themadhatter114

Um, I never said I supported preaching abstinence to the exclusion of all other methods of prevention. However, I do advocate that the effectiveness of contraceptives not be overstated. Hmm, I guess it's the whole bat**** crazy religious conservative thing that gets me down a bit. Don't worry about me, though - I'll cheer up. Funny, I don't know what gives you the impression that I'm religious, since I'm not. Or that I'm a "social conservative" who wants to push my moral values onto everyone else, since I don't. All I ask for is that, before you make a factual claim that abstinence-only education is less effective, someone actually show a study that shows that abstinence-only education is in fact less effective than so-called "comprehensive" sex education, whatever the hell that really means. I'll tell you what I personally don't like about abstinence-only education. I don't like that I think one of the requirements for federal funding (which I don't see why sex ed. needs federal funding, anyhow, since, you know, it should be 1 or 2 days of health class and shouldn't need extra funding) is that it's supposed to promote marriage. I do not understand what relevance marriage has to sexual health. Obviously, monogamy is what is an asset to sexual health, since you don't have to worry about spreading diseases. But marriage is pretty irrelevant. But I don't think it's the government's business to advocate marriage. Let the church and the family take care of that. I'm sure that single moms like essentially being called whores by the public school system. I am, however, a Republican. And despite my distaste for John McCain (because he ONLY voted with Bush 90% of the time har har), I will be supporting the Republican ticket because I like the choice of Sarah Palin. I don't care what her views are on creationism, especially given that she said pretty much that it was not an issue she cared about. I admire her actual consistency with her stance on abortion. I like her as a pro-life role model, but she seems to me more like a social conservative who doesn't at all govern like a social conservative. I don't care about federal funding for stem cell research. I think a lot of lobbyist's are hyping it to get government handouts, but I think that there would actually be private investment in the issue if it were actually promising. Funny that there are absolutely no campaigns for private funds on the issue. I like her because she's pro-gun, and because if her address to the AIP is any indication, she might actually respect the Constitution and might actually be an advocate for liberty. She was more supportive of Ron Paul back during the primaries. So she sounds good to me. I'm also supporting John McCain because I think Barack Obama will be a terrible president if elected. But before John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I didn't even plan on voting.

Yeah, it's so sad that some people don't like being lied to by the media, the government, and the public school system. That there are people who don't want schools trying to teach their kids values and would rather that they simply them the facts and how to read and write. It's also sad that there are a lot of Americans that think that you can't make a determination about whether or not someone used contraception based entirely on the fact that she got pregnant, and that using a single instance in place of statistical analysis is logically unsound. It's sad that there are Americans who think it's dishonest and despicable to pick up lies from political blogs and simply spread them when you don't know what you're talking about. It's sad that there are people who understand how incomprehensible it is for someone to claim that the unborn have rights, but that those rights become obsolete if the mother claims to have been raped. Or was it something else that makes you sad? Care to explain?

What were you told by the "officials", and what are the true figures? Sources please, otherwise it's all FUD A few years ago there was a controversy because the government didn't want people to know that condoms don't do a good job of preventing HPV. So instead of letting us know that we're likely to get HPV even if we use a condom, now they're trying to tyrannically force an HPV vaccine on any girl entering the 6th grade in public schools. So they get to lie and lie and then try to take away our freedom. They're trying to pass laws to do it, but in the meantime they're aggressively pressuring every high school and junior high school girl to get it. Now they're trying to force insurance companies to cover it. AIDS activists get to do presentations in schools and play up memes like "AIDS does not discriminate" when anal sex is astronomically more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex. AIDS incidence in Africa has been grossly overstated by the media and those compiling the numbers for several years. Because there's no education program here (that I know of) that promotes abstinence. That abstinence is a 100% safe way to not get pregnant is probably mentioned, or probably not, because it's just too obvious. Well, clearly that shows that you did not demonstrate that programs that promote abstinence are worse, duh. Oh, there's a lot to know. Hormonal changes are significant to different bodily functions as well as the psyche. They can change relationships. The female cycle is another theme for example. STDs are another theme (fungi, viruses, bacteria, parasites: what protects from them, what they do with your body, how to get rid of them). The hormonal changes with regard to birth control are probably best discussed with the doctor who is going to prescribe it to you. Or learning about the experiences from women in your family who've taken it. Not something I expect to be taught in school. Nothing about an abstinence-only program precludes teaching about the various STDs. Obviously you can tell what protects from them if you have such statistics, but how many health teachers do you think will ignorantly tell teenagers that condoms will protect against something that it actually won't? What has the last sentence to do with anything? We don't need math at school becuase parents could teach it too? I'll let you figure out what's funny about the supposed locial fallacy on your own :D What are you talking about? You don't respond at all to the point I was making and respond instead to an off-hand comment I was making. If you want to discuss what I think the role of schools should be, we can have that discussion, but I'll simply say that if I can manage it I would rather home-school my kids. It's not a "supposed" logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to use a single instance to make an argument about whether something works or doesn't work when you don't have statistics. And it's dishonest when you have no clue whether Sarah Palin's daughter used contraception or not, and you have no idea whether or not she knew the risks, and no one outside her family knows, so no one can make a conclusion based simply on the fact that she got pregnant.

Abortion is a non-issue, or atleast it should be. When does the fetus become a person? Should we criminilize doctors and women who do it? When does life exactly begin? Hell, life maybe even started billions of years ago, and i haven't seen any signs of it stopping, an abortion certainly doesn't cancel it. Point being, there's no universal truth in that matter, and all that i see is cynical politicians using it as a bait to get the christian right out of their churches and into the voting, only to be duped time after time. That's not the point. You are the one that is criticizing Palin because she believes life begins at conception and because she doesn't compromise that belief by making an exception for women who claim to be rape victims. I don't care how many abortions anyone has, kill all the born or unborn babies you want as long as you stay away from mine. But I don't think abortion is a right and I don't think it deserves federal funding and I don't think think that the federal judiciary can just create an incoherent right to abortion by invoking "privacy." These "cynical" politicians are the ones who appoint judges who will actually make rulings based on the Constitution and let the people and not the courts decide the laws. They are also the ones who confirm those judges. If the people of America want abortion to be legal, they should vote in their local elections and not expect the federal government to protect their non-right. Too vague. Considering her own comments about the issue before, i want to see her advocating separation between the church and the state, which ID and creationism is trying to erase. She doesn't have to campaign against it. She merely has to express what she will do as governor to keep the issue out of her office. She's actually a pretty savvy politician and isn't going to trash the views of those who elected her. You are clearly mistaken me on this issue, if the situation mandates that alaskan oil will save the united states for all eternity, or atleast 50-100 years, then sure, why not? As it is now, I rather focus more on renewable or alternative sources of energy that would make the whole world less dependent on the arab oil. Obviously we need to develop alternative sources of energy, but we need to tap the resources we have. Saying "we have to research other energy to the exclusion of the ones we already have" is like saying that the solution to overpopulation is that we have to focus all of our money on making Mars habitable rather than on using our land and resources on earth more efficiently and conservatively. What hell....? Where do get this info from? Sex educators with a seperate agenda? And what is this agenda exactly? Making the youth f*** more and get all kinds of STD's for their amusement? Who gains amything from this? Satan? Where i live, the sex education was done by the biology teacher, who brought up all the very points that you claim that they do not do. While the class was really boring, since it was done from a biologist POW, it worked, since there was no morale behind it. And i certainly didn't see any "PRO-F***", or "PAYED BY THE CONDOM-FACTORY"-pin on him. Hell, he even brought up several myths about 'not getting pregnant without using a condom' as well. And finally, he added: "Condom's may break, and there's a single-digit procentage that they didn't worked on that particular time, and birth-control pills don't work against STD's at all. You can all just skip it all and don't have sex at all. But we are humans after all, and i expect you to have good judgement in a mature manner when the time comes." And what studies have you seen again? In Europe, where sex in general is handled in a much more mature way, studies have shown that the introduction of sex education has dropped abortion rates considerably, and the same with STD's as well. Look at Ireland's total lack of sex education in the 80's. Thousands of kids had to take the boat to Great Britain to perform the procedure. And guess what happened when they introduced some normal sex-ed? I leave that to you. Obviously you don't understand what I am talking about by the "agenda." Public health officials and AIDS activists want to be politically correct, so they lie about AIDS (I was an AIDS peer educator in high school and we were fed the most BS statistics about HIV that we were to pass along to the other students). Public health officials want people to have safe sex, therefore want to understate the failure rate of contraceptives. And what studies are you talking about? I'm talking about comparing education programs that stress abstinence as the only 100% sure choice, as opposed to those which overstate the effectiveness of contraception. I honestly don't know what education kids need about the matter besides 1. What causes pregnancy and what causes STDs, and 2. How effective different contraceptive methods are. What more is there to add? Sex education in school should take all of one day and be a couple pages in your health book. Do teenagers need their biology teacher to give a lecture about the hormonal changes that come about by taking the pill? Do they actually need to demonstrate how to put on a condom? Are kids really that stupid? Do you honestly think that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter didn't know what a condom was, and you don't know that she wasn't practicing safe sex, anyway, as it is clear that millions of women get pregnant every year despite practicing safe sex. People who want to use a single pregnancy as a referendum on sex ed are practicing a clear logical fallacy. Many also don't seem to be aware that parents can teach their kids what they want.

Again, is it in the best interest for the patient to have a doctor that can select on whether he/she wants to treat them, based on their own set of morality? An example: A patient faces the risk of needing a blood-transfusion. However, the doctor is a Jehova's witness, and believes that blood-transfusion makes the person to loose a part of their soul, and refuses it. Is that right? Practically, this shifts the responsibility to the patient to choose a doctor that treats everyone equally, without any moral prejudice. In a life and death, or remotely stressful situation, do you think this sounds reasonable? There's no reason that we should preclude people of various faiths from becoming doctors and helping in the way they can according to their faith. Obviously if their faith is contrary to medical science, they probably won't make it through medical school. I can understand telling doctors that they can't discriminate, but I can't understand telling doctors that they can't specialize in what they want.

Of course, it makes you no more mature than those who rag on Obama for things unrelated to his (in my view) terrible policies. But, you seem to be confused, anyone who is pro-life who thinks that a rape changes the rights of the unborn is likely being disingenuous because it's an incoherent belief. Though there are indeed plenty of people that think the accused have less rights when it comes to a rape accusation, so there probably really are people who think that an unborn child has rights but not so if his mother was raped. Sarah Palin did not make an issue of creationism, and she vowed to not use it as an issue to judge Board of Education members that she would appoint. Intelligent Design is actually on the Republican platform in Alaska and she actually distanced herself from that but not too much. You likely don't have any clue about what drilling would do for this country. There is no reason for us not to tap the oil resources that we have in this country and liberal talking points about how it won't help are ridiculous considering that they don't have better alternatives. My issue with "comprehensive" sex education is that it's dishonest. Sex educators, in order to push their agenda, overstate the effectiveness of birth control and of condoms. They don't want kids to know that condoms don't protect remarkably well against HPV. They lie about AIDS statistics. They refuse to tell people how much more likely you are to get AIDS through anal intercourse. Then they laugh and say "Abstinence-only education doesn't work!" when most studies have simply shown that it's not more effective than "comprehensive" sex education. Have you seen a study that shows that it's less effective? Do you know any teenagers that don't know what a condom is? I don't advocate drilling abstinence into the skulls of kids in schools. I don't advocate drilling sexual values into kids in schools. I advocate NOT lying to them about the risks that they take even when using contraception. I advocate giving them facts and letting them decide. I advocate letting parents teach values to their children.

Yes, of course, and you likely weren't going to vote for her anyway. That doesn't justify lying about her membership in a party and lying about that party. I'm glad that you dodged the issue of spreading a lie about her and then just stated that you weren't voting for her, which is not an argument. I'm sure you approve of the Obama campaign's attempts to link her to anti-Semitism. I am a conservative/libertarian, and I'm not voting for Obama because I don't agree with him on any issue, but I don't spread lies about him.

So, uh, like I said, what does the Hippocratic Oath have to do with abortion? Is pregnancy a sickness to be cured? It's sad that you think the government should force people to act against their ethics even when acting according to their ethics wouldn't hurt anyone. If there were ever a law that said that you weren't allowed to treat people differently based on race, religion, or gender, I think we'd truly be all the way toward the Orwellian paradise.

The worst Supreme Court in history, that actually affirmed by a 1 vote margin the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. I'm amused that anyone who has even a modest amount of intelligence and honesty thinks that "original intent" is a bad standard by which to measure laws against the Constitution. I'd say it's also pretty disingenuous to say that John Roberts or Samuel Alito is unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. But if you read the Heller dissent written by John Paul Stevens (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter) or the separate dissent written by Stephen Breyer, it becomes clear who among the Supreme Court justices isn't actually qualified for his job.

Does this assume that doctors must believe that pregnancy is a sickness that must be cured with abortion? Or could their morals compel them to apply the Hippocratic Oath to unborn children? If there were a cosmetic procedure that a doctor found morally objectionable, should he be legally compelled to perform such a procedure? Should a devout Catholic doctor be legally compelled to prescribe birth control pills rather than allowing him to recommend another doctor?

I don't think there is such a thing as a public hospital in the US. Maybe the VA hospitals. I think it's silly that people are legislated into doing things that they find morally objectionable just because of the job that they chose. I think that any doctor should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for moral reasons. It should be up to the hospital whether or not he's worth having as an employee. If a hospital needs a certain number of doctors to perform abortions and can't afford to have an obstetrician who doesn't, then let the hospital make that decision. When we have crap in this country like a photographer getting sued because she didn't want to photograph a gay wedding which conflicted with her religious beliefs, I think there comes a point where you need to allow service providers to choose their clientele. I am all for pressuring people with the voice of the public, but legally punishing people because you had to go to a different doctor or hire a different photographer is ridiculous. I just can't wait for "hate speech" to be outlawed!

This is a lie. The Alaskan Independence party was founded by the same man who founded the Alaskan Libertarian Party. The Alaskan Independence party's platform is that the original vote on Alaska's statehood was illegal. They want a re-vote with 4 options. Among those options is the decision to remain a state. Membership in the party does not imply a position on which of the 4 options you prefer. So perhaps before you comment on their sole purpose you should research them a little bit. The other lie is that she ever worked with the Alaskan Independence Party. They claim she was a member 12 years ago but there's no record of that. She did address their convention, showing support for their role in the democratic process and support for their standard of personal freedom. I'd personally respect her more if she actually were a member of the Libertarian or Alaskan Independence Party. Regardless, it's a total non-controversy.

Palin spoke with her obstetrician before flying back to Alaska. A relative of mine's water broke right before she went to bed and she waited until morning to go to the hospital. The only problem she had was that she got there too late to get an epidural. The baby is perfectly fine. Of course morons like Alan Colmes think that "poor prenatal care" can result in genetic disorders. People who are framing this election as a referendum on doing a good job but it's a dishonest tactic. George Bush has frequently alienated the base of the Republican party and hopefully he will change the course a little bit. As for Sarah Palin, she is definitely NOT a neo-con. She's a social conservative, yes, but she has ties to Alaska's Libertarian Party. And in case you are unaware, the end to the Iraq war will be exactly the same whether we elect Obama or McCain. George Bush has already negotiated a timeline for withdrawal which is unlikely to be improved upon by McCain or Obama, and Obama capitulated in finally conceding that he would actually listen to the situation before demanding an immediate withdrawal. Troops are retreating from the cities and major combat zones already.

Yay for reporting rumors as facts!

You missed the point entirely.

Violent cartoons were such a joy, but aren't cartoons more PC nowadays? I don't think there's been a cartoon that I've enjoyed since Animaniacs. And don't the old cartoons get some of the more "objectionable" content edited out when they're broadcast now, and even edited out of the DVD releases?

I also agree that the front page is much improved. I really didn't like the way it was before at all. The aesthetics of it are definitely nicer, but that's not really the important thing. The information is simply organized so much more efficiently.

I didn't question whether or not you were an American...I hoped you weren't. But, regardless, so long as you're just trying to flame GTA fans (such as myself) and not trying to actually make an "if it saves one life..." argument for censorship...flame away!

As if that could be empirically proved. What if it increases the government's feeling of power, thereby increasing the probability that people will eventually feel repressed and lash out at the government? I have an idea, make a list of things that you should ban under the "If it just saves one life..." reasoning. Then ban them all. Then see how many people get murdered by their government for disobeying and see how many government agents get killed in return. How many lives would you consider that you've saved? So, no matter the probability, as long as there are some morons in a country, everyone else's rights have to be infringed? I hope you're not an American. We must protect the people from themselves!

The next GTA release should feature The Anarchist's Cookbook in its entirety on the in-game internet. Hell, they could include it in the DLC for GTA4.

Wow, I didn't realize that you couldn't say cocktail on here.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/251/story/395841.html MILTON, Ga. -- I've been playing GTA for probably 7 years, now. I haven't played any of the hand-held or 2d versions, but I've played through GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4. Not once do I recall any of those games actually instruction anyone about how to actually make a Molotov ****tail. So, here are my questions: Does anyone remember in those games or any of the other GTA games an instance where the game instructs you on how to make Molotov ****tails? Also, does anyone NOT know how to make a Molotov ****tail, regardless of their gaming background?

This is the simple fact of the matter: The boy claimed that he simply wanted to see if robbing a taxi in real life was as easy as it is in GTA. Then he claimed that the driver fought back and he ended up killing him unintentionally. Clearly the kid is a moron. He wanted to test if something that he made his character do in the game (note, not something that you ever have to do in the game) was as easy in real life. He could have just as easily seen it in a movie. Basically, he takes a part of the game that isn't required, that happens to be removed from the context of the storyline, and says essentially that he wanted to try something that was in the game. You could just as easily claim that you killed some soldiers/cops/doctors after playing Half-Life 1 or 2, because if you ignore the context of the game, you would see that you do have to kill American soldiers in Half-Life 1 and Combine soldiers in Half-Life 2. You could also point to the fact that Half-Life allows you to murder scientists, and claim that that influences people, even though the murder of scientists is not consistent with the character or the storyline, just as murdering cab drivers is not a part of Niko Bellic's character or at all part of the storyline. It would do just as well to blame a game like Crackdown that features a government agent who takes out gang leaders, but also lets you murder civilians and other agents at will, stealing their cars and doing whatever you wish. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in Crackdown you have to go on a total rampage before the Agency will even send the cops after you. Some people are violent and do stupid things. You can scapegoat guns, movies, video games, music, pornography, whatever, all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that people are responsible for their own actions.

People always want a scapegoat when this stuff happens. Ronald Reagan was shot because of Taxi Driver. The Kentucky school shooting was because of Basketball Diaries. The Columbine massacre was because of Doom and Marilyn Manson. But the 2nd amendment was an easier target than the first, so we got ridiculous laws like the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Anyway, any kid who says that he did something because of a game is a moron. He's either severely mentally ill or he's lying to deflect attention on someone else, especially if his family is being advised by Jack Thompson. I wouldn't have been surprised if Jack had flown out to Thailand as soon as this happened to give the kid an excuse. And if you haven't played GTA4, you probably don't know what you're talking about. The game doesn't promote senseless killing and you don't kill any civilians as part of the storyline. Honestly, hijacking cars and mowing down civilians breaks immersion into the story because that's not really in the character. Aside from a few fascist cops, every person you kill throughout the storyline is a criminal.

What is it again that Bioware was doing before they started making video games?