Free Condom Dispensers at HS

[printz]

fraggle said:

I don't know why you think that's of or unusual; it's a fairly common thing. Compare government spending on free condoms vs. welfare spending on teenage mothers + health spending on STDs. Order of magnitude cheaper.

If they're free, won't kids just empty away those dispensers and start making practical jokes with them?

[Kontra Kommando]

hardcore_gamer said:

Uhm, except that people who live mostly on benefits don't contribute to the government's profit in the first place and thus they are basically just getting a free ride, so your argument doesn't hold up. People on benefits probably still pay a good amount of taxes when they spend their money, but they are paying those taxes with money that the government gave them in the first place, so the government loses money to them. This means that when somebody gets lots of benefits for being stupid, other people in society are paying for it with their own cash. Doesn't sound fair to me.

I'm kind of confused by your political persuasion. You made this thread not too long ago: http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/67280-why-cant-some-people-comprehend-the-idea-of-collective-interest/

[Gez]

hardcore_gamer said:

Uhm, except that people who live mostly on benefits don't contribute to the government's profit

Government's not supposed to profit. The government's supposed to advance and protect the common good of the nation.

hardcore_gamer said:

in the first place and thus they are basically just getting a free ride

Even if this were true, this free ride drives the economy by allowing them to be active consumers, which allows other people to have jobs, innovate, etc.

The point of social welfare in a capitalist economy is precisely to inject money back into the circuit. Otherwise, it breaks down. Capitalism without welfare and regulation DOES NOT WORK. Money attracts money, so the existing capital gets ever more concentrated. If left by its own device, it'd eventually ends up with 100% of the capital in the hands of a single unique person. Of course it's untenable and the society would explode long before.

Giving money to the poor, even if they're lazy layabouts, is GOOD for the economy.

hardcore_gamer said:

People on benefits probably still pay a good amount of taxes when they spend their money, but they are paying those taxes with money that the government gave them in the first place, so the government loses money to them.

Don't think of it as the government's money. It's the nation's money. The people's money. If these people have little money, they'll spend all of it. That means that all the money you give them? It goes right back into the economy. That's good. That keeps the nation healthy.

On the other hand, when you give money to rich people, then they can save it. They don't inject all of it right back into the economy. Sure, they may invest here and there (which is good, and needed) but a large part will end up being sent to offshore bank account for tax evasion, or invested in speculative schemes that are detrimental to the common good of the nation. It's generally better for the economy to give money to those that have so little of it that they'll spend nearly everything than to those that have so much of it that they'll save nearly everything. You're the government, you want the money to flow. Not to get trapped forever in Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool, where it is essentially useless.

You give money to the poor, you inject that money in the economy; you give it to the rich and you effectively remove the money from the economy. What happens when you remove money? Effectively, it's like destroying it.

This is why austerity doesn't work. This is why the entire developed world -- USA, Europe, Japan, etc. are in a recession and going from financial crisis to financial crisis. This is why debt has reached positively absurd levels, why the middle class is decimated, and why the gap between upper class and lower class is ever widening. This is all because our elites think exactly like you and have applied programs to destroy welfare and reduce taxes on the wealthy. It's all because they believe that trickle-down reaganomics work, that monetary policies should be in the hands of the Divine Omnipotent market rather than the will of the People, and that poor people are poor because they deserve it (they're stupid and lazy) while rich people are rich because they deserve it (they're hardworking and smart). They believe that as gospel and the result is an economy that crash and burn, a government that closes down, massive unemployments, and rich people building themselves gated communities guarded by weaponized drones to shelter themselves from the coming revolution.

[hardcore_gamer]

Kontra Kommando said:

I'm kind of confused by your political persuasion. You made this thread not too long ago: http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/67280-why-cant-some-people-comprehend-the-idea-of-collective-interest/

There is a difference between wanting to get rid of all welfare and every regulation ever, and simply expecting some reasonable degree of self-responsibility from people.

Sodaholic said:

Who fucking cares? Condoms are probably pretty cheap to make, and it solves a lot of societal problems. If you're against social safety nets in general, why don't you go visit some shithole like Somalia? The people there live healthy, productive lives, where absolutely nothing ever goes wrong, guaranteed.

This is a strawmen that I won't bother replying to, just read what I said above.

[Kontra Kommando]

hardcore_gamer said:

There is a difference between wanting to get rid of all welfare and every regulation ever, and simply expecting some reasonable degree of self-responsibility from people.

Well obviously, but nobody is arguing that here. I'm just saying, this is what you said:

hardcore_gamer said:

Uhm, except that people who live mostly on benefits don't contribute to the government's profit in the first place and thus they are basically just getting a free ride, so your argument doesn't hold up. People on benefits probably still pay a good amount of taxes when they spend their money, but they are paying those taxes with money that the government gave them in the first place, so the government loses money to them. This means that when somebody gets lots of benefits for being stupid, other people in society are paying for it with their own cash. Doesn't sound fair to me.

It is driving me insane. I am talking about people who are so concerned with trying to benefit/profit as much as they can, that they basically fail to understand that sometimes the well being of somebody else can actually overlap with their own well being, and as a result they have a painfully simplistic idea of how society should be run. This can take many forms, like people stating that the government should not do this or that for group X because its unfair if only that groups gets help, even though the reason group X is being helped in the first place is because it indirectly (or directly) helps the rest or the colletive good.

[Blastfrog]

hardcore_gamer said:

There is a difference between wanting to get rid of all welfare and every regulation ever, and simply expecting some reasonable degree of self-responsibility from people.

Okay, but there is inevitably going to be stupid people that you just CANNOT make them act responsibly. Better to minimize the damage than to let them bring everyone else down. Guess what, there's a lot of idiots too. Even if you leave them to their own devices and not help them, you'll still end up living in a shithole. These idiots are part of the collective. Don't YOU understand collective interest?

hardcore_gamer said:

This is a strawmen that I won't bother replying to, just read what I said above.

I did read it, if I didn't, I wouldn't have anything to reply to, now would I? I simply disagree with you, no reason to accuse me of not having read what I was replying to.

Gez summed it all up far better than I could. I'm not going to argue any further in this thread.

[Phml]

This is all because our elites think exactly like you and have applied programs to destroy welfare and reduce taxes on the wealthy.

Ah, if only you weren't a crackpot. Unfortunately, in the real world I keep paying higher taxes year after year, so the government can bankroll neo-fascist groups of naked women peeing in public.

[geekmarine]

Thing is, there's a huge stigma about using condoms, that's why we have a problem in the first place. It's not just, "Oh, they're just dumb, they don't know any better," it's that society tells us, "Sex is bad, but sex with a condom is even worse. If you use protection that means you're actually thinking ahead and planning, which means you're a much worse person than someone who has sex without protection." Not even joking, that seriously is a factor.

I'm just saying, you can't blame stupid people for making stupid choices when those people were taught to make those choices by society. At some point, you have to realize that if you want people to change, you have to change the messages society sends to people. So, say, putting condoms in bathrooms wouldn't just make access easier (and do away with the embarrassment kids feel that might prevent them from getting condoms), but also would send the message that it's okay to use condoms. And you can go on all day about how everyone is supposed to already know to use condoms, but let's face it, they are basically demonized by large portions of society.

[Technician]

Phml said:

Ah, if only you weren't a crackpot. Unfortunately, in the real world I keep paying higher taxes year after year, so the government can bankroll neo-fascist groups of naked women peeing in public.

Wait, FEMEN is being government funded?

Europe really has turn to liberal shit.

geekmarine said:

Thing is, there's a huge stigma about using condoms, that's why we have a problem in the first place. It's not just, "Oh, they're just dumb, they don't know any better," it's that society tells us, "Sex is bad, but sex with a condom is even worse. If you use protection that means you're actually thinking ahead and planning, which means you're a much worse person than someone who has sex without protection."

Really?

[Gez]

Somehow, I doubt said women represent a larger part of your taxes than the various recent military interventions in Africa, the bailout of the Credit Lyonnais, the ruinous Rafale planes that nobody else in the entire world wants, etc. I'm eager to see an article detailing how the government bankrolls the Femen, though; all I'm aware of is that the municipality of Paris lets them occupy a theater for free. And the Paris town hall isn't the government.

[geekmarine]

Yes, Technician, really. I've actually read several scientific journal articles on the subject, and it was really fascinating. If I can dig up the links, I'll post 'em for you, but yeah, studies have shown that stigma is a major factor affecting condom use.

[Quast]

hardcore_gamer said:

All of those links come from liberal sources.

Yeah the fucking CDC...jesus. I suppose the WHO is liberal too right? So I shouldn't post anything from them either?

I could just as easily find other sources from conservatives saying that it doesn't.

Do it then, seriously. In fact I strongly encourage you to do just that. Do you know why? Because dismissing actual medical studies with a claim of liberal bias without presenting your own numbers (or even showing where the actual bias is) has to be the most intellectually stupid thing you could possibly do in a discussion.

I mean it for real, bring forth unbiased or 'conservative' facts and figures in regard to this topic.

Do it.

[Phml]

I'm eager to see an article detailing how the government bankrolls the Femen, though

Might have to step outside of your "right people" bubble for that. But then, of course those other guys wouldn't be reliable. Not like the good guys, with their scientific facts of lower taxes for the wealthy, which you know is objective and true because, uhh, hey look there let's discuss Rafale planes!

[Technician]

Funding fundie-feminist groups sounds like something Sweden would do.

[flubbernugget]

If your morals end up justifying people suffering health issues due to a lack of ability for them to obtain resources, your morals are bullshit.

Also, as far as cutting welfare goes, what now happens to all the children these stupid teens, adults, or whatever gave birth to? Do they deserve to starve because they're too young to get a job?

[Technician]

flubbernugget said:

Also, as far as cutting welfare goes, what now happens to all the children these stupid teens, adults, or whatever gave birth to? Do they deserve to starve because they're too young to get a job?

If looking at this through a republican's eyes, then yes.

[printz]

Phml said:

Ah, if only you weren't a crackpot. Unfortunately, in the real world I keep paying higher taxes year after year, so the government can bankroll neo-fascist groups of naked women peeing in public.

That sounds pretty awesome, getting back with nature.

[Linkrulezall]

darknation said:

obamadoms

Printz said:

I guess teenagers are that poor.

Not exactly. For some reason, a pretty good chunk of teens are embarrassed to go to the store to buy condoms (even though it's a sign that you're about to get some, which most teenagers would be looking for anyways). I don't get it myself, but it seems to be the case.

Also, provided that they don't get themselves impregnated what's the big deal about teens having sex anyways? Either way, this is a far better option than to waste more money trying to push abstinence further. Nobody actually listens to that, especially considering how they frequently fill their speeches about abstinence with blatant misinformation. I've heard abstinence reps say that you can get pregnant from touching each other's genitals and that you can get HIV from sweat contact. It seems as though they're finally starting to realize that teenagers are going to have sex either way, which is a step in the right direction.

[hardcore_gamer]

flubbernugget said:

If your morals end up justifying people suffering health issues due to a lack of ability for them to obtain resources, your morals are bullshit.

That would depend on why somebody lacks the resources in the first place. Somebody who can't hold a job because they spend all their money on booze won't be able to obtain resources via working. Are my morals bullshit if I don't give a shit of that person starves to death?

flubbernugget said:

Also, as far as cutting welfare goes, what now happens to all the children these stupid teens, adults, or whatever gave birth to? Do they deserve to starve because they're too young to get a job?

A person that is in no position to raise a child as a result of irresponsible life choices should not have any children in the first place. In such a scenario child protection should take the children away from the mother and give them to somebody else.

[Quast]

hardcore_gamer said:

Are my morals bullshit if I don't give a shit of that person starves to death?

Absolutely, yes.

Edit: I'm slightly curious though, how thin is the line in your moral opinions between this "not-giving-a-shit callous apathy" and actively wishing ill upon such people. I'm honestly willing to bet it's not very far at all.

[flubbernugget]

hardcore_gamer said:

That would depend on why somebody lacks the resources in the first place. Somebody who can't hold a job because they spend all their money on booze won't be able to obtain resources via working. Are my morals bullshit if I don't give a shit of that person starves to death?

In my opinion, yes. Each to his own I guess.

A person that is in no position to raise a child as a result of irresponsible life choices hould not have any children in the first place. In such a scenario child protection should take the children away from the mother and give them to somebody else.

At least in New Jersey, child protection is bullshit. Take a couple anecdotes for what they're worth, but I know one person with any sort of a stable life and sound mind out of the three that have opened up about being involved in child protection services. My great parents allegedly took in foster children for some extra cash on the side, which means they couldn't have been paying all to well for the kids they were supposed to be taking care of. All it takes is a jar of peanut butter in the cabinet for a shitty social worker that hates their job to claim a kid is being fed.

And if you really want to bring child protection into the discussion like it's some magical child abuse/negligence/irresponsible parent cure, don't forget about the parents that do love their kids that still have them taken away, because a child is too young to understand the consequences of going to school and saying mommy and daddy beat them, when they really just smacked his hand for trying to put a fork in a toaster.

[Technician]

I never knew someone from Iceland could be so conservative. There may be hope yet.

[Belial]

hardcore_gamer said:

A person that is in no position to raise a child as a result of irresponsible life choices should not have any children in the first place. In such a scenario child protection should take the children away from the mother and give them to somebody else.

I'm glad I don't live in this black and white world of yours.

[dg93]

Free wiener bag dispensers in HS? LOL XD

[myk]

Phml said:
Unfortunately, in the real world I keep paying higher taxes year after year, so the government can bankroll neo-fascist groups of naked women peeing in public.

I gather you're among the wealthy?

[Kontra Kommando]

I think there should also be a push for encouraging the use of latex gloves. When engaging in digital sex (your fingers, not involving or relating to the use of computer technology.) you run a risk of submerging your fingers in high-risk bodily fluid. HIV is not so much of a danger as Hepatitis C, which is a lot more infectious and can be passed on through cuts in your fingers. I know it sounds weird, but you're protecting yourself. I've worn gloves in the past, and surprisingly women welcome it.

[Clonehunter]

Just how free are these dispensers? Without reading the thread, who is paying for them? I'd rather I buy my own condoms as opposed to buying someone else's.

[dg93]

Clonehunter said:

Just how free are these dispensers? Without reading the thread, who is paying for them? I'd rather I buy my own condoms as opposed to buying someone else's.

Taxpayer money that is being funded to schools. Condoms aren't expensive, nor are there any age restrictions (at least in the United States). I think it is a little ridiculous that they are being given out for free (funded by our tax money) when any kid can go to a drug store/pharmacy and buy a pack for a couple of bucks. That's just my two cents on this topic.

[Maes]

Heh....this reminds me of the time I found a strange dispenser in a depressed zone of an industrial Italian town. It was huge (larger than one of those multi-cigarette-brand ones), built like a tank, installed on two strong concrete pillars, and completely unmarked. Being curious I inserted a couple of coins to see exactly what it dispensed....and to my surprise I discovered it dispensed medical syringes and needles O_o

N.B.: the zone it was in was home to derelicts like African immigrants and prostitutes, drug addicts etc. so I can understand it playing a role in decreasing needle-sharing and subsequent infections between drug users.

[Quasar]

My college freshman welcome pack had a free condom in it.

Had to throw it out cuz it went past the date >___>