My brain hurts on this one. Groin Central Station? What city is that in? Sodom or Ghomorrah?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/12/11668279-new-tennessee-law-aims-to-curb-teaching-gateway-sexual-activity?lite

I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

"Kissing and hugging are the last stop before reaching Groin Central Station, so it's important to ban all the things that lead to the things that lead to sex,

Words fail me.

How exactly do you teach 'gateway sexual activity' anyway? I was entirely self taught.

Apparently Tennessee has the 7th highest teenage pregnancy rate in the US, obviously effectively banning sex education will really help to bring that down.

Palindrome wrote:How exactly do you teach 'gateway sexual activity' anyway?

By looking at the opposite sex (or the same sex if that's your thing!) and thinking "wow, that person is hot..."

Basically, being a person.

Relapse wrote:My brain hurts on this one. Groin Central Station? What city is that in? Sodom or Ghomorrah?

I'm pretty sure that was Colbert's line, though the article doesn't make that very clear.

Still, I didn't think it was possible for anything to go beyond abstinence only in terms of poor conception, but it seems Tennessee has proven how creative social conservatives can be.

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

Yet another sound argument for abortion.

It's like they have a competition to see who fails the hardest.

Remember, instead of teaching kids about sexual diseases and how to prevent them it is best to let them learn about them on their own.

And when they get that STD you have to make sure that they don't go to the county health department for treatment. That would be socialism.

Remember kids, masturbation is the only safe sexual activity but it is also a sin. So stay safe out there.

Palindrome wrote:
How exactly do you teach 'gateway sexual activity' anyway?

You don't. It's just wired in.

I remember reading an Article in (I think it was) Time, where 1 in every 4 boys and 1 in every 5 girls admitted to looking at "illicit Images and Videos" on their Smart phones by age 11.

You know what that means? 3 out of every 4 boys and 2 out of every 5 girls are liars. But let's say the article was right. I didn't have Sex Ed in school until 7th grade (so age 12-13) BUT a small Minority(yeah right) of kids by the time they reach 5th-6th grade (10-12) have used advances in Technology and their own Natural Urges/Curiosity to learn about sex and the differences between men and women before it's actually taught in class. So what is there left to teach? The kids already know about the basics. Now they need to learn how to do it safely so they don't end up with a kid before they graduate(if they decide not to wait).

TL;DR this is a stupid idea.

Melissia wrote:It's like they have a competition to see who fails the hardest.

Hugging and kissing is banned, but "Are you from Tennessee?" is now part of the required curriculum.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:My brain hurts on this one. Groin Central Station? What city is that in? Sodom or Ghomorrah?

I'm pretty sure that was Colbert's line, though the article doesn't make that very clear.

Still, I didn't think it was possible for anything to go beyond abstinence only in terms of poor conception, but it seems Tennessee has proven how creative social conservatives can be.

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

Yet another sound argument for abortion.

I just couldn't resist adding that, even though it was Colbert who said the line about Groin Centra Station.
The whole gateway thing is so bizzare to me, though, and I consider myself conservative.

Does Tennessee congress goons a bane of 'Sex and the City' series?

Lone Cat wrote:Does Tennessee congress goons a bane of 'Sex and the City' series?

I'll allow that one.

This is a stupid idea...

So many tragic puns...

...
...
...
Praise be to His Noodly Greatness, that I don't live in the USA.

Why am I not surprised? Damned social conservatives and their silly book! Ugh.

Next time on American Idiocy today: Arizona bans condoms and Alabama legalizes lynching! Also, Kentucky makes it a legal requirement that schools must teach that the atomic bombs were dropped by Al-Quaeda!

Or that pi is equal to 3.

Melissia wrote:Or that pi is equal to 3.

That plucky little bill never had a chance. Where's Gene Hackman when you need him?

And, of course, that global warming is a lie started by the liberal left-wing media to destroy capitalist America as part of the ICC.

Squigsquasher wrote:And, of course, that global warming is a lie started by the liberal left-wing media to destroy capitalist America as part of the ICC.

Nah, it was started by liberals in general, the media is just their tool.

These social conservatives need to stop being so anal about sex education.

Was that a pun?

Palindrome wrote:Was that a pun?

Pun? What's a pun? I didn't write it with a pun, if that's what your asking.

WTF?

I think that about covers this law...

A lot of data sets I've seen put Tennessee at below average IQ. Not saying that this is causation, or that those data sets are even accurate, let alone the effectiveness of IQ as a true measure of intelligence. Just pointin' it out.

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/iq-by-state-us/versions/1.txt

More interesting still is when you compare the set of states that are below average IQ with the set of states that use "Coke" as the generic term for popular carbonated sugary beverages commonly served in cans.

It's not fair to label an entire state's population stupid on the bases of one rather dodgy looking set of figures.

That data set shows most of the states as below average IQ, and places California, which is seething with hi-tech industries, lower than Tennessee.

Eye contact is the first thing that leads to sex. Maybe muslims have it right, those burqas that cover even the eyes are SURE to curb teenage sex!

Exalted Pariah wrote:Eye contact is the first thing that leads to sex. Maybe muslims have it right, those burqas that cover even the eyes are SURE to curb teenage sex!

No we can't have burqas. I think we need to cut out the eyes of all teenagers when they hit puberty. That'll learn them!

How about if we simply lobotomize rowdy teenagers, only leaving fit parents in the Gene Pool?

Naked pile protest!

BlapBlapBlap wrote:How about if we simply lobotomize rowdy teenagers, only leaving fit parents in the Gene Pool?

But that would mean increasing gov'mnt control and cries of "DEY TOOK ORE BRAINS!"

I'm assuming Tenessee is also going to ban TV? Lots o' huggin' and kissin' going on there; can't let the kids see that! And don't eveng get me started on those intranets, they're just stuffed full of indecency... Oh! We've gotta ban iPads, smart phonse, laptops... heck, let's just ban computers all together!


The sheer amount of 'derp' involved in this law staggers me. Just when I though conservatives could get any dumber....

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

I thought it was being a boy scout?

I feel sorry for those students when they make it to college.

Co-ed dorms are going to blow their minds.

Just ridiculous. The end result of a large group of people deciding to stop thinking.

It saddens me that these people are basically trying to deny something that everyone goes through, sticking their fingers in thei ears and closing their eyes rather than realising that by preparing and informing people, you make things they are going to do anyway safer, rather than making them do stuff they had never considered doing because you have just 'told them about it'.

I'm sure lots of the people who pushed this bill have experimented with far more than 'gateway' sexual expreiences...

I wish I had learned about gateway sexual activity....

We didn't kiss or hug till our 3rd date. It made the sex on the first and second dates rather awkward and impersonal.

Horst wrote:I wish I had learned about gateway sexual activity....

We didn't kiss or hug till our 3rd date. It made the sex on the first and second dates rather awkward and impersonal.

Damn, what's that from again, it's on the tip of my tongue.....

Krellnus wrote:

Horst wrote:I wish I had learned about gateway sexual activity....

We didn't kiss or hug till our 3rd date. It made the sex on the first and second dates rather awkward and impersonal.

Damn, what's that from again, it's on the tip of my tongue.....

American dad.

Why hasn't anyone made a "Kids - Don't Do Hugs" campaign ad yet?

Say no to hugs!

Possibly with a picture of Huggy Bear with a line through him...

sebster wrote:Just ridiculous. The end result of a large group of people deciding to stop thinking.

And yet this is pretty much normal and expectable for the religious right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:It saddens me that these people are basically trying to deny something that everyone goes through, sticking their fingers in thei ears and closing their eyes rather than realising that by preparing and informing people, you make things they are going to do anyway safer, rather than making them do stuff they had never considered doing because you have just 'told them about it'.

I'm sure lots of the people who pushed this bill have experimented with far more than 'gateway' sexual expreiences...

I wonder how many of them took a trip to the bathroom and that weird hole in the stall after passing the bill.

Am I the only one who doesn't get what the law is mandating or limiting?
-No PDA's in school? Duh...
-And????

I don't get the law. In Tennessee's defense they have good barbeque and lots of moonshine. Someone may have gotten into the moonshine and passed a law. Its not like it would be the first time.

This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Scheidler

"I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting – people using each other for pleasure."

I bet his wife is a happy women.

My guess is that someone hit the moonshine a little too hard, woke up in the bed surrounded by naked sweaty men, and decided that they had to prove their straightness by passing a stupid law.

"Have I mentioned that I am straight today?"

Well there's something there, its just confused.*


*Confused usually means gets thrown out by a court somewhere.

Frazzled wrote:Well there's something there, its just confused

One could say that, yes

Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't get what the law is mandating or limiting?
-No PDA's in school? Duh...
-And????

You're not allowed to tell kids about Js that start with B or H as part of abstinance-only education.

Basically, groups such as PP were trying to get around the abstinance-only program by teaching kids about alternative options. Which tend to be more dangerous and prone to spreading STDs.

Why Liberals want kids to have syphilis is beyond me.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't get what the law is mandating or limiting?
-No PDA's in school? Duh...
-And????

You're not allowed to tell kids about Js that start with B or H as part of abstinance-only education.

Basically, groups such as PP were trying to get around the abstinance-only program by teaching kids about alternative options. Which tend to be more dangerous and prone to spreading STDs.

Why Liberals want kids to have syphilis is beyond me.

A HJ or a BJ is more dangerous and prone to spreading disease than full on intercourse? /not-sure-if-serious

I mean, sure, it can make you go blind, but there are a handful of STDs that have the same effect...

PhantomViper wrote:A HJ or a BJ is more dangerous and prone to spreading disease than full on intercourse? /not-sure-if-serious

A small number of highly vocal churches/pastors gladly say this (no matter how false it is). Then again, these also would say that "the only alternative to marriage is abstinence-- including not masturbating-- and if you don't practice it you're a horrible sinner who is going to hell" too.

Melissia wrote:A small number of highly vocal churches/pastors gladly say this (no matter how false it is). Then again, these also would say that "the only alternative to marriage is abstinence-- including not masturbating-- and if you don't practice it you're a horrible sinner who is going to hell" too.

Are these the same people who casually suggest that all conservatives are latent homosexuals?

PhantomViper wrote:A HJ or a BJ is more dangerous and prone to spreading disease than full on intercourse? /not-sure-if-serious

Read the article and be enlightened.

Sorry I found the article to be confusing, hence my earlier question.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:A small number of highly vocal churches/pastors gladly say this (no matter how false it is). Then again, these also would say that "the only alternative to marriage is abstinence-- including not masturbating-- and if you don't practice it you're a horrible sinner who is going to hell" too.

Are these the same people who casually suggest that all conservatives are latent homosexuals?

PhantomViper wrote:A HJ or a BJ is more dangerous and prone to spreading disease than full on intercourse? /not-sure-if-serious

Read the article and be enlightened.

As a morally bankrupt European that I am, I found the article to be complete garbage and the notion that the only answer that you guys can find to a growing teen pregnancy and teen STD problem is "don't talk about sex... EVER, because it gives children ideas!", to be naive at best and criminally negligent and one of the causes of the problem at worst!

Also what I think the PP guys were saying on the article is that while OS and AS are valid methods to engage in sexual activity without risking pregnancy, there are still some STD risk involved (allot more in AS then in OS and I frankly never heard of anyone catching an STD through a HJ)...

PhantomViper wrote:As a morally bankrupt European that I am, I found the article to be complete garbage and the notion that the only answer that you guys can find to a growing teen pregnancy and teen STD problem is "don't talk about sex... EVER, because it gives children ideas!", to be naive at best and criminally negligent and one of the causes of the problem at worst!

As a stick-in-the-mud American, I find the idea of teaching kids about sex in a classroom full of their peers to be just a little bit creepy. Especially teaching kids about how to have fun with sex.

PhantomViper wrote:Also what I think the PP guys were saying on the article is that while OS and AS are valid methods to engage in sexual activity without risking pregnancy, there are still some STD risk involved

The intent of the PP guys advocating OS and AS was to get around the abstinance-only requirement for schools. The law in question is solving this problem.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:As a morally bankrupt European that I am, I found the article to be complete garbage and the notion that the only answer that you guys can find to a growing teen pregnancy and teen STD problem is "don't talk about sex... EVER, because it gives children ideas!", to be naive at best and criminally negligent and one of the causes of the problem at worst!

As a stick-in-the-mud American, I find the idea of teaching kids about sex in a classroom full of their peers to be just a little bit creepy. Especially teaching kids about how to have fun with sex.

How can you think like that when the alternative is that they will be unaware of all the risks that come with unprotected sex?

My mother is a doctor so she made my father give me the full talk, including how a condom is supposed to work and why I should always use one (and the offer that I could steal his whenever I wanted)... Believe me there is nothing more awkward for a 14 year old boy then that kind of conversation, but I fully plan to have it with my son in about 10 years time (or even earlier since kids these days are allot more exposed to sexual content than 20 years ago), because the possible consequences of not having that "talk" are too serious to even contemplate!

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Also what I think the PP guys were saying on the article is that while OS and AS are valid methods to engage in sexual activity without risking pregnancy, there are still some STD risk involved

The intent of the PP guys advocating OS and AS was to get around the abstinance-only requirement for schools. The law in question is solving this problem.

Lyndsey Godwin, manager of education and training for Planned Parenthood, told Reuters the idea that her group was encouraging such behavior was "utterly false." She said that while Planned Parenthood educators may answer a student's question by agreeing that anal and oral sex don't lead to pregnancy, they also emphasize the disease risks.
Godwin said Planned Parenthood supports the state's abstinence-centered policy, but the reality is not everyone can be abstinent. She said that being able to address issues of condom use and contraception and answer questions about sexual behaviors to educate students are essential to her group's role.

PhantomViper wrote:How can you think like that when the alternative is that they will be unaware of all the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Because that's not the alternative.

Did you learn about how to have safe sex in school? If not, were you unaware of all of the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Lyndsey Godwin, manager of education and training for Planned Parenthood, told Reuters the idea that her group was encouraging such behavior was "utterly false." She said that while Planned Parenthood educators may answer a student's question by agreeing that anal and oral sex don't lead to pregnancy, they also emphasize the disease risks.
Godwin said Planned Parenthood supports the state's abstinence-centered policy, but the reality is not everyone can be abstinent. She said that being able to address issues of condom use and contraception and answer questions about sexual behaviors to educate students are essential to her group's role.

Umm...yes. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. This is wholly consistent with my comment.

Frazzled's speech to The Boy before he went off to prom:
*No booze/drugs and stay away from people doing that. You're driving stupid.
*No cops.
*No babies.

I'm just going to leave this here...

Yep. So glad I live in the Northeast with filthy Yankees.

And my original thought to the article: We're going to Nuke it from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:How can you think like that when the alternative is that they will be unaware of all the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Because that's not the alternative.

Did you learn about how to have safe sex in school? If not, were you unaware of all of the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Like I said, I learnt about safe sex through my parents, but that isn't a viable solution to many people.

I didn't learn about safe sex at school because my country in the 80's was even more narrow minded that you guys. Curiously enough, we also had a growing problem with teenage pregnancy that has decreased significantly when sex education classes were introduced in schools in the 90's.

So what is your alternative to sex education in schools? Because clearly "abstinence only" isn't working out too well if those numbers are real (and the simple fact that teenagers will have sex, doesn't matter if anyone else will tell them not to).

PhantomViper wrote:

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:How can you think like that when the alternative is that they will be unaware of all the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Because that's not the alternative.

Did you learn about how to have safe sex in school? If not, were you unaware of all of the risks that come with unprotected sex?

Like I said, I learnt about safe sex through my parents, but that isn't a viable solution to many people.

I didn't learn about safe sex at school because my country in the 80's was even more narrow minded that you guys. Curiously enough, we also had a growing problem with teenage pregnancy that has decreased significantly when sex education classes were introduced in schools in the 90's.

So what is your alternative to sex education in schools? Because clearly "abstinence only" isn't working out too well if those numbers are real (and the simple fact that teenagers will have sex, doesn't matter if anyone else will tell them not to).

Schools near where I live understand that teenagers will have sex. So they teach us about condoms, contraception, and how else to have safe sex.

It's really in the lower class areas that it's "Abstinence is key! Remember kids, if you have sex, you will get chlamydia, and you will die."

PhantomViper wrote:Like I said, I learnt about safe sex through my parents

Wait wait wait...You didn't learn about safe sex through school? This is...astonishing. I have been led to believe that the only possible way kids learn how to have safe sex is through mandatory sexual education.

There's no way you're telling the truth. That is the only conclusion that fits with the evidence provided. You've probably also got a dozen STDs and as many kids out there. Plus, who knows how many embarassing stories because you didn't learn the proper methods for having effective sexual intercourse.

That, or parents are actually capable of, you know, parenting. But I'm not sure that's a reasonable explanation.

PhantomViper wrote:but that isn't a viable solution to many people.

Oh, I see, you're an exception. Educated people are capable of parenting their children, it's the uneducated people who need supervision.

PhantomViper wrote:(and the simple fact that teenagers will have sex, doesn't matter if anyone else will tell them not to)

No, they won't, this is a poor argument. Teenagers having sex is not a guarantee. It wasn't until contraceptives became widely available that we saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates. If you tell kids there's nothing they can do to help themselves, then it will happen, especially if you present sex as being virtually risk-free via. contraceptives.

Eliminating or reducing the risk of consequences for sexual activity has done more to increase sexual activity than anything else.

Also, take a drive through downtown Memphis on a schoolday. Sexual Education classes in Tennessee schools aren't reaching kids in the first place. SE classes at the local crack dealer however.......

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:(and the simple fact that teenagers will have sex, doesn't matter if anyone else will tell them not to)

No, they won't, this is a poor argument. Teenagers having sex is not a guarantee. It wasn't until contraceptives became widely available that we saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates. If you tell kids there's nothing they can do to help themselves, then it will happen, especially if you present sex as being virtually risk-free via. contraceptives.

You can't possibly believe that's a poor argument-teens have sex, just like they drink and do drugs in high school. Certainly not all of them-but enough of them. When I was teaching in a small hick school, there was a girl who was absent for a week, and the TEACHERS thought she was out because she was pregnant. Did I mention she was in 6th grade? Not everyone will, but telling them "don't do it" is a clear way to GET them to do it. They think they're getting away with something they shouldn't. And go do a study biccat-I'm sure if you polled all the teens in America, you'll find that at least 50-60% above the age of 15 have had sex, in one form or another. And at least 25% of those from 12-14. Doesn't count HJs (which won't cause most STDs, despite brilliant claims to the contrary earlier from Neo-Christian Nazis. Don't remember who posted it). Go ahead-I'll wait

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Like I said, I learnt about safe sex through my parents

Wait wait wait...You didn't learn about safe sex through school? This is...astonishing. I have been led to believe that the only possible way kids learn how to have safe sex is through mandatory sexual education.

There's no way you're telling the truth. That is the only conclusion that fits with the evidence provided. You've probably also got a dozen STDs and as many kids out there. Plus, who knows how many embarassing stories because you didn't learn the proper methods for having effective sexual intercourse.

That, or parents are actually capable of, you know, parenting. But I'm not sure that's a reasonable explanation.

PhantomViper wrote:but that isn't a viable solution to many people.

Oh, I see, you're an exception. Educated people are capable of parenting their children, it's the uneducated people who need supervision.

???

Are you really serious or is this just elaborate trolling?

Yes, my parents managed to give me all the information I needed regarding sexual education because they had a higher than average education themselves... In a country and at a time where women believed that you just had to "wash your lady parts" afterwards to prevent pregnancy and STDs and where the most used contraceptive method was "coitus interruptus", getting your sexual education from your parents wasn't often the best course of action.

Teen pregnancy's and a general increase in STDs (especially AIDS), at that time was such a big problem that the government implemented a nation wide family planing system in the 90's to educate the population, including free birth control pills and condoms, free family planning consults in the hospitals and the aforementioned implementation of sexual education classes at school!

And guess what? It worked! What they didn't do, and probably wouldn't have worked as well, was just telling people: you just shouldn't have sex...

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:(and the simple fact that teenagers will have sex, doesn't matter if anyone else will tell them not to)

No, they won't, this is a poor argument. Teenagers having sex is not a guarantee. It wasn't until contraceptives became widely available that we saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates. If you tell kids there's nothing they can do to help themselves, then it will happen, especially if you present sex as being virtually risk-free via. contraceptives.

Eliminating or reducing the risk of consequences for sexual activity has done more to increase sexual activity than anything else.

That is a very simplistic view of the world you got there...

We saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates for a variety of different reasons, amongst them:
- teenagers are allot less supervised then they were in the 60's and so have more opportunities for doing "the nasty"!
- there is a lot less control from the church stating that "sex is the evilz0rs and you are going to hell if you do it!1!"
- the increase exposition of youth to sexual content through the mass media: in my youth, if I wanted to see a naked women I had to wait until one of my classmates brought a dirty magazine to school, now you just have to turn on the TV...

Besides, sex is fun and perfectly harmless if the proper precautions are taken.

timetowaste85 wrote:When I was teaching in a small hick school, there was a girl who was absent for a week, and the TEACHERS thought she was out because she was pregnant. Did I mention she was in 6th grade?

No, you didn't mention she was in 6th grade. However, you wrote the post, so I suppose you knew that.

Why was she absent for a week? Was she pregnant? Or were you just basing that assumption on stereotyping "hicks"?

timetowaste85 wrote:And go do a study biccat-I'm sure if you polled all the teens in America, you'll find that at least 50-60% above the age of 15 have had sex, in one form or another. And at least 25% of those from 12-14.

Well, with research like that, who am I to argue?

timetowaste85 wrote:Neo-Christian Nazis

Well, that's certainly polite. Do you find referring to others as "Neo-Christian Nazis" to be an effective debate tactic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:We saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates for a variety of different reasons, amongst them:
- teenagers are allot less supervised then they were in the 60's and so have more opportunities for doing "the nasty"!
- there is a lot less control from the church stating that "sex is the evilz0rs and you are going to hell if you do it!1!"
- the increase exposition of youth to sexual content through the mass media: in my youth, if I wanted to see a naked women I had to wait until one of my classmates brought a dirty magazine to school, now you just have to turn on the TV...

...but the only explanation for reduced teen pregnancy is the government instituted program.

I wouldn't be so crass as to accuse you of having an "overly simplistic worldview." But you're certainly ignoring a lot of other information.

biccat wrote:
The intent of the PP guys advocating OS and AS was to get around the abstinance-only requirement for schools. The law in question is solving this problem.

So you are suggesting that advocating vaginal sex is somehow a problem? Abstinence is a failure, while it may be 'the only 100% method of preventing STIs' that only works if kids actually abstain. If they are uneducated, or very poorly educated, and they do have sex what do you think will happen? Sexual education doesn't somehow encourage kids to have sex; that would be their hormones, possibly suprred on by all the gateway sexual activity that they see on TV.

My son will get a very detailed sexual education by me when he hits puberty, I don't see how any other appraoch could be even remotely considered sensible parenting.

I really don't understand why some people find sex so threatening, after all everyones grannies have done it at least once.

Palindrome wrote:My son will get a very detailed sexual education by me when he hits puberty, I don't see how any other appraoch could be even remotely considered sensible parenting.

I agree completely.

Wow this thread got hostile. Won't someone think of the children???

biccat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:My son will get a very detailed sexual education by me when he hits puberty, I don't see how any other appraoch could be even remotely considered sensible parenting.

I agree completely.

If only everyone did, and actually taugh their children a complete sexual education rather than idealogically driven nonsense, then the teenage pregnency rate would be tiny.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:We saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates for a variety of different reasons, amongst them:
- teenagers are allot less supervised then they were in the 60's and so have more opportunities for doing "the nasty"!
- there is a lot less control from the church stating that "sex is the evilz0rs and you are going to hell if you do it!1!"
- the increase exposition of youth to sexual content through the mass media: in my youth, if I wanted to see a naked women I had to wait until one of my classmates brought a dirty magazine to school, now you just have to turn on the TV...

...but the only explanation for reduced teen pregnancy is the government instituted program.

Well, people in my country nowadays display a much broader knowledge of how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, so I certainly like to think that it weren't JUST the magical pixie fairies that caused the drop in unwanted teenage pregnancies and the spread in STDs... But I guess you're right, I can't just ignore the pixie fairy contribution.

biccat wrote:
I wouldn't be so crass as to accuse you of having an "overly simplistic worldview." But you're certainly ignoring a lot of other information.

Or you are making logical correlations between completely separate and unrelated facts.

Kids will learn about sex, be it from school, their classmates, TV or the interwebs! You can't go back to a time when this wasn't true, so the next best thing is to educate them on the "right" way to do it. Some parents, either through ignorance of their own, misguided religious beliefs or simply because they don't give a crap, will be unable to properly educate their children about the "birds and the bees" and since STDs and children raising other children is kind of a problem that affects all of society, then why shouldn't society educate them?

biccat wrote:Are these the same people who casually suggest that all conservatives are latent homosexuals?

No, those are called comedians. A strange breed, you've probably never heard of them.

timetowaste85 wrote:You can't possibly believe that's a poor argument-teens have sex

Sure he can. After all, we humans do not feel a biological urge to mate that is at its strongest when we hit puberty!

biccat wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:When I was teaching in a small hick school, there was a girl who was absent for a week, and the TEACHERS thought she was out because she was pregnant. Did I mention she was in 6th grade?

No, you didn't mention she was in 6th grade. However, you wrote the post, so I suppose you knew that.

Why was she absent for a week? Was she pregnant? Or were you just basing that assumption on stereotyping "hicks"?

timetowaste85 wrote:And go do a study biccat-I'm sure if you polled all the teens in America, you'll find that at least 50-60% above the age of 15 have had sex, in one form or another. And at least 25% of those from 12-14.

Well, with research like that, who am I to argue?

timetowaste85 wrote:Neo-Christian Nazis

Well, that's certainly polite. Do you find referring to others as "Neo-Christian Nazis" to be an effective debate tactic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:We saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates for a variety of different reasons, amongst them:
- teenagers are allot less supervised then they were in the 60's and so have more opportunities for doing "the nasty"!
- there is a lot less control from the church stating that "sex is the evilz0rs and you are going to hell if you do it!1!"
- the increase exposition of youth to sexual content through the mass media: in my youth, if I wanted to see a naked women I had to wait until one of my classmates brought a dirty magazine to school, now you just have to turn on the TV...

...but the only explanation for reduced teen pregnancy is the government instituted program.

I wouldn't be so crass as to accuse you of having an "overly simplistic worldview." But you're certainly ignoring a lot of other information.

Yeah..I posted that it was believed she was pregnant-I didn't say she was. The teachers all believed it-I was the new teacher coming in and hearing the stories. And it was a hick school-90% of the kids came from farm families, way out in the country. I have no idea why she was actually absent for a week. But good call on not catching my sarcasm and writing a ridiculous reply on the subject of "did I mention she was in 6th grade"-obviously as I hadn't just erased and re-written that she was in 6th grade originally, I was trying to make a point-one you quite obviously missed, or purposely ignored to try to look funny. You failed. Her being suspected of being pregnant also had nothing to do with what type of school it was, I could easily say inner city, rural, small town, or any other type-don't attack me for conclusions drawn from two non-related topics.

I've spent plenty of time working in schools (sub, not full time teacher-the other school was an extended sub position for half a year), and I hear enough talk in the hallways, and last year I was teaching where my stepbrother went to school. I happen to KNOW that in that school, my numbers are not inaccurately high-if anything, they may be low. Do I have any actual proof other than hearsay in the halls? No, but that's pretty much the only way for someone in my position to know about it. So no, I haven't done research (nor did I say that I did-your sarcasm is idiotic, in this instance), but I have the experience and the knowledge. What do you actually bring to the table?

And this is the first time I've actually used the term Neo-Christian Nazi before-but the Southern Republican Baptists who are making these rulings certainly fit the profile-they give other Christians a bad name with their stupidity. I believe Woody in Toy Story said it best: "If the boot fits..."

PhantomViper wrote:Or you are making logical correlations between completely separate and unrelated facts.

For the record, you said it, not me. Those magical government pixie fairies sure did a good job tho.

PhantomViper wrote:the next best thing is to educate them on the "right" way to do it. Some parents, either through ignorance of their own, misguided religious beliefs or simply because they don't give a crap, will be unable to properly educate their children about the "birds and the bees" and since STDs and children raising other children is kind of a problem that affects all of society, then why shouldn't society educate them?

I already got your point. The educated and well-off classes don't need the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're already doing a good job. It's those seedy underclass folk who need to be educated. Because they're seedy and underclass and should learn from their betters.

Correcting how people think (those who have the wrong thoughts) and raise their children (those who aren't raising their children correctly) seems to be a popular use of government-sponsored force. Those who have the proper thoughts and raise their children properly don't have anything to worry about.

biccat wrote: The educated and well-off classes don't need the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're already doing a good job. It's those seedy underclass folk who need to be educated. Because they're seedy and underclass and should learn from their betters.

Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement? You really are a piece of work. Pretty sure you're winning the scum-of-the-earth award with a statement like that. I actually feel like a much better human being today, being on the opposite side of the fence from you now. Thank you.

-I realize you MAY be joking, but after seeing your views in the thread, I doubt it-this addition is only to say that if you are in fact joking, it's a bad one and doesn't show as a joke. If you're serious, Dakka would ban me for the phrases I'd like to extend to you.

timetowaste85 wrote:Yeah..I posted that it was believed she was pregnant-I didn't say she was. The teachers all believed it-I was the new teacher coming in and hearing the stories. And it was a hick school-90% of the kids came from farm families, way out in the country. I have no idea why she was actually absent for a week.

So what exactly was your point? Why does it matter that people thought a 6th grader was pregnant, especially when she likely wasn't?

Oh, and the term "hick" is a perjorative. But whatever. I'm sure you taught at n*****, k***, c****, and w****** schools too.

timetowaste85 wrote:So no, I haven't done research (nor did I say that I did-your sarcasm is idiotic, in this instance), but I have the experience and the knowledge. What do you actually bring to the table?

Well, I don't have made-up statistics, suppositions based on a student's absence, or third-hand stories from my stepbrother, so I guess you've got me beat in the evidence department.

timetowaste85 wrote:And this is the first time I've actually used the term Neo-Christian Nazi before-but the Southern Republican Baptists who are making these rulings certainly fit the profile-they give other Christians a bad name with their stupidity.

What exactly is a "neo-Christian"? How do the "rulings" (what?) make them Nazi-like?

timetowaste85 wrote:I believe Woody in Toy Story said it best: "If the boot fits..."

Yes, that's where that saying comes from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:Pretty sure you're winning the scum-of-the-earth award with a statement like that.

Sarcasm - learn it, love it, live it.

I'm pretty sure calling someone "scum-of-the-earth" isn't against Dakka's rules or anything.
edit: that was sarcasm, btw.

timetowaste85 wrote:Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement?

Only Biccat is allowed to make jokes at other peoples' expenses.

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement?

Only Biccat is allowed to make jokes at other peoples' expenses.

Frazzled can too.

edit: Matty's alright as well.

but no one else!

Did you just compare "hick" to a racial slur? God, you're entertaining
One disparages an entire race, the other is a slang for someone in farm country. Which is worse? Oh yeah, the racist comment. You're just further proving your foolishness here, buddy.

And being among the community experiencing the situation is far better knowledge than somebody standing outside of it thinking he knows best-but, nobody is going to change the almighty mind of biccat, now will they?

And I never said Woody created the comment-just that he said it best-such malice and anger in his voice. Pick up a pair of glasses and try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Pretty sure you're winning the scum-of-the-earth award with a statement like that.

Sarcasm - learn it, love it, live it.

I'm pretty sure calling someone "scum-of-the-earth" isn't against Dakka's rules or anything.
edit: that was sarcasm, btw.

Great, miss the add-on comment about if you were joking-but I get it-you only see what you want to see. Look like the victim here. Gotcha. My glasses comment stands-pick up a pair and read the whole statement.

timetowaste85 wrote:Did you just compare "hick" to a racial slur? God, you're entertaining

Yes. I also compared it to slurs based on religion and national origin.

timetowaste85 wrote:One disparages an entire race, the other is a slang for someone in farm country. Which is worse? Oh yeah, the racist comment. You're just further proving your foolishness here, buddy.

Is this a question of numbers? I think there are more people in farm country than some races in the US. Or are some individual characteristics legitimate to make fun of while others are not?

If the former, can I get a list? Which of the following is okay to prejudge a group of people on?
Hair color
Eye color
Religion
Parents' religion
Country of birth
Parents' country of birth
Income
Parents' income

timetowaste85 wrote:And being among the community experiencing the situation is far better knowledge than somebody standing outside of it thinking he knows best-but, nobody is going to change the almighty mind of biccat, now will they?

Probably not. I'm not sure what you mean by "being among the community experiencing the situation." Are you 16 and pregnant? There's a show for that.

timetowaste85 wrote:Great, miss the add-on comment about if you were joking-but I get it-you only see what you want to see. Look like the victim here. Gotcha. My glasses comment stands-pick up a pair and read the whole statement.

Lets add "quality of eye sight" to the above list.

And frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "you only see what you want to see." I'm not the one suggesting that uneducated people need to be told how to raise their children.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:the next best thing is to educate them on the "right" way to do it. Some parents, either through ignorance of their own, misguided religious beliefs or simply because they don't give a crap, will be unable to properly educate their children about the "birds and the bees" and since STDs and children raising other children is kind of a problem that affects all of society, then why shouldn't society educate them?

I already got your point. The educated and well-off classes don't need the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're already doing a good job. It's those seedy underclass folk who need to be educated. Because they're seedy and underclass and should learn from their betters.

Correcting how people think (those who have the wrong thoughts) and raise their children (those who aren't raising their children correctly) seems to be a popular use of government-sponsored force. Those who have the proper thoughts and raise their children properly don't have anything to worry about.

What?

How on earth did you infer that from any of my statements?! Those classes are mandatory for everyone, they are even mandatory in private schools! This doesn't have anything to do on "class warfare" or whatever other title you guys are so fond of.

And this isn't a "shades of grey" type of thing either. Education isn't harmful to anyone, rich or poor, just because a teacher shows some kid all the different means of contraception it will not invalidate whatever values the parents instil on him at home (unless those parents use false statements to prevent his kid from having sex: see "HJ will make you go blind"). Morals aren't dependant on levels of education.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement?

Only Biccat is allowed to make jokes at other peoples' expenses.

Frazzled can too.

edit: Matty's alright as well.

but no one else!

Frazzled agrees!

biccat wrote:I already got your point. The educated and well-off classes don't need the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're already doing a good job. It's those seedy underclass folk who need to be educated. Because they're seedy and underclass and should learn from their betters.

So, they should switch from weed to coke, and from white lightning to carafes full of bubbly?

Given some of the reasonably wealthy people I went to school with (a few children of multi-millionaires and very well to do very upper middle class), the level of idiocy and debauchery is significantly higher in the upper classes than it is in the lower classes. At least they have the excuse of not knowing any better. The upper classes do it because they can.

Asimov said it right. "Don't let your morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Areas with abstinance-only sex (un)education have a higher teen pregnancy rate than areas with comprehensive sex education. Research the numbers yourself, don't just take my word for it. The information is out there in the public domain.

So, we have PROOF that abstinance-only doesn't work as a way of preventing teen pregnancy. There is a slight possibility that it might cut down on teen sex... but there are no hard numbers for that. Determining that depends heavily upon self-reporting, which is highy unreliable.

So, if the goal is to prevent teen SEX, then abstinance-only might - might, possibly - have some small benefit. The downside is the ones that decide to have sex anyway will do so without any way to protect themselves. Decide for yourself which is more important.

And if trying to force your moral standards on another person sounds good to you...

biccat wrote:
Stuff

To be honest, you're certainly not worth getting heated up over-I'm not going to risk a ban, just to bang my head against a wall trying to explain anything to you. You have chosen to use a poor sense of humor to ignore any point I've made, and have dragged up ridiculous arguments and attacked partial statements. I'm just going to add you to a chosen group of people that I have no interest in associating with on here anymore. Don't make the assumption I've run out of things to say, nor the assumption that you've won the argument. You just stopped being worth my time. You're also really not funny at all-Frazzled and Matty are both decent guys-they have a decent sense of humor (plus it's hard to hate weiner dogs). You...not so much. There are only two posters on here I actually feel are a blight on the human race-you're one of them. As such, I have no more time to waste on you (see what I did there?).

Also, why don't you go out and ask a thousand, no, TEN thousand people which is worse: the N-word, or hick (or the point you're trying to make, that they're equally offensive). I won't be surprised at the response you get, but you might.

Lets all just mellow out shall we. You're arguing on the intranetz...

Sorry Fraz. Can I borrow a weiner dog to pet? It mellows me out.

*and...that goes on the top 5 list of things never to say to someone you don't know on the internet.

timetowaste85 wrote:Also, why don't you go out and ask a thousand, no, TEN thousand people which is worse: the N-word, or hick (or the point you're trying to make, that they're equally offensive). I won't be surprised at the response you get, but you might.

I don't see how one word being "worse" makes the other one not a slur.

What constitutes harassment and offense are generally defined by the victim. If enough people decided that "hick" was hate speech, I'm sure it would go the way of... well... plenty of words that I'm not going to type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement?

Only Biccat is allowed to make jokes at other peoples' expenses.

Frazzled can too.

edit: Matty's alright as well.

but no one else!

Frazzled agrees!

I agree to the extent that biccat, frazzled and mattyrm (as well as several others) make jokes that are actually funny, which is why they seem to get more leeway. At least that's the way it looks to me.

The difference being that they are making jokes, and not simply saying spiteful things and trying to pretend that it was a joke to avoid repercussions.

timetowaste85 wrote:Sorry Fraz. Can I borrow a weiner dog to pet? It mellows me out.

*and...that goes on the top 5 list of things never to say to someone you don't know on the internet.

You'll be pleased to know, as of two weekends ago I've shifting thew wiener walks. TBone can still keep up on Saturday mornings on a sidewalk (grass is like jungle savannah to the little guy) with Rodney and Rusty the Tank. but on Sundays I've split it up. I was Rodney and Rusty first on a long very fast walk, then take TBone on a short walk around the block. He has free range to go his speed which is SLOW . Its like walking with your wizened Dad and just enjoying being alive for a little bit. So if you see an old fart walking a tiny old fart, be nice - we're blind but really, really mean.

Surely the metal or wooden bars would get in the way?

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

QFT.

Hurry up with those AIDS and Herpes vaccinations, so we can feth like rabbits!

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

QFT.

Hurry up with those AIDS and Herpes vaccinations, so we can feth like rabbits!

We've already got HPV on the ropes!

biccat wrote:
Basically, groups such as PP were trying to get around the abstinance-only program by teaching kids about alternative options. Which tend to be more dangerous and prone to spreading STDs.

See, this is just lazy. If you're going to troll at the very least you should do so based on the presence of evidence, otherwise you just look like an idiot.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Basically, groups such as PP were trying to get around the abstinance-only program by teaching kids about alternative options. Which tend to be more dangerous and prone to spreading STDs.

See, this is just lazy. If you're going to troll at the very least you should do so based on the presence of evidence, otherwise you just look like an idiot.

But it's true, absistence only is the safest option. Its like the NRA putting people in danger by teaching safe gun handling instead of gun-absistence. Please think of the children, no premature discharges.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm pretty sure being human is the gateway to sexual activity.

QFT.

Hurry up with those AIDS and Herpes vaccinations, so we can feth like rabbits!

My mate H who goes to Thailand on leave every chance he gets told me that he has had so many diseases the stuff he has got will eat anything else that tries to infect him.

I doubt its medically factual, but it made me laugh anyway.

biccat wrote:
No, they won't, this is a poor argument. Teenagers having sex is not a guarantee.

No, but seeing as teen pregnancy has been around about as long as humanity, its a fairly safe bet.

biccat wrote:
It wasn't until contraceptives became widely available that we saw a spike in teenage pregnancy rates. If you tell kids there's nothing they can do to help themselves, then it will happen, especially if you present sex as being virtually risk-free via. contraceptives.

Because, as we all know, those European countries with their cheap, widely available contraception and heathen non-abstinence focused sexual education programs have skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates.

And let's never mind that the rate of teen pregnancy has steadily declined since 1995, and that it is presently far lower than prior to contraceptive access. Facts really aren't important when we're talking about or children's morals, after all.

Then we can start looking at teen pregnancy rate by state, which produces a very interesting correlation between those places with a high teen pregnancy rate and those places without comprehensive sex education.

Monster Rain wrote:
The difference being that they are making jokes, and not simply saying spiteful things and trying to pretend that it was a joke to avoid repercussions.

They do that as well, though so do all of us.

If god didnt want us to have sex, why would he make it feel so good?
Unless He/She/Shim/It was a troll.
But really, IF you tell a kid how good chocolate is, then tell him he cant have it until he goes on a date with it, proposes to the chocolate, waits 2 years for the wedding until he can have it, HE will just end up buying the chocolate from the corner....store.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Unless He/She/Shim/It was a troll.

God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
The difference being that they are making jokes, and not simply saying spiteful things and trying to pretend that it was a joke to avoid repercussions.

They do that as well, though so do all of us.

Sure, but the key is to occasionally actually be funny.

Thailand? mmm, good looking women there... I don't blame him...

I still think HIV was invented by a secret organization to kill lower class people, gays, minorities and drug addicts. They've got the cure, man. It's in a freezer somewhere, you know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:If god didnt want us to have sex, why would he make it feel so good?
Unless He/She/Shim/It was a troll.
But really, IF you tell a kid how good chocolate is, then tell him he cant have it until he goes on a date with it, proposes to the chocolate, waits 2 years for the wedding until he can have it, HE will just end up buying the chocolate from the corner....store.

Lol. Totally. I have no doubt that god is really just an omnipresent and omnipotent bachelor.

Melissia wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Wow, and you got upset at me making a comment about a hick school, and you go and make THIS statement?

Only Biccat is allowed to make jokes at other peoples' expenses.

Not true.

Frazz is given extra leash as well...

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
The difference being that they are making jokes, and not simply saying spiteful things and trying to pretend that it was a joke to avoid repercussions.

They do that as well, though so do all of us.

Sure, but the key is to occasionally actually be funny.

A very important distinction has been made.

It would if you were funny.

You can be funny AND spiteful as well though.

Like, If you see a video of a guy pushing an old lady down the stairs or something, its really funny even though its a bit spiteful.

....

Just me then? :(

mattyrm wrote:You can be funny AND spiteful as well though.

The funniest things to me generally involve a fair amount of malice.

I knew procreation and natural urges were bad!
Time I give up wanting to be an Army officer and become a Franciscan monk.

Hey ,monks can party. THey make the best beer, wine, and spirits.

mattyrm wrote:Just me then? :(

No, one of the funniest things I've seen posted in the OT was spiteful.

But fething hilarious.

Squigsquasher wrote:Why am I not surprised? Damned social conservatives and their silly book! Ugh.

Next time on American Idiocy today: Arizona bans condoms and Alabama legalizes lynching! Also, Kentucky makes it a legal requirement that schools must teach that the atomic bombs were dropped by Al-Quaeda!

Hey, I know Kentucky may not sound like the smartest state ever, but we at least have some semblance of sexual education (not calling you out, just using your quote because it's relevant ). We get shown how to put a condom on, what various sexual diseases look like, how to avoid them, what to use and what NOT to use as a homemade lubricant (one of the funniest/depressing things I've ever seen. Apparently kids have been using peanut butter these days...) They even explained what condoms were right for you and how to tell what sizes were in the box based on the name.

That said, it did almost nothing to lower our teen pregnancy rate. The problem is it's completely voluntary, and parents can forbid their children from going to it with a certain slip. Given the high amount of conservative Christian parents that live out in this area, and you lose a good chunk of students before it even starts. Ironically, these are usually the more "innocent" kids that don't know as much, and REALLY need to see this stuff. Most of the students that go have either already done it or will never get laid anyways, so they rarely learn much.

In my graduating class of 48, we had 2 pregnant girls, and one who had already given birth and was a mom. Sad part was I knew one of the girls, and she was smart, a great student, and had a great career ahead of her. Would better sex ed have stopped it? Maybe, but the fact that even though kentucky's TRYING and nothing is happening, doesn't give me much help for our Tennessee neighbors...

I remember I was at school on my first day of middle school (which itself is seventh and eighth year)... and I saw a girl holding her child, who was a year old at the time. So she was about ten when she was knocked up.

It's a lot creepier as an adult than it was for me at the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside, I think this is somewhat relevant here.

I'm a christian, but this one still makes me laugh.

biccat wrote:Basically, groups such as PP were trying to get around the abstinance-only program by teaching kids about alternative options. Which tend to be more dangerous and prone to spreading STDs.

Why Liberals want kids to have syphilis is beyond me.

Why you think you can get away with posting obviously false things like the above is beyond me. I mean, if you want to go through life pretending nonsense like abstinence only education is more effective in preventing STDs is true, well then whatever. But why would you want to come here and humiliate yourself by suffering the inevitable destruction of such ridiculous claims?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:A HJ or a BJ is more dangerous and prone to spreading disease than full on intercourse? /not-sure-if-serious

I mean, sure, it can make you go blind, but there are a handful of STDs that have the same effect...

Ever notice how many people who argue for abstinence only sex education have an utterly woeful understanding of the risks associated with sex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:As a morally bankrupt European that I am, I found the article to be complete garbage and the notion that the only answer that you guys can find to a growing teen pregnancy and teen STD problem is "don't talk about sex... EVER, because it gives children ideas!", to be naive at best and criminally negligent and one of the causes of the problem at worst!

Given that 'growing teen pregnancy and teen STD problem' is a complete myth, I think we all know how respectable that article is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:As a stick-in-the-mud American, I find the idea of teaching kids about sex in a classroom full of their peers to be just a little bit creepy. Especially teaching kids about how to have fun with sex.

So I can see the issue here is that you have absolutely no idea what sex education involves. It consists of content that is exactly as creepy as your standard human biology course (are you opposed to that as well?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Wait wait wait...You didn't learn about safe sex through school? This is...astonishing. I have been led to believe that the only possible way kids learn how to have safe sex is through mandatory sexual education.

I love your assumption that parents will be properly informed on the issues surrounding sex, and capable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading sexual health experts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I already got your point. The educated and well-off classes don't need the government to tell them how to live their lives. They're already doing a good job. It's those seedy underclass folk who need to be educated. Because they're seedy and underclass and should learn from their betters.

Uh, no. It's more that people that don't know much about a subject will benefit more from learning about it than people who are already well informed on the issue.

I just had to explain the concept of learning to someone... biccat you are the gift that never stops giving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:But it's true, absistence only is the safest option. Its like the NRA putting people in danger by teaching safe gun handling instead of gun-absistence. Please think of the children, no premature discharges.

I'm all at once really happy to learn of this analogy and really annoyed that I hadn't thought of it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:You can be funny AND spiteful as well though.

Like, If you see a video of a guy pushing an old lady down the stairs or something, its really funny even though its a bit spiteful.

One of my favourite internt moments ever was on another internet forum, when a willfully obtuse, happily ignorant and generally obnoxious creationist set about posting their grand theory of why evolution was wrong, listing about 30 different 'facts', and finished with the comment 'now that I've disproven evolution, do you have any comments?'. Another fellow who just happened to be an evolutionary biologist, went through and disproved every single claim made by the creationist, with extensive commentary and links to all manner of studies into each point. It was a truly amazing amount of work, and even if he had every single fact and link on hand just compiling it would have taken hours. Anyhow, it was in the standard quote/response format you see on forums, so when at last he got to the final bit of the creationist's post 'now that I've disproven evolution, do you have any comments?' he responded with a simple, poetic line 'I fething hate you'.

I'm not sure if that's actually comedy, but man it made me laugh. I still giggle when I think about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMoustaffa wrote:In my graduating class of 48, we had 2 pregnant girls, and one who had already given birth and was a mom. Sad part was I knew one of the girls, and she was smart, a great student, and had a great career ahead of her. Would better sex ed have stopped it? Maybe, but the fact that even though kentucky's TRYING and nothing is happening, doesn't give me much help for our Tennessee neighbors...

There's also the issue that sex ed alone won't stop teen pregnancy or the spread of STDs. You also need a system where kids can access protection, and especially important is girls having access to the pill. A culture where women feel empowered enough to make their partners wear a condemn helps a lot as well.

Well done Sebster, its always nice to read something from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

sebster wrote:I love your assumption that parents will be properly informed on the issues surrounding sex, and capable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading sexual health experts.

Are there any other areas where you think parents are chronically uninformed and should defer child-rearing to the proper experts?

Obviously parents don't know enough about nutrition, so they should have a nutrition coach explain how to properly feed their children.

Parents also don't know everything about fashion, and kids could get embarassed if they show up wearing the wrong clothes. So we should have fashion coordinators to teach kids what to wear.

Religion? Heck no! At the very least, experts in theology should explain each religious belief and let kids decide for themselves.

Politics? As upcoming voters, childhood education on political issues is especially important. So lets make sure they know, from experienced politicians, what is going on.

These are just a few areas where parents are ill informed on the issues, and generally incapable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading experts. Just hand over your kids to the government when they're born and you can have them back when they're 18. Because they obviously won't be ready for a job, and will probably live with you for another 10 years.

Now you are just trolling Biccat, either that or deliberatly being obtuse.

To be honest I wish that some of those subjects were properly taught in schools, nutrition and politics would be good places to start

We could hopefully cut down on the numbers of ignorant fat people..

It's ok - you probably will not be on the list of people allowed to have children by the new socialist government of the USA anyway. Assuming the Birth Pannels the socialist healthcae system put in place work properly anyway

Palindrome wrote:Now you are just trolling Biccat, either that or deliberatly being obtuse.

Actually, neither. Sebster set forth a standard for why sex ed should be taught in school. I'm curious what else he's willing to apply that standard to. Where he's willing to draw the line, so to speak.

Palindrome wrote:To be honest I wish that some of those subjects were properly taught in schools, nutrition and politics would be good places to start

We could hopefully cut down on the numbers of ignorant fat people..

And socialists.

Well, assuming we had people who understand history teaching politics.

By that measure it should also cut down on the number of capitalists. Assuming that the people teaching the course actually know political history of course.

I am quite sure that Sebster agrees with me in that everybody needs to be taught things that they need to know both for their own wellbeing and for the wellbeing of society as a whole. The quality of instruction should be high and the content needs to be accurate and free of all bias; this is where parent led teaching fails, some parents may teach their children to a higher level than the state but far more are likely to give incorrect or inadequate instruction. For example some parents seem to think that abstinence is theo nly sex education that teenagers need, that clearly falls far short of the mark.

Palindrome wrote:By that measure it should also cut down on the number of capitalists. Assuming that the people teaching the course actually know political history of course.

I think you mean "increase the number of capitalists." Because capitalism works. But really, it all comes down to getting the "right people" in charge of teaching kids. Then you can control how and what they learn. You and I would just disagree on who the "right people" are.

I think this is a bad thing, both in teaching and in government. I don't want either side to have that level of power or authority. I suspect you do, but only so long as the people in charge are politically favorable.

biccat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:By that measure it should also cut down on the number of capitalists. Assuming that the people teaching the course actually know political history of course.

I think you mean "increase the number of capitalists." Because capitalism works. But really, it all comes down to getting the "right people" in charge of teaching kids. Then you can control how and what they learn. You and I would just disagree on who the "right people" are.

I think this is a bad thing, both in teaching and in government. I don't want either side to have that level of power or authority. I suspect you do, but only so long as the people in charge are politically favorable.

My powers of prescience haven't failed me it seems. You even indugled in petty point scoring, well done!

I think you missed the part where I said that the teaching needs to be free of all bias.

Palindrome wrote:I think you missed the part where I said that the teaching needs to be free of all bias.

How do you decide what is bias?

biccat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:I think you missed the part where I said that the teaching needs to be free of all bias.

How do you decide what is bias?

By teaching just the facts and nothing more. Bias can never be wholly elimianted from any human endevour of course but it is still fairly simple to create a factual and 'neutral' lesson on most topics.

Damn, sounds like my mum has become a member of the American goverment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You poor bds

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:I love your assumption that parents will be properly informed on the issues surrounding sex, and capable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading sexual health experts.

Are there any other areas where you think parents are chronically uninformed and should defer child-rearing to the proper experts?

Obviously parents don't know enough about nutrition, so they should have a nutrition coach explain how to properly feed their children.

Parents also don't know everything about fashion, and kids could get embarassed if they show up wearing the wrong clothes. So we should have fashion coordinators to teach kids what to wear.

Religion? Heck no! At the very least, experts in theology should explain each religious belief and let kids decide for themselves.

Politics? As upcoming voters, childhood education on political issues is especially important. So lets make sure they know, from experienced politicians, what is going on.

These are just a few areas where parents are ill informed on the issues, and generally incapable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading experts. Just hand over your kids to the government when they're born and you can have them back when they're 18. Because they obviously won't be ready for a job, and will probably live with you for another 10 years.

It takes a government mandated village to raise a family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:Now you are just trolling Biccat, either that or deliberatly being obtuse.

To be honest I wish that some of those subjects were properly taught in schools, nutrition and politics would be good places to start

We could hopefully cut down on the numbers of ignorant fat people..

How about teaching little Timmy math and language skills better than your average third worlder first?

Frazzled wrote:
How about teaching little Timmy math and language skills better than your average third worlder first?

Well if you improve your education system in one area there are likely to be bleedthrough effects.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
How about teaching little Timmy math and language skills better than your average third worlder first?

Well if you improve your education system in one area there are likely to be bleedthrough effects.

So teaching kids how to feth one another suddenly makes them better at math?

I'm not sure I understand how that works.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
How about teaching little Timmy math and language skills better than your average third worlder first?

Well if you improve your education system in one area there are likely to be bleedthrough effects.

No, there's absolutely no evidence of that. Indeed, employing the aforementioned math skills I learened more gooder in dat der edumacation, its that there is a defined amount of learning hours in a day, school year, and academic life. Take time away from the classics for other classes, and you take time away from those classes.

Besides I'd rather they learn economics, hard sciences, civics including studying the Greats like Locke and Marx, and the proper care and feeding of your wiener dog if we have surplus hours in abundance.

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
How about teaching little Timmy math and language skills better than your average third worlder first?

Well if you improve your education system in one area there are likely to be bleedthrough effects.

No, there's absolutely no evidence of that. Indeed, employing the aforementioned math skills I learened more gooder in dat der edumacation, its that there is a defined amount of learning hours in a day, school year, and academic life. Take time away from the classics for other classes, and you take time away from those classes.

Besides I'd rather they learn economics, hard sciences, civics including studying the Greats like Locke and Marx, and the proper care and feeding of your wiener dog if we have surplus hours in abundance.

Is there any evidence to the contrary? It won't be hard to find the time in the school day for things such as nutrition and sex education classes. Afterall these things are already taught to varying degrees and to be honest there isn't a huge amount of information that needs to be imparted. Being taught maths all day, every day won't help you much if you get pregnant at 16 or if you weigh 30 stone.

I think it would be awesome if children were taught about stuff by their parents instead of people qualified to teach the stuff.

Obviously this will greatly increase the burden on parents so basically, what we will do is to send the children to schools, where each subject will be taught by a teacher who knows nothing about it.

For example, French will be taught by the Physics teacher. The French teacher will teach Chemistry, and so on.

I see you ignored the basic law of mat right off the bat. Excellent.

Not being taught math is an excellent way to end up pregnant at 16 too.

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why am I not surprised? Damned social conservatives and their silly book! Ugh.

Next time on American Idiocy today: Arizona bans condoms and Alabama legalizes lynching! Also, Kentucky makes it a legal requirement that schools must teach that the atomic bombs were dropped by Al-Quaeda!

Hey, I know Kentucky may not sound like the smartest state ever, but we at least have some semblance of sexual education (not calling you out, just using your quote because it's relevant ). We get shown how to put a condom on, what various sexual diseases look like, how to avoid them, what to use and what NOT to use as a homemade lubricant (one of the funniest/depressing things I've ever seen. Apparently kids have been using peanut butter these days...) They even explained what condoms were right for you and how to tell what sizes were in the box based on the name.

That said, it did almost nothing to lower our teen pregnancy rate. The problem is it's completely voluntary, and parents can forbid their children from going to it with a certain slip. Given the high amount of conservative Christian parents that live out in this area, and you lose a good chunk of students before it even starts. Ironically, these are usually the more "innocent" kids that don't know as much, and REALLY need to see this stuff. Most of the students that go have either already done it or will never get laid anyways, so they rarely learn much.

In my graduating class of 48, we had 2 pregnant girls, and one who had already given birth and was a mom. Sad part was I knew one of the girls, and she was smart, a great student, and had a great career ahead of her. Would better sex ed have stopped it? Maybe, but the fact that even though kentucky's TRYING and nothing is happening, doesn't give me much help for our Tennessee neighbors...

Ha, I was just using Kentucky as a random example. Never been to the UNAHTED STAYTES OF AHMEHRICUH so I wouldn't really know. All I know is that the further south you go, the more conservative and unsane it gets.

biccat wrote:
So teaching kids how to feth one another suddenly makes them better at math?

I'm not sure I understand how that works.

You don't need to teach kids how to feth with each other, they learn how to do that pretty well on their own.

What you do need is to teach them how not to hurt themselves or their lives while doing it...

Frazzled wrote:I see you ignored the basic law of mat right off the bat. Excellent.

Not being taught math is an excellent way to end up pregnant at 16 too.

Only if you know what to count. Its also a really unreliable method.

What is the law of mat?

Its either:
*Bad spelling for math, or
*The First of the Ten Commandments according to Mattyrm.

Whats the basic law of math then?

Palindrome wrote:Whats the basic law of math then?

2+2 = 4

Unless you're an attorney, then its whatever number you want it to be.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:I love your assumption that parents will be properly informed on the issues surrounding sex, and capable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading sexual health experts.

Are there any other areas where you think parents are chronically uninformed and should defer child-rearing to the proper experts?

Obviously parents don't know enough about nutrition, so they should have a nutrition coach explain how to properly feed their children.

Parents also don't know everything about fashion, and kids could get embarassed if they show up wearing the wrong clothes. So we should have fashion coordinators to teach kids what to wear.

Religion? Heck no! At the very least, experts in theology should explain each religious belief and let kids decide for themselves.

Politics? As upcoming voters, childhood education on political issues is especially important. So lets make sure they know, from experienced politicians, what is going on.

These are just a few areas where parents are ill informed on the issues, and generally incapable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading experts. Just hand over your kids to the government when they're born and you can have them back when they're 18. Because they obviously won't be ready for a job, and will probably live with you for another 10 years.

Actually, when me and the missus got pregnant with our spawn of satan we took a parenting course given by professionals that teached us about proper baby and pregnancy nutrition, new-born care and hygiene and lots of other stuff that are more or less important in taking care of a baby. Could we have managed without it? Sure, lots of people do around the world, but what is the problem in trying to learn to do it the "better" way?

You seem to have a pretty heavy bias against education Biccat, any particular reason for this?

I think he's again government mandated "education" and more importantly government educators with their own agendas and biases. Thats my two cents anyway.

Me myself? Our district has sex ed. I didn't care. The kids already had way more information from us before that.
I'll note judging by the mouth breather next to us and across the street the ed didn't take...

PhantomViper wrote:Actually, when me and the missus got pregnant with our spawn of satan we took a parenting course given by professionals that teached us about proper baby and pregnancy nutrition, new-born care and hygiene and lots of other stuff that are more or less important in taking care of a baby. Could we have managed without it? Sure, lots of people do around the world, but what is the problem in trying to learn to do it the "better" way?

I don't see a problem with that.

If you disagreed that the way they were teaching you was better, would you still have attended?

Do you think you should have been required to attend that class, regardless of whether you thought the teaching was better?

PhantomViper wrote:You seem to have a pretty heavy bias against education Biccat, any particular reason for this?

I have a bias against tyranny.

I really have no problem teaching kids math, science, reading and writing. Beyond that, schools should just stay out of the issue.

The issue here is not that people are unable to opt in or out of sex ed classes, but that sex ed is being banned because of fear of PANTY EXPLOSION.

Kilkrazy wrote:The issue here is not that people are unable to opt in or out of sex ed classes, but that sex ed is being banned because of fear of PANTY EXPLOSION.

Now thats the kind of post I like to see!

I agree, In the interest of public health. The Govt should teach things in liu of parents. Like Nutrition and fitness

Biccat, sex ed is extremely clinical and matter-of-fact in how it is done; it's not "teaching how fun it is to have sex", it's saying "This is how you put a condom on. These are some horrifying examples of STDs and how you can get them. This is what birth looks like."

Hell, sex ed for my class convinced more people to NOT have sex than the abstinence only garbage did. Plenty of girls watched that birth video and realized "oh damn I do NOT want to go through THAT!"

biccat wrote:
Obviously parents don't know enough about nutrition, so they should have a nutrition coach explain how to properly feed their children.

We teach, and have taught, nutrition for years in health class.

biccat wrote:
Parents also don't know everything about fashion, and kids could get embarassed if they show up wearing the wrong clothes. So we should have fashion coordinators to teach kids what to wear.

We teach this indirectly by way of dress standards. Almost every school in the country, public or private, features at least some form of dress code.

biccat wrote:
Religion? Heck no! At the very least, experts in theology should explain each religious belief and let kids decide for themselves.

Religious belief isn't generally considered to be important to the well-being of children, or people in general. Sexual health, by comparison, is quite important.

biccat wrote:
Politics? As upcoming voters, childhood education on political issues is especially important. So lets make sure they know, from experienced politicians, what is going on.

We've taught politics, in the form of history and civics, for decades. Though, arguably, all education that isn't math or a science (and apparently even sometimes in the latter case) is essentially political, right down to the selection of literature consumed in English courses.

biccat wrote:
These are just a few areas where parents are ill informed on the issues, and generally incapable of explaining these issues in the same comprehensive manner as a teacher following curriculum laid out by leading experts.

Indeed, you failed to mention things like mathematics, English, biology, Spanish, physics, economics, and so on.

biccat wrote:
I have a bias against tyranny.

And a general misunderstanding of what tyranny is.

Melissia wrote:Biccat, sex ed is extremely clinical and matter-of-fact in how it is done; it's not "teaching how fun it is to have sex", it's saying "This is how you put a condom on. These are some horrifying examples of STDs and how you can get them. This is what birth looks like."

From the article (I used to wonder if people ever read these):

Fowler said the new law was authored in part because of incidents in which teachers were instructing about alternate sexual practices as ways to have gratification without risking pregnancy.

He said one such incident involved a Nashville high school teacher who was encouraging girls to give boys oral sex in order to get a condom on them.

Fowler also pointed to a Planned Parenthood-organized program at a school in Knoxville, where students were directed to a web site "that actually lists as possible methods of birth control things like oral sex and anal sex play that I think most Tennesseans would find inappropriate."

Sounds very "clinical and matter-of-fact" to me.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I agree, In the interest of public health. The Govt should teach things in liu of parents. Like Nutrition and fitness

Well, thinking back on the horror show that was "health" and my public school PE classes, that kind of just blew your argument right out of the water.
In martial arts I learned fitness (and how to burn out your knees but thats a fun side effect). In college I learned fitness.
In public school PE I learned how to jump someone between the lockers and the gym when they weren't expecting it, how to make an entire class sit on the bleachers for a semester so the basketball team could get extra practice in, and how to destroy younger kids in "touch" football. I leanred that every PE coach should be fired and their money used for something more productive, like basket weaving.

So you're saying one example of teacher misconduct means every one who teaches sex ed must be doing the same thing?

I guess we should be getting rid of religious education because it's obviously staffed by a bunch of pederasts who just want to fondle young boys.

Melissia wrote:So you're saying one example of teacher misconduct means every one who teaches sex ed must be doing the same thing?

I guess we should be getting rid of religious education because it's obviously staffed by a bunch of pederasts who just want to fondle young boys.

Religious education is voluntary. Things mandated by the government usually aren't.

Frazzled wrote:Religious education is voluntary.

It is also prevented by the constitution from being mandatory. My point was that there's always going to be some miscreants, and their existence doesn't prove the entire program is flawed.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Religious education is voluntary.

It is also prevented by the constitution from being mandatory. My point was that there's always going to be some miscreants, and their existence doesn't prove the entire program is flawed.

This is true, if it was an instance and not policy.

If it was policy then that would have been a damn sight more interesting class, and I probably wouldn't have slept through it nearly as much as I did.

biccat wrote:
Sounds very "clinical and matter-of-fact" to me.

Certainly does. One can achieve sexual gratification without the risk of pregnancy, though the attendant risk of STDs obviously remains, that's a simple matter of fact. Mentioning that sexual pleasure exists, and can be obtained in ways that extend beyond intercourse doesn't instantly contravene any sort of "clinical and matter-of-fact" demeanor.

Frazzled wrote:This is true, if it was an instance and not policy.

Then the policy should be changed. Removing it entirely is just reactionary idiocy.

Melissia wrote:
I guess we should be getting rid of religious education because it's obviously staffed by a bunch of pederasts who just want to fondle young boys.

You're thinking too small. Some people with sexual desires are pederasts, so all people with sexual desires must also be pederasts. The women are the worst, because they go so far as to have their sex changed just so they can get in on that sweet, sweet man-boy love. Well, and because NAMBLA gives out strawberry lube by the gallon.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This is true, if it was an instance and not policy.

Then the policy should be changed. Removing it entirely is just reactionary idiocy.

I didn't say it was a bad policy. I think you might mispercieve my stance on the issue.

In Frazzled's world if you don't have money, if you don't have connections, you get the best education you possibly can and use it as your hammer.

Plus it embarasses the little demons. Its Frazzled policy to be an embarassment whenever possible...er wait!

I was referring to the actions of the state gov in the OP, not you Fraz.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I agree, In the interest of public health. The Govt should teach things in liu of parents. Like Nutrition and fitness

Well, thinking back on the horror show that was "health" and my public school PE classes, that kind of just blew your argument right out of the water.
In martial arts I learned fitness (and how to burn out your knees but thats a fun side effect). In college I learned fitness.
In public school PE I learned how to jump someone between the lockers and the gym when they weren't expecting it, how to make an entire class sit on the bleachers for a semester so the basketball team could get extra practice in, and how to destroy younger kids in "touch" football. I leanred that every PE coach should be fired and their money used for something more productive, like basket weaving.

Yeah, they arent good, But that doesnt mean we shouldn't
If we show young adults real things, such as how chips can contain enough calories for a quarter of a day.
Im against teaching kids religion or politics(let them figure it out for themselves) but damnit, things that make the world safer and save us money should be mandatory.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Actually, when me and the missus got pregnant with our spawn of satan we took a parenting course given by professionals that teached us about proper baby and pregnancy nutrition, new-born care and hygiene and lots of other stuff that are more or less important in taking care of a baby. Could we have managed without it? Sure, lots of people do around the world, but what is the problem in trying to learn to do it the "better" way?

I don't see a problem with that.

If you disagreed that the way they were teaching you was better, would you still have attended?

Do you think you should have been required to attend that class, regardless of whether you thought the teaching was better?

You can't agree or disagree, these aren't matters of opinion, they are medical facts. Both my mother and my mother in law sure did disagree with some of the stuff we were taught, because they had raised their kids in other times and some of the stuff that they thought was true or beneficial for the baby was actually wrong...

The same thing happens with sex ed. People often have wrong notions about sex that they pass along to their kids and that may prove hurtful to their sexual health.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:You seem to have a pretty heavy bias against education Biccat, any particular reason for this?

I have a bias against tyranny.

I really have no problem teaching kids math, science, reading and writing. Beyond that, schools should just stay out of the issue.

I really don't know how to respond to something like this. Equalling sex ed classes to tyranny is mind boggling.

So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Melissia wrote:I was referring to the actions of the state gov in the OP, not you Fraz.

Agreed, I'm just thinking its not that bad of a policy.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was referring to the actions of the state gov in the OP, not you Fraz.

Agreed, I'm just thinking its not that bad of a policy.

They should encourage the boys to also experiment with giving blowjobs to try to put condoms on.

That way there's less "married for ten years then he finds out he's gay" syndrome.

Gotta pity those wives.

PhantomViper wrote:You can't agree or disagree, these aren't matters of opinion, they are medical facts.

Actually, you can. You might not want people to disagree, but they can disagree.

PhantomViper wrote:The same thing happens with sex ed. People often have wrong notions about sex that they pass along to their kids and that may prove hurtful to their sexual health.

Actually, that's the great thing about sex. If you get it wrong you don't have any kids to pass it along to.

PhantomViper wrote:I really don't know how to respond to something like this. Equalling sex ed classes to tyranny is mind boggling.

No. Requiring sex ed classes is tyranny.

PhantomViper wrote:So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

Y'know what else is tyranny? Deciding what can and cant be taught Biccat, Which seems to be what you are advocating.

Biccat you are a really interesting specimen. Attempting to claim that sexual education equates to tyranny has to be one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on the internet (and as you can imagine thats quite an accolade).

Personally I think sex education should be compulsory, and divided into two sections:

1: The "science" side of things. Teaches kids the actual biology, information about STDs, how you can and can't get pregnant, etc.

2: The "social" side, which teaches about sexuality, saying no, how there is no shame in sex itself, and actually bothers to teach kids how to have and enjoy sex (possibly when they're a but older).

Melissia wrote:
Gotta pity those wives.

I've found "free at last God Allmighty free at last!" was more appropriately used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know what else is tyranny? Deciding what can and cant be taught Biccat, Which seems to be what you are advocating.

Tahts called parenting actually, or to a slightly larger extent local school boards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squigsquasher wrote:Personally I think sex education should be compulsory, and divided into two sections:

1: The "science" side of things. Teaches kids the actual biology, information about STDs, how you can and can't get pregnant, etc.

2: The "social" side, which teaches about sexuality, saying no, how there is no shame in sex itself, and actually bothers to teach kids how to have and enjoy sex (possibly when they're a but older).

I'll 3. Honor and personal responsibility. Thats something sorely lacking.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

PARENTING IS TYRANNY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

Biccat's understanding of Tyranny equates to "anything I don't like".

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know what else is tyranny? Deciding what can and cant be taught.

By golly, you're right!

Oh wait, this doesn't prohibit any sort of teaching. Parents can still teach their kids about all kinds of sexual recreation. It's the government deciding what it is going to teach in its own schools.

Melissia wrote:PARENTING IS TYRANNY!

- Frazzled's guide to parenting.

Frazzled wrote:

I'll 3. Honor and personal responsibility. Thats something sorely lacking.

They would be part of the social aspect, though I'm not sure what you mean by honour.

Melissia wrote:PARENTING IS TYRANNY!

I know you were joking, but I wholeheartedly agree.

They would be part of the social aspect, though I'm not sure what you mean by honour.

Being a stand up family man. Anyone can be a sperm donor. It takes effort, commitment, and thinking about the needs of others beyond yours, to be a father.

PhantomViper wrote:Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

Palindrome wrote:Biccat you are a really interesting specimen. Attempting to claim that sexual education equates to tyranny has to be one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on the internet (and as you can imagine thats quite an accolade).

Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

Some people like being told what to do. Personally, I have a problem with it.

You might not value your freedom, I value mine. Whats more, I value yours as well.

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know what else is tyranny? Deciding what can and cant be taught.

By golly, you're right!

Oh wait, this doesn't prohibit any sort of teaching. Parents can still teach their kids about all kinds of sexual recreation. It's the government deciding what it is going to teach in its own schools.

Listen, Im going to say this simple, SEX ED SAVES MONEY, teenage mothers are more likely to end on welfare an those kids have little demons themselves. If we teach them what sex entails, what the hell can happen, and how to be safe and provide the means to be safe, it aint gonna happen.
Remember sex is built into us, itt something we do naturally, so its gonna happen either way.
Sex ed should be required as should the means to safe sex.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:You can't agree or disagree, these aren't matters of opinion, they are medical facts.

Actually, you can. You might not want people to disagree, but they can disagree.

PhantomViper wrote:The same thing happens with sex ed. People often have wrong notions about sex that they pass along to their kids and that may prove hurtful to their sexual health.

Actually, that's the great thing about sex. If you get it wrong you don't have any kids to pass it along to.

PhantomViper wrote:I really don't know how to respond to something like this. Equalling sex ed classes to tyranny is mind boggling.

No. Requiring sex ed classes is tyranny.

PhantomViper wrote:So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

Syria is a tyranny.

Requiring children to attend classes is not a tyranny.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Remember sex is built into us

Now there you go interrupting his religious views like taht.

Strangely when I was in school I thought it was a tyranny by the afternoon of every day....

Bah, the few times I went to Sunday school I thought it was far more tyrannical.

At least public school let you read lord of the rings.

Melissia wrote:Bah, the few times I went to Sunday school I thought it was far more tyrannical.

At least public school let you read lord of the rings.

not at my school or the kkids school. We had to read crap like Great Expectations which made me want to commit suicide, and by suicide I mean go back in time and nuke England.

You keep your nukes off my country!

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, the few times I went to Sunday school I thought it was far more tyrannical.

At least public school let you read lord of the rings.

not at my school or the kkids school. We had to read crap like Great Expectations which made me want to commit suicide, and by suicide I mean go back in time and nuke England.

I liked it...

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

Palindrome wrote:Biccat you are a really interesting specimen. Attempting to claim that sexual education equates to tyranny has to be one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on the internet (and as you can imagine thats quite an accolade).

Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

Some people like being told what to do. Personally, I have a problem with it.

You might not value your freedom, I value mine. Whats more, I value yours as well.

Ah, yes, the freedom of a young girl to get pregnant and have to raise a child years before she's emotionally ready (much less socially or financially ready) because no one bothered to give her the facts she needed to avoid it...

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

Palindrome wrote:Biccat you are a really interesting specimen. Attempting to claim that sexual education equates to tyranny has to be one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on the internet (and as you can imagine thats quite an accolade).

Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

Some people like being told what to do. Personally, I have a problem with it.

You might not value your freedom, I value mine. Whats more, I value yours as well.

So, being told to tip your waiter is tyranny? Following the Dakka rules is tyranny? Laws are tyranny? Government is tyranny?

Excellent thought, Biccat! If someone tries to tell me what to do, I'll tell them to piss off, and kill them and their families! Damn the law, it's tyrannical to make me do something I don't want to!

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, the few times I went to Sunday school I thought it was far more tyrannical.

At least public school let you read lord of the rings.

not at my school or the kkids school. We had to read crap like Great Expectations which made me want to commit suicide, and by suicide I mean go back in time and nuke England.

I liked it...

THATS IT! (Pushes the big red button)

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, the few times I went to Sunday school I thought it was far more tyrannical.

At least public school let you read lord of the rings.

not at my school or the kkids school. We had to read crap like Great Expectations which made me want to commit suicide, and by suicide I mean go back in time and nuke England.

I liked it...

THATS IT! (Pushes the big red button)

Whoa whoa whoa. That's a little drastic.

Here's the smaller big red button. The big one is just a Staples Easy Button.

Are we going to get back on topic?

We aren't actually discussing the definition of Tyranny.

And I never read Great Expectations. I like me some H.G Wells or Douglas Adams...

That explains the sudden appearance of boxes of paper on my desk.

Nope, that was me. Heh heh.

Chowderhead wrote:So, being told to tip your waiter is tyranny?

Being told to tip your waiter or go to jail is tyranny.

Chowderhead wrote:Following the Dakka rules is tyranny?

No, because you're voluntarily posting on Dakka. You don't have to follow the rules. But there are consequences to not following the rules. Well, for some people.

Chowderhead wrote:Laws are tyranny? Government is tyranny?

Yes. Everything the government does restricts individual freedom. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the penalties.

Chowderhead wrote:Excellent thought, Biccat! If someone tries to tell me what to do, I'll tell them to piss off, and kill them and their families! Damn the law, it's tyrannical to make me do something I don't want to!

It is.

But the government has more guns and armed men than you. You violate the strictures of the government at your own risk. Because a law is only as good as the will and ability to enforce it, and the government has both.

Vulcan wrote:Ah, yes, the freedom of a young girl to get pregnant and have to raise a child years before she's emotionally ready (much less socially or financially ready) because no one bothered to give her the facts she needed to avoid it...

Why do you think no one would tell her how to avoid getting pregnant? Is the only way to learn about condom use by being forced to sit in a chair and have someone lecture you on different methods of birth control?

Frazzled wrote:That explains the sudden appearance of boxes of paper on my desk.

Yeah, my bad.

Here's the real button. It's kinda bluish, but it still nukes the crap out of those Limey Bastards.

I resent that!

Bring me the SMALLER WESTERN EUROPE BUTTON!

Buttons for all!

YAY!

Anyway...

Surely if this law is passed then every member of Congress in Tennessee is getting at least an honourable mention in the Darwin Awards?

"Her der, educating people on the very cycle that ensures the continued existence of humanity is WRONG!"

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:I really don't know how to respond to something like this. Equalling sex ed classes to tyranny is mind boggling.

No. Requiring sex ed classes is tyranny.

PhantomViper wrote:So what about History? Philosophy? Literature? Art? Should those be taught to kids or do you consider them tyranny as well?

Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

It's a good thing kids aren't forced to go to public schools then. You can always opt to home school or send your kids to private schools, after all.

Even in public schools, I thought there was always the option to opt-out of sex ed classes? Mine had it, at least.

Incidentally, is banning a subject equal to tyranny?

streamdragon wrote:It's a good thing kids aren't forced to go to public schools then. You can always opt to home school or send your kids to private schools, after all.

You still have to send your kids to school.

streamdragon wrote:Incidentally, is banning a subject equal to tyranny?

If it's actually banned, like teaching your children to speak German, but not if public schools are prohibited from teaching it. Public schools are an extension of the government and can be regulated by the government. Schools are not autonomous.

On the subject of Tyranny:

Surely you're only being Tyrannic if you force them to do it?

A Curriculum is a basic set up for how teachers educate children. They don't have to listen, or do any of the actual set work; they can be encouraged to do it, but the only person who suffers is them. A teacher may use discipline as a motive to get the child to work, but at my school it's only used for poor behaviour.

And discipline is important. If you destroy somebody's life or kill them, should you get away with it? No. Discipline is a deterrent to stop people bringing about hardship for others.

By biccat's logic, the Health and Safety charter is Tyrannical. Making you wear a hard hat and visible clothing on a clothing site is there to protect you.

biccat wrote:
Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

Oh no, what a despotic abuse of power, forcing those poor children to be exposed to information.

You what information is? Just knowledge by another name, and that's what got us kicked out of Eden!

biccat wrote:
You still have to send your kids to school.

No you don't. If you're home schooling your children you aren't sending them anywhere, you're in fact teaching (you know, schooling) them at home.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Cool, I never realised I lived in a tyrannical state until now, because all those classes are mandatory in my country as well!

Palindrome wrote:Biccat you are a really interesting specimen. Attempting to claim that sexual education equates to tyranny has to be one of the most foolish things that I have ever read on the internet (and as you can imagine thats quite an accolade).

Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

Some people like being told what to do. Personally, I have a problem with it.

You might not value your freedom, I value mine. Whats more, I value yours as well.

So you wan't your kids to be dumb and uneducated and whoever tries to change that is messing with your personal freedoms, right, got it.

Usually people wan't their kids to get more education, not less, you Americans sure are a strange group of people...

biccat wrote:
Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

No, it isn't. It certainly limits your freedom, but simply limiting the freedom of someone else is not tyranny. If it were, instituting any sort of consequence to any potential action renders you a tyrant, as would exercising any of your own freedom in such a way that restricts my behavior (which is to say exercising your freedom in any way at all), right down to simply occupying a particular space on the sidewalk that I also wish to occupy.

I mean, I guess we might all be tyrants, but if that's the case the term is simply meaningless. Of course, you have a history of proffering ridiculous definitions for terminology of this sort, so I'm hardly surprised at this particular instance.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Ah, yes, the freedom of a young girl to get pregnant and have to raise a child years before she's emotionally ready (much less socially or financially ready) because no one bothered to give her the facts she needed to avoid it...

Why do you think no one would tell her how to avoid getting pregnant? Is the only way to learn about condom use by being forced to sit in a chair and have someone lecture you on different methods of birth control?

Given the number of teen pregnanices in this country, your proposal might well be correct!

Let's face it, the major sources of kids finding out about sex are a) the media; b) porn; and c) each other. The first two are not particularly interested in teaching kids about how to be safe or what the risks are. The third option is usually woefully ignorant of the topic.

Parents come in a distant fourth. Most won't have any talk with their kids, or wait until it is way too late. (Mine had 'the talk' with me at 16. I had already learned more from couseling my little sister after she had a bad breakup with her first intimate boyfriend. Thank God she took the initiative to educate herself!) All too often, the parents themselves are woefully ignorant on the subject. (I was the result of just such a mishap; although she had waited 'til college neither she nor my father were any more informed than the typical modern 13-year-old because that was the standard of the times. And they are not stupid; both were on good scholarships and placed VERY high in their classes. They just had never been educated.)

As has been mentioned, the fifth option is self-education - looking things up in a medical encyclopedia (my sister's route, no internet at the time) or on the internet. This requires effort, and probably a fair amount of sneaking around, and the very real possibility of getting in BIG trouble with the type parents who are afraid to teach the kids themselves.

In short... if not the schools, then who? If the schools don't, then we admit that sex education is best left to the incomplete coverage given by the other sources, or depending on kids to educate themselves. Given the ongoing failures of those FIVE other options... why NOT the schools?

PhantomViper wrote:So you wan't your kids to be dumb and uneducated and whoever tries to change that is messing with your personal freedoms, right, got it.

Nope. I want my kids to be smart and educated. You misstating my argument doesn't change that.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:By biccat's logic, the Health and Safety charter is Tyrannical.

Yup. Now you're getting it.

Note that if I were on a work site, I would want to wear a hardhat whether the laws require it or not.

Vulcan wrote:Given the number of teen pregnanices in this country, your proposal might well be correct!

Does the increased prevalance of sex-ed in classrooms over the past few decades change your opinion?

Vulcan wrote:neither she nor my father were any more informed than the typical modern 13-year-old because that was the standard of the times. And they are not stupid; both were on good scholarships and placed VERY high in their classes. They just had never been educated.

Are you saying your parents didn't know that sex=babies when they had sex? That doesn't sound particularly educated to me. Maybe we've got different standards of "educated."

My parents answered the "where do babies come from" question well before I reached puberty.

Vulcan wrote:In short... if not the schools, then who?

Mom & dad.

I think it has become time to simply stop responding to biccat, he may go away then.

Biccat, You do realize you have the freedom to opt outta school and homeschool the deamon seed?

hotsauceman1 wrote:Biccat, You do realize you have the freedom to opt outta school and homeschool the deamon seed?

I'd bet that depends on the state.

biccat wrote:Note that if I were on a work site, I would want to wear a hardhat whether the laws require it or not.

And why is that? Has someone in the distant past told you (or maybe you have overheard it/read it somewhere) that there is a danger of falling objects on a building site, so head protection is a good idea?

THOSE FETHERS! How dare they give you information for your protection!

Most let ya.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Biccat, You do realize you have the freedom to opt outta school and homeschool the deamon seed?

Why would I want to homeschool?

I'm forced to pay for stuff like education and other programs, so I'm going to take advantage of them to the fullest extent I can. If Obama's health care bill is upheld, I'll drop my health insurance and take advantage of the "free" health insurance that I'm paying for anyway.

Sure, I'll vote for someone who offers to stop these programs, but until then, I'm going to take advantage as much as I can.

I'm principled, not stupid.

SilverMK2 wrote:And why is that? Has someone in the distant past told you (or maybe you have overheard it/read it somewhere) that there is a danger of falling objects on a building site, so head protection is a good idea?

Yes. A guy I worked for. He wasn't required by law to tell me that. Neither one of us would get fined or go to jail if I didn't wear head gear. But he made it clear that the large pieces of steel we worked with could cause serious harm to one's noggin.

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Biccat, You do realize you have the freedom to opt outta school and homeschool the deamon seed?

Why would I want to homeschool?

I'm forced to pay for stuff like education and other programs, so I'm going to take advantage of them to the fullest extent I can. If Obama's health care bill is upheld, I'll drop my health insurance and take advantage of the "free" health insurance that I'm paying for anyway.

Sure, I'll vote for someone who offers to stop these programs, but until then, I'm going to take advantage as much as I can.

I'm principled, not stupid.

SilverMK2 wrote:And why is that? Has someone in the distant past told you (or maybe you have overheard it/read it somewhere) that there is a danger of falling objects on a building site, so head protection is a good idea?

Yes. A guy I worked for. He wasn't required by law to tell me that. Neither one of us would get fined or go to jail if I didn't wear head gear. But he made it clear that the large pieces of steel we worked with could cause serious harm to one's noggin.

Well, you could simply leave that sump of oppression and tyranny! I hear that there are a few countries in Africa where everyone is free to do as they please, I'm sure the citizens of those countries are allot better of for it!

Can I interest you in a plane ticket to Somalia? I'm pretty sure they don't force your kids to go to school there...

My nickname in college was "Gateway to Sexual Activity". People would go right past me to get to sex.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:And why is that? Has someone in the distant past told you (or maybe you have overheard it/read it somewhere) that there is a danger of falling objects on a building site, so head protection is a good idea?

Yes. A guy I worked for. He wasn't required by law to tell me that. Neither one of us would get fined or go to jail if I didn't wear head gear. But he made it clear that the large pieces of steel we worked with could cause serious harm to one's noggin.

no he was required by law and faced punishments if he didn't

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1983:

Employers have a "Duty of Care" to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of employees and others.
Employers must take all practicable measures to control risks against injuries in the workplace.
Employees have an obligation to co-operate with their employers on health and safety matters.
Failing to comply with the "Duty of Care" provisions of the Act is an offence.

#7 – Head Protection

Number of Inspections: 1461
Number of Citations: 1464
Total Amount Fined: $747,099
Average Fine: $511.00
Head protection is very important on any jobsite; you must wear a hard hat. All sorts of things fly around a jobsite, from heights, trucks, to just walking into something. If your people are not wearing their hard hats, you risk being cited and fined.
customeHR Top 10 OSHA Fines for Small Companies
Read more: http://www.safetyservicescompany.com/blog/top-10-osha-fines-for-small-companies#ixzz1v3fCRP2J

PhantomViper wrote:Well, you could simply leave that sump of oppression and tyranny! I hear that there are a few countries in Africa where everyone is free to do as they please, I'm sure the citizens of those countries are allot better of for it!

Actually, most of the problems in those countries are due to decades of despotic government.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Well then biccat, if you dont take advantage of your freedom, be quiet.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Given the number of teen pregnanices in this country, your proposal might well be correct!

Does the increased prevalance of sex-ed in classrooms over the past few decades change your opinion?

I see we're still laboring under the delusion that teen pregnancy has gone up in concert with the availability of sex education and contraceptives.

biccat wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Well, you could simply leave that sump of oppression and tyranny! I hear that there are a few countries in Africa where everyone is free to do as they please, I'm sure the citizens of those countries are allot better of for it!

Actually, most of the problems in those countries are due to decades of despotic government.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Actually, most of the problems in african nations are derived from historically hostile tribes being forced to live together due to artificial national boundaries left behind by the colonising western nations.

But I'm sure you knew that (or maybe not, since apparently studying history is a sign of oppression).

biccat wrote:
Actually, most of the problems in those countries are due to decades of despotic government.

Depends on the country. In some places its a matter of despotic government, in some its a matter of the state allowing private citizens to exercise their freedom to kill one another, and in still others its a matter of there not being any sort of government (in the modern sense) at all.

sirlynchmob wrote:no he was required by law and faced punishments if he didn't

The OSHA hardhat regulation didn't apply at that job. For a variety of reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well then biccat, if you dont take advantage of your freedom, be quiet.

Yes, this is usually how it goes.

"Sit down, shut up, we'll decide what's good for you."

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well then biccat, if you dont take advantage of your freedom, be quiet.

Yes, this is usually how it goes.

"Sit down, shut up, we'll decide what's good for you."

As opposed to "Sit down and listen to us scream, we'll decide what's good for you."

biccat wrote:
Why would I want to homeschool?

I'm forced to pay for stuff like education and other programs, so I'm going to take advantage of them to the fullest extent I can. If Obama's health care bill is upheld, I'll drop my health insurance and take advantage of the "free" health insurance that I'm paying for anyway.

If you're willing to send your children to public school, despite it ostensibly being tyrannical in nature, then either you aren't especially opposed to tyranny or you don't really believe public school is tyrannical and are choosing to use that word to elicit an emotional response.

Well, that, or you don't know what it is for something to be tyrannical.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:no he was required by law and faced punishments if he didn't

The OSHA hardhat regulation didn't apply at that job. For a variety of reasons.

It did, you just weren't trained properly it seems:


http://www.allaboutosha.com/employee-rights
Am I covered?

If you work for a company and not part of the government, than you are most likely covered by either the Federal OSHA regulations or if the state you work in opted to do so, State specific OSHA programs. Your employer is must comply with the applicable State/Federal OSHA regulations that relate to the type of work you and your company performs. If your employer fails to comply with a regulation, OSHA can fine them for violating health and safety standards.

Or he's just trolling.

sirlynchmob wrote:You were, you just weren't trained properly it seems:

For a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into because it's personal information.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:You were, you just weren't trained properly it seems:

For a variety of reasons I'm not going to get into because it's personal information.

that's fine, but the point is, OSHA was being tyrannical by forcing your employer to provide you with a safe work environment. And fining them if they don't.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Given the number of teen pregnanices in this country, your proposal might well be correct!

Does the increased prevalance of sex-ed in classrooms over the past few decades change your opinion?

YES! Because as the prevalece of sex-ed in classrooms INCREASED over the past few decades, the number of teen pregnancies has DECREASED! Oh, look! A clear cause and effect!

And then we get these mooks in Tennessee who want to turn back the clock.

Vulcan wrote:neither she nor my father were any more informed than the typical modern 13-year-old because that was the standard of the times. And they are not stupid; both were on good scholarships and placed VERY high in their classes. They just had never been educated.

Are you saying your parents didn't know that sex=babies when they had sex? That doesn't sound particularly educated to me. Maybe we've got different standards of "educated."

My parents answered the "where do babies come from" question well before I reached puberty.

Vulcan wrote:YES! Because as the prevalece of sex-ed in classrooms INCREASED over the past few decades, the number of teen pregnancies has DECREASED! Oh, look! A clear cause and effect!

I'm pretty sure this was addressed earlier.

Vulcan wrote:And my grandparents DID NOT answer the question. Next.

So your grandparents were bad parents*. And somehow your parents survived. And reproduced! Will the wonders never cease?

Vulcan wrote:Ah, yes. And what happens when Mom and Dad fail, either due to negligence, ignorace, or just plain procrastination?

Well, you get kids who make stupid mistakes. Hopefully they learn from their (own and) parents' mistakes and don't repeat them. Maybe they do. Life goes on.

* at least as far as explaining this part. Although I suspect you'll get upset anyway.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well then biccat, if you dont take advantage of your freedom, be quiet.

Yes, this is usually how it goes.

"Sit down, shut up, we'll decide what's good for you."

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:YES! Because as the prevalece of sex-ed in classrooms INCREASED over the past few decades, the number of teen pregnancies has DECREASED! Oh, look! A clear cause and effect!

I'm pretty sure this was addressed earlier.

And yet you continue to ignore it.

Vulcan wrote:And my grandparents DID NOT answer the question. Next.

So your grandparents were bad parents*. And somehow your parents survived. And reproduced! Will the wonders never cease?

Unintended reproduction was kinda the point. And in this aspect, I admit my grandparents WERE bad parents - as were my own parents.**

Vulcan wrote:Ah, yes. And what happens when Mom and Dad fail, either due to negligence, ignorace, or just plain procrastination?

Well, you get kids who make stupid mistakes. Hopefully they learn from their (own and) parents' mistakes and don't repeat them. Maybe they do. Life goes on.

No, you get kids who make mistakes IN IGNORANCE, which is not the same thing. STUPID mistakes are "I know better and choose to do it anyway." IGNORANT mistakes are "I don't know better in the first place!"

One is a failure of the individual, the other a failure of society.

* at least as far as explaining this part. Although I suspect you'll get upset anyway.

** so I'm not going to get upset about that. Facts don't upset me. People who ignore facts upset me.

Think that there's a very important point that hasn't been mentioned yet, which is that abstinance sucks.

By that token, is it not a good idea to teach alternative ways to be safe that do not involve repression and/or "self-gratification"?

I honestly wish I'd had better sex ed, because going to a school where the majority were doing "the nasty" at 12, people seemed to assume that we already knew all we needed to.

I honestly think It's a deluded attitude to think that sexual education is a bad thing.

Vulcan wrote:No, you get kids who make mistakes IN IGNORANCE, which is not the same thing. STUPID mistakes are "I know better and choose to do it anyway." IGNORANT mistakes are "No one told me it was a bad idea in the first place!"

One is a failure of the individual, the other a failure of society.

I suspect, although I could be wrong, that shortly after making the mistake, your parents realized the path to conception. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that they had figured it out by the time your younger sister was born.

They may have realized that having a kid at a young age is difficult, and that it would be easier later in life. That is the important life lesson that they should've imparted to you.

It's not society's job to tell you what is or isn't a bad idea. But even if it is, it's wrong for someone to force you to sit through a lecture explaining what is or isn't a bad idea.

Not to mention, The reward center of a teens brain is more developed then that long term consequences.

Biccat, you realize that the "pull out" method was at one point believed to be a proper method of birth control? Heh.

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:Think that there's a very important point that hasn't been mentioned yet, which is that abstinance sucks.

By that token, is it not a good idea to teach alternative ways to be safe that do not involve repression and/or "self-gratification"?

I honestly wish I'd had better sex ed, because going to a school where the majority were doing "the nasty" at 12, people seemed to assume that we already knew all we needed to.

I honestly think It's a deluded attitude to think that sexual education is a bad thing.

The problem is that hardcore conservatives and religious people think you shouldn't be doing 'the nasty' AT ALL. Sex only for procreation and all that jazz. Certainly not to be indulged in outside the marriage, or even enjoyed for that matter. In short, their point of view regards Repression of the natural drive as the GOAL, not the PROBLEM.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:YES! Because as the prevalece of sex-ed in classrooms INCREASED over the past few decades, the number of teen pregnancies has DECREASED! Oh, look! A clear cause and effect!

I'm pretty sure this was addressed earlier.

In the sense that you claimed that there was a spike in teenage pregnancy following the wide availability of contraceptives, sure.

The problem is that, while there was a spike in teenage pregnancy during the 70's, it has since decreased markedly and now occurs at the lowest rate since the CDC began tracking the phenomenon. Similarly, teen sexual activity has fallen consistently for the last ~20 years*.

There is literally no evidence to suggest the truth of anything you have claimed regarding the effects of sex education, or contraceptive availability.


*Alternate source.

Vulcan wrote:The problem is that hardcore conservatives and religious people think you shouldn't be doing 'the nasty' AT ALL. Sex only for procreation and all that jazz. Certainly not to be indulged in outside the marriage, or even enjoyed for that matter. In short, their point of view regards Repression of the natural drive as the GOAL, not the PROBLEM.

well, there you have it. Conservatives are all about repression.

And I think that will just about do it for me.

See response upthread.

Melissia wrote:Biccat, you realize that the "pull out" method was at one point believed to be a proper method of birth control? Heh.

I thought at one point "women are supposed to be pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen" was also an acceptable interpretation of birth control as well

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:No, you get kids who make mistakes IN IGNORANCE, which is not the same thing. STUPID mistakes are "I know better and choose to do it anyway." IGNORANT mistakes are "No one told me it was a bad idea in the first place!"

One is a failure of the individual, the other a failure of society.

I suspect, although I could be wrong, that shortly after making the mistake, your parents realized the path to conception. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that they had figured it out by the time your younger sister was born.

They may have realized that having a kid at a young age is difficult, and that it would be easier later in life. That is the important life lesson that they should've imparted to you.

It's not society's job to tell you what is or isn't a bad idea. But even if it is, it's wrong for someone to force you to sit through a lecture explaining what is or isn't a bad idea.

Sure it is, all kids in school should get a proper education, which should include proper safety and hygiene. There should be no option for parents to opt out, if you kid is in school, they should get taught about safe sex and how to avoid pregnancy. If you think its a good idea to teach your own kids about it, then why do you have a problem with schools also teaching kids about it? with two sources of information, the kid should be twice as knowledgeable on the subject.

It has been proven that states where they have no sex ed have higher rates of teen pregnancy and in states with proper sex ed have lower rates.

biccat wrote:
It's not society's job to tell you what is or isn't a bad idea.

Sure it is, that's why we have laws. And really, morality as well. In fact without society there isn't much reason to have morality at all.

biccat wrote:
But even if it is, it's wrong for someone to force you to sit through a lecture explaining what is or isn't a bad idea.

And yet parents seem to make a habit of it. Clearly parenting is wrong.

That's a literal interpretation of your statement, but even if you're referring only to non-parents or the state its fairly difficult to justify the existence of criminal law if you're not going to provide at least some degree of instruction, both via socialization and the relay of fact.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:No, you get kids who make mistakes IN IGNORANCE, which is not the same thing. STUPID mistakes are "I know better and choose to do it anyway." IGNORANT mistakes are "No one told me it was a bad idea in the first place!"

One is a failure of the individual, the other a failure of society.

I suspect, although I could be wrong, that shortly after making the mistake, your parents realized the path to conception. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that they had figured it out by the time your younger sister was born.

They may have realized that having a kid at a young age is difficult, and that it would be easier later in life. That is the important life lesson that they should've imparted to you.

It's not society's job to tell you what is or isn't a bad idea. But even if it is, it's wrong for someone to force you to sit through a lecture explaining what is or isn't a bad idea.

So. If my sister hadn't educated herself and become a mother at 14, that's just fine with you? Because our parents (and their parents, and lord knows how many generations before that) didn't want to touch the subject? It's WORSE to make someone listen to a lecture than to make them have kids at a ridiculously young age because they follow a biological urge and no one told them the consequences? Are you seriously claiming that?!?

On a related note: So, it is then wrong to force kids to sit through 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months out of the year, for 13 years? That IS what you are saying, right?

Vulcan wrote:On a related note: So, it is then wrong to force kids to sit through 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months out of the year, for 13 years? That IS what you are saying, right?

Yes.

As I said earlier, he's trolling.

^ admittedly with some sucess...

Albeit only in that he's getting reactions, rather than actually making a cohesive argument...

If he's trolling... then why haven't the Mods watching (participating, even!) in this thread taken action yet? Or do I actually have to hit the 'report' button first?

Biccat and Frazz are given a little extra leash.

With that, I'm off this topic.

Vulcan wrote:If he's trolling... then why haven't the Mods watching (participating, even!) in this thread taken action yet? Or do I actually have to hit the 'report' button first?

I think his lawyer training allows him to walk that fine line between maximum trolling, and not actually breaking any rules.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Biccat and Frazz are given a little extra leash.

What are you bugging me about? I've said priority should be given t the classics, but if time was no issue then I'd for more education. I also pointed out this could be potentially embarssing for the little demons to sit through, which brings me great merriment. If you can't embarrass them in person, second hand embarrassment is almost as good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Vulcan wrote:If he's trolling... then why haven't the Mods watching (participating, even!) in this thread taken action yet? Or do I actually have to hit the 'report' button first?

I think his lawyer training allows him to walk that fine line between maximum trolling, and not actually breaking any rules.

he's not breaking any rules. he's just disagreeing with people. Now I know readers of the New York Times view disagreement as heresy and a burning offense, but generally its ok for people ti disagree with each other if they are not violating Rule #1.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Vulcan wrote:If he's trolling... then why haven't the Mods watching (participating, even!) in this thread taken action yet? Or do I actually have to hit the 'report' button first?

I think his lawyer training allows him to walk that fine line between maximum trolling, and not actually breaking any rules.

he's not breaking any rules. he's just disagreeing with people. Now I know readers of the New York Times view disagreement as heresy and a burning offense, but generally its ok for people ti disagree with each other if they are not violating Rule #1.

That is the trademark of a good troll though. To get people worked up while staying within the rules, while the worked up people end up breaking the rules because he knows how to push those buttons. I don't take most things he says seriously, but I will acknowledge good trolling when I see it and give proper credit for it .

The lawyer thing is also why I try not to get into any serious arguments with him anymore, too much lawyer in his responses.

But my main point of my response to the "why have the mods not taken any actions yet" was the whole "he knows how to piss people off without breaking the rules" bit. Sure I find him annoying, but I don't see him breaking any rules.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Biccat, You do realize you have the freedom to opt outta school and homeschool the deamon seed?

I'd bet that depends on the state.

There aren't any states in the USA that forbid home schooling.

http://homeeducationschooling.com/us-home-schooling-laws.html

Let this thread die.

For the love of God,

LET IT DIE.

NEVER! NEVER!

biccat wrote:Are there any other areas where you think parents are chronically uninformed and should defer child-rearing to the proper experts?

So you've taken 'it is good when people with expertise in a subject teach it to others' into 'defer child rearing', which makes it pretty clear in your absence from the off-topic forum you didn't spend one second thinking of how you might become a better, more constructive poster. Shame, because now we're going to have to go through the same old teeth pulling exercise of me explaining basic social concepts to you over and over again while you invent ever more stupid bits of nonsense to avoid accepting you originally said something stupid. Ah well, here we go...

Having an expert explain something to me does not mean 'defering' from your teacher. If I watch the game on Sunday, and then read Monday's report on the game, I'm not deferring my judgement on the game to the paper, I'm getting more information from another source. More information is always a good thing, provided you want a person to be informed.

And when the parents aren't teaching things that are grossly untrue, the teacher's and the parent's efforts will be complementary, not in opposition. The only time accurate sexual health information is a problem is when people like to believe things that are not true, such as 'condoms don't stop AIDS' or 'abstinence only teaching works'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:I am quite sure that Sebster agrees with me in that everybody needs to be taught things that they need to know both for their own wellbeing and for the wellbeing of society as a whole. The quality of instruction should be high and the content needs to be accurate and free of all bias; this is where parent led teaching fails, some parents may teach their children to a higher level than the state but far more are likely to give incorrect or inadequate instruction. For example some parents seem to think that abstinence is theo nly sex education that teenagers need, that clearly falls far short of the mark.

I do agree with you. In fact, when I read something like your post above I'm not sure how anyone could disagree, it makes such simple, straight forward sense. And yet we've got this thread anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:How do you decide what is bias?

Committees made up of persons broadly recognised as experts in the field. I know you'd hate such a thing, because their conclusions will be in direct opposition to your abstinence only nonsense, but that's kind of the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:It takes a government mandated village to raise a family.

"Give students practical health advice on sexual matters, given by individuals well trained in the field" becomes "government mandated control of your children".

I mean, I know it's National American Passtime to complain about government intrusion, but for feth's sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:So teaching kids how to feth one another suddenly makes them better at math?

I'm not sure I understand how that works.

When girls stay in school because they're not pregnant, they learn things.

That'd be one of those facts you might have learned, if you'd ever learned about sexual health.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Indeed, employing the aforementioned math skills I learened more gooder in dat der edumacation, its that there is a defined amount of learning hours in a day, school year, and academic life. Take time away from the classics for other classes, and you take time away from those classes.

Given the amount of dead time and repetition in high school teaching, I have a really hard time thinking how an ungraded class that's held once a week for 45 minutes will drain away teaching hours in any significant amount.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think it would be awesome if children were taught about stuff by their parents instead of people qualified to teach the stuff.

I want to know how biccat can guarantee that maths will be bias free. How do we know schools and government won't bias the teaching towards that fancy pants calculus stuff?

And since when did we agree to defer a parent's right to teach maths to some expert?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squigsquasher wrote:All I know is that the further south you go, the more conservative and unsane it gets.

It's more that each state in the south is conservative and insane in it's own unique, special way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:You don't need to teach kids how to feth with each other, they learn how to do that pretty well on their own.

What you do need is to teach them how not to hurt themselves or their lives while doing it...

And the emotional challenges of sex, and how to know if you're ready for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Sounds very "clinical and matter-of-fact" to me.

If you honestly believed that was representative of sex ed classes, then it would make sense for you to start to fight to improve the quality of teaching. Instead you offer a vague kind of support for abstinence only teaching while mostly talking about tyranny and parent's rights, which makes it sound like is just another half thought out extension of your general John Birch Society ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:In Frazzled's world if you don't have money, if you don't have connections, you get the best education you possibly can and use it as your hammer.

That is extremely good life advice.

Seriously, I'm sorry if this text only medium makes that sound like sarcasm, because it isn't, and that is life advice I will most definitely be giving to my children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Should? Yes. But if you require the kids to attend classes on History, Philosophy, Literature or Art, then it is tyranny.

And here we have exhibit 37F on how biccat's ideology has driven him to so completely and utterly lose perspective, that he can no longer make useful comment on anything even vaguely relating to government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Biccat's understanding of Tyranny equates to "anything I don't like".

He's basically just a John Birch Society style nut. There's plenty of them across the internet, and we've had a couple of others pop into dakka before.

The only way in which biccat distinguishes himself from any other Bircher is that every other one I've met quickly disappears from the forum after everyone laughs at them for announcing one of their silliest, most extreme views, such as 'having a mandatory art class is tyranny'. That doesn't seem to bother biccat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Any time someone makes you do something it's tyranny and limits your freedom.

Some people like being told what to do. Personally, I have a problem with it.

You might not value your freedom, I value mine. Whats more, I value yours as well.

Your understanding of freedom is naive at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Listen, Im going to say this simple, SEX ED SAVES MONEY, teenage mothers are more likely to end on welfare an those kids have little demons themselves. If we teach them what sex entails, what the hell can happen, and how to be safe and provide the means to be safe, it aint gonna happen.

It's also one of the best ways to break the poverty cycle and improve social mobility. One the biggest factors for girls in the poverty cycle is that poverty leads to teenage pregnancy, which leads to poverty, which leads to teenage pregnancy, and so on, generation after generation.

Considering how much people like to complain about poor people having so many babies, it is so utterly amazing that they don't want to give those people the tools to break the cycle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:not at my school or the kkids school. We had to read crap like Great Expectations which made me want to commit suicide, and by suicide I mean go back in time and nuke England.

I think Dickens has been responsible for more people giving up on reading than anything else in history. I mean, I kind of like it now, because I've learned to look past the painfully verbose text and take the rest of it for what it is, but when I was 13 it was insufferable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Being told to tip your waiter or go to jail is tyranny.

So the restaurant adding an 18% tip automatically to the bill because you're a table of six or more is tyranny.

That's a very sensible opinion you have there biccat, truly the cornerstone of building a healthy, viable society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:On the subject of Tyranny:

Surely you're only being Tyrannic if you force them to do it?

Really, the most important issue in determining if something is tyranny is the content. That's the thing biccat has tricked himself into ignoring, allowing himself to focus only on the mandatory element, and leading to the very silly conclusion that having a required class on sexual health is tyranny.

Providing real, important and truthful information can never be tyranny, because providing that stuff is empowering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:As has been mentioned, the fifth option is self-education - looking things up in a medical encyclopedia (my sister's route, no internet at the time) or on the internet. This requires effort, and probably a fair amount of sneaking around, and the very real possibility of getting in BIG trouble with the type parents who are afraid to teach the kids themselves.

It also relies on kids stumbling into each of the very important things they need to know. The likely result is a kid who knows an incredible amount about the physical signs of syphyllis, but absolutely nothing about sexual maturity and the emotional reactions to sex. Or vice versa, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I see we're still laboring under the delusion that teen pregnancy has gone up in concert with the availability of sex education and contraceptives.

While at this point I'm almost certain biccat's insistance on that fact could only be the result of willful ignorance and that no evidence will make him accept the actual truth of the matter, I'll provide this CDC graph to set him straight anyway;




Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:As opposed to "Sit down and listen to us scream, we'll decide what's good for you."

Or in many cases, 'we'll decide what's best for ourselves and then call it freedom'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Or he's just trolling.

If biccat were trolling he'd be having more fun than we are. I think he really is this ridiculous.