Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!