At 2/26/10 01:51 AM, Memorize wrote:At 2/25/10 11:22 PM, Elfer wrote:I certainly wouldn't be opposed to teaching proper gun use for say, handguns and rifles in a school setting.But would you support giving the Government the ability to force school's to do these?
Sex is a greater risk in our society. IF, guns were a larger part of our lives because we needed a stronger military or we were a hunting society I would be fine with it.
At 2/25/10 05:17 PM, Memorize wrote:At 2/25/10 03:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:Except that it is a shitty idea: http://bantha.org/~jerboa/CV-Rosenbaum-s ep15.pdfI never once said it wasn't a shitty idea.
No, you never really specified what was a shitty idea when you asked how would we feel if the government mandated abstinence only education. I assumed that since this is about sexual education we were talking about sexual education. I forgot you were incapable of talking about anything other than regulation and mandates because you are so paranoid you can't see past the boogie man government. Go get a tin foil hat.
I just think it's funny that you and Elfer are so retarded to believe it's smart to have the Government mandate it, which even if they constitutionally could do that (which they can't), you would still support it even though new politicians can come in and change it.
I don't support mandating abstinence only education because studies show its stupid. Safe sex education has been shown again and again to reduce the risk of teen pregnancy & STDs which is the point of sexual education. So, since it works, I don't mind kids being taught about it and I agree it is a good idea to do so. Such a mandate would be for the public benefit since STDs are a drain on society.
Not once did any of you tell me why this is to be a school's responsibility.
Elfer gave an example. Not all parents can be trusted to provide good information, but since no one is stopping parents from talking parents can still teach their children what they want to teach them.
Additionally, teaching kids things is what schools are for. Sex is a much large part of everyone's lives than say, Math or History. Sure a single person or group might dedicate their time to these things, but sex is the thing that ultimately keeps society going. Teaching children how to be safe while doing it is perhaps one of the most useful things a school could do. If you don't trust a school to teach your child history or health or how to cook then I can understand why you wouldn't trust this either.
Nor have either of you addressed the hypocrisy mentioned in Smiley's thread about schools teaching kids on how to properly use a gun at a very young age (which I would bet anything that 90% of the people who support sex ed, would obviously be against).
See my previous post or even read what I wrote in the other thread.
But I suppose next, you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act was a good idea too, right?
No, because thats completely off topic and I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but I'm also not very up to date with what it did apart from negating Miranda rights & allowing wire tapping which are both horrible things.
At 2/26/10 01:51 AM, Memorize wrote:At 2/25/10 11:22 PM, Elfer wrote:I certainly wouldn't be opposed to teaching proper gun use for say, handguns and rifles in a school setting.But would you support giving the Government the ability to force school's to do these?
The government already decides the curriculum, so they already have this ability. As long as they were teaching good information about proper firearm use and maintenance, then sure, I could support that.
However, I don't think it's going to be possible in the near future, simply for the reason that it's an enormous liability issue. Eventually some nut-job is going to use it as an opportunity to shoot a couple of people, and even though that would have happened with or without the firearm training program, the school system will suddenly be potentially at fault in civil cases.
At 2/19/10 05:21 AM, Memorize wrote: Oh yes... I remember when I was but the wee age of 3. Watching some hot dame strip on cable TV.
My mother walked into the living and I so beautifully said to her: "Hey mom! Check this out!"
that's just classic
And people wonder why welfare gets abused. People end up with parents that wet the bed as much as their children do.
At 2/26/10 09:12 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Go get a tin foil hat.
Right.
Because the Government would never spy on Americans without a warrant.
The Government would never lock someone in prison for speaking out against a war.
The Government would never bail out the auto industry or the banks.
I don't support mandating abstinence only education because studies show its stupid.
And yet you're ok to give the Government the power to do it.
Safe sex education has been shown again and again to reduce the risk of teen pregnancy & STDs which is the point of sexual education.
Hey, maybe we can ban the KKK for their speech too!
So, since it works, I don't mind kids being taught about it and I agree it is a good idea to do so. Such a mandate would be for the public benefit since STDs are a drain on society.
Even though it's no one responsibility except for the individual.
Elfer gave an example.
You didn't.
Not all parents can be trusted to provide good information,
But the Government is!
but since no one is stopping parents from talking parents can still teach their children what they want to teach them.
Yet the Government can force "Their's".
That's your problem. You're only "ok" with the Government as long as it does what you THINK is right. The problem is that you don't have the intelligence to look far down the road to see the potential consequences.
Going back to the top: Would you support a ban on KKK speeches?
Can you tell me WHY we don't do that?
Additionally, teaching kids things is what schools are for.
No.
A school is there to provide for the student to lean to get a job.
Sex is a much large part of everyone's lives than say, Math or History.
Yet not to get a job.
Sure a single person or group might dedicate their time to these things, but sex is the thing that ultimately keeps society going.
I love it when people say that to justify their stupidity.
Teaching children how to be safe while doing it is perhaps one of the most useful things a school could do.
Still: NOT their responsibility.
Nor has that EVER been the function of school.
You twat.
If you don't trust a school to teach your child history or health or how to cook then I can understand why you wouldn't trust this either.
History is, by far, much more important than sex ed.
No, because thats completely off topic and I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but I'm also not very up to date with what it did apart from negating Miranda rights & allowing wire tapping which are both horrible things.
But... but... they're only using it to go after terrorists!
How can you be against going after terrorists, Gum? What are you? A sympathizer?
See how fucking stupid that is? I bet. Because that's the same shit-head logic you're using for sex ed.
At 2/26/10 11:22 AM, Elfer wrote:
The government already decides the curriculum, so they already have this ability. As long as they were teaching good information about proper firearm use and maintenance, then sure, I could support that.
Even though you shouldn't support that.
I don't think you are understanding the point that memorize is making. He's not asking you if you think that precautionary sex ed is better than abstinence only sex Ed, he's asking you how you can sit comfortably with a system that could easily shift an entire education system one way or another, relatively absent of any popular demand for it.
He's not asking you if you support X, he's asking you if you support the power of the federal government to force an entire state or an entire country to teach their kids something that the federal government thinks they should, period.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 2/27/10 10:43 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: He's not asking you if you support X, he's asking you if you support the power of the federal government to force an entire state or an entire country to teach their kids something that the federal government thinks they should, period.
A decent point, but not exactly the point of the thread. However, since it's worth addressing, I will.
The system of the government having the power to thrust a uniform curriculum onto students and also having the power to make that a poor curriculum is not a good system. However, in terms of raising awareness, a public school system is undeniably a way to get good widespread coverage.
Keeping in mind that sex ed is generally opt-outable by parents, and that parents can still teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes, a public education system for this public health issue is currently our best bet. This is not a question of deciding between a bad option and a good option, it's a question of a bad option and a worse option, the worse option being providing no public education on the issue at all and seeing a massive drop in awareness.
While the government is capable of introducing a bad curriculum, and it has in several states, it's still a shitty idea to give up the whole thing. A better option is to apply political pressure for an honest, factual curriculum intended to mitigate risk. The results will obviously not be perfect, but they'll certainly be a lot better than not having anything in place at all.
To give an example of what I'm talking about, 95% of unintended pregnancies in the US are caused by non-use, inconsistent use or incorrect use of contraceptives, according to a lit review by Frost, et. al. Data from Trussel suggests that the vast majority of condom failures are due to inconsistent or incorrect use. These things are preventable through education, and if you don't have a system of information with very direct and widespread coverage, you're going to see high failure rates simply because of a lack of awareness.
I'm not saying the government system is without flaws. I'm saying it's preferable to not doing anything, or to using a system with less consistent coverage.
At 2/27/10 03:41 AM, Memorize wrote:I don't support mandating abstinence only education because studies show its stupid.And yet you're ok to give the Government the power to do it.
No, I'd support giving the government the power to do the best scientifically proven thing, which is safe sex education & not abstinence only education.
Safe sex education has been shown again and again to reduce the risk of teen pregnancy & STDs which is the point of sexual education.Hey, maybe we can ban the KKK for their speech too!
That has nothing to do with the point I made. You're talking about stopping people from speaking and I'm talking about giving someone information they have a right to as a member of the human race. This isn't a free speech issue.
So, since it works, I don't mind kids being taught about it and I agree it is a good idea to do so. Such a mandate would be for the public benefit since STDs are a drain on society.Even though it's no one responsibility except for the individual.
It is the government's responsibility, in my opinion.
You didn't.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with him. You're a fuck if you think you're having 6 different arguments that are all mutually exclusive.
But the Government is!
If they taught safe sex education, yes. Its scientifically proven to work better than other programs.
That's your problem. You're only "ok" with the Government as long as it does what you THINK is right. The problem is that you don't have the intelligence to look far down the road to see the potential consequences.
The potential consequences of teaching people scientifically supported programs. I never advocated giving the government the right to teach whatever they want.
Additionally, teaching kids things is what schools are for.No.
A school is there to provide for the student to lean to get a job.
That's a lie.
Home Ec.
Personal Finance.
Gym
Health
Study Hall
The Pledge of Allegiance
Every subject you study but never use on the job.
And I'm sure there are plenty more examples.
Sex is a much large part of everyone's lives than say, Math or History.Yet not to get a job.
What if you decide to go into porn or prostitution (both of which are legal in some state)? You'd probably want to know about safe sex. Or is porn not something you're allowed to do in America now?
Don't worry, you can ignore this point, and will, since its a blatant contradiction to your argument.
Teaching children how to be safe while doing it is perhaps one of the most useful things a school could do.Still: NOT their responsibility.
Sure it is.
Nor has that EVER been the function of school.
Yes it has. It was taught at both my school and my girlfriend's school.
You twat.
I'm rubber and you're glue. Neener neener neener.
History is, by far, much more important than sex ed.
A matter of opinion. I could know nothing about Gettysburg and yet, not get aids. Sounds pretty important to me.
How can you be against going after terrorists, Gum? What are you? A sympathizer?
Why did Memorize raped and murdered a girl in 1990!?!?!?
At 3/1/10 11:44 AM, Elfer wrote:
The system of the government having the power to thrust a uniform curriculum onto students and also having the power to make that a poor curriculum is not a good system. However, in terms of raising awareness, a public school system is undeniably a way to get good widespread coverage.
Which, in the United States, is unconstitutional and therefore "illegal."
Keeping in mind that sex ed is generally opt-outable by parents, and that parents can still teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes, a public education system for this public health issue is currently our best bet.
I still like how a school, which is meant to give students the knowledge to enter the workplace, is being used to promote behavior lifestyles.
This is not a question of deciding between a bad option and a good option, it's a question of a bad option and a worse option, the worse option being providing no public education on the issue at all and seeing a massive drop in awareness.
And a huge increase in student achievement, success, and grades.
Because public education has worked out so well. Poorer quality education and just as much money payed through taxes to keep them open as a private school (which is only so expensive today because of public education and guaranteed loans by the Government).
While the government is capable of introducing a bad curriculum, and it has in several states, it's still a shitty idea to give up the whole thing.
Certainly explains why our education system in the states among public schools is a world class failure.
To give an example of what I'm talking about, 95% of unintended pregnancies in the US are caused by non-use, inconsistent use or incorrect use of contraceptives, according to a lit review by Frost, et. al.
Just because someone used it incorrectly or did not use one doesn't mean they didn't know how to use one.
It's like you expect 100% efficiency.
At 3/1/10 01:41 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
No, I'd support giving the government the power to do the best scientifically proven thing, which is safe sex education & not abstinence only education.
Both of which are useless and not the point of school.
That has nothing to do with the point I made.
Yes it does.
You're selectively deciding what to teach.
It's like the Patriot Act. You can't sit there supporting it while claiming it'll go after "only terrorists", but then complain that it's used on you when you supported giving the Government that power.
It is the government's responsibility, in my opinion.
Then you're fucking retarded.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with him. You're a fuck if you think you're having 6 different argunts that are all mutually exclusive.
You're just too stupid to understand the point.
I don't know how many I have to use before you understand it.
If they taught safe sex education, yes. Its scientifically proven to work better than other programs.
Which doesn't matter.
Still not the school's responsibility.
The potential consequences of teaching people scientifically supported programs. I never advocated giving the government the right to teach whatever they want.
That's exactly what you are doing.
But so much for neutrality and the fact that the Government has no authority to do this anyway.
You're advocating for something that's illegal in the US.
That's a lie.
Home Ec.
Elective.
Personal Finance.
Elective that can coincide with a basic math class.
Gym
Worthless.
Health
Worthless.
The Pledge of Allegiance
Which takes but 30 seconds, and isn't even required in most schools anymore.
Every subject you study but never use on the job.
How do you "study" the Pledge of Alliegence if not in a History class?
And what's the point in studying about study hall?
What if you decide to go into porn or prostitution (both of which are legal in some state)? You'd probably want to know about safe sex. Or is porn not something you're allowed to do in America now?
Unproductive.
Don't worry, you can ignore this point, and will, since its a blatant contradiction to your argument.
No, it's not a productive job.
None of these should be forcibley taught. The school should decide while the parents decide if they children go to that school. Simple as that.
Though porn was funny. Though it is a rather pathetic line of work.
Sure it is.
Once again: You're fucking retarded.
Yes it has. It was taught at both my school and my girlfriend's school.
And shouldn't have, unless it was the school's decision to teach it.
A matter of opinion. I could know nothing about Gettysburg and yet, not get aids. Sounds pretty important to me.
If you want to keep your rights, you need a population that understands constitutional law.
lol, it's idiots like you who lost all your money in the stock market.
At 3/1/10 01:48 PM, Memorize wrote:At 3/1/10 11:44 AM, Elfer wrote:However, in terms of raising awareness, a public school system is undeniably a way to get good widespread coverage.Which, in the United States, is unconstitutional and therefore "illegal."
Explain.
I still like how a school, which is meant to give students the knowledge to enter the workplace, is being used to promote behavior lifestyles.
Behaviour lifestyles like "Do this to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent the spread of communicable diseases"?
And a huge increase in student achievement, success, and grades.
Because public education has worked out so well. Poorer quality education and just as much money payed through taxes to keep them open as a private school (which is only so expensive today because of public education and guaranteed loans by the Government).
This is an entirely different issue. Even private schools should have a sex ed program.
Certainly explains why our education system in the states among public schools is a world class failure.
Yet other nations have public education systems that are working just fine. This topic is not about the public education system in general, but whether or not sexual education should be provided through an education system from a relatively young age. This issue is independent of whether or not it's a private school.
Just because someone used it incorrectly or did not use one doesn't mean they didn't know how to use one.
It's like you expect 100% efficiency.
It's a simple enough procedure that if you know how to do it right, you can do it right 100% of the time. The issue would be with the omission of non-intuitive steps. Ex: many people omit the step of blowing air onto the rolled-up condom to make sure it'll roll the right way BEFORE it makes any contact with bodily fluids.
At 3/1/10 01:59 PM, Memorize wrote: You're selectively deciding what to teach.
Someone has to. We can't trust the government or schools or parents so no one should learn anything ever. That's what your position is. Unless it gets them a job! Which is archaically stupid as well.
It's like the Patriot Act. You can't sit there supporting it while claiming it'll go after "only terrorists", but then complain that it's used on you when you supported giving the Government that power.
Not really. I don't look at education as punishment.
Then you're fucking retarded.
No u.
You're just too stupid to understand the point.
You're too stupid to make a valid point. I understand what you're saying and I'm rejecting it out of hand. There's a difference. Your ideal educational system wouldn't work very well at all. The poor would be slammed back into child labor and the rich would be the only ones with a semblance of schooling. Like it or not, public schooling is another grand socialist idea that actually works.
If they taught safe sex education, yes. Its scientifically proven to work better than other programs.Which doesn't matter.
Sure it does.
Still not the school's responsibility.
Sure it is.
That's exactly what you are doing.
No. I'm telling them they should teach the truth wherever truth can be proved to be true and wherever it would be most beneficial for everyone. I don't want them to fraudulently teach people lies.
Home Ec.Elective.
Not in middle school it wasn't.
Personal Finance.Elective that can coincide with a basic math class.
Again, not everywhere. And math classes don't teach people how to write checks and if they did, they would again not be teaching, according to you, anything a school has any right to teach.
GymWorthless.
Says you.
HealthWorthless.
Again, says you.
The Pledge of AllegianceWhich takes but 30 seconds, and isn't even required in most schools anymore.
Its still required in many, but if 30 seconds doesn't matter where DO YOU DRAW THE LINE MEZ. It takes only thirty seconds to give a short lecture on how white people should be eliminated. But that's not a problem if a school decides to do that every morning.
Every subject you study but never use on the job.How do you "study" the Pledge of Alliegence if not in a History class?
Study by rote.
And what's the point in studying about study hall?
No, a study hall in and of itself shouldn't be provided according to you because it doesn't help you get a job. Also, we should probably eliminate lunches. Schools can't be trusted not to poison the kids either.
What if you decide to go into porn or prostitution (both of which are legal in some state)? You'd probably want to know about safe sex. Or is porn not something you're allowed to do in America now?Unproductive.
Says you. OH LOOK A MATTER OF OPINION. HE'S A BIG FAT HYPOCRITE LIAR. NEENER NEENER NEENER.
It brings the cash home. It gets you off in the middle of the night mez. Its producing... something
No, it's not a productive job.
See, but now YOU'RE defining things willy nilly. I disagree because I said so. Schools shouldn't exist and no one should be taught anything because its an infringement on their right to think what they want. Anyone found guilty of teaching anyone anything I don't find to be productive to society should be thrown in jail and beaten with wet noodles!
None of these should be forcibley taught. The school should decide while the parents decide if they children go to that school. Simple as that.
But aren't schools just governments. In fact, many of them are. We can't trust the governments or the parents. You've already established that one.
Once again: You're fucking retarded.
Palin takes offense to that. ;)
If you want to keep your rights, you need a population that understands constitutional law.
Constitutional law, but not Gettysburg. We were talking about Gettysburg. Come on Mez, if you drift out too much further you're going to be lost at sea. Constitutional law can be covered in about a day. We don't need history.
lol, it's idiots like you who lost all your money in the stock market.
Wow, your ability to say the most unrelated, asinine, pompous, idiotically, depraved, false remark knows no bounds.
At 3/1/10 02:19 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Someone has to.
Oh, and YOU and the Government has teaching degrees?
I suppose next you'll want the Government to force Finance classes using a Government curriculum.
lol, but we all see the irony in that!
We can't trust the government or schools or parents so no one should learn anything ever. That's what your position is. Unless it gets them a job! Which is archaically stupid as well.
Thing are better off done locally than nationally. The smaller something is, the more efficient it is.
What's funny is that you believe the most inefficient of the group (the Government) is the best one for the job.
Not really. I don't look at education as punishment.
Once again, the analogy flies right over.
You're too stupid to make a valid point. I understand what you're saying and I'm rejecting it out of hand. There's a difference. Your ideal educational system wouldn't work very well at all.
It worked well enough before the Dept of Education came into existence in the 70's. Ever since, the cost of education has gone up while the quality has diminished.
The poor would be slammed back into child labor and the rich would be the only ones with a semblance of schooling. Like it or not, public schooling is another grand socialist idea that actually works.
Only the rich could afford schools?
Let's take a history down memory lane.
In the early 1900's, a full year's cost of tuition at Yale was around $300. Back then, people made about $5 per day working.
That means you could've worked over the summer to afford an entire years worth of tuition at one of the leading, most quality schools' in the United States.
Ever since the Government got involved?
You couldn't even afford a full year's worth of tuition at yale while working full time with a 40k a year job.
The fact is, people like you had us go from working part time for an education and graduating with no debt, to having to get Government and Private loans and graduating with $100k debt.
The poor are in worse conditions because of that.
No. I'm telling them they should teach the truth wherever truth can be proved to be true and wherever it would be most beneficial for everyone. I don't want them to fraudulently teach people lies.
Abstinence education doesn't work. But how is it a lie to tell someone that the best way of avoiding STD's and unwarranted pregnancies is to not have sex?
Not in middle school it wasn't.
Not in YOUR middle school.
See? And that's the beauty. I didn't have to take a class I didn't want or need.
Again, not everywhere. And math classes don't teach people how to write checks and if they did, they would again not be teaching, according to you, anything a school has any right to teach.
And that's what's so wonderful. The Government isn't mandating everyone to do it. But wouldn't it be nice to have the choice of schools?
Its still required in many, but if 30 seconds doesn't matter where DO YOU DRAW THE LINE MEZ.
When the Government starts demanding schools to do it.
If the Government told a school not to have the Pledge, I'd be against that. If a school demanded the schools have the pledge, I'd be against that too.
No, a study hall in and of itself shouldn't be provided according to you because it doesn't help you get a job. Also, we should probably eliminate lunches. Schools can't be trusted not to poison the kids either.
Only if the Government mandates it.
Says you. OH LOOK A MATTER OF OPINION. HE'S A BIG FAT HYPOCRITE LIAR. NEENER NEENER NEENER.
It's not production and manufacturing.
It brings the cash home. It gets you off in the middle of the night mez. Its producing... something
It has people spend money that could've been better spent on something else.
See, but now YOU'RE defining things willy nilly.
No.
Because productive jobs are jobs that produce and manufacture.
Palin takes offense to that. ;)
You're about as retarded as she is.
Constitutional law, but not Gettysburg. We were talking about Gettysburg. Come on Mez, if you drift out too much further you're going to be lost at sea. Constitutional law can be covered in about a day. We don't need history.
Yes you do.
Do I really need to explain why History is important? Or are just being stupid which would only offer proof that you do need forced sex ed?
Wow, your ability to say the most unrelated, asinine, pompous, idiotically, depraved, false remark knows no bounds.
You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about.
People lost money in the stock market as well as the Nasdaq bubble (in the 90's) because they thought they could get rich quick. Thinking paper had anything of real value and home priced would go up forever.
Point being: You weren't smart enough to see the long term trends.
Just like how Conservatives couldn't see that giving the Government the power for warrantless wiretapping to after terrorists was a stupid idea.
At 3/1/10 02:07 PM, Elfer wrote:
Explain.
Point me to that specific power in the Consitution that gives the Federal Government the power to run schools.
"illegal in the US", maybe not in Canada. Though I do find your faith in Government fascinating, especially today.
Behaviour lifestyles like "Do this to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent the spread of communicable diseases"?
Why should my tax dollars be spent to cover other people's condom use?
This is an entirely different issue. Even private schools should have a sex ed program.
So you're saying that schools that have nothing to do with the Government and weren't set up with any tax payer dollars should be forced by the Government to teach what the Government wants?
Wonderful idea!
Yet other nations have public education systems that are working just fine.
They're still shit.
Just because they're less shitty doesn't mean they're good. Only less shitty.
This topic is not about the public education system in general, but whether or not sexual education should be provided through an education system from a relatively young age. This issue is independent of whether or not it's a private school.
No, it's not.
You're wanting the Government to force even Private schools that aren't even set up with Government money, to have classes that the school (or even those who attend/parents of those who attend) don't want.
It's a simple enough procedure that if you know how to do it right, you can do it right 100% of the time.
No, you can't.
There's no such thing as 100% all the time.
At 3/1/10 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote: Oh, and YOU and the Government has teaching degrees?
Who said it was just my decision? I didn't say it was. I didn't even say it was the government's decision. I just implied that everyone should accept that scientifically, safe sex education is the best for society of all those that have been introduced so far, which is what this topic was at least remotely about. This wasn't about finance or government control until you made it about that.
This is a very specific instance where we know this is better than nothing. And regardless of your twisted moral structure teaching a kid how to put on a condom doesn't enforce a life view. Nor does teaching them about the existence of STDs and how they are spread.
Teaching sexual education is just like teaching math, or history, or science. You might need to know it someday. Its beneficial if you do. It merits having one class dedicated to it regardless of who runs the school. And if its the government that decides to enforce it, I still don't care because its the right thing to do.
It worked well enough before the Dept of Education came into existence in the 70's. Ever since, the cost of education has gone up while the quality has diminished.
Is this in regards to all forms of inflation including the advancement and growing expenses of technology, building buildings and hiring and maintaining everything?
And can you please prove that the level of education has either decreased uniformly or at the least not gotten better?
Only the rich could afford schools?
Lol, yes. Apparently you don't understand what being "poor" means. It means you don't have money. Its ok, you're a whiny self absorbed rich-enough kid. Its to be expected.
Abstinence education doesn't work. But how is it a lie to tell someone that the best way of avoiding STD's and unwarranted pregnancies is to not have sex?
Its not, but it is fraud to tell them its the only way to avoid pregnancy & STDs. You can give people facts without telling them what to do; but, YOU don't understand that.
The Government isn't mandating everyone to do it. But wouldn't it be nice to have the choice of schools?
You do have the choice of schools. You are just, also, socially responsible for those whose conditions don't allow them to choose.
Says you. OH LOOK A MATTER OF OPINION. HE'S A BIG FAT HYPOCRITE LIAR. NEENER NEENER NEENER.It's not production and manufacturing.
Sure it is. They are one of the largest grossing businesses in the United States.
It brings the cash home. It gets you off in the middle of the night mez. Its producing... somethingIt has people spend money that could've been better spent on something else.
In your opinion. See, this is where you show your true colors. You're the one who is forcing their moral code onto other people. People aren't productive if they don't meat your standards and shouldn't be afforded education.
Because productive jobs are jobs that produce and manufacture.
But they do lead to production. And they lead to families being raised that have producers in them. You are showing a naivety here I never thought you would.
Palin takes offense to that. ;)You're about as retarded as she is.
No u. lol
Yes you do.
Why, history isn't productive? Historians only write books no one wants to write, just like porn DVDs, except people want to watch porn DVDs.
Do I really need to explain why History is important? Or are just being stupid which would only offer proof that you do need forced sex ed?
I know why history is productive, but according to your flawed ideology, it isn't necessary and shouldn't be taught.
long term trends.
Want to see the long term trends of no sex ed? Look at Africa & the aids epidemic. Want to see the trends of no public schooling, look at Africa. My god man. You are a walking contradiction.
At 3/1/10 04:18 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
This is a very specific instance where we know this is better than nothing. And regardless of your twisted moral structure teaching a kid how to put on a condom doesn't enforce a life view. Nor does teaching them about the existence of STDs and how they are spread.
Only as long as the Government isn't forcing or even recommending it.
Teaching sexual education is just like teaching math, or history, or science.
No... just no...
And if its the government that decides to enforce it, I still don't care because its the right thing to do.
And this is where you're an idiot because you can only see the short term.
Is this in regards to all forms of inflation including the advancement and growing expenses of technology, building buildings and hiring and maintaining everything?
Inflation only results because of the Government, not people.
Obviously anything that is newer will be more expensive. But with Government, we stay in the old while it gradually becomes more expensive rather than cheaper.
And can you please prove that the level of education has either decreased uniformly or at the least not gotten better?
Educations rates in the US have remained steady for years. But that's my gripe. Steady isn't good enough.
Although if you could: Point to me all the public schools on this list for the US.
Lol, yes. Apparently you don't understand what being "poor" means. It means you don't have money. Its ok, you're a whiny self absorbed rich-enough kid. Its to be expected.
Last year my family made a total combined income of about $10k.
Its not, but it is fraud to tell them its the only way to avoid pregnancy & STDs. You can give people facts without telling them what to do; but, YOU don't understand that.
I support sex ed with these facts over absitenance, but that's not the Government's decision.
You do have the choice of schools. You are just, also, socially responsible for those whose conditions don't allow them to choose.
Considering the huge cost of Private Schooling (where educaation is much better than public schooling in the US) which was brought about under this bullshit guise of "we must make it more affordable for the poor" which people like you supported...
Isn't it more you're fault they don't have that choice?
Sure it is. They are one of the largest grossing businesses in the United States.
Porn is SO not as important as cars/steel/construction.
In your opinion.
No. Fact.
See, this is where you show your true colors. You're the one who is forcing their moral code onto other people. People aren't productive if they don't meat your standards and shouldn't be afforded education.
Difference being that I don't force my views onto schools which is why people don't have their choices.
I might believe teaching children sex ed is a good thing, but it doesn't mean I'm going to force all schools to teach it, because then people who don't want that do not have a choice.
And since education costs have sky-rocketted under your idea of "affordable education", you're in no position to lecture me on choices.
Why, history isn't productive? Historians only write books no one wants to write, just like porn DVDs, except people want to watch porn DVDs.
Just because people want to do something doesn't make it productive. But unlike you, I'm not going to use the Government to force a behavior.
Want to see the long term trends of no sex ed? Look at Africa & the aids epidemic. Want to see the trends of no public schooling, look at Africa. My god man. You are a walking contradiction.
You think that if the Government didn't force sex ed that there wouldn't be any?
Or if that there weren't any public schools that there wouldn't be any schools?
LOL!
Several problems with that. In order to mantain public schools, the funding has to come from somewhere. That being the tax payer. And since public school's educational quality doesn't get any better with the more money it spends, public education is a giant waste of time and money.
If the Government weren't involved in education, then we would have Private Schools that the poor could afford (noting the example of Yale where a summer's work pays for entire year's of tuition).
What are you going to do? Justify sex and public schooling because of today's high costs which are the result of the Government's public education?
lol, a self fullfilling prophecy.
At 3/1/10 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote: Point me to that specific power in the Consitution that gives the Federal Government the power to run schools.
So you meant illegal in the sense that it's illegal if the fed does it instead of the state? That makes sense.
Behaviour lifestyles like "Do this to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent the spread of communicable diseases"?Why should my tax dollars be spent to cover other people's condom use?
Why should your tax dollars be spent to do anything? It reduces waste in the system as a whole by reducing the incidence of communicable diseases and unintentional pregnancies (which cost taxpayers a whole lot more than sex ed).
So you're saying that schools that have nothing to do with the Government and weren't set up with any tax payer dollars should be forced by the Government to teach what the Government wants?
Wonderful idea!
I'm saying: Even private schools should have a sex ed program. Like how I might say "Even private schools should teach math."
Even if the government doesn't give an exact curriculum for private schools should follow, there should at least be some minimum standards. Sex ed is important for public health whether or not you think sex is icky.
Yet other nations have public education systems that are working just fine.They're still shit.
Just because they're less shitty doesn't mean they're good. Only less shitty.
There's a fair of lousy private schools out there too. I also highly, highly doubt that you have anything to back up that there are no good public schools in the entire world. I'm also quite skeptical of the ability of private schooling to outperform public schooling as a whole on policy alone. One of the reasons that good private schools have high-performing students is that they have selective enrollment practices. If you took an underperforming inner-city school and moved the entire student body to a private school with the same funding, do you think all the problems would magically go away?
You're wanting the Government to force even Private schools that aren't even set up with Government money, to have classes that the school (or even those who attend/parents of those who attend) don't want.
What I want is a sex ed campaign that, one way or another, reaches as much of the population as possible. As I noted earlier, if parents are truly concerned about it, most sex ed programs that I'm aware of are opt-outable. The point is that there is important, practical knowledge to be disseminated that directly affects virtually all of the population at some point in their lives.
It's a simple enough procedure that if you know how to do it right, you can do it right 100% of the time.No, you can't.
There's no such thing as 100% all the time.
Yes there is. Humans die, and this is something you'd have to do what, ten thousand times or so? And if you make an error, you can throw it away and get a new one out. Obviously we'll never get 100% perfect use for the whole population, but the point I was trying to make is that it's possible for individuals to execute the procedure properly all the time.
At 3/1/10 05:29 PM, Elfer wrote:
So you meant illegal in the sense that it's illegal if the fed does it instead of the state? That makes sense.
The states (in the US) can do as they wish.
Why should your tax dollars be spent to do anything?
You're right.
Why should they?
It reduces waste in the system as a whole by reducing the incidence of communicable diseases and unintentional pregnancies (which cost taxpayers a whole lot more than sex ed).
That's only because once those people "screw" (lol) up, other are made to pay for their mistakes, which they shouldn't be.
Even if the government doesn't give an exact curriculum for private schools should follow, there should at least be some minimum standards. Sex ed is important for public health whether or not you think sex is icky.
No Child is a Wonderful success...
There's a fair of lousy private schools out there too. I also highly, highly doubt that you have anything to back up that there are no good public schools in the entire world.
Public schools can operate very well without Government regulation... since our Government loves applying the average to everything.
I'm also quite skeptical of the ability of private schooling to outperform public schooling as a whole on policy alone. One of the reasons that good private schools have high-performing students is that they have selective enrollment practices.
It's not hard to get into a Private School.
Hell it's easier for minorities to get into a private school. Affirmative action and whatnot. More grants, scholarships...
If you took an underperforming inner-city school and moved the entire student body to a private school with the same funding, do you think all the problems would magically go away?
Probly.
Private School teachers who aren't involved with our Teacher's Union can actually be fired in less than two years for poor results.
What I want is a sex ed campaign that, one way or another, reaches as much of the population as possible. As I noted earlier, if parents are truly concerned about it, most sex ed programs that I'm aware of are opt-outable. The point is that there is important, practical knowledge to be disseminated that directly affects virtually all of the population at some point in their lives.
As they say, the best form of Government is a Dictatorship when the right person is in charge.
Yes there is. Humans die, and this is something you'd have to do what, ten thousand times or so?
Oh sure, pick the one thing can happen only once... unless you're clinically dead and revived... hm...
At 3/2/10 01:13 AM, Memorize wrote:At 3/1/10 05:29 PM, Elfer wrote:So you meant illegal in the sense that it's illegal if the fed does it instead of the state? That makes sense.The states (in the US) can do as they wish.
Yeah, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant "Yes, you're correct." That doesn't mean the states shouldn't implement sex ed though, so it's irrelevant.
Why should your tax dollars be spent to do anything?You're right.
Why should they?
Because some things are natural monopolies, like roads, long-distance energy transmission, municipal wastewater treatment, law enforcement, etc.
Like I keep telling you, the things you're bringing up are outside the scope of this topic. The issue is "Should sex ed be taught to everyone from a relatively young age?"
It reduces waste in the system as a whole by reducing the incidence of communicable diseases and unintentional pregnancies (which cost taxpayers a whole lot more than sex ed).That's only because once those people "screw" (lol) up, other are made to pay for their mistakes, which they shouldn't be.
Maybe so, but when the screw-up is something along the lines of a communicable disease, it's always in the public interest to try to stem the flow of those screw-ups. If everyone maintained excellent hygienic practices, flu shots would be unnecessary, but look, we still have them.
Sex ed is important for public health whether or not you think sex is icky.No Child is a Wonderful success...
Yeah uh, what?
There's a fair of lousy private schools out there too. I also highly, highly doubt that you have anything to back up that there are no good public schools in the entire world.Public schools can operate very well without Government regulation... since our Government loves applying the average to everything.
Again, what? The words you're writing down have nothing to do with what I'm trying to say to you.
It's not hard to get into a Private School.
It might seem that way, but that's because poor kids who are already failing in public schools aren't the ones applying to private schools.
If you took an underperforming inner-city school and moved the entire student body to a private school with the same funding, do you think all the problems would magically go away?Probly.
Private School teachers who aren't involved with our Teacher's Union can actually be fired in less than two years for poor results.
But this doesn't mean that you're going to instantly get good results. What I'm saying is that private schools are getting the best results because they have the best raw materials to work with, because they can be selective about who works there and who studies there, and the rest default to the public system. If all students and all teachers were at public schools, the average would drop.
It's like if you have barrels of produce ranging from very fresh to wilted and rotting, and you say to one chef "Here, pick out the 10% of the produce you most want to work with," Then dividing the rest up randomly amongst nine other chefs. Obviously the one who picked out the best ingredients is going to produce the best results, but that doesn't mean he's inherently better at cooking.
What I want is a sex ed campaign that, one way or another, reaches as much of the population as possible. As I noted earlier, if parents are truly concerned about it, most sex ed programs that I'm aware of are opt-outable. The point is that there is important, practical knowledge to be disseminated that directly affects virtually all of the population at some point in their lives.As they say, the best form of Government is a Dictatorship when the right person is in charge.
Yes there is. Humans die, and this is something you'd have to do what, ten thousand times or so?Oh sure, pick the one thing can happen only once... unless you're clinically dead and revived... hm...
No, I mean that there IS such a thing as 100% of the time when you're talking about a finite number of events. Despite the fact that occasionally a luger will die on the track, for the most part lugers complete 100% of their runs without dying and then retire. Similarly, someone can put on a condom 100% of the time without failure before they die.
At 2/27/10 03:41 AM, Memorize wrote:At 2/26/10 09:12 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:Go get a tin foil hat.
GoS is right, however. You're arguing from ideology far more than from sense. Maybe if we overhauled the entire education system then your argument would hold some weight, however schools exist to instil some kind of attitude in our young people which is allegedly beneficial to society. Work hard, shut your mouth, respect your boss, use your head, look both ways before you cross, occasionally read a good book, and wear a condom. If teaching safe sex is inherently wrong because it's 'government brainwashing', then so is shouting at kids when they backtalk the teacher.
Like, surely discipline is the family's responsibility and not the school's? If I want to raise a messed up little bastard, why should the school challenge my authority? Where is the line drawn?
I understand your ideological points, but the argument that schools shouldn't 'brainwash' kids died a death a long time ago, and in the education system we've got, it surely challenges your ideology just as much to tell kids to wear a condom as it is to tell them how to cross the road or perform CPR or swim or to learn their times tables.
If you don't trust a school to teach your child history or health or how to cook then I can understand why you wouldn't trust this either.History is, by far, much more important than sex ed.
No it's not. Without sex ed, there'd be far fewer people with time to study history. I think most sexually active people would have several children and STDs would be rampant were we not properly educated on contraception, which would make our civilisation's progress a lot slower.
And improving civilisation by teaching kids important things and teaching them important values is the role we have given to schools, which you're arguing against. And, itt, the majority thinks that contraceptive use is an important value to teach kids, and so does the Government, and so does your teacher.
I suppose this is an interesting angle to argue from itt, rather than 'sex ed is bad for the kids', but you're arguing to fundamentally alter the purpose of schooling imo. And yes, there are theories on how to make schools better, but I'd still like to see sex ed being taught, along with food safety and road safety. As well as things that broaden the mind. Most shit you learn at school is unnecessary in most careers.
Should 'The Man' force every school to teach Sex Ed? Well, The Man forces every school to teach a lot of useless shit. While 'The Man' is in this position, it may as well force schools to teach important shit that might save your life or at least improve your career potential.
btw Memorize stop calling people a twat, I'd have been more interested in your rebuttals if you had managed to keep your head and not be an e-cunt.
Do you have a kid?
At 3/2/10 07:06 PM, Earfetish wrote:
GoS is right, however. You're arguing from ideology far more than from sense.
Except that my argument is neutral while your's is based on force.
No it's not. Without sex ed, there'd be far fewer people with time to study history. I think most sexually active people would have several children and STDs would be rampant were we not properly educated on contraception, which would make our civilisation's progress a lot slower.
Right, because that was certainly happening before we had these classes.
And improving civilisation by teaching kids important things and teaching them important values is the role we have given to schools, which you're arguing against.
No.
You've selectively chosen YOUR values and forced school's to teach them.
You would be bitching endlessly if other values were forced.
And, itt, the majority thinks that contraceptive use is an important value to teach kids, and so does the Government, and so does your teacher.
Once again: Not the responsibility of the school or Government.
And really? After the last decade, you're honestly using the Government's opinion as a measure of support?
LOL!
I suppose this is an interesting angle to argue from itt, rather than 'sex ed is bad for the kids', but you're arguing to fundamentally alter the purpose of schooling imo. And yes, there are theories on how to make schools better, but I'd still like to see sex ed being taught, along with food safety and road safety. As well as things that broaden the mind. Most shit you learn at school is unnecessary in most careers.
So would I, but I'm not going to use the Government to force Private Schools that have nothing to do with the Government to teach those classes.
If a school wants to teach Calculus, that's fine. If the Government forces a school to teach it, that's not.
Should 'The Man' force every school to teach Sex Ed? Well, The Man forces every school to teach a lot of useless shit.
Then why do you continue to support them being able to do that?
btw Memorize stop calling people a twat,
You're a twat.
If the Government didn't 'force' schools to teach certain subjects, then certain schools would teach a retarded education and certain kids would not learn anything useful. If 90% of kids leave a certain primary (elementary) school not knowing how to tell the time or their left from their right, or how to read, or to look both ways and not be cheeky to your teacher, then the school should be closed down and the taxpayer should be appalled at funding it.
The democracy has decided it wants all kids to be taught certain important things and public schools have got to do what the people want.
Half of me thinks it should be within your freedom to send your kid to a private school, where they can learn Creationism and that pi equals 4 and that condoms don't work at all, but the other half of me thinks 'hey wait a minute, that's child abuse'. Within the public schooling system it seems more clear-cut; every child's education should reflect the consensus of the people.
I live in a state notorious for its hyperconservative butthurt politicians, so there is no such thing as sex ed in schools around here. I was homeschooled for a number of years, and my mother taught me nothing about sex. In short, the closest I had to formal sex education was a crash course in anatomy and Internet pornography (though I didn't know that was what it was at the time). All thanks to the religious assholes who ripped the sex ed curriculum out of schools.
So, would you rather have kids learn about sex in a controlled, professional (hopefully) educational environment or would you rather have them be forced to experiment like I did or worse? That's the point I and others have been trying to make for years, and the right-wing nutjobs (i.e. Fox News) just don't seem to get it.
At 3/2/10 07:50 PM, Memorize wrote:At 3/2/10 07:06 PM, Earfetish wrote: And, itt, the majority thinks that contraceptive use is an important value to teach kids, and so does the Government, and so does your teacher.Once again: Not the responsibility of the school or Government.
It becomes the responsibility of the school or government when education in the home is, on average, poor enough that it's becoming a public health issue. Similarly, this is why flu vaccines are available for free at clinics, instead of people having to purchase them individually and either self-administer or arrange for someone to administer the shot.
If you're going to claim it's not the responsibility of the government to intervene in public issues, then provide some justification for that instead of just stating it.
I think they should, but probably not at the age of ten. Maybe twelve or thirteen.
Personally, my sex education started at around 3. I don't know how I came accross porn, but I might have typed in "porn" in google way back when. From then on, it grew and grew and grew. Self-experiance, in my opinion, is the best. Somehow I feel that society's safety standard on "children" to be bullshit.
Oh look! Titties! We must destroy the credibility of this, and shield our children's eyes. This is a reason why you cannot take a piss in your own backyard. Oh little Johhny might see, let's put you on there as a sex offender.
You cannot simply teach children sex at an early age either. They will be too bored with it, or take it the wrong way. Let them learn for themselves. They would be more likely to benefit from that, than to sit around listening to people while all that goes through their heads is, "blah blah blah". Well if that dosn't make sense then the shorter version would be : Teaching them = They wont listen, Having them be self-taught = Learning something.
Anyone also notice that in the ancient times, now I am going a little off here, that sex was free and people were smarter? And technology grew faster, when Christianity was not around. And now that it is, all of us have to be shielded from ourselves lest we suffer.
At 3/15/10 08:06 PM, letiger wrote: You cannot simply teach children sex at an early age either. They will be too bored with it, or take it the wrong way. Let them learn for themselves. They would be more likely to benefit from that, than to sit around listening to people while all that goes through their heads is, "blah blah blah". Well if that dosn't make sense then the shorter version would be : Teaching them = They wont listen, Having them be self-taught = Learning something.
I don't have to jump out of an airplane understand the consequences of not taking the proper precautions for a long drop. Teaching should be good enough to get the point across.
Anyone also notice that in the ancient times, now I am going a little off here, that sex was free and people were smarter?
:and people were smarter?
:smarter?
Are you serious?
At 3/10/10 01:22 PM, Elfer wrote:
It becomes the responsibility of the school or government
No, it doesn't.
when education in the home is, on average, poor enough that it's becoming a public health issue.
One person getting aids from sleeping with anyone who jumps out of the bushes does not affect me.
But whatever excuse you want to use...
Similarly, this is why flu vaccines are available for free at clinics, instead of people having to purchase them individually and either self-administer or arrange for someone to administer the shot.
And why should anything that requires people to produce, work, and manufacture ever be free?
Oh, right. There's no such thing as free. It's a poor little substitute for "taking if from your taxes by force."
If you're going to claim it's not the responsibility of the government to intervene in public issues, then provide some justification for that instead of just stating it.
I'm kind of curious...
You're the one saying that it's outside the responsibility of the home, YOU prove it.
LOL! I love how suddenly you've taken the stance that you regularly chide god-believing people for.
Holy Hypocrisies, Batman!
At 3/16/10 12:29 AM, Memorize wrote: One person getting aids from sleeping with anyone who jumps out of the bushes does not affect me.
Right...
And why should anything that requires people to produce, work, and manufacture ever be free?
Because it's cheaper in the long run. The public cost of flu vaccines are far, far less than those racked up by emergency hospital visits of flu victims. So either way you're paying... do you want it to be more, or less?
Similarly with sex education in schools. We have a net benefit in education and a lowering of costs associated with hospital and chronic health care for the (usually poor) people who would otherwise become infected. Either way you are going to pay for it with those forced taxes of yours. Do you want to pay more, or less?
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 3/15/10 11:11 PM, dySWN wrote:
and people were smarter?smarter?Are you serious?
I didn;t mean smarter in a sense of technology and things like that.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
