Family Planning Association
Karl du Fresne slams the Family Planning Association as a failure.
New Zealand has the second-highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the OECD and our abortion rate remains one of the highest in the developed world. The rate has more than trebled since 1980 and, most tellingly, it has steadily increased in the age groups where the FPA directs much of its efforts. For girls aged 11-14 it has doubled since 1991, and for older teenagers – those aged 15-19 – it has risen by 60 per cent.
The FPA’s own surveys show young people are having sex younger and putting themselves more at risk. Gonorrhea cases are up by 52 per cent and chlamydia by 28 per cent. In the Auckland area, 53 per cent of people with gonorrhea are aged between 15 and 24 and antibiotic-resistant cases are increasing.
I don’t agree with everything Karl DF says on the FPA but I certainly think their “Rubba No Hubba Bubba” campaign was awful.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
KdF shouldnt be worrying about teen and pre teen sex, who knows where it will lead
June 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“it could injure someone if she fell and used her hand to steady herself.”
What utter crap. This is just more Marxist based Christian bashing by the commies who control education. I’ll bet if it was a ring with the hammer and sickle emblem on it, they wouldn’t give a red damn.
As for their sneering criticism of the promotion of chastity, for Chrissakes, such a policy could hardly be more of a failure than the clapped out commie indoctrination programs favoured by the left (such as that run by the lezzie who controls NZ’s Family Planning Association that is the subject of a previous post)
June 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Um, MR RB, wrong post. Move down one….this IS the previous post.
Thanks
June 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Good ol’ Selma. Another pointless post. Protect the sisters no matter what they do?
Shoot the messenger, no matter that he tells the truth?
FPA is clearly an organisation either out of control, or working contrary to what outsiders actually believe they are there to do.
In a time of constant government failure, have we seen one worse than this?
However, it is run by women, for women. In today’s New Zealand that makes it untouchable.
Even if the organisation is rabidly pro murder and therefore happy with it’s success in that regard, I cannot see how they can justify such out of control STD figures.
No accountability, no responsibility. Move on.
Save the babies.(including the ones getting pregnant)
June 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I completely agree with Karl de Fresne and sadly the stats do all the talking about the failure of Family Planning (and their US equivalent Planned Parenthood). I know plenty of teens both here and in NZ who have come from homes where the values are to postpone sex until marriage or a serious stable relationship in their early 20′s and in large measure the parents in question have been successful. All the parents I know who have adopted this approach had to fight the state education system to enable them to have the sole right to teach their children about sexuality. Some were subjected throroughly nasty put downs by school teachers and administrators as they sought exemptions from the ‘safe sex’ classes. The same pervasive permissive ideology infests the state trained drug counsellors who are taught the harm minimisation approach to teen drug use which means in reality teaching kids to use drugs safely.
Lest people like Selma write off Karl as some grumpy right winger, I have met him on a number of occasions and he is an urbane middle of the road professional journalist who does really try hard to stay politically neutral.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I notice that Karl didn’t bother to include one argument that the FPA don’t appear to pay any special attention to Maori teenagers because that is where the lion’s share of teenage pregnancy occurs.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The FPA – is not an organisation that is solely for women, men are also welcome.
I have used FPA association a number of times and every experience has been a good one. They make thier clients comfortable, are accessible, and are cheaper than using a GP.
I would recomnd them to anybody. Whether they just need information or an appointment.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Family planning what a croc of shit, as this government cannot be bothered to even have the decency and dignity to treat mothers and fathers as equal parents ?
What message does give young fathers and potential dads. Talk about shattered self esteem levels for boys , open your eyes liarbore you are destroying the family – what role models – you weirdo homosexual loving freaks !!
June 26th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
FPA and sex ed is not about reducing pregnancies and STDs, they are merely the trojan horses.
The real agenda is to destroy sexual morality and personal responsibility. As we lose the ability to govern ourselves the govt has a self made excuse to do it for us.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Note that we are the second to worst country, whos the worst? the USA(the home of personal responsibility), and which countries policy is he advocating? come on, get a clue.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
“Um, MR RB, wrong post. Move down one….this IS the previous post.Thanks”
Don’t mention it.
Anyway, good to see the mainstream media at last printing stuff that is critical of these stinking Marxist institutions. (Only under pressure from the blogosphere tho.) Roll on the revolution.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“Note that we are the second to worst country, whos the worst? the USA(the home of personal responsibility), and which countries policy is he advocating? come on, get a clue.”
You’re the one who needs to get a clue Mike. You obviously don’t know it, but there’s a major culture war underway in the US, between Conservatives and “Liberals”.
The liberals would be people like you, (unaware brainwashed dickwads, or if you like, Cultural Marxists) and with their “if it feels good do it” mantras, they’re the group responsible for the greater part of the bad stats.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I had a bloody gutsful of this nutbar labour gummint gutless – jellyfish – scum of the earth need a good lesson , bring on election , save the family , help destroy the gimmint wacko’s, don’t take my photo or you will go to prison said Kullen , so I threw a purple flower bomb that hit in the head .What a disgrace this country is – destroyed by made in NZ wimps !!!
June 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
She was naked and beautiful ,i was naked ,hell i fell on her, how did she get pregnant,its a(labour)miricle, opps dave,he dosnt like my english,. hell i hope the slut gets every benifit going including a few that havnt been voted on , right dave, shit why work ,the gravey train is rocketing on, daves at the throotle,opps spelt wrong,.com
June 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Here come the New Puritans. (Same drum-beat as the Old Puritans…)
June 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
This is driven by a deliberate policy that goes way beyond FPA. Do ya really think that social attitudes can be changed by such a small agency? No? Well how the f do ya think they’re changed? By accident?
June 26th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
The stats should show the FPANZ funding and taxpayer funding of the “no rubba, no hubba bubba” campaign was a waste opf money, except that to them it isn’t a waste of money as it helps destroy traditional families, which Labour hates.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“Here come the New Puritans. (Same drum-beat as the Old Puritans…)”
As far as I am concerned Red Rag, you, or anyone else, should be free to behave as you wish as long as it does not limit my freedom. However by forcing me to pay for the consequences of your actions my freedom to choose how I and my family live is reduced.
Why is it that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody elses business until there are some unintended results. Suddenly it becomes everyones business and I am sick of it. It is a direct immposition of the morality of others onto me.
Sickly wishy washy liberalism (like you Red Rag) says you can behave any way you want with impunity and others will be forced to pick up the pieces. Classical Liberalism says you are free to choose but you are responsible for the results.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“Here come the New Puritans. (Same drum-beat as the Old Puritans…)”
As far as I am concerned Red Rag, you, or anyone else, should be free to behave as you wish as long as it does not limit my freedom. However by forcing me to pay for the consequences of your actions my freedom to choose how I and my family live is reduced.
Why is it that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody elses business until there are some unintended results. Suddenly it becomes everyones business and we are all dragged into that bedroom. It is a direct immposition of the morality of others onto me.
Sickly wishy washy liberalism (like you Red Rag) says you can behave any way you want with impunity and others will be forced to pick up the pieces. Classical Liberalism says you are free to choose but you are responsible for the results.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
The liberals would be people like you, (unaware brainwashed dickwads, or if you like, Cultural Marxists) and with their “if it feels good do it” mantras, they’re the group responsible for the greater part of the bad stats.
So you believe we shoudl impliment a proven flawed policy, just because the current one isnt working? dispite the policy being shown to be the only one least effective than our own?
June 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
What’s wrong with a dyke being head of the FPA? There’s a celibate in a funny hat who dictates the sexual mores of millions of people and no-one accuses him of promoting stupidity.
The “No Hubba Hubba” campaign was at least an attempt to educate on the use of condoms. If someone can think up a more effective campaign then wha-hey. But laying the blame for an increase in promiscuity at the foot of the FPA is risible. What’s the alternative? A return to the back alley coathanger abortionists? Purity rings?
June 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
What’s wrong with a dyke in charge of research at Families Commission – get my drift?
The destruction of the New Zealand Family is a huge growth industry !
June 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Teenage pregnancies help maintain population levels which are barely at replacement. There is no big deal in teenagers having children. Not everyone has to have their child at a perfect age. Teenage mothers get plenty of support from families, schools and the state.
Everyone is different.
For some, having a baby at a young age can be a blessing and in this day and age it doesn’t necessarily have to prevent education. While it is not a choice I would make, or that my teenage girls would make, I live in a dynamic, free, tolerant and diverse society in which there are people of many persuasions and values and I do not look down upon the Keisha Castle-Hughes of this world.
The abortion rate, on the other hand, is not a great stat to have. However once the male pill has been fully developed and contraception techniques are closer to 100% this will no doubt decrease. Let’s get real. Kids are not going to stop experimenting in sex with or without chastity rings, parental guidance, or sex education in schools. You cannot turn back time. The serpent is in Eden’s Garden and eve has taken a bite of the apple. Too late, mate.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
You are a sick man Kent Parker !
June 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“I live in a dynamic, free, tolerant and diverse society”
What meaningless PC crap. What’s dynamic about it? Why is it free? Tolerant of views that challenge the marxist status quo? Diverse?? What the hell does diverse mean, and why is it a positive? Is there a voice in your head telling you to write such dribbling piffle, or did you just read it somewhere and think it sounded good to your pink little liberal ears??? “Its not too late?” What crap. I like to read opinion here, but for chrissakes, it has to be backed up by somnething rational. Your post is just airey fairey looney liberal crapola.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
it has to be backed up by somnething rational
redbaiter of all people gosh.
And come on kent you know the deal, every sperm is sacred! masturbation is murder!
June 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Why is there a fuss over the abortion rate?
If it is ok, it is ok, there shouldn’t be a fuss. By saying the abortion rate is a problem is acknowledging that something isn’t quite right with abortion, surely.
If it is no different from any other surgical procedure, what on earth is the problem?
Oh and another thing, rubbers are clearly no use at all in preventing contraction of std’s, about the only thing they are good for is preventing pregnancy or stopping the spread if Aids. There is anecdotal evidence that you are better off without one if you want to avoid gonnorhea or clamydia
June 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Mike, yes, well….sigh. It must be so hard for some people.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Whaleoil’s post got me thinking and I found this:
New Zealand boasts the world’s highest vasectomy rate; there, nearly one in five married men has been sterilized. The method is just slightly less popular than the pill.
from
http://www.asiapacificalliance.org/Site/Population_and_Reproductive_Health/Family_Planning_Methods_.aspx
Now for some this could constitute a ‘problem”.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Why is it that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody elses business until there are some unintended results.
Sounds like a good argument for more sex education, not less. I’ve been having sex in bedrooms (and other places) for decades…. and with no unintended consequences. I like to think that this was because I knew what I was doing before I started.
Given that the medieval option of locking up our friskier daughters is no longer available to us, you really have to depend on teenagers taking responsibility for their sexual actions upon themselves. And from my modest observations, far too many are woefully under-prepared for this task, and often the emotional distance between them and their own parents, is too wide to be easily bridged on such a loaded topic as sexuality. (Hell most teen’s experience is so shallow that their response to any adult discussion about sex is “ewww yuck” and a horror at the concept of anyone over the age of 30 actually doing it.)
Real sex education, as has been said by so many others…is not just about the mechanics and precautions. It is also about the real nature of human relationships; some awareness of the stages of attraction, desire and bonding; about the values of respect, commitment and responsibility; and the beginnings of self-knowledge, discernment and self-discipline. But for most young adults at the very start of this intense, and often fraught aspect of their lives, there are precious few people they can reliably turn to for guidance and inspiration.
Instead most either adults moralise at them, or, having failed to grow up much themselves, are too engrossed in their own pursuits of material wealth or self-indulgences to provide the authentic connection and mentoring they are so often desperately seeking.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Sounds like a good argument for more sex education, not less.”
Did you even read Du Fresne’s comments? What was the thrust of his piece Rag- err, umm lets see now.. ah thasright- tonnes of sex education, result- massive increases in sexual problems.. (check his stats) so what’s that good argument again???
All we’re getting from the cultural Marxists on this issue is outrage and emotive waffle at Fresne’s comments, with very little countering argument.. but that’s always the left’s position. Their primary strategy is always to smokescreen the truth
June 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
There’s that RedRag again, coming around here talking sense like that – what’s going to happen to the world if people just turn up and start talking sense, huh? Come on Redbaiter, are you gonna let him just make sense like that? You gotta show him, man! Redbaiter ain’t goin’ out like that man!
June 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
It certainly is food for thought that multiple generations of teen-aged New Zealanders have been educated about sex primarily by a reactionary feminist relic of the 60′s and her lesbian cohorts. Oh, and by the trash they see on TV.
I think there’s something with that picture.
And what precisely *are* they learning? Q.E.D.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Yeah right Milt, Rag’s really “sensible” stuff, like “here come the Puritans” (drumbeats?? WTF is that??) You reckon that is a worthwhile response to Du Fresne’s fact backed piece?? As for his later post, full of flowery language, but read it closely, and you’ll see it SAYS NOTHING.
You Marxist bastards are all the same, you just cannot handle opposition to your doctrine, and all you ever do is try to discredit anyone who exposes its weaknesses. Stuff like Du Fresne’s is getting out more and more now, via the internet and other means, and its driving you Reds crazy that you’ve lost your control of information and opinion. Its only just beginning.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:23 am
“There’s that RedRag again, coming around here talking sense like that”
No wonder you are called psycho, as your name is synonymous with hare brained thinking by twisted communists of little calibre !
June 27th, 2007 at 7:00 am
The state tells kids to not take drugs, drink in moderation and always wear a condom. Then it turns around and says “take no notice of what you are taught as we will force others to pay for the damage you cause.”
The answer is simple: leave the cost of actions with those who cause them. There will be initial problems and voluntary organisations only should pick up the pieces, but I bet it will not be long before it is the best sex ed ever.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Well yes, Redbaiter, someone like du Fresne promoting a correlation = causation claim is backed by facts. If I write a piece declaring that wearing skirts is dangerous because it’s closely correlated with breast cancer, my claim is “fact backed” as you put it. It would be my interpretation of the facts at issue. As a further example, you could write an article very much like du Fresne’s declaring that these figures are a declaration of the failure of parenting, and the state should do something about families. Equally silly.
What you anti-FPA types need to come up with to be doing anything other than promoting a correlation = causation claim is actually tie the FPA to the figures. Have the kids getting pregnant been educated by the FPA? If they learned nothing from the FPA, have they proven receptive to any of the other education they’ve received? What messages did they get from their parents, who have far more influence over them than the FPA? Some clear correlations along those lines might form the basis for an accusation, but that would still leave you with an argument to make: if the kids in question were well-educated by FPA and understood the lessons, but skipped using contraception anyway, to what extent can the blame for that realistically be laid at the door of the FPA?
June 27th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Yeah right Milt, Rag’s really “sensible” stuff, like “here come the Puritans” (drumbeats?? WTF is that??)
Do I have to spell everything out for you? “New Puritans”… a recrudescence of the old idea that sexuality is something to be hidden, laden with “dirty” guilt associations, and that ignorance is the sole pre-requisite to chastity before marriage.
You reckon that is a worthwhile response to Du Fresne’s fact backed piece?? As for his later post, full of flowery language, but read it closely, and you’ll see it SAYS NOTHING.
Either that or you read what I wrote and understood NOTHING. But hey it’s still a free old world. Enjoy your day RB.
Love
June 27th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Psycho Melt and RedRag = H1 & H2 , have a nice day twisted bitch’s.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Discredit Redbaiter? is that possible?
I bet all his right-wing chums sigh when they see his name on a post, keep it up comrade!
June 27th, 2007 at 7:41 am
What right-wing chums are those?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Abortion is morally indefensible. One is one too many. But we need more immigration because there are not enough people. When a nation sets about abolishing itself the end is near. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html
June 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Kent Parker
“For some, having a baby at a young age can be a blessing and in this day and age it doesn’t necessarily have to prevent education. While it is not a choice I would make, or that my teenage girls would make,…”
Kent, if you took a second to listen to yourself you would give yourself an uppercut. Why would you or your daughters not make that choice but it is ok for other people’s daughters to do so at my expense.
JUst another sickly wishy washy liberal.
Red Rag
“Real sex education, as has been said by so many others…is not just about the mechanics and precautions. It is also about the real nature of human relationships; some awareness of the stages of attraction, desire and bonding; about the values of respect, commitment and responsibility; and the beginnings of self-knowledge, discernment and self-discipline.”
Very true words. It is just the type of stuff many groups, including Destiny church (bless their cotton socks), have been calling for. However, the response from people like yourself is always howls of outrage and accusation of moralising, being Puritans etc. See your post above and give yourself an uppercut also.
Whaleoil, right on. If the foetus is just a tumor why should we be upset about abortion?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The average age of a women having an abortion in NZ is 25.
The largest increase in numbers in the past year is in the 23-24 year old age group.
Whilst teenage sex leads to many thousands of abortions a year, they are not the largest group. This honour belongs to an age group that has no excuse in regards to lack of education, life experience etc…this is a conscious decision by grown adults , for whatever reason, to murder their baby.
Regardless of lack of sex education, too much sex education, societal morality or law of the land, people will have sex. What needs to be addressed is the attitude of so many women, that a baby can be so easily disposed of. This is where personal responsibility for your own actions come’s in. You take the risk (sex) you take the consequences (baby). Until we have a culture of personal responsibility, we will never solve the abortion disgrace that we have in NZ.
Given that society seems to be moving further & further away from personal responsibility, I can’t see it changing. Not going to stop trying tho.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Wot, no Selma this morning? Cant get that broomstick started eh.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“If the foetus is just a tumor why should we be upset about abortion?”
It always strikes me how those who get pregnant and want to keep their baby, call their baby, a baby.
Those that want to kill their baby call it a feotus.
Andrew, you seem to be argueing that you don’t care about 17930 people having abortions in NZ (last year alone), you just don’t want to pay for it.
Not the attitude I have, but I would welcome any solution to bringing the wholesale slaughter to an end.
Maybe if we had some people campaigning against abortion on the grounds that it is mi-use of taxpayer money, we could get a whole new group involved in the issue.
Anything that works.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Hi Sonic – nice to see you back. Have you been actually doing some work? or just off in re education camp? Are you talking to me yet? or do you still have your little Scotish nose in a tilt?
If you read over the threads of the last two weeks you will notice that things have been entirely more civilised. Wonder why that is? What has changed? Any ideas?
xxx
CL
June 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
So, after all this wunnerful non-judgemental ‘education’ we have nearly 18000 children being killed a year, and a fair proportion of the sexually active have the pox.
Bloody marvellous. Keep up the good work.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Psycho Milt says, “if the kids in question were well-educated by FPA and understood the lessons, but skipped using contraception anyway, to what extent can the blame for that realistically be laid at the door of the FPA?”
It would not be so bad if the FPA or the government funded homosexual lobby group, the New Zealand AIDS Foundation told the whole truth about condoms.
The sexual revolution started in the 60’s with the event of the pill. Condoms were not a reliable means of birth control. There are about 80% effective in preventing the spread of HIV yet the NZAF continues to tell lies about their effectiveness.
Condoms are considerable less effective in preventing the spread of other STDs.
I wonder if you liberals are happy with taxpayer’s money being used to spread lies.
”Keeping sex safe has nothing to do with who you have sex with, how often you do it or how many people you have sex with.
Keeping safe is as simple as not sharing cum or other body fluids: use a condom and water based lube every time you fuck”
http://www.nzaf.org.nz/articles.php?id=155
June 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Pity there’s nothing about house fires in the Bible – then we could get some belly laughs hearing about how sprinklers and smoke alarms are ‘sinful’, families would be encouraged to take ‘inflammability pledges’ (‘just promise God you’re not going to accidentally leave the iron on!’) and the usual chumps would all be screaming about how fire departments obviously ‘don’t work’ – after all, they’ve been around for years and things still catch fire!
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Danyl,
Did you actually read you post before pushing the POST button? Doing so might have saved you some embarrasment. Thats got to rank up there with some of the most ill thought out posts ever.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
CraigM
You got it in one.
Danyl
Nice one. You really put a lot of thought into that and came up with……,well, nothing.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Chuck, maybe you failed to notice the Family Planning Association and the NZ Aids Foundation are two different organisations. I’m not sure how you possibly could fail to notice, but that’s the only polite interpretation I can put on your assumption that incorrect info published by the Aids Foundation somehow discredits the FPA.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“Thats got to rank up there with some of the most ill thought out posts ever.”
Really? I thought it was a pretty apt analogy. I’m waiting for Chuck to write in about the homosexual agenda to get people to put in smoke alarms and sprinkler systems instead of impressing upon them the need to restrain themselves from using candles or leaving the element on…
June 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Danyl, I’m actually embarrassed for you.
Contender for dumbest post ever. Given the competition, that is a remarkable achievement.
Signed,
Chump.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Trouble is the wrong people are reproducing and the right ones arent So we are headed for a future with a lack of intelligent contributors to society and surplus of unintelligent takers.Question is whats the solution No not that one.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Not a lot of thought – spotting the flaw in an argument that goes: ‘teen pregnancies are up so let’s get rid of the organisation responsible for preventing teen pregnancies’ isn’t as intellectually taxing as you seem to think.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“Not a lot of thought – spotting the flaw in an argument that goes: ‘teen pregnancies are up so let’s get rid of the organisation responsible for preventing teen pregnancies’ isn’t as intellectually taxing as you seem to think.”
Not much thought required to see the flaw in that argument either.
If a an activity is worsening the problem then you either stop the activity, or change it so that it does work.
Stupidity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Stupidity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.
how long has abstinance style education failed?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
mike,
how long has abstinance style education failed?
Was there more of a problem under abstinance education or under the current education system?
Since all the key indicators (single parents, teen pregnancies, abortions & STD) have gone up (both in raw numbers and as a percentage) the probem has undoubtedly got worse.
Nobody said that the old system was unflawed, but that is no excuse for refusing to reviwe or rethink the current system.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Danyl – Not a lot of thought – spotting the flaw in an argument that goes: ‘teen pregnancies are up so let’s get rid of the organisation responsible for preventing teen pregnancies’ isn’t as intellectually taxing as you seem to think.
Not sure who you’re quoting in this passage but the point has to made that, even though the quote sounds contradictory, it is true. The FPA are helping to push up the teenage pregnancy rate, and STD rate especially, by their activities which are spreading a free and easy sex message to teens. In fact this message is so prevalent today that even so called “good girls” are practically sluts who have to trade their wares as part of the deal for “finding the right partner,…(fill the gap)etc.”.
Psycho Milt – Correlation = causation claims are an acknowledgement of evidence in action, it’s a worthwhile methodology to explain generally observed phenomena. Karl du Fresne is writing for a newpaper, not a social science journal! If that’s the thrust of any “evidence” he is picking over, so be it. If you don’t agree, good on you, it’s no-ones fault you’ve let your ideology get in the way of self-explanatory, observable phenomena.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Correlation = causation claims are an acknowledgement of evidence in action, it’s a worthwhile methodology to explain generally observed phenomena. Karl du Fresne is writing for a newpaper, not a social science journal! If that’s the thrust of any “evidence” he is picking over, so be it. If you don’t agree, good on you, it’s no-ones fault you’ve let your ideology get in the way of self-explanatory, observable phenomena.
So miniskrits do cause breast cancer?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
You kind of lost me right about the time you started to sound like the Son of Sam.
And it’s hard to think of a better illustration for this cliche than the action of attempting to convince teenagers not to have sex.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
stating,
If the activities of the FPA are not affecting things like teen pregnancy rates & STD rates, activities of the FPA are not affecting things like teen pregnancy rates & STD rates, then why are we funding them?
If activities of the FPA are not affecting things like teen pregnancy rates & STD rates, and the key indicators show the problems are getting worse, then why are we funding them?
If there is no correleation then they are unnecessary.
If there is a correlation then they are inept.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Stuff like Du Fresne’s is getting out more and more now, via the internet and other means . . .
DuFresne’s a tired & curmudgeonly hack reduced to scraping the barrel to keep his irrelevant column afloat. Wasn’t so long ago he was putting the boot into bloggers.
As Darth George is about ready for the high jump, DuFresne seems to be auditioning for his spot.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Get over it Woppo, the new wave is right, Marxist is just so yesterday.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Peter S: “If activities of the FPA are not affecting things like teen pregnancy rates & STD rates, and the key indicators show the problems are getting worse, then why are we funding them?
If there is no correleation then they are unnecessary.
If there is a correlation then they are inept.”
False logic. For example, the same factors could indicate a need for more funding, not the removal of funding. As an analogy, if you give yourself only a small fraction of the recommended dosage of a particular medicine, then whinge to the doctor that the medicine’s crap because your problem’s getting worse, perhaps it isn’t the medicine that’s crap. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case here, it’s just an example of why your logic is false.
Now, if du Fresne or other conservatives want to get up and say that the key indicators are getting worse despite the FPA and we should find out why that is, then sure. That sounds sensible. But they’re not. Who’s ideology is getting in the way here? Not mine…
June 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Psycho – maybe you failed to notice the Family Planning Association and the NZ Aids Foundation have an awful lot in common. Firstly they are both run by political homosexual militants. Secondly, both organisations receive a lot of government funding. Thirdly, they both put out a lot misinformation – granted the NZAF is a lot cruder and tells out and out lies rather than just misleads.
To be fair FPA is a lot more accurate than the NZAF. However, they have some gaps in the information they give. They fail to mention that homosexual sodomy is a high risk activity whether or not a condom is used. A heterosexual having unprotected sex is at a lot less risk of contracting HIV than a homosexual having protected sex. I am not saying that any sex educator should say homosexual sodomy is high risk so do not do it. However, I do not think it too much to expect to explain that it carries significantly higher risk that heterosexual intercourse.
Mike – you ask, “how long has abstinance style education failed?”
As you should see from the above that there are more than two options for sex education. Trying to tell young people to avoid sex until marriage is not realistic. However, encouraging to delay sex is not. Likewise, telling them the true effectiveness of condoms, telling the risk of homosexual behaviour, telling them to avoid promiscuous behaviour is not unrealistic.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“And it’s hard to think of a better illustration for this cliche than the action of attempting to convince teenagers not to have sex.”
100% wrong.
Stupidity is the inability to recognise the cost of failing to do so.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
This post is a little long. It is not religious in any way, but deals with human morality.
For those who are inclined to read it, thank you.
When the Nazi Holocaust finally came to an end, Allied soldiers led the horrified German population – the law-abiding, government-believing, “reasonable and caring” people of the day – through the concentration camps. News reels of this guided tour show women crying convulsively, stunned men with heads bowed low in shock and dismay.
Filing past piles of emaciated corpses, the stench of death everywhere, an unspeakable horror permeated their souls. For all at once, they realized that the nagging doubt in the back of their minds – the secret fear that the rumors of genocide might actually be true, but which they had disbelieved, thinking such negative thoughts to be from the demon of disloyalty – had actually been the desperate cry of inner truth. The soft, velvety denial they had lived in vanished instantly, and in its place, the agony of guilt and betrayal.
Don’t look down on these people. At least they faced their sins of omission and tacit complicity, having believed their leaders and ignored the urgings of their own conscience. They were forced to acknowledge the horror they had previously denied.
What about us? Will we one day tour through the wreckage of our own culture of death and weep?
The above is the final paragraph from “Innocent Blood”.
The document is too long to reproduce here, but the information it provides will open the eyes of anyone to the reality of the pro- abortion movement. You don’t have to be a person of faith to hate abortion. You just have to love and respect life.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Danyl
Not sure who you’re quoting in this passage but the point has to made that, even though the quote sounds contradictory, it is true. The FPA are helping to push up the teenage pregnancy rate, and STD rate especially, by their activities which are spreading a free and easy sex message to teens. In fact this message is so prevalent today that even so called “good girls” are practically sluts who have to trade their wares as part of the deal for “finding the right partner,…(fill the gap)etc.”.
You kind of lost me right about the time you started to sound like the Son of Sam.
Stupidity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.
And it’s hard to think of a better illustration for this cliche than the action of attempting to convince teenagers not to have sex.
Danyl…you can do better then that?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
No…rephrase…can you do better then that!?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
For anyone who’s interested, Du Fresne has Coddingtoned his stats: Our teenage abortion rate has most certainly not tripled since 1980 and our teenage pregnancy rate has decreased if anything.
I’ve written more and have references here:
http://laanta.blogspot.com/2007/06/oh-dear.html
June 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Heh heh. Another verb enters the language . . .
June 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
CraigM: no doubt the Jerries would have liked to lead horrified British citizens past the tens of thousands of charred, cooked, suffocated, crushed etc German civilians resulting from one of the British air raids, but they never got the chance. Makes the heart weep, doesn’t it?
June 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
. . . the new wave is right, Marxist is just so yesterday.
Good on you, ‘bater – when are you gonna post a pic of your spiffy new now ‘n happening down-with-the-kids right-wing haircut?
June 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Sorry woppo blue team win again on this thread , please feel free to wet your bed !
June 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
It’ll be a cold day in hell before you win anything, Daddy.
Get back to humping ‘bater’s leg, it’s about all you’re good for.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Woppo you are a very bitter and twisted lady.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Penny Ashton tells me there is a huge man shortage in this country and after reading this thread I can see why !
June 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Andrew,
Why would you or your daughters not make that choice but it is ok for other people’s daughters to do so at my expense.
Um.. this is what living in a free society is all about. While I may not agree with their choice, I will fight for the right for them to make that choice. Also, not every teenager that has a baby goes on the DPB, take Keisha Castle-Hughes for example.
I do agree that sex education and the message from FPA is too technical, superficial and concerned only with the mechanics of contraception and I would agree with the assumption made here that it increases teenage promiscuity. I think sex education needs some objective ‘scientific’ morality to go along with it along the lines of educating children on the natural consequences of sex, which incluces emotional bonding, which requires emotional maturity, and of course having offspring which requires considerable dedication, time and effort. I think this can and should be done.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“Also, not every teenager that has a baby goes on the DPB, take Keisha Castle-Hughes for example”
Yawn , yawn, Parker , most young mums go on the DPB – check the stats Mr Lib Utopian. Do we live in the same country ?
June 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Andrew,
Why would you or your daughters not make that choice but it is ok for other people’s daughters to do so at my expense.
Um.. this is what living in a free society is all about. While I may not agree with their choice, I will fight for the right for them to make that choice. Also, not every teenager that has a baby goes on the DPB, take Keisha Castle-Hughes for example.
I do agree that sex education and the message from FPA is too technical, superficial and concerned only with the mechanics of contraception and I would agree with the assumption made here that it increases teenage promiscuity. I think sex education needs some objective ‘scientific’ morality to go along with it along the lines of educating children on the natural consequences of sex, which incluces emotional bonding, which requires emotional maturity, and of course having offspring which requires considerable dedication, time and effort. I think this can and should be done.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Peter S:If activities of the FPA are not affecting things like teen pregnancy rates & STD rates, and the key indicators show the problems are getting worse, then why are we funding them?
If there is no correleation then they are unnecessary.
If there is a correlation then they are inept.
Oh good grief, learn to think sometime. I couldn’t believe how stupid KdF’s column was and I’m suprised that so many people here are repeating his absurd claim that the FPA are behind the statistics. Correlation does not imply causation. This has already been pointed out here but apparently you need to have it repeated and explained to you.
Do you really think the FPA hav so much power? Any change in sexual activity by young people is primarily driven by the society around them, movies, tv, SKY etc. Which do you think is more likely to affect people – a few sex ed lessons in school, or 24hr music channels endlessly showing hiphop videos with scantily clad women?
You, and others here, seem to think that the FPA is the only influence on people and your argument is predicated on that misassumption. What would the statistics be like if the FPA weren’t trying to counteract those other influences.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Parker I got two daughters and I can’t believe the crap you write ! What planet did you learn your objective scientific morality ? What a nutbar .
June 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
chiz,
Apparently you have trouble reading posts.
Or you deliberately chose to read only part of it.
FPA get money on the basis of their claim that they have an influence on sexual activity.
If that is not true- which you imply, then why do we spend the money? It is a complete waste.
It is true (as they claim) then the money is being wasted because they are not getting the results that we are paying them to achieve.
That is not actually a very hard concept to comprehend.
“You, and others here, seem to think that the FPA is the only influence on people and your argument is predicated on that misassumption.”
WRONG. I don’t. Sorry, that means it is your argument that is predicated my your own missaumptions.
“What would the statistics be like if the FPA weren’t trying to counteract those other influences.”
What influences are they trying to counteract?
Abstenance?
You are correct about the influence of internet and TV & magazines.
The problem is that FPA is not trying to balance the effect of those mediums, rather than providing a voice of balance it is doing the complete opposite, and simply reinforcing the message.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Andrew,
Why would you or your daughters not make that choice but it is ok for other people’s daughters to do so at my expense.
Um.. this is what living in a free society is all about. While I may not agree with their choice, I will fight for the right for them to make that choice. Also, not every teenager that has a baby goes on the DPB, take Keisha Castle-Hughes for example.
I do agree that sex education and the message from FPA is too technical, superficial and concerned only with the mechanics of contraception and I would agree with the assumption made here that it increases teenage promiscuity. I think sex education needs some objective ‘scientific’ morality to go along with it along the lines of educating children on the natural consequences of sex, which incluces emotional bonding, which requires emotional maturity, and of course having offspring which requires considerable dedication, time and effort. I think this can and should be done.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
What planet did you learn your objective scientific morality?
Traditional christian morality acted as a contraceptive, since there were no chemical or synthetic rubber devices. It was imposed upon the younger generation as a rule with negative consequences should it be broken. Girls who became pregnant were outcast, while boys tended to suffer no consequences. In 19th century England the numbers of unwanted babies was substantial, with foundling homes enventually set up in order to try and rescue them from being thrown off bridges. Despite ample provision of wet nurses most of these babies died.
What’s missing from sex education in the 21st century is a solid grounding in emotional bonding and the very real purpose of sex and what the biological consequences are, which are scientific and relatively objective. Provide that along with condoms on bananas and I think kids would get a more rounded picture of the whole business.
The answer to your question D4J is: Planet Earth.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Um.. this is what living in a free society is all about.
Um..??? Wtf is um..??? Why transfer your inarticulate habits to your writing?
…and if you think that is what living in a free society is all about Kent, you have no damn idea what a free society might be. Only in a collective society are the thrifty, energetic, smart and consciencious bound to pay for the mistakes of the selfish, the indolent, the self absorbed and the ignorant, (ever read the ant grasshopper fable?) and a collective society is the very antithesis of a free society.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Kent
“Um.. this is what living in a free society is all about. While I may not agree with their choice, I will fight for the right for them to make that choice.”
Read my posts please. I will also fight for that right and indeed do. However I will vigorously resist their freedom to make that choice at my expense. By forcing me to pay it means my freedom of choice is reduced and their morality is forced onto me.
If you and Danyl and Psycho and assorted fellow travellers want to pay for the problems caused by teenagers (and others) jumping on and off each other like rabbits then go for it. I would prefer you to leave me out and I look forward to you fighting for my freedom to make my own choices on how that money is spent.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
However I will vigorously resist their freedom to make that choice at my expense. By forcing me to pay it means my freedom of choice is reduced and their morality is forced onto me.
Idle fantasy. The only way to have complete freedom of choice and completely avoid the consequences of other peoples choices is to live as a hermit in a cave on a very isolated mountainside. As a spiritual practise this has a long and respectable history; but don’t kid yourself that it amounts to any form of a “free society”.
All society is by definition a collective of individuals and institutions. Regardless of the cultural and political forms expressed by that collective, the actions of other individuals inevitably impinges one way or another upon your own choices. We are all to some degree or another both related and connected to each other. There is no avoiding this reality….grow up, get used to it.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Don’t you mean “pay up, get used to it”?
June 27th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Yeah that’s what he means George. All these Marxists are the same, sermonising fuckwits who like to project the fantasy that there’s no other way. Human beings have always been co-operative, but what Rag is talking about is not co-operation. Its compulsion, removal of choice, collective insanity, and anti-democratic coercion.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Yes george.
If you wish to partake of the enormous benefits living that accrue from living in a collective society, then yes….you get to pay for it. Or did you expect that it was “free”?
June 27th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Whereas what Redbaiter and Andrew Davies are talking about is All the Freedom You Can Afford. Let the market take care of the compulsion and your conscience is clear. Oh, brave new world, that has such people in it…
June 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
RedRag sad to see a collective society that boasts high child abuse and infanticide numbers , we get that for free in a sick society !
June 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
By forcing me to pay it means my freedom of choice is reduced and their morality is forced onto me.
This is an interesting comment. When King Henry II of England went round his mediaevil kingdom collecting gold and recruits for his next war campaign he reduced their immediate freedom of choice (no longer able to run off for a romp in the hay, but fight the French instead), but also enhanced their freedom by protecting them from invasion. At the same time he forced his morality onto them which included the institution of the church, common law and government. If you did not succumb to this pressure (for some like being asked to join the All Blacks) then you were a social outcast, did not enjoy the benefits of being part of the kingdom and maybe even attacked for target practice.
I guess its the price you pay for being a member of civilization. Ditto what RedRag said.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Suddenly come all over “co-operative” have we now RB? Well this is a welcome development, so far your behaviour has demonstrated precious little of it…but let’s work with this for a moment.
Co-operation has the connotation of voluntary choice. It implies that you have the options of engaging with others for some mutual benefit…or not. Living in the pre-Industrial American pioneer society that you hold as some kind of ideal, the low population density, the relatively low specialisation of labour and the even lower degree of technologies in use, meant that compared to the modern world, each individual and family operated had little choice, and at the same time, far more opportunity to be far more self-reliant than we are.
They could enjoy unfettered access to relatively untouched land and natural food sources. (All they had to do was chase those pesky Indian off first.) If they didn’t like the neighbours, there was always somewhere else to move, some new paradise over the next mountain range for Lazarus Long to wagoneer off to. Pioneer societies are like that…but they are a short phase that never lasts.
Eventually more people arrive, the villages become towns and cities, and in order to manage competition for now more intensively utilised resources, society begins to impose rules and coerce limits on behaviours. If you have a whole valley to yourself to live in, and see no-one else from one end of the year to the next, who cares what you do or what rules if any, you choose to live by. And yes you are relatively free to choose with whom, and and what basis you interact with others. But the from the moment you start with the most rudimentary “co-operation” with the new guy up-river, you have set yourself on the path of increasing social interactions that grow with exponential complexity over time. Within a few hundred years your pioneer society is gone, replaced with something completely different.
You are welcome to nostalgically mourn it’s passing RB, but spare us the pretense that modern world with the roughly 6.67 billion of us (and this year for the first time in history more than 50% of us live in cities)….are ever going to ever going to be living out your adolescent Heinlein fantasies anytime soon.
And d4j… the infanticide of baby girls at birth was the normal method of population control for almost all pre-Industrial societies for tens of thousands of years. It’s anthropology’s dirty little secret.
Sweet dreams.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Thanks for the sermon Rag, and sweet dreams to you too, but you say nothing in all of those lines that justifies the compulsory acquisition by one man of the fruits of another man’s labour. You say nothing to justify the idea promoted by the left on this thread that one man must make good the bad behaviour of another man. All you do is promote the idea that society is collectively responsible.
Promote is the correct verb. You do not offer any logical argument for your hypothesis. You do not even try to compare the two ideas. Wherein I say that society is the better overall when each man is held accountable for his own behaviour and is rewarded for his own success, suffers for his failures and is punished for his wrongdoing The good citizen makes the good neighborhood makes the good village makes the good country.
Whereas your view is that we are all to be held accountable for the actions of each other. When one man is successful, we all must share. When one man is a failure, we must all insulate him from that failure. When one man is guilty of wrongdoing, he is not considered at fault personally, we must all share the guilt. Not voluntarily tho, which of course would be quite OK, but we are compelled to do this by laws and regulations introduced by politicians that we have been tricked into voting for through the left’s artful abuse of the democratic system.
I say it is clear which of the two systems brings the most overall benefit to society, and the proof of this is in the degradation of society at the hands of the collectivists. Not only in respect of this one small part, the misnamed Family Planning association, but in respect of so many other such components of your attempted Utopia. Socialist societies have had the heart ripped out of them. Populated by a dull and inert people, they are notable only for their disintegration and their barbarity and their gradual but unstoppable degeneration.
NZers were once known for their independence of spirit, their civilized nature and their self reliance, and during that time this country was more successful as a society than it has ever been. Since we have embraced collectivism, or the cultural Marxists have been socially ascendant, we’ve gone down the crapper big time, with rampant sexual disease amongst the young as only one of so many indicators of social disintegration. You and your ilk fucked a good country Rag, and you can write your flowery sermons here promoting your heaven on earth, but I know its empty bullshit. So do more and more NZers, who are gradually awakening to the fact they’ve been conned. By a bunch of power seeking ivory tower academics with their heads up their collective arses.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Wherein I say that society is the better overall when each man is held accountable for his own behaviour and is rewarded for his own success, suffers for his failures and is punished for his wrongdoing The good citizen makes the good neighborhood makes the good village makes the good country.
And herein is something we can both agree upon. And indeed if I look about myself, this is pretty much what I see. The successful and wealthy get to enjoy more choices, wield more social power, own designer homes in leafier suburbs, more toys…and intriguingly, enjoy better health and longer lives. The indolent have fewer choices and are certainly more exposed to crisis as a result of the accidents and chances of this world. As for the wrong-doers, we tolerate them up to a point, but last I looked our prisons were overflowing as usual. So up to a point you are getting what you ask for.
At the same time…and this is the crucial point… the success of any individual is not entirely due to their own merits or efforts. In isolation, on a cave on a mountainside, no man, however brilliant or hardworking, achieves much more than a subsistence living (and hopefully spiritual enlightenment). It is ONLY by participating in a collective society that you have the opportunity to be successful and be rewarded for it. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the act of living in a society accrues to you enormous benefits that you cannot access in isolation. Taxes are merely the invoice for those benefits.
If however every person could be relied upon to be universally virtuous, there would be no need for taxation to be compulsory. If the successful would always use part of their wealth to invest in their communities; if all co-operative enterprises could be relied upon to function equitably without resort to contracts and laws; if the poor, crippled or otherwise unfortunates of this life could be relied upon to contribute as best they can; and if the mere thought of committing a crime weighed so heavily on the conscience that everyone would shrink from ever acting them out; and above all… if more of us feared God more than we feared Mamon, then this world would be a lot closer to a heaven on earth…and our taxes would be a lot lower.
Unfortunately people are not so good. Marxism after all was born in reaction to an era in Europe which saw a tiny minority of uber-wealthy aristocracy enjoying almost all the fruits of collective life, while the huge majority of workers struggled in squalor. In such a world the wealthy could afford to buy options and choices…the rest made do with what ever scraps were left over. Conditions in Eastern Europe and China were so bad that when the pendulum finally swung, it swung violently and excessively, but everywhere in the last 200 years, the pendulum has swung towards a new balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society they live in.
Nor has the pendulum settled. I think that the critical limit on what we can achieve as a human race at this point in history is not our wealth or technologies (the world is swimming in both), nor the endless rearrangement of our political deck chairs…but in the evolution of our moral and spiritual capacity. If as you say, people were better…the world we live in would be better. If people were more self-disciplined, then the societies we live in would have less requirement to impose disciplines upon us. This is a self-evident truth, but it is a universal human failing to blame others for the problems we make for ourselves.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:59 am
So, do all Kiwiblog threads eventually succumb to one of Redbaiter’s rants about socialism, or have I just been unlucky the last few times I’ve visited? I suspect luck has nothing to do with it…
June 28th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Nah…some of them succumb to one of my “sermons”….hehe.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Good ‘sermon’, RedRag, but I would be inclined to use the word ‘integrated’ rather than ‘collective’ and the rules we live by in such a society are necessary and would never be voluntary.
Only a small minority of people ever reach the level of consciousness that enables them to live according to the highest morality. Most people, including youth up to age 30 need to have concrete limits set by clear rules and regulations.
The number of rules we have is simply a reflection of the complexity and level of integration of our society. Rules will continue to proliferate as our society continues to become more complex. There will always be those who object to some of the rules and they will keep blog posts busy for eternity.
I think that Redbaiter is probably a closet socialist.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:54 am
“indeed if I look about myself, this is pretty much what I see.”
Hahah, and maybe you do see that, but then you would wouldn’t you, otherwise how could you continue to promote your culture so enthusiastically?
I say that is not so, and that is because I compare Marxist culture with NZ’s traditional culture, and whereas your opinions are based on perceptions, my viewpoint is underpinned by rationale, in that if you look at any statistic relating to social condition, it shows a negative that along the time axis more or less parallels this country’s slide into collectivism. Increases in family break down, crime, violence, welfarism, dependency and a steady descent down the OECD rankings are all outcomes of the culture that the left have brought upon us.
There are so many of your assertions Rag that I would take issue with- The claim that “Taxes are merely the invoice for those benefits” is one that particularly galls me. But I don’t have the time right now, so I’ll have to leave you and your co-delusionists, Milt and Kent to quiver amongst yourselves, and twist and turn in your amusing attempts to avoid the fact that the nomenklatura have no clothes, and to keep telling yourselves that you “can’t go back”, when all we need to do to is reverse the process by which you lot became politically ascendant- ie stop electing Marxist politicians, reject government policies that incentivize negatives and return to policies that reward hard work, independence and self reliance.
I had to laff at Milt’s complaining about each thread descending into socialism, and I ask myself how can anyone be so blind as to the force that is behind most of the negatives that exist in NZ society today.
Then I thought about the FPA, and I realised that it is almost a microcosm of NZ today, in that it is a bureaucracy that has worked to break down personal morality under the guise of progressive thinking, and while portraying itself as doing such a good job, has only produced negative outcomes. Just like in the old USSR, where under leftist zealots like you Rag, Kent and Milt, government depts were given titles that were the actual opposite of what they were really there to do, and produced outcomes that were the opposite of what their title implied, so the FPA has been totally destructive to families in NZ.
Then I thought about the person running the FPA, and the NZ PM, and I had to smile again at how accurate the parallel really is.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Lots of lovely words. This great collective you socialists are talking about does not collectivise the fun, only the pain.
In the meantime I am forced to pay for the choices of others when I would never consider making that choice myself. As a result we get more and more making those choices.
And why is it ok to fiddle with people’s eating habits but not their sexual behaviour? I say leave us alone and allow us to benefit or otherwise from our choices. You guys are big on interferance but only what is fashionable. Hypocrites.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Red Rag opines:
“”New Puritans”… a recrudescence of the old idea that sexuality is something to be hidden, laden with “dirty” guilt associations, and that ignorance is the sole pre-requisite to chastity before marriage.”
As one of the “New Puritans” Redrag is talking about I can confidently state that not only is this NOT what we believe about sexuality, its not what the “Old Puritans” believed either. Red is either A: lying, or B: ignorant.
So, for the facts. The actual “New Puritan” (Evangelical Christian)view of sexuality is that sex is inherently good and holy, a gift from God that should be enjoyed in full. We do NOT believe there is anything “dirty” about sex, and never have done, and it is false to claim that we do. The Bible certainly does not say sex is dirty (read the Song of Songs). In fact I would say that the Evangelical Christian view of sex is actually far more positive and affirming than the liberal view.
The other lie here is that we think ignorance about sex is good and we are opposed to sex education. Wrong. My church holds regular sex education teaching sessions for teens and for adults, as well as “better sex” education for married couples. Sex education is a good thing. But, we do oppose the using state taxpayer funded sex education to push views that we believe are wrong, bad for society, and denigrating to sex itself.
And this brings me to the real issue. It is liberals who have turned sex into a “dirty” thing by reducing it to little more than a biological act with no spiritual significance or beauty. Evangelicals view sex as a glorious gift from God that is profoundly spiritual and that unites two people on a deep soul-level, hence the importance of it being kept within marriage.
Now I have no problem with someone disagreeing with what we believe about sex, but I do object to blatantly false claims about what we believe.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Well Shawn, very nice… and I’ve not a lot to disagree with you…but evidently you are not familiar with the historic attitudes of the traditional Catholic Church, or a number of fundamentalist sects I could name. Anyone over the age of 50 knows what it was like in the days of the pre-contraceptive days of the “Old Puritans”. For much of the Church’s 2000 year history, almost all positive expressions sexuality in any form were deeply depracted…indeed even the act of procreation was held as a “necessary evil”. I think it was Nietzsche who said that “for whole generations Christians conceived children with a bad conscience”.
In fact I would say that the Evangelical Christian view of sex is actually far more positive and affirming than the liberal view.
Quite possibly, but although you are being a little coy about exactly what you mean here, I’ll be generous and accept your rather modern views at face value. Yet I can readily walk down the road to another Church and listen other teachers opining rather more conservative and rigidly judgemental views than what you are saying. Christianity is a very diverse Church these days, for better or worse, and all I was doing was expressing my view of my little corner of it. If you feel that I have misrepresented YOUR belief and understanding I apologise, but I suggest that you have rather picked the wrong target for your wrath.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Shawn said; RedReg ” is either A: lying, or B: ignorant.”
Both A & B as C ( communists) can’t tell the truth and they’re dumb arses.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Peter S;chiz, Apparently you have trouble reading posts. Or you deliberately chose to read only part of it.
No. I have no trouble reading posts.
FPA get money on the basis of their claim that they have an influence on sexual activity.
Correct. But there are multiple influences on sexual activity. The FPA is just one of them.
If that is not true- which you imply, then why do we spend the money? It is a complete waste.
I did not say or imply any such thing. Learn to read.
It is true (as they claim) then the money is being wasted because they are not getting the results that we are paying them to achieve.
That is not actually a very hard concept to comprehend.
“You, and others here, seem to think that the FPA is the only influence on people and your argument is predicated on that misassumption.”
WRONG. I don’t. Sorry, that means it is your argument that is predicated my your own missaumptions.
Here’s a quote from one of your earlier comments:”Was there more of a problem under abstinance education or under the current education system?”. If there is any difference in statistics between then and now it is more likely to be due to differences in the social milieu yet you, and others, seem to want to lay all the blame at the feet of the FPA.
“What would the statistics be like if the FPA weren’t trying to counteract those other influences.”
What influences are they trying to counteract? Abstenance?
You are correct about the influence of internet and TV & magazines.
Er. Can you even read your own posts? On the one hand you appear to be denying that there are any other influnces on sexuality then you agree with me that there are. Which is it?
The problem is that FPA is not trying to balance the effect of those mediums, rather than providing a voice of balance it is doing the complete opposite, and simply reinforcing the message.
Opinion, not fact.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
if you look at any statistic relating to social condition, it shows a negative that along the time axis more or less parallels this country’s slide into collectivism. Increases in family break down, crime, violence, welfarism, dependency and a steady descent down the OECD rankings are all outcomes of the culture that the left have brought upon us.
Redbaiter, while it is true that our social experiment and the large influx of Polynesians who are industrial age novices, has a lot to do with our slide down OECD prosperity lists, the greatest single cause for our slide is as follows:
1. Our prosperity post WW II came about as a result of NZ being the food basket for a still very prosperous England. In 1960, wool, meat and dairy products earnt 90% of New Zealand’s export income and Britain bought 65% of New Zealand goods.
2. Petrol price increases in the 1970′s increased the price of NZ food in British supermarkets and the Brits join the EU and cast us loose so that we had to find new markets for our food.
3. In 2004 meat, wool and dairy accounted for 45% of exports, half that of 1960.
We have slid down the OECD table because we no longer hang onto the skirts of Mother England. Australia has prospered relative to us because they have ample mineral resources: uranium, bauxite, precious stones etc.
Welfarism has not increased. At 31 March 1965 the total number of persons (including dependent wives and children) in respect of whom social security benefits were payable, was 1,176,100, or approximately 45 per cent of the total population, which is probably about the same as receive benefits now.
I cannot vouch for crime or violence, but your picture of NZs progress over the years is not entirely fitting with reality. It is also relevant that half the governments since 1960 have been right wing National govts and they have done nothing to stem the pace of change.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
if you look at any statistic relating to social condition, it shows a negative that along the time axis more or less parallels this country’s slide into collectivism. Increases in family break down, crime, violence, welfarism, dependency and a steady descent down the OECD rankings are all outcomes of the culture that the left have brought upon us.
Redbaiter, while it is true that our social experiment and the large influx of Polynesians who are industrial age novices, has a lot to do with our slide down OECD prosperity lists, the greatest single cause for our slide is as follows:
1. Our prosperity post WW II came about as a result of NZ being the food basket for a still very prosperous England. In 1960, wool, meat and dairy products earnt 90% of New Zealand’s export income and Britain bought 65% of New Zealand goods.
2. Petrol price increases in the 1970′s increased the price of NZ food in British supermarkets and the Brits join the EU and cast us loose so that we had to find new markets for our food.
3. In 2004 meat, wool and dairy accounted for 45% of exports, half that of 1960.
We have slid down the OECD table because we no longer hang onto the skirts of Mother England. Australia has prospered relative to us because they have ample mineral resources: uranium, bauxite, precious stones etc.
Welfarism has not increased. At 31 March 1965 the total number of persons (including dependent wives and children) in respect of whom social security benefits were payable, was 1,176,100, or approximately 45 per cent of the total population, which is probably about the same as receive benefits now.
I cannot vouch for crime or violence, but your picture of NZs progress over the years is not entirely fitting with reality. It is also relevant that half the governments since 1960 have been right wing National govts and they have done nothing to stem the pace of change.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
if you look at any statistic relating to social condition, it shows a negative that along the time axis more or less parallels this country’s slide into collectivism. Increases in family break down, crime, violence, welfarism, dependency and a steady descent down the OECD rankings are all outcomes of the culture that the left have brought upon us.
Redbaiter, while it is true that our social experiment and the large influx of Polynesians who are industrial age novices, has a lot to do with our slide down OECD prosperity lists, the greatest single cause for our slide is as follows:
Our prosperity post WW II came about as a result of NZ being the food basket for a still very prosperous England. In 1960, wool, meat and dairy products earnt 90% of New Zealand’s export income and Britain bought 65% of New Zealand goods.
Petrol price increases in the 1970′s increased the price of NZ food in British supermarkets and the Brits join the EU and cast us loose so that we had to find new markets for our food.
3. In 2004 meat, wool and dairy accounted for 45% of exports, half that of 1960.
We have slid down the OECD table because we no longer hang onto the skirts of Mother England. Australia has prospered relative to us because they have ample mineral resources: uranium, bauxite, precious stones etc.
Welfarism has not increased. At 31 March 1965 the total number of persons (including dependent wives and children) in respect of whom social security benefits were payable, was 1,176,100, or approximately 45 per cent of the total population, which is probably about the same as receive benefits now.
I cannot vouch for crime or violence, but your picture of NZs progress over the years is not entirely fitting with reality. It is also relevant that half the governments since 1960 have been right wing National govts and they have done nothing to stem the pace of change.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Parker having to read your posts gives me the screaming shits , why did you post three times , do you have a small willy or are you just a libby jerk off ?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:44 am
DEMOGRAPHICS AND BIOLOGY
Females are fertile younger (increasingly so) than the legal age for accessing contraception.
The Polynesian and Maori populations are increasing – these include more fertile at a younger age and Maori have always been leading our pregnant at a young age statistics.
One would need to identify whether the upward trends would have occured without these factors (and factoring in Asian student levels etc) or not.
The rates for Pakeha are probably still going down.
SOCIOLOGICAL/CULTURAL CHANGE
Both parents are working – providing place and time oppportunity. There is also the text generation’s social “connectivity”.
OPTIONS
My favourite contraceptive campaign is DOUBLE SAFE – use of the condom (regarding it as a secondary form of contraceptive and a primary form of health and safety) AND a primary form of contraception when outside of relationships.
But we also need to invest in youth entertainment venues (alcohol free) for those 14 to 18. This would mature the next generations socialising.
My favourite legal move would be to ban sex under the age of 14 (the current age of consent at 16 only applies when one party is over 18).
June 29th, 2007 at 12:49 am
PS
The USA rate of teen pregancy, birth and abortion is the same for those of abstinence families or the “liberal” public school system.
They have less sex, but get pregnant at the same rate because they don’t use precautions. While they have a moral objection to abortion in general they find it personally convenient (in terms of life planning and hiding their little family secret).
Just as the rate of failed marriages is the same for Christian fundamentalists and hedonistic atheists …