Well it works quite well for the people who practice it.Originally Posted by redrumracer
But, as a singular teaching method in schools, youre right, it fails.
Well it works quite well for the people who practice it.
But, as a singular teaching method in schools, youre right, it fails.
Years ago sex wasn't all over TV and in advertisements and so on. Now it's everywhere you turn and in your face. You could try to connect a ton of factors to teen pregnancy rates. EVERYTHING has changed since sex ed was introduced in the 60's (was it?). It could be anything. It could be that we haven't started with sex ed early enoughand by the time kids get it, it's already too late. YOU NEVER KNOW
I'm still not arguing that some things would be BETTER taught by parents, but that doesn't always happen in every child's home.
Do you agree that sex is everywhere, in your face in our country? Do you agree that sex ed should be taught by SOMEONE? If the answer is yes (which by reading what you already posted, the answer is yes) then sex ed isn't REALLY the point you are arguing-you are just arguing WHO should teach it. Which brings us back to my point that not all kids have competent parents
OR like I mentioned before, have a waiver. So, metalheads kids are raised right and never watch TV long enough to hear that teen queen on Nickelodeon, Jamie Lynn Spears, got preggers and had a baby OMGZ. Then you have the option of checking the "no thanks" box. This option just goes a long with the attitude that school is reaffirming what kids should be taught at home.
Last edited by Tracy; 09-17-2008 at 08:19 PM.
All those media factors are part of the sexual revolution I have already cited.
You have missed the point...I dont want the gubment teaching Jim Bobs kids or ANYONES about issues of morality. Nor do I want the gubment or any citizen committee deciding who is a 'competent' parent and who isnt...when it comes to those issues. Period.
Allowing such government interference, asking for it, or doing so is FAR more of a danger to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then ANY taxation problem faced us by unwanted pregnancy, or social issue from bad sexual decisions. Period.
If you think Jim Bobs kids are 'victims'..wait till you see the victims governmental 'parenting' will create.
You also missed out on the fact that sexual ed in schools has about ZERO to do with preggo rates. So adding/changing the ciriculum to include masturbation will add up to zero as well.
Sadly, this "give us a King to tell us what to do" mentality has plagued humans for centuries.
Depending on your source 5 to 7 percent of teens get preggers. I know when I was in highschool a lot of the hot (and persumably sexually active) chicks dropped out between 9th and 10th grade. And most of my friends from HS had kids by accident shortly after. Lots of broken homes and single parents.
A lot of people don't get moral instruction in the home. Or they choose to follow their parents examples rather than their parents guidance. I'm a case study of that. Every story my dad ever told me when I was a kid started with "down at the beer joint". My dad drank heavily for 15 years before I was born. And when I was born everyone in my family says he quit cold turkey just fine. And this was the person telling me not to drink.His warnings about the dangers of alcoholism and legal/health problems were stern, but his example was "drinking is lots of fun and you can quit anytime you want"
Good point, kids learn about this stuff through the media at very early ages. I mean when I was a kid we went to teh skating rink and jammed to MC Hammer. Nowadays kids are getting exposed to Britney Spears and the like, and theres so much sex on the internet that even with the best firewall young'uns can get exposed to bad stuff. Hell, here on IA you are only a click on a banner ad away from it. You just can't keep kids from being exposed. They are going to find out earlier and they are probably not going to find out from their parents the way things are now.
While I normally agree with Tracy, I'm not seeing eye-to-eye on this one.
Just WHO is going to determine what that "age appropriate" curriculum is going to be? Now, what are you going to do when you don't agree with the chosen course of study? Opt out? Ok, so how did that help? Flip the coin....what about those that don't care enough to get involved and just take a laisse faire attitude and LET the school be the source of "sex ed"? Parents will get a false sense of security and breathe a sigh of relief they didn't have to have "the talk" because they think the school has it covered.
BTW, since when does sex ed. prevent pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that 99% of everyone reading this thread HAD sex ed in school. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% STILL had unprotected sex, had many "scares", possibly even had children, contracted diseases, or a combination of those. Do you think that by talking about it a few years earlier it would have changed anything? Like metalman said, the information is definetly out there and in large volumes, but that's by itself is NOT changing anything.
Why not instead of talking to 5 yr olds about sex do we not sit 17 yr olds, who are about to get out into the "real" world, and teach them how to have basic life skills? Why don't we talk to our kids and explain that Britney and Lynnn Spears are NOT role models of any kind? Why not teach those soon to be adults the importance of good credit and prudent money saving practices? Why can't we teach those kids the real tangible results of studies showing that active parenting is far better than passive parenting? Instead of Home Ec, give teens classes on how to choose stocks to invest in? Instead of having ping pong as an elective, make HS students volunteer at their local hospital so they can SEE first hand what the dangers of unprotected sex is or maybe make them appreciate their own health? I could do this all day.
Bottomline is that when schools step into roles that SHOULD be filled by PARENTS, be it discipline, attention, or even sex ed.....the children will fail miserably because schools weren't ever designed to be a large nanny agency. We already don't have a choice as to which school our children can attend, unless you want to pay for it twice, yet you guys want that same institution try and teach your children about sex? I rather they spend their limited resources in teaching my children those things they are designed to. If they want to teach sex ed to my 14 yr old, fine. If they want to teach my 5 yr old sex ed.....ummmm,, and that goes double if you want to tell him that masturbation is "ok" as long as its in a nice private place. Sorry, I just don't agree with that.
to each to their own has its goods and bads
....True ////OFFSET\\\\
Its not so much that I want the schools to teach this stuff to my own kids... its that I want them to teach it to other peoples kids. If parents have a lassiez-faire attitude about teaching their kids about sex because "the school is doing it" then they probably wouldn't have taught it to their kids properly in the first place.
An article I cited earlier describes case studies of sex-ed programs. The one that was the most successful was one that presented science-based information combined with service learning where students are taken to maternity wards, clinics, etc. This program was the most successful but it was also the most expensive.
everyone here has a valid point, but there are still some things that're being overlooked. teaching sex education in schools to a child of ANY AGE is a far cry from allowing the government to impose on your life. in all fairness...if a 5yr old learns about sex, homosexuality, masturbation, etc., what's the worse that can happen...the kid comes home and ask mommy/daddy about it? how is that so awful? abortion...ok, well that's pushing it, but i didn't read that in his plan anyway.
my last relationship was with a chick who had 2 girls...5 & 9. the 5yr old would say some of the most "age inappropriate" things sometimes, and i'd have to ask her "where'd you hear that at?" these weren't things we were teaching her at home, they were words she heard at school. while play fighting, she told her sister she was going to kick her in the nuts....said there was a "gay girl" in her class...came home crying because a little boy said he was her boyfriend. she wasn't a bad kid AT ALL, she was just repeating things that she had heard from other kids. she really had no idea what she was saying. me and her mother sat them both down and actually started talking to them about body parts, sex, homosexuals, boyfriends/girlfriends and babies from that day on.
like i said, parents do have a responsibility to teach their children...BUT they're not always going to be the first to INTRODUCE things to them.
let's take sex out of the equation, and use cuss words instead. if a 5yr old goes to school, and cusses like a sailor, would the school be wrong for punishing him/her? aren't there parents who allow their young children to cuss...so wouldn't the school be crossing that "moral" boundary?
i'm sure ANY parent would prefer to have their child come home and say "we learned about sex at school..." as opposed to hearing your child outside playing and saying something they got from another student or off the latest pop song.
As for cursing in school...there is no comparison to be made.
Obviously order must be maintained in school environments so rules against cursing or with regard to proper attire etc in school are entirely appropriate...to maintain a proper aptmosphere for learning.
As already indicated, more technical sexual information to 5 yr olds does nothing.
Info alone doesnt work. It must be accompanied by personal moral values
instilled by parents over a lifetime.
I'll give two examples very close to me:
Person A - grew up with no sex ed. Nothing "technical" mentioned or discussed by parents or teachers other then general moral principles and abstinence until marriage. Person A learned about sex in the library, on playground, from older kids, from porn/trashy books etc Person A engaged in sexual activity at a very young age, but always with safety in mind, no scares, no diseases, no pregnancies etc. Great care was exhibited by this person to avoid those pitfalls. Even after marriage person A exhibited self control in family planning.
Person B - grew up in home where any/all sexual information was freely shared, rec'd sex ed in school, was free to discuss any/all aspects of human sexuality, masturbation, gay sex yada yada...in the home, and did so whenever any question arose. Was taught moral principles surrounding sexual activity and given encouragement to be responsible, in depth discussion of birth control and materials made available. Person B became an unwed parent at 16.
My mother was a state social worker. In that role she was heavily involved with troubled teenagers, unwanted pregancies, etc She did home studies to determine when/if children should be taken from their parents. She also did the same with regard to adoptions and fostering. Buts mostly she always tried to keep children WITH their own parents by assisting them. She would often say "Usually a poor parent is still better then a state parent"
I learned a long time ago from observing my mother in her role ...its not the lack of info (although there are isolated cases) in general its genetics and/or the lack of nurturing and/or desire for attention resulting from disconnected busy parents, a broken home, drugs/alcohol, abuse, molestation, an overall decline of values/priorities within the home etc etc etc that generally contribute to a persons promiscuity and/or risky sexual behavior.
In addition, sometimes even those with every advantage give in to urges and make costly mistakes. On the flip side sometimes those with NO advantages make all the right decisions.
Bottom line....The info given in public kindergarten has about ZERO to do with any of this...and looking to address sexual social issues in that area is a waste of time...it will change nothing...EXCEPT to intrude where parents should be.
Its looking in the wrong area.
I recognize that theres an OMG SHOCK FACTOR when people use "age 5" but you guys have to understand that no local school board is going to approve of giving the full curriculum to 5 year olds. If they did they would get reamed with lawsuits from parents.
When it boils down to it the technical aspects of sex-ed are really just basic biology. Part of why our kids are suffering in the area of science is that science is demonized by the religious freaks on the Right. Should schools pretend to teens that this stuff doesn't exist? If kids ask questions should schools ignore them or worse lie to them?
Some reading material for you guys:
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
[quote=article]“Both comprehensive sex education and abstinence only programs delay the onset of sexual activity. However, only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS,” said psychologist Maureen Lyon, Ph.D., Chair of the committee that produced the report. [/qoute]
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32960.html
Bush administration censors information about condoms and their effectiveness from US gov't documents. .PDF full-text:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/hiva...ondoms1204.pdf
Scientific Accuracy in Policy Making - a report that accuses the Bush administration of "suppression and distortion of research findings" on a level "unprecedented in the history of the United States." .PDF full-text:
http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/doc...llreport_1.pdf
Neither the religious extremist freaks on the right nor the tree hugging earth worshiping wackadoos on the left should be the measure of whats taught in public schools. Science should be taught and include all manner of it including evolutionary theory and creation science. Anything less is unbalanced to say the least. Thats the problem, each side wants to push their own agenda...the evolutionists dont want creation taught, and the creationists dont want evolution taught.
Both are off in left field...in terms of study and education. The purpose of such is to investigate all possibilities as far as reasonably possible. In truth...those who feel they know what is right have nothing to fear from investigating that which they feel is not. Truth is never really changed by falsehoods, but discovered through open minded investigation.
In terms of sexual education...there really is no shortage of information in general. I agree with you however that the efforts of some to censor info on condoms/birth control etc is like the above discussion...UNBALANCED.
That movement I might add is largely fostered by the roman catholic church.
Dumb protestants and other sheep blindly follow as it fits their own agenda.
Idiots like Pat Robertson and the like fan the flames.
But, I do believe that in spite of these 'do-gooders' kids generally know plenty about condoms/birth control etc etc etc. I also agree that public abstinence only programs are ineffective, unrealistic, and unbalanced as well. The whole balanced sexual-science-biology picture should be given to kids..at the appropriate age and time. The abstinence only teaching and/or the "bang anyone as long as youre protected" opposite MORAL DECISION instruction should be left to parents. Thats THEIR duty.
I'll admit I didn't have to time to read the entire thread and I just skimmed. I didn't see where you got your statistics that you keep alluding to. I also don't have time to look them up myself. I'll just take you at your word when you say things like "sexual ed in schools has about ZERO to do with preggo rates". Note the word ABOUT. I don't think any credible source would use the word about when referring to a fact or statistic
Let's just leave simple. Sex is part of life and biology. So, is masturbation. I don't see it as being an issue if presented in the right manner
When my ex's little brother came home from school claiming the curriculum told him he could contract the HIV virus through saliva, I knew that something was terribly wrong. I double checked the handout. It was there, plain as day. Kids NEED sex ed in schools. Anybody who thinks differently should visit the GIVE center, alternative schools, to see that kids are ****ing earlier and earlier every year. If we don't give them information, they will not be equipped to be careful and safe in their decisions. Abstinence only education is wrought with disinformation, scare tactics, and often times outright lies to coerce children into not having sex. I think that this type of miseducation should be criminalized.
we could go back and forth all day with examples to prove our point, but you never told me WHAT HARM CAN IT DO? did person B have sexual awarness education at the age of 5? maybe that was the problem.
i clearly understand your point, but you're looking too far out on the deep end. making a comparison between primary school curriculum and having to government take a child away from a poor home are two totally different scenarios. much like schools have to maintain order (in reference to cussing, dress, etc.), the government has to maintain order in our society, hence, the principles behind your mother's job.
like i said before, NO PARENT can control what their child is introduced, nor do they have some sort of timeline or graph which represents "when "X" will happen." honestly, it's better to be safe than sorry...that's all i'm saying. if early sex education can help to prevent a child from being molested, raped, taken advantage of, etc., then why not allow it?
your mentality refelcts that of a perfect world, with perfect individuals...which in all fairness, is something we all desire. regardless, we still have to take things for what they truly are. there are parents out there who don't spend enough time with their children. there are children out there being molested/raped by someone in their own home. there are children out there who are born with STDs. there are children out there who contract STDs from being "taken advantage of."
jaime said something earlier about schools teaching our kids how to balance checkbooks, sending them to after curricular programs, etc. why is it OK to leave that responsibility up to the school, but feel like when it comes to sex education, that's the line in the sand? ALL SCHOOL BASED CURRICULUMS revolve around LIFE, and introductions to LIFE EXPERIENCES.
there is a right and a wrong way to introduce sex education to young children, as tracy stated before. once again, if we pay a little more attention to obama's plan, and not tear it apart just for the sake of an argument, then maybe you'll say that you're correct in your thinking, but on a totally different track.
I am not sure of what to believe off of here. Nor am I going to take the time to read it all. Plain and simple though this is how I feel.
We HAVE to have SEX-ED in schools! Age approproate of course! THe problem is how to depict what is appropriate seeing that some children are around things at home inappropriate at such young ages and bring that to the public schools and influence other children that dont know the first thing. Kids are learning more and more now days at a younger age. People are so corrupted now days and there are so many parents not worth a shizzit that its not even funny. It really does all start at home. Parents are going to have to start stepping up and teaching their children their own morals and family values before the hellians at school do it with their young nieve brains. I dont know that my family EVER talked to me about sex. I got most of it from school and the sex ed classes I was in. THose were so crucial. Thank God I was not corrupted like some get. I was brought up in a good family(in a sense of not being taught bad, just not good sex ed) with a good set of friends so we kinda stayed away from the I hate to say it but "trashies" that knew and did all the bad things! We had a girl in the 7th grade in my class that was pregnant. I remember she was taken and home schooled seeing that it was a big to do with her being so young. Girls are getting pregnant younger and younger now days. Its sad. The schools do have to step up and do something seeing thats where that our youth spend the majority of their time. Its a major influence on them at school with peer pressure and just simply being nieve.
Like I said though. Some of that I read did not seem age appropriate. Teaching a child things like that in kindergarden is CRAZY! Those things stated are by far age appropriate. Things such as babies come from womens tummies is about the extent that should be. Maybe parents could be given some kind of information booklet to sign to either allow or deny their child to the teachings at an older age say 5th grade.There is always going to be some kind of loop in the system and problem, but something has to be done. If not we are going to have a bunch of 13yr olds running around 8 months pregnant and STDS rampent. There is no way to prevent even highschoolers from having sex. So might as well teach them all there is to know to be safe about it while still pushing abstinence to the fullest. No 13, 14, or 15 yr old is old enough to have sex although some at that time feel that they are mature and grown enough. Espcially when there are way more experienced older guys stepping in for a piece!!! What ever happened to girls losing their virginity to their first loves?
Now its losing it to the hot guy 3 grades up at a party they snuck to!!
I know this probably sounded like a bunch of immature young minded jumble to some and is going to be criticized by many like everything else is on IA, but ohhh well. I am going on 1 and 1/2 hours of sleep since 8am and really do have a point in there in that blonde headed brain of mine.Point is.....teaching masturbation and sex at any age under say.....12?....is BS!!! This makes me question who to vote for. I am totally lost.
Actually I am not quite sure you do understand my point.
1. We already have sex ed, I have no issue with general science/sex ed being given to students in age appropriate manner. I have no issue with information regarding STDs and the potential hazards of sexual behavior being given. Knowlege is good.
2. Before there was sex ed teen preg rates/stds etc were far lower, now with it theyre higher YOU DO THE MATH, after a point adding more sex ed doesnt work, people ALREADY know all about sex...and are DOING IT obviously. Teen preg rates are increasing....NOT due to any lack of sex/birth control info but as a result of the lack of MORAL INSTRUCTION from parents, misguided prioities, the idolization of sheithead role models by our youth, the lack of parenting, and the general moral decay of society. For those needing 'cited statistics' those facts alone should suffice.
3. Parents should quit asking the state to do THEIR JOB, which is THEIR DUTY as parents....that being the moral instuction of their children governed by their own individual concience and belief. The state should NEVER interfere with that process. Do so is far more dangerous then any situation we now face in this area. I would argue that one of the primary reasons we have these issues is that parents ARE relying on the state to do their job. That IS the problem to begin with. Increasing that state involvement will only increase the problems. We need increased parenting. The state CANNOT do the parents job. Its not possible, nor is it in keeping with the ideals of our constitution and great nation.
4. The ridiculous notion that increasing sex ed info or adding masturbation facts etc will somehow decrease preg rates or stds is absurd! Who in the hell doesnt ALREADY know about bean wacking or rocking the man in the boat??? Who doesnt know about condoms or other birth control? Perhaps they exist in some corner of the world but I have NEVER met such a person, even as a child back when sex was rarely spoken of. Are there really chicks here that got pregnant just because they didnt know they could diddle their own clit???
Are there guys here that got their GF preg all because they never heard of wanking the one eyed trouser snake??? I mean really! Thats BS.
All of this is 'adding additional info' is looking in the WRONG direction for answers to our sexual problems. Redundancy of info will not help us! Face it, kids ALREADY know all about sex, adding more redundant tech data really will accomplish nothing. Its not that I mind if my kids know about masturbation etc...they ALREADY know...and so do ALL their friends!!!
If thats really Obamas plan then he IS delusional. Do you really think kids acting out sexually dont know about masturbation?? Condoms?? Etc? Even kids in my "ancient" generation knew all about that stuff in lower elementary grades...and we had no sex ed in my school. In 2008 I find the notion that kids are 'unknowing' to be ridiculous. If anything, they probably know too much! lol..what they lack is an ability to make proper decisions with that knowlege. My mothers experience as a social worker mirrors all of this as well. Yes, more education is needed, a better quality education in a general sense...a better sense of PRIORITY for life decisions, a better example put forth by parents, parents more involved in PARENTING.
5. I have not torn apart Obamaramas plan...except inadvertantly perhaps..
Very good post Metalman.
You know what would probably go further in curbing unwanted teen pregnancies????? Substitute sex ed class with time served in a maternity ward of a hospital helping deliver an actual live baby.....or spend some tangible time working with social workers who visit with abandoned children.....or maybe make each student spend an entire week taking care of a newborn.....that may just go much further towards curbing teen pregnancies than explaining to them how to masturbate or put on a condom. As Metalman said, they likely already know how to do that anyway. The real hurdle is not that they "know" but in reality is getting them to apply that. Many parents go straight to the doctor's office when they find out their sweet innocent teen has BEEN having sex to put them on birth control as if pregnancy is the only issue. A vast majority of those same parents then just wipe their hands as if their job is done. Why is it so hard to sit sweet little Sally down and asking her, "hey, why are you having sex with little Joey?"...or maybe, "hey, there are other ways to show affection at your age like _______".....or "hey, the best birth control is the pill.....when you hold it really tight right here between your KNEES.....
You know what the gov't CAN do instead of this????? They can stand up and say, "If you have kids, then YOU take care of them because I'm not going to". The more that people know that they have a safety net, the more risks they take. Guys don't worry about getting a girl pregnant when they think the GIRL is going to take care of the problem if it happens. Girls don't worry about getting pregnant, when they know mommy is going to help them take care of little Johnny. Parents don't worry about their kids getting pregnant when they know the gov't is going to be there to give them WIC, food stamps, and welfare. It's a never ending cycle.
Know what I mean?
i'm quite sure i do...
we both agree here.
i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.
making a child AWARE of the bodies, and attempting to protect them from predators and the like, is far from a moral instruction. I DO AGREE that 5yr olds don't need to know about abortion, and even masturbation. they do need to understand that boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina. they need to understand that babies don't fall out of the sky. they need to understand that IT IS NOT OK for people to touch their private parts. the government is still ALLOWING it to be a moral/freedom of choice decision, by giving parents the RIGHT to choose whether they want their child to take a part in the curriculum.
if you don't believe that sexual awareness/eduction will not help to curb the statistics....all i can tell you is look at other countries like the Netherlands. it's true that it's not THE ONLY SOLUTION, but it's still a step. with your ideology, then programs like Planned Parenthood are useless. once again, you cannot compare your mothers job to this situation...it just doesn't work.4. The ridiculous notion that increasing sex ed info or adding masturbation facts etc will somehow decrease preg rates or stds is absurd! Who in the hell doesnt ALREADY know about bean wacking or rocking the man in the boat??? Who doesnt know about condoms or other birth control? Perhaps they exist in some corner of the world but I have NEVER met such a person, even as a child back when sex was rarely spoken of. Are there really chicks here that got pregnant just because they didnt know they could diddle their own clit???
Are there guys here that got their GF preg all because they never heard of wanking the one eyed trouser snake??? I mean really! Thats BS.
All of this is 'adding additional info' is looking in the WRONG direction for answers to our sexual problems. Redundancy of info will not help us! Face it, kids ALREADY know all about sex, adding more redundant tech data really will accomplish nothing. Its not that I mind if my kids know about masturbation etc...they ALREADY know...and so do ALL their friends!!!
If thats really Obamas plan then he IS delusional. Do you really think kids acting out sexually dont know about masturbation?? Condoms?? Etc? Even kids in my "ancient" generation knew all about that stuff in lower elementary grades...and we had no sex ed in my school. In 2008 I find the notion that kids are 'unknowing' to be ridiculous. If anything, they probably know too much! lol..what they lack is an ability to make proper decisions with that knowlege. My mothers experience as a social worker mirrors all of this as well. Yes, more education is needed, a better quality education in a general sense...a better sense of PRIORITY for life decisions, a better example put forth by parents, parents more involved in PARENTING.
well, if you don't know obama's plan, then you can't properly debate on it. a lot of what you're saying, although true, has little to do with his plan. his first words to the plan in regards to kindergarten kids, has more to do with protecting children from those who try to take advantage of them by making them more aware. teaching children that their private parts are just that...PRIVATE PARTS, is a far cry from the government attempting to take control of our lives.5. I have not torn apart Obamaramas plan...except inadvertantly perhaps..
Uhhh no I am afraid you dont. Your post below shows that clearly.
Here's where you demonstrate you clearly dont understand what I have said.i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.
I never said sexual education increased preg rates. I have already indicated all these (media etc) things you cite are part of the sexual revolution...and the part of problem....which is NOT a lack of information, but lack of responsible parenting and subsequent decision making.
The increase of sex education IS ALREADY IN PLACE....and KNOWLEGE ABOUNDS. There is no shortage of it. That in itself is completely ineffective in addressing the problem.....the increasing preg/std rates show that. There is NO lack of info. You would have to live in a cave to really believe otherwise....and even then you'd figure out how to wack your bean....nature itself takes care of that!! If you need futher instructions you must wear a helmet and ride a very short bus to school.
Everyone is already AWARE!! Not futher awareness is needed. What IS needed is responsible PARENTING and NO state program can provide that.
Thats the thing...people ALREADY DO understand this. You continue to look in the wrong direction for answers. Perhaps youve been listening to Obama bullsheit I dont know.they need to understand that babies don't fall out of the sky. they need to understand that IT IS NOT OK for people to touch their private parts
Nothin personal, but thats about the dumbest thing you could post.
once again, you cannot compare your mothers job to this situation...it just doesn't work.
Well I dont have to study Obamas stupidity to figure out the truth.well, if you don't know obama's plan, then you can't properly debate on it.
I dont learn truth from studying fiction.
Nor do I need study his plans to carry on an itelligent conversation/debate here. But thanks.
No, I really don't think you do (see below).
Your math is to a totally different equation and that is why he said you don't understand what he's saying. I'll let Metalman correct me if I'm wrong, but here is his equation:i've done the math, YOU haven't completed the equation. pregnancy rates aren't higher due to sex education...that's just a ridiculous assumption. the primary reason is the looseness of media, and other technology based entertainment. think about it...i'm not sure how old you are, but when i was in primary school (late 80s - early 90s) we didn't have programs like ADULT SWIM on cartoon based networks. you had to watch ren & stimpy/bevis & butthead/etc. on MTV. even on NICKELODEON, when did we see "clarissa explains it all" or the kids from "hey dude" making out? you watch high school musical or hannah montana, you're bound to find sexual innuedos. pop music wasn't nearly as vulgar as it is today with both lyrics and videos. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TEEN PREGNANCY...not sexual education.
A. BEFORE when there was little to no sex ed= LESS teen preg.
B. NOW when there is a ton MORE sex ed/info= MORE teen preg.
C. AMOUNT of info= no LESS teen preg.
D. CONCLUSION= INFO alone is certainly NOT the answer.
Right or wrong Metalman?
He's not saying that sex ed CAUSES more teen preg. He's saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Hey, someone read and understood!
Thanks Jamie.
I had sex ed in 4th. No idea what my age was, but I only assume I was a very smal child. Then... I had a break till 9th and 10th grade. I'm also wondering the same.
Plus I dont see why its really an issue. Our parent sure didnt care for sex ed nor paid attention. Back in the hott wett 70's bitchs and dudes just had sex cuz it was fun (totally dependant upon when u were born), this can fall to the 60's as we ALL KNOW were even hotter and wetter and even sticky. Drugs and sex.
I had that class very young, didnt remember anything of it or even cared (I loved my HotWheels) but I was still taught it.
So... please tell me, why is this stretching to so many pages?
Last edited by blaknoize; 09-19-2008 at 06:13 PM.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Teaching abstinence is definitely failing our kids. One need only to look at the teen pregnancy rate in GA... 95 preggos per 1000 teens. Thats pushing one in ten.
Teen pregnancy makes both parents far less likely to get a highschool education (not to mention college), making us less economically competitive as a nation due to a work force that is becoming less skilled.
Food for thought - outcomes of teen pregnancies as of 9/2006:
Source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html
that is the truth.
as a nation we to many people cant hold thee own already.
but now kids still under there parents cant finish school because
they have kid to raise
no one is finishing school and no one can get a good job and more
people are goind broke.
sorry i cant spel 2 well right now.
I support it, but I think sex ed is pretty much useless when it's all said and done. Can't slow down the number one human desire. Yea, kids should be wrapping up and what not, but they're never going to stop having sex.
ok...now that jaime explained your math to me, i understand. the fact of the matter is, NEITHER OF YOU still understands what this whole thing is really about. since i'm the one who's on the "obama bullsh.it wagon" let's see how you two compare to the "mccain bullsh.it wagon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us...heckpoint.html
if you don't care to read it...then i'll give you EXTENDED cliffs:
-much like the two of you...mccain accuses obama's plan as "COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION" for kindergarten students, which would be morally wrong.
-obama supported an "AGE AND DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE" sexual education course.
-a quote from the article itself, "Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators." this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN PREVENTING TEEN PREGNANCY....THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT.
-ANOTHER QUOTE FROM OBAMA HIMSELF “I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”
-*IMPORTANT* Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
-my last quote from the article, "The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues."
in reference to teen pregnancy...the truth of the matter is, DOING SOMETHING is better than DOING NOTHING. we can all sit here and say that the current sex education has done nothing to curb teen pregnancy...but what more can we do? the fact of the matter is, THE PROBLEM EXIST, AND ALL TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. the government is offering ASSISTANCE, not control. i was wrong in saying that metalman's mom's job has nothing to do with the issue, it kind of came out the wrong way. what i really meant was, unlike her job, this curriculum/program is meant to educate children, the future...unlike social services involvement in families, this program give the parents the option to allow their child to take part FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY SEE FIT. having social services remove a child from a "broken home" does not give a parent OR child that right...it's either "fu.ck up...we take them...do good...you keep them."
with this information...you still believe that this plan is designed for the GOBMENT to take over your family???
Some of you guys are starting to sound like my Grandpa:
Back in my day we had to walk 5 miles in the snow to get to school...
Stephen is right about the media, I remember that back in the late 80's early '90's you could see a change in music. All of a sudden everything got really risque. Back when I was a kid the popular rappers were Run DMC and the Fat Boys. Now you have kids growing up with much more explicit stuff.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But if there are a bunch of other horses already drinking at the trough and shouting "drink" and telling him he's thirsty... he's probably gonna drink.
And like has been said before countless times, not every kid has the benefit of good parenting. A lot of the parents out there just park their kids in front of the TV and leave it at that.
We have to stop seeing the issue of parenting through the rose colored glasses of 2 parent homes and Christianized morality. We need to change our model of family values to include the alternative family structures and changing household economic conditions that most families are racked with nowadays. It may not be a pretty picture, but we need to adapt our education system to fix real problems by addressing their real causes instead of holding to an idealized "Leave it to Beaver" kind of fantasy world.
Clearly judging from some posts here some have no real grasp on the points made here by myself or Jamie.
One more time....
1. There already is sexual education/information...TONS of it in fact.
2. There is NO shortage of information! Its EVERYWHERE!!!!
3. Adding MORE information about masturbation, homosexuality, alternative lifestyles etc etc etc will do NOTHING. Everyone ALREADY KNOWS!!!!...yet idiots keep screaming for more education and 'awareness'....all the while ignoring of the real issue.
4. The school system will NEVER be able to parent your children..EVER!
5. Msg for all....Stop being a selfish lazy piece of sheit and raise your own children, thats your DUTY. Its in YOUR best interest. Its in ALL our best interest.
6. Dont expect the government or school system to do YOUR job or the job of your lazy neighbor...its NOT possible no matter what socialist idiots like Obama (or others) tell you.
7. I could really give two sheits about Obamarama or McCain. I am not here to support either. This subject extends so far beyond either one of them it isnt funny.
8. I am NOT opposed to general information to assist children against predators or general sexual education in an age appropriate manner. No one here is that I can tell.
9. If anyone lives in a "Leave it To Beaver world" its those that think their public school system will be able to effectively teach morals, decision making, and do their parenting for them...OR PROTECT their children...and that adding more sex ed is 'better then doing nothing'. Thats pie in the sky rationalization, not reality.
10. My mothers job in social work not only included removal of kids from abuse etc and assistance with the results of parents failiings, and the bad decisions of young folk, but to TEACH, EDUCATE, and DEMONSTRATE a proper example...and to give folks in those situations (teen pregnancy, abuse etc etc)a hand up, showing them how to help themselves.
It also involved educating and assisting with information and resources (whether sexual or otherwise) for those who were yet to have a problem. It had everything to do with this topic. If you dont get that youre clueless!!
She would be the first to tell you of the innefectiveness of sex ed in schools, and how more wont help. She would also be the first to tell you that real PARENTING is the only answer.
11. If you think some big media "change" that sparked the current 'state of sexuality' came in the 80's and 90's youre WAY out of touch with reaility....or too young to know the difference. It came way before that. I know...because I lived through alot of it.
12. Stop blaming the media/music/environment/society for the failings of parents to properly teach & protect their children...thats YOUR job as parents...not theirs.
Bottom line...add all the sex/lifestyle info in school studies you want....it will fail. That approach has failed all along and will continue to do so.
Info without parenting = fail
Info without morals and decision making skills= fail
ONLY if/when parents decide to stop putting their job off onto others and go back to doing it again will you see any REAL change. In the meantime, youre left with the Obama type "change"...which really isnt, but just more of the same ineffective pie in the sky crap.
metalman...i never said you and jaime were wrong. i've told the both of you that i agree with you on MANY points. you too have the ideal mentality of what a proper parent should be. this entire thing started heading in the wrong direction, and that's the only issue ANYONE who has argued with you has tried to suggest. i re-read this entire thread, and BOTH OF YOU agreed that sexual awareness was an important thing for young children to learn, specifically, to protect them from sexual predators/abuse. the only thing that you two were hung up on was that "obama wants to teach 5yr olds about homosexuals, masturbation, and the scientifics of sex" which just ISN'T TRUE.
totalblender couldn't have said it any better...in a perfect world, ALL PARENTS would take care of their responsibilites and do as much as it takes to steer their children in the right direction, and protect them. the sad reality is, this world ain't perfect. we have social programs and institutions in this world just for that reason. regardless of what the government has to offer to help better OUR SOCIETY, there will always be those who will take advantage of it, BUT there will also be a countless number of those who will benefit. to take away from and de-moralize people who TRULY NEED and benefit from government programs just isn't fair.
last point...when you have 2 individuals (obama/biden) who SHOW THEIR MORAL VALUES WITHIN THEIR OWN FAMILIES (specifically sex education/awareness since that's what this topic is all about), who want to give the "less fortunate" (for lack of a better term) and opportunity to build those same values; VERSUS 2 individuals whose judgement on the situation is flawed (mccain cheated on his wife WHILE SHE WAS SICK, then married the mistress and palin has pregnant CHILD)...then it's clear which candidates prove they have the right ideology on the situation.
i almost forgot...metalman, i hope you didn't think i was taking "cheap shots" at your mother's career. you initiated it as an example (an example with a heavy negative connotation in it), and i rode with it to make my point. from what i gather, her line of work needs more individuals like her...people who have compassion for other human beings and are capable of raising intelligent children.
The research is there that the more intensive programs work, I cited it you can read it or not. What you guys keep spouting off about "its the parents' fault" has little to do with methods that have been proven to work in independent scientific studies. If you believe in this stuff so strongly why not argue your points to the APA (American Psychological Association, 150,000 members), the AMA (American Medical Association, 266,000 members), or the CDC (Center for disease Control and Prevention, 15,000 employees)? Both of these organizations are on board with the more intensive sex-ed programs. Maybe you could also argue your points to the 127,433,494 citizens of Japan and the 16,408,557 citizens of the Netherlands where these programs are working well. I'm sure they'd love to hear the American viewpoint on why our failing programs are better than their successful ones.
Keeping sex-ed the way it is (or worse, further emphasisn abstinence-only and further disregarding science) will only make the problems we have now with sexual predation, teen preganacy and the spread of STD's worse.
Kids need something to guide them and show them that the image of sex that they are shown in the media is not how it really is. And most kids parents aren't giving them that. The parents should be providing the major role but countless studies show that they aren't. So while you guys sit on your high horses and talk about the way that you raise your own kids, nothing is done to help the situations of children who are not lucky enough to have parents who will explain this stuff to them.
The programs I am talking about do just that... a combination of science based information and real world experience by taking kids out and showing them the consequences of bad decisions. Unfortunately these programs are the most expensive and given the current shift of cutting "socialist pork spending programs" it is unlikely that any legislation of this type will pass unless we get more progressives in congress/White House. Note that I didn't say democrat
^that's exactly the point
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Total_Blender again.
i'll get you later!
hmm im pretty sure there are 17 yr olds with millions or billions out there pretty much "feel" like they are a adult. When a person feels as if they have success in a financial life i guess they would "feel" they are adults. Olson twins are a bad example LOL let's exclude them tho LOL.Sex education in schools...?
palin's children obviously need this, i know many of you have stated her daughter is an adult at 17
While I normally agree with Tracy, I'm not seeing eye-to-eye on this one.
Just WHO is going to determine what that "age appropriate" curriculum is going to be? Now, what are you going to do when you don't agree with the chosen course of study? Opt out? Ok, so how did that help? Flip the coin....what about those that don't care enough to get involved and just take a laisse faire attitude and LET the school be the source of "sex ed"? Parents will get a false sense of security and breathe a sigh of relief they didn't have to have "the talk" because they think the school has it covered.
BTW, since when does sex ed. prevent pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that 99% of everyone reading this thread HAD sex ed in school. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% STILL had unprotected sex, had many "scares", possibly even had children, contracted diseases, or a combination of those. Do you think that by talking about it a few years earlier it would have changed anything? Like metalman said, the information is definetly out there and in large volumes, but that's by itself is NOT changing anything.
Why not instead of talking to 5 yr olds about sex do we not sit 17 yr olds, who are about to get out into the "real" world, and teach them how to have basic life skills? Why don't we talk to our kids and explain that Britney and Lynnn Spears are NOT role models of any kind? Why not teach those soon to be adults the importance of good credit and prudent money saving practices? Why can't we teach those kids the real tangible results of studies showing that active parenting is far better than passive parenting? Instead of Home Ec, give teens classes on how to choose stocks to invest in? Instead of having ping pong as an elective, make HS students volunteer at their local hospital so they can SEE first hand what the dangers of unprotected sex is or maybe make them appreciate their own health? I could do this all day.
Bottomline is that when schools step into roles that SHOULD be filled by PARENTS, be it discipline, attention, or even sex ed.....the children will fail miserably because schools weren't ever designed to be a large nanny agency. We already don't have a choice as to which school our children can attend, unless you want to pay for it twice, yet you guys want that same institution try and teach your children about sex? I rather they spend their limited resources in teaching my children those things they are designed to. If they want to teach sex ed to my 14 yr old, fine. If they want to teach my 5 yr old sex ed.....ummmm,
Freaking out about the EDUCATION of sex and related topics is silly. EDUCATION is what schools are for. EDUCATION is what you were meant to get at school....by definition. No one is asking the schools to be accountable for the students actions. That's a nanny service. We are talking about education ONLY still. Who decides what is taught? Us, as in the people. The same folks who decide whether or not things like evolution or creation should be taught.
Let me ask this question, who gets to decide what part of history is taught? Because I can tell you that I got almost all A's in school (until junior year). I had no idea about the things that were done to Native Americans until I was in college. I knew nothing about slavery. I also thought that Americans were adored by the rest of the world. This is all until I finally got my butt into college when I was 23. Imagine how stupid and naive I felt when September 11th happened and I began to learn how many people actually hated us. Imagine how ignorant I felt when I took a Native American Lit class and found out about the small pox blankets. Imagine how sad I felt when I found out how slavery happened in real life. Who decided that I was only going to learn the American History that was fed to me? Same concept to me.
You know, sex isn't a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if not handled properly. That's what sex ed is about in my eyes. Freaking out about it makes the kids more curious if you ask me.
Like I mentioned before, maybe those of you who are freaking out about sex ed in schools should think about home schooling your kids. Who made that the government's job? For arguments sake, that's what parents are for. The gov't isn't a nanny service, so why do we send our kids there for 8 hours a day?
And yes I think that maybe if sex ed was taught earlier we may not have had as many issues with all mentioned. It's called socialization. The more you talk about it and educate on it, the less of a big deal it becomes. I posted some actual stats (which I haven't seen any others in my skimming) and I believe it was Brazil? that attributed the low teen pregnancy rates to customs and socialization. Makes perfect sense to me
Last edited by Tracy; 09-23-2008 at 10:00 AM.
Dude, you really need to learn to read better before embarking on a point making expedition. Seriously.The research is there that the more intensive programs work, I cited it you can read it or not. What you guys keep spouting off about "its the parents' fault" has little to do with methods that have been proven to work in independent scientific studies. If you believe in this stuff so strongly why not argue your points to the APA (American Psychological Association, 150,000 members), the AMA (American Medical Association, 266,000 members), or the CDC (Center for disease Control and Prevention, 15,000 employees)? Both of these organizations are on board with the more intensive sex-ed programs. Maybe you could also argue your points to the 127,433,494 citizens of Japan and the 16,408,557 citizens of the Netherlands where these programs are working well. I'm sure they'd love to hear the American viewpoint on why our failing programs are better than their successful ones.
I never said to "take out" sex ed, or that it was "bad" to have at all. I don't get where you got that out of my very clear and direct posts. You can ask anyone around here and they will tell you that I'm VERY clear with my posts, so I don't understand how you've tried to turn around both mine and Metalman's post to something totally off what we've tried to say.
If you or anyone else can't see how TRYING and utterly failing to "teach" sex ed to a 5yr old., which has always been MY POINT all along, is NEVER going to do anything.....then you guys are not using logic nor reality.
OK, let's use your logic for a minute:
Let's start teaching 5 yr olds Physics. Let's TRY and explain to them how particles that they don't even KNOW EXIST work. Let's teach them how Inertia works. Let's explain the Theory of Relativity to them. Maybe teach them Newton's law. Why not? I mean I know that I'm far from "stupid", yet I can't remember my kindergarden teacher's name let alone what she was TRYING to teach me back then. Why not then teach them complicated theories and equations while we're at it? Maybe it's because THEY'RE NOT AT A LEVEL WHERE THEIR EDUCATION, LIFE EXPERIENCES, NOR MATURITY has taken them yet so TRYING to teach is totally useless UNLESS you teach them at the proper order and level where THEY CAN understand. THAT IS MY POINT. I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEARER THAN THAT. Teach all the sex ed you want TO TEENS AND PRE-TEENS. 5-9 yr olds will neither comprehend, absorb, nor retain "sex ed". Furthermore, teaching a CHILD that age what a vagina is certainly will NOT do a single thing towards curbing TEEN pregnancies.
If yall want to continue to argue that point with me, save it because there is no logical thought process that makes that equation work.
I'll bite.....How?Keeping sex-ed the way it is (or worse, further emphasisn abstinence-only and further disregarding science) will only make the problems we have now with sexual predation, teen preganacy and the spread of STD's worse.
I agree, but it's called P-A-R-E-N-T(S).Kids need something to guide them and show them that the image of sex that they are shown in the media is not how it really is.
Again, I'll bite......where is the data showing this?And most kids parents aren't giving them that.
Spoken like someone who has no kids of his own, so it's EASY for you be a Monday morning quarterback....So while you guys sit on your high horses and talk about the way that you raise your own kids, nothing is done to help the situations of children who are not lucky enough to have parents who will explain this stuff to them.
Come talk when YOU have children of your own. Come tell me THEN that YOU are too busy or too big a chicken to discuss sex with your OWN CHILDREN so you want to be sure their SCHOOL does YOUR job for you. When you do, I'll call you a loser and a failure to your face. When you don't, THEN you will understand where I'm coming from.
Do you still not get it?
Just where do you think the funding for these bright new ideas of ADDING curriculum is going to come from???? Think about it. So you're telling me that you'd rather that money go towards more "books", slide show presentations, and teachers rather than spent on some truly revolutionary programs like I mentioned????? Okie dokie. Talk about beating the same dead horse. Sex ed being taught by school as the sole primary source of sexual education is what has got us to where we are today. So instead of changing the way we look at sex ed, we're just going to throw MORE of the same at it......just earlier.......ummm, say what???? Kidding me right?The programs I am talking about do just that... a combination of science based information and real world experience by taking kids out and showing them the consequences of bad decisions. Unfortunately these programs are the most expensive and given the current shift of cutting "socialist pork spending programs" it is unlikely that any legislation of this type will pass unless we get more progressives in congress/White House. Note that I didn't say democrat
Clearly judging from some posts here some have no real grasp on the points made here by myself or Jamie.
One more time....
1. There already is sexual education/information...TONS of it in fact.
2. There is NO shortage of information! Its EVERYWHERE!!!!
3. Adding MORE information about masturbation, homosexuality, alternative lifestyles etc etc etc will do NOTHING. Everyone ALREADY KNOWS!!!!...yet idiots keep screaming for more education and 'awareness'....all the while ignoring of the real issue.
4. The school system will NEVER be able to parent your children..EVER!
5. Msg for all....Stop being a selfish lazy piece of sheit and raise your own children, thats your DUTY. Its in YOUR best interest. Its in ALL our best interest.
6. Dont expect the government or school system to do YOUR job or the job of your lazy neighbor...its NOT possible no matter what socialist idiots like Obama (or others) tell you.
7. I could really give two sheits about Obamarama or McCain. I am not here to support either. This subject extends so far beyond either one of them it isnt funny.
8. I am NOT opposed to general information to assist children against predators or general sexual education in an age appropriate manner. No one here is that I can tell.
9. If anyone lives in a "Leave it To Beaver world" its those that think their public school system will be able to effectively teach morals, decision making, and do their parenting for them...OR PROTECT their children...and that adding more sex ed is 'better then doing nothing'. Thats pie in the sky rationalization, not reality.
10. My mothers job in social work not only included removal of kids from abuse etc and assistance with the results of parents failiings, and the bad decisions of young folk, but to TEACH, EDUCATE, and DEMONSTRATE a proper example...and to give folks in those situations (teen pregnancy, abuse etc etc)a hand up, showing them how to help themselves.
It also involved educating and assisting with information and resources (whether sexual or otherwise) for those who were yet to have a problem. It had everything to do with this topic. If you dont get that youre clueless!!
She would be the first to tell you of the innefectiveness of sex ed in schools, and how more wont help. She would also be the first to tell you that real PARENTING is the only answer.
11. If you think some big media "change" that sparked the current 'state of sexuality' came in the 80's and 90's youre WAY out of touch with reaility..
12. Stop blaming the media/music/environment/society for the failings of parents to properly teach & protect their children...thats YOUR job as parents...not theirs.
Bottom line...add all the sex/lifestyle info in school studies you want....it will fail. That approach has failed all along and will continue to do so.
Info without parenting = fail
Info without morals and decision making skills= fail
ONLY if/when parents decide to stop putting their job off onto others and go back to doing it again will you see any REAL change. In the meantime, youre left with the Obama type "change"...which really isnt, but just more of the same ineffective pie in the sky crap.
You are REALLY upset
I am not upset at all.You are REALLY upset
Obviously you dont know me nor have you read carefully what I have said....which seems to be a common problem in this thread with regard to posts by others as well.
The 'idiots' I refered to are those who while ignoring the real issue, keep calling for more education and awareness when those things ALREADY exist.
The 'idiots' are those that actually think kindergarten & school curriculum can be a subtitute for PARENTING. I make no apology for speaking the truth.
More of this same old approach is much like pissing in the ocean, it will not change the water level. It hasnt up to now, and it wont in the future.
I am not upset at all.
Obviously you dont know me nor have you read carefully what I have said....which seems to be a common problem in this thread with regard to posts by others as well.
The 'idiots' I refered to are those who while ignoring the real issue, keep calling for more education and awareness when those things ALREADY exist.
The 'idiots' are those that actually think kindergarten & school curriculum can be a subtitute for PARENTING. I make no apology for speaking the truth.
More of this same old approach is much like pissing in the ocean, it will not change the water level. It hasnt up to now, and it wont in the future.
I read and understand what you said. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You are calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot (or anyone you don't agree with). If you want to get your point across, it's best that you don't use name calling. I didn't ask you to apologize for your views and I don't call you, or anyone for that matter, any sort of name for having them
I think you are reading my posts just to criticize them and you aren't really getting the dorifto of what I'm saying. I agree with you that a program that gets teens out of the classroom and gives them real world experience is a good thing. In fact I provided a link to a study that discussed such programs and their rates of success. What I meant was that these programs cost money and our current political climate is all bout budget cuts.Gov. Perdue just passed an emergency 6% budget cut across the board a couple months ago in addition to the cuts passed in the current session. So while I support such programs, I recognize getting them implemented will be a challenge. And such programs should be an addition to a comprehansive curriculum program based on real science rather than a substitute for it.
As for the rest of your arguments, I have said that I don't support the teaching of the full curricula to all grades and that there should be an age apporpriate progression to be determined by state local authorities (who are elected and answer to the parents). I also support the option of parents to opt their kids out of the programs without penalty. So in the first half of your latest post you just put a bunch of words in my mouth that aren't necessarily mine.
On any of your talking points from your last post you can defer to research and studies I have already posted.
This argument could continue but the horse is already glue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
