NationStates Jolt Archive

If a class misrepresents the facts, then it is a failure of the class. Classes must provide information, and misrepresenting the facts is a failure to provide information.
Abstinence-only education programs teach that the only means by which one may prevent STDs from being contracted sexually or prevent pregnancy is abstinence, which is fact. The purpose of this education program is to teach the means by which STDs and pregnancies may be prevented, and only abstinence qualifies. Condoms, etc. merely lower the likelihood of contracting STDs or becoming pregnant, they do not prevent either. Thus, these have no place in sex education. Hence, abstinence-only education.

But of course. I guess a 99% pregnancy prevention rate for the pill alone when used as prescribed isn't good enough, hmm? I guess, then, that all men should go and have a vasectomy just to increase these chances to 100%.

In any case, when you teach a child going through puberty that avoiding sex is the only way to avoid STDs and pregnancies, you effectually tell a child that what they feel is wrong, and this is misinformation. You're telling a being sexual in nature that sex is bad, and this is where abstinence-only classes fail.

But of course. I guess a 99% pregnancy prevention rate for the pill alone when used as prescribed isn't good enough, hmm? I guess, then, that all men should go and have a vasectomy just to increase these chances to 100%.

In any case, when you teach a child going through puberty that avoiding sex is the only way to avoid STDs and pregnancies, you effectually tell a child that what they feel is wrong, and this is misinformation. You're telling a being sexual in nature that sex is bad, and this is where abstinence-only classes fail.

The pill does not prevent anything; it reduces the likelihood of becoming pregnant. Having a vasectomy does not, in fact, reduce the chance of impregnating a sexual partner to 0, it merely reduces the likelihood of such happening to a very small number.
That is absurd. Teaching a child that avoiding sex is the only way to prevent STDs and pregnancies makes no moral claims whatsoever. It does not in any way state that sex is bad, nor does it state that sex is good. It makes no claims of the sort at all. It merely presents accurate information relevant to the topic at hand. What the child chooses to do with that information is a matter for his own conscience.

The pill does not prevent anything; it reduces the likelihood of becoming pregnant. Having a vasectomy does not, in fact, reduce the chance of impregnating a sexual partner to 0, it merely reduces the likelihood of such happening to a very small number.

You know, I was going to say that you were going to make this point, but I deleted it, becuase I didn't think you were that absurd. However, I'll see you on the other side of the LHC black hole.

That is absurd. Teaching a child that avoiding sex is the only way to prevent STDs and pregnancies makes no moral claims whatsoever. It does not in any way state that sex is bad, nor does it state that sex is good. It makes no claims of the sort at all. It merely presents accurate information relevant to the topic at hand. What the child chooses to do with that information is a matter for his own conscience.

You're telling people that they should avoid the urges that their bodies are giving them. It's natural for humans to have sex. It's how nature intended humans to interact and procreate. Saying that it's the best way to prevent pregnancies is one thing. Saying it's the only way is silly and discounts natural human sexuality.

Look, we're both going for educating the masses about sex and STDs. Why can't we just inform the masses about both abstinence and how to use birth control and let them make a conscious decision on their own? I would rather like to see those that decide not to use abstinence use a form of birth control so that the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies are less likely to occur with these people.

You know, I was going to say that you were going to make this point, but I deleted it, becuase I didn't think you were that absurd. However, I'll see you on the other side of the LHC black hole.



You're telling people that they should avoid the urges that their bodies are giving them. It's natural for humans to have sex. It's how nature intended humans to interact and procreate. Saying that it's the best way to prevent pregnancies is one thing. Saying it's the only way is silly and discounts natural human sexuality.

Look, we're both going for educating the masses about sex and STDs. Why can't we just inform the masses about both abstinence and how to use birth control and let them make a conscious decision on their own? I would rather like to see those that decide not to use abstinence use a form of birth control so that the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies are less likely to occur with these people.

Nonsense, the black hole the LHC will inevitably produce will be such that neither of us will be able to see the other, much less have time for our minds to recognize each other, before the entire world is destroyed.

If you wish to provide additional information to your child, assuming that he or she will not act intelligently to prevent STDs and pregnancy, then you have every right to do so. Sex education classes, however, are concerned with preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and since only abstinence accomplishes this, only these should be part of the cirricula.

Nonsense, the black hole the LHC will inevitably produce will be such that neither of us will be able to see the other, much less have time for our minds to recognize each other, before the entire world is destroyed.


Don't you mean "almost certainly won't"?

Don't you mean "almost certainly won't"?

Of course; that was intended as sarcasm. I have no real fear of the LHC, and I find such doomsayers rather funny.

The Earth being wiped out by the LHC is something you'd only find in the Outer Limits or the Twilight Zone. Honestly, if the world's going to end it'll involve something a lot more mundane. Like a DEFCON-style nuclear Lollapalooza.

The Earth being wiped out by the LHC is something you'd only find in the Outer Limits or the Twilight Zone. Honestly, if the world's going to end it'll involve something a lot more mundane. Like a DEFCON-style nuclear Lollapalooza.

Ridiculous.
Terrorists will suicide-bomb our imaginations, leading the United States to launch a nuclear attack on our imaginations, which will render us automaton drone-like zombies who obey every order. Our governments will neglect to order us to copulate, so we will fail to reproduce, thus ending human life as we know it.
That's the only sensible world's-end scenario, as proven conclusively by that ever-accurate oracle, South Park.

The horror! The horror!

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

couple things, one about the title topic
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/call_of_the_wild.html
two about the rape kits I read on factcheck (can't find the link right now) it was the POLICE chief, not PALIN who made woman pay. she never said she supported it or not...and frankly she's not the only person who has a the person who was raped is somewhat guilty mentality...\

ah here it is
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

PS: whoever gave me that link to factcheck, I WUV IT!

If a class misrepresents the facts, then it is a failure of the class. Classes must provide information, and misrepresenting the facts is a failure to provide information.
Abstinence-only education programs teach that the only means by which one may prevent STDs from being contracted sexually or prevent pregnancy is abstinence, which is fact. The purpose of this education program is to teach the means by which STDs and pregnancies may be prevented, and only abstinence qualifies. Condoms, etc. merely lower the likelihood of contracting STDs or becoming pregnant, they do not prevent either. Thus, these have no place in sex education. Hence, abstinence-only education.

Everyone has pointed out the many other flaws in this ridiculous argument already, but no one has yet mentioned the obvious fact that being abstinent won't help you one bit if you get raped. Given the horrifyingly large number of girls who are raped before the age of 18, it would seem abstinence's success rate isn't so great, either.

couple things, one about the title topic
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/call_of_the_wild.html
two about the rape kits I read on factcheck (can't find the link right now) it was the POLICE chief, not PALIN who made woman pay. she never said she supported it or not...and frankly she's not the only person who has a the person who was raped is somewhat guilty mentality...\

ah here it is
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

PS: whoever gave me that link to factcheck, I WUV IT!

Factcheck can be useful, but (as I've discussed in other threads) it is far from infallible. It has a definite problem of being a bit shallow in its analysis.

You might check out these posts--particularly the latter--for a deeper and more accurate account: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14036901&postcount=49), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14039088&postcount=147)

Regardless, your statements are disturbing and/or inaccurate. First, the Police Chief was hand-picked by Palin after she fired the prior police chief whose policy had been for the city to pay for rape kits.

Second, Palin's budget submissions during the relevant period show a slashing of the specific line-item in the budget for paying for rape kits. Given that she has bragged about going through those budgets line-by-line, that indicates some culpability on her part.

Third, Palin was still mayor of Wasilla when this became a state-wide issue prominently discussed in the local papers. Unlike now, no denial or clarification of her position came from her office at that time.

Finally, the statment that "she's not the only person who has a the person who was raped is somewhat guilty mentality" is sickening and hardly a defense of Palin's actions. Perhaps you should be embarassed for even suggesting that was a defensible position.

You misunderstand me. Abstinence-only education has not failed, because the purpose of education is to impart information, not to bring about behaviour. The means of judging the success of abstinence-only education is to test the students as to their knowledge of the items taught in abstinence-only education programs, not to look into the actions of those students. Those actions are the results of their freely-chosen decisions, and have no bearing on the education program itself. When a person chooses not to use the information they have been given, this is not the fault of the class, but a fault of the person.

*sigh*

Your silly syllogism has hijacked this thread long enough.

Your major premise that education is ONLY to be judged by whether it imparts information is simply wrong.

Your minor premise that abstinence-only education provides accurate information also happens to be wrong.

Needless to say, your conclusion that everything is fine and dandy with abstinence-only education is very wrong.

Regardless, some of us actually care about our country and its youth and want to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only education doesn't meet that goal. Comprehensive sex education still provides for an emphasis on (and imparting all the information about) abstinence, but provides additional information that is proven to work.

Again, your preference for a mode of education that doesn't work over one that includes imparting the same information, but also works is clearly irrational.

Yes.

No, the classes are blameless. The individuals have sole responsibility for their actions, for they have willfully ignored the information provided them.

Which is not their fault - you, yourself, said that results were not a measure of the education, right?

The problem is the fact that it's not working shows it's a waste of time to teach it and in fact causes problems in areas with major problems like Africa.

You don't even need to go that far - in areas like Rural Georgia, their form of education pretty much leaves out any definition of what sex even really entails. Crazy that it can happen in a modern country, but I've known girls pregnant who really didnt know how.

Add to that, the patriarchal structure that makes girls subservient to boys, and you have generation after generation of abstinence or not, at the BOY'S discretion.

Abstinence-only education is a cop-out. It's how the self-righteous right manages to increase their numbers whilst at the same time removing the ability of girls to object AND blaming them for it.

It's genius, really.

Sick, but it's genius.

couple things, one about the title topic
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/call_of_the_wild.html


Um. Factcheck says of the ad about the Defenders of Wildlife Ad:

But strip away the emotional characterization and we're left with a description of Palin's position that is essentially factually correct, though incomplete.

As to the argument that this is justified as "population control":

The practice of killing some animals to artificially manipulate the populations of others, of course, remains controversial. Some groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, accuse the state of exploiting a loophole in the law. Other recent objections have come from scientists. The American Society of Mammalogists has sent several letters of concern (http://www.mammalogy.org/whatsnew/ASM_2007_Annual_Reports.pdf) and in 2006 passed a resolution (http://wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_1844.html) questioning the scientific basis of the program. In 2007, 172 scientists wrote to Palin (http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/Palin_Letter.html) also questioning whether the program was grounded in solid research, including accurate surveys of animal populations, and whether unrealistically high target numbers of prey had been adopted. The scientists urged that the conservation of predators be considered on an equal basis with the goal of producing more moose and caribou for hunters. (emphasis added)

Not sure how you think this clears Palin's name.

BTW, the "hard evidence" you claim to want involves the federally-protected privacy of confidential medical records of alleged RAPE VICTIMS!!! In addition to violating the privacy of rape victims, obtaining such documents would violate numerous federal, state, and local laws. Think about that a little. :headbang:







.....still waiting for response ....:soap:

...and still waiting...

Should I take the lack of response as a concession?

...and still waiting...

Should I take the lack of response as a concession?

I believe this is known as the "Brave Sir Robin" defence.