First, make all commendations of questionable validity. Then, deny your troops any relaxation during liberty or leave.
Conservatives and their Yellow Belly leader are making even Bill Clinton look like a military mastermind. I would have been less afraid with an openly gay military.
Why should an 18 year old join the military now when the hood looks so much better? At least they don't declare war on sex.
I'll add one caveat: the goal of doing away with slavery is always good, but it's being subverted into the only cause the Christians understand: a war against sex.
/Zin
Come on now! Let your hatred for Bush wane just a little to let some common sense in for a moment. Soldiers like pussy. No doubt about it. Soldiers stationed overseas LOVE cheap pussy! (Hey GI! twenny dolla ovanite! ten dolla short-time! I luv yu looong time!) Lots of cheap overseas pussy equals lots of VD! Lots of GI's with VD means long sicklines at the clinic (anybody here spend time at Camp Casey, ROK? Gimme a shout out!). Lot's of GI's in the VD sickline equals fewer GI's combat ready.
Come on now. A little common sense.
RLTW
-- Modified on 9/23/2004 9:57:46 PM
Common sense is what your post is truly lacking...but then we've come to expect that with "all" of your posts.
Except for those of the George W. persuasion, extensive clinical testing has shown that the correct use of condoms is an effective prophylactic for the prevention of not only pregnancy but also venereal diseases. Indeed, in more enlightened times during WWII, the US military actively promoted their use.
If condoms weren't effective in reducing VD, then all of us participating in this forum would be infected with a plethora of venereal diseases, including AIDS. All of our experiences contradict the assertion that condoms don't "work".
Trust an acolyte (such as yourself) of our truly "anti-science" prez, George W., to spout such nonsense, as if condoms never existed.
-- Modified on 9/23/2004 10:10:32 PM
Hey idiot, if you've ever served overseas and witnessed countless Privates standing in the VD line at the on-base clinics, while the Clap is running rampant amongst the young girls involuntarily paying-off family debts at the clubs down in the Ville, then you might be able to figure out where I'm coming from. But all you seem to be able to do in this case is write out a bunch of fuck-headed drivel.
RLTW
Since your education appears limited to "anecdotal" information, you might want to broaden it with a scientific review from the peer-review literature (see below). Also, google "PUBMED" and type in "condom effectiveness" at the subject line. You'll find ~660 articles from scientific journals. Don't bother to thank me.
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Jun;82(6):454-61. Related Articles, Links
Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections.
Holmes KK, Levine R, Weaver M.
Department of Medicine, and Director, Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. [email protected]
In June 2000, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) organized a review of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The review concluded that condoms were effective in protecting against transmission of HIV to women and men and in reducing the risk of men becoming infected with gonorrhoea. Evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing other STIs was considered to be insufficient. We review the findings of prospective studies published after June 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs. We searched Medline for publications in English and included other articles, reports, and abstracts of which we were aware. These prospective studies, published since June 2000, show that condom use is associated with statistically significant protection of men and women against several other types of STIs, including chlamydial infection, gonorrhoea, herpes simplex virus type 2, and syphilis. Condoms may also be associated with protecting women against trichomoniasis. While no published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, two studies reported that condom use was associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of cervical HPV infection in women and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. Research findings available since the NIH review add considerably to the evidence of the effectiveness of condoms against STIs. Although condoms are not 100% effective, partial protection can substantially reduce the spread of STIs within populations.
I understand the role of condoms in STD prevention perfectly. What you and Zin don't seem to get is that even though condoms are handed out at the front gates of the bases, they are not often used. A Seargent is not present at the commencement of the dirty deed to enforce condom usage! The soldiers get VD. The young girls they are screwing get VD! Most of those girls are working to pay off family debts to the Ahjima's. They are not fucking the GI's by their own free-will. Try to think that through for a moment.
Like I said earlier, common sense.
RLTW
-- Modified on 9/23/2004 10:51:14 PM
We have no one enforcing it on us! Except the occassional provider.
Besides, isn't spread of disease a different issue? I don't believe that concern was even mentioned in the article. Slavery was the issue. Stopping spread of disease, at most, would be a side benefit, if this program is ever successful.
I don't think it will be.
/Zin
I never saw any of the lines you are speaking of. I do remember one time there was a problem with crabs though. I had several Island girls, W African, Abu Dhabi and Mombasa girls ask me to marry them and never encountered any STD's until I got home and let my guard down. None of my shipmates that I knew of ever contracted anything either.
I've no experience regarding port calls from ships. I'm referring to my own experiences from infantry bases in South Korea and training missions in Panama.
I know exactly what you're saying about the girls wanting to get married for a free ticket stateside. If you're ever near Fort Benning in Columbus, GA - walk into one of the clubs on Victory Drive. It'll be full of Korean "wives".
RLTW
Of the several thousand AMPs in the USA, one in Fort Collins is famed for the beauty of the, ummm, "technicians". Couldn't have anything to do with the USAFA being located there, you think?
RLTW, nice to see you talking about pussy for a change. Didn't think you had it in you.
STD's can be prevented. They had been prevented, but then our Christian nation decided that safety encouraged more sin. If treated, most VDs are simply aggravations. If you were playing tennis instead of having sex, it's the equivalent of a sore knee. Only because your having sex rather than playing sports are most STDs considered more serious.
I'd rather they get the occassional sickness than a psychological malaise, or low morale, and a draining off of numbers. Pleasure has an important role in human psychology. You can't replace it with discipline, regulation or religion. Period.
/Zin
""it's being subverted into the only cause the Christians understand: a war against sex.""
He also has no regard for the young women forced into the sex trade. But hey, it's all good so long as they can find a reason to make an idiotic rant against Bush!
RLTW
It's the stupid crack lumping all Christians into one school of thought. That reveals a bigoted mind.
That's why I can't hang here long...too much hatin'..
-- Modified on 9/23/2004 11:02:12 PM
...its history, and its revised face. Which bears up less under analysis than its historical face.
That's not hate, Billkile. Maybe there's a different reason you can't hang in here long.
/Zin
No, it's the hate......I just don't like being around it.
It makes me mean too. Harkening me back to a time I'd rather forget...
BK
-- Modified on 9/24/2004 5:40:45 PM
You're brain-washed. I suppose when Christians have their next murderous crusade, and they will, as they still do on a small scale, I must stay silent and nod my head affirmatively?
Meanwhile, the more humane Christians, the more tepid ones, will write afterward about how misguided those poor crusaders were. They just misunderstood the scriptures.
Christianity is not a religion of peace. Neither is Islam. You can't renounce it's more intolerant and violent elements without renouncing Moses, St. Paul, and Mohammad. Period.
/Zin
You are making a wholesale condemnation of a group of people. A group of which you have had only a immeasurably small amount of first hand knowledge of their acts and thoughts from which you can base your conclusions.
In searching for reasons why an otherwise intelligent person like yourself would hold such irrational views I'm sure most psychologist would conclude it is driven by hate or resentment (a form of hate). Your views of Christians actually parallel those of the "nigger hatin' hillbilly".
It's a very narrowminded view which conveys a "self-centered" point of view. In other words, your conclusions are based solely upon YOUR observations and YOUR experiences and lead you to believe that YOUR view is the right view.
I know you'll deny it because such things cannot exist within your realm, but I believe you express the same intolerance for alternative points of view of Christians as the type of Christians against which you rail.
BK
Immeasurable small amount? You know nothing about me! I was raised Catholic in a completely devout family, whose most admired members were nuns and seminarians. Catholic Grade School, Catholic High School, and partially, a Catholic college. I went through long years wavering between the Christianity I wanted so much to believe and the atheism I actually believed. I flirted with other branches of Christianity in the meantime. I've gone to protestant and non-denominational churches. Within all of that, I've read more literature from it and about it than you know. I've read the Bible twice through. I've spent hours and days praying before; I've spent hours saying the rosary. I've done volunteer work in the name of Christianity.
Self-centered? Doing all that, over thirty-four years, was self-centered? I've had a lot of experience with Christians, just in my own extended family. I am the only atheist of my generation. Moreover, outside my family I've had plenty of other experience with Christians.
I broke from it out of principle. The principle: there's no God in this universe. I've seen no evidence, ever, that anything like Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah exists, nor that even the world he/it is described as existing in is real. The secondary principle: sin, especially original sin, does not describe to me the flaw in humankind. If you don't have the disease, don't buy the cure. Do you find those to be self-centered? I could go into other problems I've realized since then, but it's beside the point.
Finally, I had to be truthful to what I observed, and not what other people, including scripture writers, were telling me. Perhaps that's what you mean by "self-centered?"
I've grown passionate about it since that final, intellectual break. You call that hatred. I ask you to read St. Paul, Romans 18-31, and what he says about unbelievers. Now, why is what he says about me passionate and truthful and what I'm saying hateful and lying? Be informed that many Christians take everything he says as inspired truth. Now, if I'm not passionate, where will Christians, inspired by St. Paul, put me? Please be informed that I'm not attacking a minority here. This is perhaps 80 percent of the country in which I live. More if you count other monotheists. I'm not bullying an easy target; I am not bullying at all.
You call me hateful from one single statement. What you mean is that the notion shocked you to the core. You fight against it. I've already explained what it means. I don't know if you read those posts. But in the meantime, you've drawn conclusions about my history that are erroneous in order to backward-engineer your notion of how I developed my thinking in accord with your own dim judgment of me. In other words, you formulated your view of me from ignorance, the exact thing for which you've accused me.
I stand by that statement. Disprove it in the way you live if you can. You'll be a better person if you're able.
And even if you've already made your judgment, Billkile, you must admit, that's not a hateful challenge to give you.
/Zin
First and foremost, what I took issue with was the "precise statement" that "the only thing Christians understand: a war on sex." I took issue with that statement because of it's all inclusive nature. I would take issue with that statement if you interchanged Christians with atheist and you input any of the perhaps typical, yet ingnorant statements you have no doubt heard that attempt to pidgeonhole atheists. If I made such a statement about atheists, I'd have an upbraiding coming.
The reason I objected to it is not that it "shook me up" about some core belief I have, because I do not profess to be Christian nor do I align with any religious dogma, but because it casts an aspersion on some of the finest humans I know who do claim to be Christians.
But these are not your fishflashing, choir signing, 10 speed riding types. These are people of unselfish, constructive action. I don't talk about this much but since you took the time to explain yourself, you deserve an explaination of from where I'm coming. Besides, there's not much interest in our exchange and soon we'll be on page 2.
I have spent the good part of 2 decades spending a great deal of my spare time working with the homeless, the insane, and drug addicted. I don't just mean in a tangential sort of way but rather in a concrete, hands on, on the street sort of way. I have worked side by side in this effort with hundreds of folks who identify as Christians. So you see, when you cast your net over "Christians" without distiction, you're casting your net over these people, who's "works" I've known for years. These people are some of the finest people walking the face of the earth for the unselfishness they express thru their work.
You asked in an earlier post about "what if there was no God?" what would be left, or what would be the point. These folks would say, it does'nt matter because "God aside" they like the way they feel about themselves and what their lives are about.
So the reason I say your view is "self-centered" is because it only takes into account what YOU have learned, what YOU have experienced, and the people YOU have come across. Frankly, that's how most folks form their views and I'm sure some of mine are of that nature as well, though I try to avoid it.
Lastly, I want to make the distinction between a hateful person and a position and a position arrived at by hate, even in it's mildest form. I don't know anyone where near enough about you to consider you hateful. If anything I said infers that I retract it and apologize. But I do think from what you told me that it would be difficult to have had your experiences and NOT have any kind of anomuos [sic?}, particularly with those who have no tolerance for your views. Personally, I have little tolerance for anyone who tells others what they must believe. As someone who does believe in some form of God, I'd rather spend time with a good atheist, than a fishflasher who wants to tell me what I ought to think.
In closing, I wish you no ill will. this forum is a difficult one in which to discuss complex issues and often times it leads to misunderstanding. I hope I've been clear.
Oh, and one last thing. You mentioned you did volunteer work in the past. I'd encourage you to resume. This time, not "in the name of Christ" but rather because there is some much that is needed, and not enough hands to go around.
BK
Duder-
Clearly we use the Term Christian here to mean the overweaning in yo face- god sqadders. NOT the regular semi-secular-but still-goin'-to-church -to-indoctrinate-the little-ones-folk. You know, the truly annoying ones who think their book of old legends trumps whatever you read, think , or know.
You know the ones in the bad drivers club- with little fishes on their cars?
They made a choice to believe in something, so they are fair game for dislike. Not like bein' born Gay or Black or Jewish or whatever.
where words are expressed in blues and greens and reds and all sorts of colors open to interpretation. I was stuck with only learning about the black and white. Had Zin proffered what you did, I'd be much more likely to agree. I know all about the type of which you speak. With 2 kids in a Christian school, I'm more than aware....but, that is not what he proffered.
What he proffered was that the only thing Christians understand is a war on sex.
Come on Sul, we both know that's plain stupid...
PS, what makes them "game for dislike" in my book is not what they choose to believe but rather their insistence that I must believe as they believe.
BK
totally agree. That's why I took time to explain what I THOUGHT he meant.
nobody minds people who have some faith. I just resent hearing about it, being prosyl-whatevered, being told what to do, that my forefathers' camp-fire stories are the basis of life.
I choose to think less of them for using the proffered crutch, but I get riled when they start telling me what to think too....
Egads! Aggreement on the board! Alert the media!
Indeed, nothing gets my front door to closin faster than an uninvited "fisher of men".,.LOL
-- Modified on 9/24/2004 7:53:13 PM
Take God out of the equation, and all that Christianity has to offer is a war on sex, and, in general, wars between who they think are going to heaven against those they've judged to be going to hell. Nevermind peace on earth. How about a truce on earth.
I believe in no God. I'm an atheist, an antispiritualist, and a materialist. There's no god in this universe. Therefore, there is no God in the equation, there never was.
So, ask yourself what would be left, what do Christians look like they're doing if there is no God?
You say that I insist you must believe this? Why? Important question: ask yourself what am I holding over you that makes you feel coerced?
/Zin
-- Modified on 9/25/2004 12:00:13 PM
-- Modified on 9/25/2004 2:44:57 PM
Excuse me, I'll quote myself:
"I'll add one caveat: the goal of doing away with slavery is always good, but it's being subverted into the only cause the Christians understand: a war against sex."
In what respect would you say this is "no regard?" I state, and I reiterate, that the slavery issue isn't dealt with when you make it part of a larger repression of sex. The only reason we try to deal with it that way is that we are a "Christian nation."
I say: tolerate prostitution, because we have to stand on one leg at least, while we use our remaining heel to come down on slavery, in all its forms.
/Zin
That's a hard one to dispute, Billkile. Care to try?
Not stupid or bigoted. It took me decades to understand and reject Christianity and all its works. I assure you, it wasn't thoughtless or knee jerk. Bigoted? No, I'm unsympathetic to it. Since the usual behavior is to humor its practitioners and call its weirdness normal and sane, my not doing it looks bigotted.
Christianity, and in fact, monotheism: (judiasm/Christianity/Islam, all really the same beast,) is the biggest mass-manipulating fraud ever perpetrated and maintained on humankind. The only reason it's still around is that most people can't face the personal crisis of realizing how often they've been lied to by their fellow human beings, living and dead (dead with writing surviving), nor can they face, without despair, a universe where nothing is in control.
No, I don't hate them en masse. There's the few deceivers, who know better, there's the masses of the deceived, and then there are the deceived-deceivers. Only the first and last draw my contempt. The mass numbers of the middle group I wish I can cure.
/Zin
-- Modified on 9/23/2004 11:20:10 PM
Zin, you get to the heart of something. Encountering this perception is a fundamental step in adult maturation. It takes courage and honesty to tear down our protective, comfortable, compulsive and deadening fantasies to see what you describe.
I would just suggest that from this jumping off point, one can explore the deeply creative mind as it projects out into and accomodates to the environment it interacts with. We do see what we believe and the subjective and the external are intimately linked by our interior models.
There is a spiritual reality without myth & exaggeration, and it stands atop & incorporates the honesty of the perspective you describe. The only thing that I can control, but only after enormous, longstanding and ongoing effort, is what my own mind is doing. And from time to time, I touch into something extraordinary. I call it spiritual, but one could also call it spud.
Sorry to get off topic.... I am not posting much, as there's not much point to it (and I stopped my VIP, as I don't hobby now, so I can't PM you), but I just had to let you know I especially admired this idea and what it implies.
Let's be clear about something. You said:
""the only cause the Christians understand: a war against sex.""
And I remarked that the above statement is both stupid and bigoted.
Let's see what Webster says:
stu·pid
given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason
big·ot
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
You are enlisted into The World is Flat Club because they, like you, have leapt to conclusions based SOLELY upon YOUR perspective. You CANNOT claim to know what ALL Christians think or do, yet your statement clearly implies you can.
Now, obviously not lacking in intelligence as evidenced at least by your ability to read, type, and punctuate, I can only conlude you made your statement in careless, unthinking manner. We can quibble synonyms if you like but your postition is based far more on your predjudice that any real intellectual proffer. IOW, it's bigoted.
""the only cause the Christians understand: a war against sex.""
Now prove your proffer or accept the criticism.
BK
The Catholics hate the Protestants, hate the Orthodox, they all agree on this. They will join en mass in a war for "decency." The Baptist, the Pentacostals, the non-denominationals, they act together when it comes to this.
Yes, there will be dissenters, but they will also be tepid about the rest of Christianity. Some think they can revise it to take that element out of it, keeping only the elements that they like. They may call themselves Christians at the end, but why? Reading the Marquis De Sade doesn't make one a Sadist, nor does just referring to the Bible make you a Christian. If you throw out the Epistles with their rants against "uncleanliness," what is there left of Christ's teachings? Not very much. Throw out the prophets with their rants against prostitutes, and you've got some legends. You're supposed to follow Christ's teachings rather than the old testament laws, but there's not much to Christ's teachings. Love God, love your neighbor. Leave your family. Don't get rich. Forgive. Don't defend yourself. Does it say anything about using drugs? About abortion? About keeping yourself healthy?
And how are his teachings "Pro-family?" Who is the family guy in the Bible?
Only sex within marriage is consented to by these groups. In fact, marriage has been manipulated by them to regulate sex. In some sects, such as the Catholics, they are ruled by a cabal of the celebate. Periodically you have runaway sects such as the Shakers who renounce all sex.
Christianity spreads itself by depriving people of pleasure, inflaming guilt, and then exploiting the meanness caused by that frustration. "Few saved many damned" seems acceptable to people in this state. An eternity of agony seems like a good wish, and it even gives believers a God as a front for these anti-social desires.
When a city passes an ordinance prohibiting a porn store or topless bar within, say, 1000 feet of a church, is there ever a church that petitions the city council and says: except ours? No thank you, we don't need that service?
No, not all Christians. But neither will the dissenting Christians oppose the demons leading them in anti-sex crusades.
Why? Because their Christianity is the emasculated form.
/Zin
-- Modified on 9/25/2004 12:38:48 PM
have agreed. But it did not. You made a blanket statement about all and attempt to justify it by the actions of a few.
You have in no way proved your point. Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that.
BK
However, I'd rather shock you with a thought that hadn't occurred to you yet, than hedge in a way that lets you ignore it.
We'll disagree, then.
/Zin
-- Modified on 9/26/2004 3:50:44 AM