject these assumptions as invalid.
Humans will always make bad decisions. We as a society can either choose to say "Well they shouldn't!", or we can try to mitigate the effect of said mistakes. The first choice accomplishes nothing, short of making certain people feel better about themselves, while the other will save society time and money.
Everybody makes stupid decisions. Some people get drunk. Other people refuse completely to walk the same way back as they came causing them to get hopelessly lost in the middle of the night (that would be me). I don't see how the pill encourages poor decisions. It doesn't remove all the consequences of sleeping with someone without a condom. It only removes 1 possible consequence.
One very important consequence don't you agree. The main, the important, one everyone is worried about consequence.
But that's enough off topic.
Why is is right, why is it proper, why is it even a good idea for the government to take someone else's money and spent it, not on national defense, not on building roads, not for the common good, but instead so you can study more comfortably?
I think that dangerous STI's such as AIDS are a million times more worrying than pregnancy. The emotional consequences can also be pretty harsh for some people and there are social consequences to consider also. Some people regard their reputation as more important than anything.
It wasn't a matter of being able to study 'comfortably' it was being able to study at all. I took time off school when I was on my period because of the pain being such a huge distraction that I would not be able to understand what is normally either easy or slightly challenging. It isn't my fault that I'm female or that I had overly painful periods and this clearly put me at a disadvantage for a few years. If not just one, but many, students are incapable of using +/-25% of their government-funded schooling time effectively, is this not a bad thing? For me, it was up to 1 week off school a month incapable of studying when it was at its worst. Painkillers would last up to an hour and then I would have to last another 3 hours before I could take another.
Yes I understand the pain, and I'm truly sorry that you suffer in such a way. In my long life I have met many women that experience painful periods.
Your topic is Should birth control be free?
Your meaning is should the taxpayer buy "The Pill" and give it to people who want to have sex without getting pregnant.
Your justification is that in doing so the government is avoiding future cost.
By this logic does it not follow that the government should provide drugs to addicts as a means to prevent future crime. Or perhaps provide jobs for everyone to prevent poverty that also can lead to crime. What of providing education at all junior colleges as Obama has just proposed here in the US.
I say NO. Government entitlement programs are largely failures in terms of providing for the common good.
"By this logic does it not follow that the government should provide drugs to addicts as a means to prevent future crime. Or perhaps provide jobs for everyone to prevent poverty that also can lead to crime. What of providing education at all junior colleges as Obama has just proposed here in the US." No, that does not follow at all. It SHOULD provide addicts with rehabilitation programs, and legalize and regulate drugs to at least harmful substances being on the market.
And why not junior colleges? If not junior colleges, why high school?
What a laugh, no response to the entire point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Drunk driving????????????????
Are you ok with drunk driving being against the law? Or is it ok since they got drunk and did not know what they were doing. In your lunatic reasoning, they could be in situations that make them more likely to drink, like unemployment, poor education, etc.
Not their fault right? Tell that to the mother whose child was killed by a drunk driver. Or better yet, tell that to the child born with no father after that drunken one night stand.
Do you EVER look at your positions and think to yourself... I'm live in a world of double standards and therefore am a moron.
Are you ok with drunk driving being against the law? Or is it ok since they got drunk and did not know what they were doing. In your lunatic reasoning, they could be in situations that make them more likely to drink, like unemployment, poor education, etc.
Drink driving is against the law. Therefore, if someone drinks and drives they are guilty of an offence. If they have had a difficult life that creates a strong tendency to drink, not present in others, then this is used as mitigation in sentencing. What part of that don't you understand angry man?
Time to ignore you. You are not that stupid to know exactly what I am saying and you refused to address it.
If getting drunk can not be an excuse for drunk driving(because it is not), then it CAN NOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR GETTING PREGNANT AND LIVING OFF THE TAX PAYER.
Another is that the government has the power to mitigate the consequences of getting drunk, or to prevent people from drinking so much they lose control.
These points address your entire argument about any occasion of getting drunk and doing something stupid because they are largely generalised.
Take your pathetic rants of "straw men" and ignore me. You refuse to address the points, you constantly rant about nonsense because you know my arguments have merit. Is it time to ignore you for wasting our time?
A straw man is a logical fallacy, and therefore has no merit. You bring up points that lack both relevance, and merit, then declare yourself the winner.
If your arguments had merit, why would you have to resort to logical fallacies and self declarations of victory?
That is the typical answer to no fault Liberals who basically say, some people will do stupid irresponsible things and therefore we will force others to pay for the consequences.
Do you have a clue how damaging that kind of bleeding heart thinking has been to this nation?
Imagine if we used that same type of reasoning to things hypocrite Liberals are against. Lets use your reasoning and put it into action for those who do stupid things such as getting drunk and driving. Are you against laws that say getting drunk is no excuse for drunk driving because you are taking a chance you might harm others. But I thought you said getting drunk and doing stupid things is not something to condemn. You say "They're citizens of a state and the state has to look after its citizens". Hmmmmmmm..... does choosing to get drunk, sleeping with an idiot dead beat who would probably abandon his child, taking the chance of getting pregnant, etc. harm others? Yes it harms that child who never asked to be fatherless and never asked to live a demeaning life of welfare, living off charity from others. It hurts the tax payers and society as a whole when they are forced to support the mother and child. But in your world, that analogy does not resonate.
How about when someone gets drunk and then sets a Forrest on fire by accident. Not his fault right? We won't condemn him or fine him will we? Not his fault?.... people do stupid things don't you know? Another analogy that just does not resonate with Liberal thinking. People such as yourself have no problem forcing accountability for those types of things but when it comes to sex or drugs or drinking irresponsibly, etc. you say let them be, don't shame them, they are citizens of the state don't you know?
Liberals are so quick to judge and punish those who dare break their rules, but choosing to get drunk, having irresponsible sex, living off the tax payers and sentencing an innocent child to a lousy life is no one's fault. We will say and do nothing about it.
Should guns be free? I need a gun for protection in our home. Shouldn't people who can not afford guns for protection, have the tax payers pay for them? By the time a police officer gets to my house, we will be dead. I think my families protection is every bit as important as a woman's protection against pregnancy.
Ok lets make a compromise? I won't ask you to pay for my guns and I won't pay for your contraceptives.
GET REAL! Buy your own birth control! Condoms are dirt cheap or free.
The whole gun analogy doesn't work. Burglary is rare, something a person can expect to go their entire lives without experiencing if they live in a safe area. Sex is common, and pregnancy costs the country: especially unwanted pregnancies where a child is given into care.
If you're not an idiot you should know that birth control has other uses. Condoms protect against these sometimes fatal, sometimes irritating things we call STI's. Y'know, like AIDS and syphilis.
Birth control is not cheap. If I had to pay for the pill I would be spending £15/week, which is a lot. More than I spend on food.
There is no analogy that would ever be good enough for brainwashed folks such as yourself. This is why I don't respond to half of your excuses. There is nothing that could ever be said to get through your indoctrination.
here is no analogy that would ever be good enough for brainwashed folks such as yourself. This is why I don't respond to half of your excuses
Is there anyone that disagrees with you that is actually worth debating with to you? You are a horrible person just plain horrible. The way you treat people is completely unacceptable.
Let's call the IB indoctrination, it probably is. Especially that Theory of Knowledge, and Literature is definitely a sketchy subject never mind the Geography HL extension on global interactions.
You have not actually provided a good enough demonstration that his analogy is bad. If burglary is so rare then you only have to spend money one time to protect someone for life. Since you don't need to get super fancy with a gun for home protection $500 will be good enough. $500 to prevent burglary is a good deal.
Birth control is not cheap. If I had to pay for the pill I would be spending £15/week, which is a lot. More than I spend on food.
For the price of the pill, you can pay off the gun in 23 weeks. So, as long as you need the pill for half a year it is actually cheaper to pay for his gun and protect him forever.
A gun doesn't protect from danger in any way near the same way the pill protects from pregnancy. You need to know how to use a gun for it to be effective. For that, you need continuous practice. A gun is also dangerous so it needs to be kept in a safe. All these things would also need to be paid for.
The point about cost was nothing to do with the gun analogy, anyway.
