insane, back when I was in highschool there was no cops/guards/etc

We even had a smoking section, and guns could be brought on campus.

For smoking section you just needed a letter from parents that they knew you smoked. and on recess the smokers all hung out there.

To bring gun to school, it was during any hunting season. You had to have note from parents that they know. The gun had to be visible, either gun rack in back window of truck or in passenger seat. Rifles and Shotguns only no pistols.

You had to have your Hunter's Safety Course card, Your Hunting License both on you to give copies at office.

You had to leave your vehicle keys with the front office and submit to random vehicle search of the hunter's vehicles only.

So while everyone could go to their cars at recess, or if you had extra empty elective, some of us juniors would drive up to Hardees before lunch and grab fast food then be back before 4th period started, but the hunters had to leave their keys with front office and they could not retrieve them until end of school.

So much more freedom.

Smoking was banned on campus for students only my 10th grade year, but Teachers had the smoking lounge in building. There was a teacher's lounge on each hall, the back hall F where weight lifting, welding, home ec, and vocational classes were was where the teacher's smoking lounge was. Most students friendly with teachers could sneak in there and smoke anyhow.

crazy times.

I had a 84 Camaro and kept a flare gun under seat my dad owned a boat and had couple extra flare guns. So I had that for some crazy reason thinking if someone attacked me, at point blank range I'd put on a huge firework show


Then there was the stereotypes that were proven right not wrong.

The jocks hung out together, the headbangers/smokers hung out together, the nerds, the band folks like me as my senior year I was drum major
and the blacks stayed together all in separate cliques at lunch and recess and before/after school.

stereotypes even went further.

the only highschool girls with babies (during time I was there I stress) were black girls, they had to build a daycare from the old mechanic shop behind the highschool for them. And even though this was the early 90s in the south, you'd hear over the Intercom every 6 months "All Black female students to gym at this time please" where they'd get lectured on abstinence, or condom use, and std's and such.

the only time rest of the student body went through that was in 10th grade they'd take the boys one day, and girls the next day.

We had a blast though as the guys, the protection/std talk was given by one of the football coaches, and during the talk with the guys and showing various "shock images" of std's on penis on the TV, when he got to the "sex ed" portion, he flipped in a Nina Hartley porn intro where a nude Nina Hartley showed the correct way to place a condom on. haha was hilarious looking back before "political correctness" went out of control.

I loved highschool and college.

Graduated high school in 94, got associates in 96, took year off then got bachelors in computer science in 99.

But 89-94 (our highschool here in the deep south is 8th through 12th) most are 9-12, but not here. It's still 8-12th here. So it's nothing seeing 12th graders dating 8th graders. Freaky yea, but not unusual.


If you got into a fight, if a coach was around he'd let the fight finish, unless it got a bit too over the top then they'd break it up. You didn't get suspended, you lost recess privileges usually 3 days plus the starter of the fight got 10 licks of the paddle in principle office, the other only got 1 to 3, or if person was just dominated and got ass kicked you just got detention.


Kids didn't act up at all most times. And the reason was Corporal Punishment. Not private paddling either.


Once I was having a bad day, me and "highschool" sweetheart were having a bit of a spat. We sat next to each other so we were bickering a bit during class. Teacher had yelled at me to shut up and do the work. I sighed "Leave me the fuck alone"

bad move.

She called me to front of class and I got 5 licks of paddle in front of everyone. They'd stick finger in your belt loop and yank it up tight to put that extra sting on it. Embarrassing as hell! Even female older teachers who didn't paddle hard, it was just too embarrassing to get paddled, so kids behaved.


And of course if you refused paddling which you could but you'd take a zero for the day's work. few of those in a semester and no matter how hard you worked you were flunking that semester.


But the system worked.

It wasn't until they went crazy insane on political correctness, stopping corporal punishment, and putting cops/rent a cops/guards in schools and after the No Child Left Behind was signed into law, they severely dumbed down kids forcing the smartest to learn at the slowest kids pace. Doc's prescribing SSRI's like candy to kids in MASSIVE quantities, that schools in today's culture are crazy.

Um, yes they were. It's just that rather than address the point of the video, you addressed a red herring tangent....from the video.

Harlequinn said:Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

That's an 'answer' to the part of the video saying they're 98% effective, which they are, when used properly (not with perfection). You continue to fight the fact that YOU were misleading, not just about your assertion, but also about the point of the video...or you simply missed the point completely....one or the other.
This is much is very obvious. Why are YOU bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong in numerous ways?
but you continue with 'but you didn't quote me, so you didn't say anything'? If you can't follow along, I'll just stop....as what's the point?

Harlequinn said: Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings.
And that's all I need to say about that. You were wrong about that, and now you want to distance yourself from your statement. I understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind it. As proof, condoms have been 100% effective in all settings I've used them.

Yes, it's an important statistic, and you have it wrong, or at best are poorly making the point by not clearly explaining that the 'failures' are all from misuse, not product failure.
When used properly, condoms are >98% effective in real life...not only in labs. Because so many people use them wrong doesn't make them less effective, it makes their USE of them less effective. The answer isn't to just tell people that 2/10 times they fail (scaring many people out of using them at all, while knowing full well that 99.9% of failures are due to improper usage, not defect)...it's to teach them how to properly use them so they work almost every time. Simple.
EDIT: People who use them wrong probably have <50% success rate, but that's like looking at first time drivers with no training and saying 'drivers have been shown to crash 75% of the time in real world situations'.
I'm bored with all conversations where one party can't grasp how what they actually said sounds to readers, even when it's explained clearly.

That said, my boredom with you won't stop me from correcting dangerously misleading information....like "Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings." and " Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness." while leaving out 'but only among people with absolutely zero training in their use, because they use them wrong CAUSING the failures'.
Have a nice day.

Ok, I'll explain it.

It's a comedic piece, not a lecture on reproductive health.

It doesn't matter if condoms are 97, 80 or 50% effective. They are being used as a stand-in for something that HAS a 97% consensus on its accuracy.

Granted, it's not a completely perfect analogy (they are comparing efficacy to consensus), but it's poetic licence. In other words.....

it's a fucking joke.

As for writing people off, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but really at this point climate deniers are up there with creationists, homeopaths, and flat earthers. There's only so much slack we can cut them, before we move the fuck on and say "If you believe that shit, you're an idiot"

My first two comments weren't "answers to the video". They addressed one small aspect of the video and the side topic of presenting facts accurately. This is much is very obvious.

But you've still not given an actual quote that proves your assertion. Why are you bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong?

I didn't make a "blanket assertion" that condoms are only 98% effective in the lab. I wrote "Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up)." This is a statistic. It doesn't point to an individual (who can achieve 100% success or 0% success). It points to the average of large populations. And I wrote that because the video made a statement without an important qualification. I'm sure you know this but are being stubborn. Why are you trying to fight these important statistics? From a public health perspective this is incredibly important information and trying to misrepresent the real world effectiveness of condoms can be harmful to the community when planning future health interventions.

Good luck with ignoring them and hoping they won't be a problem in the future. They'll be a spanner in the works unless they're appropriately addressed. And they can be appropriately addressed with a win win solution.

Have a good day then. I'm bored with this conversation and leaving it for another week.

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

And which point and answer would that be? It's pretty clear you're wrong. You're moving into delusional territory.

Health happens to be my area. Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings. My numbers are from longitudinal studies. In other words, it reflects the average user's results. They are not from anti-sex education organisations. Go look them up - there are lots of studies. Interestingly condom's have similar rates (80% to 90%) of stopping HIV transmission for exactly the same reasons. Even lower in some studies.

Don't be a snob. Education is the path forward. Your lazy abandonment of people because they disagreed with you is stone age thinking.

Anthony Giddens addresses sceptics in his book "The Politics of Climate Change": "Yet the sceptics do deserve and must receive a hearing. Scepticism is the life-blood of science and just as important in policy-making. It is right that whatever claims are made about climate change and its consequences are examined with a critical, even hostile, eye and in a continuing fashion."

Note: Anthony Giddens is very much not a sceptic and his book is an analysis of how to better achieve real action on climate change.

I also think you still miss the point....your answer seems to confirm that.
Condoms are >98% effective when used properly. I think your numbers might be for first time users with zero instruction...not the average user...but are more likely really from anti-sex education organizations.
At this point, it is totally reasonable to write off others as lost causes because they intentionally and zealously get important life or death things that effect us all so terribly wrong. No one with a brain that's actually looked at the problem still honestly believes deniers, only political hacks and those that trust them over science. I write them off with no qualms.

Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

I can't believe he forgot to remind the viewers to put a condom in the teacup. If people say it tastes better without a condom, just refuse to drink it.

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

OMG, I think that was a condom-kebab.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sex-Ed-Menstruation-Educational-Movie-from-the-1970s

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sex-Ed-teach-works-around-law-preventing-how-to-condom-use

Sex Ed: Menstruation Educational Movie from the 1970's has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Sex Ed teacher gets around no condom demo law has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

He was arrested for trespass, because he didn't leave when he was told to leave.

A business has control over their property, which includes the parking lot.

As far as judges go, you can flip a coin, one day this, another day that.

Judge probably doesn't go down to the local quickie mart and see beer cans that people throw out, condoms, people complaining that someone is in the parking lot playing their stereo too loud, just hanging out etc.