Comments on: What do we have in common? http://lubbockleft.com/2008/03/13/what-do-we-have-in-common/ A strong progressive voice in Lubbock, TX Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:54:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Lubbock Left http://lubbockleft.com/2008/03/13/what-do-we-have-in-common/#comment-909 Lubbock Left Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:41:11 +0000 http://lubbockleft.com/2008/03/13/what-do-we-have-in-common/#comment-909 Hey thanks, el ranchero! And you make an interesting point. I will say that I still think there is some chance of common ground in spite of what you say (which is probably true). We can say that both sides want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but with different methods and goals beyond that fact. The point I was trying to make with my post is that if we all try a little harder to find common ground (tiny though it may be), then we can change the political landscape -- and even the way our country is governed -- for the better. Hey thanks, el ranchero! And you make an interesting point. I will say that I still think there is some chance of common ground in spite of what you say (which is probably true). We can say that both sides want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but with different methods and goals beyond that fact.

The point I was trying to make with my post is that if we all try a little harder to find common ground (tiny though it may be), then we can change the political landscape — and even the way our country is governed — for the better.

]]> By: el ranchero http://lubbockleft.com/2008/03/13/what-do-we-have-in-common/#comment-888 el ranchero Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:41:49 +0000 http://lubbockleft.com/2008/03/13/what-do-we-have-in-common/#comment-888 Love the blog; I've been reading for about a month now. With the sex ed example, I don't really think the point that "we all want the same thing but have different approaches" actually works, but we don't really want the same things. If social conservatives were really just out for fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, then they'd be on board with comprehensive sex ed, seeing as pretty much every study shows that it's significantly more effective than abstinence-only at lowering the frequency of said conditions. They would similarly be on board with mandating HPV vaccinations, which would save countless lives of women who will otherwise die from cervical cancer. They're not on board, though, and appeals to the efficacy for both programs (comprehensive sex ed and HPV vaccinations) fall on deaf ears because that's not really the objective of the Right. The objective is to make kids stop having sex, and safer sexual practices are actually an impediment to that objective because it makes sex less dangerous. Furthermore, STDs separate the wheat from the chaff because those who contract STDs "deserve it" because they engaged in wicked acts. <b>The difference between social liberals and social conservatives on this issue is that liberals see abstinence as a way to keep kids from contracting deadly diseases, and conservatives see deadly diseases as a way to keep kids from having sex.</b> Love the blog; I’ve been reading for about a month now. With the sex ed example, I don’t really think the point that “we all want the same thing but have different approaches” actually works, but we don’t really want the same things. If social conservatives were really just out for fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, then they’d be on board with comprehensive sex ed, seeing as pretty much every study shows that it’s significantly more effective than abstinence-only at lowering the frequency of said conditions. They would similarly be on board with mandating HPV vaccinations, which would save countless lives of women who will otherwise die from cervical cancer.

They’re not on board, though, and appeals to the efficacy for both programs (comprehensive sex ed and HPV vaccinations) fall on deaf ears because that’s not really the objective of the Right. The objective is to make kids stop having sex, and safer sexual practices are actually an impediment to that objective because it makes sex less dangerous. Furthermore, STDs separate the wheat from the chaff because those who contract STDs “deserve it” because they engaged in wicked acts.

The difference between social liberals and social conservatives on this issue is that liberals see abstinence as a way to keep kids from contracting deadly diseases, and conservatives see deadly diseases as a way to keep kids from having sex.

]]>