[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said anything about neurological changes.
I think innocent kids knowing about these things is damage. My only proof then is that teaching them about sex leads them to know about sex.
And again, I would consider a 10 yearold having protected sex to be morally wrong too.
The other side is that it’s the general normalization of sex that has lead to more kids getting pregnant to begin with. Instead of trying to show them the “right” side of sexualization, maybe I’d rather prevent all sexualization at that age.
But again, going back to PP, all of these moral judgments are very personal and tax money has no business going to one side of the judgment.[/quote]
First of all stop bringing up 10 year olds because I think may be too young.
Secondly, around the age 12-13 kids generally become interested in sex. It would not matter if you withheld extensive sex education, they would still be having sex. In Lubbock,TX they teach abstinence only and nothing about sex or contraception use. Yet Lubbock has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Did you read the article on the first post? I didn’t see anything about pornography there.[/quote]
I pointed this out in another thread.
They consider abortion a holacaust but love to keep down proven techniques to prevent abortion.
Contraception use = wrong even for fully grown adults
Teaching masterbation to children using money taken from people who find it morally wrong. And it shows it works.
[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Castration of infants would prevent abortion too, but I’d be against that also. There are huge holes in your logic.[/quote]
I’m beginning to question whether I should even bother conversing with you.
First you called criminal law a religion.
Now you’re comparing sex education to castration.
It’s nothing but a dishonest way of arguing. We all know castrating infants will lead to harm for society. You’re choosing to completely misrepresent sex education by somehow relating it to castrating infants.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said anything about neurological changes.
I think innocent kids knowing about these things is damage. My only proof then is that teaching them about sex leads them to know about sex.
And again, I would consider a 10 yearold having protected sex to be morally wrong too.
The other side is that it’s the general normalization of sex that has lead to more kids getting pregnant to begin with. Instead of trying to show them the “right” side of sexualization, maybe I’d rather prevent all sexualization at that age.
But again, going back to PP, all of these moral judgments are very personal and tax money has no business going to one side of the judgment.[/quote]
First of all stop bringing up 10 year olds because I think may be too young.
Secondly, around the age 12-13 kids generally become interested in sex. It would not matter if you withheld extensive sex education, they would still be having sex. In Lubbock,TX they teach abstinence only and nothing about sex or contraception use. Yet Lubbock has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
[/quote]
We are discussing PP, so I’ll keep bringing them up.
They are then exposed to it in other forms.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Did you read the article on the first post? I didn’t see anything about pornography there.[/quote]
I pointed this out in another thread.
They consider abortion a holacaust but love to keep down proven techniques to prevent abortion.
Contraception use = wrong even for fully grown adults
Teaching masterbation to children using money taken from people who find it morally wrong. And it shows it works.
[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Castration of infants would prevent abortion too, but I’d be against that also. There are huge holes in your logic.[/quote]
I’m beginning to question whether I should even bother conversing with you.
First you called criminal law a religion.
Now you’re comparing sex education to castration.
It’s nothing but a dishonest way of arguing. We all know castrating infants will lead to harm for society. You’re choosing to completely misrepresent sex education by somehow relating it to castrating infants.
[/quote]
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Did you read the article on the first post? I didn’t see anything about pornography there.[/quote]
I pointed this out in another thread.
They consider abortion a holacaust but love to keep down proven techniques to prevent abortion.
Contraception use = wrong even for fully grown adults
Teaching masterbation to children using money taken from people who find it morally wrong. And it shows it works.
[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Castration of infants would prevent abortion too, but I’d be against that also. There are huge holes in your logic.[/quote]
I’m beginning to question whether I should even bother conversing with you.
First you called criminal law a religion.
[/quote]
No, I explained how it is one. You haven’t addressed my points in any way either.
No, I compared your argument to my example. It is not necessary that castration and sex education be similar to illustrate the point. Just because something prevents something bad from happening, doesn’t mean I should support it. Again, you are failing to address the logical point.
No, your statement about how it is essentially hypocritical for people to not support something that prevents something bad was a dishonest argument.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.[/quote]
Here again I differ in opinion to what is bad and what is good. Yall are calling teen pregnancy something that is inherently evil. I disagree. I think people getting pregnant with unwanted children that they cannot or are not prepared to care for is bad, but that is not synonymous with teen pregnancy.
I would not call a married 19 year in a loving relationship and desiring a baby while in a position and maturity to care for it bad. I would call a 40 year old without a stabile economic status getting pregnant with an unwanted baby they canâ??t care for bad.
My grandmother was married and pregnant at 15. And she raised a fine family. Was that bad?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, your statement about how it is essentially hypocritical for people to not support something that prevents something bad was a dishonest argument.[/quote]
Nooooo it’s not.
Those of you who opposed to sex health education have been unable to back up your opinion.
You’ve only tried to weasel out of it by saying “damage is a value judgement” therefore you don’t have to back up your opinion with evidence.
I have demonstrated sex health education has a positive benefit to society and you have simply asserted it has negative effects on children.
If there is no demonstrable proof that extensive sex education harms children then you have no good reason to oppose it. if preventing the killing of unborn children is something you want to achieve and you hold down a measure that works towards that goal without a good reason, then you are a hypocrite.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, your statement about how it is essentially hypocritical for people to not support something that prevents something bad was a dishonest argument.[/quote]
Nooooo it’s not.
Those of you who opposed to sex health education have been unable to back up your opinion.
You’ve only tried to weasel out of it by saying “damage is a value judgement” therefore you don’t have to back up your opinion with evidence.
I have demonstrated sex health education has a positive benefit to society and you have simply asserted it has negative effects on children.
If there is no demonstrable proof that extensive sex education harms children then you have no good reason to oppose it. if preventing the killing of unborn children is something you want to achieve and you hold down a measure that works towards that goal without a good reason, then you are a hypocrite.[/quote]
This statement essentially ignores everything I’ve said in this thread. I’ll do the same to you.
I’m glad that you agree with me and admit that I’m right and you were wrong.
You can only offer evidence that something meets the criteria you set up for damage. You cannot offer evidence that damage is damage.
You’re “evidence” showed that it met your OPINION as to what good was.
For instance I disagree with your point because I don’t even believe that good and bad exist for society because there is no such thing. That right there invalidates all your evidence because we disagree on the terms of “damage”.
I think kids knowing about these things that young is damage. Do you want me to offer evidence that teaching kids about sex leads to them knowing about sex? That would be the equivalent of the evidence you’ve given.
Okay and what reason do you have for believing that kids knowing about sex is damaging?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think kids knowing about these things that young is damage. Do you want me to offer evidence that teaching kids about sex leads to them knowing about sex? That would be the equivalent of the evidence you’ve given.[/quote]
True, because unless we, as parents, tell kids about sex they will never know about it. They will never get erections before the age of 18. They will never acidentally walk in on their parents. They will never see suggestive images on television, in ads, or walking around town. I mean sex isn’t natural or all around us is it?
I remember taking a firearm safety course when I was a kid. Now I didn’t actually use a gun for a handful of years later but those lessons really helped me to be safe. I would rather have my kids be armed against something than be totally ignorant about it.
Isn’t it the role of the responsible parent to teach their children about things that may happen to them? Isn’t teaching them according to our own moral compass the whole point of being a parent? If you don’t believe in pre-marital sex then the answer is to teach your children about it and help point them in the right direction not to simply not tell them anything.
james
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Okay and what reason do you have for believing that kids knowing about sex is damaging?[/quote]
Corruption of innocence? Like I said, there aren’t good logical reasons for the assessment of what constitutes bad or evil. My conscience tells me it is.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Okay and what reason do you have for believing that kids knowing about sex is damaging?[/quote]
Corruption of innocence? Like I said, there aren’t good logical reasons for the assessment of what constitutes bad or evil. My conscience tells me it is.[/quote]
I disagree with “there aren’t good logical reasons for the assessment of what constitutes bad or evil”
I discussed this a couple pages back in the roots of morality thread, except instead of bad or evil I used the label moral and immoral
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.[/quote]
Here again I differ in opinion to what is bad and what is good. Yall are calling teen pregnancy something that is inherently evil. I disagree. I think people getting pregnant with unwanted children that they cannot or are not prepared to care for is bad, but that is not synonymous with teen pregnancy.
I would not call a married 19 year in a loving relationship and desiring a baby while in a position and maturity to care for it bad. I would call a 40 year old without a stabile economic status getting pregnant with an unwanted baby they canâ??t care for bad.
My grandmother was married and pregnant at 15. And she raised a fine family. Was that bad?[/quote]
Was her pregnancy planned?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think kids knowing about these things that young is damage. Do you want me to offer evidence that teaching kids about sex leads to them knowing about sex? That would be the equivalent of the evidence you’ve given.[/quote]
True, because unless we, as parents, tell kids about sex they will never know about it. They will never get erections before the age of 18. They will never acidentally walk in on their parents. They will never see suggestive images on television, in ads, or walking around town. I mean sex isn’t natural or all around us is it?
I remember taking a firearm safety course when I was a kid. Now I didn’t actually use a gun for a handful of years later but those lessons really helped me to be safe. I would rather have my kids be armed against something than be totally ignorant about it.
Isn’t it the role of the responsible parent to teach their children about things that may happen to them? Isn’t teaching them according to our own moral compass the whole point of being a parent? If you don’t believe in pre-marital sex then the answer is to teach your children about it and help point them in the right direction not to simply not tell them anything.
james
[/quote]
When did you teach your kids about fisting and anal sex?
And sex, with the exception of rape, isn’t something that happens to them, it’s something they do. Did you teach your kid how to get away with armed robbery, because committing armed robbery. And I’d prefer to teach them not to do it, than how to do it without consequence.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.[/quote]
Here again I differ in opinion to what is bad and what is good. Yall are calling teen pregnancy something that is inherently evil. I disagree. I think people getting pregnant with unwanted children that they cannot or are not prepared to care for is bad, but that is not synonymous with teen pregnancy.
I would not call a married 19 year in a loving relationship and desiring a baby while in a position and maturity to care for it bad. I would call a 40 year old without a stabile economic status getting pregnant with an unwanted baby they can�¢??t care for bad.
My grandmother was married and pregnant at 15. And she raised a fine family. Was that bad?[/quote]
Was her pregnancy planned?[/quote]
No idea. why?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Okay and what reason do you have for believing that kids knowing about sex is damaging?[/quote]
Corruption of innocence? Like I said, there aren’t good logical reasons for the assessment of what constitutes bad or evil. My conscience tells me it is.[/quote]
I disagree with “there aren’t good logical reasons for the assessment of what constitutes bad or evil”
I discussed this a couple pages back in the roots of morality thread, except instead of bad or evil I used the label moral and immoral
[/quote]
It all starts with an unfounded opinion. You must define a positive and negative for which there is no proof, then build a system from there.
Give me any example that doesn’t do that.
Now we are comparing sex to armed robbery. I can see why the church is against contraceptives now, its like wearing a bullet proof vest during a shoot out with the police after you’ve robbed the bank.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.[/quote]
Here again I differ in opinion to what is bad and what is good. Yall are calling teen pregnancy something that is inherently evil. I disagree. I think people getting pregnant with unwanted children that they cannot or are not prepared to care for is bad, but that is not synonymous with teen pregnancy.
I would not call a married 19 year in a loving relationship and desiring a baby while in a position and maturity to care for it bad. I would call a 40 year old without a stabile economic status getting pregnant with an unwanted baby they can�?�¢??t care for bad.
My grandmother was married and pregnant at 15. And she raised a fine family. Was that bad?[/quote]
Was her pregnancy planned?[/quote]
No idea. why?[/quote]
It was a bad example then and not relevant to today’s problem.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Now we are comparing sex to armed robbery. I can see why the church is against contraceptives now, its like wearing a bullet proof vest during a shoot out with the police after you’ve robbed the bank.[/quote]
In arguments like this, I’m constantly aware that the other side refuses to see the situation from the other viewpoint. Many people see the sexualization of young people as evil. You don’t have to agree with that. However, the other side in all their arguing virtually never acknowledges the issue from that view, though it is entirely a matter of opinion. All the arguments absolutely refuse to address it from that perspective. As a result, I am forced to use illustrations that the other side will approach from the perspective of it being bad. Because of the obstinacy of some people I am many times forces to take my examples to something like robbery in order to have the perspective addressed. This of course always leads to some comment about how I called protected sex the same as armed robbery.
If people would honestly address the perspective that certain things are inherently bad, it wouldn’t be necessary. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
So go ahead and make some ignorant statement about how armed robbery explains the churchâ??s stance on condoms, you small minded twit.