Gibberish of the day!

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:58 pm

RobbyPants wrote:How is that better than birth control, again?

Darned if I know.

I think it has to do with mutual respect.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:17 am

Kaelik wrote:When someone has sex with their wife, and because they used The Fucking Rhythm Method, and yes it is the same damn thing, they know that she won't get pregnant, Is the actual sex they are actually having that they definitely don't want to result in procreation and that is the specific reason they choose right now to have sex, open to procreation?

First of all, it's not the "same damn thing" because rhythm is based on a false assumption about menstrual periods and thus on false science. Thus it is considered, by many, as a put down, a means of inferring that someone is simplistic and primitive.

NFP is not used a a method for when to have sex (unless you use it in the reverse to improve chances for pregnancy) but for when it is probably not the best time to have sex if you don't want to have children.

Here is something from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

On the surface, there may seem to be little difference. But the end result is not the only thing that matters, and the way we get to that result may make an enormous moral difference. Some ways respect God’s gifts to us while others do not. Couples who have practiced natural family planning after using contraception have experienced a profound difference in the meaning of their sexual intimacy.When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love. They may choose to refrain from sexual union during the woman’s fertile time, doing nothing to destroy the love-giving or life-giving meaning that is present. This is the difference between choosing to falsify the full marital language of the body and choosing at certain times not to speak that language.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:21 am

Maj wrote:Tzor: Thank you for your explanation. What I'm curious to know is that if Natural Family Planning is an acceptable form of birth control, then would this cool little item be considered acceptable? (I wish I could afford one - it's not covered by insurance.)

I think so. In fact temperature based monitoring (which is what this appears to be) is one of the two types of NFP.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:46 am

So the Catholic Church's argument is that birth control "suppress[es] their fertility" leading you to assert that "[you] alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life."

Well whoop-de-fucking do, birth control isn't 100%. Which means that if God really wants you to have a child even when you don't, he can damn well make the condom fail.

I mean seriously, the whole argument is retarded. Even assuming that God exists and that he wants sex to only be for babies, then fucking NFP is spitting in the face of God by using natural cycles to minimize chances of having a baby. If sex is supposed to always be for procreation, then any time sex is not for procreation it is bad.

I have a question for you though. Since sex not done for procreation is inherently bad and against God, what the fuck should I do with my life? I can't get pregnant, and the hormone therapy means that if I'm not sterile now I will be soon, so I can't get anyone else pregnant. So seriously, tzor, am I just supposed to be abstinent my entire life because my body is incapable of making babies?

Furthermore, is non-vaginal sex also inherently bad? It cannot, after all, create babies.

Basically, my final question is that if my night goes as planned, will that be like spitting in God's face twice?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:26 am

Cielingcat wrote:So the Catholic Church's argument is that birth control "suppress[es] their fertility" leading you to assert that "[you] alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life."

Well whoop-de-fucking do, birth control isn't 100%. Which means that if God really wants you to have a child even when you don't, he can damn well make the condom fail.

I mean seriously, the whole argument is retarded. Even assuming that God exists and that he wants sex to only be for babies, then fucking NFP is spitting in the face of God by using natural cycles to minimize chances of having a baby. If sex is supposed to always be for procreation, then any time sex is not for procreation it is bad.

+1. Especially on the birth control not being 100% certain. So basically:

- pulling out is bad
- preventing the sperm from reaching the egg with a barrier is bad
- preventing ovulation is bad
- having sex to avoid ovulation is okay!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:36 am

tzor wrote:First of all, it's not the "same damn thing" because rhythm is based on a false assumption about menstrual periods and thus on false science. Thus it is considered, by many, as a put down, a means of inferring that someone is simplistic and primitive.

Having sex when she won't get pregnant == having sex when she won't get pregnant.

It may be more accurate, it is still the same damn thing.

tzor wrote:NFP is not used a a method for when to have sex (unless you use it in the reverse to improve chances for pregnancy) but for when it is probably not the best time to have sex if you don't want to have children.

So your official argument is that people don't actually use it to figure out when they can have sex and not have children.

This despite that the third bolded question of the site you linked to is:

"How effective are these methods in helping a couple avoid pregnancy?
These methods can help a couple avoid pregnancy if the couple receives training from a specialized instructor and if they carefully follow all of the instructions provided. (Ask your doctor how to find an instructor who is specially trained in teaching natural family planning.) Both methods can be 90% to 98% effective (2 to 10 pregnancies per 100 couples) when they are practiced correctly. However, if a couple doesn't follow the instructions completely, these methods will be much less effective. In practice, these methods may not be as reliable as other forms of birth control."

Yeah, no. Bullshit Tzor. NFP is used to prevent pregnancy. You yourself advocated it's use for preventing pregnancy. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has advocated the use of NFP for preventing pregnancy. Preventing Pregnancy with NFP is having sex with the exact same lack of openness to procreation as having sex with a condom.

Every time you have sex with the intent to not get pregnant, you are by definition not open to procreation. Every time you are using NFP, and know that she will not get pregnant from the sex, you are having sex with the intent to not get pregnant.

violence in the media · Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:52 am

tzor wrote:
First of all, it's not the "same damn thing" because rhythm is based on a false assumption about menstrual periods and thus on false science. Thus it is considered, by many, as a put down, a means of inferring that someone is simplistic and primitive.

It should be considered a put down, because it is. The sum total of the logical contortions involved in trying to resolve the fact that people want to fuck with a faith that says you shouldn't fuck is both staggering and dumb. You should feel simplistic, primitive, and probably somewhat hypocritical for attempting to have it both ways.

Either don't fuck out of some obligation to adhere to church teachings, or fuck in the full knowledge that you're selectively ignoring a tenet of your faith because it's what you really want to do. But quit trying to justify having and eating your cake with a nonsensical ecclesiastical hall pass.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:55 am

I hate to say it, cat, but yeah, most Christians seriously think you're a sinner and an abomination because "God meant for you to be a man and fuck your wife all the time to produce lots of babies. Then beat her up for not fetching you your dinner. That bitch."

Seriously. They do think it's that bad, mostly. On the plus side, you are apparently a deity in your own right ("Ceilingcat made da urf. But he didn't eated it.")

Incidentally, one guy in America is suing a publisher of the Bible for $2 million for printing hateful speech against his lifestyle. Their defence is "We don't own the rights to it, we're just printing it. Sue the church that wanted us to print this version of the Bible."

Avoidng intercourse during preceived fertile periods is abstinence

I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. Incidentally, if it's okay to have sex with them when they're not fertile, what's the church view on paedophiles then? They must embrace man-on-girl action with open arms!

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:05 pm

Maj wrote:
CA wrote:I didn't think women got turned on for that long a period of time. the women I've been with were basically "We do it now or you're not getting another chance for a long time".
Oh, goodness... I'm not above looking at some inspiring imagery every now and again, or participating in some anticipatory roleplaying (MTP, not D&D - rolling dice is not a good thing in this situation). And then I usually have to wait until nap time to do something about it.

It's like foreforeplay.

CA wrote:And they were pretty good on that deal, every woman I've been with bragged about how sexual they were, then didn't want sex more often than once every couple of months. I figured that they were using a different metric on what constitutes being a sexual person than I did.
I prefer about 60 times more frequently than that.

Interesting. Makes me wish I wasn't too emotionally damaged for anyone to love. Ah well.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:17 pm

Kaelik wrote:Having sex when she won't get pregnant == having sex when she won't get pregnant.

It may be more accurate, it is still the same damn thing.

I think the better comparison is ...

Determining safe periods using a vague, unscientific and proven unreliable system ...

and

Determining safe periods using scientificially proven methods of self examination ...

The latter is generally reliable, the former wasn't.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:43 pm

The point is that in both cases you are knowingly having sex when she will likely not get pregnant. One is simply a better method of doing so.

And you know what? Condoms and the pill are the exact same thing. If you are against sex not for procreation, you have to be against sex not for procreation.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:59 pm

tzor wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Having sex when she won't get pregnant == having sex when she won't get pregnant.

It may be more accurate, it is still the same damn thing.
I think the better comparison is ...

Determining safe periods using a vague, unscientific and proven unreliable system ...

and

Determining safe periods using scientificially proven methods of self examination ...

The latter is generally reliable, the former wasn't.

The Romans used goat bladders as condoms. Current condoms are made using scientifically proven methods and based on a correct understanding of biological processes, instead of guesswork.

I'm not going to be a whiny bitch about how calling condoms condoms is mean because it implies they are only as reliable as the first ever condom. Because unlike you, I am not retarded.

Speaking of retarded. How about addressing the actual question instead of running away form it like a bitch?

1) Do people use NPF to have sex while avoiding getting pregnant?
2) Why do you, the NPF people, and The US Conference of Catholic Bishops all agree that this method of having sex whole not being open to procreation is okay, when you and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops both claim that all other forms of sex that are not open to procreation are wrong?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:27 pm

Rhythm is based on the 'false assumption' that periods are regular.

Except in the vast majority of cases, they are.

But we're talking a difference of what 60-80% accuracy vs 90%.

Although, the temperature-based system has not be double-blind tested, so we don't actually know its accuracy as a prevention system. Clinical tests by a single doctor are hardly rigor.

-Crissa

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:39 am

Kaelik wrote:Speaking of retarded. How about addressing the actual question instead of running away form it like a bitch?

1) Do people use NPF to have sex while avoiding getting pregnant?
2) Why do you, the NPF people, and The US Conference of Catholic Bishops all agree that this method of having sex whole not being open to procreation is okay, when you and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops both claim that all other forms of sex that are not open to procreation are wrong?

Agreed. I've been waiting for an answer to this for about a page-and-a-half now.

How is NPF different than contraception? Both are deliberate attempts to have sex while avoiding pregnancy.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:28 am

One doesn't involve tools or chemicals, I guess. I dunno.

Oh, here we go, more gibberish:

[url=http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/transcript_20090226_ee.pdf wrote:Rep Joe Barton (R-TX)[/url] via Washington Monthly]Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about.

I can't make heads nor tails of what 'switch' he's talking about.

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:31 am

Wowee retarded monkey faces. That's just stupid monkey shit.

Wind is generated by the heat difference. When you stop the wind from transferring heat (by magic, since the fucking Windmills that he is talking about as switches can't do that) you just create more fucking wind.

Point A is hot.

Point B is Cold.

Heat travels from A, but does not make it to B.

B is still cold. A is less hot, but still hotter than B.

Therefore, heat keeps transferring from A to B via wind.

Rere.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:08 am

What Joe Barton is saying is true, but it's true in a useless and misleading way.

Yes, wind turbine farms do slow down wind (and ths heat transfer) a small but finite amount. So do fucking buildings. Big furry deal.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:09 am

So do trees.

Holy shit, we need to cut down all the trees to save ourselves from global warming!

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:48 am

You know, PL, that's an actual argument these guys have...

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:47 am

Um guys.

As I pointed out.

Things that slow down heat transfer by wind don't actually do anything but slow it down.

There is not a finite amount of wind.

If it slows down the transfer, it creates more wind to keep the transfer going, resulting in the same net situation at the end of the day/month/whatever.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:05 am

If it slows down the transfer, it creates more wind to keep the transfer going, resulting in the same net situation at the end of the day/month/whatever.

But you don't always have a day/month/whatever.

A given heat transfer rate Q' only puts systems in equilibrium if there's enough time. While the phenomena of wind is not finite, the circumstance that creates a specific wind is. Which means that when the specific instance of wind gets interrupted for whatever reason the chances of the system it's supposed to become in equilibrium with goes down when you lower the heat transfer rate (through friction, futzing with the surface areas, whatever).

Which is pretty much what you expect!

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:30 pm

Kaelik wrote:The Romans used goat bladders as condoms. Current condoms are made using scientifically proven methods and based on a correct understanding of biological processes, instead of guesswork.

I was comparing Rhythm with NPF not with a condom.

Kaelik wrote:Speaking of retarded. How about addressing the actual question instead of running away form it like a bitch?

1) Do people use NPF to have sex while avoiding getting pregnant?
2) Why do you, the NPF people, and The US Conference of Catholic Bishops all agree that this method of having sex whole not being open to procreation is okay, when you and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops both claim that all other forms of sex that are not open to procreation are wrong?

1)NPF is permitetd to allow for the spacing of pregnancies, not for their complete elimination.

2) NFP basically comes down to "let's not have sex today; you might get pregnant." You know it's kind of hard for the bishops to say not having sex is a bad thing.

qv. USCCB

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:10 pm

tzor wrote:I was comparing Rhythm with NPF not with a condom.

You were saying that rhythm and NFP were different things entirely, because NFP is SCIENCE!™. He was saying that condoms are condoms whether they're made of latex or goat bladders.

Making a technique more effective (as goat bladders -> latex or rhythm -> NFP do) doesn't make them different techniques. Condoms still work by acting as a physical barrier, and NFP still works by figuring out when she's fertile and not having sex then. The only difference is that we didn't give condoms a fancy new name when we started making them out of latex, but "rhythm method" became "natural family planning" when you made it better.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:26 pm

Since Native got the other part where you were retarded completely right. Let's look at this retardation:

tzor wrote:1)NPF is permitetd to allow for the spacing of pregnancies, not for their complete elimination.

2) NFP basically comes down to "let's not have sex today; you might get pregnant." You know it's kind of hard for the bishops to say not having sex is a bad thing.

NFP is also saying "Let's have sex today, because you won't get pregnant."

If you know when she will get pregnant, you also know when she won't get pregnant. If you even once in your entire life have sex when you know she won't get pregnant, then that sex that you are actually having right then is not open to procreation.

Since you, and NFP, and Catholic Bishops all suggest that people should have sex when they know they won't get pregnant, you are suggesting people have sex while not being open to procreation.

You can try to talk about the times that you aren't having sex and justify not having sex then, but it's just a con game. Tell me about the times you do have sex. Are you open to procreation? No. Well shit. Problem solved.

NFP == Condoms in openness to procreation, and the only reason the Catholic Church supports it is because they know for a fact that people will have sex, and they just don't have the manpower to fuck all the little boys that would come about if none of the parishioners used birth control.

Of course they have to lie like bastards to reconcile their need for birth control and their hatred of all the good effective forms of birth control that work just fine. That's not surprising at all.

But a shell game is a shell game, no matter how you spin it.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:10 pm

Kaelik wrote:then that sex that you are actually having right then is not open to procreation.

You see Kealik NFP leaves available the option to in future have other sex that involves getting pregnant.

Condoms however once worn can never ever be removed for future procreation type sex thus leaving you "un-open" to accidentally making her pregnant when she doesn't want to be which as we know is "disrespectful" to her.

Or maybe you can just stop using contraception when you want to, which is I dunno, the whole point of contraception as opposed to sterilization.

The whole reason NFP is OK is because it's inconvenient, hard to do, and unreliable. Sex should be a dangerous chore, ESPECIALLY for the girls, don't EVER imagine Tzor and his ilk have any other motivation. Their "openess" and "respect" language is very deliberate Orwellian double speak. They choose those words particularly because they know the actions they are defending are the direct opposite and deeply disrespectful to women and their well being.