Dan DiLeo Op-Ed in Daily Sun

If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

[cornellsun.com]

ebilmes
If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

[cornellsun.com]

Condomed sex during fertile periods is more likely to result in pregnancy than the rhythm method.

APRIL FOOL'S!

On a more serious note, if the objection of the Church to condom use is that it demeans the relationship of the partners, that's what it should argue. Shitty science is a destructive way to make a moral case.

ugarte

ebilmes
If sex is a sport, then this is the proper forum.

His hockey career just ended, but DiLeo already has an op-ed in the Sun.

[cornellsun.com]

Condomed sex during fertile periods is more likely to result in pregnancy than the rhythm method.

APRIL FOOL'S!

On a more serious note, if the objection of the Church to condom use is that it demeans the relationship of the partners, that's what it should argue. Shitty science is a destructive way to make a moral case.

How about no science. A lot of proclamations, but not backed by any data. And how about no discussion of HIV/AIDs, mentioned but nothing discussed.


About what I expect from religion, after all, religion is a belief not a science. So don't try and prove it to me.

The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

KeithK
The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

I believe ugarte's point was that the piece would have done better to stick to the morality argument rather than to include dubious-at-best assertions like "NFP ... has been shown to be equally, if not more, effective as contraception when practiced correctly."

KeithK
The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?


These are statements that can have some proof, and yet none is offered. The stats, and science that I once learned was that the rhythm method is inherently flawed. The temperature idea is not foolproof enough to be a good form of contraception. Now maybe there is more science but none was presented. And where does the HIV/AIDs idea come in? Again, it's mentioned but not discussed. Why? I agree that abstinence is good protection, but it was never discussed.

So, if they want to make a moral discussion, go right ahead. I'm willing to hear their morals, they can hear mine. But when you try and discuss it relative to science and issues such as effective contraception, HIV/AIDs, and overpopulation, then you have taken it out of pure morality and brought it into science.

Contraception, HIV/AIDs, and overpopulation were mentioned in the first two sentences, so I don't think that I mistook the main point of the piece. The piece mixed science and morality/religion, not I.

Jim Hyla

KeithK
The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?

I'm not arguing with ugarte's point or with Jim's disagreement on the facts. I was reacting to Jim's last paragraph which is pretty dismissive of religion in general. You don't need go there to make a decision on the either the facts or the moral argument.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK
The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

Except that he brought up science. The implication that the rhythm method is better than condums is made as a fact. It has nothing to do with morals. And HIV/AIDS was mentioned in the same breath, somehow implying that the rhythm method has something to do with disease prevention?

I'm not arguing with ugarte's point or with Jim's disagreement on the facts. I was reacting to Jim's last paragraph which is pretty dismissive of religion in general. You don't need go there to make a decision on the either the facts or the moral argument.

But Keith, I wasn't trying to make a decision on the moral argument, just the mixing of that with science. My last paragraph was somewhat dismissive, I agree, but that was because of the mixing up of the two in the article. Morals, related to religion or not, are beliefs. It's then when you try and prove it by science that you get into trouble, at least with me.


Please reread this

About what I expect from religion, after all, religion is a belief not a science. So don't try and prove it to me.

You probably took offense at the beginning "About what I expect". But that's true, it is about what I expect. This statement is true to my beliefs. Religion is a belief, not a science, so don't try and prove science with it, at least to me. That's not that dismissive, it just states my view of science and religion. State your belief, respect my belief; and when it comes to science, let's do the science and when there is proof, let's all acknowledge that.


I don't believe that the world has been around for only 6000 years, someone saying that they believe it will not make me believe it. In fact, I believe that holding to those invalidated beliefs drives more people away than it ever brings in, at least in a learned society. Therefore, I cannot sit back and let his belief that, the rhythm method is at least as good as condoms, stand unchallenged.

Fair enough Jim. I've dealt with enough folks who are dismissive of religion that it's easy to tweak that nerve.

The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.

Josh '99
The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.

I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.

KeithK

Josh '99
The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.

I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.

If it's an April Fool's piece, it seems to have fooled you guys into thinking it was a real article.

Josh '99

KeithK

Josh '99
The Op-Ed is a joke, though, right? I mean, you guys are debating it as if it were serious.

I couldn't tell. I checked the website to see if there was some giveaway (special section or whatever) and didn't see it (maybe I'm blind, don't know).

If it was an April Fool's piece it's a pretty bad one.

If it's an April Fool's piece, it seems to have fooled you guys into thinking it was a real article.

Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

ugarte
Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

Exactly. Since it was 4/1 I had to consider the possibility but the article seemed sincere.

KeithK

ugarte
Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

Exactly. Since it was 4/1 I had to consider the possibility but the article seemed sincere.

Plus, in the past, the Fools Day articles are usually obvious by the headline. "Skorton to Mount Johnny's Sign on Day Hall" would be an example. This is not obvious, nor did I see any joke stories on the website from yesterday.

RichH

KeithK

ugarte
Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

Exactly. Since it was 4/1 I had to consider the possibility but the article seemed sincere.

Plus, in the past, the Fools Day articles are usually obvious by the headline. "Skorton to Mount Johnny's Sign on Day Hall" would be an example. This is not obvious, nor did I see any joke stories on the website from yesterday.

And wasn't it common for them to start and then to be continued on a nonexistent inside page?

When I went to the Sun web site yesterday (4/1) I found an announcement that their electronic version, or maybe the whole effort, was being converted to Twitter. Then there was a string of twitters that were clearly spoofs. Today it's back to normal.

RichH

KeithK

ugarte
Bad in the sense of 'tasteless' and 'inappropriate for the Sun' if it was meant to mock religious belief. I didn't - and don't - have any reason to believe that DiLeo was insincere in his belief in Catholic dogma.

Exactly. Since it was 4/1 I had to consider the possibility but the article seemed sincere.

Plus, in the past, the Fools Day articles are usually obvious by the headline. "Skorton to Mount Johnny's Sign on Day Hall" would be an example. This is not obvious, nor did I see any joke stories on the website from yesterday.

Hmm, maybe I'm wrong then.

jtwcornell91

KeithK
The main point of the piece was the morality argument about contraception as it relates to relationships. You can agree with it or not. Let's try to refrain frmo general bashing of religion (or of specific religions).

I believe ugarte's point was that the piece would have done better to stick to the morality argument rather than to include dubious-at-best assertions like "NFP ... has been shown to be equally, if not more, effective as contraception when practiced correctly."

Ugarte, it seemed, went out of his way, here at least, to steer clear of the minefield of organized-religion-bashing. (Pervert ministers and priests inadvertantly do the bashing for us.) When an op-ed piece such as this includes asides claiming as fact things that just arenn't so, that's fair game. The article's validity is tainted whether it's a sentence or half the word-count.

It's good that an athlete inserts himself in in the public arena in more ways than flipping a puck over the side glass. But the cardinal error of the piece wasn't fact. It was that it was dry, plodding, and not very convincing. Even if DiLeo got coaching from William Safire or Peggy Noonan on how to write a conservative-viewpoint piece with style and warmth, it's still going to falter the moment it suggests there's science to support the benefits of keeping condoms out of all-AIDS, all-the-time places like Africa. It didn't get that far. No offense meant (which often means the opposite), but the dry nature of the writing did give me pause, too, to wonder if that was the writer's natural style, or if it was a clever 4/1 spoof of other overly dry opinion pieces.

A good 4/1 counterpoint piece might be a defense of the Vatican's ban of massaging shower heads an an impediment the natural love between husband and wife. Especially the flexible shower heads with massage settings Low, Medium, and Who Needs a Man.

I sometimes fall into the same trap as others perhaps do of thinking of Cornell athletes one-dimensionally, as athletes and not as students. When I was on the Sun, one of the goalies, David Elenbaas, needed to write for the Sun to fulfill part of a Comm Arts course. David was a great writer with an incredible knowledge of baseball, and a warm and natural style of writing, something that was not the case of all Sun sportswriters. I was probably a bit of a better writer, but when we laced on skates, it was clear who was the better student-athlete overall.

So no matter the quality of DiLeo's piece, it's good to see athletes exposing other sides of themselves.

In the print version of the Sun, the outer layer of newspaper (so, the front page and the back page with their facing pages) was clearly the April Fool's Day issue.

On the front page, the name was "The Cornell Diaries Sun". The headlines were clearly false "Keystone to be Served in Cornell Dining Halls", "Skorton Arrested on Embezzlement Charges; 600 Students Robbed Blind", "CU Has Biggest Porn Collection"...all those articles went to non-existent interior pages. Back page had "M. Basketball Player Brawls in Trillium" and, my fave, "Beavers' Frozen Four Spot Revoked After NCAA Can't Find Bemidji St.".

Removing that outer layer of newspaper left behind what, to all intents and purposes, appeared to be a "normal" edition of the Sun. "CU Admits 19.1% of Applicants", "Engineering Prioritizes Instruction and Research in Face of Budget Cuts", etc. None of the articles in the "normal" section seemed to be spoofs or pranks.

I'd have to say the 4 pages of the out layer of paper were the April Fool's Day issue. DiLeo's column is in the normal section and was, to all appearances, not a joke.

CK

billhoward
David [Elenbaas] was a great writer with an incredible knowledge of baseball, and a warm and natural style of writing, something that was not the case of all Sun sportswriters. I was probably a bit of a better writer, but when we laced on skates, it was clear who was the better student-athlete overall.

You might have been just as good a student-athlete if you hadn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

[www.livescience.com]

billhoward
it's good to see athletes exposing other sides of themselves.

Huh huhuh...

Trotsky

billhoward
it's good to see athletes exposing other sides of themselves.

Huh huhuh...

Someone else old enough to remember Lance Rentzel, Joey Heatherton, and those exhbition season jokes.

Funny, it's a repeat injury.