Slime tactics

Because it is not likely. You have yet to provide any reason to think that. You just assume it and assert it as fact.

There is always some sort of unintended message and most oftern unintened consequences to any type of social change like this. Weather it be the War on Poverty and the current subculture of people dependant on welfare today, or and unintended message being sent with sex education.

You simply cannot acknowledge that, it seems. Intellectual honesty be damned, I guess. Ideology over reality.



Most all teens are going to have a strong urge to. It comes down to the values instilled in them and their own personal character as to weather they will act on those urges. If the school is teaching sex ed and not re-enforcing those values, if will effectively be countering those values in the teen's mind.



You are simply trying to downplay that very real and legitimate concern. A few "teasing jabs" is all it take.

It is rather clear that ideology trumps reality for you...


I have yet to provide a reason, while you provide yours based on a guess off your supposed knowledge of children based on anecdotes, okay.

"Always an unintended message", seems odd that it always happens while being unintentional, wonder what the mathematical odds of that are, go figure.

Yeah, you have fun with your guesses and claims of unintended messages, Mr. Intellectually-Honest.

Are you assuming that the school teaching Sex Ed is not reinforcing whichever message you think (which is what?) the parents instilled, or do you know as fact? Still, what about those children that are going to experiment regardless of the lesson? Is it not better they have some basic knowledge about sexual safety?

And you're trying to up-play that some possible teasing that could (not guaranteed) happen is going to be harmful to the child who's parents denied him to sit through Sex Ed. I.E. Mountain out of a pimple.

Your "reality" is based on guesses and anecdotes.
 
Who's angry? Not me. Just flabbergasted at how gullible you are.

Your article is complete and utter BS. Show me where I'm wrong about it not MANDATING sex ed for kindergarteners.
Hey, do yourself a favor and read the article. Then, tell me where York claims that the bill mandates sex ed for kindergarteners.
 
I have yet to provide a reason, while you provide yours based on a guess off your supposed knowledge of children based on anecdotes, okay.

"Always an unintended message", seems odd that it always happens while being unintentional, wonder what the mathematical odds of that are, go figure.

Yeah, you have fun with your guesses and claims of unintended messages, Mr. Intellectually-Honest.

Are you assuming that the school teaching Sex Ed is not reinforcing whichever message you think (which is what?) the parents instilled, or do you know as fact? Still, what about those children that are going to experiment regardless of the lesson? Is it not better they have some basic knowledge about sexual safety?

And you're trying to up-play that some possible teasing that could (not guaranteed) happen is going to be harmful to the child who's parents denied him to sit through Sex Ed. I.E. Mountain out of a pimple.

Your "reality" is based on guesses and anecdotes.


Try to find a way to ignore the argument all you want, but the fact is, you have no basis for your assumptions about the effects sex education will or won't have when it comes to promoting promiscuity.

I have given you a reasonable argument, and you make ad hominem attacks and appeals to redicule ("anecdotal evidence") and try to move the goalposts (can't prove the unintended message as fact), as well as disengenuously try to downplay and/or ignore very real concerns of peer preasure.

Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of intellectual honesty, and that you are incapable of seeing reason when it conflicts with your views. :Bang :rolleyes:
 
Try to find a way to ignore the argument all you want, but the fact is, you have no basis for your assumptions about the effects sex education will or won't have when it comes to promoting promiscuity.

I have given you a reasonable argument, and you make ad hominem attacks and appeals to redicule ("anecdotal evidence") and try to move the goalposts (can't prove the unintended message as fact), as well as disengenuously try to downplay and/or ignore very real concerns of peer preasure.

Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of intellectual honesty, and that you are incapable of seeing reason when it conflicts with your views. :Bang :rolleyes:

The basis for my assumption is simple, the teachers do not promote sex, as fact. They in fact say abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STD infection. They show you how to properly put on a condom with (usually on a banana) as to not render it useless and show pictures of STD stricken genitalia along with others methods of cathcing STDs. Somehow, this translates to an "unintentional message" that "prosmiscuity is okay", according to you.

What do you base this on? Your own guesses backed-up by your anecdotal evidence. So don't cry "Ad Homimen" that I pointed it out, you're the one that brought up your background with children and your family member anecdotes as a means of proof, not me.*


*
I know how children think, in general. I used to work at a jail for juveniles, I have 5 cousins ranging from the 6 to 14, my closest friend has a kid and my mother works at an elementary school. Not to mention the fact that only 10 years ago, I was 18 myself.

You have yet to bring up one fact to sustain your unintended message of prosmiscuity, only anecdotes of you knowing how children think, yet you cry others are intellectually dishonest, seems like a trend with you.
 
The basis for my assumption is simple, the teachers do not promote sex, as fact. They in fact say abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STD infection.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY you can know how each teacher presents this to his/her class. Stop making baseless, impossible claims, and then you might have enough credibility to actually debate this issue.
 
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY you can know how each teacher presents this to his/her class. Stop making baseless, impossible claims, and then you might have enough credibility to actually debate this issue.

If a teacher would go outside of his/her duty and present Sex Ed from a biased view-point, that is the fault of the teacher, not the Sex Ed course. A biased history teacher very well could teach that America was the aggressor and attacked Japan first, should we toss out history lessons in school?

Stop jumping in with unfounded illogical rants, thanks.
 
If a teacher would go outside of his/her duty and present Sex Ed from a biased view-point, that is the fault of the teacher, not the Sex Ed course. A biased history teacher very well could teach that America was the aggressor and attacked Japan first, should we toss out history lessons in school?

Stop jumping in with unfounded illogical rants, thanks.
You're conflating sex ed with World War II history now? Oh do strut some more, sir! :bowrofl:
 
You're conflating sex ed with World War II history now? Oh do strut some more, sir! :bowrofl:

And you're dancing again while intentionally missing the point. *comfort emote so I feel better about myself here*

The point: Sex Ed isn't designed to sway children towards or from sex, it's information; generally useful information at that. Though abstinence being included can in a fashion be a sway from sex.
 
And you're dancing again while intentionally missing the point. *comfort emote so I feel better about myself here*

The point: Sex Ed isn't designed to sway children towards or from sex, it's information; generally useful information at that. Though abstinence being included can in a fashion be a sway from sex.
Abstinence by definition cannot lead to or promote more sex. Showing kids how to roll on a condom puts pictures in the minds of children and arouses their curiosity. You're either incredibly naive or deliberately obtuse.

And you've failed to make your case that McCain called Obama a pervert.
 
Isnt that what Sarah Palin taught at home ? Abstinence...... How did it turn out for her ? :rolleyes:

First: Do you know for a fact that Palin taught "abstinence only" at home? Or did she also talk about contraceptives with her kids? since you can apparently read her mind, please tell us. :rolleyes:

Second: Did the abstinence only talk lead to her daughter getting pregnant, or was it something else? Peer pressure? Messages at school? what?

As fossten pointed out, preaching abstinence cannot promote promiscuity. It was likely something else. Unless you can read Palin's daughter's mind as well....
 
Isnt that what Sarah Palin taught at home ? Abstinence...... How did it turn out for her ? :rolleyes:
Abstinence always works when it's tried. It's certainly clear now to her daughter that mom was right.

By the way, that's the second cheap shot you've taken at Bristol Palin. Why don't you just call her a whore and get it over with? I know how your mind works - you take personal glee in pointing out "hypocrisy" in those who try to live their lives by a certain moral code, be it Christian or whatever. You feel resentment and hate toward such people, somehow misguidedly thinking they are trying to tell you how to live your life. So when people like them make mistakes or have problems, you mock them, somehow using this as a way to excuse your own pathetic failings.

I think it's definitely safe to say that you're a real a-hole. As a Christian, to dovetail with something you've already said, I think it's a good idea for you to stay away from people like me.
 
This insipid article just rehashes the same weak arguments you guys have been making and then jumps to the same crazy conclusions without anything to back it up. The bill DOES NOT MANDATE teaching sex ed. It mandates what must be included in the curriculum IF sex ed is taught. The choice of teaching sex ed or not is left to the local school districts. And I can guarantee you that if a local school board mandated teaching kindergarteners about condoms, the board would be tarred, feathered, and strung up on a flag pole.

Actually, the article vidicates those arguments that you call "weak". It doesn't vindicate the idea that sex ed is mandated, but then that is a strawman coming from the left...
 
The basis for my assumption is simple, the teachers do not promote sex, as fact.

I never said they did. I said that the unintended message from the program was that promiscuity was acceptable, and not taboo. They are two different things.

You are working with a strawman mischaracterization of my argument.

What do you base this on? Your own guesses backed-up by your anecdotal evidence. So don't cry "Ad Homimen" that I pointed it out, you're the one that brought up your background with children and your family member anecdotes as a means of proof, not me.*

Actually, I was simply giving you my point of reference.

My point is irrelevant to that background. It is rather simple to see how kids will react in this situation, if you are objective and honest.

You have yet to bring up one fact to sustain your unintended message of prosmiscuity, only anecdotes of you knowing how children think, yet you cry others are intellectually dishonest, seems like a trend with you.

This article touches on some relevant facts...

For decades, "sex education" has been sold as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal disease. But incessant repetition is not a rational argument, whether for "sex education" or for generic "change."

Before propaganda against traditional values regarding sex was introduced into the public school under the label of "sex education" in the 1960s, both teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years.

In 1960 the rate of infection for syphilis, for example, was only half of what it had been in 1950.

But teenage pregnancy and venereal disease were pictured as the problems for which "sex education" was the solution. In reality, the long downward trend in both not only ended, but rose dramatically, after new attitudes toward sex were promoted in the schools under the guise of educating students.

There are the result of ignoring any potential unintended consequences and basing change on soley good intentions and wishful thinking; a dramatic rising of both teen pregnancy and VD.

And make no mistake, that is what you are doing. You are trying to ignore the potential negatives and focus only on the good intentions and the rosy picture they create. Then you work to marginalize those who don't buy into your wishful thinking. Changed based in that kind of thinking is reckless, and leads to negatives consequences.
 
First: Do you know for a fact that Palin taught "abstinence only" at home? Or did she also talk about contraceptives with her kids? since you can apparently read her mind, please tell us. :rolleyes:

Second: Did the abstinence only talk lead to her daughter getting pregnant, or was it something else? Peer pressure? Messages at school? what?

As fossten pointed out, preaching abstinence cannot promote promiscuity. It was likely something else. Unless you can read Palin's daughter's mind as well....

Just a guess after reading this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

In that same 2006 questionnaire, the soon-to-be governor said she would fund abstinence-only education programs in schools. "The explicit sex-ed programs," she added, "will not find my support." The stance, which reflected the priorities of the GOP, nevertheless led to an incredulous editorial in the Juneau Empire.

Sooo I guessed that is what she taught at home....and failed I might add. :rolleyes:

What lead her daughter to being PG is not being honest with herself and what she wanted.
She wanted to get laid but didnt have what she needed when it got hot and heavy.
Moms abstinence-only policy didn't help her much did it ?
You see Shag...I have a teenage daughter guess what we talk and if she needs a banana to pratice on I will get her one.
She already knows she can get a rubber in the bathroom at any gas station.
She also knows I don't condone the sex, but I will be damed if I will bury my head in the sand and not provide my kid with the tools they need in todays world.

Abstinence always works when it's tried. It's certainly clear now to her daughter that mom was right.

By the way, that's the second cheap shot you've taken at Bristol Palin. Why don't you just call her a whore and get it over with? I know how your mind works - you take personal glee in pointing out "hypocrisy" in those who try to live their lives by a certain moral code, be it Christian or whatever. You feel resentment and hate toward such people, somehow misguidedly thinking they are trying to tell you how to live your life. So when people like them make mistakes or have problems, you mock them, somehow using this as a way to excuse your own pathetic failings.

I think it's definitely safe to say that you're a real a-hole. As a Christian, to dovetail with something you've already said, I think it's a good idea for you to stay away from people like me.

Is Bristol Palin off limts on this board ?
I don't think the poor girl is a whore....I feel sorry for her she didn't have the tools she needed ....her parents failed her, shes a kid.

How do you get off telling me how I feel ?
How could you know how my mind works ?
I hate no one fossten all I have done is a little Sara Palin bashing is that also off limits ?
Please expand on my pathetic failings.
Were have I failed ?
You seem to know me so well.
Thanks for the a$$hole shot spoke like the true christian you are.
 
I know how your mind works - you take personal glee in pointing out "hypocrisy" in those who try to live their lives by a certain moral code, be it Christian or whatever. You feel resentment and hate toward such people, somehow misguidedly thinking they are trying to tell you how to live your life. So when people like them make mistakes or have problems, you mock them, somehow using this as a way to excuse your own pathetic failings.

I think it's definitely safe to say that you're a real a-hole.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head, there.
 

from the Anchorage Daily News, "Little play," by K. Hopkins Aug 6, 2006:

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life. "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said.

And there is this little snippet:

She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization. In 2002, she wrote a letter to FFL stating that she had "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

I wouldn't put too much faith in the Huffington Post...

Sooo I guessed that is what she taught at home....and failed I might add.

I think it is pretty clear that it most likely not the case that she taught her kids "abstinence only". given the facts in those quotes I just laid out...

What seems more realistic is that she personally has no problem with contraceptives, but doesn't believe that a school should be involved in anything more then abstinence only sex ed because anything else tends to send mixed signals that can lead to the impression that promiscuity is acceptable. It is the parent's place to talk to their children about contraception, as they choose.

I could be wrong, that is just speculation on my part. But it seems to be consistant with all the facts.
 
Yes, this law is/was part of Obama's work when he was representing the 13 district in the Illinois State Senate.

Southside Chicago - been there recently?

Notice a lot of 2 parent families? Notice a lot of moms staying at home, waiting for Dad to come home from the office, to enjoy a nice pot roast dinner with his family at the end of the day. The All-American family sitting around the dinner table discussing abstinence?

Get out of your white bread world...

This law is about 'if your district' has sex eduction it should follow these points.

Up in the middle class suburbia world of Woodstock, Illinois, I don't think they are worrying about this - they don't have to have a sex education program in their schools - as it should be, it is up to the school district to decide that portion of this little law.

Southside - unfortunately the reality of 2 parent families barely exists here, the existence of any type of family is rare and the public school has to take over for some of the things that you expect families to handle. And how the children there get exposed, and at what age, to sex - I am sure we would all be appalled.

Much of this law concerns a reality that most of us don't have to face. I personally would rather have these kids understand all about the hazards of sex, and be aware of methods to prevent STDs, pregnancy, respect for women, how horrendous physical abuse is, what constitutes sexual threats, along with other points in the law. It saves money within the health care system, as well as other government subsidy programs.

However, I do think that for elementary school aged children this should be an 'opt-in' program. But, for older kids - if Mom and Dad aren't around or don't care - the government is left to pick up the pieces. There would hopefully be fewer pieces to pick up if this program is used.
 
Southside Chicago - been there recently?

Notice a lot of 2 parent families? Notice a lot of moms staying at home, waiting for Dad to come home from the office, to enjoy a nice pot roast dinner with his family at the end of the day. The All-American family sitting around the dinner table discussing abstinence?

Get out of your white bread world...
Ah, yes, another inner city run by the corrupt Democrat machine. What more needs to be said...
 
Speaking of smears and dishonorable attacks...

Sebelius: Say, did you know Republicans are racists?

Update: AP or Miami Herald tries cleaning up Sebelius’ comments

posted at 6:40 pm on September 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Hmmm. Didn’t Barack Obama just get done scolding John McCain over “dishonorable” attacks? Maybe he should save his criticisms for his surrogates, except that they’re parroting The One in his own baseless smears. In Iowa today, Kathleen Sebelius continued the Obama tradition of calling Republicans racists, and the other Obama tradition of producing absolutely no evidence for the allegation:
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius accused Republicans on Tuesday of injecting race into the presidential campaign, arguing that they are using “code language” to convince Midwesterners that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them.

“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked with sarcasm. “(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness.”

Sebelius was responding to a question from the audience at the Iowa City Public Library about the tenacity of Democrats and whether they would fight for victory as hard as Republicans in the closing weeks of the election.
She did not elaborate on her comment.

Well, they don’t usually elaborate, because they don’t have any evidence of it. It’s a smear, and has been shown thus by the Washington Post and ABC News during the summer. And while Obama whines about McCain’s supposed lies, the purveyor of Hope and Change has been throwing mud at McCain ever since locking up the nomination.

There is nothing more dishonorable in politics than calling opponents “racists” without evidence. It not only smears people who have tried to keep race out of the election, it is a McCarthyite tactic to silence critics. It reveals in another fashion Obama’s Nixonian tendencies in reacting to any sort of criticism at all — shouting it down, smearing journalists doing their jobs, and branding any dissent from the One’s revealed wisdom as based on hate rather than genuine opposition to statist policies.

Kathleen Sebelius has decided to enable that kind of McCarthyism and mudslinging, without having the courage to provide an iota of evidence for it. Perhaps Obama should have chosen her for a running mate; they appear to have the same perspective and philosophy, as well as sharing an ethical standard so low as to be invisible to the naked eye.

Update: The AP or the Miami Herald has edited this article to remove the “(Republicans) will not go lightly into the darkness” quote. Fortunately, I saved a cached version of the article here. It now reads:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday that a belief among some voters that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them is hindering his campaign for president.

Asked at a brown-bag lunch at the local library why the campaign is neck-and-neck, Sebelius said “code language” raising doubts about Obama is invalid because his life experience “has a lot more to do with me and my family.”

“I think that the notion that, ‘By the way, have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African American?’ I think that is for a number of people difficult,” Sebelius said. “I think we need to talk about the fact that that is a real issue.”

Why did this story get changed? Did someone at the AP or Herald decide that it made the smear tactics just too obvious? Clearly, someone got second thoughts about including that quote from Sebelius, and either the AP or the Herald need to explain their sanitation of Sebelius’ remarks.

***

Can you say media bias?
 
Ah, yes, another inner city run by the corrupt Democrat machine. What more needs to be said...
Obviously nothing on this particular subject of the Sex Education Bill in Illinois - since we have now changed the subject
 
So, you are assuming that Mr Deville was referring to all slime tactics, and not just referring to the one in his first post - a never ending thread...

Too bad - I like winning:)
 

Members online

Back
Top