|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Get rid of abstinence related education, almost entirely.
so you're saying they should teach the kiddies to go fuck and have abortions as opposed to the only 100% effective method of birth control in addition to teaching them about other options to prevent pregnancy and STDs
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I suspect Pris went to neither a suburban nor urban school.
I dropped out of high school when I was 4, it just didnt provide a challenge and neither did the girls, them bitches was just too easy
I started in urban schools in 1st and second grade, moved a few counties away to a rural area, it quickly grew and became the suburbs of atlanta but they still had the rural mindset and early in my 9th grade year I was back in Lower Urbania because of an expulsion for being a very bad boy
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
So that would be reform school then?
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why are you afraid of informing kids that abstinence is the most effective method to avoid pregnancy and STDs? That seems like some pretty fucking good edumacation right there, bub.
I'm not, I'm saying they shouldn't be telling kids whether to have sex or not, meerly educating them on the issue. Learning something does not require you to believe it or otherwise adopt the views of various people. Abstinance-based education which offers abstinance as the acceptable choice or teh choice you should make is putting the school and state in a role decidedly unrelated to education. Similarly I would find it inappropriate for a school to require kids to believe evolutionary theory describes historical incidents or creative design does, or anything of the sort. I find it a bit disenchanting how some kids are educated about these issues and made to make pledges regarding not having sex till marriage before they even have a sex drive to speak of. It raises questions, beyond those of what role the state should be in, of the impact on their psyche given that everybody seems to violate that role. Pushing moral choices like that on children like that with the knowledge that they are somewhat socially unacceptable and contrary to normal behavior in the culture, especially on a subject so tied up in psychological baggage as sexuality, seems unwise.
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Get rid of abstinence related education, almost entirely.
so you're saying they should teach the kiddies to go fuck and have abortions as opposed to the only 100% effective method of birth control in addition to teaching them about other options to prevent pregnancy and STDs
False choice. This isn't the totality of what a non-abstinance based educational program would be. Additionally, much of the objection to abstinance based education is in regards to proposals, perhaps enacted, to limit the information conveyed- i.e. how to use birth control and factual things like that. Once more, I don't think the information conveyed should be censored due to non-educational or practical considerations. That the state wants people to think a certain way or act in certain ways should not limit the scope of education ideally (perhaps ever).
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13889953 - 02/01/11 07:34 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Boy o boy you sure do read a lot of compulsion into a choice. Is it or is it not true that abstinence is the most effect.......? Fucking tell 'em. Tell 'em everything. And tell them this too:
"If you are going to fuck you better take care or be prepared to have the rest of your life compromised. Most of you are too stupid to be reliably responsible. It's best you stick to mouthwork."
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
I have no disagreement with what your advocating in that post, I don't know why you style it as contrar to my post.
When opposing abstinance only sex education, I am speaking of those programs commonly discussed and labled as such, such as the US laws regarding sex education. These do far more than simply inform people of the facts and the simpe truths you and I have discused.
Quote:
the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which—
(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 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;
See: 42 USC sec 1710(b)(2)
Some of this is false, by the way, though the law makes no provisions for teaching accurate information when conflicting with these provisions. For the same reason kids shouldn't be subjected to science classes that "teach the controversy" over evolution and intelligent design when such controversy doesn't exist scientifically and has nothing to do with science, essentially establishing science by law as if that works any better now than when the Vatican and Catholic states did it, publicly funded schools should not be required by law to inform kids that abstaining from sexual activity is a certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and associated helath problems or that sex out of marriage is likely to cause psychological and physical problems. Sexually Transmitted diseases and other associated health problems may be incurred without sexual activity, and the other claims are generally untrue as well.
(its interesting to note as well that they seem to require condemning those children who don't have married parents to being a manifestation of a harmful effect upon society and their parents- as if kids in divorce don't have enough self-guilt without the school teaching them this as well)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13890265 - 02/01/11 08:26 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: See: 42 USC sec 1710(b)(2)
it's section 710 and it outlines funding for a program
Quote:
(a) In general For the purpose described in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent fiscal year, allot to each State which has transmitted an application for the fiscal year under section 705(a) of this title an amount equal to the product of - (1) the amount appropriated in subsection (d) of this section for the fiscal year; and (2) the percentage determined for the State under section 702(c)(1)(B)(ii) of this title. (b) Purpose of allotment (1) The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a) of this section to a State is to enable the State to provide abstinence education, and at the option of the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock. (2) For purposes of this section, the term "abstinence education" means 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 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. (c) Applicability of sections 703, 707, and 708 (1) Sections 703, 707, and 708 of this title apply to allotments under subsection (a) of this section to the same extent and in the same manner as such sections apply to allotments under section 702(c) of this title. (2) Sections 705 and 706 of this title apply to allotments under subsection (a) of this section to the extent determined by the Secretary to be appropriate. (d) Appropriations For the purpose of allotments under subsection (a) of this section, there is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998 through 2003. The appropriation under the preceding sentence for a fiscal year is made on October 1 of the fiscal year.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13890396 - 02/01/11 08:48 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know why this removing abstinence based teaching is so controversial. Almost every other developed country uses non-abstinence based teaching methods for sexual education. Believe it or not they don't teach "the abortion method" as a method of birth control because it is not. I also might ad that in addition to some brief coverage of issues like abuse and sexual abuse in early elementary in canada in the 90s I got sex ed related instruction in grade seven, eight, nine, and ten. There may have even been some in eleven and twelve but I dropped out. A lot of people can live with forgetting trig or major amounts of chemistry after they leave school, but this is something that they need to know and should be re-taught and expanded upon throughout their time in school.
The point though is that making this one change to improve the curriculum like Johnm has eloquently outlined here would lead to not only less teen pregnancies but would decrease the so called non-forcible rape abortions, particularly the ones where the girl involved had a real modicum of control over if/how the sex would happen. It would do all this and decrease costs. The bill proposed however would deny legitimate victims coverage and prevent them from getting an abortion if they are poor enough. Then to top it all off it would increase total costs. Prisoner, you yourself have admitted that this legislation would only reduce costs if it was bundled or combined with legislation that removed access for many to the types of benefits given to mothers, which you also admitted would not pass. So why stand behind it?
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I don't know why this removing abstinence based teaching is so controversial. Almost every other developed country uses non-abstinence based teaching methods for sexual education.
really? and they dont mention abstinence at all?
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
They mention it, but it isn't the stigma or main point of some of the curriculums like Johnm outlined. The emphasis was instead on realistic prevention methods that will affect birth/STI rates.
Interesting that you should pick on this instead of answering my question.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
johnm214 said: See: 42 USC sec 1710(b)(2)
thanks for the correction. I'm not sure what the remainder of your post's relevance is, however. Yes, it defines eligibility for funding. Regardless, this is what I understand abstinance based sex ed to be referring to as this is the policy/law that is inevitably discused in the news when such terms are used.
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I don't know why this removing abstinence based teaching is so controversial. Almost every other developed country uses non-abstinence based teaching methods for sexual education.
really? and they dont mention abstinence at all?
What does that have to do with anything? This seems like a false choice and irrelevant. Mentioning abstinence, in any case, is not what is objected to. I'm unsure why you and zappa continue to argue against these straw men without demonstrating the pertinence of the manufactured position you battle.
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
The point though is that making this one change to improve the curriculum like Johnm has eloquently outlined here would lead to not only less teen pregnancies but would decrease the so called non-forcible rape abortions, particularly the ones where the girl involved had a real modicum of control over if/how the sex would happen. It would do all this and decrease costs.
Yethat's one of the psychological problems I mentioned being perhaps derivative of organized instruction that you are psychologically and physically harmed when you have sex, and all the other nonsense which compounds the already fickle and complicated issue of teen sexuality. While I think its reasonable to presume the improvements in efficacy would be benefits to repealing such provisions, my main problem is the objection to schools being used to disseminate propaganda such as this and basically telling people "your dirty whores who are physically and mentally deviant and damaged" as the law requires funded sex ed to do (as essentially all of the instructed people do not abstain from premarital sex).
The incorrect information required to be taught as fact is another problem that needs addressing.
Finally, the further encouragement of marriage as a government function seems unwise, and I see no reason why the government should be taking a position on whether people should or should not get married and whether they should or should not have sex- especially not children who are compelled by law to listen to the message. These systems basically tell gay children that they must be abstinent if they don't have access to marriage- further repressing them with predictable consequences.
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 4 months, 6 days
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13891442 - 02/01/11 11:58 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why are you afraid of informing kids that abstinence is the most effective method to avoid pregnancy and STDs? That seems like some pretty fucking good edumacation right there, bub.
Because it is false. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hanson_24_2.htm
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: They mention it, but it isn't the stigma or main point of some of the curriculums like Johnm outlined. The emphasis was instead on realistic prevention methods that will affect birth/STI rates.
Interesting that you should pick on this instead of answering my question.
john didnt outline anything, he posted a small section of shit from a code section regarding funding of and alternative to comprehensive sex education, not the shit in every school in the US...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: johnm214]
#13891795 - 02/02/11 01:36 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> When opposing abstinance only sex education
Only? Nobody here (from what I have read) is advocating abstinence only sex education. I would agree that abstinence only sex education is stupid. On the contrary, ST was actually arguing for no (or "almost no") abstinence sex education... which the rest of us have pointed out is stupid. Abstinence is the single best method of avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, the will power of your average hormonal teen is not very strong. Of course other methods of birth control should be taught in sex education classes.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Seuss]
#13891880 - 02/02/11 02:21 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No I was referring to the same stuff that Johnm is referring to. If you guys were more familiar with the programs that result from these policies. you would understand why these are a bad move. I don't think you can understand how bad it is on paper in the law, you have to see it taught to understand. Not to mention that this class time is being wasted meeting those requirements instead of discussing actual issues.
However, I'm a little surprised that it hasn't clicked that schools that are low on funds (often in poor neighborhoods) will be the ones to turn to those curriculum for funding. In effect the legal code that Johnm has cited is a much greater part of the problem of teenage pregnancy among the poor than you guys seem to realize.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> If you guys were more familiar with the programs that result from these policies
I don't care about programs that result from these policies. That is not what I am arguing. If I meant abstinence only, then I would have said abstinence only rather than abstinence. I don't understand why some people continually try to read more into my words than what I write.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Smackshadow said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Why are you afraid of informing kids that abstinence is the most effective method to avoid pregnancy and STDs? That seems like some pretty fucking good edumacation right there, bub.
Because it is false. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hanson_24_2.htm
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
You'd have to be a pretty repressed kid to make abstinence work. Nature wins.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: The Rape Caucus [Re: Icelander]
#13893582 - 02/02/11 12:51 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Not always. Not always at all.
--------------------
|
jimbotron
Patty-Cake Enthusiast



Registered: 02/24/09
Posts: 2,324
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
|
Additional fun fact: the word 'woman', found even in recent abominations like the Stupak Amendment, is notably absent from the Redefining Rape Act.
Instead, it has been replaced by by 'Pregnant Female'. Like a horse or something. I shit you not. Go do a ctrl-f search if you don't believe me.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text
Coincidence?
Even more interesting, under this law, abortion isn't even considered a medical procedure anymore. As opposed to, say, getting breast implants.
Quote:
'(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion.
‘(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and 5 ‘(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
Read: if your insurance covers abortions, even if you never get one, even if you're 70 fucking years old and it's just part of your plan, EVEN IF YOU'RE A MAN WITH A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL GROUP PLAN... you can't deduct it.
Are they fucking joking?
Edited by jimbotron (02/02/11 10:56 PM)
|
|