I wonder how many crap spams I'll get off that title.

I'm not trying to get spam, I'm trying to write the headline more accurately. When you read, "College Students Forced to Pay More," you might think that some price increase has happened that effects college students in a bad way. However, while that is clearly the intent of that headline, it's very (intentionally) misleading!

My headline is much more accurate.

You see, the college students aren't forced to do anything. In this case, they are buying something because they WANT to. There's ZERO health risks of any sort if they don't buy it. So to say they're forced is simply wrong. And then let's look at why they're paying more for this optional thing that they are buying because they WANT to:

Up until now, you and I have been paying the vast majority of the cost for this item. The "poor" college student is just paying a small amount because the government, with our tax dollars, is helping them to pay for this optional item that they want (and do NOT need). So they're going to have to pay more because you and I are not paying as much for this item that we're not getting any benefit from. To say that they're paying more is, again, intentionally deceptive.

And what is this item that they are so upset about paying more for? Why it's birth control! Yes folks, you and I, through the government, have been paying piles of cash to college students so they can have free, irresponsible sex! With our tax money, we've been paying so that women at colleges can have birth control so they can have sex at will without the "worry" about getting pregnant. Don't you love government use of money? Heck, without government, people who have sex might get pregnant! And we simply cannot have people actually be held responsible for their actions, can we?

So until now, the taxpayer has been paying enormous piles of money to ensure that college students can have worry-free sex. After this change, we're simply paying less. We're still letting them have their sex without a purpose, we're just asking them to actually pay for the free sex.

Now read that original headline again and tell me there wasn't an agenda at work there.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You mean you do support redistribution of money that we earn?! What kind of a socialist are you? My wife and I are technically poor, but every month a portion of our income goes to Social Security and Medicare. While it seems honorable to pay for the "helpless," remember that forcing someone to pay for someone else's expense is alot different from someone volunteering that money. I heard the analogy: suppose there was a fellow who knew a sick person. So he mugs someone and pays for the sick person to go to the hospital. That's wrong. Suppose instead that it is a group of people who all vote to steal the money. It's still wrong. The only time it's right is when the EARNER volunteers the money to the beneficiary.

Posted by: Brandon Dixon at July 28, 2007 04:36 AM (kUMvN)

2 You are correct. But in America today, that is not the case. If you are government, you are exempt from all that is right and wrong. In fact, if you're an unelected bureaucrat, anything you do is automatically right -- no matter what. And if you happen to disagree with that bureaucrat, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, because you didn't elect the lazy bastard.

Posted by: Ogre at July 29, 2007 11:18 PM (GYzrk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment