From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: AIDS info to kids? (was Re: separation of church and state)
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:04:11 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Jul29.211910.4250@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.225950.1108@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul23.154024.27517@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>|> >You tell me:  What is the "purpose" of sex?
>|> 
>|> 	To propagate. The pleasure is nature's incentive.
>
>Perhaps that's the biological purpose, but the popularity of
>contraceptives and abortion would seem to indicate that lots of people
>have sex for the pleasure and not in order to propogate.  Would you
>say that these people are "misusing" sex?

	They're not "misusing" it (did I say that before?), but they
should understand what the consequences are, and why it feels good. Now,
as you know, I feel survival is more important than morals (as they are
used in current society). The type of and rate of sex among our youth is
not, IMO, a threat to our survival as a race, but I do feel that it's a threat
to these kids' lives, their happiness. Typical morality-based concerns do
not address this factor to a degree that satifies me. Rather, it seems that
certain activities make certain people uncomfortable, possibly even 
threatened, and morality is the fire extinguisher. Let's look at drugs,
for example- morality has made certain drugs illegal. The illegality
itself destroys more people than the drugs ever would. Gangs are formed.
Guns control territory. Those that need help can't get it. The price of
drugs is inflated by the extreme danger of _importing_ them (importing
stressed because legal drugs wouldn't have to be), and crime rates go up.
Average, everyday citizens are endangered by crime that results. And, as
I've been stressing with Chris, results don't always coincide with morality.
In the case of drugs, the results are that morality places you and I,
unnecessarily, in danger. Why? Because the drug program is not targeted 
to understand and aid those that need help, or to convey the realities
about drug use. Drug policy in the USA is based upon fear, and self-
righteousness w/o regard to consequences- even when those consequences
slap all of us in the face every day. Unfortunately, that moral fire
extinguisher is loaded with gasoline.

>|> 	At what age do you feel people should be allowed to drive? vote?
>|> drink booze?  
>
>Why do you think 14-16 year olds are competent enough to drive but not 
>competent enough to have sex?

	Not all are, and our laws w.r.t this reflect that, and protect 
us and the kids- they can't just hop in a car and drive, no? I'm not saying
kids need to pass a test in order to be able to have sex. (-: I am 
saying that we should do what we can to help those that would decide to 
avoid sex to reach that decision- we should inform them. I will also say
that, for sure, 90% of the kids having sex are not doing what is in their
best interest. They _do_ have to have the right to decide this for
themselves. Granting such a right, don't you think we should give them
as much info as possible, so that they can make the decision from an
informed standpoint?

>|> And since it's "not that hard", why all the problems (teen
>|> pregnancy, for example)?
>
>Why do you consider pregnancy to be more of a "problem" if the pregnant
>person is between 13 and 19 years old?

	Have you dealt with people that had kids at such an age? I don't
care to go into the family problems that can cause, or even the social
problems, but read about the kids! The same can be said for credit cards,
BTW- in fact, there are lots of parallels w.r.t future life. Both set the
kid way back- oh, and I won't mention the kids' kids, if they have them.
(As long as I'm mentioning all of the things I won't mention (-: ). It's 
conceivable that childhood pregnancy could ultimately cause the breakdown
of society. So what? A new society will be born. It is not a threat to
survival of our race, period. It is a threat to individuals, meaning the
the pregnant or HIV+ kid. 

>|> >Please explain your reasoning behind this assessment of the Nietzsche
>|> >quote.
>|> 
>|> 	Nah, that was another Nietzsche quote. (-: It can be easily 
>|> disproven, for one thing. It's naive, because it targets only (I assume)
>|> faith w.r.t. religion, not faith as a human emotion (which it is).
>|> [remainder deleted] 
>
>While I always enjoy your philosophical treatises,

	Thanks...

> I think you're
>reading much more into the Nietzsche quote than is necessary.  Not
>wanting to know what's true doesn't mean that what you have faith in
>*isn't* true, it just means that your belief in something is based on
>something other than the evidence.  This would be true even if there
>were no evidence to examine.

	I can't agree. If there were no evidence, how can one say that
the faithful doesn't _want_ to know the truth? Perhaps the faithful
would, but realizes he/she can't. This is not a trivial point for me,
since I have faith in people and things that I know I can't know. To me,
the quote is a slam at religion, and we both know religions slam atheists.
Faith and hope, to my way of thinking, are vital to humanity. Why take them
away with an offhanded religious slam?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"You know what they say about a honey bear. If you shave off all that baby
hair, you have a hairy-minded pink bare bear."- Lou Reed.
Newsgroups: tx.politics