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.

I did not miss those points. There is a reason I used the quote function: I'm quoting her own agenda.

 Manchu wrote:
I did not miss those points. There is a reason I used the quote function: I'm quoting her own agenda.

No, you're quoting what she said to her son before going to class. That's only a small part of the story.

It's commendable of her to take an interest in her child's education. It's abhorrent for those (apparently external?) teachers to try to deceive the children who should be able to trust them.

If people want to choose to be abstinent, that's a great choice and they should not be looked down on for that, but it's wrong for them to try to scare kids into abstinence because of their personal beliefs. It's especially abhorrent in that the research shows it does not work.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's only a small part of the story.

What do you mean, in terms of word count? In terms of meaning, it's probably the most important part of the story because it shows us where the mom is coming from ideologically. Another very important part of the story (although it doesn't take up many words!) is her motivation. Here are her own words on the subject:

The kid has invited me to his health class on sex ed to see how bad it is, so I'm going.

Well, "invited" actually means, I asked him a couple of times and he eventually said yes.

 Manchu wrote:
What do you mean, in terms of word count?

No, in terms of which events happened. You're taking one part of her story where she had one conversation with her son and trying to present it as her entire argument, probably because it lines up neatly with your opinion that this is some kind of "culture war bullying" or whatever instead of a parent fighting against a school that is blatantly lying to students.

In terms of meaning, it's probably the most important part of the story because it shows us where the mom is coming from ideologically.

Sure, it says where she's coming from, but it's not the entire story. Blatant lying about failure rates doesn't magically become honesty and legitimate education just because the person pointing out the lying has opinions.

Another very important part of the story (although it doesn't take up many words!) is her motivation. Here are her own words on the subject:

The kid has invited me to his health class on sex ed to see how bad it is, so I'm going.

What exactly is your point here? She heard that it sucks, she went to confirm that it sucks, and it did suck.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That's only a small part of the story.

What do you mean, in terms of word count? In terms of meaning, it's probably the most important part of the story because it shows us where the mom is coming from ideologically. Another very important part of the story (although it doesn't take up many words!) is her motivation. Here are her own words on the subject:

The kid has invited me to his health class on sex ed to see how bad it is, so I'm going.

Well, "invited" actually means, I asked him a couple of times and he eventually said yes.

This has come up a couple of times in the thread, now. It's a serious stretch to try to paint that as anything weird at all.

Sometimes, when someone is going to something and your presence is not required but might be helpful to them, you ask them some time beforehand - would you like me to come along? For example, if a close friend is going to the cancer clinic to get the results of some scans, I might ask them if they want me to come along. Then, if I live with them, say, I would ask them on the morning if they still want me to come. This is not unusual.

It's also completely irrelevant, because she is not the one setting the educational agenda for her kid's school. If she was then I can see how, in particular, "you have a duty to have sex with a bunch of people so your eventual husband or wife has a more skilled lover" would be objectionable. She's not, though, and her personal beliefs are totally irrelevant in this case except insofar as they are not that you should try to terrify your kids into abstinence by lying to them (which research shows does not work and leads to harmful outcomes).

 Peregrine wrote:
What exactly is your point here?

Same as it has been:

 Manchu wrote:
Mom and kid were just spoiling to get on a high horse.

Students get all kinds of bogus information in schools all the time. It only becomes an issue of OUTRAGE when culture warriors enter the arena, prepared to do ideological battle. Mom had been training son in the arts of culture war but desperately wanted to step into the ring herself.

Of course, the school bringing in abstinence advocates was pretty much baiting people like mom. For her, it was practically the same as the principal announcing MORTAL KOMBAT!!!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
For example, if a close friend is going to the cancer clinic to get the results of some scans, I might ask them if they want me to come along.

Do the two of you spend time looking up research on 501(c)3 websites to prepare for a confrontation you are planning to initiate at the clinic?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
and her personal beliefs are totally irrelevant in this case

As a matter of fact, they explain her actions even according to her own account.

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
For example, if a close friend is going to the cancer clinic to get the results of some scans, I might ask them if they want me to come along.

Do the two of you spend time looking up research on 501(c)3 websites to prepare for a confrontation at the clinic?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
and her personal beliefs are totally irrelevant in this case

As a matter of fact, they explain her actions even according to her own account.

Sorry, I don't know what charitable organisations (that's a 501(c)3?) have to do with a cancer clinic. I guess this is an American thing?

If they wanted to do some research into it, sure, of course I'd help. People often want to be equipped with information when they go and talk to someone about treatment options - it helps contextualise the information you are given, and when it comes to something like cancer you want to be sure you have the best information available. I'm sure you don't think proper information about sex is any less important.

Why are we discussing how much of an arse the mum is (and I don't think she is at all) when the role of the class should be to educate people about sex? Abstinence whilst a nice idea is fething atrocious when it comes to arming children with knowledge on how to protect themselves from the potential pitfalls of sex.

Funnily enough I got my sex education in religion class, and it was all biology and stds ect. Abstinence and crud like purity balls belong in the 1920s teenagers are going to have sex, they should know how to prevent STDs and pregnancy.
I cannot believe schools try to teach this kind of gak in sex education class.
"today we are going to learn about sex....Don't do it, now everyone your homework is to write a virginity pledge, class dismissed."

@HiveFleetPlastic

In her article, mom demeans the abstinence group as a 501(c)4 lobbying group. Her son's info came from a 501(c)3. Both kinds of organizations are allowed tax exemption because of their roles in educating the public. 501(c)4s are not required to disclose who gives them money and for that reason are associated with lobbying. But both kinds of organizations can be and are ideologically-driven. It's myopic to criticize only one of them for having an agenda.

Seems like you are purposely ignoring the point of my other comment -- finding info to prepare to start a confrontation, which is what happened in this story, rather than, as you mention, contextualizing treatment options.

@Bullockist

My comments are founded on a concern about public rhetoric. To change up the example, it is increasingly OK here in the US to attack anti-vaccination folks at a personal level and with an extreme amount of vitriol. I personally have no sympathy whatsoever with any part of the anti-vaccination agenda. I would like to see that movement fade away completely. What I actually see, however, is an entrenchment of anti-vaccination beliefs fueled by a persecution complex. It seems like there is a positive correlation between commitment to the anti-vaccination beliefs and feelings of personal persecution. And giving vent to abusive, self-righteous behavior is simply not OK ... that point seems to be slipping away.

 Manchu wrote:
Students get all kinds of bogus information in schools all the time. It only becomes an issue of OUTRAGE when culture warriors enter the arena, prepared to do ideological battle.

Or when, as in this case, the lying is so blatant and indisputable that even a casual observer knows that something is wrong. We don't usually get outrage about math teachers telling their students that 1+1=3 because a teacher that incompetent would be fired long before it got to that point. But if they weren't fired and kept teaching the same material we'd all acknowledge that the school sucks and be outraged about it.

Mom had been training son in the arts of culture war but desperately wanted to step into the ring herself.

So what? She was absolutely correct in this case. Your whole argument here is nothing more than a giant ad hominem.

 Manchu wrote:
@HiveFleetPlastic

In her article, mom demeans the abstinence group as a 501(c)4 lobbying group. Her son's info came from a 501(c)3. Both kinds of organizations are allowed tax exemption because of their roles in educating the public. 501(c)4s are not required to disclose who gives them money and for that reason are associated with lobbying. But both kinds of organizations can be and are ideologically-driven. It's myopic to criticize only one of them for having an agenda.

Ah, thanks. Well, a thing that seems similar to me is here in my state we've had a thing recently where parents were getting "religious education" that they thought was education about religion but was actually Christian propaganda class. I don't think classes that aim to impose their religious values on people, run by groups external to the school, should be taught without being opt-in and clearly labeled as such. If this class was an opt-in "Christian abstinence-only education" (possibly that was run alongside an evidence-based one) then I don't think anyone would mind much.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems like you are purposely ignoring the point of my other comment -- "prepare for a confrontation," which is what happened in this story; rather than, as you mention, contextualizing treatment options.

Wouldn't you? If I was going to disagree with a teacher I'd likely want some kind of evidence to have a productive conversation with them. Otherwise the conversation would go something like:

Me: Excuse me, but I think something you taught my child over the past couple of lessons was incorrect.
Teacher: Oh, no. As you can see in the lesson materials, my information is quite correct and sourced!
Me: Oh. Well, I don't have any information of my own here, so thanks for your time.

 Peregrine wrote:
We don't usually get outrage about math teachers telling their students that 1+1=3 because a teacher that incompetent would be fired long before it got to that point.

Thankfully, mathematics has not become ideologically charged just yet.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your whole argument here is nothing more than a giant ad hominem.

Well, yeah. Did you not read my very first post:

 Manchu wrote:
Gotta say, the mom here sounds like a serious donkey-cave.

But an attack on the person is only fallacious when it substitutes as an attack on the person's argument. My argument is and has been that the mom's behavior was poor and not at all justified by her ideological outrage. I have never argued that the mom's ideology is wrong because she acted like an donkey-cave.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
If this class was an opt-in "Christian abstinence-only education" (possibly that was run alongside an evidence-based one) then I don't think anyone would mind much.

Personally, I don't like the idea of having guest speakers on abstinance. They are only present for ideological reasons. A non-ideological lesson on abstinence is very simple: You do not have to have sex. If you do not have sex, you or your partner cannot become pregnant. Not having sex also means your chances of contracting a sexually-transmitted infection are nearly zero, all other things being equal. That's it. No need for any kind of guest speaker.

The fact that there was in this case a discussion about the efficacy of teaching abstinence during the time when abstinence was supposed to be taught is pretty telling.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
If I was going to disagree with a teacher I'd likely want some kind of evidence to have a productive conversation with them.

If I was going to disagree with anyone IRL (unlike on the internet), especially someone in authority over me like a teacher, I would only do so if there was a reasonable chance the conversation would be productive. My rule of thumb is, ideological debates are almost never productive.

 Manchu wrote:
Thankfully, mathematics has not become ideologically charged just yet.

Yes, which is why we don't get any outrage over it. Since there's no right-wing ideology to protect bad math teachers they're just dealt with long before it gets any national-level attention. That doesn't mean that there's some kind of double standard for outrage. If the 1+1=3 teacher somehow didn't get fired and kept teaching that 1+1=3 we'd get the exact same kind of outrage that we see in this case.

But an attack on the person is only fallacious when it substitutes as an attack on the person's argument. My argument is and has been that the mom's behavior was poor and not at all justified by her ideological outrage. I have never argued that the mom's ideology is wrong because she acted like an donkey-cave.

All you've done here is complain about how horrible the mother is and rant about "bullying culture" or whatever. You've completely ignored the fact that the school is blatantly lying to students and the political opinions of the person pointing out the lying are irrelevant to that issue.

A non-ideological lesson on abstinence is very simple: You do not have to have sex. If you do not have sex, you or your partner cannot become pregnant. Not having sex also means your chances of contracting a sexually-transmitted infection are nearly zero, all other things being equal.

Which is fine, as long as it's not all the information students are given. Lying by omission is still lying, and any complete discussion of the risks of having sex must include honest information on ways to reduce the risk. And that includes the fact that those options are very effective and can reduce the risk to near-zero levels when used properly.

But of course we're never going to see that complete lesson in a situation like this because the entire point of abstinence-only "education" is to promote right-wing Christian ideology.

If I was going to disagree with anyone IRL (unlike on the internet), especially someone in authority over me like a teacher, I would only do so if there was a reasonable chance the conversation would be productive. My rule of thumb is, ideological debates are almost never productive.

So your opinion is that we should put up with blatant lying in schools because it wouldn't be "productive" to have a debate about it?

I don't have the interest (unlike with Star Wars) in this topic to cut through your usual legion of strawman arguments Perergine. I think my posts make my position pretty clear and they pretty clearly have little/nothing to do with the posts you wish I was making.

I think Manchu's position is that the parent in question should have just gone to the school board/state education department/state representative/whoever was responsible for these brazen, ideological warriors being given a classroom of children to manipulate and got them to put a stop to it, rather than sitting in on the class, going up to them after it had ended and yelling at them.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think Manchu's position is that the parent in question should have just gone to the school board/state education department/state representative/whoever was responsible for these brazen, ideological warriors being given a classroom of children to manipulate and got them to put a stop to it, rather than sitting in on the class, going up to them after it had ended and yelling at them.

I certainly think that would be a good deal more effective if the goal is to stop all the blatant lying supposedly generating the outrage. But I think the actual goal was to set up a vanity match in the Mortal Kulture Kombat tournament hosted by the internet.

Shang Tsung = secret master of the internet

 Manchu wrote:
I don't have the interest (unlike with Star Wars) in this topic to cut through your usual legion of strawman arguments Perergine. I think my posts make my position pretty clear and they pretty clearly have little/nothing to do with the posts you wish I was making.

Oh good, and now after failing to defend your "culture war bullying" nonsense you're abandoning the thread. I guess we'll see you again next time there's an example of right-wing dishonesty and bad behavior to defend?

LOL and he comes back with even more strawmen! Do you have any other moves?

 Manchu wrote:
I certainly think that would be a good deal more effective if the goal is to stop all the blatant lying supposedly generating the outrage. But I think the actual goal was to set up a vanity match in the Mortal Kulture Kombat tournament hosted by the internet.

Alternatively, she knows that being on the receiving end of national-level outrage is a lot better at forcing a school to change than one person in a private meeting. After all, a school that runs a program like this in the first place is unlikely to get rid of it if they have the option of just quietly telling her to go away. Making a public story about it takes away the option to just quietly cover it up, and has the nice bonus of being an informative example of what happens when right-wing ideology is allowed to control educational content for people who don't happen to live in districts like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
LOL and he comes back with even more strawmen! Do you have any other moves?

 Manchu wrote:
This kind of bully culture is really becoming the dominant mode.

 Manchu wrote:
But I think the actual goal was to set up a vanity match in the Mortal Kulture Kombat tournament hosted by the internet.

All you've done here is complain about "culture war" and "bullying" while ignoring the fact that her outrage was entirely justified regardless of the fact that she has political opinions.

 Peregrine wrote:
All you've done here is complain about "culture war" and "bullying" while ignoring the fact that her outrage was entirely justified regardless of the fact that she has political opinions.

So your only objection is I am not talking about what you want to talk about.

Here is what you want to argue with me about:

 Peregrine wrote:
the fact that her outrage was entirely justified

I get that, I really do. And since I am not game, I get that you are having to do all the work for both of us. Sorry, I guess?

 Manchu wrote:
So your only objection is I am not talking about what you want to talk about.

No, it's that you're complaining about something that is completely irrelevant and acting like it means something. You're trying to present this as a "culture war" battle between rival ideologies, where both sides have valid opinions and the mom in the OP has no right to "bully" everyone into agreeing with her opinion. In reality the school is indisputably wrong, this is a one-side "debate" like the debate over teaching evolution in schools, and the fact that the person objecting to the school's blatant lying has political opinions is about as relevant to the discussion as her hair color.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Here is what you want to argue with me about:

You're right, I want you to address the substance of the argument here instead of making another boring "SJWS CULTURE WAR FEMINIST BULLIES RUIN EVERYTHING" complaint.

Culture warriors always present ideological battles as their FACTS versus their opponents' OPINIONS. That's a rhetorical tactic. You have used it in pretty much every one of your posts ITT, for example.

In our story, mom taught this tactic to son. Son dutifully carried out mom's plan and the abstinence culture warrior immediately tried the same tactic in response, except she hadn't even bothered to come armed with internet print outs. Poor planning!

 Manchu wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think Manchu's position is that the parent in question should have just gone to the school board/state education department/state representative/whoever was responsible for these brazen, ideological warriors being given a classroom of children to manipulate and got them to put a stop to it, rather than sitting in on the class, going up to them after it had ended and yelling at them.

I certainly think that would be a good deal more effective if the goal is to stop all the blatant lying supposedly generating the outrage. But I think the actual goal was to set up a vanity match in the Mortal Kulture Kombat tournament hosted by the internet.

Shang Tsung = secret master of the internet

They are not mutually exclusive. The outrage will probably get people interested and aware when they wouldn't have been before. It will hopefully lead to those speakers being dropped from the programme.

She seems to have avoided putting any specific person up to the burned at the stake, so it's probably okay.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL and he comes back with even more strawmen! Do you have any other moves?

But...but...the world needs more scarecrows to hold back the evil crow plague.

 Manchu wrote:
Culture warriors always present ideological battles as their FACTS versus their opponents' OPINIONS.

And now we're right back to you denying that the school was blatantly lying. Failure rates for birth control are not an opinion, and the school lied about them. No amount of "SJW CULTURE WAR BULLYING" complaining is going to change this.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
They are not mutually exclusive.

I understand that (and did not claim otherwise); my claim is the different approaches suggest different motives/goals.

 Bullockist wrote:
But...but...the world needs more scarecrows to hold back the evil crow plague.

Good news then, because here's another one:

 Peregrine wrote:
And now we're right back to you denying that the school was blatantly lying.

 Manchu wrote:
I understand that (and did not claim otherwise); my claim is the different approaches suggest different motives/goals.

Only because you're determined to find an excuse to complain about "culture war bullying". In the real world people understand that bad publicity is an effective way of solving an offensive problem, and you don't have to be more concerned with scoring points in a "culture war" argument than practical results to go public with an accusation.

Good news then, because here's another one:

Oh FFS, you just claimed that this was an example of "my side has facts, your side has opinions". If the mom only has opinions and ideology then the school can't be lying, because if they were lying then she'd have facts on her side. But I'm sure you're going to come back and yell "STRAWMAN" because the only thing you love more than complaining about "SJW CULTURE WAR BULLYING" is insisting on a strict literal reading of everything you say and never following your arguments to their conclusions.

The idea of leveraging national conversation against a guest speaker in a sex ed class is a great example of culture war and, more importantly, how completely overblown and socially destructive it is.

My argument is that the confrontation in question was a clash of values rather than facts. Waving around internet print-offs is an example of the tactic of trying to reframe an argument over ideology as an argument over facts, same as posting the phrase BLATANT LYING again and again and again ITT.

 Manchu wrote:
The idea of leveraging national conversation against a guest speaker in a sex ed class is a great example of culture war and, more importantly, how completely overblown and socially destructive it is.

How exactly is it socially destructive to force a school to stop lying to students?

My argument is that the confrontation in question was a clash of values rather than facts.

And your argument is wrong because it clearly WAS a clash of facts, as demonstrated by the school obviously lying and having the facts indisputably against them.

Waving around internet print-offs is an example of the tactic of trying to reframe an argument over ideology as an argument over facts

Yeah, how dare people come to a discussion with supporting material to help justify their claims. Do you honestly think that this is supposed to be an impressive argument?

same as posting the phrase BLATANT LYING again and again and again ITT.

So then what should I call it when someone indisputably and shamelessly lies about something for ideological reasons?