Texas School Has Chlamydia Outbreak And Now Needs To Rethink Sex "Ed"

[Lowe0]

Well, thank you for pointing that out. We are all better off knowing that Steve posted his while I was still composing mine. And thank you Steve for "pre-iterating" my reiteration of what you said before I reiterated it without knowing what you "pre-iterated". I feel blessed to have participated in that in some small way even if after the fact.

I don't blame you, I'm just pointing out what I was arguing against in the first place. Anyway, picking back up...

You mentioned that a heartless but effective solution is to cut off welfare. Since heartless solutions are okay, I submit an even better solution than that, one that eliminates the economic opportunity cost altogether: a couple doses of RU-486 should clear the problem right up. But for some reason, that's not accepted either.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, thank you for pointing that out. We are all better off knowing that Steve posted his while I was still composing mine. And thank you Steve for "pre-iterating" my reiteration of what you said before I reiterated it without knowing what you "pre-iterated". I feel blessed to have participated in that in some small way even if after the fact.

I said it better, though. With more heart

You mentioned that a heartless but effective solution is to cut off welfare. Since heartless solutions are okay, I submit an even better solution than that, one that eliminates the economic opportunity cost altogether: a couple doses of RU-486 should clear the problem right up. But for some reason, that's not accepted either.

Government-less solutions are best. Government-less is not necessarily heartless. Except maybe in your world, where all good deeds must be done by the government.

 

[Lowe0]

Government-less solutions are best. Government-less is not necessarily heartless. Except maybe in your world, where all good deeds must be done by the government.

I don't think the solution has to come from the government. If someone has a better idea with the data to prove that it'll work in the real world, then I'm open to it. Otherwise, I'm just opposed to discarding a solution to reduce overall costs just because the government happens to be involved. I'm only interested in whether it'll work or not.

 

[jamil]

I don't blame you, I'm just pointing out what I was arguing against in the first place. Anyway, picking back up...

You mentioned that a heartless but effective solution is to cut off welfare. Since heartless solutions are okay, I submit an even better solution than that, one that eliminates the economic opportunity cost altogether: a couple doses of RU-486 should clear the problem right up. But for some reason, that's not accepted either.

I said it seams heartless, not that it is heartless. It is heartless to enslave the poor to the dependency of the government. I don't mind volunteering a hand up. I do mind having to help fund perpetual dependence.

And about your suggested solution, are you saying that we should thin the dependency herd by offering them free RU-486? Damn, that IS heartless.

 

[jamil]

I said it better, though. With more heart



Government-less solutions are best. Government-less is not necessarily heartless. Except maybe in your world, where all good deeds must be done by the government.

Damn it dude you beat me again! Only I said it much better than you this time.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't think the solution has to come from the government. If someone has a better idea with the data to prove that it'll work in the real world, then I'm open to it. Otherwise, I'm just opposed to discarding a solution to reduce overall costs just because the government happens to be involved. I'm only interested in whether it'll work or not.

Forced sterilization would reduce overall costs. What say you?

Damn it dude you beat me again! Only I said it much better than you this time.

maybe you'd be quicker if you were more binary

 

[Lowe0]

Forced sterilization would reduce overall costs. What say you?

Nice strawman you got there. Forced sterilization would take away their freedom to reproduce later if they choose to. Simply providing the ability to temporarily avoid conception provides most of the cost savings without said loss of freedom.

 

[steveh_131]

Simply providing the ability to temporarily avoid conception provides most of the cost savings without said loss of freedom.

The government is incapable of doing much of anything without a loss of freedom. So that appears to be where we disagree.