Whoa is something wrong here.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:11 pm

guess; however the parents null is talking about would've slacked or never attended these \"Accountability classes\" to begin with

Not if they were taught about it in School like they are \"teaching\" those 12 year olds about Anal Sex

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:11 pm

null0010 wrote:Personal responsibility is the aim of this type of education. The point of it is to get young people to make responsible decisions about sex (defining "irresponsible" as "having sex without protecting yourself against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases") by providing them with as much information as possible about the subject matter so they can make the most informed decision. Ignorance is not conductive to responsibility.

Well, that’s just the point…That survey doesn’t give all of the possible information…does it?

It begins with a assumption.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:14 pm

CUDA wrote:SO are you implying that all men are John's and all women are Whores? my point is valid, there are exceptions to every rule.

No, the reality is between these two harsh extremes you have created.

CUDA wrote:you apparently didn't read the story. this was not just an education class. it was a Survey about sexual practices. why are you surveying a 12 year old about Anal Sex?

I was speaking about sex education in general, not this specific case, which I agree was very poorly conducted.

CUDA wrote:NO if we had had more accountability classes in school when I grew up we wouldn't have the need for sex education classes for 12 year old's in school today

That's... the point of sex education classes, you know.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:44 pm

If being accountable was ONLY about Sex ed classes. life would be so much easier. But it's not.
Not to mention Sex Ed classes today are mainly for the Purpose of protecting you from a disease and from unwanted pregancies, not to teach you to be accountable for your actions.

Being accountable is called having Character. you do whats right because it's right. in EVERY aspect of your life, not just how you act in bed.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:53 pm

Okay, well, it's much easier to have sex education classes than it is to force everyone to be responsible about everything, all of the time.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:42 pm

null0010 wrote:Okay, well, it's much easier to have sex education classes than it is to force everyone to be responsible about everything, all of the time.

You see that's the problem. It's easier than being responsible. Everything is easier than being responsible. Might as well legalize crack cocaine usage.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:38 pm

I'd have to agree with both Lothar and Cuda on this one. I have a 17 year old girl who I have been very frank with concerning sex or anything else actually. Ultimately it is their decision so the best way is to educate them in it's entirety and not be a wuss when it comes to talking to your kids. I tell mine it's their decision and then try to give them all the reasons I can think of why they should wait, which are all valid reasons. Gotta be honest though, because everyone wants their waffles tossed. I constantly find myself having to unteach what my children hear in school. It takes and individual approach and no 2 kids are the same. What one responds to another won't. It's the parents responsibility to prepare their children for real life and schools are entirely ineffective at these things because they teach one size fits all.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:10 pm

It’s a 17 year old's decision…but at 12 you can still lock them in their room.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:23 pm

Heh I wish it was that simple. I've heard stories here about 12 year olds and younger being caught in the school bathrooms getting it on. I don't really think there's much you can do about that, but having some goofy ass teacher who wants to facebook with my children, teach them about sex is not gonna happen either. Not on my watch.
We are just the unlucky individuals who get to witness the degradation of a once great nation. Nothing new and IMHO inevitable. Seems to be the norm throughout history once a people reach this point. The sad part is that we are without excuse because we are witnesses to it from history. When people lose restraint and morals it ALWAYS ends up in their being oppressed and eventual destruction. Heh, now I'm gonna be labeled as an alarmist, fatalist, fearmonger regardless if it's the truth or not. I'm ok with that

.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:27 pm

flip wrote:When people lose restraint and morals it ALWAYS ends up in their being oppressed and eventual destruction.

Citation needed?

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:29 pm

ROFL, now who's being lazy. Some things just speak for themselves.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:32 pm

flip wrote:Some things just speak for themselves.

No, they really don't. The only story I can think of that matches your statement is the Fall of the Eldar, and that's backstory for a tabletop wargame.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:35 pm

\"The only thing you can think of\" comes nowhere near to taking \"all the things you can't think of\" into account. Are you just talking to be talking are do you have an actual rebuttal?

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:37 pm

No, I just want to know your example. Tell me what historical situation you were thinking of when you typed this:

flip wrote:When people lose restraint and morals it ALWAYS ends up in their being oppressed and eventual destruction.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:42 pm

Alright, I'll do that but first you must answer me this. What in your opinion happens to a society when they cast off restraint and become lawless?

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:44 pm

flip wrote:Alright, I'll do that but first you must answer me this. What in your opinion happens to a society when they cast off restraint and become lawless?

Lawlessness and a different set of morality are two different concepts.

But you only have to look one place to find out what happens without laws.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:48 pm

No effort from you means no effort from me. I'm pretty sure we both realize what I mean by lawlessness in the context of this discussion.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:06 pm

No flip, it’s not that easy…but I’m pretty sure you know what I meant.

When I was 12, my life was under constant scrutiny, I couldn’t go anywhere without telling my parents where I was going or who I was with.

And finding a place to have sex was impossible, and to even have to look for a place, would imply I was doing something wrong, and I knew it.

But sex wasn’t even on my mind at 12, so you have to wonder why it’s on some 12 year old’s mind today…never mind…I already know.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:33 pm

Yeah I knew what you meant Spidey. I guess the problem now is that the world is full of enablers.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:28 am

It would appear we are missing the one question as to why there is a need to teach 12 year olds about anal sex and std's. Could it be in the programing finds on even prime time sit-coms? With the air waves filled with sexual innuendo, is it any wonder that ever younger children want to experiment? Perhaps things will get to a point where the pendulum will swing the other way and censorship will once again take control of TV. Don't complain when it happens tho, we can see how well the programming moguls are able to police themselves.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:32 am

Lothar wrote:
I'm well aware that I'm encouraging woodchip. Are you aware of how much you encourage him?

I should think by now, most of you would agree I certainly do not need to be encouraged or discouraged in the manner in which I post.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:09 pm

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:33 pm

That makes her an unqualified parent.

So what makes you qualified to comment on this subject??

Parents should not have the right to be selective as to what their child is taught in schools

Spoken like someone that has No children.

We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behavior.

~ Andrew Jones

would you be OK with this if the Government chose to teach religion in schools or Abstinence only Sex Ed?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:41 pm

Bet51987 wrote:You mentioned Sarah Palin and that's a good example. Opting out her daughter Bristol from comprehensive sex ed in favor of home schooled abstinence resulted in her daughter having unprotected sex. That makes her an unqualified parent.

That’s an unfounded assumption.

Take giving out condoms for example…you give a kid a condom, what does that kid think? Well you just gave the kid a condom, it’s for having sex right.

The kid goes home, throws the condom in the trash, then proceeds to have sex without it…why…because condoms suck, and people hate to use them, that’s why.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:51 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I thought you and and I have had serious discussions on several topics in past threads

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Seems like 50/50 whether you'll actually argue with me or make up an imaginary me to argue against. The post I'm responding to was about 50/50 as well.

As far as that image is concerned I stand by it 100% because it reflects the mindset of many of the religious/conservatives and it fits the conversation perfectly.

Look up "Social Conservatism"

So what you're saying is, you're going to argue against a position nobody here has espoused, because it fits a stereotype you hold?

Where should I look up "social conservatism"? I know a lot of people who describe themselves as social conservatives who don't meet the stereotype you keep insisting is valid. I don't meet the stereotype. CUDA doesn't meet it. Can you name any of us who do?

Gov. Sarah Palin is among that group. In response to a questionnaire during Alaska's gubernatorial race, Palin said, "I am opposed to explicit sex education."

.... Opting out her daughter Bristol from comprehensive sex ed in favor of home schooled abstinence resulted in her daughter having unprotected sex.

She's never given a clear definition of "explicit", but she's said that contraceptives are OK. She isn't for "abstinence only" education, which is what you were harping on when I brought her up. The sentence you quoted has been brought up time and time again, but it's very misleading to quote it without the rest of her statements about sex ed.

I've never seen any indication that Bristol Palin was given "abstinence only" sex ed. Sarah Palin's stated position from prior to Bristol's pregnancy is that "kids who may not hear about [contraceptives] at home should hear about it in other avenues" and that she is "pro-contraception".

Point being, even she doesn't fit the specific stereotype given in your earlier post, nor the misleading characterization given in this one based on a single out-of-context quote. So where are all these "social conservatives" who want abstinence-only sex ed?

If... enough up-tight religious/conservative parents control what is being taught in their local schools (Kansas, Texas, etc) then their children may receive abstinence only education....

you haven't shown me ... all parents are responsible parents....

guidelines for what is taught should be the job of professionals

Can you show me a scientific paper that all school boards -- the professionals who set up sex ed curriculum -- are responsible? Obviously you don't believe it to be true, from the first quoted sentence.

It's important for kids to get quality sex ed. I don't trust the school boards to do a good job of it, and based on your comments here, neither do you. So why do you think it's a good idea for the school board to be able to hide what they're teaching? Wouldn't it be better for the school board to have to be completely open about what they're teaching, so that if they go crazy -- either Texas/Kansas style, or anal-sex-to-8-year-olds style, or woodchip style -- parents can push back?

Education should involve professional educators and parents working together. Cutting parents out of the equation is a bad idea.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:38 pm

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:03 pm

Bee, in no way did I make \"your\" point, but as usual…you missed mine.

So now for those who actually get my points...

If the parent can’t stop the child from having sex, they sure as hell can’t “make them wear a condom”.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:29 pm

No Spidey, you gotta be sneaky about it. What about a hip cartoon lobster that wares a condom and sunglasses for pre-teens, so they think it's cool when they're of age?

->

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:02 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I need to know if this is one of those posts you feel is a waste of time.

Yes, it is. Here's why:

In the part of the post addressed to me, you argued two things.

First, you argued for "comprehensive sex education", which is ground we've already covered, and I've agreed with you. I've argued for an even more comprehensive form of sex education, including emotional vulnerability and such, which apparently to you means I'm "very close" to a stereotype of abstinence-only sex education; I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Second, you made a series of statements about how "social conservatives" are against it, even though nobody in this thread has taken that position. One example you've returned to is Palin, but that's a house of cards based on one misleading quote about "explicit" sex ed. Then you're giving me a wikipedia article defining "social conservatism" in broad terms, which doesn't even mention sex education, and then insisting that the stereotype is valid because "many" people "who make the news" fit it, as if Christine O'Donnell is making the news for being normal instead of making the news for being nuts.

So, again: you're arguing against a weak stereotype, instead of addressing the real views of the people involved in this thread. That's what makes it a waste of time.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:19 pm

Isaac wrote:No Spidey, you gotta be sneaky about it. What about a hip cartoon lobster that wares a condom and sunglasses for pre-teens, so they think it's cool when they're of age?

->

You might be on to something.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:26 pm

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:31 pm

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:43 pm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:47 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Lothar wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:I need to know if this is one of those posts you feel is a waste of time.
Yes, it is.
Ok, this will save us from wasting time. We'll use it more often.

A better solution would be to more often converse with real people instead of arguing with the stereotypes you imagine for us.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:31 am

Bet51987 wrote:
Spidey wrote:Bee, in no way did I make "your" point, but as usual…you missed mine.

So now for those who actually get my points...

If the parent can’t stop the child from having sex, they sure as hell can’t “make them wear a condom”.
You're wrong Spidey but no offense.

Bee

what.. you think a parent will just walk in and say 'hey son, put this on'??

I think the best thing for you to do bee, is to slow down your activity here, and go out into the world to learn a few things.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:28 am

This is one of those rare days that I agree with Ferno.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:53 am

Another fine example of our public school system doing things the way they want to do them

The Cincinnati Public Schools system \"expressly denies\" that it did anything wrong when it allowed a group of high school students to be bused during school hours to the Board of Elections, to be shown sample ballots that included only Democrats, and then to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10 ... rict-says/

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:12 pm

CUDA wrote:Another fine example of our public school system doing things the way they want to do them

The Cincinnati Public Schools system "expressly denies" that it did anything wrong when it allowed a group of high school students to be bused during school hours to the Board of Elections, to be shown sample ballots that included only Democrats, and then to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10 ... rict-says/

I think the use of nonrestrictive commas in that last sentence implies that the only people running happened to be Democrat.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:14 pm

So they were just taking kids to go vote...

(Having issues with edits on the site.)

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:50 am

CUDA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10 ... rict-says/

see, I have a problem with stories like that. It points the finger at democrat electees, but doesn't tell us a single name.

are we supposed to take them at their word that there were only democrats on the ballot? Personally, I find that very dubious.

Straight from the story it reads that the attorney was 'unable to provide any more details'. That by itself gives me cause for concern.

Whoa is something wrong here.

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: