[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine. [/quote]
You have girls? So do I…I am the birth control! Some boy touches my kid and the will be hanging by their dick from a tall tree.
Actually I’ll shove a bunch of candy up their ass, then hang them by their dick and play ‘pinata’. Who ever can bust them open, can have the candy.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But I guess when it comes time for actually putting your money where yout mouth is with respect to exposing your children to different viewpoints, you are a lot more talk than you are action.
Do you have any points to make in the discussion or will this simple attempt to divert the debate be your best contribution?
I’m not diverting anything. In fact, I am waiting on you to dig up some references.
I just thought it was worth mentioning that you want your children to be exposed to other viewpoints but you just don’t want them in your schools, offered side by side with shit you agree with.
[/quote]
No, he is not saying that. Abstinence-ONLY education is not exposing children to multiple views. It is exactly what it sounds like. It teaches that abstinence is the ONLY proper method of preventing teen pregancy and STDS. It doesn’t teach about safe sex. And it doesn’t teach about birth control. Pookie already cited evidence as to why this bad. When minors fail to practice it (and they often do), they tend not to have safe sex. There are additional studies showing that children pledging abstinence and educated with abstinence-only eduction do not consider oral sex or anal sex to be true sex and practice these in greater amounts. Resulting in greater levels of STDs. Sure, I’ll dig up the evidence. Nonetheless, the focus doesn’t need to be and shouldn’t be on Bristol Palin. And it doesn’t need to be personalized. She’s just another statistic. There are plenty already. The drawbacks of abstinence-only education is very clear and the point can be made without ever going there at all.
It seems the Palin family have done everything to bring this girl up the correct way and despite their best efforts this has still happened. Which family living in the USA today cannot identify and relate to this exact situation?
As to whether this will be a negative issue for Palin in the campaign - I just cannot see it. In fact I bet the opposite, especially given the way in which the family have addressed the situation to date.
[quote]pat wrote:
The only important question is this, is she hot?
Anybody have a picture?[/quote]
I’d rather take the mother
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< I don’t know; but since I’ve been able to Vote, “negative” campaigning, that hits way below the belt, has had the effect of really turning me off to those delivering the attack. >>>[/quote]
If you want an interesting project when you have a bit of spare time, check into the personal politics of the 20 years following the revolution. You’ll be chuckling at what we think is negative campaigning today.
They pounded each other in ways that make MMA look like a thumb wrestling match. We even had Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton in a duel to the death in which Hamilton was fatally shot in Jersey in 1804 even though dueling was illegal.
Believe you me an unmarried pregnant daughter would have been more than fair game back then.
Here we go. http://nytimes.com/
BRIEF HIJACK!
JamFly:
Do you by chance have a link to that pic of Sergio?
(I’ve never seen it before!)
Mufasa
[b]sloth:
So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine.
bald eagle:
That being said, all the sex ed in the world will not prevent every mistake a young kid can make.
[…]
One can choose to abstain or roll the dice. Most sex ed is about how to roll the dice.
pat:
I am the birth control! Some boy touches my kid and the will be hanging by their dick from a tall tree.
[/b]
Spoken like true Taliban.
Yes, sex education is obviously evil, since it cannot help 100%.
It is so vile people and esp. teachers (bald eagle: “most likely a liberal” aka devil) should refrain from talking about that filth.
Also a true man protects his women from other taliban with his club and Kalashnikov anyway.
Phew, that was close, decency has been saved, now for some porn links from the “sex and the male animal” forum
p.s.: how’s the weather in Waziristan?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
<<< I don’t know; but since I’ve been able to Vote, “negative” campaigning, that hits way below the belt, has had the effect of really turning me off to those delivering the attack. >>>
If you want an interesting project when you have a bit of spare time, check into the personal politics of the 20 years following the revolution. You’ll be chuckling at what we think is negative campaigning today.
They pounded each other in ways that make MMA look like a thumb wrestling match. We even had Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton in a duel to the death in which Hamilton was fatally shot in Jersey in 1804 even though dueling was illegal.
Believe you me an unmarried pregnant daughter would have been more than fair game back then.
Here we go. http://nytimes.com/
Excellent point Tribulus. Many people don’t realize how mean spirited politics was in those days.
In 1884 it was exposed in the press that then candidate for President Grover Cleveland had an affair and the woman had a child out of wedlock. This is 1884 remember.
The slogan that the democrats made up to torment Cleveland:
“MA MA Where’s my Pa?”
After Cleveland won the Presidency in spite of all the bad publicity the republicans chimed back:
“Gone to the White House ha ha ha”.
On a side note Cleveland was single at the time and later the 49 year old married a woman less than half his age.
He was attacked for that as well.
Things in 2008 are tame in comparison.
[/quote]
That is because of all the sensitivity crap out there.
“Sensitivity training”
What do they do in those classes anyway?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[b]sloth:
So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine.
Spoken like true Taliban.
[/quote]
Are you friggen kidding me? Because I won’t let you teach my children sex education I’m the Taliban? No sir. In fact, it’s you who’d use the power of government to tax me, and then use the funds to introduce a sex ed. I don’t want. You’re the Bizarro world Taliban.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[b]sloth:
So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine.
Spoken like true Taliban.
Are you friggen kidding me? Because I won’t let you teach my children sex education I’m the Taliban? No sir. In fact, it’s you who’d use the power of government to tax me, and then use the funds to introduce a sex ed. I don’t want. You’re the Bizarro world Taliban.[/quote]
I have no idea what the Taliban has to do with this issue on either side. But maybe we want our children to receive proper sex education by professionals in public school. In fact most Amercians do. Most Americans, regardless of their political leanings, favor comprehensive sex education in schools over abstinence-only programs.
The most recent polls put the figure at 82%. The reason being that the evidence clearly shows that abstinence-plus education works best to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs and results in no more sexual activity than abstinence-only education. If you don’t like that maybe try parochial school rather than deny the majority of the population something it thinks important and properly taught in school. It’s not really necessary though. Most schools will make an exception for parents who object and their children will not have to take the sex ed class.
Of course you can’t see the irony.
You’re talking as if the topic was child abuse.
Children must learn basics in school, that definitely includes how our species procreates.
It’s not filthy or wrong, it protects everyone from lots of problems.
Of course, since it’s the internet, you just lump your little philosophy together for a standard retort: I’m a lib who wants to “tax you” (what?)into socialistic chaos. Whatever.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Of course you can’t see the irony.
You’re talking as if the topic was child abuse.
Children must learn basics in school, that definitely includes how our species procreates.
It’s not filthy or wrong, it protects everyone from lots of problems.
Of course, since it’s the internet, you just lump your little philosophy together for a standard retort: I’m a lib who wants to “tax you” (what?)into socialistic chaos. Whatever.
[/quote]
The basics are things like reading, math, and science. Not, teaching our children to consider handjobs instead of intercourse, or how to put a rubber on a cucumber. Feel free to share such things with your kids. Live the rest of ours alone.
Does someone feel threatened here? Leave us alone!
Aym kumming forr ya schildrn! Kidding.
Math is nice and so is reading, but chances are your kid will never need much math in life but fuck around literally thousands of times.
Sex is hardwired into almost every action we take, while most people have zero interest for science beyond being able to understand the tivo manual of instruction.
You are on T-Nation, which is pretty open to sexy things, and TC regularly writes about the various hormone-sociological implications that make our lives so interesting. Why are you here if you have a problem with sex?
“how to put a rubber on a cucumber”
A lot of young girls even don’t know that the pill won’t save them from any STDs. And how would they know that!? A father like you will certainly avoid the topic like the plague; that much is clear.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Of course you can’t see the irony.
You’re talking as if the topic was child abuse.
Children must learn basics in school, that definitely includes how our species procreates.
It’s not filthy or wrong, it protects everyone from lots of problems.
Of course, since it’s the internet, you just lump your little philosophy together for a standard retort: I’m a lib who wants to “tax you” (what?)into socialistic chaos. Whatever.
The basics are things like reading, math, and science. Not, teaching our children to consider handjobs instead of intercourse, or how to put a rubber on a cucumber. Feel free to share such things with your kids. Live the rest of ours alone.[/quote]
I would be fine with no sex ed at all in schools and this being left entirely to the private arena. But if schools are determined to teach it and there must be a choice between comprehensive sex ed and abstinence-only programs, I don’t want the abstinence-only garbage taught in public school.
jsbrook, can you explain to me why it’d be ok for you to have your children experience no sex education, but math, science etc.?
Or the other way around:
What should be taught at home in contrast to mandatory school education and why?
Why are we arguing with nanny state Euros on this anyway?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
jsbrook, can you explain to me why it’d be ok for you to have your children experience no sex education, but math, science etc.?
Or the other way around:
What should be taught at home in contrast to mandatory school education and why?
[/quote]
I would, in fact, prefer a proper sex education class. But I can see this is a sensitive issue that is deeply rooted in moral and religious values in a way that math and science are not. There are other avenues where sex ed could be taught. Parents. And organizations could be established specifically for that purpose. However, since the vast majority think comprehensive sex ed should be taught in schools (and I tend to agree) if anyone is going to bend it should be the abstinence-only folks who should be able to elect to not have their kids take the sex ed class and educate them on these issues by other means.