rainheart

Good luck. Good. Luck.

This is a battle fought on all fronts.

Parents are so severely handicapped that they have no choice but to secede all parenting rights to various third parties. If you had a kid, how much time would you have to be there during the days when he or she needs your attention? Not much, I'd bet- especially if you wanted your kid to get all those expensive advantages in life. What's all that stuff being advertised on TV that your kids need or will beg for? Diapers. Hot-wheels cars. Barbie dolls. Clothes. Cell-phones. Computers. PS3's. The videogames that go along with them. Bread & butter. Sunny-D. Braces. Proactiv. Soft-contact lenses. Post-secondary tuition fees. Cars.

All those things cost money.

That means you have to work. A lot. To the point where you can't be there to provide the psychological support for your kids. But then even that becomes some sort of service provided by another business. Daycare. Nannies. Private Schools. Public Schools. Extra-curricular activities. Day-time cartoons. Night-time cartoons. It grows on itself so much that even the advertisements for all those toys begin to tell your kids how to behave.

This is what your kids are raised on.

You want to talk about conservative? I'm a frickin' conservative. I don't think people should have that much control over how your kids are raised. So when someone calls themself a conservative and supports promoting abstinence and only abstinence, one of the grounds of that being that the parents just aren't competent to raise their kids, I get infuriated. Call yourself a conservative if you like. I don't want to offend you but rather shock you into thinking about the bigger picture for a bit- so don't take it personally when I say that I think what you say is ignorant.

Now, why would you not be up in arms about this? It's easy to ignore it, sure. It's like holding someones head down in the water while they drown and saying it's their own fault they can't swim. It doesn't matter, because they are being forced into drowning. This is not about empowering the parents at all.

So is the government-industrial complex going to teach your kids how to act or are you? Is it even a choice at this point?

docbungle

What a bleak outlook. I don't really know how to respond. I can't imagine feeling the way you do, but it must be a draining experience.

Life is what you make it, for some. For others, apparently, life is what they tell you it is.

This is not one of the thousands of issues I am concerned about in regards to raising my children.

__________________
Bad Luck City

tecoyah

Well...if the Fundys cant take over government....they can always resort to terrorism:

"Weapon of Mass Destruction" Targets Sex Shop In Waldo

5/29/2006 11pm report

By Grayson Kamm
First Coast News

WALDO, FL -- Detectives say it's an act of local terrorism. An adult bookstore is cleaning up after a chemical attack by a homemade device that investigators are calling a "weapon of mass destruction."

In Waldo, people have held prayer vigils and protests aimed at an adult bookstore along US 301, trying to keep the "Cafe Risque" from opening its doors on time.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/s...?storyid=58393

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Bill O'Rights

Although the article cited was very careful not to blame the "attack" on Christian fundamentalists...I personally believe that it is safe to "assume" that is the case. Now...if that is indeed the case, and as I've already stated, I believe that it is, then where is the outrage, and the condemnation, from the mainstream Christian majority? Where's the love? Where's the understanding? Where is the "Love Thy Neighbor"? Oh well, it's just an adult bookstore. Who really cares...right?

Do we, as a "Christian" society, not decry the Muslim faith for similar infractions? Do we not a raise a suspicious eyebrow at all Muslims that do not step up and openly condemn the most radical of thier bretheren?

Oh...even better...what if this act was not perpetrated by Christian Fundamentalists, at all? What if it were perpetrated by "Islamo-Facists"? that would put a different spin on it, now wouldn't it? Then, it's not a "moral act' of ridding the community of an "evil"...it's an open attack on an institutionalized American way of life.

Spin. Don't ya just love it?


OK...I'm done threadjacking. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

rainheart

How annoying. You didn't even address my points.

Ok then, no point wasting my energy. Have a nice day!

docbungle

Sometimes, it gets difficult keeping track of all the whackos out there. It's hard to be outraged at all times, at everyone who deserves it. Simply because you haven't heard a public outcry when you think one is merited, doesn't mean the "Christian Majority" doesn't care.

__________________
Bad Luck City

docbungle

Pardon? I addressed your entire post with a few sentences, out of respect for our completely different views on the matter. But by all means, we can't have you wasting energy.

Here is the detailed disagreement you require:

This is such a gross exaggeration I can't believe a response is expected. If you know parents - or if you are a parent - that gives over all parenting rights to "various third parties" then the problem is with the parent and not the third parties.

Again, are you serious? When you have a kid, time is spent with the kid, as opposed to just about everything else. If not, then again the problem is with the parent. But you suppose "not much."

Materialistic parents will breed materialistic children. If you don't know how to tell your kid "No" then you need some more practice before having children. Kids wanting everything they see on tv is nothing new. My parents never let it ruin their lives, did yours? As for the diapers and braces and whatnot: don't have kids if you can't afford diapers. It sounds like you're just complaining about how expensive kids are. You're right; they are, but it helps if you don't buy them everything they see on tv.

Something we agree on.

Again, we agree.

Now we're back on track, disagreeing whole-heartedly. How you make this connection is beyond me. I'm sure there are people like this, and I feel bad for their kids, but they're certainly not the majority of parents, and I'm certainly not one of them. If you don't have the time to offer the support for your kids that they need, then you're not being a good parent. There is no one else to blame.

School is a part of life. We all went through it. Extra curricular activities are supposed to be fun. If they're not, find some that are. Cartoons have a part in most kids' life, I know they did in mine. I see nothing sinister here. And when toy commercials start telling your kids how to behave, I'd say it's time to spend some time with them instead of sitting them down in front of the television all day. You know, offer some psychological support.

I beg to differ. You're confusing my kids with someone who doesn't know how to raise them.

Well, I'm not a conservative. Don't really know what you're trying to say here. You seem to be implying that "conservatives" have some nerve, and are telling parents that they don't know how to raise their own kids...while at the same time saying that...parent's don't have the time or the energy to raise their own kids...

you're logic alludes me.

About what? I still don't see what the problem is. Someone is telling kids to not have sex before marriage. You are saying that is unrealistic and what they should be saying is: "If you have sex, wear protection." I don't see a problem with either viewpoint. They are both good bits of advice. But that is where actually being a parent comes into play. Either be one, or hand the duties off to "third parties" and hope for the best. And then wonder why you have no control over your child as they grow.

If you are comparing drowning to unprotected sex, I'm going to have to disagree with you some more. Teaching abstinece does not force kids to have unprotected sex. Being a parent that doesn't discuss important topics
such as sex, drugs and all that jazz with their children is what leads to
unprotected sex.

Isn't that what I said in the first place? For some, life is what you make it. For others, life is what they tell you it is.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Poppinjay

Woah woah woah. What school is this?

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

rainheart

I was a little put off when you said that my outlook is bleak and then assumed that my everyday life has a draining effect on me. Now I don't know you very well, but neither do you know me, so to make that one thing clear- my life is very enjoyable. You're almost making me wish you were in my shoes. But I digress.

What I meant to say is that they are disempowered. Not to the point where it becomes impossible to raise their child, but to a degree which makes it much more difficult.

Well that's assuming the time spent with the kid is actually time spent parenting the kid. Some parents really don't have a clue, they think being around their kid is enough to raise them.

Now yeah, that is the fault of the parent; but that doesn't make it some excuse to let people legislate whatever crap they want for all the wrong reasons. It should mean that we would be putting things into place to actually help parents raise their kids right.


If you think I'm simply complaining about how expensive it is to raise a child, you're missing my point. That is, because it's expensive, that means you have to be out working. If you don't make an income that is adequate enough, that means you have to work more, or get the proper training. If you're too dense to actually pass the training courses, that means you are basically stuck with spending more time at work and less time at home. That means that something has to take your place when you're out at work.

So, this might not be a problem for people who make a decent enough income to provide for their children with less hours worked and more hours available to spend with their child- but for people who don't have that kind of luxury it becomes a problem.


No conflicts here!

Right, you're not one of them, so you don't have a problem with it. So what if they're not the majority? Is that the greatness of democracy? If 51% of the population decides to piss on the other 49%, then that's okay? Would it be okay if the split was 75% versus 25%? 95% versus 5%?

"If you don't have the time to offer the support for your kids that they need, then you're not being a good parent."

Really? In every case that ever occured? This is some sort of universal truth? So for some reason, if someone is handicapped, we can't offer them our sympathies and help them in any way or show compassion, because it's their fault. This ends up as contempt for the weak.

Yeah, if they even know that this is what they're supposed to do, or if they have a chance of influencing them to the point where what they say is more important than what the idiot-tube suggests. For the ones that don't have that kind of opportunity, there needs to be some measure to either give them the mobility to move up the chain, or there should be some measure to protect them. In many cases neither of those things are provided.

If you speak the truth then I'm glad that I'm in the wrong about that.

No, what I'm saying is that conservatism should not translate to shortsightedness and an unconscious unwillingness to see the facts for what they are when policies like sex education that emphasizes only abstinence and undermines contraception are being promoted.

As does yours elude me.


No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if there is going to be institutionalized sex education, it should tell those kids that abstinence is the safest bet, but it should also tell them that if they do decide to have sex, it's absolutely critical to use contraceptives. Then again I don't have to worry, because that's exactly what happens here in Canada. I just think Americans deserve better.


If you think that's what I'm saying then you need to read what I wrote again.

I'm saying tell a parent that it's their fault they can't raise their kids right because of factors that are virtually out of their control- I'm saying that is like forcing someones head in the water and blaming them for being unable to swim. That's the kind of obliviousness it takes to argue for sex education that says nothing about contraception and only tells the kids what abstinence is.


From what I gathered you basically said that it's okay to not give two shits about the guy under the weather!

All that said, I'm out of this whole thing, I've got work to do.

jorgelito

WTF?! I have not heard of this! Why didn't the press report this more? This is important. In one way, it shows some bias. Terrorists come in all sorts of types.

Rekna

If parents have such a little affect on their children then why are children so vastly different? Why do I see children whose behavior mirrors their parents? I have met a kid that was 5 years old, had a 22 and would use it on anything or anyone, drowned kittens for fun, had a mouth worse than anyone I’ve ever met, and woke a 300 pound guy up with a baseball bat to the head. Guess how this boy’s parents behaved? I have also met children that will do everything they can to please others, guess how their parents behaved. Parents have the ability to either make or destroy their kid’s life. The parents should teach sex education in my opinion because it is so controversial. If we can all agree on some parts of sex education then let the schools teach that part and leave the remaining parts up to the parents. In this case I say let the schools teach that abstinence is the best form of birth control and let the parents go beyond that if they want.

hannukah harry

this has got to be one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. it's completely irresponsible. no matter what, kids are gonna learn about their sex organs in biology... or would you say that since some parents find that controvesial that anatomy lessons shouldn't include those?

if we leave sex ed. up to the parents, we'll end up with some kids who are properly educated and some that arent'. it would be like allowing kids to drive without being taught how. the ones who don't know how to do it safely become a danger to the rest of us. they'll be responsible for booming STP and teen pregnancy rates (because if they don't know about the risks of unprotected sex, why would then use a condom?) and that doesn't just effect your kids, it effects mine.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

stevo

elementary schools. south florida, central florida.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

dksuddeth

i guess parents shouldn't have any responsibility at all to teach their kids anything about life since it would have an effect on yours as well?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Jinn

And there's definitely a reason that Fark has a tag specifically for FLORIDA.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

stevo

was there any doubt?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Bill O'Rights

But...that's the problem, isn't it? What is a "proper" education to you...might not be so "proper" to me. Beyond the basic mechanics of sex education, I feel that it is best taught in the home. I make that statement with the full realization that there are those parents who, for whatever reason, cannot, or will not, broach the subject with thier offspring.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

hannukah harry

it's not a matter of parents not having that responsibility. it's that most parents forgo that responsibility and allow the schools to do it. for those that do teach abstinance only to their children, they're doing their kids a major disservice. it's like telling their kids to be accountants and not teaching them math. they're unprepared for the realities of life. kids have sex. whether you (the parent) like it or not. so if parents are not going to adequately prepare their kids for the real world, then someone else has to.


a proper education is one that allows the kids to function in the real world, preferable with minimal risk to themselves and others. it's where you teach kids the basics needed to succeed in life and avoid stupid obsticles. std's are easy to avoid if you use protection. getting a good job is easy if you get well educated in the field you desire. so if you want to be a writer, learn about writing. if you want to have sex, learn about sex. but don't go into things completely ignorant about how to do it and the consequences.

what are the basic mechanics of sex ed? i would think that that would be teaching about the sex organs, how they work, birth control and std's. i can't even think of what else shoudl be taught about it. (for example, i'm not saying schools should teach how to have sex, positions, etc, just how stuff works and the risks, and that if you're going to do it, wear protection).

parents are free to teach their kids abstinence. but would you teach someone not to drive drunk without having taught them how to drive? a parent can teach what they feel is appropriate behavior, but if htey're not going to teach info that the kid NEEDS to know, for their own safety, then that parent is being neglect.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

dksuddeth

um, no. nobody else 'has' to do it. It's a parents responsibility to prepare their children and noone elses. If that parent fails, then they, and the child, will have to live with the failure of that inadequacy. Having someone else do it is a MAJOR reason why we have such a screwed up society today. People go through their lives knowing/thinking that someone else will do it and they will not have to live up to their part of life.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

host

In an effort to turn the discussion back to a response to the news reports that prompted me to reactivate it:

There is a problem of bigotry fueled harrassment against homosexuals in schools, against those suspected to be homosexuals, and against those who object to this harrassment, by "siding with" and defending those on the receiving end.

There are statistics that indicated that teen suicide is the third highest cause of death in their aged group, and that teens who do not exclusively embrace heterosexual attraction, are at least three times more likely to commit suicide than other teens.

The question here is....in view of determinations by medical practitioners and all other groups of credentialed, mental health care providers, is it helpful or responsible for public school administrators to permit speakers to come into schools to deliver a message that implies or states that sexual attraction or activity that does not fit the "hetero" mold, is a disorder, an illness, abnormal, or something that can be "cured" with reparative therapy? Since medical practitioners specifically hold a policy that such therapy threatens self esteem, and should not be practiced, aren't schools risking funds that are earmarked for education, by increasing their exposure to potentially costly legal suits for allowing this "ex-gay" message in schools.

Is there another explanation for exposing students to the "ex-gay" message and reparative therapy, besides the influence of religious fundametalist extremism?

Are the following examples of "model" ways to attempt to lessen the impact of the actual problem; teen suicide levels and harrassment and violence in schools, or "new age" liberal responses to non-issues?
I think that the 2003 Massachusetts statistics are particularly sobering when you consider that they are experienced 11 years after that state's governor set up a commission, <b>"in response to an epidemic of suicide among gay and lesbian youth."</b> How do you think the "progressive", Massachusetts statistics will "stack up", in comparision to the stats in "bible belt" states?

Rekna

To those of you that assert kids will have sex i'm going to disagree with you on this point. I have many friends in their mid twenties who are virgins by choice. These are very attractive people who have been heavily into the dating scene for years. Most of my lady friends wear "true love waits" rings. Telling a kid don't have sex but if you do wear a condom is not the same message as don't have sex. A kid is more likely to have sex if you tell them if they do wear a comdom, it is like saying to the kid, here is my rule but i know you are going to break it.

It is a parents duty to raise their kids and teach them values. If a parent decides that it is best for their kid to only be taught abstience than that is their choice. Parents should not be leaving sex education up to others. What is wrong with teaching abstience in the schools and leaving the use a condom up to the parents? I say teach kids about STD's, unwanted pregnacy, ect and then tell them the only sure way to prevent this is abstience. Then if parents want to say you can also use a condom to prevent that it is up to them.

host

Could those who want to debate "abstinence" please set up a new thread or go to one that already is oriented to that topic.....please???

This thread is about the signs of detrimental influence on society of the rising political power and the financing of legal challenges to public policy by the religious extremists in the U.S.....continuing on that note, here is a rebuttal to challanges faced by the Montgomery, MD county school district, when it tried to take the easy and responsible way out.....it adopted a health education policy that was firmly rooted in established scientific determinations...and the religious extremists repsonded with their unscientific message....and litigation:
Can anyone argue that public schools should not respond to STD epidemic conditions, harrassment and violence in schools that is directed at non-hetero sexual students, high rates of teen suicides, in the face of official studies that document these conditions in the U.S., by educating students with curriculum that is founded on scientific findings and determinations?

If not....is it responsible for schools, although they must deal with the grief of suicide, the effects of STD's, and of violence and harrassment that disrupts the learning environment, to avoid these issues...to leave them to parents to discuss with their children?

If schools choose a path of trying to determine what science to embrace, and what science to challenge, how would they determine what science to challenge, and on what grounds? Should entire sections of the country, if the community "standard" is religiously influenced belief in "young earth", "intelligent design", and gender preference is a choice, theory, do states allow these ideas to be taught in public schools on the taxpayers' dime?

Do the rest of us just sit back and watch as these regions turn out "professionals" with degress in specialties like, "young earth geology"? Oil and mining expolaration companies don't hire these grads....so maybe they can get jobs teaching young earth "science" in the public high schools that they attended?

Don't those of us unaffected by religious extremism at least have an obligation to expose it, rail against it, try to keep taxpayer funds from supporting it, and from keeping it's militancy from influencing public school curriculum, and policy, and endangering the mental and physical health of our young people?

Rekna

Host this whole thread is based on the premise that the government wanting to teach abstienence is a sign that the religious extreamists are taking over America but I have yet to see a correlation let alone a causation between the governement wanting to teach abstience and the religious right.

I think there is a tendancies these days to take anything the government does that the religious right would agree with and blame the governments action on the religious rights influence.

What comes next do we blame tighter DUI laws on the religious right?

Marvelous Marv

Yeah. When they espouse contraceptive programs that have been proven to be frequently ineffective, both in pregnancy prevention, and in preventing the spread of disease.

There's no controversy in the medical community over that, either.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

host

I see your point about abstinence being the original example that I used to establish my perception of the "problem" of religious extermist influence on the public sector.

I apologize for my "rant", Rekna, it is I who should have started a new thread, since I wanted to discuss the validity of allowing the "ex-gay" message and therapy "choices" in schools.

I think that you used a poor comparison...with DUI laws.
DUI is a social problem that is a mainstream and a secular issue.

As far as I can perceive, the "ex-gay" concept, reparative therapy, creationism, intelligent design, and "young earth" theory, and exlusively teaching "abstinence education", in lieu of instruction of birth control options and safe use, STD prevention, safe and responisble sex practice, and the option of abortion, are only introduced into public shcool curriculum because of the influence and pressure of religious extermists.

host

Marv, please back your comments with references so that the rest of us can examine the validity your information. It is unfair when you just toss out comments and it doesn't do much for the weight of your argument or of how you are regarded as a source of reliable information, IMO.

What is ineffective, what is your proof, and what medcial experts and studies say so? What is a superior alternative to
"pregnancy prevention, and in preventing the spread of disease", besides total absitnence?

dksuddeth

I can and will. It is a PARENTS responsibility to provide that teaching of values, safety, and most of all RESPECT of other people. If there is an STD epidemic going around, the school should ONLY notify the parents. If there is harrasment of violence directed towards students for ANY reason, the authorities (police) should be called so that the parents will HAVE to get involved.

If not....is it responsible for schools, although they must deal with the grief of suicide, the effects of STD's, and of violence and harrassment that disrupts the learning environment, to avoid these issues...to leave them to parents to discuss with their children?

If Backwater, Tennessee chooses to do nothing but immerse and teach that communities children 'young earth science', then they will churn out 'young earth academics' who will have NOTHING to contribute to the world. With that in mind, Backwater, Tennessee will wither and die OR they will realize that they've jacked up their community and change for the better.

Before college academics SHOULD be teaching their kids how to do the basics and more of JUST the skills needed to make it on their own. AFTER that is what college is for.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

KnifeMissile

A program that stresses abstinence before marriage. You can always teach them about contraception for when they get married but aren't prepared to have children, yet. That way, if they (but for the grace of God) choose to be naughty boys and girls, they will still have the knowledge to protect themselves...

KnifeMissile

Speak for yourself, I found abstinence to be all too easy in high school! The problem with kids today is that they're too popular! Try to get your kids to not get along so well with the opposite sex and you'll protect them from their own instincts...

KnifeMissile

We're making our children do anal people? What's wrong with that, people?

...alright, enough with the jokes...