Sarah Palin: Sex Ed debate - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 07-10-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

none of them quit the job they were elected to and took an oath to perform. Palin sold out her state for money...

She stated why she resigned and there were several reasons, to say she resigned for money is to assume something you do not know. She agree to the book deal before resigning. She has been getting political donations amounting to large totals which could cover her legal bills before resigning. There is no guarantee that she will get a TV show and anything else. We do know Clinton received large sums of money creating a conflict of interest for Hilary. We do know that political patronage is wrong. And we do know that Gore is full of it, with his -the world is going to end - while making investments in the solution he pitches.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

We have ages of consent to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults.

I looked this up, here is a good recap:

Quote:

How old does a person have to be to have sex? How old can their partner be? Is it OK to have sex with somebody who is older than you are or do you have to be the same age? What is meant by "the age of consent"?

A:

This is a very good question, and the answer is extremely confusing. In order to make the explanation easier to follow there are a few terms you should know. I will use these terms frequently in answering this question. So, for the sake of clarity, I will define them at the top of the page. If you know what the Age of Consent is, you can go directly to our North America Chart.

Age of Consent Chart for North America

Definitions:

Age of Consent: The age at which you can legally enter in to contract or agreements, including saying "yes" to having sex. Usually this age is between 14 and 17, although it can be as young as 12 and as old as 18.

Age of Majority: The age at which you are considered responsible and liable for actions or inactions under the law. This is not the same as the age you must be to; drive, smoke, drink alcohol, be forced in to the military or even vote. In most parts of the world the age of majority is 18 or 19.

Statutory Rape: (3 possibilities) Usually: someone over the age of consent having sex with somebody who has not yet reached the age of consent. More Commonly: a person at or over the age of majority having sex with somebody under the age of consent. Can Also Mean: a person at or over the age of majority having sex with someone who has not yet reached the age of majority or having sex with some one who is 4 or more years younger.

Sexual Intercourse: It is totally biased, but for the sake of most laws, "sex" refers to heterosexual contact between a male and a female. Some countries don't define sex in this term, instead referring to "sexual acts" that include a variety of sexual activities.

"Other" Sex: In the law, also referred to as "oral sex", "anal sex" or "sodomy" (In some parts of the planet this is blanketed under "unnatural acts" - but we won't even dignify this bigotry with any serious mention). Some countries actually make these acts illegal and others have a different age of consent for them. Also, depending on where you live, this may be included in the broad definition given to "sexual acts".

Parental Consent: Your parents permission, be it verbal or written, implied or expressed. (FYI - a parent who buys you condoms but never says "it's OK for you to have sex" could be said to be giving implied consent).

Heterosexual: Relations between members of the opposite sex; female and male.

Homosexual: Relations between members of the same sex; female to female, male to male.

Teen Life Q & A - Peer Pressure - How old do you have to be to legally have sex?

Willravel · 07-10-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not clear on your position on this subject. What would you have the schools teach the 16 year-old about the decision to have sex or not?

The decision? Nothing. The decision isn't up to the schools, just explaining the consequences. Schools don't teach people how to live, but how the world works (at least they're supposed to).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In my view the answer should be 16 year old children should abstain from having sex.

You support the teaching of the "morality of sex", then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I looked this up, here is a good recap:

But still, the primary function of the age of consent is to prevent adults from taking sexual advantage of children. It's why a 16 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, but a 40 year old can't. I think we're getting off topic, though.

loquitur · 07-10-2009, 11:38 AM

OK, I forget where I read this but someone said the best way to stir up controversy and get comments is a headline "Palin says Israel and China are wrong on abortion."

Gotta admit, that's funny.

Willravel · 07-10-2009, 12:03 PM

"Unwed teenage Arab pot smoking couples protest in favor of evolutionist abortions"
"Gay Muslim Democrat takes guns from hard working Americans"

aceventura3 · 07-11-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The decision? Nothing. The decision isn't up to the schools, just explaining the consequences. Schools don't teach people how to live, but how the world works (at least they're supposed to).

You support the teaching of the "morality of sex", then.

I don't think children can make informed choices regarding sex. I think the law agrees with me. I think children should abstain from having sex. I think children should be given an education based on the science of sex. I think the standard response from schools (when the question comes up) is that children should abstain from sexual activity - I do not think they should be told that ...if you are going to have sex, this is how you.... I think it is wrong for adults to validate/encourage, in any manner, children to decide to engage in sexual activity.

I feel the same about recreational alcohol, illegal drugs, smoking, chewing tobacco, tattoos and probably a few other things that don't come to mind right now. And you could basically substitute "sex" for any of those other words in the above and I would be comfortable with it. If you call that teaching "morality", then I am guilty as charged.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Are you sure Gore is profiting?

Yes. Or, at least he wants to.

Understand, I don't have a problem with people making money - even a boat load of money - I just have a problem when they have a pretentious attitude about it or look down on those who are honest about their motive to make money.

For example, Ralph Nader. Given his rhetoric, what do you think his net worth is? According to this source in 2000 - it was $3 million.

Quote:

According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, he then owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds. Nader owned no car or real estate in 2000, and said he lived on US$25,000 a year, giving most of his stock earnings to many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he had founded.[67][68]

Ralph Nader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willravel · 07-11-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think children can make informed choices regarding sex.

The experts (read: people with advanced degrees in sciences that actually record and interpret data) all agree that the best thing to do is to teach children and young adults how to be responsibly sexual. While I respect your opinion, when weighed against the real data it would seem that those children that are taught about contraceptives and responsible sex practices are less likely to be infected with STDs and are less likely to have an accidental pregnancy. Abstinence, on the other hand, has repeatedly been demonstrated to have the opposite effect.

I'd be glad to retrieve some bookmarked articles to back this up if you'd like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the law agrees with me.

Due respect to politicians, but it would seem very few of them are scientifically literate, especially socially conservative politicians. You may be looking to the wrong people on this issue.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes. Or, at least he wants to.

Socialists don't care about profit.

ratbastid · 07-11-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think children can make informed choices regarding sex. I think the law agrees with me. I think children should abstain from having sex. I think children should be given an education based on the science of sex. I think the standard response from schools (when the question comes up) is that children should abstain from sexual activity - I do not think they should be told that ...if you are going to have sex, this is how you.... I think it is wrong for adults to validate/encourage, in any manner, children to decide to engage in sexual activity.

I feel the same about recreational alcohol, illegal drugs, smoking, chewing tobacco, tattoos and probably a few other things that don't come to mind right now. And you could basically substitute "sex" for any of those other words in the above and I would be comfortable with it. If you call that teaching "morality", then I am guilty as charged.

And you do know that this attitude is entirely, 100% at odds with Palin's views? Palin feels it should be the job of the nanny-state public schools to inculcate abstinence as the only valid means of staying free of disease and offspring, violating both science and the free exercise of parental moral education. And you're okay with that?

aceventura3 · 07-11-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

And you do know that this attitude is entirely, 100% at odds with Palin's views?

I don't agree with Palin on everything. I don't agree with anyone on everything. However, with Palin I know if we disagree it is not because we have opposing goals or objectives. I think her position is based on what she thinks is best for children as is mine. I am not saying that people who are much more liberal on this issue than I am are not thinking about what is best for children, some do. But, some have other agendas. Like I wrote earlier, I could have voted for Hillery Clinton because I trust her, even though I disagree with her. I also have respect for a guy like Dennis Kucinch, he seems to act in a manner consistent with his views, but in his case I think his views are simply too extreme - but I like the fact that he is a part of the debate.

Quote:

Palin feels it should be the job of the nanny-state public schools to inculcate abstinence as the only valid means of staying free of disease and offspring, violating both science and the free exercise of parental moral education. And you're okay with that?

Again, I am not sure that is correct. When I am asked about "abstinence only", and not given an opportunity to clarify what it means to me, it would come out as, yes, I support "abstinence only"

{added} From post #187 Will included a link to this question of Palin and her answer.

Quote:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Abby Livingston adds that a McCain spokesperson in May 2007 said the Arizona Republican supported abstinence-only education, too. "Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Sen. McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today’s society that promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior to our children. The public education system should not join this chorus of moral equivocation and ambiguity.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...1/1320417.aspx

Based on the question, I agree with Palin's answer.

ratbastid · 07-11-2009, 11:52 AM

So, you're changing your position on sex education, in this last post? Now you think children SHOULD be taught in school that abstinence is morally right. Before you thought the science should be taught in school, and moral issues should be left to the parents.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

So, you're changing your position on sex education, in this last post? Now you think children SHOULD be taught in school that abstinence is morally right. Before you thought the science should be taught in school, and moral issues should be left to the parents.

See, what I mean. All depends on the question. What the hell is "explicit sex education" any way?

I don't see the issue of children having sex from a moral point of view, I simply don't think they can make an informed mature choice. I don't think children fully understand the consequences of sexual activity. If you call that taking a "morality" stance, o.k. - I get it. Personally, I think sex is healthy, normal, enjoyable, and should be engaged in frequently between adults. I don't believe in making people feel guilty in any way about sex, including children. People make their own choices and what they do is their business. I have no problem with scientific based sex education in the schools and children understanding the human sex drive and what they will experience as they become adults.

Willravel · 07-11-2009, 05:04 PM

That's just it, though, they're not going to abstain. You could lock them in their rooms until they turn 18 and they'd still figure out a way to shag. That's what teenagers do. Bearing that reality (this isn't opinion, I can back this up with fact) on mind, there's only one question: would you rather have them have sex with proper and complete sexual education or without?

ratbastid · 07-12-2009, 06:11 AM

ace: It's a moral issue for Palin and the social conservatives who support her. When you speak for yourself, it's not a moral issue, it's purely pragmatic (and I agree with you completely, by the way). When you line up in support of Palin, you're supporting something I don't think you understand you're supporting, and I don't think you understand is diametrically opposed to your own ideas. You really can't have it both ways. You can think your own thoughts, or you can follow a politician whose thoughts are different.

Maybe we're working from utterly different worlds here, and there's no reconciling them. I'm frankly gobsmacked that you'd have voted for Hillary because you'd trust her to do what is in your view the wrong thing. I can't even begin to get my head around that. I trusted McCain to do what I view as the wrong thing, which is why I campaigned for Obama. How trust can be a more important issue than that actual position the candidate takes is completely unfathomable to me.

Wyodiver33: drama queen much? You didn't even get any warning points. But you might, for loading this place down with your Goodbye Forever Because I Dared to Have an Opinion nonsense. Leave the drama with your mama and come back and talk.

aceventura3 · 07-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

That's just it, though, they're not going to abstain.

Here is the difference and I will use alcohol as an example to illustrate what I have been trying to say.

I have no problem with schools teaching the scientific affects of alcohol, the history, the law.
In my view the decision people make to drink alcohol is their decision, I do not make moral judgment, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with drinking alcohol.
However, children do not have the capacity to make mature informed decisions regarding alcohol consumption, we have certain laws applying to children that don't apply to adults.
Schools should take the standard position that the best approach for children is to abstain from the recreational use of alcohol, and they should refer the child to their parents/guardian/etc. for more guidance on the subject.

I do not think our schools should adopt the approach of - we know you are going to drink alcohol so... - here are some complimentary shot glasses, here are a list of "safe" drinking establishments, here are some instructions for drinking games, and here are some coupons allowing you to buy 2 drinks and get one free, etc, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

ace: It's a moral issue for Palin and the social conservatives who support her.

When I am against the social conservative agenda, I am against it. In this case if they are on the correct side of the argument - I will stand on what I think is the correct side of the argument. I have always had problems with "social conservatives" on many issues where they want to impose their values on others, which is why I have gone back and forth between being a Libertarian and a Republican. I think on this issue with Palin she has concern primarily for children. Some social conservatives have an agenda of wanting to take the pleasure out of sex and wanting people to feel guilty about enjoyment and desire - I think these people are small in numbers.

ratbastid · 07-12-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think on this issue with Palin she has concern primarily for children.

Does it matter? Her policy is: don't teach them how things work. Don't teach them how their bodies work, or what happens biologically. Indoctrinate them ONLY to not follow their urges. (That's the "only" part in "abstinence-only", in case you missed that.) I don't really care if her heart's in the right place or she's doing that for "right" reasons. Leaving aside the legislated-morality aspect of it, it's just BAD POLICY.

With no disrespect meant at all to the young woman in question: Grandma Sara only needs to look at who's living in the next bedroom over to see how well that policy works. I don't blame Bristol in the slightest for her unplanned pregnancy. That's a failure of parenting.

Willravel · 07-12-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Does it matter? Her policy is: don't teach them how things work. Don't teach them how their bodies work, or what happens biologically. Indoctrinate them ONLY to not follow their urges. (That's the "only" part in "abstinence-only", in case you missed that.) I don't really care if her heart's in the right place or she's doing that for "right" reasons. Leaving aside the legislated-morality aspect of it, it's just BAD POLICY.

With no disrespect meant at all to the young woman in question: Grandma Sara only needs to look at who's living in the next bedroom over to see how well that policy works. I don't blame Bristol in the slightest for her unplanned pregnancy. That's a failure of parenting.

Precisely! The biggest problem is teaching abstinence-only. Kids need the information because most of them will not remain abstinent.

aceventura3 · 07-12-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Does it matter? Her policy is: don't teach them how things work.

Can you provide any support for that comment?

I did not think so.

Baraka_Guru · 07-12-2009, 01:46 PM

Ostensibly, she's not opposed to contraception:

Sarah Palin on Sex Ed | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet
Conservative Believer - Sarah Palin: News and Photos - TIME
Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

Willravel · 07-12-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you provide any support for that comment?

I did not think so.

You should wait before answering your own questions.
Palin backed abstinence-only education - First Read - msnbc.com

aceventura3 · 07-12-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Precisely! The biggest problem is teaching abstinence-only. Kids need the information because most of them will not remain abstinent.

Does not seem that you have read what I have written. I have no problem with children being taught about birth control from a science point of view, nor STD's and prevention from a scientific point of view. In a perfect world the government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging sex in any manner. One the one side the government should not be involved in "family planning clinics" or promoting "wait until you are married". I think both extremes are an inappropriate role for government.

Willravel · 07-12-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Ostensibly, she's not opposed to contraception:

Sarah Palin on Sex Ed | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet
Conservative Believer - Sarah Palin: News and Photos - TIME
Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

If I may, each of these was published after it was publicly reported that her daughter had become pregnant. I would hope she changed her tune because she was able to realize she'd made a mistake, but more likely it was simply political.

ratbastid · 07-12-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Does not seem that you have read what I have written. I have no problem with children being taught about birth control from a science point of view, nor STD's and prevention from a scientific point of view. In a perfect world the government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging sex in any manner. One the one side the government should not be involved in "family planning clinics" or promoting "wait until you are married". I think both extremes are an inappropriate role for government.

The question isn't "what are your views on sex education".

The question is: how do you square that (IMO rational, sensible) view with your support of Palin's (radical, nonsensical, and--as evinced by her own daughter--failing) views? That's the part I don't get.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If I may, each of these was published after it was publicly reported that her daughter had become pregnant. I would hope she changed her tune because she was able to realize she'd made a mistake, but more likely it was simply political.

Wait. Surely you're not implying she's something other than a paragon of these so-called "convictions" we've been talking about? That she changes her tune for political expedience? NO!!

aceventura3 · 07-13-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The question isn't "what are your views on sex education".

The question is: how do you square that (IMO rational, sensible) view with your support of Palin's (radical, nonsensical, and--as evinced by her own daughter--failing) views? That's the part I don't get.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

I don't think you understand Palin's views on sex education, and therefore you don't understand my support of her views more than I do Obama's. I will try to clarify it one more time:

The social conservative who says: God is punishing you (teenage unwed mother) because you had sex outside of marriage - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support

the liberal who says: You (unwed teenage mother) are being punished because you had sex without using a condom - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support.

Palin supports promoting abstinence to children but does not consider being a mother punishment. She does not make mothers feel guilty about the choice they made to have sex - she has in fact demonstrated a willingness to give unconditional love and support to a teenage mother and the baby. I have never heard her say that she is against teaching the science of sex. I think you and others are making that up or simply assuming she is an extremeist when there is no evidence to support that view. the media promotes these lies and myths about Palin, and I don't really understand why, I but I have the view that it is because she is not an "elitist" and is more an average American.

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

his words and actions can not be reconciled

Pot, Kettle, Black, mister "I'm for sex-education personally, but also against it when my chosen leader says so".

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Actually, the last few weeks Maddow has consistently gone after the Obama administration. Please don't act as if it's one segment. And not liking Obama because he's on the Democratic ticket, as conservatives and Republicans actually though, is hardly objective.

I admit I have not watched her show in the last two weeks. Actually, didn't she have a guest host during the week of the 4th of July?

I know I have biases, and I admit them.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I understand your position, but you and I must have two different ideas of what constitutes a "cheerleader" and being in one's camp.

It is subjective. But if there was some way to measure it objectively and assuming on one extreme is Rush Limbaugh at a 10 - on a scale of one to ten, I would estimate Maddow is a 3.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Pot, Kettle, Black, mister "I'm for sex-education personally, but also against it when my chosen leader says so".

I am never against scientific based sex education in schools.

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am never against scientific based sex education in schools.

Palin is, and you claim to support her policy. And you've ignored my REPEATED requests for any sort of explanation for how you square those things. My conclusion HAS to be that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Palin is, and you claim to support her policy. And you've ignored my REPEATED requests for any sort of explanation for how you square those things. My conclusion HAS to be that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I have never read or heard anything indicating that Palin is against teaching the science of sex in schools. If she has I do not agree with her.

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have never read or heard anything indicating that Palin is against teaching the science of sex in schools. If she has I do not agree with her.

Then you do not agree with her. She is against what she calls "explicit" sex education. She is for what is generally known as "abstinence-only" education, where the existence of sex is acknowledged and kids are told "DON'T", and that's about it.

The thing to notice is how strongly you've supported something you haven't read or heard anything about. Isn't that curious?

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Then you do not agree with her. She is against what she calls "explicit" sex education. She is for what is generally known as "abstinence-only" education, where the existence of sex is acknowledged and kids are told "DON'T", and that's about it.

The thing to notice is how strongly you've supported something you haven't read or heard anything about. Isn't that curious?

I am against "explicit" sex education in schools. I support schools teaching "abstinence-only" - it is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's - most children in school have not reached the legal age of consent and even those that have, in my view should not engage in sex until the age of majority. Schools should not encourage or validate children engaging in sex.

Willravel · 07-14-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am never against scientific based sex education in schools.

Yes you are:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I support schools teaching "abstinence-only" - it is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's - most children in school have not reached the legal age of consent and even those that have, in my view should not engage in sex until the age of majority. Schools should not encourage or validate children engaging in sex.

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.

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 12:44 PM

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. I propose to you that it'd be best to learn the details of what you're hitching your wagon to.

Palin doesn't want the biology of sex taught in schools. She only wants to say "DON'T" to kids. You and I both know that's ludicrous and could never work, but it's what she stands for. And you've been saying that you're for that while also saying you're for regular sex education. Which is why it's been dissonant talking to you about this. Can you see it now?

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 01:26 PM

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.

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 01:29 PM

I know you're being snarky, but that does seem to be the case.

A lot of the far-right talks to itself in a code that is really only understood internally. You end up with moderate-righters like you thinking you know what "abstinence-only" means, and talking about "your definition" of the term versus "my definition". It actually means something very specific to the politician promoting it, and you're not aware of that fact. But you're supporting it, because it uses words that are reasonably close to something you would actually support.

Open your eyes, chief. The evidence is blinking back at you that you've been had on this one.

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I know you're being snarky, but that does seem to be the case.

A lot of the far-right talks to itself in a code that is really only understood internally. You end up with moderate-righters like you thinking you know what "abstinence-only" means, and talking about "your definition" of the term versus "my definition". It actually means something very specific to the politician promoting it, and you're not aware of that fact. But you're supporting it, because it uses words that are reasonably close to something you would actually support.

Open your eyes, chief. The evidence is blinking back at you that you've been had on this one.

That is why I explain my view. I tell you what the terms mean to me. Then I tell you that if Palin has the same view, we agree - and if we don't we disagree. I still don't really know what "explicit" sex education means. Is it demonstrations on how to use condoms, sexual positions, techniques, etc., what? I don't have a problem with teaching what a condom is and what it does, effectiveness, etc. - but I draw the line at demonstrations in school and handing out free samples.

Willravel · 07-14-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I disagree with your definition of "abstinence only".

It's not my definition, it's President Bush's. And it failed:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs - washingtonpost.com

ratbastid · 07-14-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That is why I explain my view. I tell you what the terms mean to me. Then I tell you that if Palin has the same view, we agree - and if we don't we disagree. I still don't really know what "explicit" sex education means. Is it demonstrations on how to use condoms, sexual positions, techniques, etc., what? I don't have a problem with teaching what a condom is and what it does, effectiveness, etc. - but I draw the line at demonstrations in school and handing out free samples.

But YOU'RE the one saying you support Palin's policy on sex education! Earlier in this thread you said that, and now you're saying, well, if she says something other than what I think, then I DON'T support her, but I don't really know, and I didn't really know what I was saying I support when I said I supported it! And then why you like Palin is for her FUCKING CONVICTIONS!!!

You're incredible, ace.

aceventura3 · 07-14-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's not my definition, it's President Bush's. And it failed:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs - washingtonpost.com

Here is what you are talking about.

Quote:

Fact Sheet: Community-Based Abstinence Education Program

History and Purpose

The Community-Based Abstinence Education Program supports public and private entities in developing and implementing abstinence education programs for adolescents, ages 12 through 18, in communities across the country. Projects funded by the program must promote abstinence education as defined by Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides funds for community-based abstinence educational interventions designed to reduce the proportion of adolescents who have engaged in premarital sexual activity, including but not limited to sexual intercourse, the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies among adolescents, and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents.

The funding for the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program was appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the FY 2005 appropriations bill. Originally administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau since 2001, the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program was redelegated by the Secretary in February 2005 to the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB).

The mission of the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) is to provide national leadership on youth and family issues. The Bureau promotes positive outcomes for children, youth, and families by supporting a wide range of comprehensive services and collaborations at the local, Tribal, State, and national levels.

Services Provided

Curricula developed or selected for use in the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program must address all eight elements of the Section 510 abstinence education definition. Abstinence education is defined as “an educational or motivational program which:

(A) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

(B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

(C) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

(D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

(F) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

(G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

(H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.''

Specific objectives for the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program are to: (1) support programmatic efforts that foster the development of abstinence education for adolescents, ages 12 through 18, in communities across the country; (2) develop and implement abstinence programs that target the prevention of teenage pregnancy and premature sexual activity; (3) develop abstinence education approaches that are culturally sensitive and age-appropriate to meet the needs of a diverse audience of adolescents; and (4) implement curriculum-based community education programs that promote abstinence education and positive youth development to adolescents.

Program Funding Process

Any public or private entity, including a nonprofit or faith-based organization, is eligible to apply for funding through the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program. Projects must be community-based and must involve an educational intervention.

Funds were distributed in the form of 3-year implementation grants through FY 2006. Starting in FY 2007, the project period for grants has been extended to 5 years. There is no match requirement for these grants. In FY 2007, 167 grantees received funding totaling $92.8 million

Community-Based Abstinence Education

It does not say the science of sex should not be taught in the schools. Local communities could request grants for this education, it was their choice.

And, I don't agree with all of this, but I don't agree with all of what is presented on the other side of the argument either.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You're incredible, ace.

Thanks.

Willravel · 07-15-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

And, I don't agree with all of this, but I don't agree with all of what is presented on the other side of the argument either.

I'm not convinced you know what the other side of the argument is.

The other side, the alternative to abstinence-only, reads something like this: Abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. As abstinence isn't statistically likely, however, here is all the information you'll need on anatomy, reproductive health, contraception, reproductive rights, contraception, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, and pregnancy. If you remain abstinent, great, but if you choose to have sex we want you armed with the most correct, up-to-date information so that the risk to you is drastically reduced. Our program is supported by American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association among many others, whereas Abstinence-Only as instituted by the Bush Administration enjoys little to no support from the scientific, psychological, and medical community. Moreover, our program demonstrates lower rates of STDs, unwanted teen pregnancy, and abortion.

We leave morality to parents and religious influences over children, opting instead to simply educate them on the facts.

aceventura3 · 07-15-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm not convinced you know what the other side of the argument is.

The other side, the alternative to abstinence-only, reads something like this: Abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. As abstinence isn't statistically likely, however, here is all the information you'll need on anatomy, reproductive health, contraception, reproductive rights, contraception, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, and pregnancy. If you remain abstinent, great, but if you choose to have sex we want you armed with the most correct, up-to-date information so that the risk to you is drastically reduced. Our program is supported by American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association among many others, whereas Abstinence-Only as instituted by the Bush Administration enjoys little to no support from the scientific, psychological, and medical community. Moreover, our program demonstrates lower rates of STDs, unwanted teen pregnancy, and abortion.

We leave morality to parents and religious influences over children, opting instead to simply educate them on the facts.

There are only subtle differences between the position you outline above and mine and then I think Palin's position is again subtly different than mine. I would simply prefer schools not council children on sex at all, my preference is that they give the facts and send the children to their parents for council.

Willravel · 07-15-2009, 12:32 PM

What council on sex do you imagine schools are offering? They're not telling kids to have sex. They're not telling kids to give oral. They're not telling kids to give hand jobs or to finger. It already is factual. It was factual when I took it back in the 90s, it was factual when my little brother took it in the 2000s.

aceventura3 · 07-15-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

What council on sex do you imagine schools are offering? They're not telling kids to have sex. They're not telling kids to give oral. They're not telling kids to give hand jobs or to finger. It already is factual. It was factual when I took it back in the 90s, it was factual when my little brother took it in the 2000s.

On one hand you have right wingers who council children saying you should only have sex if you get married.

On the left we have those who council children saying if you are going to have sex use a condom.

I say give children the facts. What do the statistics say about unwed mothers who have babies? What percent live in poverty? What percent finish their education? Etc. What happens to the babies? Give them the facts and let them decide what to do.

What do the statistics say about various birth control methods. what are the known trade offs between the various methods, etc. Give the facts and let them decide. condoms may be convenient and inexpensive but they may not be the first choice of informed people. I don't want a teacher or social worker giving my son incomplete information based on the fact that the school just got a free carton of condoms to pass out to students. I want them to tell him to talk to me!

07-12-2009, 01:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Ostensibly, she's not opposed to contraception: Sarah Palin on Sex Ed \| Sex and Relationships \| AlterNet Conservative Believer - Sarah Palin: News and Photos - TIME Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

07-10-2009, 11:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	OK, I forget where I read this but someone said the best way to stir up controversy and get comments is a headline "Palin says Israel and China are wrong on abortion." Gotta admit, that's funny.

07-10-2009, 12:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	"Unwed teenage Arab pot smoking couples protest in favor of evolutionist abortions" "Gay Muslim Democrat takes guns from hard working Americans"

07-11-2009, 11:52 AM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	So, you're changing your position on sex education, in this last post? Now you think children SHOULD be taught in school that abstinence is morally right. Before you thought the science should be taught in school, and moral issues should be left to the parents.

07-11-2009, 05:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	That's just it, though, they're not going to abstain. You could lock them in their rooms until they turn 18 and they'd still figure out a way to shag. That's what teenagers do. Bearing that reality (this isn't opinion, I can back this up with fact) on mind, there's only one question: would you rather have them have sex with proper and complete sexual education or without?

07-12-2009, 06:11 AM	#12 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	ace: It's a moral issue for Palin and the social conservatives who support her. When you speak for yourself, it's not a moral issue, it's purely pragmatic (and I agree with you completely, by the way). When you line up in support of Palin, you're supporting something I don't think you understand you're supporting, and I don't think you understand is diametrically opposed to your own ideas. You really can't have it both ways. You can think your own thoughts, or you can follow a politician whose thoughts are different. Maybe we're working from utterly different worlds here, and there's no reconciling them. I'm frankly gobsmacked that you'd have voted for Hillary because you'd trust her to do what is in your view the wrong thing. I can't even begin to get my head around that. I trusted McCain to do what I view as the wrong thing, which is why I campaigned for Obama. How trust can be a more important issue than that actual position the candidate takes is completely unfathomable to me. Wyodiver33: drama queen much? You didn't even get any warning points. But you might, for loading this place down with your Goodbye Forever Because I Dared to Have an Opinion nonsense. Leave the drama with your mama and come back and talk.

07-14-2009, 12:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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. I propose to you that it'd be best to learn the details of what you're hitching your wagon to. Palin doesn't want the biology of sex taught in schools. She only wants to say "DON'T" to kids. You and I both know that's ludicrous and could never work, but it's what she stands for. And you've been saying that you're for that while also saying you're for regular sex education. Which is why it's been dissonant talking to you about this. Can you see it now?

07-14-2009, 01:29 PM	#32 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I know you're being snarky, but that does seem to be the case. A lot of the far-right talks to itself in a code that is really only understood internally. You end up with moderate-righters like you thinking you know what "abstinence-only" means, and talking about "your definition" of the term versus "my definition". It actually means something very specific to the politician promoting it, and you're not aware of that fact. But you're supporting it, because it uses words that are reasonably close to something you would actually support. Open your eyes, chief. The evidence is blinking back at you that you've been had on this one.

07-15-2009, 12:32 PM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What council on sex do you imagine schools are offering? They're not telling kids to have sex. They're not telling kids to give oral. They're not telling kids to give hand jobs or to finger. It already is factual. It was factual when I took it back in the 90s, it was factual when my little brother took it in the 2000s.