Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Yes you are:
Abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. I'll write that again: abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. It's entirely unscientific. It's the sex education version of creationism.
What you support is not called abstinence only, it's called regular sex education.
|
I disagree with your definition of "abstinence only". In order to teach someone to abstain from something, don't they have to know what they are abstaining from, and wouldn't be good to know why?
Your view of "abstinence only" makes no sense to me. I have never talked to a person who is against teaching reproductive science at all. I have talked to some who are against certain human related sex education teaching methods, illustrations, books, demonstrations, films, etc. I also know some who are more conservative than I am and have problems with certain words or descriptions of certain things using common adult vocabulary. But I find your definition so extreme that I doubt you could find many who would actually agree with it.
---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
These are terms that mean things, ace. When Palin says "abstinence-only", there's a code she's talking in that you appear to have missed.
|
Oh, the secrete code. You are correct, I don't have access to the secrete code. My, my, we could have concluded this a long time ago, if only you had referenced the "secrete code" to begin with.
