21 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyAnd the same can't be said of sex?
And the same can't be said of sex?
What do we do with addictions? You say we should provide safety. I say we should focus more on rehab.
Is a life spent all drugged up better than one that ends early or has one already lost their life?
Yes, the same can be said of sex. Or it least the spirit is the same. We know that people are going to have sex for reasons other than procreation and in ways other than "nature intended" (uh-oh...). Looking away, pretending it doesn't happen, "disapprove it", all of that isn't going to change a damn thing. Therefore, we must look at other ways of reducing STDs. Sexual education, stimulating monogamous relationship, promoting condom use. Essentially the same as "creating a safe enviroment."
What do we do with addictions? You say we should provide safety. I say we should focus more on rehab.
You make it sound like I only think we should "provide safety". This is of course not the case. I absolutely agree that we should focus (maybe more, difficult to say how much currently is being done) on rehab. But, for many people rehab is not possible in the foreseeable future and for some rehab will never be possible. For those people we need to find other solutions than telling them they have to stop using drugs. Do you understand that? Do you understand that for many difficult problems there is not "one-size-fits-all" solution? Do you also understand that many people who work with addicted people don't go "Oh, here, take the easiest solution, take some drugs. I wanna go home, there's a game on tonight", but instead work their asses of trying to find the solution for each "problem case" that works best for both the addicted and society?
Do you understand that the world is not as fvcking black-and-white as you would want it to be??
Is a life spent all drugged up better than one that ends early or has one already lost their life?
I know some people who've gone through hell using drugs and have come out the other side fairly unscathed. I think they're happy to still being alive, even though they'll probably have to use medication for the rest of their lives (not sure for how long) to keep their addictions under control.
Do you feel that people who will never get of their drug addiction are better of dead??
I should also point out - because I'm really not sure what your stance in this is, but I fear for the worst - that there is no "rehab" with regards one's sexual orientation. Gayness isn't going to go away, Whodey. Not now, not ever. You won't pray the gay away. So deal with it instead of disapproving.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by Great King RatOk, so we both agree that sex addictions and drug addictions are "bad".
[b]And the same can't be said of sex?
Yes, the same can be said of sex. Or it least the spirit is the same. We know that people are going to have sex for reasons other than procreation and in ways other than "nature intended" (uh-oh...). Looking away, pretending it doesn't happen, "disapprove it", all of that isn't going to change a damn thing. ...[text shortened]... Whodey. Not now, not ever. You won't pray the gay away. So deal with it instead of disapproving.[/b]
Am I right?
It then all boils down on how to help them. Every time I see a left winger wanting to pass out clean needles and free condoms, I have to ask where the line is drawn between enabling and helping.
21 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo how do you propose we combat STDs? Specifically the example that you often post here, concerning 5% of the population equating to 50% of the HIV cases?
Ok, so we both agree that sex addictions and drug addictions are "bad".
Am I right?
It then all boils down on how to help them. Every time I see a left winger wanting to pass out clean needles and free condoms, I have to ask where the line is drawn between enabling and helping.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by Great King RatOutlaw it and kill those that evade the law with Obama drones of course. 😛
So how do you propose we combat STDs? Specifically the example that you often post here, concerning 5% of the population equating to 50% of the HIV cases?
Not being a liberal fascist my inclination is to appeal to those in need by showing them that they need help. This is the first step.
Of course, we must acknowledge that there may be those who don't want help or don't think that they need help.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyCould you care to elaborate on that answer a little more please, it's terribly vague and non specific.
Outlaw it and kill those that evade the law with Obama drones of course. 😛
Not being a liberal fascist my inclination is to appeal to those in need by showing them that they need help. This is the first step.
Of course, we must acknowledge that there may be those who don't want help or don't think that they need help.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeySuch a shame... just as I was getting impressed by how you had not mentioned Obama for a couple of posts................
Outlaw it and kill those that evade the law with Obama drones of course. 😛
Not being a liberal fascist my inclination is to appeal to those in need by showing them that they need help. This is the first step.
Of course, we must acknowledge that there may be those who don't want help or don't think that they need help.
I'm guessing that Hitler was also pro-gay, right?
21 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeySeriously though, as Proper Knob says, please be much, much clearer. I couldn't make head nor tails of what you mean here.
Outlaw it and kill those that evade the law with Obama drones of course. 😛
Not being a liberal fascist my inclination is to appeal to those in need by showing them that they need help. This is the first step.
Of course, we must acknowledge that there may be those who don't want help or don't think that they need help.
Who needs help and how should they be helped?
Also, who needs to appeal to "those in need"? The government? The next door neighbour? The medical community?
......................
..........
....
..
.
The church...?
I'm dying to know what you mean, Whodey. On the edge of my seat, so to speak.
21 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatPeople generally only change when they see the need to do so. Change is often painful and requires work.
Seriously though, as Proper Knob says, please be much, much clearer. I couldn't make head nor tails of what you mean here.
Who needs help and how should they be helped?
Also, who needs to appeal to "those in need"? The government? The next door neighbour? The medical community?
......................
..........
....
..
.
The church...?
I'm dying to know what you mean, Whodey. On the edge of my seat, so to speak.
To tackle an issue of addiction devoid of the other party's free will is pure folly. If they are not in agreement to seek change then you either need to constrain them indefinitely or let them go do their thing.
Those that are in agreement then have the problem of overcoming the enslaving drive to continue their addiction. Being a person of faith I naturally am inclined towards turning to Christ who declared that he had the power to help free us from sin. Perhaps you know of secular people who have overcome addictions with self help groups.
Does it trouble you that I don't purport to have a collective solution to all our problems and to treat everyone the same? Life is complicated, and pretending you have all the answers and treating us as a herd instead of an individual takes away our humanity.
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTry not to break your teeth when you bite that hard.
Thats bitter great pudding, waz up, robbie no giving you any attention, well, you have only yourself to blame. Right, so you have got some attention, don't you feel better? Now you can go away happy.
Before that lets consider your contribution to this thread.......woa, where did that cactus spring from, that desert hawk, woa its suddenly hot in ...[text shortened]... ..amazing.......one minute I was in the frozen North the next in a desert region of nothingness.
21 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, that was a whole lot of nothing........
People generally only change when they see the need to do so. Change is often painful and requires work.
To tackle an issue of addiction devoid of the other party's free will is pure folly. If they are not in agreement to seek change then you either need to constrain them indefinitely or let them go do their thing.
Those that are in agreement then ha ...[text shortened]... have all the answers and treating us as a herd instead of an individual takes away our humanity.
You've attacked "the left" because they may very well be enabling instead of helping, yet you refuse to offer a better solution.
How are we going to reduce STDs, Whodey? What's the best solution according to you? Remember that for a solution to be a good solution it's mustn't just be good in theory ("everyone should have sex with only one other person of the opposite sex" ) but it must also work in practice.
Or are you going to admit that education, making condoms easily available and accepting gayness instead of pushing it away is the best solution even though it might not be your dream solution?
21 Dec 13
Originally posted by whodeyThe question was - how do you propose we combat STD's?
People generally only change when they see the need to do so. Change is often painful and requires work.
To tackle an issue of addiction devoid of the other party's free will is pure folly. If they are not in agreement to seek change then you either need to constrain them indefinitely or let them go do their thing.
Those that are in agreement then ha ...[text shortened]... have all the answers and treating us as a herd instead of an individual takes away our humanity.
21 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf you have homosexuals speaking to God, ask them if God speaks back. Also do you just allow those homosexuals to sin by committing the homosexual act in your workplace?
i do understand. i just dont believe you have considered all senario's. you also have a black and white view of 'truth'. what maybe true to you, may not be true to somebody else.
lets look at my workplace (so you dont think im picking on jw's). i work in the mental health sector. my company look after people with a mixture of personality disorders. f ...[text shortened]... ecision to make? because due to the nature of my work, it gets a lot trickier morally than this.