Your good-natured chiding of right-wingers is usually pretty fair Scott.. I am more of a moderate than a right-winger but I have much enjoyed our dialogs around what it is to be pro-choice.. good for me to hear what you have to say.

Ditto your thoughts on the war in Afghanistan.. I am glad however that the prez seemed to take a long and thoughtful approach to the strategy.. better than a shot from the hip.. at least there is a time-line.

Gotta wonder why people (read that me) are so interested in “news” about golfers and party crashers? Maybe this kind of “news” appeals to our dark side

Add wine to that last bullet and I am in 100% agreement

- Uptight Christian Brigade: You are doing exactly what people in my camp often claim doesn't happen – publicly criticizing the extremes in your own camp. Keep it up. Oh, and it is great fun.

- NaNoWriMo: Congrats again. That was an impressive finish.

- Afghanistan: We've using the wrong approach. Insurgencies are rarely beaten by conventional military methods. A troop surge will not help. It's especially problematic in Afghanistan because the insurgency isn't a unified one.

- Abstinence: Yep. It's the safest, most effective form of birth control and STI prevention. But since teens are going to have sex anyway, best to also teach barrier methods for STI prevention as well as all birth control options.

- Celebrities: Well said!

- Bacon etc.: Only when bacon is vat grown. Until then, I find it too unethical. I'm with you otherwise.

At least you blog on occasion, Scott; I've basically disappeared from the internet. But I have some time, so perhaps I could add some thoughts.

I have to admit that I actually support the war in Afghanistan, and the surge. It seems incongruous of me to do so when I think about it, but then the idea of us leaving and what would almost inevitably (so it seems to me) happen (imagine bad things and the rapid re-erosion of basic rights) disturbs me greatly. It feels to me like we can't leave now, because of that, and we can't just half-ass it, as then nothing would actually improve, so that leaves going all in, basically.

I think sid's iteration of your comment on sex ed sounds about right.

And really, why was news about celebrities ever considered news? It mystifies me.

Now for some thoughts of my own, mostly reflecting recent things on my mind:

-The Afghanistan timetable: include it, and the Afghan people will be less willing to help us, since they know we'll be gone in the not-so-distant future. Don't include it, and the Afghan government has no real incentive to stop shirking responsibility, since we'll theoretically be there until things are fixed (i.e. eternity, if they don't actually get things done). Simple decision: impossible.

-Troop increase + timetable: The most overtly centrist (in that it appeals explicitly to both sides) political move I've seen in some time, perhaps ever. Obama remains centrist, whatever people say (or at least, appeals in a centrist manner when it comes to large-scale decisions).

-On that note: you know a policy is centrist when both sides roundly criticize it, with any praise being given in a quiet voice. And they wonder why political discussion tends to avoid the center.

-After dealing with a computer that resolutely refused to recognize any network, a problem which neither a service provider nor the computer manufacturer could solve (at least, not without me paying $575), only to have a 30-second solution solve it, I can confidently say that computers are, in fact, powered by technology gnomes that subject us to their arbitrary whims.

-College students, by and large, have difficulty writing coherent sentences, more difficulty than high school graduates, or most high school students, should have.

On that note, I think I'm just about ready to make an actual blog post(!) based on that last one. Well, maybe later, but I swear it will happen.

At least you blog on occasion, Scott; I've basically disappeared from the internet. But I have some time, so perhaps I could add some thoughts.

I have to admit that I actually support the war in Afghanistan, and the surge. It seems incongruous of me to do so when I think about it, but then the idea of us leaving and what would almost inevitably (so it seems to me) happen (imagine bad things and the rapid re-erosion of basic rights) disturbs me greatly. It feels to me like we can't leave now, because of that, and we can't just half-ass it, as then nothing would actually improve, so that leaves going all in, basically.

I think sid's iteration of your comment on sex ed sounds about right.

And really, why was news about celebrities ever considered news? It mystifies me.

Now for some thoughts of my own, mostly reflecting recent things on my mind:

-The Afghanistan timetable: include it, and the Afghan people will be less willing to help us, since they know we'll be gone in the not-so-distant future. Don't include it, and the Afghan government has no real incentive to stop shirking responsibility, since we'll theoretically be there until things are fixed (i.e. eternity, if they don't actually get things done). Simple decision: impossible.

-Troop increase + timetable: The most overtly centrist (in that it appeals explicitly to both sides) political move I've seen in some time, perhaps ever. Obama remains centrist, whatever people say (or at least, appeals in a centrist manner when it comes to large-scale decisions).

-On that note: you know a policy is centrist when both sides roundly criticize it, with any praise being given in a quiet voice. And they wonder why political discussion tends to avoid the center.

-After dealing with a computer that resolutely refused to recognize any network, a problem which neither a service provider nor the computer manufacturer could solve (at least, not without me paying $575), only to have a 30-second solution solve it, I can confidently say that computers are, in fact, powered by technology gnomes that subject us to their arbitrary whims.

-College students, by and large, have difficulty writing coherent sentences, more difficulty than high school graduates, or most high school students, should have.

On that note, I think I'm just about ready to make an actual blog post(!) based on that last one. Well, maybe later, but I swear it will happen.

Glad that I'm fair. I hope you'll let me know when I'm not.

I do like that about Obama. I suspect Huckabee would be the same sort of prez, not so much McCain.

And wine definitely has a place. I love a good bold, “chewy” red. My favorite has to be a scuppernong (a grape native I think to NC).

Glad I can prove your camp wrong at the same time I'm proving mine wrong.

Thanks. You can't be afraid to shoot for the moon. That's why I think you need to do a song a week some month.

More thoughts on Afghanistan to come I think. You and Snurp are provoking my thoughts.

Do you think that abstinence teaching would have any effect?

Your thoughts on Afghanistan are all well said. Look for a full post on that and sex ed.

Totally agreed with you on centrist policy. I try and take a moderate stance on most issues and people hassle me all the time about it.

I look forwrd to your post!

A song a week is a steep challenge for the pace I work. I'll have to give it a try.

On a small percentage of the kids, yes. Too many will have sex anyway which is why abstinence only fails and why teaching other methods is important.

Steep is good. Setting a goal (achievable though challenging) as you well know, is vital to getting anything done. Nice thing is that even if you fail you still succeeded at accomplishing more than you might have otherwise.

So why do you think abstinence education fails so miserably?

[...] frequent commenter and philosopher extraoridinaire, waxed his opinion in the comment thread on my Brain Droppings post. I thought I’d pitch my two cents in on top of his out here on the main dance [...]

It's that 'middle' group of kids, the ones who'll have sex regardless of what they are taught but will follow basic precautions if made aware of their proper use, that abstinence-only fails to reach.

Now I'm just thinking 'out loud' here, so take this for what it's worth, but I'm thinking about typical (but certainly not universal) sexual dynamics between teenagers. Firstly, I think the boys will almost entirely ignore messages of abstinence and even mostly ignore what they're taught about contraception. Let's face it, at that age, if sex is even a remote possibility, they're capacity for rational thought is quite diminished. Girls, on the other hand, know they face direct and serious consequences of unprotected sex. They are much more receptive to both abstinence and contraception.

Consider that the primary goals of the two sexes are quite different – the boys want sex, the girls want relationships. Both sexes really want both, but I'm focusing on primary motivations. Many of the boys will deny the girls relationships unless sex is a part of it. Enough girls are willing to have sex to stay in relationships (and/or because they like it), which is were I suspect abstinence-only breaks down. Too few boys are willing to have sexless relationships and too many girls are willing to have sex for abstinence to be a widespread phenomenon.

Add education about contraception into the mix. Girls now have the knowledge to avoid the risks of sex. Furthermore they can demand that the boys use protection or sex will not be happening. This gives them the means not only to keep relationships, but allow them to enjoy sex without anxiety. The result is sex still happens but teen pregnancies are reduced.

How big is this middle ground though? I don't expect an answer since I'm not sure that there's any data. I guess I ask the question because I'm not convinced that it's a significant number. Teens in my experience don't often use precautionary devices of any sort just because they've been told about their proper use. The same could be said about grown men and women. We can be pretty boneheaded as a species.

Abstinence education is to me about more than just “Don't do it and you won't make babies or get a disease 100% for sure.” Here's the part where it might get sticky. It's more about “Don't do it because it's a bad moral choice.” As a side benefit they won't suffer the physical repercussions. What do you think about that?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/170361…

The middle group is large enough to have a statistically significant impact on teen pregnancy and STD rates.

My understanding of Abstinence education is the same as yours. Some want it taught as a moral issue in public schools? Morals are taught at home not school. What's wrong with people?

Morals are frequently taught in schools. Don't lie, don't steal, don't pull Sally's hair.

Beer, bacon, and chocolate are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I'm a bit hard on the UCB myself. My reasons why encompass a long story, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Hey Peter! We encourage long stories here. Mr. Faiwu has written a number of lengthy replies as has Dan Sawyer, sometimes longer than the posts.

Yeah, I'd call those sorts of things civics, which certainly overlaps with morality but is not identical to morality. It includes a minimum set of ethics necessary for a classroom (and more generally a society) to function. In an ideal world, those things are taught not as being morally wrong in school, but social disruptive and/or illegal. If and why they are morally wrong should be left up to parents.

*chuckles* Well, I'll try for the abridged version.

I used to be a Christian apologist. Spent a long time engaging in debates with others on a lot of theological topics and had friends who are scholars in Biblical studies. Even started a manuscript, at one point, explaining and defending the five solas of the Reformation. Not saying any of that to toot my own horn (because, really, I don't have any ego to stroke any longer in this regard), just to provide a context.

Started writing fiction again one year. It had been a while and I think the debates and rhetoric were starting to wear on me considerably. Strange thing was, though, that every time I told somebody my book wasn't some Revelation-based apocalyptic tale or some feel good rendition of a parable, I got the stink eye from the people with whom I attended church. In a lot of ways, I'm a contrarian and I'm sure it wasn't helping that I didn't back down from discussions on faith, culture, and the Christian tendency to blacklist anything not explicitly religious from all forms of creative media. I'm a Libertarian, many of them were Republican, they're a little bit country, I'm a little bit rock n'roll, etc. But it really got messy when I started the vampire novels.

The first drafts were not without Boondock Saints-esque language. (Just kidding. Strong language, but not excessively overused.) While I did nothing to try to hide it, at the same time, I did post labels and warnings for others, not wanting to offend others' consciences. I think the sheer fact that they centered around vampires were what set people off in general, though, and I was targeted by a former friend and fellow apologist for being so woefully in error that I needed to be put up for church discipline. This charge actually stuck and for six months, I had to talk to pastors and elders from two churches (I left the one who put me under discipline, but before the charges were levied. The charges were instigated upon me attempting to resign my membership.) and assure them I had not departed from the Christian faith purely because of what I decided to write about. In order for me to stop the charges, I had to pull all of my writing from the internet and assure them I was examining my heart for where I had gone wrong and issuing due repentance. Needless to say, I left the encounter very jaded and when my marriage fell apart a few months later, and I was the one blamed for it by many, I threw up my hands and never bothered finding a church where I relocated with my children.

This is largely why I write under a pseudonym and why it took me so long to form an out of character account on twitter. (Which is still an assumed name, but I've at least relaxed with regard to talking about my personal life.) Granted, some might say I've really strayed in recent months, but I've had a hard time giving a damn about it. Haven't turned my back on my faith, but I've been a bit more apathetic about talking to fellow Christians as a result.

Well, and this might not surprise you depending on how closely you've looked at any of my fiction or on how much of this here blog you've read, if you printed out a map of your life and mine and laid one over the top of the other you'd find us traversing similar paths.

Much of my early writing is pretty dark and to date I still prefer my fiction like I like my beer, dark and complex. That's caused a number of complications both in my marriage and in my voyage in finding a church home thankfully so far both have been successes.

I hope that you'll continue to comment here and if you ever want a kindred spirit to chat with give me a holler.

Hmmm. That's a pretty slim distinction. Still waiting for that updated definition of morality.

Beer, bacon, and chocolate are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I'm a bit hard on the UCB myself. My reasons why encompass a long story, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Hey Peter! We encourage long stories here. Mr. Faiwu has written a number of lengthy replies as has Dan Sawyer, sometimes longer than the posts.

Yeah, I'd call those sorts of things civics, which certainly overlaps with morality but is not identical to morality. It includes a minimum set of ethics necessary for a classroom (and more generally a society) to function. In an ideal world, those things are taught not as being morally wrong in school, but social disruptive and/or illegal. If and why they are morally wrong should be left up to parents.

*chuckles* Well, I'll try for the abridged version.

I used to be a Christian apologist. Spent a long time engaging in debates with others on a lot of theological topics and had friends who are scholars in Biblical studies. Even started a manuscript, at one point, explaining and defending the five solas of the Reformation. Not saying any of that to toot my own horn (because, really, I don't have any ego to stroke any longer in this regard), just to provide a context.

Started writing fiction again one year. It had been a while and I think the debates and rhetoric were starting to wear on me considerably. Strange thing was, though, that every time I told somebody my book wasn't some Revelation-based apocalyptic tale or some feel good rendition of a parable, I got the stink eye from the people with whom I attended church. In a lot of ways, I'm a contrarian and I'm sure it wasn't helping that I didn't back down from discussions on faith, culture, and the Christian tendency to blacklist anything not explicitly religious from all forms of creative media. I'm a Libertarian, many of them were Republican, they're a little bit country, I'm a little bit rock n'roll, etc. But it really got messy when I started the vampire novels.

The first drafts were not without Boondock Saints-esque language. (Just kidding. Strong language, but not excessively overused.) While I did nothing to try to hide it, at the same time, I did post labels and warnings for others, not wanting to offend others' consciences. I think the sheer fact that they centered around vampires were what set people off in general, though, and I was targeted by a former friend and fellow apologist for being so woefully in error that I needed to be put up for church discipline. This charge actually stuck and for six months, I had to talk to pastors and elders from two churches (I left the one who put me under discipline, but before the charges were levied. The charges were instigated upon me attempting to resign my membership.) and assure them I had not departed from the Christian faith purely because of what I decided to write about. In order for me to stop the charges, I had to pull all of my writing from the internet and assure them I was examining my heart for where I had gone wrong and issuing due repentance. Needless to say, I left the encounter very jaded and when my marriage fell apart a few months later, and I was the one blamed for it by many, I threw up my hands and never bothered finding a church where I relocated with my children.

This is largely why I write under a pseudonym and why it took me so long to form an out of character account on twitter. (Which is still an assumed name, but I've at least relaxed with regard to talking about my personal life.) Granted, some might say I've really strayed in recent months, but I've had a hard time giving a damn about it. Haven't turned my back on my faith, but I've been a bit more apathetic about talking to fellow Christians as a result.

Well, and this might not surprise you depending on how closely you've looked at any of my fiction or on how much of this here blog you've read, if you printed out a map of your life and mine and laid one over the top of the other you'd find us traversing similar paths.

Much of my early writing is pretty dark and to date I still prefer my fiction like I like my beer, dark and complex. That's caused a number of complications both in my marriage and in my voyage in finding a church home thankfully so far both have been successes.

I hope that you'll continue to comment here and if you ever want a kindred spirit to chat with give me a holler.

Hmmm. That's a pretty slim distinction. Still waiting for that updated definition of morality.