The cover of today’s New York Daily News
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
That’d be REAL good for the new messiah.
I’m pretty sure any new messiah would be just as soundly ignored as the last one was.
[/quote]
quoted for truth
[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine.
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]
Wow… you really don’t trust your girls at all do you? What ages are they?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
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]
I don’t read TC’s articles. And, this isn’t the cyber sex forum, by the way.
I wouldn’t teach my children? Wow, you socialists can’t even imagine a world without big nanny government taking care of everything for you. You can’t even raise your own children, much less imagine someone else could.
What happened to the ABCs???
Abstinence
Be Faithful
Contraceptives
IMO it’d be fine to teach my kids sex-ed in school, they won’t be learning anything I haven’t taught them already anyway. Hell, Lord knows I was taught about sex in school (by a very old, fat, hairy, gassy woman no less).
With and how sex education is taught is an example of the devil is in the details. There’s a whole lot of leeway in there where I can see why a christian abstinence type might object to.
I’m all for teaching kids all the anatomy and such, but I did have hard time with how it was presented in certain cases.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems.
Please cite your references for this statement.
Will this one do:
Or maybe this one:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/news/nationalnews/palin_a_pol_who_knows_the_drill_126728.htm
You can then ignore the content and concentrate on dismissing the source.
[/quote]
She advocates drilling in both articles. What’s your problem with that? Not that it solves all our energy problems, but it is the right move to make in order to lessen our dependance upon the middle east.
Your articles simply cite her support of the US leveraging our resources.
I guess if like Obama we got a lecture from her about air pressure in our car tires saving as much gas as we’d get from drilling, you would not have questioned that.
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems.
Please cite your references for this statement.
Will this one do:
Or maybe this one:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/news/nationalnews/palin_a_pol_who_knows_the_drill_126728.htm
You can then ignore the content and concentrate on dismissing the source.
She advocates drilling in both articles. What’s your problem with that? Not that it solves all our energy problems, but it is the right move to make in order to lessen our dependance upon the middle east.
Your articles simply cite her support of the US leveraging our resources.
I guess if like Obama we got a lecture from her about air pressure in our car tires saving as much gas as we’d get from drilling, you would not have questioned that.
[/quote]
I already asked him about this. I don’t think he reads the articles he googles up. He couldn’t have, unless he was betting that no one would follow the links.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Hell, Lord knows I was taught about sex in school (by a very old, fat, hairy, gassy woman no less). [/quote]
Funny how that works. Maybe that’s their form of subconcious contraceptive… have a fat ugly broad talk about it. Yuck.
Either way, I really don’t care that her daughter got knocked up, in the same way that I don’t care that Edwards cheated on his wife or that any other politician has private, personal issues.
Many great politicians have had terrible personal lives.
For me the issue is more fundamental than WHAT sex education is being taught, rather WHY is the government as part of the curriculum teaching children about acceptable sexual behavior in schools according to their own moral code?
There is a wide spectrum of varying moral values and opinions on what and how this delicate subject should be tret.
I do not think anyone would disagree that it is chiefly the parents responsibility to educate their children about this subject in line with their own moral values - people who put this responsibility onto the state either do not care about this aspect of their child’s education or are avoiding the responsibility of parenthood.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
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?
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. [/quote]
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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?
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.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.[/quote]
Darwinism is already taught in science classes.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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?
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.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.
Darwinism is already taught in science classes.[/quote]
What’s Darwinism?
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
JamFly wrote:
lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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?
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.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.
Darwinism is already taught in science classes.
What’s Darwinism?[/quote]
In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[9]
[quote]lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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?
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.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.[/quote]
I see these as different issues. A sex ed class is much more closely a direct instruction on how to live your life. At the least, information there is likely to be directly used in important choices students make.
I can easily see parents’ views that they don’t want the school involved in these areas. Creationism and evolution only seek to explain how we exist. The information presented in these theories is unlikely to be much of a factor in any decisions students make in their everyday lives.
I don’t actually have any real problem with creationism being taught. It shouldn’t be taught in science class, however, because it’s not a valid scientific method of inquiry under any reasonable understanding.
I also don’t see how teaching Creationism even outside the context of a science class can be constitutional under the current conception of separation of church and state.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Hell, Lord knows I was taught about sex in school (by a very old, fat, hairy, gassy woman no less).
Funny how that works. Maybe that’s their form of subconcious contraceptive… have a fat ugly broad talk about it. Yuck.
Either way, I really don’t care that her daughter got knocked up, in the same way that I don’t care that Edwards cheated on his wife or that any other politician has private, personal issues.
Many great politicians have had terrible personal lives.[/quote]
Even David had Bathsheba. Both political parties tend to forget this when the next scandal come along. John Edwards! Larry Craig!! etc. etc. I’ve noticed as of late most politicians themselves seem to keep quiet though…everyone’s got something in the closet.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
For me the issue is more fundamental than WHAT sex education is being taught, rather WHY is the government as part of the curriculum teaching children about acceptable sexual behavior in schools according to their own moral code? [/quote]
If that were occurring, it would be wrong. However, “sex-ed” is (or was for me anyway) about facts, facts, facts. And it should be. Human biology, contraceptives effectiveness statistics, etc.
[quote]
There is a wide spectrum of varying moral values and opinions on what and how this delicate subject should be tret. I do not think anyone would disagree that it is chiefly the parents responsibility to educate their children about this subject in line with their own moral values - people who put this responsibility onto the state either do not care about this aspect of their child’s education or are avoiding the responsibility of parenthood.[/quote]
There are some real shitty parents out there. My kids will have the birds and the bees early in life (as I’m sure yours will). But there are shitty parents. Should we let the kids of shitty parents be ignorant of biology? Why? I say teach the ABCs in schools to try to reach the kids with parents who are avoiding their own responsibilities.
Check out the cover of Us Magazine
http://www.usmagazine.com/news/sarah-palin-very-difficult-to-work-with
[quote]JamFly wrote:
For me the issue is more fundamental than WHAT sex education is being taught, rather WHY is the government as part of the curriculum teaching children about acceptable sexual behavior in schools according to their own moral code?
There is a wide spectrum of varying moral values and opinions on what and how this delicate subject should be tret. I do not think anyone would disagree that it is chiefly the parents responsibility to educate their children about this subject in line with their own moral values - people who put this responsibility onto the state either do not care about this aspect of their child’s education or are avoiding the responsibility of parenthood.[/quote]
A proper sex ed class does not dictate what is appropriate sexual behavior. It teaches the risks and consequences of sexual activty. It teaches that abstinence is the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. And it teaches that condoms and contraceptives REDUCE the risk of pregnancy and STDs for those than choose to engage in sexual activity.
[quote]lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
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?
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.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.[/quote]
Oh no! Hide the children lest they be corrupted and ruined forever.