[quote]therajraj wrote:
You don’t have a point unless you can show planned parenthood teaches fisting, anal sex, putting on a condom with your mouth to 10-12 year olds. That was the claim.[/quote]
I think that’s strike 3.
My point isn’t about whether they do or not, that doesn’t matter to my point. You admitted that when the issue comes to teaching kids something you intrinsically don’t think they should be taught, you don’t need statistical support for damage and you are willing to throw out all the previous statistics posted about all the benefits and lack of negative effects. You completely threw all of your argument away as soon as we were talking about teaching something you just didn’t like.
[/quote]
You mean I don’t think every single about sex needs to be covered in sex ed??? Oh my you got me.
The material I mentioned isn’t included. Listen, if you don’t have any proof that they are teaching all that stuff I mentioned, you don’t have a point.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You don’t have a point unless you can show planned parenthood teaches fisting, anal sex, putting on a condom with your mouth to 10-12 year olds. That was the claim.[/quote]
I think that’s strike 3.
My point isn’t about whether they do or not, that doesn’t matter to my point. You admitted that when the issue comes to teaching kids something you intrinsically don’t think they should be taught, you don’t need statistical support for damage and you are willing to throw out all the previous statistics posted about all the benefits and lack of negative effects. You completely threw all of your argument away as soon as we were talking about teaching something you just didn’t like.
[/quote]
The material I mentioned isn’t included. Listen, if you don’t have any proof that they are teaching all that stuff I mentioned, you don’t have a point.[/quote]
You posted statistics about the effects of what was being taught. If they were teaching this stuff, that was included. You are now saying to will throw away all your stats and withdraw support if it includes subjects you don’t want kids to know despite those statistics.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t say anything about the end of the world Ephrem. You did. See how subconsciously YOU exalt and idolize the United States to the point where someone predicting HER demise sounds to you like the demise of the earth? I am not so crass or arrogant myself. This nation is entirely expendable to the God who could extinguish the universe simply by ceasing to uphold it’s existence. We haven’t had an age of reason ol buddy.[/quote]
The end of civilisation as we know it might very well be the end of the world, and whether you like it or not, all our fates are connected to the fate of the USA.
And yes, you are that arrogant.
[/quote]Are you saying that planet earth, or at least civilization cannot survive unless the United States survives Ephrem? I love my country, but NO country is that important. Yes there would be and IS a profound impact. Unlike your Scandinavian communes which could disappear tomorrow and what Kim Kardashian wore somewhere would get more press. However, if the Lord tarries we will be here loooong after after my beloved Red White and Blue is a distant memory. We will be studied for centuries as the super power that sunk herself into the same groovy pit of irrelevance your heroes have been in all along. And for the same reasons.
“When a woman has a baby in her tummy, it is called a pregnancy. Women have tiny eggs in a special part of their tummy. Men have very tiny seeds. Sometimes, when a man and a woman have sex together, the man puts his penis in the woman?s vagina. They can start a pregnancy if one of his seeds comes out his penis and joins with one of the eggs in her body. Do you have any other questions about that?”
You posted statistics about the effects of what was being taught.[/quote]
I posted stats on the effectiveness of sex education, not on what was being taught
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If they were teaching this stuff, that was included. [/quote]
I didn’t see anything about anal sex, fisting or teaching children to put on condoms with their mouths. Do you have any proof they are? Yes or no?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are now saying to will throw away all your stats and withdraw support if it includes subjects you don’t want kids to know despite those statistics.[/quote]
This is all irrelevant since they are not teaching these subjects. I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. I wouldn’t withdraw support, I just think it could be reformed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[/quote]
Because statistics and surveys backup what I think.
I would care what you thought if you could back it up with evidence.
You posted statistics about the effects of what was being taught.[/quote]
I posted stats on the effectiveness of sex education, not on what was being taught
[/quote]
Exactly. Those statistics reflected whatever was being taught. What was being taught was immaterial to the statistics that showed it was positive and without negative.
Rational thought alludes you. You are missing my point. You bailed on your hole argument.
It isn’t about what they are doing. It’s about the fact that you admitted you only pay attention to statistics if they support what you already believe. And that your judgments of right and wrong are no more proved than the people you are ridiculing for lacking proof.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[/quote]
Because statistics and surveys backup what I think as long as they agree with what I already think, cause if they don’t I’d ignore them.
I would care what you thought if you could back it up with evidence.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“When a woman has a baby in her tummy, it is called a pregnancy. Women have tiny eggs in a special part of their tummy. Men have very tiny seeds. Sometimes, when a man and a woman have sex together, the man puts his penis in the woman?s vagina. They can start a pregnancy if one of his seeds comes out his penis and joins with one of the eggs in her body. Do you have any other questions about that?”
Is 3 too early for this info? [/quote]
If that’s what 3 year old’s are talking to their friends about these days then its probably not too early. If not I think it can wait until they are older.
It isn’t about what they are doing. It’s about the fact that you admitted you only pay attention to statistics if they support what you already believe. And that your judgments of right and wrong are no more proved than the people you are ridiculing for lacking proof.[/quote]
My judgements on whether anal sex and fisting shouldn’t be taught in sex ed to 10 year olds has no basis and is just a personal opinion. Even if it were, I wouldn’t withdraw support since there is demonstrable benefit. But I highly doubt they are teaching it, and I highly doubt weird sex acts would produce favourable statistics.
My backing of comprehensive sex education as a whole is backed up.
To point out, a lot of what you wrote was based on the fact they were teaching 10 year olds to have anal sex and how to put on a condom with their mouth. I’m pretty sure none of that is true.
I’m supporting sex education being taught in school. Nothing more. Planned Parenthood as well as any organization providing this service should present tasteful and appropriate information. None of what you mentioned was taught to me when I undertook sex ed in 2000-2001.
If they are indeed showing what you say they are, I’m on your side to the extent that it needs to be reformed but not removed.
[/quote]
Read what I said. Not withdrawing support - reformed not removed.
The only thing you “got me” on is that my opinion on it needing to be reformed in this hypothetical where they are teaching children at 10 years old to have anal sex, fisting, and putting on a condom with their mouth.
You’ve created an absurd hypothetical scenario which does not exist.
I’m supporting sex education being taught in school. Nothing more. Planned Parenthood as well as any organization providing this service should present tasteful and appropriate information. None of what you mentioned was taught to me when I undertook sex ed in 2000-2001.
If they are indeed showing what you say they are, I’m on your side to the extent that it needs to be reformed but not removed.
[/quote]
Read what I said. Not withdrawing support - reformed not removed.[/quote]
Changing to abstinence only is reforming to. Now you are arguing semantics. You claimed to support what was being taught. Having them stop teaching something and teach something else isn’t supporting what’s being taught. You are a big fat hypocrite. You are all about the stats as long as they fall in line with your own moral code. But everyone else who doesn’t want things against their moral code taught are irrational.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The only thing you “got me” on is that my opinion on it needing to be reformed in this hypothetical where they are teaching children at 10 years old to have anal sex, fisting, and putting on a condom with their mouth.
You’ve created an absurd hypothetical scenario which does not exist. [/quote]
It isn’t absurd at all. You’ve already shown your true colors.
Whatever dude. I would reform it to the point where the benefits are not taken away. Reforming it to abstinence only essentially destroys its demonstrable benefits.
If in some weird world where teaching fisting to 10 year olds was required to see these benefits I would support it. But that’s not reality.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
teaching fisting to 10 year olds … I would support it…[/quote]
There you have it. Maybe not entirely hypocritical. But you never asked for proof of the effects of every element of the program until you didn’t like part of it.
Technically if they were doing it at all, you should support it, by your own argument, but that’s enough.
What if supervised sex sessions were necessary?
The fact that you’d support giving fisting lessons to 10 year olds pretty much puts us at an impasse. I could never EVER condone anything like that. You are truly deprave.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< I don’t think every single thing about sex needs to be part of the curriculum. >>>[/quote]Why should anybody care what you think? You don’t care what we think.
[/quote]
Because statistics and surveys backup what I think.
I would care what you thought if you could back it up with evidence.[/quote]Our decaying society is evidence against all your “evidence”. You don’t accept that evidence though because… oh nevermind.