FOX NEWS

Sunday, March 4, 2012

FOLLOWING THE LOGIC


Republican Security Council
Posted by Catawissa Gazetteer at 8:34 AM
Labels:

5 comments:

  1. salvageMarch 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

    I guess this is a joke but it's truly bizarre how you seem to think sex divorced from human health.

    Why don't you just be honest and say because of your superstitions you don't think anyone, including those who don't share them, should have access to birth control? This whole insurance angle is a weak smoke screen at best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lucius Quinctius CincinnatusMarch 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM

    Salvage, NO ONE gets to have sex outside of marriage. NO ONE. Period! You will one day stand before the King of kings and Lord of lords to give an account of your perversions. You want the Church to pay for your filth, but you don't want the Church to tell you it's filthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. salvageMarch 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM

      Salvage, NO ONE gets to have sex outside of marriage.

      Really? I'm thinking that they do, an awful lot.

      >You will one day stand before the King of kings and Lord of lords to give an account of your perversions.

      Weird, considering your god made me right? So he's angry with me for behaving how he "designed" me to? Why didn't he just make me the way he wanted to?

      Also, as far as I know there is any church paying me anything.

      I think you are very confused and silly.

      Delete
  3. Catawissa GazetteerMarch 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM

    Though I told you that I would post your comments but I wasn't going to reply in this one instance I'm going to break my own rule.

    Since you seem incapable of seeing past your own biases let me help you to understand why I say that this picture does illustrate the logical conclusion of this woman's argument.

    Apart from force there is really only two reasons to have sex - procreation or pleasure. Now, since the use of contraception negates any possibility of procreation I'm going to assume that this woman wants the public to cover the cost of her pleasure. If this is so, and I don't see any way it can't be within the context of her statement, then why would it be unreasonable for her to want the public to pay for all the other things she may find necessary to have a good time?

    Following this logic a bit further, I think that the public owes me a new fishing pole. I like to fish. I don't need the fish to eat so I'm doing it purely for pleasure. I imagine that, just like the studies you keep bringing up, someone somewhere has done a study that says fishing is good for my health.

    Whether I'm having sex for pleasure or fishing for pleasure, what's the difference? Neither are truly necessary for my existence. Many people have gone their entire lives without sex or hooking a nice bass yet they seem to do just fine.

    If you want to argue that she gets condoms but I don't get a fishing pole you need to have a really good reason. Pleasure is pleasure and if you're going to pay for hers you're going to pay for mine. Isn't that just?

    Oh yeah, and if she gets K-Y I want a brand new bass boat!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. salvageMarch 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM

      > assume that this woman wants the public to cover the cost of her pleasure

      Yeah, assume, fun word that, have you read her testimony? See she doesn't actually talk about her sex life at all.

      There are other medical reasons for oral contraception as I mentioned in the other thread.

      And in the other thread I brought up the points of junk food eating, not exercising and smoking as examples of "pleasures" that cost health care plans.

      It's interesting and telling how you don't get upset about that because unlike those destructive pastimes sex is actually healthy for people.

      >Following this logic a bit further, I think that the public owes me a new fishing pole.

      Fishing is not a natural function of human being, sex is, you understand that right?

      > Many people have gone their entire lives without

      No, I wouldn't say many at all. What makes you think otherwise? Not having sex ever would be a very unnatural thing.

      >If you want to argue that she gets condoms but I don't get a fishing pole you need to have a really good reason.

      Controlling STDs is for the benefit of everyone, that's a good reason right there. Another is contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies and thus less abortion, another one.

      > Pleasure is pleasure and if you're going to pay for hers you're going to pay for mine. Isn't that just?

      Right. Because a natural biological impulse some billion years old is just like fishing and health care plans are all about hobbies.

      Furthermore how much do you think you taxes would pay for someone else's contraception? A fraction of a penny?

      Hey does that apply to the military? Like how some people don't like war so if they don't want their tax money going to bombs no tax money should go to bombs?

      I think the real problem here is that you have a bizarre fear and loathing of sex and any subject that touches upon it drives you a bit mad. At the very least objectivity is totally lost hence the idea that fishing is like sex.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)