Why America will always be a nation of drug addicts and sin

[OverVolt]

They take the message from their peers TOO far because their peers are the only ones not full of shit even though they are probably an equally terrible source of misinformation, at least they aren't Bs'ing through their teeth.

My friends were dumbasses and some still are.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States

then read at the bottom all of the below:
25, 28, 57-58, 60-65, 67, 69, 72, 74, 78, 80, 82

From that same page:

"All adolescents have sex lives, whether they are sexually active with others, with themselves, or seemingly not at all," and viewing adolescent sexuality as a potentially positive experience, rather than as something inherently dangerous, may help young people develop healthier patterns and make more positive choices regarding sex." (2)

That alone explains why sex amongst teenagers causes a lot of mental issues.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

So combining the two stats we get (8.3 / 3.94) 1 divorce for every 2.1 marriages in the US vs (5.6 / 1.91) 1 divorce for every 2.9 marriages in the Netherlands. That's still more divorces in a majority religious country.

This is seriously what you're doing. Did you know that the dutch also have much lower majority of people that use dryers? I propose that because they line dry more of their clothes that they need to cuddle each other more to maintain their warmth, therefore less divorce.

Did you know also that like in much of Europe, people do not tip? I propose that since people don't get tipped, they can't afford lawyers, and therefore they can't get divorced.

Did you know that weed is accepted much more there? I propose that since people use it they must be calmer often enough to not see the annoying deficiencies in their partners, therefore less divorce.

Each one of the above has about as much educated reasoning as your statement. You can't just take two circumstances, lump them together, and say "this is why!". I'm no fan of many religions either but you're so obviously biased against it that it would be silly to take you seriously.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Did you know that weed is accepted much more there?

Yes, I do know that.

I propose that since people use it they must be calmer often enough to not see the annoying deficiencies in their partners, therefore less divorce.

That's the thing. Since their laws don't prosecute possession, less people use/abuse it. In the US, the "moral majority" think it should be a crime, so it's banned, yet it's abused more here. If you don't think religion plays a part in that then you are only fooling yourself.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Yes, I do know that.



That's the thing. Since their laws don't prosecute possession, less people use/abuse it. In the US, the "moral majority" think it should be a crime, so it's banned, yet it's abused more here. If you don't think religion plays a part in that then you are only fooling yourself.

I bolded the important part for you. I understand that you're probably so occupied on your religion bashing, that you might have missed it.

The biggest causes of divorce are well studied and easily searchable, but I can list them here for you:

Poor communication
Financial problems
A lack of commitment to the marriage
A dramatic change in priorities
Infidelity
Failed expectations or unmet needs
Addictions and substance abuse
Physical, sexual or emotional abuse
Lack of conflict resolution skills

I don't see the religion reason that you detest so much on that list, so why are you trying to say that the reason we have more divorces in America is because of religion? It is obviously biased for you to say such, so why should anyone take you seriously when you have such a strong agenda?

Returning to the conversation of pregnancies. Let me make an analogy (everyone loves those!). Let's say I'm trying to drive home. I stop in the road because it says road closed due to flooding and so instead I have to find an alternative route. I'm like "dammit!" and think about the fact that I have to take this alternative route that's about 15 miles off route. That's costing ME money!. So I'm like screw it! and drive around the sign. I eventually come to the water's edge. Doesn't look to bad. I drive into it, I'm doing good, suddenly the road dips where I couldn't see and water is now suddenly going into the truck and my engine is hydro-locked.

I want to blame the county because they should have provided me a free, safe way to cross the water.

Does that make sense, or is it my fault that even though I had a longer, more tedious, and more costly way to get home that I could take, I chose to take my chances anyways? :whiste:

 

[ch33zw1z]

I bolded the important part for you. I understand that you're probably so occupied on your religion bashing, that you might have missed it.

The biggest causes of divorce are well studied and easily searchable, but I can list them here for you:

Poor communication
Financial problems
A lack of commitment to the marriage
A dramatic change in priorities
Infidelity
Failed expectations or unmet needs
Addictions and substance abuse
Physical, sexual or emotional abuse
Lack of conflict resolution skills

I don't see the religion reason that you detest so much on that list, so why are you trying to say that the reason we have more divorces in America is because of religion? It is obviously biased for you to say such, so why should anyone take you seriously when you have such a strong agenda?

Religion can play a part in almost all of those reasons listed. I don't care if you believe me, I've seen it happen. The sooner people quit believing in what "could be" and just accept what is, the better.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Religion can play a part in almost all of those reasons listed. I don't care if you believe me, I've seen it happen. The sooner people quit believing in what "could be" and just accept what is, the better.

You know what else can affect all those? Money, the MAIN issue brought up in divorces (sorry, not religion), as well as drugs.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. I am in no way arguing that religion doe *not* play a part in all this. What I'm against is the disingenuous, blatantly biased bashing of religion as the cause of this and all of the world's woes. Like that somehow its complete removal would solve all our problems. The *reality* of the situation is that there are bigger fish to fry. Go ahead and toss religion in there too, I'd completely agree with it, but don't bury your head in the sand and pass over the things you like, just to attack the things you don't.

 

[ShawnD1]

You know what else can affect all those? Money, the MAIN issue brought up in divorces (sorry, not religion), as well as drugs.

I like how your list has "conflict resolution" as a major problem. A lot of lists seem to ignore that.

I stop in the road because it says road closed due to flooding and so instead I have to find an alternative route. I'm like "dammit!"
....
I drive into it, I'm doing good, suddenly the road dips where I couldn't see and water is now suddenly going into the truck and my engine is hydro-locked.
...
I want to blame the county because they should have provided me a free, safe way to cross the water.

Not quite. Abstinence-only would be like seeing that there's an alternative route, and the government is telling you "THAT ROUTE DOES NOT WORK" even though it clearly does. People in other countries like Canada and France and Germany are all taking that route and doing fine, but the US government is still saying they are all wrong and that alternative route is dangerous. That's why you should sit here in your truck for the next 10 years until you get married. Then you can cross the water.

That thing about saying the other route is dangerous; that's about how groups say condoms don't work. Usually the same groups promoting abstinence-only. This tends to be associated with religion, but not always. Yes sex is dangerous and can give you the AIDS just like the gays have, but that alternative route doesn't work. Condoms are not 100% so you might as well not even bother. It says so right here. And here.

You can get the same message if you watch video footage of abstinence groups talking about condoms. They'll sometimes agree condoms do something, but they'll generally downplay the effectiveness of them. Sometimes they even claim condoms INCREASE the risk of disease because it makes people more carefree. Actually, that last link I posted literally says that - condoms make people too sexual and that extra sex puts them at risk. Nevermind that eliminating 99% of risk means you would need to fuck 100 different partners just to be at the same risk level as having unprotected sex with 1 person, but that's math! Math is the devil. You should read your bible. It doesn't do any of that math stuff (it probably does, but most people don't read the bible, so I can get away with making stuff up about what it does and does not say)

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I like how your list has "conflict resolution" as a major problem. A lot of lists seem to ignore that.




Not quite. Abstinence-only would be like seeing that there's an alternative route, and the government is telling you "THAT ROUTE DOES NOT WORK" even though it clearly does. People in other countries like Canada and France and Germany are all taking that route and doing fine, but the US government is still saying they are all wrong and that alternative route is dangerous. That's why you should sit here in your truck for the next 10 years until you get married. Then you can cross the water.

That thing about saying the other route is dangerous; that's about how groups say condoms don't work. Usually the same groups promoting abstinence-only. This tends to be associated with religion, but not always. Yes sex is dangerous and can give you the AIDS just like the gays have, but that alternative route doesn't work. Condoms are not 100% so you might as well not even bother. It says so right here. And here.

You can get the same message if you watch video footage of abstinence groups talking about condoms. They'll sometimes agree condoms do something, but they'll generally downplay the effectiveness of them. Sometimes they even claim condoms INCREASE the risk of disease because it makes people more carefree. Actually, that last link I posted literally says that - condoms make people too sexual and that extra sex puts them at risk. Nevermind that eliminating 99% of risk means you would need to fuck 100 different partners just to be at the same risk level as having unprotected sex with 1 person, but that's math! Math is the devil. You should read your bible. It doesn't do any of that math stuff (it probably does, but most people don't read the bible, so I can get away with making stuff up about what it does and does not say)

I disagree with this. If you want to take what is said outside of educational institutions and health organizations then why can't we also go with sites and that say raping a virgin will remove your AIDS? I'm assuming that for simplicity sake we are limiting this conversation to what is freely available from health organizations and educational institutions, which do not say what you are saying. Rather they take a "don't ask don't tell" policy. Saying that abstinence is the 100% certain way of preventing pregnancy (which is actually true, and I'm not sure why anyone would be butt-hurt over this being stated).

So if we go back to my analogy and lets say that the sign offers no detour direction, just says road closed (Abstinence only, no alternatives). Yet you know this other road exists and is usable, after all, there is no road closed sign. If you're smart you've even gone to your news website to see if the road is really closed (you're looking up information on the internet from respected health organizations on safe sex). You don't see anything wrong with this route, but because no one *told* you to go that way, you won't consider it. And instead, you're again going to go around this road closed sign and mess up your vehicle.

I ask again, whose fault is this?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Obama 1 - Nutjobs 0

 

[sao123]

Show me where I said being caught is the only risk. Oh, that's right, I didn't. Do you know why I didn't? Because that isn't what is up for debate. What is up for debate with regards to this specific post is whether or not the risk of being caught is higher for driving while underage or having sex while underage. You conveniently ignore this question because you know the risk is higher for driving and as such just this one factor can influence whether a teen decides to undertake either of these two activities.

I conveniently ignored the question, because the risk of whether you get caught or not, should never enter into the equation of "should I do this?"
Getting caught is the least worst of all possible consequences.

snip...

The problem is you dont understand the goals of the sexual education program. Its not just to teach you how to have sex, but it is to teach you when to, and when not to have sex, for the non-religious reasons I states above.

The goal of the progam is total and complete avoidance of sex until adulthood.
Safer sex isnt a goal, because safe sex is a myth.
Condoms may prevent disease and pregnancy, but they dont prevent, depression, self esteem loss, suicide, substance abuse, or other negative effects from having sex too early. Sex is an intimate emotional act for mature individuals only, try as you would like, you cant remove that aspect of it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The goal of the progam is total and complete avoidance of sex until adulthood.
Safer sex isnt a goal, because safe sex is a myth.
Condoms may prevent disease and pregnancy, but they dont prevent, depression, self esteem loss, suicide, substance abuse, or other negative effects from having sex too early. Sex is an intimate emotional act for mature individuals only, try as you would like, you cant remove that aspect of it.

Abstinence-only DOESN'T work. Period. It never has and never will. So, you have a choice: Continue to stay FAITHful to a program that doesn't work, or try something different based on FACTs.

Problems with abstinence-only approach: Highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world, high abortion rates, low self-esteem, suicide, substance abuse, and other various side effects from DEMONIZING teen sex.

Problems with safe/r-sex approach: Makes baby Jesus and crotchety old people cry, lower abortion rate, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer issues with self-esteem, suicide, substance abuse, and other various side effects from ACCEPTING teen sex.

I vote for safe/r-sex.

 

[destrekor]

You know what else can affect all those? Money, the MAIN issue brought up in divorces (sorry, not religion), as well as drugs.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. I am in no way arguing that religion doe *not* play a part in all this. What I'm against is the disingenuous, blatantly biased bashing of religion as the cause of this and all of the world's woes. Like that somehow its complete removal would solve all our problems. The *reality* of the situation is that there are bigger fish to fry. Go ahead and toss religion in there too, I'd completely agree with it, but don't bury your head in the sand and pass over the things you like, just to attack the things you don't.

People don't cite religion as a reason for divorce. Quit being so damn dense.

"Oh, we couldn't stand each other anymore. Why? Religion. Fucking religion man!"
Unless they have opposing religious views, of course.

What is being stated in the recent argument is not that at all. Rather, that the hardcore religious nature of so many in this country causes many issues that rolls down hill.

More importantly, what is being pointed out is the irony. We are more religious as a country, yet have higher divorce rates.

Seriously, how is all of that lost on you? Can you not understand basic reasoning?

 

[destrekor]

Condoms may prevent disease and pregnancy, but they dont prevent, depression, self esteem loss, suicide, substance abuse, or other negative effects from having sex too early. Sex is an intimate emotional act for mature individuals only, try as you would like, you cant remove that aspect of it.

lol

Sex doesn't cause any of that at any age, unless it is abusive sex, which is unrelated to age.
Sex causing those issues would be an entirely indirect event. Immaturity of peers and peer-relations cause those issues, and half of those issues are due entirely to the demonizing of it all.
People falling into mental stability issues is because they don't know how to cope with bullying - and then there's the bullying issue.
Teens who have safe sex and are intelligent with peer relations (blabbing about who did who, when, where and even why... teens can be monsters toward each other, and quite a few barely change in that regard) easily go on to lead healthy, mature lives.

"Teen sex" never ruined my life, and I even got busted by a cop once (and a few other precarious "yeah.. we can't hide this can we?" moments).

 

[thecoolnessrune]

People don't cite religion as a reason for divorce. Quit being so damn dense.

"Oh, we couldn't stand each other anymore. Why? Religion. Fucking religion man!"
Unless they have opposing religious views, of course.

What is being stated in the recent argument is not that at all. Rather, that the hardcore religious nature of so many in this country causes many issues that rolls down hill.

More importantly, what is being pointed out is the irony. We are more religious as a country, yet have higher divorce rates.

Seriously, how is all of that lost on you? Can you not understand basic reasoning?

Who's being dense? You're the one who is saying that even though we have alllll these reasons why divorce occurs, none of which state religion explicitly, and even though we have plenty of studies tying things such as money, and drug use to divorce (not to mention personal accounts), that this isn't good enough for you. No, instead is HAS to be religion. Sorry but that's simply blind bias. I have already fully acknowledged that religion is part of the problem. But I guess that's because I'm rational compared to yourself.

I don't now why you're asking if something is lost on me. I too see the irony in the fact the we say we are a more religious country, and yet our divorce rates are higher. I don't think I ever denied it. It's when people started saying because of religion we have higher divorce rates.

But I guess all of that is lost on you. Can you not understand basic reasoning?

Put things together all you want. USA has higher divorces and has religion. USA has higher teen pregnancies and religion. USA eats more sugar and has religion. That's all good. No big deal. But once you start saying that *because* of religion we have more divorces, higher teen pregnancies, and eat more sugar, then there starts being logical fallacies. On top of that, once you start mentioning religion as the only reason, then you make the leap to logical fruitcake.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You know what else can affect all those? Money, the MAIN issue brought up in divorces (sorry, not religion), as well as drugs.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. I am in no way arguing that religion doe *not* play a part in all this. What I'm against is the disingenuous, blatantly biased bashing of religion as the cause of this and all of the world's woes. Like that somehow its complete removal would solve all our problems. The *reality* of the situation is that there are bigger fish to fry. Go ahead and toss religion in there too, I'd completely agree with it, but don't bury your head in the sand and pass over the things you like, just to attack the things you don't.

How much money does your church require you to give to be a member?

Like I said, religion plays a part in almost all of those.

You cite drugs. Ok, so here's a scenario. Married couple, husband is a cocaine/crack addict. Husband buries woman in debt without her knowledge or consent through lies and deceit. Family makes every attempt to help woman get away from husband, who has also stolen from her family, church frowns upon this due to the "for better or worse" clause and convinces woman to stay with husband. Woman stays with church and is estranged from family because they refuse to be around/associate themselves or children with the crack head...

In this scenario, religion actually accomplishes the opposite. Woman is still with crack head husband and estranged from family. I say, fuck religion.

 

[Joseph F]

taking 10 shots of vodka in an hour is hardcore bad"

Bullshit.

 

[shortylickens]

In general I agree that a healthy attitude says sex is a part of life and needs to be handled appropriately.

Some of the shit going on this thread scares the crap out of me. Good day gentlemen.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

How much money does your church require you to give to be a member?

Like I said, religion plays a part in almost all of those.

You cite drugs. Ok, so here's a scenario. Married couple, husband is a cocaine/crack addict. Husband buries woman in debt without her knowledge or consent through lies and deceit. Family makes every attempt to help woman get away from husband, who has also stolen from her family, church frowns upon this due to the "for better or worse" clause and convinces woman to stay with husband. Woman stays with church and is estranged from family because they refuse to be around/associate themselves or children with the crack head...

In this scenario, religion actually accomplishes the opposite. Woman is still with crack head husband and estranged from family. I say, fuck religion.

I don't attend church, so your question really isn't all that valid towards me.

If you want to start producing scenarios.

I need to get an operation but insurance wont cover it. I don't have the money. I say, fuck money.

My wife is divorcing me but I don't have the money for a good lawyer to keep her from taking all my shit. I say, fuck money.

A dude tripping off acid jumps off a roof and onto my car. I don't have enough money to cover the deductible. I say, fuck money, and fuck drugs.

You're absolutely silly way of trying to produce all these scenarios that involve religion is exactly the same as what I'm doing now. The odd thing is that you're only reinforcing my point that religion is a *part* of the problem, not *the* problem, so what exactly is it that you're arguing about? Or do you just enjoy the discussion?

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're absolutely silly way of trying to produce all these scenarios that involve religion is exactly the same as what I'm doing now. The odd thing is that you're only reinforcing my point that religion is a *part* of the problem, not *the* problem, so what exactly is it that you're arguing about? Or do you just enjoy the discussion?

duh, I specifically said religion can play a part in any of those reasons. I enjoy discussion, but now you seem to be confused....about what really. You're trying to make religion out to be the solution. It's not.

btw, 10% is usually the magic # to be a member. Basically my 401k contribution. fuck that.

The differences between my scenario and yours, is mine is real. religion != money. saying "fuck money" is as retarded as dedicating yourself to a religion that blinds you to what's best...based on what? Guilt, and peer pressure. Not quite the same scenarios there.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

duh, I specifically said religion can play a part in any of those reasons. I enjoy discussion, but now you seem to be confused....about what really. You're trying to make religion out to be the solution. It's not.

btw, 10% is usually the magic # to be a member. Basically my 401k contribution. fuck that.

The differences between my scenario and yours, is mine is real. religion != money. saying "fuck money" is as retarded as dedicating yourself to a religion that blinds you to what's best...based on what? Guilt, and peer pressure. Not quite the same scenarios there.

I'm afraid you're either going to have to quote where I said that religion is a solution to the problem or admit (which of course you won't) that you are lieing. After all, I freely admit to religion being a part of the problem. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with this.

I like how you conveniently left out drugs. Since after all, we don't need drugs just like we don't need religion. But then again admitting that would tear apart your ideals wouldn't it.

We both agree that religion is only a part of the problem, so really what is the issue?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm afraid you're either going to have to quote where I said that religion is a solution to the problem or admit (which of course you won't) that you are lieing. After all, I freely admit to religion being a part of the problem. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with this.

I like how you conveniently left out drugs. Since after all, we don't need drugs just like we don't need religion. But then again admitting that would tear apart your ideals wouldn't it.

We both agree that religion is only a part of the problem, so really what is the issue?

LoL, tell big pharma's that. Religion is a crutch, just like drugs. I think we disagree like this: I believe religion is a major part of our problem as a nation, but you do not. Is that accurate? You really don't know anything about my "ideals".

 

[thecoolnessrune]

LoL, tell big pharma's that. Religion is a crutch, just like drugs. I think we disagree like this: I believe religion is a major part of our problem as a nation, but you do not. Is that accurate? You really don't know anything about my "ideals".

I think that is accurate. I believe that one of our largest problems as a nation is our entitlement mentality and our refusal to live to sustainable standards.

As for knowing about your ideals. I think that's the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? After all, you had just previously lied about a statement I never made. Perhaps your ideals should adjust as to what you expect from a web forum

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think that is accurate. I believe that one of our largest problems as a nation is our entitlement mentality and our refusal to live to sustainable standards.

As for knowing about your ideals. I think that's the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? After all, you had just previously lied about a statement I never made. Perhaps your ideals should adjust as to what you expect from a web forum

Did I ever claim to know your ideals? No, so I guess you're lying as well. Works both ways It's ok to be mistaken sometimes, shit happens....guess you can be the kettle, I'd rather be the pot.

Just a note on the religion/drugs topic. I believe they are very similar, and so I also believe drugs should be legal, just like religion. I didn't comment on your drug scenario because it is a non-issue in your scenario. A suicide attempt could've landed someone on your car as well.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Just a note on the religion/drugs topic. I believe they are very similar, and so I also believe drugs should be legal, just like religion. I didn't comment on your drug scenario because it is a non-issue in your scenario. A suicide attempt could've landed someone on your car as well.

:hmm:

You cite drugs. Ok, so here's a scenario. Married couple, husband is a cocaine/crack addict. Husband buries woman in debt without her knowledge or consent through lies and deceit. Family makes every attempt to help woman get away from husband, who has also stolen from her family, church frowns upon this due to the "for better or worse" clause and convinces woman to stay with husband. Woman stays with church and is estranged from family because they refuse to be around/associate themselves or children with the crack head...

Know what else would make a woman stay with a man like that (see how i'm removing one point of your scenario to make my own like you have done)? No other place to go, not enough money to get out, fear of retribution if she leaves, or dependency on the man for a number of reasons. So ultimately, your scenario as well is a non-issue concerning religion.

As long as we're cherry-picking ideals to deflect from the fact that this is a multi-faceted problem with no golden bullet, then the problem stays the same, which is nothing more than a "Us vs. Them" thread.

Let's put it this way. Can you cite any definitive proof that teen pregnancy as a majority (anything over 50%) is caused by religion? Can you cite any definitive proof that teen pregnancy as a majority (anything over 50%) is caused by abstinence-only education?

I'd actually like to do one easier. Can you cite any definitive proof that a plurality of teen pregnancies are caused by religion? Or that they are caused by abstinence-only education?

If you cannot, can you agree that it would be intellectually honest to state that you "fee" that religion is the major cause of teen pregnancies or problems in this country, rather than making a definitive statement with no evidence? Otherwise, how is this any different than saying "God exists because I said so"?