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.

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?