PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again..Kansas State board of Education...


Saulbadguy
06-14-2006, 03:18 PM
State board OKs new sex education policy
Breaking News Video
See More Breaking Videos
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The Associated Press

The State Board of Education today adopted a new policy on human sexuality courses that is likely to upset advocates of comprehensive courses.

The new policy says local school districts shall have complete programs of "abstinence until marriage,” but those programs also will provide information about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

It isn't clear how influential the new policy will be. It will become part of guidelines on health education, but districts don't face any penalties if they don't follow them. And supporters of the policy said they merely want to give districts guidance on the best approach to sex education.

The board's conservative majority saw the language as a compromise from mandating abstinence-only courses. But minority board members worried the goal is to emphasize abstinence rather than give students information about preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

"The attitude built around it is to scare kids out of something,” said board member Sue Gamble, a Shawnee Republican who was on the short end of the board's 6-4 vote. "Scaring doesn't teach them anything.”

But some board members made it clear that "abstinence until marriage” was vital.

"I'm not sure I want to say, 'OK, you're out of high school, you're 17 or 18, and we're not going to say you're not going to have to abstain,'” said board member Connie Morris, a St. Francis Republican. "I want to stick with abstinence until marriage.”

Board member Kathy Martin, a Clay Center Republican who initially pushed for an abstinence-only mandate, said the new policy will send local districts and students a consistent message.

"It is the Christian message, after all, of what we want young people to do,” she said.

Donger
06-14-2006, 03:21 PM
"It is the Christian message, after all, of what we want young people to do,” she said.

What a f*cking stupid thing to say.

Boozer
06-14-2006, 03:23 PM
What a f*cking stupid thing to say.

At least she's not being deceitful.

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2006, 03:27 PM
At least she's not being deceitful.That's true. Give her at least one point.

htismaqe
06-14-2006, 03:43 PM
What's wrong with a compromise?

We have schools in this state that never MENTION abstinence in sex ed classes, even though it's the only 100%-guaranteed method of birth control.

Donger
06-14-2006, 03:46 PM
What's wrong with a compromise?

We have schools in this state that never MENTION abstinence in sex ed classes, even though it's the only 100%-guaranteed method of birth control.

Agreed. But approaching it from and promoting it as a religious declaration from a state school board is, well, f*cking stupid.

Boozer
06-14-2006, 03:49 PM
Agreed. But approaching it from and promoting it as a religious declaration from a state school board is, well, f*cking stupid.
But honest.

Donger
06-14-2006, 03:52 PM
But honest.

Yes, yes. An honest fool.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:58 PM
What's wrong with a compromise?

We have schools in this state that never MENTION abstinence in sex ed classes, even though it's the only 100%-guaranteed method of birth control.they don't mention that abstinence is the safest form of sex, both in terms of possible pregancy and exposure to stds?

at least compare other methods to abstinence in thier sex ed classes?

that's a fact that should be included in any sex ed class, an indisputable fact...

but i don't think it necessarily has to be based on christian values...

not having sex at all is the safest form of sex, it's a scientific and medical fact...

whether or not some christian group (in this case the school board) espouses the idea of stressing abstinence, doesn't change that fact...

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2006, 04:41 PM
they don't mention that abstinence is the safest form of sex, both in terms of possible pregancy and exposure to stds?

at least compare other methods to abstinence in thier sex ed classes?

that's a fact that should be included in any sex ed class, an indisputable fact...

but i don't think it necessarily has to be based on christian values...

not having sex at all is the safest form of sex, it's a scientific and medical fact...

whether or not some christian group (in this case the school board) espouses the idea of stressing abstinence, doesn't change that fact...
Most of the schools I've worked with DO discuss abstinence. Actually, I don't know of any that don't. :shrug:

WilliamTheIrish
06-14-2006, 05:45 PM
It isn't clear how influential the new policy will be. It will become part of guidelines on health education, but districts don't face any penalties if they don't follow them. And supporters of the policy said they merely want to give districts guidance on the best approach to sex education

So, like the the last two "OMG!!! LOOK WHAT THE KSBOA IS DOING" threads....

99% of the districts will not teach this way. Just like 99% of Kansas schoold districts did NOT teach creationism over evolution.

Deep breath everybody.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 07:27 PM
Another brilliant policy from the prudes at the KSBOE. :rolleyes:

BigMeatballDave
06-15-2006, 02:40 AM
I am a little embarrassed to admit I was born in Kansas... :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 05:40 AM
What's wrong with a compromise?

We have schools in this state that never MENTION abstinence in sex ed classes, even though it's the only 100%-guaranteed method of birth control.

I suppose it was logic like this that saw you become a mod?? Considering that the teaching of abstinence only hinders condom usage when the parties involved have sex, which is inevitable, it is far more damaging for it to be taught than any method of birth control. Abstinence is not and should never be considered a form of birth control...it's behavior control. The attempt to legislate desire is inimical to human nature, and that is precisely why it has been born out that this archaic method always proves to be ineffective.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 07:16 AM
I thought liberals wanted the govt out of people's sex lives?

oldandslow
06-15-2006, 09:11 AM
I thought liberals wanted the govt out of people's sex lives?

Actually, some of us do. For example, I believe that reproduction should be taught in a biology class and sexual behavior should be taught in a psych class - however, teaching a course on "sex ed" takes away from other courses that could and should be taught.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 09:34 AM
The fact of the matter is that it is in the best interests of a government to have a healthy and informed sexual populace. Comprehensive sex ed helps produce citizens who are more aware of their sexuality and not deluded by the idiocy of abstinence teachings.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 09:37 AM
No that's an opinion.
You could say the same for a lot of conservative issues too HJ.

Why not institute a sexual census....how often do you do it, what do you use for birth control etc. Perhaps monitors in our bedrooms?


You can't have your cake and eat it too.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 09:40 AM
No that's an opinion.
You could say the same for a lot of conservative issues too HJ.

Why not institute a sexual census....how often do you do it, what do you use for birth control etc. Perhaps monitors in our bedrooms?


You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Statistics bear me out. People who are taught abstinence only are more likely not to use contraceptives when they do have sex, and the amount of people that do have sex is no different than people who are taught comprehensive sex ed. Therefore, not only does abstinence *not* work, it has deleterious effects for the people who choose to have sex since they are not informed of the consequences of their decisions. I suggest that you bone up on the topic before you spout such inane gibberish.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 09:43 AM
a US review, "Emerging Answers", by the National Campaign To Prevent Teenage Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs.6 The conclusion of this review was that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity".

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 09:44 AM
Statistics bear me out. People who are taught abstinence only are more likely not to use contraceptives when they do have sex, and the amount of people that do have sex is no different than people who are taught comprehensive sex ed. Therefore, not only does abstinence *not* work, it has deleterious effects for the people who choose to have sex since they are not informed of the consequences of their decisions. I suggest that you bone up on the topic before you spout such inane gibberish.

That may be true...but I still question why this is a government matter.
However, what is considered good or bad, right or wrong are all opinions whether or not they are based on any supporting facts. Note: I never said I disagree with it either.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 09:49 AM
That may be true...but I still question why this is a government matter.
However, what is considered good or bad, right or wrong are all opinions whether or not they are based on any supporting facts. Note: I never said I disagree with it either.

Why is education a government matter??? Because it is in the best interests of a government to have a (reasonably) informed, intelligent, and literate populace. Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of personhood, therefore it follows that it would necessarily be a part of a formal education, since all other forms of behavior are socialized and instructed into our children (whether it be manners, multiplication tables, or dinner etiquette).

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 10:01 AM
Why is education a government matter??? Because it is in the best interests of a government to have a (reasonably) informed, intelligent, and literate populace. Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of personhood, therefore it follows that it would necessarily be a part of a formal education, since all other forms of behavior are socialized and instructed into our children (whether it be manners, multiplication tables, or dinner etiquette).
You think we have a reasonably informed,intelligent let alone literate populace today?

Functional illiteracy is skyrocketing in this country with public education.
Literacy was higher among more people before it.

But I don't want to hijack this thread into another topic.

I just don't agree with the assumption that if the govt does it we get the results we think we'll get is all on a pragmatic basis aside from the idea that it's not a govt matter.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 10:03 AM
Functional illiteracy is skyrocketing in this country with public education.
Literacy was higher among more people before it.

Let me guess....worldnetdaily or newsmax?

All kidding aside, I'd like to see that stats on that one, if you don't mind.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 10:17 AM
Let me guess....worldnetdaily or newsmax?

All kidding aside, I'd like to see that stats on that one, if you don't mind.
You must be in the dark then?
How many times has this been in the major media? Quite a lot.
Ever hear of "Nation at Risk" and it's later follow up?
I am very involved in education. I see it every day.
I teach part-time, college level. I've had students who can't read.
There are remedial reading tutors on campus and there is a lot of tutoring in the lower schools going on today more than before.
I've hired people and test them. It's hard to find good qualified young people today. I have a kid in a private school for this very reason.
Take a good look at what the average citizen was reading in the 1800's compared today. Brutal, even for me. Try the Federalist Papers for one.
Functional llliteracy is 48% where I live.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 10:23 AM
You must be in the dark then?
How many times has this been in the major media? Quite a lot.
Ever hear of "Nation at Risk" and it's later follow up?
I am very involved in education. I see it every day.
I teach part-time, college level. I've had students who can't read.
There are remedial reading tutors on campus and there is a lot of tutoring in the lower schools going on today more than before.
I've hired people and test them. It's hard to find good qualified young people today. I have a kid in a private school for this very reason.
Take a good look at what the average citizen was reading in the 1800's compared today. Brutal, even for me. Try the Federalist Papers for one.
Functional llliteracy is 48% where I live.

Guess not. Numbers? Or are you moving the bar to "functional literacy?" Still, I'd like to see the numbers for that, too.

And do you really think the "average citizen" was reading the Federalist Papers? That wasn't their intended audience.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 10:23 AM
Let me guess....worldnetdaily or newsmax?

All kidding aside, I'd like to see that stats on that one, if you don't mind.

I'll pass...since this is just a set up to ridicule the sources I'd use.
Do a Google, using functional illiteracy and you'll get quite a bit of data and stats. I assure of this.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 10:26 AM
And do you really think the "average citizen" was reading the Federalist Papers? That wasn't their intended audience.

Yes they were. They would sit around and read them. If children were taught how to read using the Bible, which is pretty tough reading, then I can see how they could read these.

I mean really, even a Jane Austen novel, written during the early 1800's, is quite hefty for today's audiences.

banyon
06-15-2006, 10:39 AM
This is just another reason for hi-tech employers to stay away from our state.

Also it devalues any scientific degrees that come from K-State or KU.

Hell, it devalues my KU Law degree. When I talked to employers on the coast, some said, "Oh, Kansas? You guys are the retards that want creationism right?"

Pitt Gorilla
06-15-2006, 10:42 AM
You must be in the dark then?
How many times has this been in the major media? Quite a lot.
Ever hear of "Nation at Risk" and it's later follow up?
I am very involved in education. I see it every day.
I teach part-time, college level. I've had students who can't read.
There are remedial reading tutors on campus and there is a lot of tutoring in the lower schools going on today more than before.
I've hired people and test them. It's hard to find good qualified young people today. I have a kid in a private school for this very reason.
Take a good look at what the average citizen was reading in the 1800's compared today. Brutal, even for me. Try the Federalist Papers for one.
Functional llliteracy is 48% where I live.

I must admit that I know very little about functional literacy. I can honestly say that I've never encountered a college student in any of my courses that couldn't read (including research). I found this on Wikipedia:

The United States
In the United States, one in seven people (more than 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill, which arguably makes them functionally illiterate in a developed country such as the US. In 2003, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), conducted by the US Department of Education, found that fourteen percent of American adults scored at this “below basic” level in prose literacy. More than half of these persons did not have a high-school diploma or GED. Thirty-nine percent of persons at this level were Hispanic; 20 percent were black; and 37 percent were White. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, "results showed that the average quantitative literacy scores of adults increased 8 points between 1992 and 2003, though average prose and document literacy did not differ significantly from 1992. Among blacks, average prose literacy scores increased by 6 points and average document literacy scores rose by eight points between 1992 and 2003. The average prose scores of Asians/Pacific Islanders increased as well, rising 16 points between 1992 and 2003. The average prose literacy scores of hispanics fell 18 points from 1992 to 2003, while average document literacy scores decreased by 14 points. Average prose and document literacy scores among whites did not change significantly." Literacy among college graduates declined between 1992 and 2003, with less than one-third of all graduates at the highest “proficient” level in 2003, and less than half of all graduates with advanced degrees at this level.

Lurch
06-15-2006, 10:50 AM
.... "Oh, Kansas? You guys are the retards that want creationism right?"
"Oh, California? You guys are the retards that give college educations to illegals, and want to legalize two corn-holers tying the knot?" Depends on where you wanna live, I guess.

Pitt Gorilla
06-15-2006, 11:02 AM
"Oh, California? You guys are the retards that give college educations to illegals, and want to legalize two corn-holers tying the knot?" Depends on where you wanna live, I guess. I can't imagine living in either place. Well, San Diego is nice.

Baby Lee
06-15-2006, 11:05 AM
I can't imagine living in either place. Well, San Diego is nice.
A Whale's Vagina!!!

banyon
06-15-2006, 11:06 AM
"Oh, California? You guys are the retards that give college educations to illegals, and want to legalize two corn-holers tying the knot?" Depends on where you wanna live, I guess.

That'd be fine, if they didn't have all the jobs and money, we could just ridicule them like they do us.

Lurch
06-15-2006, 11:06 AM
I can't imagine living in either place. Well, San Diego is nice.

I suppose you think Misery is better? Heh.

Lurch
06-15-2006, 11:08 AM
That'd be fine, if they didn't have all the jobs and money, we could just ridicule them like they do us.
All the jobs and money? Any reason so many native Californians are heading to Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Arizona then? Maybe the crime, and pollution, and high cost of living. Yeah, the climate and beaches/mountains are fun, but the tradeoffs are a bitch to some of our ways of thinking.

Pitt Gorilla
06-15-2006, 11:09 AM
I suppose you think Misery is better? Heh.
I do like the hills/mountains in MO, along with the rivers and lakes. The eastern portion of KS is similar and I could handle that. However, central to western KS isn't my idea of optimal.

Lurch
06-15-2006, 11:10 AM
I do like the hills/mountains in MO, along with the rivers and lakes. The eastern portion of KS is similar and I could handle that. However, central to western KS isn't my idea of optimal.

Fair enough. Every state has pros and cons. At least we don't live in friggin' Mississippi or South Dakota or some place like that though, I guess.

banyon
06-15-2006, 11:19 AM
All the jobs and money? Any reason so many native Californians are heading to Washington and Oregon and Nevada and Arizona then? Maybe the crime, and pollution, and high cost of living. Yeah, the climate and beaches/mountains are fun, but the tradeoffs are a bitch to some of our ways of thinking.

Nevada is certainly a bastion of Morality.

The argument is about the midwest and our jobs, not intra-West Coast Migration.

Mr. Laz
06-15-2006, 12:01 PM
i wonder how/why a human sexuality course is discussing "non sex"

i mean isn't the point of a human sexuality course to discuss all the various aspects OF SEX.


choosing to not have sex comes BEFORE the sexuality course ....... doesn't it??


see what i'm saying :shrug:



much like wanting a science class to discuss creationism




trying to shove square pegs into round holes if ya ask me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-15-2006, 12:07 PM
Yes they were. They would sit around and read them. If children were taught how to read using the Bible, which is pretty tough reading, then I can see how they could read these.

I mean really, even a Jane Austen novel, written during the early 1800's, is quite hefty for today's audiences.

Have you ever taken a course in linguistics?? Look at the changes that the English language has undergone in the last 150 years. That speaks to the 'heft' of the novel more than anything. If you gave a Victorian audience a text with a fair amount of ebonics and they wouldn't know heads from tails either. Just one particular example.

I'm sure that chimney sweeps would greatly appreciate your desire to return to the era before public education.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 01:30 PM
I'll pass...since this is just a set up to ridicule the sources I'd use.
Do a Google, using functional illiteracy and you'll get quite a bit of data and stats. I assure of this.

I'm not doubting the legimacy of functional illiteracy. I do doubt, however, that a higher percentage of Americans were nominally literate before the advent of universal public education (when exactly did this occur?) than today. According to the CIA World Factbook, we're at 99% literacy (defined as being able to read and write--doesn't say how well...probably not very). I'd bet that the percentage of Americans with basic literacy skills was substantially below that in 1800. Care to take me up on that?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 01:44 PM
I'm not doubting the legimacy of functional illiteracy. I do doubt, however, that a higher percentage of Americans were nominally literate before the advent of universal public education (when exactly did this occur?) than today. According to the CIA World Factbook, we're at 99% literacy (defined as being able to read and write--doesn't say how well...probably not very). I'd bet that the percentage of Americans with basic literacy skills was substantially below that in 1800. Care to take me up on that?


I'm not ignoring your earlier post using wikipedia...I had to go out. I also saw that and decided not to use it as it also said how "literacy" is defined falls along ideological lines. See the problem there? That does enter in because people have different standards.

This is why observation and experience can count for a lot more than someone's statistics...what with grade inflation, low standards in the schools etc.

This past semester I took the textbook and put the key chapters into a visual Power Point presentation to help...and it did help. And I don't teach rocket science.

In my county functional illiteracy is 48% per a newspaper article I remember but I have found this:

Literacy of College Grads on the Declone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html)
Illiteracy on the Rise in the US (http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/ill-o14.shtml)

I found some more but that should suffice.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 01:46 PM
I'm not ignoring your earlier post using wikipedia...I had to go out. I also saw that and decided not to use it as it also said how "literacy" is defined falls along ideological lines. See the problem there? That does enter in because people have different standards.

This is why observation and experience can count for a lot more than someone's statistics...what with grade inflation, low standards in the schools etc.

This past semester I took the textbook and put the key chapters into a visual Power Point presentation to help...and it did help. And I don't teach rocket science.

In my county functional illiteracy is 48% per a newspaper article I remember but I have found this:

Literacy of College Grads on the Declone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html)
Illiteracy on the Rise in the US (http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/ill-o14.shtml)

I found some more but that should suffice.

That was Pitt who had the wiki quote, not me. I'll get to those links presently. Thanks.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 01:55 PM
OK, got through the links. First off, neither article is responsive to my inquiry as to whether literacy (of any variety, functional or minimal) is lower now than it was before the advent of universal public education.

Second, I agree that literacy, and the effectiveness of education in America, is not what it should be. I never said otherwise. I guess I agree with the Washington Post and the Trotskyist Fourth International...America should be doing better. But again, "should be doing better" /= "we're worse off than before universal public education."

EDIT* Unless, of course, there was no universal public education before 1970. They you'd be right. ;)

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Have you ever taken a course in linguistics?? Look at the changes that the English language has undergone in the last 150 years. That speaks to the 'heft' of the novel more than anything. If you gave a Victorian audience a text with a fair amount of ebonics and they wouldn't know heads from tails either. Just one particular example.

I'm sure that chimney sweeps would greatly appreciate your desire to return to the era before public education.

Do I have to take a course to know this? No. I can read.
There is a difference between being schooled and being educated ya' know.
We have lots of schooling but not much education today.
And I mean historical, geographical, constitutional illiteracy as well.

I taught my daughter how to read at age 4 with no background in the area to start. It's the easiest thing in the world. I read up on some of that linguistic material at that time. I get your drift. My point was their extensive vocabularies which is seriously lacking today and an ability to write a sentence or thought cohesively with some basic grammar.

As to my "desire" to return to an era before public education, I believe what I posted before was that we need another way to fund it, at least and to get the govt out of delivering it. I know that public education is a "sacred cow" and is here to stay. But I have never been against locally funding it and control, and by that I mean very local. It was at least better then.

I can compromise. I like to use what I call reverse dialetical materialism to push things over to using things from freer, and imo more successful models.
I don't see why those with school age children cannot be given a tax credit to take their child to a better school. I know a black lady who works three jobs to keep her kid in the same school my child goes to. It's never the money if you want it bad enough.

And the Federal govt had no constitutional authority to be involved whatsoever. They are just making it worse.

And for the record, the private schools also need to be watched because as I posted before the teachers have been dumbed-down too. The whole system sukks and is beyond reform....the money just goes to the same people who created the problem.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:12 PM
OK, got through the links. First off, neither article is responsive to my inquiry as to whether literacy (of any variety, functional or minimal) is lower now than it was before the advent of universal public education.

Second, I agree that literacy, and the effectiveness of education in America, is not what it should be. I never said otherwise. I guess I agree with the Washington Post and the Trotskyist Fourth International...America should be doing better. But again, "should be doing better" /= "we're worse off than before universal public education."

EDIT* Unless, of course, there was no universal public education before 1970. They you'd be right. ;)
My point is that being schooled does not equal an education.
May people who wanted an education bad enough got it before universal education.

I would not be able to prove, at least using sources you'd be inclined to trust, via the internet. It'd have to be through more comprehensive books such as those on the history of education: how they had extensive charity openings and that the basic literacy was around 90% with the little time spent in school. Except the author is a Jewish man who converted to Calvinism, and is religious. So right there the source is circumspect to you.

Let's not forget that it was a church that opened up education in the Middle Ages to everybody as an institution surrounding the building of the great cathedrals...around which not only learning sprung but most of Europe's cities. Also, that same church opened up the first institution of learning in the Americas which was copied in New England by the founding of Harvard.

So, no, links will not suffice....it requires far more extensive reading than mere links.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 02:15 PM
My point is that being schooled does not equal an education.
May people who wanted an education bad enough got it before universal education.

I would not be able to prove, at least using sources you'd be inclined to trust, via the internet. It'd have to be through more comprehensive books such as those on the history of education: how they had extensive charity openings and that the basic literacy was around 90% with the little time spent in school. Except the author is a Jewish man who converted to Calvinism, and is religious. So right there the source is circumspect to you.

Let's not forget that it was a church that opened up education in the Middle Ages to everybody as an institution surrounding the building of the great cathedrals...around which not only learning sprung but most of Europe's cities. Also, that same church opened up the first institution of learning in the Americas which was copied in New England by the founding of Harvard.

So, no, links will not suffice....it requires far more extensive reading than mere links.

I'm not inherently suspicious of Calvinists. It's just that when you say something that goes against the conventional wisdom, and can't prove it by anything more than "It's in a book I read," that's not enough to convince me. I hope you aren't so easily hoodwinked.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 02:21 PM
Hey, BEP! Fluoride in drinking water isn't really to reduce cavaties, but a communist mind control plot. I read it in a book (and I bet I can find a few fringe Internet links to back me up).

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:22 PM
I'm not inherently suspicious of Calvinists. It's just that when you say something that goes against the conventional wisdom, and can't prove it by anything more than "It's in a book I read," that's not enough to convince me. I hope you aren't so easily hoodwinked.

Of course I'm not easily hoodwinked, even if it may seem that way to you and others.

It's just as I get older and more distinguished, and gain experience in life I'm less likely to accept what I grew up believing: that govt is the solution to most of these things. That includes questioning "conventional wisdom" or the "group think" of our time. I take great interest in reading, particularly cultural history and many other things we take for granted as true and digging and checking it out. The more I learn the more I move away from that model as "the" only way.

I am pretty much convinced at this point in life that govt will usually do a lower quality job on most things. That the real accomplishments and achievements in our society stem from individual endeavors and rising above an avid craving for agreement in order to get something done.

Most of so called geniouses you will find had quite unconventional educations.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 02:31 PM
Of course I'm not easily hoodwinked, even if it may seem that way to you and others.

It's just as I get older and more distinguished, and gain experience in life I'm less likely to accept what I grew up believing: that govt is the solution to most of these things. That include questioning "convention "wisdom" or the "group think" of our time. I take great interest in reading, particularly cultural history and many other things we take for granted as true and digging and checking it out. The more I learn the more I move away from that model as "the" only way.

I am pretty much convinced at this point in life that govt will usually do a lower quality job on most things. That the real accomplishments and achievements in our society stem from individual endeavors and rising above an avid craving for agreement in order to get something done.

A perfectly reasoned and legitimate worldview. But again, totally nonresponsive to the issue under discussion.

You read in a book that functional literacy (or any literacy, for that matter) is lower now than it was before we had widespread public education. This information, whether the underlying statistics or interpretation thereof, is apparently not available to you anywhere on this large communications network known as the Internet. In fact, it runs directly counter to the widely accepted (and much supported by available evidence) view that there were large portions of the population who could not read.* Now, I'll admit that it is within the realm of possibility that you are right, and that religious Sunday schools and other institutions were able to effectively reach and teach a higher percentage of Americans to read than public school does today. Although possible, nothing you have said has convinced me one iota that this is the case. It's not that my mind is closed, it's that your nonresponsiveness is unpersuasive. To the contrary, it indicates that the opposite of your position is true.



*Remember, as recently as the late 1800s (maybe later) literacy was used as a proxy to keep blacks from voting. Any many whites could only vote, despite their illiteracy, because of "grandfather" clauses.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:33 PM
*Remember, as recently as the late 1800s (maybe later) literacy was used as a proxy to keep blacks from voting. Any many whites could only vote, despite their illiteracy, because of "grandfather" clauses.


And people of property could only vote too.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 02:36 PM
And people of property could only vote too.

Yes, although I don't believe that was a restriction by the time of the Reconstruction.

But again, like most of your posts in response to me, totally irrelevant and nonresponsive to the issue of whether more people could read then than can now.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 02:48 PM
Yes, although I don't believe that was a restriction by the time of the Reconstruction.

But again, like most of your posts in response to me, totally irrelevant and nonresponsive to the issue of whether more people could read then than can now.

In your opinion.

You already mocked WND for a source on this topic and that educational historian,where I got my point on literacy before govt schools, is an honored columnist there. So your bias is clear.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 03:00 PM
I've been googling all afternoon under various words...believe it or not one of my regular reading sources came up with something and I never thought to check it because it's mostly my source for economics. Comes complete with a bibliography.

I will hold my breath, for now, on what I expect to be the typical challenges on it however.


"Free" Education and Literacy ( http://www.mises.org/story/1425)

In 1640, male literacy in London was more than 50%, and more than 33% in the countryside. These rates were obtained under a privately administered fee-based educational system. As the demand for education rose during the Industrial Revolution, however, private schools grew to supply consumer needs. By 1818, one of every fourteen people in the total population attended school for some period. Twice as many children attended school only ten years later. A Government Report of 1833 (criticized for underreporting attendance levels) found a 73% increase in the number of schooled children between 1818 and 1833.[ii] During 1833, 58% of attendees paid full fees, while only 27% received endowments for education.[iii]


The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]

BTW the 98% figure was the figure I recalled from my reading about Massachusetts, where I am originally from.


While some people might wonder exactly what literacy entailed during the early Nineteenth Century, anecdotal evidence points to a highly educated and refined populace. In his book [i]Separating School and State, Sheldon Richman gives a variety of examples of the sophisticated nature of America's readers.


:D :toast: :thumb:

go bowe
06-15-2006, 03:14 PM
wnd????

ROLF ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 03:17 PM
wnd????

ROLF ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

That last post is not from WND. It's from the Mises Institute.

And the person I was referring to who is a contributing columnist to wnd daily is not only an educational historian with several books on the subject, but was a guest at the White House and turns around failing children from the public schools as a tutor, often with great success.

You do know that wnd, which I don't read much anymore due to their war stand, does have libertarians contributing as well as some liberals right?
You can take your pick on who you want to read there.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 03:21 PM
Is go bo and boozer the same poster?

I notice that boozer has not come back after finally finding what he wanted.

banyon
06-15-2006, 03:26 PM
Is go bo and boozer the same poster?

I notice that boozer has not come back after finally finding what he wanted.

Maybe he had somewhere else to be? :shrug:

I could post a lot when I was unemployed too. Those were truly the Halcyon days! :sulk:

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 03:28 PM
Maybe he had somewhere else to be? :shrug:

I could post a lot when I was unemployed too. Those were truly the Halcyon days! :sulk:
That's true but he was very active up to that point.
BTW I am not unemployed....I am supposed to be working and not getting it done. But am on my own dime and time right now.

banyon
06-15-2006, 04:03 PM
That's true but he was very active up to that point.
BTW I am not unemployed....I am supposed to be working and not getting it done. But am on my own dime and time right now.

Sorry, my "too" referred to my posting a lot, not your employment status. Knew that was unclear.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 04:12 PM
Is go bo and boozer the same poster?

I notice that boozer has not come back after finally finding what he wanted.finding what he wanted?

why did he say your posts were nonresponsive?

if you found what he wanted, i mean?



btw, you're gonna piss off boozer by suggesting that we are the same poster...

have you noticed how similar our posting styles are?

or is it just that we both laugh at your sources? :Poke:

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:24 PM
finding what he wanted?

why did he say your posts were nonresponsive?

if you found what he wanted, i mean?

Again you have difficulty with sequences I see.
I posted what he wanted AFTER he said that.
Not only do you need "Hooked-on-Phonics" but you need remedial math too. ROFL

banyon
06-15-2006, 05:34 PM
[QUOTE=go bo]finding what he wanted?

why did he say your posts were nonresponsive?

if you found what he wanted, i mean?[quote]

Again you have difficulty with sequences I see.
I posted what he wanted after he said that.
Not only do you need Hooked on Phonics but you need remedial math.

Yeah, go bo. You are teh suck!!!!1 ROFL :p

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:45 PM
[QUOTE=go bo]finding what he wanted?

why did he say your posts were nonresponsive?

if you found what he wanted, i mean?[QUOTE=BucEyedPea][QUOTE=go bo]finding what he wanted?

why did he say your posts were nonresponsive?

if you found what he wanted, i mean?

If you follow the sequence he demanded a link on a specific point about literacy pre-public education. I had no link but could refer him to a few educational history books by an education author and teacher/tutor, who also writes for WND. He discredited that source from the get-go. So I was not going to use it, even if that point was not on WND. It's from a contributer to WND as well as other conservative sites. Thus my "unresponsiveness."

I knew from earlier reading, books on education history, that my point was legit but that was not acceptable to him. You see only the net has the truth. LMAO!

However, my last post with a link does provide what he wanted. After that post he never came back. That link also had a bibliography of books as well backing up the link. And one of the numbers on literacy levels pre-govt education was what I was referring to. So that did back up what I said early on.

For lawyers, you guys don't track the order of events very well.
Or sounds to me you didn't read the thread closely.

Cochise
06-15-2006, 05:49 PM
Hey, if we had privatized education, you could send your kids to study whatever ideology you wanted. It's only when the government "runs" this stuff that you have problems like this.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:50 PM
Hey, if we had privatized education, you could send your kids to study whatever ideology you wanted. It's only when the government "runs" this stuff that you have problems like this.


Thank you! :)

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:53 PM
Yeah, go bo. You are teh suck!!!!1 ROFL :p

Nah! Most likely gubment educated!!! ROFL I understand these things and have compassion for such people. :p

htismaqe
06-15-2006, 07:39 PM
I suppose it was logic like this that saw you become a mod?? Considering that the teaching of abstinence only hinders condom usage when the parties involved have sex, which is inevitable, it is far more damaging for it to be taught than any method of birth control. Abstinence is not and should never be considered a form of birth control...it's behavior control. The attempt to legislate desire is inimical to human nature, and that is precisely why it has been born out that this archaic method always proves to be ineffective.

First of all, what in the **** does any of this have to do with me being a mod? Absolutely nothing.

Parties having sex is NOT inevitable.

htismaqe
06-15-2006, 07:40 PM
they don't mention that abstinence is the safest form of sex, both in terms of possible pregancy and exposure to stds?

at least compare other methods to abstinence in thier sex ed classes?

that's a fact that should be included in any sex ed class, an indisputable fact...

but i don't think it necessarily has to be based on christian values...

not having sex at all is the safest form of sex, it's a scientific and medical fact...

whether or not some christian group (in this case the school board) espouses the idea of stressing abstinence, doesn't change that fact...

Precisely. I'm not moral or religious, so I could care less about all that shit.

However, even though abstinence is a 100%, guaranteed FACT, it's also a VALUE championed by the religious right, and therefore many will fight against it being taught in schools, no matter what the motivation is for teaching it.

Just look at Hamas' responses for an example.

htismaqe
06-15-2006, 07:44 PM
The fact of the matter is that it is in the best interests of a government to have a healthy and informed sexual populace. Comprehensive sex ed helps produce citizens who are more aware of their sexuality and not deluded by the idiocy of abstinence teachings.

ROFL

COMPREHENSIVE sex ed would include all forms of contraception, not just the ones that you don't agree with.

htismaqe
06-15-2006, 07:44 PM
Why is education a government matter??? Because it is in the best interests of a government to have a (reasonably) informed, intelligent, and literate populace. Sexuality is a fundamental aspect of personhood, therefore it follows that it would necessarily be a part of a formal education, since all other forms of behavior are socialized and instructed into our children (whether it be manners, multiplication tables, or dinner etiquette).

ROFL

That's why the public schools continue to churn out cubicle rats that can't find their own state on a globe...

Yeah, they sure have their best interests in mind.

htismaqe
06-15-2006, 07:46 PM
i wonder how/why a human sexuality course is discussing "non sex"

i mean isn't the point of a human sexuality course to discuss all the various aspects OF SEX.


choosing to not have sex comes BEFORE the sexuality course ....... doesn't it??


see what i'm saying :shrug:



much like wanting a science class to discuss creationism




trying to shove square pegs into round holes if ya ask me.

It's not at ALL like discussing creationism unless people want to make it that.

Creationism is inherently religious and has no business in a government-funded school.

Abstinence is NOT inherently religious, but some people can't get past their fear...

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 07:57 PM
ROFL

That's why the public schools continue to churn out cubicle rats that can't find their own state on a globe...

Yeah, they sure have their best interests in mind.

Thank you for pointin' out the obvious. :thumb: Even Jay Leno taking a mic to the streets proves it.

Now about that raise. :p

Boozer
06-15-2006, 08:47 PM
Maybe he had somewhere else to be? :shrug:

I could post a lot when I was unemployed too. Those were truly the Halcyon days! :sulk:

I was stinking up the golf course. But a bad day on the course is better than a good day studying for the bar. I'll get back to her worldnetcrazy.com crap after dinner.

Boozer
06-15-2006, 08:49 PM
In your opinion.

You already mocked WND for a source on this topic and that educational historian,where I got my point on literacy before govt schools, is an honored columnist there. So your bias is clear.

My bias is against WND, which has out-and-out bullshit all over the front page on a regular basis. With so much material available on the Internet, there is rarely need to go to fringe sites to find legitimate material.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 08:53 PM
My bias is against WND, which has out-and-out bullshit all over the front page on a regular basis. With so much material available on the Internet, there is rarely need to go to fringe sites to find legitimate material.

You seem to have selective perception. I told you I rarely read it, particularly due to their war stand and some religion aspects. Like I said you can take your pick of who to read there. Since it does have some contributers I like, libertarians mainly, I can sift things out. This particular contributer is someone I do respect and I suspect is probably also anti-Iraq invasion as well.

Get it right!

However, I did use Mises. I will hold my breath for now, or my fingers, but I think I know what's coming next. But oh no another lawyer...talk about Establishment with a capital "E."

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:22 AM
ROFL

That's why the public schools continue to churn out cubicle rats that can't find their own state on a globe...

Yeah, they sure have their best interests in mind.

That has a lot more to do with class warfare than it does what the government actually wants out of its citizens.

If you are honestly naive enough to believe that privatizing education is the solution to this, well then I guess I'd like some of your 6-year-old pills too. I have a strong feeling that most educational companies would have no qualms with lowering the standards of education if it would yield a better profit margin.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:25 AM
First of all, what in the **** does any of this have to do with me being a mod? Absolutely nothing.

Parties having sex is NOT inevitable.

Human sexuality is an unavoidable consequence of existence. Sexuality isn't just having sex, and one of the great problems w/ abstinence only is that it stigmatizes all human sexuality that isn't church sanctioned (even if it claims to be a state-sponsored program), which creates a citizenry that knows nothing about a fundamental aspect of what makes them human.

The mod comment was made in reaction to the fact that such a vapid analysis could be made by someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority on the board. If you use the same logic in your decisions regarding the policy of the bb as you do in deciphering this thread, then I worry for the state of the bb. Hence the invenctive.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 08:44 AM
That has a lot more to do with class warfare than it does what the government actually wants out of its citizens.

If you are honestly naive enough to believe that privatizing education is the solution to this, well then I guess I'd like some of your 6-year-old pills too. I have a strong feeling that most educational companies would have no qualms with lowering the standards of education if it would yield a better profit margin.

And you don't think sex education is at all related to class warfare?

Who has more children, rich people or poor people? Who ENCOURAGES them to have more kids?

The government has a VESTED interest in maintaining a LARGE and ever-expanding lower class. It's that class that depends on the government most.

I never said privatizing education was the solution. However, I much prefer the idea making profit at all costs over maintaining an army of mindless sheep at all costs.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 08:49 AM
Human sexuality is an unavoidable consequence of existence. Sexuality isn't just having sex, and one of the great problems w/ abstinence only is that it stigmatizes all human sexuality that isn't church sanctioned (even if it claims to be a state-sponsored program), which creates a citizenry that knows nothing about a fundamental aspect of what makes them human.

The mod comment was made in reaction to the fact that such a vapid analysis could be made by someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority on the board. If you use the same logic in your decisions regarding the policy of the bb as you do in deciphering this thread, then I worry for the state of the bb. Hence the invenctive.

NO IT DOES NOT.

Abstinence has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with church, religion, or anything, UNLESS people (on either side) want to make it so. You're trying to assign motive (morality) to an action (abstaining) that inherently has NO MOTIVE. I know many people who have abstained from sex who are not religious at all and most of them simply wanted to avoid unnecessary complications at that point in their lives, namely pregnancy and disease.

Fear and ignorance obviously exist on both sides of the aisle. I never once suggested that we should teach ONLY abstinence. I suggested we should not OMIT abstinence.

And I'm going to disregard your mod comment. We've fought this since the inception of this board. The mods here are, first and foremost, members. Anybody that holds us to a higher standard than other members when it comes to posting on topics that have nothing to do with moderating...well, that's their problem.

Donger
06-16-2006, 09:25 AM
one of the great problems w/ abstinence only is that it stigmatizes all human sexuality that isn't church sanctioned

What makes you think that not f*cking has anything to do with 'the church?' Sure, some people do so based on religious convictions, but not all.

I hope that you're not attempting to suggest otherwise.

Donger
06-16-2006, 09:27 AM
Creationism is inherently religious and has no business in a government-funded school.

Abstinence is NOT inherently religious, but some people can't get past their fear...

Precisely.

Boozer
06-16-2006, 10:07 AM
I've been googling all afternoon under various words...believe it or not one of my regular reading sources came up with something and I never thought to check it because it's mostly my source for economics. Comes complete with a bibliography.

I will hold my breath, for now, on what I expect to be the typical challenges on it however.


"Free" Education and Literacy ( http://www.mises.org/story/1425)






BTW the 98% figure was the figure I recalled from my reading about Massachusetts, where I am originally from.





:D :toast: :thumb:

I won't dispute the validity of the first quote's underlying statistics, because they still don't prove your point, even if true. Those numbers are for male literacy, not population as a whole.

As to the second statistic, those numbers don't jibe with Census data, which shows a 20% illiteracy rate (for the entire country) in 1870. See the chart on page one. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/p20-099/p20-99.pdf

Would you agree that the weight of evidence (even if you disagree with the accuracy of some) is against the idea of higher literacy before public schooling? What of estimates that a 30-40% literacy rate was a prerequisite to a rapid expansion of the economy? (A figure arrived at because that's what England had at the onset of the IR).*

Now, to head off some bitching in advance, I'll be back eventually, but I'm fairly busy today and can't hang around my computer eagarly anticipating your next reply.

*M.J. Bowman and C.A. Anderson, "Concerning the Role of Education in Development" in Old Societies and New States (1963).

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 10:25 AM
And you don't think sex education is at all related to class warfare?

Who has more children, rich people or poor people? Who ENCOURAGES them to have more kids?

The government has a VESTED interest in maintaining a LARGE and ever-expanding lower class. It's that class that depends on the government most.

I never said privatizing education was the solution. However, I much prefer the idea making profit at all costs over maintaining an army of mindless sheep at all costs.

The government has no vested interest in maintaining a large lower class, that is patently false. There are interests within government that have an interest in this happening (various corporate incursions), but to make the claim that government has any inherent biases regarding this is an oversimplification indicative of a Reaganesque hatred of government.

Profit at all costs is better than maintaining an army of sheep. So, then I take it that you would be a fan of slavery since it is the ultimate profit generating economic system for the haves, since they have no financial outlays.

Furthermore, birth control works. Condoms present disease and the pill is over 99% effective. People who use the excuse of not wanting disease and pregnancy in their lives have bought in to the sermons of zealots who try and demonize human sexuality as the cause of society's ailments.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 10:28 AM
What makes you think that not f*cking has anything to do with 'the church?' Sure, some people do so based on religious convictions, but not all.

I hope that you're not attempting to suggest otherwise.

The fact that abstinence programs are heavily subsidized by church and religious interests. For f*ck's sake, get real.

I suppose it is just mere happenstance that when this government is controlled by extremely social conservatives that we just happened to vote in accordance with Theocracies such as Iran and Syria in vetoing a UN Proposal for comprehensive sex ed in developing countries. What do you think is the primary mover behind that if not religion, our genuine love of Iranians and Syrians?? Give me a break.

Donger
06-16-2006, 10:34 AM
The fact that abstinence programs are heavily subsidized by church and religious interests. For f*ck's sake, get real.

Yes, they are.

So, are you saying that all abstinence programs are driven by religious convictions?

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 10:39 AM
The government has no vested interest in maintaining a large lower class, that is patently false. There are interests within government that have an interest in this happening (various corporate incursions), but to make the claim that government has any inherent biases regarding this is an oversimplification indicative of a Reaganesque hatred of government.

Prove it. Prove that it's patently false. You can't, any more than I can prove it's true. It's my opinion, and it's just as informed as yours is. And yes, it is indicative of a hatred of government. You're very observant - I don't like our government. It's an abomination and a slap in the face to the forefathers of our country.

Profit at all costs is better than maintaining an army of sheep. So, then I take it that you would be a fan of slavery since it is the ultimate profit generating economic system for the haves, since they have no financial outlays.

Furthermore, birth control works. Condoms present disease and the pill is over 99% effective. People who use the excuse of not wanting disease and pregnancy in their lives have bought in to the sermons of zealots who try and demonize human sexuality as the cause of society's ailments.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

You call me out for "oversimplification" and then you make those statements?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 10:46 AM
Prove it. Prove that it's patently false. You can't, any more than I can prove it's true. It's my opinion, and it's just as informed as yours is. And yes, it is indicative of a hatred of government. You're very observant - I don't like our government. It's an abomination and a slap in the face to the forefathers of our country.



ROFL ROFL ROFL

You call me out for "oversimplification" and then you make those statements?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Your opinion is informed with spin and a lack of a true understanding of what government does.

"Government" is a disinterested entity, it isn't anything. It has no motives, nor any desires. A government isn't a corporation, an entity designed to make as much money as absolutely possible under any circumstances. You don't hate government, you hate the people within government. There is a huge jump between a hatred of government and the hatred of the people within government. Why would a government want to have a large uneducated class of sheep?? It does it no good to create large superstructures to manage these so called sheep, it only benefits the people who can take advantage of those sheep. Capitalism, however, has a great interest in maintaining a class of dumb sheep, since capitalism runs on the fuel of emiserated workers with false consciousness. There is a massive canyon between those two assertions and you know it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 10:48 AM
Yes, they are.

So, are you saying that all abstinence programs are driven by religious convictions?

How great of a difference does it matter if it is 95% church and 5% moneyed interests as opposed to 92% church and 8% moneyed interests. You're arguing semantics here.

Donger
06-16-2006, 10:51 AM
How great of a difference does it matter if it is 95% church and 5% moneyed interests as opposed to 92% church and 8% moneyed interests. You're arguing semantics here.

I just know that the only, 100%, fool-proof way to not get pregnant or some nasty STDs is to abstain from sexual activity. You would agree with that, right?

*EDIT - Never mind. I just realized that I'm discussing this with someone who claims that the government 'forces' poor people not to vote. I think I'll go and discuss with my dog why he eats his shit.

Carry on.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 10:54 AM
I just know that the only, 100%, fool-proof way to not get pregnant or some nasty STDs is to abstain from sexual activity. You would agree with that, right?

And the teachings of abstinence only education causes people to not use prophylactics when they do engage in sexual activity, which does and will happen. Abstinence only education is a program that ignores the elephant in the room, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 11:19 AM
Your opinion is informed with spin and a lack of a true understanding of what government does.

"Government" is a disinterested entity, it isn't anything. It has no motives, nor any desires. A government isn't a corporation, an entity designed to make as much money as absolutely possible under any circumstances. You don't hate government, you hate the people within government. There is a huge jump between a hatred of government and the hatred of the people within government. Why would a government want to have a large uneducated class of sheep?? It does it no good to create large superstructures to manage these so called sheep, it only benefits the people who can take advantage of those sheep. Capitalism, however, has a great interest in maintaining a class of dumb sheep, since capitalism runs on the fuel of emiserated workers with false consciousness. There is a massive canyon between those two assertions and you know it.

Ah. I get it. I'm uninformed. You aren't.

That's rich. No wonder the DC forum is desolate.

Government is NOT a disinterested entity, it is a class of wealthy elites that want to maintain power. It isn't a corporation, it is a conglomerate. Do you really believe it does no good to create large superstructures to manage the so-called sheep? That superstructure has to be SUPPLIED by someone, and that someone happens to be owned and controlled by the people in power. Why is Halliburton rebuilding Iraq? Capitalism and the US government are inseparable.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 11:21 AM
And the teachings of abstinence only education causes people to not use prophylactics when they do engage in sexual activity, which does and will happen. Abstinence only education is a program that ignores the elephant in the room, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.

You might want to check the original post you attacked again...

What's wrong with a compromise?

We have schools in this state that never MENTION abstinence in sex ed classes, even though it's the only 100%-guaranteed method of birth control.

I'm not advocating abstinence-ONLY education. :hmmm:

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Human sexuality is an unavoidable consequence of existence. Sexuality isn't just having sex, and one of the great problems w/ abstinence only is that it stigmatizes all human sexuality that isn't church sanctioned (even if it claims to be a state-sponsored program), which creates a citizenry that knows nothing about a fundamental aspect of what makes them human.

The mod comment was made in reaction to the fact that such a vapid analysis could be made by someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority on the board. If you use the same logic in your decisions regarding the policy of the bb as you do in deciphering this thread, then I worry for the state of the bb. Hence the invenctive.don't you worry your purty lil' head there, dahlin'...

the state of this bb was just fine before you got here and it will be just fine whether you stay or leave or act the fool...

i'm not worried about hitsmackie's logic in making decisions regarding the policy of the board...

this is one of the best bb's on the net with some of the loosest moderation (read no censorship) of any bb i've seen...

our mods do a fine job and they don't deserve to catch shit from people like you...

and, btw, if you like vapid, since you seem to be so taken with that word, why don't you go and discuss something with buceyedpea?

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:38 AM
I won't dispute the validity of the first quote's underlying statistics, because they still don't prove your point, even if true. Those numbers are for male literacy, not population as a whole.

As to the second statistic, those numbers don't jibe with Census data, which shows a 20% illiteracy rate (for the entire country) in 1870. See the chart on page one. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/p20-099/p20-99.pdf

Would you agree that the weight of evidence (even if you disagree with the accuracy of some) is against the idea of higher literacy before public schooling? What of estimates that a 30-40% literacy rate was a prerequisite to a rapid expansion of the economy? (A figure arrived at because that's what England had at the onset of the IR).*

Now, to head off some bitching in advance, I'll be back eventually, but I'm fairly busy today and can't hang around my computer eagarly anticipating your next reply.

*M.J. Bowman and C.A. Anderson, "Concerning the Role of Education in Development" in Old Societies and New States (1963).

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Your opinion is informed with spin and a lack of a true understanding of what government does. . .well, i'm sure glad that you have a true understanding of what government does...

something's gotta be true, eventually...

do you know, btw, that at times, you sound as balmy as buceyedpea, but just with a different oritentation...

Donger
06-16-2006, 11:46 AM
And the teachings of abstinence only education causes people to not use prophylactics when they do engage in sexual activity, which does and will happen. Abstinence only education is a program that ignores the elephant in the room, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.

I'll take that as ackowledgement of the fact.

FWIW, I don't support abstinence-only sex education. But, excluding abstinence education from a sex education 'class' is quite simply, moronic. I assume that you're not suggesting doing that, right?

go bowe
06-16-2006, 11:50 AM
Ah. I get it. I'm uninformed. You aren't.

That's rich. No wonder the DC forum is desolate.
***hey, stop belittlling those of us that actually try to discuss things within the realm of sanity (although i can't claim that i am in that realm often)...

not everybody is hamas and buceyed pea...

we've got lattimer as a visiting artist from time to time...

vlad continues to mystify...

zach broke up with his snake...

we have some good stuff over here...

you just don't want to admit it, you like it here...

yes you do, i can see it in your eyes...

heeheeheeheeheehee

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 12:29 PM
It's not at ALL like discussing creationism unless people want to make it that.

Creationism is inherently religious and has no business in a government-funded school.

Abstinence is NOT inherently religious, but some people can't get past their fear...
completely missing my point

i know that its "not like discussing creationism"


i meant it trying to insert curriculum into classes where it doesn't apply


abstinence = not sex
human sexuality course = discussing sexual matters

therefore

abstinence ≠ Human sexuality course


creationism = not science
science class = discussion science matters (like evolution)

therefore

creationism ≠ science class



seems to me people are trying to twist the system to fit their preference without regard to whether it actually belongs.


creationism belongs theology classes

abstinence belongs is family planning (or something)

patteeu
06-16-2006, 12:37 PM
this government is controlled by extremely social conservatives

LMAO, this will be news to the extreme social conservatives, I'm sure.

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 12:41 PM
LMAO, this will be news to the extreme social conservatives, I'm sure.

i wouldn't say extreme ... but definately dominated by social conservatives

go bowe
06-16-2006, 12:43 PM
LMAO, this will be news to the extreme social conservatives, I'm sure.are you perhaps referring to the fact that many on the religious right seem to be expressing their displeasure with some of the predident's policies as of late?

tee hee...

go bowe
06-16-2006, 12:44 PM
i wouldn't say extreme ... but definately dominated by social conservativesdamn, and there's so many of them too...

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 01:14 PM
completely missing my point

i know that its "not like discussing creationism"

i meant it trying to insert curriculum into classes where it doesn't apply

abstinence = not sex
human sexuality course = discussing sexual matters

therefore

abstinence ≠ Human sexuality course

creationism = not science
science class = discussion science matters (like evolution)

therefore

creationism ≠ science class

seems to me people are trying to twist the system to fit their preference without regard to whether it actually belongs.

creationism belongs theology classes

abstinence belongs is family planning (or something)

Wow. That's some very weird logic.

I agree that abstinence = no sex. Without SEX, there cannot be the opposite, and vice versa. Therefore it DOES belong in the discussion. Any time you teach ABSOLUTES and only absolutes, without presenting alternative lines of thinking, you're doing yourself and those you are teaching a great disservice.

Furthermore, I might be inclined to agree that abstinence has no place in a course on human sexuality but rather in a family planning class. I don't know about you, but the high school sex ed course I took (as well of those of the two school districts I've lived in in the last decade) are NOT academic sociology course, they are "life skills" classes. They spend a great deal of time on FAMILY PLANNING.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:48 PM
I'll take that as ackowledgement of the fact.

FWIW, I don't support abstinence-only sex education. But, excluding abstinence education from a sex education 'class' is quite simply, moronic. I assume that you're not suggesting doing that, right?

You can point out the 'benefits' of abstinence, but to suggest that it is a preferred method is a false remedy.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 01:54 PM
You can point out the 'benefits' of abstinence, but to suggest that it is a preferred method is a false remedy.

Again, who said it was the only method, or the "preferred" method? I must have missed that post.

It's A method and a perfectly valid method at that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:57 PM
Ah. I get it. I'm uninformed. You aren't.

That's rich. No wonder the DC forum is desolate.

Government is NOT a disinterested entity, it is a class of wealthy elites that want to maintain power. It isn't a corporation, it is a conglomerate. Do you really believe it does no good to create large superstructures to manage the so-called sheep? That superstructure has to be SUPPLIED by someone, and that someone happens to be owned and controlled by the people in power. Why is Halliburton rebuilding Iraq? Capitalism and the US government are inseparable.

Government is *currently* occupied by a class of wealthy elites because the public was stupid enough to elect elites into office that launch a continual class warfare against the very people who vote for them. That does not mean that government is empirically malevolent, as you seem to believe. The fact of the matter is that those who seem to hate government the most are those that work as hard as they can to discredit it through their own mismanagement of it (Reagan and Bush, for example).

Halliburton is rebuilding Iraq because corporate moneyed influences have been allowed to infiltrate government, in large part due to the deregulatory efforts of conservatives from the 80's henceforth and a castration of the media through its corporatization. The maladies of government in this regard are a direct successor to these moves.

The conservatives you seem so passionate to defend are the ones who have created this Frankenstenian monster that has now infiltrated both parties due to a disingenuous desire to win elections rather than reap results.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 02:00 PM
Again, who said it was the only method, or the "preferred" method? I must have missed that post.

It's A method and a perfectly valid method at that.

It's A method, but given the nature of Kansas (for god's sake look at the creationism fight) is indicative of the fact that it is hard to believe that won't be assimilated into the ONLY method taught by these schools, and we all know that given the sway of religious conservatives in this government, as has been previously mentioned and never refuted by me in earlier posts (The UN sex-ed program, which comes from "Bushwhacked"), that it is impossibly to not honestly believe that abstinence won't eventually become the *only* method if those with the ear of the current gov't so desire.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 02:55 PM
Government is *currently* occupied by a class of wealthy elites because the public was stupid enough to elect elites into office that launch a continual class warfare against the very people who vote for them. That does not mean that government is empirically malevolent, as you seem to believe. The fact of the matter is that those who seem to hate government the most are those that work as hard as they can to discredit it through their own mismanagement of it (Reagan and Bush, for example).

Halliburton is rebuilding Iraq because corporate moneyed influences have been allowed to infiltrate government, in large part due to the deregulatory efforts of conservatives from the 80's henceforth and a castration of the media through its corporatization. The maladies of government in this regard are a direct successor to these moves.

The conservatives you seem so passionate to defend are the ones who have created this Frankenstenian monster that has now infiltrated both parties due to a disingenuous desire to win elections rather than reap results.

You seem to be talking about the noun "government".

I'm talking about OUR government. It is *currently* occupied by a class of wealthy elites, it's ALWAYS been occupied by the class of wealthy elites. Reagan and Bush, Kerry and Kennedy...they all attend the same schools, they all belong to the same fraternities. The 2-party system is a sham - there's only ONE party and we're not part of it.

The rest of your post is pure rubbish. You don't have any idea what the motivations of said "conservatives" are because you have no idea what they stand for. You just know you don't like it.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 03:01 PM
By the way, I'm not passionate to defend anybody.

I'm attacking. Ignorance, intolerance, and fear aren't the sole property of one side or the other.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 03:02 PM
The rest of your post is pure rubbish. You don't have any idea what the motivations of said "conservatives" are because you have no idea what they stand for. You just know you don't like it.
Hasten the death of minorities out of hate doesn't cover it?

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Hasten the death of minorities out of hate doesn't cover it?

What? I'm afraid your pseudo-intellectual comment once again is lost on my miniscule mind. :D

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 03:10 PM
What? I'm afraid your pseudo-intellectual comment once again is lost on my miniscule mind. :D
It's my understanding that that is the motivation of anyone who disagrees with Hamas.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 03:18 PM
You seem to be talking about the noun "government".

I'm talking about OUR government. It is *currently* occupied by a class of wealthy elites, it's ALWAYS been occupied by the class of wealthy elites. Reagan and Bush, Kerry and Kennedy...they all attend the same schools, they all belong to the same fraternities. The 2-party system is a sham - there's only ONE party and we're not part of it.

The rest of your post is pure rubbish. You don't have any idea what the motivations of said "conservatives" are because you have no idea what they stand for. You just know you don't like it.

Conservatives claim to be for limited gov't. Bob Dole campaigned with a copy of the 10th amendment in his coat pocket, for one. The fact of the matter is that conservatives want to limit gov't in certain areas (namely social spending) and greatly increase it in their pet projects (mindless defense expenditures for one)

Conservatives claim to be the party of family values and the party of God, as though God is a republican, a stance I find morally reprehensible.

Conservatives claim to be for a balanced budget, despite that fact that Reagan and the Two Bushes have created more than 80% of total national debt in its nearly 230 year history.

patteeu
06-16-2006, 03:24 PM
are you perhaps referring to the fact that many on the religious right seem to be expressing their displeasure with some of the predident's policies as of late?

tee hee...

That and the fact that very few high priority agenda items of the social conservatives have achieved much more than lip service from this, or any other recent Republican administration.

Abortion? They got a ban on partial birth abortion and that's about it.

Schiavo? They got a lot of hot air and threats from politicos before TS's plug was pulled.

Gay Marriage? They got a largely ceremonial vote on a constitutional amendment to go along with all the rhetoric.

Prayer in schools? Not much movement there.

About the only things I can think of that social conservatives have to cheer about are limited faith based initiatives (and many social conservatives are skeptical about these), a family tax break, and a couple of presumably conservative SCOTUS justices who probably won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade but who might allow it to be restricted.

Pretty tame "progress" on the social conservative front, IMO.

patteeu
06-16-2006, 03:25 PM
i wouldn't say extreme ... but definately dominated by social conservatives

I wouldn't even agree with that.

patteeu
06-16-2006, 03:30 PM
Conservatives claim to be for limited gov't. Bob Dole campaigned with a copy of the 10th amendment in his coat pocket, for one. The fact of the matter is that conservatives want to limit gov't in certain areas (namely social spending) and greatly increase it in their pet projects (mindless defense expenditures for one)

Conservatives claim to be the party of family values and the party of God, as though God is a republican, a stance I find morally reprehensible.

Conservatives claim to be for a balanced budget, despite that fact that Reagan and the Two Bushes have created more than 80% of total national debt in its nearly 230 year history.

The fact that you confuse Bob Dole with a conservative disqualifies you from serious analysis of conservative claims.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 03:35 PM
It's my understanding that that is the motivation of anyone who disagrees with Hamas.

Ah. I should spend more time here. Inside jokes and colloquial humor go over my head...

BucEyedPea
06-16-2006, 03:37 PM
Would you agree that the weight of evidence (even if you disagree with the accuracy of some) is against the idea of higher literacy before public schooling?
No I not buyin’ it exactly...not yet anyway. You asked for numbers not proof. I didn’t think what numbers I’d put up would be proof for you. I am not that naïve. They also don’t tell the whole story.* Just like you distrust some sources, I am not likely to trust the govt’s either. Their standards are low.

For one many people were homeschooled, often one on one. I don’t know if census data would reflect that and the anecdotal evidence is enough for me even if it’s not for enough for you. Besides you can't beat home education over any cookie cutter approach not even private schooling. I don't see leaders around today who could write something like the Declaration of Independence or discuss the forms of the govt the way our Framers did…not with the prevalence of mass media entertainment and communications replacing reading the way reading was once pursued. Numbers and statistics can only tell so much. Again, my own personal experience and observations, that of other business owners, some old turn of the century school books I’ve collected, sittin’ in public classrooms including kindergarden and other grades tells this gal all she needs to know.


Now, to head off some bitching in advance, I'll be back eventually, but I'm fairly busy today and can't hang around my computer eagarly anticipating your next reply.
Well, I was just returning what I perceived to be the same. Otherwise, you make me feel so slighted tee hee. No need to await for more. I’ve said all I planned on saying and wasn’t my attention to hijack the thread.

Have fun or another good golf game. :thumb: :D




*Since women worked in the home, and not outside, nor had the right to vote I don't think the fact those numbers represented male literacy alone is fair since women do not follow traditional roles today. Even at that they did teach the reading out of the home so there would not be any statistics available for schools outside the home.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Conservatives claim to be for limited gov't. Bob Dole campaigned with a copy of the 10th amendment in his coat pocket, for one. The fact of the matter is that conservatives want to limit gov't in certain areas (namely social spending) and greatly increase it in their pet projects (mindless defense expenditures for one)

Conservatives claim to be the party of family values and the party of God, as though God is a republican, a stance I find morally reprehensible.

Conservatives claim to be for a balanced budget, despite that fact that Reagan and the Two Bushes have created more than 80% of total national debt in its nearly 230 year history.

You paint with a very broad brush, like intimating that my friend (raised HINDU) is part of your so-called religious right just because she chose to remain abstinent:

People who use the excuse of not wanting disease and pregnancy in their lives have bought in to the sermons of zealots who try and demonize human sexuality as the cause of society's ailments.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 03:45 PM
You paint with a very broad brush, like intimating that my friend (raised HINDU) is part of your so-called religious right just because she chose to remain abstinent:

All religion isn't in line with the religious right, but it doesn't surprise me that her abstinence is tied to religious superstition.

htismaqe
06-16-2006, 03:50 PM
All religion isn't in line with the religious right, but it doesn't surprise me that her abstinence is tied to religious superstition.

ROFL

Her abstinence isn't related to religious superstition, but thanks for reading the mind of a person you've never met.

She was RAISED Hindu, she's a practicing ATHEIST.

Baby Lee
06-16-2006, 03:50 PM
All religion isn't in line with the religious right, but it doesn't surprise me that her abstinence is tied to religious superstition.
I saw htis tell you her background.
Missed where he tied her background to her abstinence.

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 04:57 PM
Wow. That's some very weird logic.

seems like perfectly good logic to me :D

Mr. Laz
06-17-2006, 11:33 AM
Wow. That's some very weird logic.

I agree that abstinence = no sex. Without SEX, there cannot be the opposite, and vice versa. Therefore it DOES belong in the discussion.

Hello Students ... welcome to your Human sexuality 101 course


My name is Mrs. Birdorf



Remember "JUST SAY NO"


Sex before marriage is evil and immoral


the key word is abstinence


and since not having sex means you don't need to know anything else about sexuality, this concludes Human sexuality 101.

don't forget your that your mid-terms will be 99.9% of your grade


you'll be expected to spell abstinence ...... say the word "No" ... and sign an "i'll will always be a virgin" promise sheet.


Class dismissed

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 02:45 PM
ROFL

Her abstinence isn't related to religious superstition, but thanks for reading the mind of a person you've never met.

She was RAISED Hindu, she's a practicing ATHEIST.

Even practicinig atheists can be persuaded by religious teachings whether or not they are conscious of it. If you think that someone can somehow invert all of the things they were taught as a child simply because they made a conscious decision to no longer follow said teachings as an adult, then you need to look deeper into how things really operate regarding regimentation and learning.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 02:47 PM
For the sake of argument, let's say that your friend in question chose to remain abstinent not out of any conscious or subconscious deversion on behalf of moralistic religiosity. What then would dissuade her from having sex?? A fear of disease and pregnancy?? Who do you think is responsible for promulgating such a fear in our society?? Is she saving herself for marriage because she views virginity as something noble?? Again, what do you think the root cause of the virginity pledge stems from??

Adept Havelock
06-17-2006, 02:57 PM
For the sake of argument, let's say that your friend in question chose to remain abstinent not out of any conscious or subconscious deversion on behalf of moralistic religiosity. What then would dissuade her from having sex?? A fear of disease and pregnancy?? Who do you think is responsible for promulgating such a fear in our society?? Is she saving herself for marriage because she views virginity as something noble?? Again, what do you think the root cause of the virginity pledge stems from??


As far as disease is concerned, those most guilty of "promulgating such a fear in our society" are the AMA and WHO. Those fundamentalist bastards! How dare they. As far as pregnancy, I think it's a good thing if people seriously fear bringing a child into this world when they are unready to care for it. That doesn't necessarily mean just abstinance, any more than it means just teaching birth control.

Look, as a practicing Happily Heathinistic Hedonist, I'm all for sexual freedoms. That means teaching abstinence as part of a comprehensive sex ed program. You, for some reason, seem to be arguing it shouldn't be taught at all of because of your prejudice against religion. I'm no fan of religion either, but you don't see me treating it like a Klansman treats a non-white.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 02:59 PM
For the sake of argument, let's say that your friend in question chose to remain abstinent not out of any conscious or subconscious deversion on behalf of moralistic religiosity. What then would dissuade her from having sex?? A fear of disease and pregnancy?? Who do you think is responsible for promulgating such a fear in our society?? Is she saving herself for marriage because she views virginity as something noble?? Again, what do you think the root cause of the virginity pledge stems from??
I KNOW!!!

And the Christian belief in the afterlife is what is spurring all these x-treme games.
Nobody would jump a dirt bike off a perfectly good molehill unless the Jeebus Freeks hadn't indoctrinated him that he'd live forever with Jeebus and his Daddy!!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 03:09 PM
As far as disease is concerned, those most guilty of "promulgating such a fear in our society" are the AMA and WHO. Those fundamentalist bastards! How dare they. As far as pregnancy, I think it's a good thing if people seriously fear bringing a child into this world when they are unready to care for it. That doesn't necessarily mean just abstinance, any more than it means just teaching birth control.

Look, as a practicing Happily Heathinistic Hedonist, I'm all for sexual freedoms. That means teaching abstinence as part of a comprehensive sex ed program. You, for some reason, seem to be arguing it shouldn't be taught at all of because of your prejudice against religion. I'm no fan of religion either, but you don't see me treating it like a Klansman treats a non-white.


I'd like to see you back up those boasts about the WHO and AMA.

The ABC method acknowledges the stupidity of abstinence, but is meant as a mediating strategy for religious conservatives. Be faithful and condoms if necessary are the true driving factors behind the reduction of disease in many countries.

If you want to take the disease analysis further, look at Uganda, which is one of the only African nations to launch a successful counterattack against the AIDS epidemic. Was it done through the spreading of abstinence or prophylactics? I'll let you guess.

I never said it shouldn't be mentioned, I argued that it shouldn't be focused on. Furthermore, the problems that I have with the abstinence teaching is because it is attempting to teach perfection to people. Abstinence goes against the natural desires of human sexuality, it is a religiously imposed structure that is inimical to the human experience. Yes it can be mentioned that abstinence is the only 100% safe method, but it should also be acknowledged that this isn't really a realistic path to choose.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 03:11 PM
I KNOW!!!

And the Christian belief in the afterlife is what is spurring all these x-treme games.
Nobody would jump a dirt bike off a perfectly good molehill unless the Jeebus Freeks hadn't indoctrinated him that he'd live forever with Jeebus and his Daddy!!!

That is a piss poor attempt at an ancillary deflection. Where my comparision is based in logic, you attempt to deride me through criticism because your own argument doesn't have a proverbial pot to piss in.

Adept Havelock
06-17-2006, 03:14 PM
I never said it shouldn't be mentioned, I argued that it shouldn't be focused on. Furthermore, the problems that I have with the abstinence teaching is because it is attempting to teach perfection to people. Abstinence goes against the natural desires of human sexuality, it is a religiously imposed structure that is inimical to the human experience. Yes it can be mentioned that abstinence is the only 100% safe method, but it should also be acknowledged that this isn't really a realistic path to choose.You forgot to add "IMO".

It's just as realistic as expecting people to use condoms everytime. I don't believe I ever alluded to it being an either-or as you implied. Then again, I've learned not to expect anything better from you, especially when it comes to your extreme irrational prejudice regarding religion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 03:16 PM
You forgot to add "IMO".

It's just as realistic as expecting people to use condoms everytime. I don't believe I ever alluded to it being an either-or as you implied. Then again, I've learned not to expect anything better from you, especially when it comes to your extreme prejudice regarding religion.

THe vast, vast majority of people who make abstinence pledges break them, and guess what, when they do, they don't use condoms because they weren't taught to. Quit trying to defend your friend and acknowledge the holes of this argument.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 03:19 PM
Regarding my prejudice towards religion. Show me one structure that has done a more comprehensive job spreading hate, intolerance, and death around the world across the scope of human history than religion, and I will Fed Ex you a cookie. For God's sake the Catholic Church has killed more people than cancer.

go bowe
06-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Regarding my prejudice towards religion. Show me one structure that has done a more comprehensive job spreading hate, intolerance, and death around the world across the scope of human history than religion, and I will Fed Ex you a cookie. For God's sake the Catholic Church has killed more people than cancer.so hate intolerance and death are a result of religion?

great, i start going to church and now i'm gonna die...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 03:49 PM
so hate intolerance and death are a result of religion?

great, i start going to church and now i'm gonna die...

Most likely you'll kill someone else b/c they aren't in your church, and I didn't say all of those maladies were only caused by religion, but religion is the greatest factor that I think feeds those. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is an important and noteworthy one.

go bowe
06-17-2006, 04:00 PM
i understand what you're saying about religion (i assume you mean organized religion, aka churches) spreading hate and intolerance and even death, but for the past hundred years at least, no mainstream church has promoted any deaths...

fanatics, religious or political, are the current cause of death in the name of religion (referring primarily to the fundamentalist islamic terrorists - hardly representative of mainstream muslim thought (and action))...

i think what you describe is no longer the case...

mainstream churches aren't spreading much death these days...

now, if you're talking about intolerance towards gays, i think most of that comes from fundamentalist churches and even they don't murder gays, they just hate them and are intolerant of them... :D :D :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 04:04 PM
i understand what you're saying about religion (i assume you mean organized religion, aka churches) spreading hate and intolerance and even death, but for the past hundred years at least, no mainstream church has promoted any deaths...

fanatics, religious or political, are the current cause of death in the name of religion (referring primarily to the fundamentalist islamic terrorists - hardly representative of mainstream muslim thought (and action))...

i think what you describe is no longer the case...

mainstream churches aren't spreading much death these days...

now, if you're talking about intolerance towards gays, i think most of that comes from fundamentalist churches and even they don't murder gays, they just hate them and are intolerant of them... :D :D :D

I'd say the Catholic Church's behavior during the Holocaust was pretty damned shitty..

Another example: There is an exploding AIDS epidemic in the Phillipines. Why?? Because most of them are Catholics, and the church is so inured to its outmoded teachings that it will not permit its members to use prophylactics, instead banning condom usage which could save thousands of lives. That wanton stupidity should be held to account in some part for that loss of life.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 04:26 PM
That is a piss poor attempt at an ancillary deflection. Where my comparision is based in logic, you attempt to deride me through criticism because your own argument doesn't have a proverbial pot to piss in.
What is your logic.
Religious people support abstinence.
Some people are exposed to religion.
Some people who are exposed to religion subsequently decide to be abstinent.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to be abstinent are religiously deluded freaks.


So

Religious people espouse the afterlife.
Some people are exposed to religion.
Some people who are exposed to religion, subsequently act without regard to their safety or life.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to act recklessly are religiously deluded freaks.

Let's try another.

Religious people oppose warfare
Some people are exposed to religion
Some people who are exposed to religion, are subsequently opposed to warfare.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to oppose the Iraq war are religiously deluded freaks.

It's fun to play when logical fallacies don't exist.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2006, 04:35 PM
I'd say the Catholic Church's behavior during the Holocaust was pretty damned shitty...

Such as?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 04:38 PM
What is your logic.
Religious people support abstinence.
Some people are exposed to religion.
Some people who are exposed to religion subsequently decide to be abstinent.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to be abstinent are religiously deluded freaks.




Wrong again, Dipshit. I guess Vorkink isn't here to hold your hand while you pay money to take a course that exposes the defect of the LSAT, so maybe I should be patient with you.

Religious people support abstinence.
Abstinence runs counter to nearly all of humanity (save for the small amount of people who identify as asexual)
People who claim to be abstinent and say that they aren't being affected by religion and are not asexual are deluding themselves.

People who choose to be abstinent are in fact religiously deluded freaks.

If you knew anything, anything about human sexuality perhaps your peanut brain could grasp this concept, but you seem to be so hopelessly tied to your hatred of me that anything I say will be looked at by you as a complete falsity.

Where here's one for your f*cktarded ass, Heaven's gate--the Sky is blue. Disagree with me on that one, because I know you want to. If not, then piss off and choke on your own dick.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 04:44 PM
the Sky is blue. Disagree with me on that one, because I know you want to. If not, then piss off and choke on your own dick.
I heard Pat Robertson once make the exact same observation you Jeebus Freak!!!

Are you really gonna make your Alamo the stance that the only reason people would abstain from sex is religious hangups.

I guess that's a fitting end to your last drips and drabs of credibility.

You got a lot of Moxie, I'll give you that. Pity you weren't even a little smart.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 04:46 PM
I heard Pat Robertson once make the exact same observation you Jeebus Freak!!!

The standard deflection. Just keep ignoring it, but it won't go away. Try and debunk my last post, or just garrote yourself with piano wire, or hold on too long during your autoerotic asphyxiation. :P

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 04:52 PM
The standard deflection. Just keep ignoring it, but it won't go away. Try and debunk my last post, or just garrote yourself with piano wire, or hold on too long during your autoerotic asphyxiation. :P
Saying religiosity is the only cause of abstinence is a Hasty Generalization.
Saying exposure to religion, followed by a decision on abstinence is suggesting Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.
Saying that some people have been exposed to religion and are abstinent, therefore the two are connect suggests that Correlation Implies Causation.
That's just a start.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 05:00 PM
Saying religiosity is the only cause of abstinence is a Hasty Generalization.
Saying exposure to religion, followed by a decision on abstinence is suggesting Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.
Saying that some people have been exposed to religion and are abstinent, therefore the two are connect suggests that Correlation Implies Causation.
That's just a start.

What then praytell, are the other causes of abstinence??
#2 Is a desperate attempt by you to try and make the patently obvious seem otherwise. Human sexuality and the sex drive are an inherent part of humanity. If religiosity does not impede this sex drive, then what then does?? I'm still waiting for an answer
#3 There is a direct connection between the two that cannot be dismissed as though it were an LSAT question. The evidence presents itself before you every day. Think about how often men think about sex...and yet abstinence is not something ingrained by religion?? :spock:

You have increased your load to 15 pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a 2 pound bag.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 05:05 PM
What then praytell, are the other causes of abstinence??
#2 Is a desperate attempt by you to try and make the patently obvious seem otherwise. Human sexuality and the sex drive are an inherent part of humanity. If religiosity does not impede this sex drive, then what then does?? I'm still waiting for an answer
#3 There is a direct connection between the two that cannot be dismissed as though it were an LSAT question. The evidence presents itself before you every day. Think about how often men think about sex...and yet abstinence is not something ingrained by religion?? :spock:

You have increased your load to 15 pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a 2 pound bag.
Go find out for yourself. I've pointed out your flaws. That's the fun part. I get no fun out of, and don't like you enough to, educate you to the level you need.
Open a f ucking book.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 05:07 PM
Go find out for yourself. I've pointed out your flaws. That's the fun part. I get no fun out of, and don't like you enough to, educate you to the level you need.
Open a f ucking book.

This shit is laughable man. You claim to discredit my information, yet have no information with which to back up your own opinion. You are still relying on your "I'm Baby Lee, Da Smartest Guy on the Board" as your reasoning. I'm sorry, but sufficient evidence is lacking.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 05:15 PM
This shit is laughable man. You claim to discredit my information, yet have no information with which to back up your own opinion. You are still relying on your "I'm Baby Lee, Da Smartest Guy on the Board" as your reasoning. I'm sorry, but sufficient evidence is lacking.
Why would I click one hyperlink to help you grow a brain?
Here's a though, talk to someone other than your idiot student evaluators. Read a book. See is ANYONE agrees with you. And if you find someone who does, see if anyone respects their analysis.
Do something for yourself. You may end up a person.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 05:19 PM
Why would I click one hyperlink to help you grow a brain?
Here's a though, talk to someone other than your idiot student evaluators. Read a book. See is ANYONE agrees with you. And if you find someone who does, see if anyone respects their analysis.
Do something for yourself. You may end up a person.

Considering that all of the classes I have are completely discussion driven seminars, and my opinions are the most respected and lauded of those in my class of majors, your attack could not be further from the truth. What a desperate attempt.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 05:20 PM
I love this, no one agrees with me, if they agree with me they are an idiot. If anyone else comes across me and agrees with me, they are an idiot. Why, because Baby Lee said so!! (Stomps his feet like a 4 year old at Toys R' Us)

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 06:03 PM
Considering that all of the classes I have are completely discussion driven seminars, and my opinions are the most respected and lauded of those in my class of majors, your attack could not be further from the truth. What a desperate attempt.
Your [sic] good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 06:08 PM
I love this, no one agrees with me, if they agree with me they are an idiot. If anyone else comes across me and agrees with me, they are an idiot. Why, because Baby Lee said so!! (Stomps his feet like a 4 year old at Toys R' Us)
I didn't 'say so.'
I don't speak for abstainers worldwide.
But your generalization is assinine, and I invite you to look into why.
And while we're at it it's an assinine generalization on an assinine subject. I mean, does anybody really CARE why people abstain? Other than Hamas 'I hate everything I don't understand' Jenkins?

listopencil
06-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Considering that all of the classes I have are completely discussion driven seminars, and my opinions are the most respected and lauded of those in my class of majors, your attack could not be further from the truth. What a desperate attempt.



Good Lord. Did you really just post that? You're a freaking moron.

Logical
06-17-2006, 06:43 PM
This shit is laughable man. You claim to discredit my information, yet have no information with which to back up your own opinion. You are still relying on your "I'm Baby Lee, Da Smartest Guy on the Board" as your reasoning. I'm sorry, but sufficient evidence is lacking.

I have had plenty of run-ins with Baby Lee over the years yet I have never seen him make the claim to be the smartest member of the BB. I will say he is one of the smartest but there are many. Among them are go bo, tiptap, cdcox, Gaz, DanT, Jettio, Ugly Duck, patteeu, Boozer, and quite a few others. This place has quite a few very intelligent people and most do not feel the need to proclaim it.

Logical
06-17-2006, 06:44 PM
Good Lord. Did you really just post that? You're a freaking moron.I would venture more an insecure egoist who has yet to mature into an adult.

listopencil
06-17-2006, 06:46 PM
I would venture more an insecure egoist who has yet to mature into an adult.


I have to admit to the possiblity. I'll just add him to my Ignore list rather than be tempted to respond to him again.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 06:56 PM
I didn't 'say so.'
I don't speak for abstainers worldwide.
But your generalization is assinine, and I invite you to look into why.
And while we're at it it's an assinine generalization on an assinine subject. I mean, does anybody really CARE why people abstain? Other than Hamas 'I hate everything I don't understand' Jenkins?


So you can make a generalization that abstainers are not influenced by religion, despite admittedly not being able to speak for them. Perhaps the funniest part of this post is your butchering of asinine, not once, not twice, but three times a moron. I think it is important to realize that people are denying themselves a source of pleasure due to their indebtedness to various cultural traditions, so yes I think it is important to understand it. Yet you claim that I am the one who hates what I don't understand...I understand the fallacy and idiocy of religion all too well; you can't see it for what it is because you are one of the sheep. The mere thought of being free of the flock of morons must really startle you.

stevieray
06-17-2006, 06:58 PM
I have had plenty of run-ins with Baby Lee over the years yet I have never seen him make the claim to be the smartest member of the BB. I will say he is one of the smartest but there are many. Among them are go bo, tiptap, cdcox, Gaz, DanT, Jettio, Ugly Duck, patteeu, Boozer, and quite a few others. This place has quite a few very intelligent people and most do not feel the need to proclaim it.

"the more you know
the less you feel
some pray for
and others steal
lessons for not just for those who kneel
..luckily..."

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 06:59 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
Your [sic] good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
I didn't 'say so.'
I don't speak for abstainers worldwide.
But your generalization is assinine, and I invite you to look into why.
And while we're at it it's an assinine generalization on an assinine subject. I mean, does anybody really CARE why people abstain? Other than Hamas 'I hate everything I don't understand' Jenkins?

Glad to see you aren't a resident of a glass house, ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-17-2006, 07:05 PM
I would venture more an insecure egoist who has yet to mature into an adult.

I was accused of being terrible at my profession. I have ammunition that can directly refute that accusation, so I used some of it. Does it come off as arrogant? Well, yes, but quite honestly, I could care less. I'm good at my job and I'm proud that I do it well. I enjoy doing my part to help rid the world of ignorance.

Logical
06-17-2006, 07:21 PM
So you can make a generalization that abstainers are not influenced by religion, despite admittedly not being able to speak for them. Perhaps the funniest part of this post is your butchering of asinine, not once, not twice, but three times a moron. I think it is important to realize that people are denying themselves a source of pleasure due to their indebtedness to various cultural traditions, so yes I think it is important to understand it. Yet you claim that I am the one who hates what I don't understand...I understand the fallacy and idiocy of religion all too well; you can't see it for what it is because you are one of the sheep. The mere thought of being free of the flock of morons must really startle you.

Man I thought I was an arrogant asshole and I am. However, even I am not so full of myself as to say with certainty religion is fallacious. Do I think some of the people who are into religion do it merely as unthinking sheep, certainly. Do I think religions in general are cause for as many problems in this world as good, yes. But I am not so full of myself as to be certain all religion is fallacious.

You need to get a handle on you ego.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 07:36 PM
So you can make a generalization that abstainers are not influenced by religion, despite admittedly not being able to speak for them.
Never said that.
Not universally influenced.
Words make a difference.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 07:40 PM
Perhaps the funniest part of this post is your butchering of asinine, not once, not twice, but three times a moron.
I spelled asinine ASSinine in a exchange with you.

Yeah, it's probably because I'm not a gud speler.

Baby Lee
06-17-2006, 07:46 PM
I think it is important to realize that people are denying themselves a source of pleasure due to their indebtedness to various cultural traditions
It's starting to dawn on someone just how stoopid he sounds.
Now, it's not religion. It's culture. It's tradition.
A little later down the road, it'll be a heuristic, or a viewpoint.
Then, on to 'conscious decision.'
In a week or two he'll be convinced his original point was just that abstinence is a behavior.

Logical
06-17-2006, 08:04 PM
Most likely you'll kill someone else b/c they aren't in your church, and I didn't say all of those maladies were only caused by religion, but religion is the greatest factor that I think feeds those. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is an important and noteworthy one.

Wow, I really have trouble envioning go bo killing anyone with anything other than smilies.

go bowe
06-17-2006, 08:50 PM
Considering that all of the classes I have are completely discussion driven seminars, and my opinions are the most respected and lauded of those in my class of majors, your attack could not be further from the truth. What a desperate attempt.yeah well, i heard the class of colonels thinks you suk...

go bowe
06-17-2006, 08:52 PM
Wow, I really have trouble envioning go bo killing anyone with anything other than smilies.hmmmm... that might work...

hey ham sandwich man...

%(/ %(/ %(/ rochambeau PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ :bang:

jettio
06-17-2006, 09:10 PM
A good compromise on the curriculum would be to teach the girls abstinence and how to keep it smelling fresh.

For the boys, the complete curriculum should be a nature film that shows the primo bull elephant seal monopolizing all of the females and fighting off any other male elephant seal that tries to come ashore during the mating season.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 12:05 AM
A good compromise on the curriculum would be to teach the girls abstinence and how to keep it smelling fresh.


A good way to keep a fresh supply of twenty year old virgins for the Catholic boys. o:-)

Monkeylook4food
06-18-2006, 12:09 AM
Isn't age of consent quite young in KS as well?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-18-2006, 08:05 AM
It's starting to dawn on someone just how stoopid he sounds.
Now, it's not religion. It's culture. It's tradition.
A little later down the road, it'll be a heuristic, or a viewpoint.
Then, on to 'conscious decision.'
In a week or two he'll be convinced his original point was just that abstinence is a behavior.

What is religion if not a cultural tradition, i.e. organized superstition, "genious"?? :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-18-2006, 08:07 AM
Man I thought I was an arrogant asshole and I am. However, even I am not so full of myself as to say with certainty religion is fallacious. Do I think some of the people who are into religion do it merely as unthinking sheep, certainly. Do I think religions in general are cause for as many problems in this world as good, yes. But I am not so full of myself as to be certain all religion is fallacious.

You need to get a handle on you ego.

I suggest you read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell...I'd also recommend reading various surveys about the history of human mythology...look at the similarity between the creation myths of various cultures...it's all just organized superstition, whether or not man was made from dirt (Christian), or the shit of the Coyote Trickster (as in some Native traditions). People are taught to pursue logic in every facet of their daily lives except for religion where this seems to be the preferred method. :hail:

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 12:30 PM
I suggest you read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell...
Yes, I've peeked at it...but what would you expect from another communist leaning author.

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 08:52 AM
seems like perfectly good logic to me :D

I wasn't meaning it wasn't sound.

The post was just hard to follow. :)

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 08:55 AM
Hello Students ... welcome to your Human sexuality 101 course


My name is Mrs. Birdorf



Remember "JUST SAY NO"


Sex before marriage is evil and immoral


the key word is abstinence


and since not having sex means you don't need to know anything else about sexuality, this concludes Human sexuality 101.

don't forget your that your mid-terms will be 99.9% of your grade


you'll be expected to spell abstinence ...... say the word "No" ... and sign an "i'll will always be a virgin" promise sheet.


Class dismissed

Mrs. Birdorf? You failed to mention condoms, the pill, and several other methods of birth control that are also quite effect in preventing pregnancy and curbing the spread of STD's. Thanks.

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 08:56 AM
Even practicinig atheists can be persuaded by religious teachings whether or not they are conscious of it. If you think that someone can somehow invert all of the things they were taught as a child simply because they made a conscious decision to no longer follow said teachings as an adult, then you need to look deeper into how things really operate regarding regimentation and learning.

Seriously, you're an idiot.

And a pompous one at that.

It's quite simple, she wanted 100% assurance she would not get pregnant at that point in time. There's only ONE way to do that. Sorry you hate that so much.

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 08:57 AM
For the sake of argument, let's say that your friend in question chose to remain abstinent not out of any conscious or subconscious deversion on behalf of moralistic religiosity. What then would dissuade her from having sex?? A fear of disease and pregnancy?? Who do you think is responsible for promulgating such a fear in our society?? Is she saving herself for marriage because she views virginity as something noble?? Again, what do you think the root cause of the virginity pledge stems from??

Promulgating fear?

How about recognizing the FACT that there's only one way to 100% guarantee she won't get pregnant?

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 08:57 AM
I'd like to see you back up those boasts about the WHO and AMA.

The ABC method acknowledges the stupidity of abstinence, but is meant as a mediating strategy for religious conservatives. Be faithful and condoms if necessary are the true driving factors behind the reduction of disease in many countries.

If you want to take the disease analysis further, look at Uganda, which is one of the only African nations to launch a successful counterattack against the AIDS epidemic. Was it done through the spreading of abstinence or prophylactics? I'll let you guess.

I never said it shouldn't be mentioned, I argued that it shouldn't be focused on. Furthermore, the problems that I have with the abstinence teaching is because it is attempting to teach perfection to people. Abstinence goes against the natural desires of human sexuality, it is a religiously imposed structure that is inimical to the human experience. Yes it can be mentioned that abstinence is the only 100% safe method, but it should also be acknowledged that this isn't really a realistic path to choose.

It's QUITE realistic for those who choose to pursue it. But we all know that you and only you know what's right for EVERY INDIVIDUAL in the entire world.

I'm so glad you're standing up for personal rights and freedoms. Dictator.

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 09:00 AM
What is your logic.
Religious people support abstinence.
Some people are exposed to religion.
Some people who are exposed to religion subsequently decide to be abstinent.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to be abstinent are religiously deluded freaks.


So

Religious people espouse the afterlife.
Some people are exposed to religion.
Some people who are exposed to religion, subsequently act without regard to their safety or life.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to act recklessly are religiously deluded freaks.

Let's try another.

Religious people oppose warfare
Some people are exposed to religion
Some people who are exposed to religion, are subsequently opposed to warfare.
Thus all people who are ever exposed to religion and later choose to oppose the Iraq war are religiously deluded freaks.

It's fun to play when logical fallacies don't exist.

Ouch, that's gonna sting.

Baby Lee
06-19-2006, 09:00 AM
Mrs. Birdorf? You failed to mention condoms, the pill, and several other methods of birth control that are also quite effect in preventing pregnancy and curbing the spread of STD's. Thanks.
At least it wasn't Ms. Turbidy. Ooooffff!!!

htismaqe
06-19-2006, 09:04 AM
So you can make a generalization that abstainers are not influenced by religion, despite admittedly not being able to speak for them. Perhaps the funniest part of this post is your butchering of asinine, not once, not twice, but three times a moron. I think it is important to realize that people are denying themselves a source of pleasure due to their indebtedness to various cultural traditions, so yes I think it is important to understand it. Yet you claim that I am the one who hates what I don't understand...I understand the fallacy and idiocy of religion all too well; you can't see it for what it is because you are one of the sheep. The mere thought of being free of the flock of morons must really startle you.

I didn't make a generalization.

I told you about a specific friend of mine, ONE PERSON, that you're generalization doesn't apply to.

You respond with more generalizations.

Bravo. It's too bad you hate religion, with powers like yours, you could worshipped.

Saggysack
06-20-2006, 06:03 AM
However, even I am not so full of myself as to say with certainty religion is fallacious.

What is your estimate of the world population that would believe in any religion if there was not a afterlife heaven/hell concept?

I'd say pretty fuggin small.

Saggysack
06-20-2006, 06:14 AM
Isn't age of consent quite young in KS as well?


14, I believe. Could be 16 though.

Saggysack
06-20-2006, 06:25 AM
Mrs. Birdorf? You failed to mention condoms, the pill, and several other methods of birth control that are also quite effect in preventing pregnancy and curbing the spread of STD's. Thanks.

Heh...

Over half, more like 2/3 of the worlds population has a STD that can never be cured. It's called HPV, commonly refered to as gential warts. And guess what? Sooner or later, we will all have it.

We will never be able to curb the spread of STD's.

6,449,958,985 - Total world population
-3,918,350,901 - World Population infected with HPV
2,531,608,901 - World population HPV free.

edit--

To go further..

from wikipedia:
Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman 2005). Although condoms are highly effective for preventing the transmission of other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), recent studies have concluded that condoms only offer limited protection against the transmission of genital HPVs (Holmes 2004). This may be due to the fact that HPVs can infect genital skin areas that are not covered by condoms

htismaqe
06-20-2006, 09:03 AM
Heh...

Over half, more like 2/3 of the worlds population has a STD that can never be cured. It's called HPV, commonly refered to as gential warts. And guess what? Sooner or later, we will all have it.

We will never be able to curb the spread of STD's.

6,449,958,985 - Total world population
-3,918,350,901 - World Population infected with HPV
2,531,608,901 - World population HPV free.

edit--

To go further..

from wikipedia:
Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman 2005). Although condoms are highly effective for preventing the transmission of other sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), recent studies have concluded that condoms only offer limited protection against the transmission of genital HPVs (Holmes 2004). This may be due to the fact that HPVs can infect genital skin areas that are not covered by condoms

So you're saying the ONLY way to prevent the spread of HPV is to abstain until you find your life partner?

Uh-oh. You're a hate-filled Christian.

Saggysack
06-20-2006, 10:01 AM
So you're saying the ONLY way to prevent the spread of HPV is to abstain until you find your life partner?

Uh-oh. You're a hate-filled Christian.

No, not at all. I'm saying that we will never be able to curb the spread of STD's, condoms or not. It's unrealistic to even think that we can curb the spread of STD's.

As long as sex feels good, people will have it, and more times than not, unprotected.

Abstinence really isn't an answer either. Abstinence only reaches a small portion of the population. The rest just brush aside abstinence as BS that rarely works in RL.

I am neither hate-filled, nor Christian.

htismaqe
06-20-2006, 10:23 AM
No, not at all. I'm saying that we will never be able to curb the spread of STD's, condoms or not. It's unrealistic to even think that we can curb the spread of STD's.

As long as sex feels good, people will have it, and more times than not, unprotected.

Abstinence really isn't an answer either. Abstinence only reaches a small portion of the population. The rest just brush aside abstinence as BS that rarely works in RL.

I am neither hate-filled, nor Christian.

Mr. Jenkins might disagree. After all, ANYONE that's ever been exposed to religion that would espouse absistence at all is a right-wing religious freak.

Saggysack
06-20-2006, 10:44 AM
Mr. Jenkins might disagree. After all, ANYONE that's ever been exposed to religion that would espouse absistence at all is a right-wing religious freak.

That's alittle silly. On second thought, that's downright dumb.

Mr. Jenkins should know better.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 10:38 PM
Mr. Jenkins might disagree. After all, ANYONE that's ever been exposed to religion that would espouse absistence at all is a right-wing religious freak.

They are at the very least heavily influenced by the inane machinations of said nutjobs.

Mr. Laz
06-21-2006, 11:44 PM
Mrs. Birdorf? You failed to mention condoms, the pill, and several other methods of birth control that are also quite effect in preventing pregnancy and curbing the spread of STD's. Thanks.
none of which have any meaning IF you're doing what every good little boy should do and that's "not have sex"


now go to the chalkboard and write 100 times "abstinence is the only option"


now get to it young man!!

Logical
06-22-2006, 01:19 AM
Mrs. Birdorf? You failed to mention condoms, the pill, and several other methods of birth control that are also quite effect in preventing pregnancy and curbing the spread of STD's. Thanks.Be careful we have some dim bulbs on here who might believe the pill curbs STDs from this statement.

Rausch
06-22-2006, 02:13 AM
Be careful we have some dim bulbs on here who might believe the pill curbs STDs from this statement.

It does.

Sexually Transmitted Dependants.






Wait......Yeah, I'm still here.



Nevermind...